Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2014 - Mod Warning in OP, 10/12

Pighead

Pighead wrote: »

That's pretty much what Rogers said when he brought Lambert in.

I doubt he said he's not great! :pac:

Poor so far but points on board suggest 4th not far off us, still can make up for poor start.

Turtyturd

klose wrote: »

Hard to know what signings were rodgers and what were the "transfer committees" signings, half our signings seem to be for the future, the signings for now are a mixed bag at best.

I think with a lot of signings it's easy enough to figure out based on how he has treated them.

Balotelli, Assaidi, Alberto, Sahin, Sakho off the top of my head were definitely not.

Lovern, Mignolet, Borini, Allen definitely were.

Some I wouldn't be sure about; Sturridge has conflicting reports, Coutinho doesn't seem like the type of player he would go for but hit the ground running so couldn't be excluded, an Lallana looked like one of his but given his game time so far may not be.

hefferboi

Pilsbury Doughboy wrote: »

Well spotted, now I'll move onto you, the non attention seeker who doesn't absolutely batter every tiny little in joke over and over and over again in a very sad attempt at gaining thanks. In fairness to Alan and Lloyd they provide some content in their posts even if their style isn't to my taste, you sir contribute diddly, apart from petty digs at Utd and Arsenal, cheap pops at BR and Stevie G, and pathetic attempts at humour.

Bring Louie Home, The Rodgers, Moses Gags, Aspas Corners gags, Sakho/Cissokho gags etc etc etc TIRED AND TESTED material. Though you'll have a couple of buddies that have your back and thank it, obv as long as you thank their posts.

Wow!

Things have taken a new low in the Liverpool thread. This is embarrassing.

magma69

Augeo wrote: »

Poor so far but points on board suggest 4th not far off us, still can make up for poor start.

Arsenal are in good form at the moment. They'll kick on now imo. United are muck. Southampton are 8 points ahead. City and Chelsea won't be dropping much points. It ain't gonna be easy imo but it's still very early in the season.

People will whinge about Rodgers signings but tbh, I don't think it's the quality of players that's the main issue. It's the movement of the team. They clearly have not clicked and given the drastic changes in the squad over the Summer this isn't all the surprising. The understanding isn't there but hopefully things will start to gel over the next few weeks. If we're still playing like this in December, then it will be time to panic imo.

Mr Alan

Chucky the tree wrote: »

lol. what do you expect him to say to the press "He's okay, not great, but he'll do as a squad player I suppose."

There's being positive about a new signing & then there is the gushing we saw over Allen.

Are you now saying that Rodgers didn't buy Allen with the hope that he'd be a big player for us as opposed to a squad player?

The revisionism going on in here is mental.

Turtyturd

NukaCola wrote: »

You missed 3 Hits after his name for LB/RB/CF......he even gave GK a go.

I missed this TIRED AND TESTED joke.

Go home NukaCola you're an embarrassment.

hefferboi

Am I the only one who thinks Joe Allen is a good player?

Chucky the tree

Pighead wrote: »

That's pretty much what Rogers said when he brought Lambert in.

I think there is a big difference is signing a a 32 year old and saying that vs a 22 year old. I'd expect any manger who signs someone that young to talk him up and about how good he can be, not by saying he'll only ever be average.

Chucky the tree

Mr Alan wrote: »

There's being positive about a new signing & then there is the gushing we saw over Allen.

Are you now saying that Rodgers didn't buy Allen with the hope that he'd be a big player for us as opposed to a squad player?

The revisionism going on in here is mental.

He did sign him hoping he'd be a big player, just because that hasn't happen yet doesn't make it a bad signing though.

Mr Alan

Chucky the tree wrote: »

He did sign him hoping he'd be a big player, just because that hasn't happen yet doesn't make it a bad signing though.

I'm sorry, but if a team signs a player to be a big player & then they turn out not to be and regularly can't get into the team, that means it hasn't worked.

Chucky the tree

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'm sorry, but if a team signs a player to be a big player & then they turn out not to be and regularly can't get into the team, that means it hasn't worked.

It doesn't make it a bad signing or miss.

jesus_thats_gre

hefferboi wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks Joe Allen is a good player?

I think he is perfectly up to the job too. Wee bit expensive but i think he will prove value for money.

Charlie19

hefferboi wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks Joe Allen is a good player?

For me I'd like to see him do more in the final third, he doesn't threaten the opposition goal enough/at all.

Agent Coulson

hefferboi wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks Joe Allen is a good player?

We probably paid too much for him but he is a very good player and the kind of player you need in your first 14 players

Mr Alan

Just to refresh peoples memories, this is what we had when Allen had a couple of good games to start his Liverpool career:

Rodgers wrote:

I would have paid many millions more for this kid. He’s unique in that he’s a British player who is incredible on the ball. His body work is very intelligent and for a 22-year-old it’s frightening. He’s incredible. Joe’s role is to keep the ball. And that, in Britain, is a special talent. It is why Paul Scholes is still playing to his age. It is such a rare talent for a midfielder to rarely give the ball away. People have talked about him and his fee but in time he will be an absolute bargain. He’s a wonderful talent and over time people will see what facets he’s got in his game. Where we have been really pleased with Joe is with his tactical discipline. Maybe he’s never going to score as many as Steven Gerrard but he’s certainly got quality going forward. Offensively, he has far more than what a lot of people have seen, just because he’s having to play a more sitting role at the moment. I have played him in there because he knows how to control the game. He is courageous and will go and get the ball in any area. It is his tactical discipline to stay and keep the shape of the team and offer the passing line, which has been really good though. Because of that we haven’t seen everything he can do going forward – but we will

Read that & even try to say he has lived up to what was expected & it's delusional. If we sold him in the morning we'd make a loss. That says it all.

klose

Joe allen, good player but we overpaid. Think its as simple as that really.

Mr Alan

klose wrote: »

Joe allen, good player but we overpaid. Think its as simple as that really.

Agree.

NukaCola

15m rarely buys you world class anyway lets be honest.

Mr Alan

NukaCola wrote: »

15m rarely buys you world class anyway lets be honest.

It regularly buys quality players for starting 11 though. In this instance, it hasn't.

Gbear

klose wrote: »

Joe allen, good player but we overpaid. Think its as simple as that really.

I think, like with anything, there's a sweet spot in value for money for most transfers.

Even if you overpay by 50% on a £10m sort of player, you're probably getting at least reasonable quality, he'll probably be sufficient to pad out the squad, will hold value ok and not demand crazy wages.

But while I don't want to dismiss the player completely, the Albertos of this world or the Assaidis are pretty much just a waste of time IMO.

Every now and again you might find bargains and you'd like to trust the scouts and all that, but it might take 4 or 5 of that calibre of players to find one who's actually good enough to keep.

And unlike spending 1m for someone like Yesil when they're 16 or 17, you can't throw them into the academy for a year or two.

tok9

Mr Alan wrote: »

So he's as good as our other CBs who we all agree are not good enough. Therefore he is not good enough.

His transfer is another "miss"

But I think he's the best of the three and unlike Skrtel and Lovren, has the potential to improve.

I'm not disagreeing with you regards our transfers in general. Certainly has been a high turnover of players who haven't done as well as we'd hope.

But that's our transfer policy, we look for the talent that's about to make that next step to an excellent player. You're always going to have a few misses. We can't compete with City (Could you imagine if we signed Mangala for that amount to see his current form) or Chelsea.

We all knew we needed a bigger squad this season. It hasn't worked out yet but it's still early in the season.

Utopia Parkway

klose wrote: »

Joe allen, good player but we overpaid. Think its as simple as that really.

Hasn't exactly been a hit but I wouldn't class him as a miss either. Has played quite a lot when he's been fit and played very well at times. Not so much other times.

Mr Alan

A few misses?!?

2 out of our last 20 transfers have been good. That's ****ing horrendous.

The likes of Rafa was slated for having a 50/50 success rate & didn't have anywhere near the backing

Mr Alan

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

Hasn't exactly been a hit but I wouldn't class him as a miss either. Has played quite a lot when he's been fit and played very well at times. Not so much other times.

If we sold him now, how much do you think we'd get?

BenEadir

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Just on wages issue, this is the wages spend in 2012/13

City - £233m
United - £183m
Chelsea - £179m
Arsenal - £154m
Liverpool £133m


Those differences are crazy. The difference between us an chelsea is roughly 6 extra Di Marias. People go on about us spending £100m+ in transfer this summer while City spend that amount extra on wages every year compared to us. Asking us to compete with these 5 other teams is a huge ask.

Spot on PLUS the reality is if we're offering the same wages to a player as any of the others on that list the player (Willian, Sanchez etc etc) will 9 times out of 10 prefer the other clubs for two reasons 1. They have huge financial clout and are likely to be able to buy success (City, United and Chelsea) and 2. They are in London which is quite simply where modern footballers (and their wives/girlfriends) want to be. With that reality we would actually need to be paying 15% to 20% MORE than the others in wages in order to attract the very best players and we simply don't have that financial clout and under FSG we never will unless FFP is actually implemented and we can organically grow the commercial side of the club which in fairness to them they are doing pretty well i.e. increased sponsorship deals, bigger stadium on the way etc.

JohnDaniels

Allen for the money we paid, wages he's on and his age would be near the top end of successful transfers in Rodgers time at the club. His overall package is peanuts in today's market.

NukaCola

Mr Alan wrote: »

It regularly buys quality players for starting 11 though. In this instance, it hasn't.

15m wouldn't buy you quality regularly in the current market.

NukaCola

Mr Alan wrote: »

If we sold him now, how much do you think we'd get?

Impossible to gauge. Borini was going for 14m or something, who'd have predicted that?

Mr Alan

NukaCola wrote: »

15m wouldn't buy you quality regularly in the current market.

There is an abundance of players who have moved in the transfer market for fees in the region of £15m that would go straight into our first team.

The delusion is strong in here today.

NukaCola

Mr Alan wrote: »

A few misses?!?

2 out of our last 20 transfers have been good. That's ****ing horrendous.

The likes of Rafa was slated for having a 50/50 success rate & didn't have anywhere near the backing

So, after 10 games you've written off all our signings this summer?

NukaCola

Mr Alan wrote: »

There is an abundance of players who have moved in the transfer market for fees in the region of £15m that would go straight into our first team.

The delusion is strong in here today.

And there is just as many that have failed for similar fee's. If 15m regularly buys you quality, it hasn't worked regularly for us.

Less of your snarky comments, I have been perfectly respectful of your opinions please dont talk down to me.

Chucky the tree

Mr Alan wrote: »

A few misses?!?

2 out of our last 20 transfers have been good. That's ****ing horrendous.

The likes of Rafa was slated for having a 50/50 success rate & didn't have anywhere near the backing

That's a joke right?

Agent Coulson

Rafa brought in 50/60 players and I'd say his hit rate was about 20/25%.

The last time we had a hit rate anywhere above that as a hit rate was when Kenny was manager in the 80's.

Lord Trollington

Glen Johnson (£90k) and Steven Gerrard (£140k) are both on almost a quarter a million a week between them. Both contracts up at the end of the year.

Would people renew one or both players contracts given their current form and contribution to the team?

Agent Coulson

Lord Trollington wrote: »

Glen Johnson (£90k) and Steven Gerrard (£140k) are both on almost a quarter a million a week between them. Both contracts up at the end of the year.

Would people renew one or both players contracts given their current form and contribution to the team?

If both were happy to take a 50% pay cut and rolling contracts I would.

I think Johnson will leave on a free in January myself.

I think Gerrard will sign a 1 year extension.

GotTheTshirt

Mr Alan wrote: »

A few misses?!?

2 out of our last 20 transfers have been good. That's ****ing horrendous.

The likes of Rafa was slated for having a 50/50 success rate & didn't have anywhere near the backing

All our summer signings are ****ing horrendous? Could we not ease up on the judgements for a couple of months at least?

Utopia Parkway

Lord Trollington wrote: »

Glen Johnson (£90k) and Steven Gerrard (£140k) are both on almost a quarter a million a week between them. Both contracts up at the end of the year.

Would people renew one or both players contracts given their current form and contribution to the team?

Johnson is almost certainly gone.

Gerrard should be allowed to retire as a Liverpool player so will get a 1 or 2 year deal. Maybe a rolling 1 year deal.

NukaCola

Lord Trollington wrote: »

Glen Johnson (£90k) and Steven Gerrard (£140k) are both on almost a quarter a million a week between them. Both contracts up at the end of the year.

Would people renew one or both players contracts given their current form and contribution to the team?

Not if it was my money.

However as a fan, it would be nice if SG sees out his career with us. Its not just sentimentality as SG is an integral part of BR's team, so he will get a contract anyway.

Johnson can be replaced, especially for the wages he's on. He gets a lot of stick, a lot of it justified, but I dont think he was ever worth that kind of wage in his whole career with us.

JohnDaniels

Chucky the tree wrote: »

That's a joke right?

His hit rate on players over £5m+ was very good. He did sign a lot of players but many of them were for next to nothing and he very rarely ever lost money on a player. His record in the transfer market on reflection is pretty great. The last window was extremely dodgy. He did though on a very tight budget fil our first team with top level international quality in every position. Reina, Aurelio, Arbelo, Agger, Alonso, Kuyt, Mascherano, Torres. I think it was hard for a lot of fans to see the wood for the trees at the time but looking back now knowing how hard it's to get it right even when you have money, he did spectacularly well with the resources he had available.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=249365.0

Lord Trollington

Lord Trollington wrote: »

Glen Johnson (£90k) and Steven Gerrard (£140k) are both on almost a quarter a million a week between them. Both contracts up at the end of the year.

Would people renew one or both players contracts given their current form and contribution to the team?

Johnson is toast. I actually hate seeing him in the lineup now tbh.

Gerrard still has plenty to offer. I wouldn't be letting him go unless a top class replacement comes in.

klose

Lord Trollington wrote: »

Glen Johnson (£90k) and Steven Gerrard (£140k) are both on almost a quarter a million a week between them. Both contracts up at the end of the year.

Would people renew one or both players contracts given their current form and contribution to the team?

Id tell glen to start looking for a new club asap, i would like to see gerrard kept too. Kolo toures contract is up too so he will assumably be gone too, susos is up aswell. Flannos too but he will undoubtedly stay.
Whats interesting is skrtel and enriques are up the year after next and cannot see them getting extensions so would not be surprised to see them moved on in the summer.

Harry Palmr

rarnes1 wrote: »

Johnson is toast. I actually hate seeing him in the lineup now tbh.

Gerrard still has plenty to offer. I wouldn't be letting him go unless a top class replacement comes in.

I think Gerrard is going to be retained so the club don't have to buy a top replacement (even though they do).

Reading about Rafa's transfer record is pretty retro

Chucky the tree

JohnDaniels wrote: »

His hit rate on players over £5m+ was very good. He did sign a lot of players but many of them were for next to nothing and he very rarely ever lost money on a player. His record in the transfer market on reflection is pretty great. The last window was extremely dodgy. He did though on a very tight budget fil our first team with top level international quality in every position. Reina, Aurelio, Arbelo, Agger, Alonso, Kuyt, Mascherano, Torres. I think it was hard for a lot of fans to see the wood for the trees at the time but looking back now knowing how hard it's to get it right even when you have money, he did spectacularly well with the resources he had available.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=249365.0

I never said it was bad but his hit rate is not 50/50 if you include all transfers and if that's going to happen with Rodgers it should be counted for Rafa as well.

Turtyturd

rarnes1 wrote: »

Johnson is toast. I actually hate seeing him in the lineup now tbh.

Gerrard still has plenty to offer. I wouldn't be letting him go unless a top class replacement comes in.

Problem is we are never going to get a top class replacement, or see how the players we already have will perform in his position while he is there playing almost every minute of every game

Lord Trollington

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I think Gerrard is going to be retained so the club don't have to buy a top replacement (even though they do).

We seen how hard it was to attract top players in the summer with Champions League. If things keep going the way they are it will be impossible to sign any quality to replace SG.

Mr Alan

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I never said it was bad but his hit rate is not 50/50 if you include all transfers and if that's going to happen with Rodgers it should be counted for Rafa as well.

Ok, compare their records for deals over £5m if it makes you feel better.

Point remains the same. Rodgers' record is appalling.

NukaCola

Is "If things keep going the way they are" the new "Net spend"?

Lord Trollington

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

Johnson is almost certainly gone.

Gerrard should be allowed to retire as a Liverpool player so will get a 1 or 2 year deal. Maybe a rolling 1 year deal.

I dunno about that. There should be no room for sentimentality. I mean even if he takes a 50% pay cut he is still on £70k. That's massive money for someone who should be looking on from the line