Liverpool FC News/Gossip/Rumours Summer '15

Gbear

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

[Liverpool's Transfer Record]

£215m total, 13 of 24 signings not contributing as of today

I am impressed at those retaining such faith in this windows dealings given what has come before tbh!

Utd
12-13
Signed 6
Cost £60m
Gone 5
0 Contributors

13-14
Signed 4
Cost £65m
Gone 0
1 contributor

14-15
Signed 9
Cost £145m
Gone 1
4 contributors

Signed 19
Gone 6
5 actual additions to the squad.
Cost £285m
====================================
Chelsea
12-13
Signed 9
Cost £95m
Gone 6
4 Contributors

13-14
Signed 15
Cost £120m
Gone 12
3 contributors

14-15
Signed 6
Cost £105m
Gone 3
3 contributors

Signed 30
Gone 21
5 actual additions to the squad.
Cost £320m
====================================
Arsenal
12-13
Signed 4
Cost £47m
Gone 1
3 Contributors

13-14
Signed 7
Cost £42m
Gone 5
2 contributors

14-15
Signed 10
Cost £85m
Gone 4
6 contributors

Signed 21
Gone 10
11 actual additions to the squad.
Cost £175m
====================================
Spurs
12-13
Signed 8
Cost £60m
Gone 4
3 Contributors

13-14
Signed 7
Cost £105m
Gone 4
2 contributors

14-15
Signed 7
Cost £28m
Gone 2
0-ish contributors

Signed 22
Gone 10
5 actual additions to the squad.
Cost £190m

=============================

Now you can poke holes in the transfer fees here and whether or not a player is currently a contributor (I didn't account for players who did and just left - Van Persie for example), but I wasn't going to go into the depth you did because it was for 4 clubs and **** that.

I didn't do City because they'd likely have as silly a record as Chelsea.

Anyway, the upshot of this is, I think, that irrespective of questions over my classification of the odd player here and there as being successful or not there's both a huge outlay on players and a massive turnover in the squads of the top teams in the PL.

You could argue we have a worse strike rate, but it's clearly not night and day in comparison to most of our rivals.
The big issue is the same as it has been for 10 years - we (and Spurs) are signing a lower, cheaper class of player and are starting from lower bases.

A £60m player like Di Maria might be no more likely to succeed at a club than a£7m one on a pound-for-pound basis, but they can still get 5-10 assists and goals, whereas a failed £7m is likely just useless altogether.

If we're blundering by making a lot of speculative signings, it's a blunder that's being committed by an awful lot of other clubs, and there's no reason to think it's going to stop just because we give Rodgers the boot. It went on with Rafa, it happened with Commolli and that iteration of the transfer committee and it's still happening now, albeit with even more inflated fees due to the latest wave of TV money.

Agent Coulson

Jose Enrique has deactivated his Twitter following abuse!

Scumbags.

Colemania

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Jose Enrique has deactivated his Twitter following abuse!

Scumbags.

Ya saw that but couldn't link as I'm on my phone. Said something about wanting to show the fans what he gets up to but clearly they're not liking it so he's deactivating twitter and instagram and focusing on getting back playing

smileyj1987

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Jose Enrique has deactivated his Twitter following abuse!

Scumbags.

Fools who abuse players with death threats and the likes really should be thrown off twitter and the likes.

Harry Palmr

Rush of tweets suggest that Ilori loan is done.

MD1990

The abuse Enrique gets is very unfair. Was very good for us before a longstanding Knee injury disrupted his last 2 seasons. Also seems like a decent guy for team spirit like Kolo Toure. Ideally he would move on but if he wants to stay & be a squad player to stay on decent money u can't blame him. Its not like he is on 100k+ a week.

Turtyturd

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Jose Enrique has deactivated his Twitter following abuse!

Scumbags.

He'll be back in a month with a new name.

Agent Coulson

Turtyturd wrote: »

He'll be back in a month with a new name.

magma69

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Jose Enrique has deactivated his Twitter following abuse!

Scumbags.

Very same idiots probably have YNWA in their profile.

kfallon

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Fools who abuse players with death threats and the likes really should be thrown off a cliff

~Rebel~

MD1990 wrote: »

The abuse Enrique gets is very unfair. Was very good for us before a longstanding Knee injury disrupted his last 2 seasons. Also seems like a decent guy for team spirit like Kolo Toure. Ideally he would move on but if he wants to stay & be a squad player to stay on decent money u can't blame him. Its not like he is on 100k+ a week.

Indeed, and at the end of the day, its transfer deadline day and we have no cover for the position bar an 18 year old right footed centreback. We're in a position where we actually need Enrique.

mada999

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Borini-gone
Assaidi-gone
Sahin-gone
Yesil-gone
Alberto-gone
Aspas-gone.
Cissokho-gone
Moses-gone.

Allen-poor to ok
Mignolet-Average
Toure-poor
Ilori-always on loan.



Sturridge- Very good success- when not injured has missed just under 50% of games since joining


Coutinho-success.

just looking at that it's a joke... what the fook are the scouts at also ???

mada999

ush wrote: »

Why not salary caps, rules on the procurement of young talent and FFP?

Anyway, so you think club owners are should be allowed to do whatever they want with their club. If you're so committed to that, why are you moaning about FSG all the time?

Salary caps = best players joining clubs in the big cities such as London, Paris, Madrid and Barcelona...

I think if I was famous I'd just stay away from having a Twitter account. Too much hassle. You can still read it.

Clubs would get a way around salary caps.

Crazy bonuses or the like

Agent Coulson

£36m for a teen who played about 70 senior games this summer, next summer when the new tv money kicks in will make this transfer window seem like reasonable prices were paid.

Gbear

rarnes1 wrote: »

Clubs would get a way around salary caps.

Crazy bonuses or the like

Could have a total squad budget on playing staff and let them manage it whatever way they want.

So if it's £80m, they can spent 45 of that on 3 big players if they want, but it'll leave fairly slim pickings for the rest.

Even then though, they could just organise so that players are paid directly from sponsorship deals, rather than to the clubs themselves, or some other bollocks.

Then you'd have to ban players for taking endorsements or something.

They could tax wage bills or net spend and feed it to the lower clubs, but then you'd end up with dodgy loan deals and all that lark.

Ultimately I don't think you can have a "fair" system involving what are essentially fully autonomous businesses who opt in to football competitions.

As far as I understand it, the reason American sports get around this is because the associations basically own the sport from the top down and "franchises" are exactly that.

The horse has already bolted for football on that front.

Agent Coulson

What a joke!

We paid £7m for the lad and he never kicked a ball for the club.

https://twitter.com/JamesPearceEcho/status/638788433146736640

Hangballlouie

Turtyturd wrote: »

He'll be back in a month with a new name.

John Egan

murpho999

Agent Coulson wrote: »

What a joke!

We paid £7m for the lad and he never kicked a ball for the club.

https://twitter.com/JamesPearceEcho/status/638788433146736640

How is it a joke if the club get there money back next season? Maybe he's turned out not to be that good?

Hangballlouie

murpho999 wrote: »

How is it a joke if the club get there money back next season? Maybe he's turned out not to be that good?

Maybe the manager hasn't a clue how to judge a good defender? His track record would suggest that.

murpho999

Hangball Doughboy wrote: »

Maybe the manager hasn't a clue how to judge a good defender? His track record would suggest that.

That could be true but is a different point entirely. I don't think the Villa deal is a bad deal.

Also who bought llori, Rodgers or the committee?

~Rebel~

Agent Coulson wrote: »

What a joke!

We paid £7m for the lad and he never kicked a ball for the club.

https://twitter.com/JamesPearceEcho/status/638788433146736640

I never like these appearance based incentive things...so we should be hoping they like him enough to play him every game, making him prohibitively expensive - but if they really like him and want to buy him, they're encouraged to manage his appearances to keep it at 6...

gafferino

Mr Alan wrote: »

Would it be fair to say the majority here now recognise that Rodgers is not the man to lead the club forward?

I think it's fair to say that now, in his 4th season, people have enough information to recognise if he is the right man are not.

Anyone

Since the transfer window is closed, does anybody have our net spend?

Hangballlouie

murpho999 wrote: »

That could be true but is a different point entirely. I don't think the Villa deal is a bad deal.

Also who bought llori, Rodgers or the committee?

I'd guess it was a committee signing, as was Sakho, which is why neither play imo.. Rodgers to his credit, is going to go with his players, which is a trait to admire in some ways. Writing his own p45 slowly but surely.. His persistence to play the players he wanted will be his undoing.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Luckycharms_74 wrote: »

Villa making a late move for Illori now it seems

klose wrote: »

The ilori deal, wow. Chased after him for a while only to loan him out constantly and never give him a chance. Now weve a jokeshop defender in lovern, skrtle who is erratic at best, a past it kolo and our best centre back sakho is getting ****ed around. Laughable.

Kerrigooney wrote: »

Rodgers is making it nearly impossible to support him.

When he picks Lovren to play against Man Utd I'll be done with him completely.

+1 on the above.

As klose says, it's blood boiling to watch our best defender left on the bench while a far inferior player gets all the game time despite looking like he has only started playing football last week.

And Ilori gone as well with an option to buy, wtf! I watched a good few of his games this summer and he is a fantastic prospect. I can understand him being loaned out to expose him more to PL teams and make his mistakes elsewhere but the option to buy is just mind numbing.:mad:

Utopia Parkway

Anyone wrote: »

Since the transfer window is closed, does anybody have our net spend?

I think it's £21M. That's going on the assumption we are going to pay 10M for Ings on tribunal once that is eventually decided.

monkey9

Does the option to buy clause mean it's out of our hands, i.e if Villa decide to buy next summer we can't do anything about it?

I don't understand why we didn't hang on to him this season, give him his debut and see how he gets on.

Even loaning him to Villa, what if has a fantastic season for them? We just let him go?

Dcully

Just heard an alarming stat, we have loaned out or sold 13 of our last 25 buys :eek:

Something wrong there lads.

Utopia Parkway

monkey9 wrote: »

Does the option to buy clause mean it's out of our hands, i.e if Villa decide to buy next summer we can't do anything about it?

You have to think Liverpool will still have the final say on whether they want to sell him. Imagine we loan him and he has a fantastic season at Villa and then we automatically lose him for what we paid for him basically. The club would look like right muppets.

Then again maybe not so hard to believe.

monkey9

Dcully wrote: »

Just heard an alarming stat, we have loaned out or sold 13 of our last 25 buys :eek:

Something wrong there lads.

Even the Nigerian lad we signed yesterday is gone already. "Smile for the camera there, Taiwo. Hold the jersey a bit higher. Brilliant, brilliant. Now if you can just lean against a few walls here now, Taiwo. That's it, superb. Ok, i think we got everythink we need. You can p!ss off to Frankfurt now, son. See you next year".

Potential Underachiever

corwill

gafferino wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that now, in his 4th season, people have enough information to recognise if he is the right man are not.

I've been defending at least some aspects of his reign until the last fortnight or so. As soon as I saw the stream of verbal diarrhoea in that last interview in the Guardian, I was about 95% sure we would go out against West Ham and ****e the cot, roll around in it and eat the bed sheets. I was delighted I was out of the country for it. Now I'm back, I dread having to look at his shark's maw of gnashers and dead eyes as he trots out the same, recycled half-dozen platitudes in ten days time. I just don't see it getting a whole lot better, if for no other reason than most other EPL managers seem to have him completely figured out.

And we can forget about the likes of Klopp or Ancellotti, FSG just won't cede the degree of control that guys of their stature can insist on. It'll be Monk or Dyche or someone else who'll agree to the same load of auld committee cobblers that Rodgers insists on pretending he didn't allow to de-ball him. Maybe even just a promotion for SO'D, perhaps to the end of the season.

Someone fire me under a bus, like a good lad...

Kerrigooney

Tony Evans who has never been a fan of Rodgers and usually comes across as quite bitter is saying tonight that sacking Rodgers wouldn't solve the problems at the club...they run much deeper than that. I'm inclined to agree with him on that but won't be too sorry when he is shown the door.

Kerrigooney

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Hangballlouie

The chairman of the BR Pyjama Gang is in the house.

brevity

Hangball Doughboy wrote: »

The chairman of the BR Pyjama Gang is in the house.

Bananas in pyjamas.

emo72

corwill wrote: »

I've been defending at least some aspects of his reign until the last fortnight or so. As soon as I saw the stream of verbal diarrhoea in that last interview in the Guardian, I was about 95% sure we would go out against West Ham and ****e the cot, roll around in it and eat the bed sheets. I was delighted I was out of the country for it. Now I'm back, I dread having to look at his shark's maw of gnashers and dead eyes as he trots out the same, recycled half-dozen platitudes in ten days time. I just don't see it getting a whole lot better, if for no other reason than most other EPL managers seem to have him completely figured out.

And we can forget about the likes of Klopp or Ancellotti, FSG just won't cede the degree of control that guys of their stature can insist on. It'll be Monk or Dyche or someone else who'll agree to the same load of auld committee cobblers that Rodgers insists on pretending he didn't allow to de-ball him. Maybe even just a promotion for SO'D, perhaps to the end of the season.

Someone fire me under a bus, like a good lad...

we've only lost one match ive seen great signs in the arsenal match, another dogged performance against stoke. granted WH was a dogs dinner, but dont be losing it just yet. we really are ****e at buying players though.

corwill

Kerrigooney wrote: »

Tony Evans who has never been a fan of Rodgers and usually comes across as quite bitter is saying tonight that sacking Rodgers wouldn't solve the problems at the club...they run much deeper than that. I'm inclined to agree with him on that but won't be too sorry when he is shown the door.

What it boils down to is that FSG appear to be trying to run LFC as though it were an American sports franchise, and specifically a baseball club, in terms of player recruitment and the management structure. It's like Rodgers was thrown a copy of Moneyball on DVD and told "there's the blueprint". Except poor auld Brendan doesn't realise that he doesn't get to be Brad Pitt, instead he's Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

Hangballlouie

emo72 wrote: »

we've only lost one match ive seen great signs in the arsenal match, another dogged performance against stoke. granted WH was a dogs dinner, but dont be losing it just yet. we really are ****e at buying players though.

I'm surprised you're not sitting in a corner with black make-up on, depressed, listening to The Cure.

Kerrigooney

emo72 wrote: »

we've only lost one match ive seen great signs in the arsenal match, another dogged performance against stoke. granted WH was a dogs dinner, but dont be losing it just yet. we really are ****e at buying players though.

We've played 4 matches and have played well for about 30 mins. Our wins have come from an offside goal and a screamer. 2 goals. Is that good enough? If there was signs of improvement it'd be grand but we look awful and even worse we look clueless.

Kerrigooney

Hangball Doughboy wrote: »

I'm surprised you're not sitting in a corner with black make-up on, depressed, listening to The Cure.

I am.

corwill

emo72 wrote: »

we've only lost one match ive seen great signs in the arsenal match, another dogged performance against stoke. granted WH was a dogs dinner, but dont be losing it just yet. we really are ****e at buying players though.

There were some positive signs against Stoke and Arsenal, but plenty of negatives too. I was very disquieted by the performance against Bournemouth in particular, who had us on the rack for long periods. If we reproduce that performance against City, it'll be like the opening scene of The Accused.

Agent Coulson

Grayditch

Jaysus, yeah. We've only lost one game this season. I dunno why I was abandoning the Good Ship Rodgers. Man, football is way easier to follow if you only look at the results. Be grand, obviously.

Francie Barrett

16 players out on loan, lads.

16 bloody players.

~Rebel~

Loans are a decent option for younger players in fairness - guys too good for the reserves but not experienced enough for the first team.

Just take issue with loaning guys who could be useful - Markovic, Illori - and guys who should just be sold - Balotelli.

Is Llori done then at us? Anyone else know the strategy behind signing promising youngsters and then not playing them at all?

emo72

Grayditch wrote: »

Jaysus, yeah. We've only lost one game this season. I dunno why I was abandoning the Good Ship Rodgers. Man, football is way easier to follow if you only look at the results. Be grand, obviously.

ah no. wouldnt be thinking like that now either. rodgers may feck it up. ive seen some awful performances to suggest that. also seen us being almighty good. im pessimistic but not as despondant as a lot of people on here. maybe the team that turned up first half against arsenal will come back. wouldnt be smashing the place up just yet.

we are ****e at buying players though. or maybe really good at buying promising players and destroying them.