Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2013/2014

Courtesy Flush

Courtesy Flush wrote: »

If we refused to let Suarez move to Arsenal and no other bids come for him that meet that value, are we going to keep an unhappy player in the squad who doesnt want to be there ?

Selling to Arsenal for £40m would be worse tbh

madalig12

Liverpool have a side in this years milk cup. wonder who they are bringing over? Anyone know?

mike65

madalig12 wrote: »

Liverpool have a side in this years milk cup. wonder who they are bringing over? Anyone know?

No idea though you'd have to reckon it'll really be the U18s and U21s again

JUNIOR SECTION

Monday, 29th July
3.30pm Co. Tyrone v Liverpool FC

Tuesday, 30th July
1.30pm Liverpool FC v Cavan & Monaghan DL

Wednesday, 31st July
3.30pm Liverpool FC v Southampton FC

PREMIER SECTION

Monday, 29th July
8pm Liverpool FC v Co. Armagh

Tuesday, 30th July
7pm O’Higgins FC v Liverpool FC

Wednesday, 31st July
7pm Liverpool FC v Newcastle Utd

Leiva

This Ooredoo or some other investment/takeover seems to be growing legs, and the figures been thrown about are in the hundreds of millions.

How do you all feel about it?

Demosthenese

Good if we get owners that pump millions of cash into us and actually CARE about the club. Half of which is usually true.

Raif Severance

Leiva wrote: »

This Ooredoo or some other investment/takeover seems to be growing legs, and the figures been thrown about are in the hundreds of millions.

How do you all feel about it?

You have a Link?

Leiva

Raif Severance wrote: »

You have a Link?

Nothing solid only what Moley and the rest are reporting, and I did come from the mindset of staying away and ignoring, and thinkng that if it's rumoured and repeated enough then others might believe, but I think there is something behind this. FSG are up to something.

Does that cause concern or hope in people?

DrumSteve

Leiva wrote: »

Nothing solid only what Moley and the rest are reporting, and I did come free the mindset of staying away and ignoring, and thinkng that if it's rumoured and repeated anough then others might believe, but I think there is something behind this. FSG are up to something.

Does that cause concern or hope in people?

Did this not all originate from the S*n?

Pedalstool

Leiva wrote: »

Nothing solid only what Moley and the rest are reporting, and I did come free the mindset of staying away and ignoring, and thinkng that if it's rumoured and repeated anough then others might believe, but I think there is something behind this. FSG are up to something.

Does that cause concern or hope in people?

That stuff is so tenuous calling it a rumour is an exaggeration.

messinkiapina

Leiva wrote: »

This Ooredoo or some other investment/takeover seems to be growing legs, and the figures been thrown about are in the hundreds of millions.

How do you all feel about it?

Mixed feelings about it. If the FPP rules are really going to be strictly enforced, then maybe we're better off with FSG. Otherwise, FSG are fighting a hopeless battle.

I think it the interest of all teams (other than those currently benefiting from sugar daddies), it would be better if the FPP was strictly enforced.

Leiva

DrumSteve wrote: »

Did this not all originate from the S*n?

No.

The Ooredoo rumour is going on months now. If anything The Sun Scum have probably got a sniff of it and done what the do best. Make up shiït.

Knex*

Was mentioned in Forbes a while back but haven't heard or seen a decent source since it broke tbh.

Forbes article & video interview with Ayre.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2013/05/05/liverpools-game-plan-for-commercial-success/

amiable

Pedalstool wrote: »

That stuff is so tenuous calling it a rumour is an exaggeration.

In your opinion

Raif Severance

Leiva wrote: »

Nothing solid only what Moley and the rest are reporting, and I did come free the mindset of staying away and ignoring, and thinkng that if it's rumoured and repeated anough then others might believe, but I think there is something behind this. FSG are up to somthing.

Does that cause concern or hope in people?

Ooredo, if they do come aboard, it will be as a Sponsor.

Most of the Twits/Interwebs I'm reading right now, seems to be about the Renaming of Anfield.

As long as we can finally have a Stadium done, without it affecting our Transfer Budget, they could Rename it as Ooredo Anfield for all I care.

amiable

Raif Severance wrote: »

Ooredo, if they do come aboard, it will be as a Sponsor.

Most of the Twits/Interwebs I'm reading right now, seems to be about the Renaming of Anfield.

As long as we can finally have a Stadium done, without it affecting our Transfer Budget, they could Rename it as Ooredo Anfield for all I care.

The Ooredoo deal is very complicated.
It's not about the renaming of Anfield.
And the figures they are talking about it's not as simple as a sponsorship deal either.

Leiva

Raif Severance wrote: »

Ooredo, if they do come aboard, it will be as a Sponsor.

Most of the Twits/Interwebs I'm reading right now, seems to be about the Renaming of Anfield.

As long as we can finally have a Stadium done, without it affecting our Transfer Budget, they could Rename it as Ooredo Anfield for all I care.

imo think its gonna be bigger than just a renaming. But a renaming might not go down too well with some so creative ways of sponsorship might be on the way.

Pedalstool

amiable wrote: »

In your opinion

Of course its my opinion, I posted the comment didn't I?

amiable

Pedalstool wrote: »

Of course its my opinion, I posted the comment didn't I?

The irony

Raif Severance

amiable wrote: »

The Ooredoo deal is very complicated.
It's not about the renaming of Anfield.
And the figures they are talking about it's not as simple as a sponsorship deal either.

Care to shed more light on this?

Knex*

I'd willingly have Anfield renamed Hobnobs Biscuit Stadium if it got us back into the CL and meaningfully challenging for titles.

Will always be referred to as Anfield by myself and most others.

Pedalstool

amiable wrote: »

The irony

I don't know what your trying to say? Sorry.

amiable

Pedalstool wrote: »

I don't know what your trying to say? Sorry.

Apology accepted

Turtyturd

Well Suarez did sign a new contract after the same quarters reported he would.

GTR63

Knex. wrote: »

I'd willingly have Anfield renamed Hobnobs Biscuit Stadium if it got us back into the CL and meaningfully challenging for titles.

Cold nights they'd give out a packet of them and a mug of tea and not cheap tea the gud stuff.

murpho999

If Ooredoo are coming in and investing hundreds of millions in the club as sponsor and/or shareholder, why would that be a cause for concern?

Nuri Sahin

El Loco Suso

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1r8ic8SZhY

5live

GTR63 wrote: »

Cold nights they'd give out a packet of them and a mug of tea and not cheap tea the gud stuff.

I can see a Barrys/lyons/PGtips row about to break out...


Barrys classic blend man myself:)

ush

Why would a telecoms company invest in or buy a football club? It must be a sponsorship or naming rights deal.

skywalker

John Henry just respnded to someone asking about it twitter.

Jonathan Jones ‏@SupremeWisdom 10h

@John_W_Henry Any truth in the rumour in "the Sun" about selling LFC. I hope not. (#DontBuyTheSun) #JFT96


John W. Henry ‏@John_W_Henry 52m

@SupremeWisdom Always anonymous sources. Last year it was Sox. We have a lot to accomplish...we've really just started. Committed Determined

Pedalstool

murpho999 wrote: »

If Ooredoo are coming in and investing hundreds of millions in the club as sponsor and/or shareholder, why would that be a cause for concern?

I just haven't seen anyone reputable mentioning anything of the sort.

"There is no basis for the current speculation linking us to the sponsorship of a Premier League Football Club," said a statement.

"If the situation changes, we will – as always – be open and transparent in our announcements to the media and to our customers."

Ooredoo issued that statement in April to anonymous quotes that appeared on Al Jazeera. Nothing more to it other than wishful thinking I believe.

LuckyLloyd

Would have no problem with FSG ****ing off with their profit at this point. Don't think it will happen yet though.

OwaynOTT

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'd absolutely like to have Diame, but it's another squad acquisition is the point. Absolutely sign him, but we do need to be looking at bringing in two players of genuine quality that immediately impact out starting 11.

Get where your coming from now and would be on the same page as you there.

Starting to get a bit worried about the lack of potential first team signings that are not gambles, which Alberto and Aspas are.
Toure in my view is an improvement over Skrtel.
Oh and our new keeper of course.

Knex*

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Would have no problem with FSG ****ing off with their profit at this point. Don't think it will happen yet though.

Be a bad time for a transfer embargo to be enforced upon the club. At least wait a few weeks :P

Also, outside of a Sugar Daddy, I don't see how we could do things better.

Pedalstool

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Would have no problem with FSG ****ing off with their profit at this point. Don't think it will happen yet though.

What have they done that you feel so strongly about? I'm genuinely curious to know.

For my part I think they are still finding their feet after some poor decisions initially, but I think they are responsible owners.

amiable

ush wrote: »

Why would a telecoms company invest in or buy a football club? It must be a sponsorship or naming rights deal.

Who owns this Telecom company and why would they possibly want to invest in a big Premier League club?

OwaynOTT

Sugar Daddy owners means Rodgers would get the sack, so it's a no for me.

Also on the stadium rename, surely it would be Digestive Park.

Pedalstool

OwaynOTT wrote: »

Sugar Daddy owners means Rodgers would get the sack, so it's a no for me.

Also on the stadium rename, surely it would be Digestive Park.

I am far from a socialist but the idea of an oil rich billionaire doesn't appeal to me at all. I think there is something very wrong with the way these people have accumulated their wealth first and foremost, basically plundering their own people. Secondly, using that money to play football manager instead of using it for the good of the people who they have stolen it from seems morally corrupt.

I just don't think its right.

michael999999

Pedalstool wrote: »

I am far from a socialist but the idea of an oil rich billionaire doesn't appeal to me at all. I think there is something very wrong with the way these people have accumulated their wealth first and foremost, basically plundering their own people. Secondly, using that money to play football manager instead of using it for the good of the people who they have stolen it from seems morally corrupt.

I just don't think its right.

Doyou watch any matches on sky?

OwaynOTT

Pedalstool wrote: »

I am far from a socialist but the idea of an oil rich billionaire doesn't appeal to me at all. I think there is something very wrong with the way these people have accumulated their wealth first and foremost, basically plundering their own people. Secondly, using that money to play football manager instead of using it for the good of the people who they have stolen it from seems morally corrupt.

I just don't think its right.

Certainly modern football is lacking in soul, no argument there but what about Digestives?

Pedalstool

michael999999 wrote: »

Doyou watch any matches on sky?

Yes. Plenty.

murpho999

Pedalstool wrote: »

I just haven't seen anyone reputable mentioning anything of the sort.



Ooredoo issued that statement in April to anonymous quotes that appeared on Al Jazeera. Nothing more to it other than wishful thinking I believe.

I didn't mean concerns over the validity of the stories but what would be the concern of an organisation like Ooredoo giving us lots of money?

I don't see the issue with it.

michael999999

Pedalstool wrote: »

Yes. Plenty.

So you have no moral objection to how the owner of Sky amassed hes billions?

mike65

The Ooredoo (is that enough o's?) story never made an ounce of sense. A regional teleco with ambitions to buy one of the worlds biggest football clubs? Unlikely.

Daemonic

I wonder if the sudden quietness on the tranfers front is because a large influx of cash is imminent and no point FSG investing if they're about to offload </TinFoilHat>

murpho999

mike65 wrote: »

The Ooredoo (is that enough o's?) story never made an ounce of sense.

They are huge telecoms company with operations in North Africa, Middle East and Asia. Makes perfect sense to me.

Just think that the new Standard Chartered extension may mean that it's
"No-oredoo"

murpho999

Daemonic wrote: »

I wonder if the sudden quietness on the tranfers front is because a large influx of cash is imminent and no point FSG investing if they're about to offload </TinFoilHat>

Or the right deal just hasn't come along yet?

People read far too much into things at times.

Pedalstool

michael999999 wrote: »

So you have no moral objection to how the owner of Sky amassed hes billions?

I'm not his biggest fan but I wouldn't have the same reservations about him that I have about the Royal families who control the oil reserves in the middle east.

As I said I'm not a socialist as such but I am very much anti-monarchys and the like.

looder

Pedalstool wrote: »

I am far from a socialist but the idea of an oil rich billionaire doesn't appeal to me at all. I think there is something very wrong with the way these people have accumulated their wealth first and foremost, basically plundering their own people. Secondly, using that money to play football manager instead of using it for the good of the people who they have stolen it from seems morally corrupt.

I just don't think its right.

Without these oil rich billionaires we'll keep making £10 millions signings. With them, we could be making £40 million and £50 million signings at the moment. Bye bye Stewie Downing, hello Cavani. Bye bye Thursday night football, hello Champions League.

If Liverpool compete with the City's and Chelsea's of this World over the next decade it'll be a miracle without a sugar daddy.

murpho999

looder wrote: »

Without these oil rich billionaires we'll keep making £10 millions signings. With them, we could be making £40 million and £50 million signings at the moment. Bye bye Stewie Downing, hello Cavani. Bye bye Thursday night football, hello Champions League.

If Liverpool compete with the City's and Chelsea's of this World over the next decade it'll be a miracle without a sugar daddy.

So how do Man Utd and Arsenal and Spurs do it then?

GTR63

Digestives, Hob Nobs and Ooreo's damn it i'm gonna have a cup of tea.