Last week, Steven Gerrard made a startling public comment that he disagreed with Liverpool's transfer policy.
For a club captain to come out and criticise the policies of his employing organisation is possibly, unprecedented.
It prompted a quick defence of the policy, with Ian Ayres defending the focus on youth, but with the statement that more experienced players would be considered "if it made sense."
Since then, comments on various fansites make it only too clear that many Liverpool fans are starting to wake up to a worrying fact. This is that there are signs of a lack of real leadership at the club at the highest levels.
Consider the Suarez-Evra affair. Dalglish was heavily criticised for the way he managed this but why was it left to him to deal with?
The silence from the boardroom was deafening. The club response should have been at the highest level, not the team manager.
And when Dalglish was forced to the humiliation publically state he'd got it wrong, this was inadequate leadership at its worst - keep your head down and let someone lower down the hierarchy take the rap.
And the latest pronouncements from the CEO Mr Ayres - "We've probably got the best balanced squad in the league," and the fact the club did the right thing not signing Dempsey.
Perhaps he should reflect on the fact that events since then have been very much the result of good fortune. After refusing to sanction the Dempsey transfer, the club could have been in deep trouble.
Kuyt, Bellamy, Rodrigues and Carroll had all been shipped out leaving Liverpool with just Suarez and a young Borini, who then broke his foot in October
Fortunately, Suarez was not injured and has been in the form of his life. But what if he'd been injured also, or it had been him and not Borini?
Of 35 Premiership goals this season, Suarez has scored 15. There wouldn't be any aspirations to have achieved a top four, or even a Europa league place. The probably scenario would have been bottom half of the table.
Ian Ayres has said of the Dempsey deal that "It wasn't right to do it", and he could claim that Dempsey's form since his move to Spurs is vindication, but all the signs at the time where that he'd be a useful buy. And if not Dempsey, why not someone else?
If going into a new and important season, with just two strikers, one of whom is unproven does not constitute a situation where it "made sense" to be flexible on a transfer policy; then what does?
Relying on luck in a results business is an approach that does not "make sense".