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

whatawaster

Leiva wrote: »

Cop on with the name calling and look at the bigger picture.

They treated the best keeper that LFC have had in this manner so they can lower the wage bill and weaken the squad (if window closes with no quality backup)

Dampened down the the rumours with shīt about 'competition for places' then ship Reina out so they can pat themselves on back and say that they have now completed the operation to get the high earners off the books - cause thats all this adds up to.

Disgraceful!

You react to everything with hysteria. And it's a bit rich to say stop with the name calling when you call the manager a puppet in your previous post.

Reina is on £110,000 a week. No other club in the world would have a sub keeper on those wages because it would be stupid and a waste of resources. A sub goalkeeper is not like a sub in any other position. They won't be rotated and they can't play unless the #1 is injured or suspended.

When they brought in Mignolet, talking about competition for places was the line they had to use. The club needs to look after it's own assets in the first instance. The problem here is with people believing or wanting to believe that the club's every utterance is gospel.

As soon as Mignolet came in it was curtains for Reina. How did everyone not see this. Of course the club weren't going to say so until a deal was in place.

Lovely Bloke

Leiva wrote: »

Cop on with the name calling and look at the bigger picture.

They treated the best keeper that LFC have had in this manner so they can lower the wage bill and weaken the squad (if window closes with no quality backup)

Dampened down the the rumours with shīt about 'competition for places' then ship Reina out so they can pat themselves on back and say that they have now completed the operation to get the high earners off the books - cause thats all this adds up to.

Disgraceful!

So Reina is the good guy here, yeah?

He pretty much told the club he was off if an offer came in for him, what should the club do? Wait and see, or go and get their intended target.

If Reina had left and no replacement had been lines up you'd be the very one on here typing out rants.

It's obvious what your agenda is here, so obvious. You and the rest of your ilk.

T-K-O

Chucky the tree wrote: »

He can't complain after the Barca situation. Don't try and whore yourself out to another club and then expect you current club to turn around and treat you with respect.

Agreed, He is also playing up to the fans in that letter buts it's all good. Reina was a fantastic player for LFC.

gafferino

T-K-O wrote: »

Great example and Whelan was rightly facked over. Football is a cruel business and Pepe deserved more but lets not act like this is the first or the last time a player is moved on.

I'd prefer it didn't happen but it did

Yeah exactly. I wish they had of treated Reina with more respect by telling him. I assume it just came through his agent or something??
Football is like that though on both sides of the fence.

Aside from that though he says he'd have gone if Barca came in for him so cant have it both ways.

5live

Mr Alan wrote: »

Reina has issued a letter to the fans.

People should be very angry about its content. However, they won't be

I will be sure to check with you in future about how i should feel about anything, just in case i may make the incorrect choice.

So he loves the club. Did he love the club as much the last 2 years when his form was poor? Or was that due to his favourite filling station closing?

I will miss Pepe but we have signed a better keeper. Or are you advocating keeping him on the bench for a year as backup?

Farewell Pepe. And thanks for the memories:-D

Grayditch

I think it's certainly a shame the way things have transpired, but I'm looking forward to the possibility of a hungry Mignolet giving his all this season. We need to sign another keeper, though.

Mr Alan

whatawaster, answer this very simple question please:

What is better for strength of the squad this current season:

1) Mignolet & Reina
2) Mignolet & Jones

If the answer is 1. Which it clearly is. Then surely you can admit that the squad has intentionally been weakened in order to save money on wages? Is that a "good" thing in your opinion?

Lovely Bloke

Did he love the club when he thought Barca were in for him? Or are you drinking the Reina Kool Aid and his spin about "going home".

Pull the other one Pep, you gambled and lost.

Milkers

Yawn.

Lovely Bloke

Mr Alan wrote: »

whatawaster, answer this very simple question please:

What is better for strength of the squad this current season:

1) Mignolet & Reina
2) Mignolet & Jones

If the answer is 1. Which it clearly is. Then surely you can admit that the squad has intentionally been weakened in order to save money on wages? Is that a "good" thing in your opinion?

You are of the opinion that thhe club should be spending 100+k per week on a back-up keeper?

The lengths you go to to have a pop at the club are truly astonishing.

ben.schlomo

Mr Alan wrote: »

whatawaster, answer this very simple question please:

What is better for strength of the squad this current season:

1) Mignolet & Reina
2) Mignolet & Jones

If the answer is 1. Which it clearly is. Then surely you can admit that the squad has intentionally been weakened in order to save money on wages? Is that a "good" thing in your opinion?

Reina & Jones 2012 or Mignolet & Jones 2013, id take the 2013 option all things considered so therefore the squad is improved from 2012 and wages are also lower, no story here really, only if you're into manager bashing.

gafferino

joe123

Does anyone else find it a little strange that certain posters on here were saying we needed to get a new keeper in to replace Reina and now they are ranting and raving saying we only got rid of him to trim the wage bill?

What did they expect to happen? Replace Reina and then just leave him sitting on the bench? That makes NO sense whichever way you look at it.

Anyways Im disapointed to see Reina go and I would have preferred us to keep Reina and invest the 10 million in another area.

By the way, one redeeming transfer under Hodgson was the signing of Meireles.

whatawaster

Mr Alan wrote: »

whatawaster, answer this very simple question please:

What is better for strength of the squad this current season:

1) Mignolet & Reina
2) Mignolet & Jones

If the answer is 1. Which it clearly is. Then surely you can admit that the squad has intentionally been weakened in order to save money on wages? Is that a "good" thing in your opinion?

Clearly 1) is stronger, and in a world where there were no budgets and money was limitless, I'd be very happy with such an arrangement.

But 5.5 million spent on a benchwarmer's wages next year would be 5.5 million not spent somewhere else in the squad.

SlickRic

it should have been handled better by the sounds of that letter.

then again, we don't know the whole story, and are assuming Pep is telling the entire truth.

also, paying a sub keeper £110,000 a week would be fúcking stupid. the same people saying we've treated Pep like dirt, would be calling us numpties if we kept him and had him on the bench.

it's a nothing story, which just serves to show us different people's bias once again.

the letter should be taken for what it is - a thank you to the club and supporters for what was obviously a very enjoyable time in the man's life. he'll always be welcome back.

thank you Pep.

LuckyLloyd

cson wrote: »

Fair enough but I think you're probably going to have to reconcile with the fact that the current owners are pursuing the moneyball approach to players, an Arsene Wenger circa 1998-2004 rabbit out of hat approach. That's a very slow burner and you need a big percentage of those signings to work out to make progress and you need to keep them there. That'll be the interesting thing for me and will really tell you FSGs mindset. If Coutinho for instance has a belter of a season next year and you don't make CL, if a rich CL club come in for him, what'll happen - that's the proof of the pudding.

I understand that is the policy I just don't think it will work. Arsenal already had the backbone of a good squad and had CL football the whole way through. They also had, you know, a proven manager. I don't think we're in the position to play 5 - 12m roulette in the transfer market as we'll fail to keep what we have together and move forward when we aren't progressing in terms of results on the pitch.

joe123

Mr Alan wrote: »

whatawaster, answer this very simple question please:

What is better for strength of the squad this current season:

1) Mignolet & Reina
2) Mignolet & Jones

If the answer is 1. Which it clearly is. Then surely you can admit that the squad has intentionally been weakened in order to save money on wages? Is that a "good" thing in your opinion?

If I ever saw a post driven by an agenda its this one.

Just listen to yourself. You are going ape over the fact we didnt hold on to our no.2 keeper who was on some of the highest wages in the club.

I dont even think City would allow that!

T-K-O

Mr Alan wrote: »

whatawaster, answer this very simple question please:

What is better for strength of the squad this current season:

1) Mignolet & Reina
2) Mignolet & Jones

If the answer is 1. Which it clearly is. Then surely you can admit that the squad has intentionally been weakened in order to save money on wages? Is that a "good" thing in your opinion?

1. was NEVER a squad option..

murpho999

Mr Alan wrote: »

That the club agreed to loan the player out behind his back?
Our greatest goalie of the PL era, treated like that.

And people here at the weekend were trying to justify us "loaning" him out as he deserved that respect from the club for his loyal service etc etc?

Well, he was willing to stay, fight for his place, but we've let him go, behind his back, to lower the wage bill.

To reiterate: we have weakened our squad, to lower the wage bill.

Funny that it's acceptable for players to seek moves and deals without their club's knowledge all the time but when the club does something similar we should be angry.

Also the club has kept it in house whilst Reina has gone public, maybe that says more about him than the club.

whatawaster

Reina should never have written this letter.

Or rather, he should have left a couple of paragraphs out. Serves no purpose other than to play up to the fans.

Seamu$

Victor Valdes :mad::mad::mad:

Vicxas

Thats actually upsetting.

LuckyLloyd

murpho999 wrote: »

Funny that it's acceptable for players to seek moves and deals without their club's knowledge all the time but when the club does something similar we should be angry.

Also the club has kept it in house whilst Reina has gone public, maybe that says more about him than the club.

To be fair, Rodgers gave out plenty of copy on the Reina move. Like everything else.

rob316

Bottom line - he has been awful for 2 years we have a better keeper now who was always going to start as No.1, I don't think Reina had the hunger to try and win back his place anyway, so we would have had a sub keeper on 110k a week, no club can afford that never mind one that isn't in the CL.

As someone said he gambled on a move to Barcelona and he lost simple as, you cant have it both ways Pepe. If his undying love for LFC was so sincere he wouldn't have angled for a move and would have performed over the last 2 seasons.

People say I expected better from the club, I expected better from Reina with the peddling of this BS sob story for his PR purposes.

5live

Leiva wrote: »

Cop on with the name calling and look at the bigger picture.

They treated the best keeper that LFC have had in this manner so they can lower the wage bill and weaken the squad (if window closes with no quality backup)

Dampened down the the rumours with shīt about 'competition for places' then ship Reina out so they can pat themselves on back and say that they have now completed the operation to get the high earners off the books - cause thats all this adds up to.

Disgraceful!

Whoa there horsey.

We have the same backup keeper as last year and a new keeper as good as Pepe was last year , as viewed by most on here, and you say we have weakened the squad?

How did you come to that conclusion?

LuckyLloyd

joe123 wrote: »

If I ever saw a post driven by an agenda its this one.

Just listen to yourself. You are going ape over the fact we didnt hold on to our no.2 keeper who was on some of the highest wages in the club.

I dont even think City would allow that!

How much was Given paid the season he was on the bench at City?

8-10

Leiva wrote: »

Let's not kid ourselves these owners have spent nothing this window. Going to the market and trying to seriously buy a player like Suarez is fantasy land shït if you think FSG would ever do/fund it.

They did. They bought Suarez.

Kerrigooney

gafferino wrote: »

It's started earlier than usual today.

mike65

SlickRic wrote: »

it should have been handled better by the sounds of that letter.

then again, we don't know the whole story, and are assuming Pep is telling the entire truth.

also, paying a sub keeper £110,000 a week would be fúcking stupid. the same people saying we've treated Pep like dirt, would be calling us numpties if we kept him and had him on the bench.

it's a nothing story, which just serves to show us different people's bias once again.

the letter should be taken for what it is - a thank you to the club and supporters for what was obviously a very enjoyable time in the man's life. he'll always be welcome back.

thank you Pep.

This! this! this!

You don't have two expensive "A grade" keepers in competition - you pick one and you play him. Any attempts to do other results in De Gea/Lindegaard type confusion and disruption. Early last season Fergie said he'd rotate the two, the result damaged Utd as their supposed No 1 keeper could not find any rhythm. Then SAF saw the light and DeGea prospered.

and yes LFC cannot afford to spend 110k every week to keep Reina happy. He should have STFU and just got on with his job as a professional player.

whatawaster

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How much was Given paid the season he was on the bench at City?

God knows, but I doubt it was 110,000.

Even so, no comparison between the two clubs' situations.

Vicxas

Wow Monday meltdown has kicked into force today.

We might need a new thread by the end of the day at this rate

Dickerty

LOUD NOISES!!!!!

LuckyLloyd

Also, it's an interesting double edged sword at play here. I thought Reina wasn't good enough the past two years and would have been happy to sell him. I think we've upgraded but - in the absence of a sale - thought the competition may be beneficial for us.

That said, there seems a fair few posters who defended him and shouted me and his detracters down over the past two years now all too happy to say 'oh he was awful and is no loss'.

If we're talking about Agendas, let's not pretend they only go one way. Plenty on here who are predisposed to defending every move the club makes right now.

rob316

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How much was Given paid the season he was on the bench at City?

Pull the other one Lloyd, you are trying to compare City's resources to ours.

Once again your agenda shines through. The club can do nothing right in your eyes.

Reina was crap for two seasons should we let a keeper hang around on 110k a week, like seriously there is no justification for that. I don't care how much of a leader he is, he has lost his hunger long ago.

NukaCola

Reina confirms what Rodgers said. If an offer came in from Barca, Reina wanted us to accept. Rodgers wasn't going to be stung and bought a new GK.

Reina wants to have it both ways, go to Barca and if that doesn't happen fight for his place at LFC. Valdes does a u-turn and Reina then talks about being forced out?

Bottom line id a loan offer came in for a player who expressed an interest to go. This loan deal benefits Reina too. This way he will still get his move to Barca next season while playing first team football.

Personally i think its not a great way to treat long serving member of the club but thats the way this club is going, cutting the wage bill by offloading older players that are deemed surplus to requirements.

8-10

NukaCola wrote: »

Reina confirms what Rodgers said. If an offer came in from Barca, Reina wanted us to accept. Rodgers wasn't going to be stung and bought a new GK.

Reina wants to have it both ways, go to Barca and if that doesn't happen fight for his place at LFC. Valdes does a u-turn and Reina then talks about being forced out?

Bottom line id a loan offer came in for a player who expressed an interest to go. This loan deal benefits Reina too. This way he will still get his move to Barca next season while playing first team football.

Personally i think its not a great way to treat long serving member of the club but thats the way this club is going, cutting the wage bill by offloading older players that are deemed surplus to requirements.

This is a sensible post, I agree

Leiva

Question:

If our goalkeeping options remain the same as they currently are come start of season will loaning Reina out still have been a good idea?

Remembering that if Mignolet is out for any length of time then it's Jones in the sticks.

whatawaster

Leiva wrote: »

Question:

If our goalkeeping options remain the same as they currently are come start of season will loaning Reina out still have been a good idea?

Remembering that if Mignolet is out for any length of time then it's Jones in the sticks.

Yes.

They are two separate issues:

1) Reina or Mignolet
2) Jones or better

I think we've got 1) right, and I hope we get better than Jones for 2) because I don't think he's good enough. Reina and Mignolet are too expensive to be backup.

NukaCola

Leiva wrote: »

Question:

If our goalkeeping options remain the same as they currently are come start of season will loaning Reina out still have been a good idea?

Remembering that if Mignolet is out for any length of time then it's Jones in the sticks.

Bring back Doni.....

mike65

Leiva wrote: »

Question:

If our goalkeeping options remain the same as they currently are come start of season will loaning Reina out still have been a good idea?

Remembering that if Mignolet is out for any length of time then it's Jones in the sticks.

Reina was never staying only the naive think that.

The question is "should Liverpool buy a fresh No 2 keeper?"

Ideally yes, Jones isn't as bad as some like to portray but I'd prefer a young up and coming keeper who is willing to take his chances in cup ties to impress the manager.

Leiva

NukaCola wrote: »

Bring back Doni.....

another guy who by the sounds of it wasn't too happy with his time

Mr Alan

T-K-O wrote: »

But 5.5 million spent on a benchwarmer's wages next year would be 5.5 million not spent somewhere else in the squad.

You're right, all the wages we've slashed over the last 18 months have been reinvested wonderfully into the playing squad.

Oh no, actually that's not true at all.

You have become far more interested in the finances of the team than the actual playing squad or what is achieved on the pitch.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If we're talking about Agendas, let's not pretend they only go one way. Plenty on here who are predisposed to defending every move the club makes right now.

The pro-Rodgers/pro-FSG agenda is infinitely stronger than the anti-Rodgers/FSG one.

whatawaster wrote: »

Reina should never have written this letter.

Or rather, he should have left a couple of paragraphs out. Serves no purpose other than to play up to the fans.

Rodgers has been running his mouth off for weeks about Reina to try and defend his position by giving his version of events, Reina is merely responding to that by point out that Rodgers wasn't exactly telling the whole truth.

whatawaster

Leiva wrote: »

another guy who by the sounds of it wasn't too happy with his time

John Henry's fault, no doubt.

T-K-O

mike65 wrote: »

Reina was never staying only the naive think that.

The question is "should Liverpool buy a fresh No 2 keeper?"

Ideally yes, Jones isn't as bad as some like to portray but I'd prefer a young up and coming keeper who is willing to take his chances in cup ties to impress the manager.

Jones has never let us down but for some reason I'm a nervous wreck when he starts. He just doesn't instill confidence.

gafferino

Kerrigooney wrote: »

It's started earlier than usual today.

Mr Alan

whatawaster wrote: »

Yes.

They are two separate issues:

1) Reina or Mignolet
2) Jones or better

I think we've got 1) right, and I hope we get better than Jones for 2) because I don't think he's good enough. Reina and Mignolet are too expensive to be backup.

Do you think we could get better than Reina for less than 5million incl. wages & transfer fee? I don't.

There's also the fact that we're insanely quickley running out of time is what has been an abortion of a transfer window for us so far & based on everyones expectations earlier in the window we need a minimum of 2 first teamers to come in to avoid the window being a failure. And that's before considering the Saurez situation.

OwaynOTT

Sometimes it's all storm in a teacup or mountain out of a molehill in here.

whatawaster

Mr Alan wrote: »

Rodgers has been running his mouth off for weeks about Reina to try and defend his position by giving his version of events, Reina is merely responding to that by point out that Rodgers wasn't exactly telling the whole truth.

This is nonsense. He's answered questions when asked.


He received indications from Reina's people that we should expect an offer from a club (Barcelona).

Liverpool, in order not to be left short, signed a replacement.

Rodgers then spoke about competition (clearly trying to protect Liverpool's asset - never had any intention of keeping Reina)

Napoli offer clearly best offer for Liverpool so we accepted it. Reina also accepted it.

Gbear

Kerrigooney wrote: »

It's started earlier than usual today.

It hasn't stopped for about 3 months.

mike65

Seamu$ wrote: »

Victor Valdes :mad::mad::mad:

Indeed, blame him! (and Reina for clearly looking to join Barca)