Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

54and56

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Chelsea have become pretty self sufficient and have utilised availability of capital to engineer innovative revenue streams in the transfer market.

They are possibly the only example of that and we really know for sure until Abramovich departs the club.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

A net positive in the transfer market this summer of all summers is utterly indefensible.

Do you think:-

a) The money isn't being made available to Klopp.

or

The money is available to Klopp but he is making a deliberate decision to only buy players he feels fit his criteria and/or which he can develop?

It has to be one or the other.

If it's "A" do you really think Klopp would have signed a new 6 year contract and be as happy as he appears to be?

If it's "B" are you saying Klopp is doing an indefensible job?

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

They have taken the conservative option which is completely logical for risk adverse businessmen.

IF FSG were risk adverse they wouldn't have bought the club when it was a debt laden basket case. I know you'll probably argue they got it at a snip but £300m or even $300m isn't an amount anyone with an adverse risk attitude bets.

murpho999 wrote: »

Do people think that FSG are just in this for the crack and are not trying to build up an asset for an eventual sale?

Of course they want to get a return on their investment and rightly so but if they were truly risk adverse as you claim why not cash in their chips and walk away with a serious profit now when PL revenues are at their highest ever and there is clearly demand for the club from both Arab and Chinese buyers?

Harry Palmr

doesn't work

BeepBeep67

Talisman wrote: »

The club's four major sponsors have one thing in common.

In 2009, Manchester City increased their commercial revenue by over 400% on the previous year. The only commercial deal that didn't go off the charts was that of the shirt manufacturer. Etihad Airways, Etisalat, Aabar, and TCA Abu Dhabi each signed deals with the club which were worth more than the club's entire commercial revenue the previous year.

Etihad Airways is wholly owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi. In 2011, Etihad effectively paid £400M for the stadium naming rights for 10 years. The deal was worth more than twice that of the previous record world wide. UEFA came down hard on the sponsorship deal and Man City restructured/renegotiated the deal with Etihad. It's new value is £80M per year.

Emirates Telecommunications Corporation, branded trade name Etisalat is majority owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi.

Aabar Investments is owned by IPIC. IPIC is the International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), which is wholly owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi.

TCA Abu Dhabi is the Abu Dhabi Tourism & Culture Authority.

Sheikh Mansour, is the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates and a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi.

I want this guy to negotiate my next pay rise, contract was worth £400M over 10 years and was renegotiated to £400M over 5 years!

murpho999

Talisman wrote: »

How have they taken the conservative option?

By not investing in the squad like other clubs.
They were banking on Financial Fair Play bringing about a level playing field that would allow them to compete with the big boys by other clubs having their financial wings clipped but it has not worked.
Also setting up of transfer committees instead of allowing managers to do their jobs and control spending.

Seems to be a change of transfer tactic with Klopp and his philosophy fits right in with FSG’s financial model so it’s a perfect match. I still think that they could have invested more this season.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

IF FSG were risk adverse they wouldn't have bought the club when it was a debt laden basket case. I know you'll probably argue they got it at a snip but £300m or even $300m isn't an amount anyone with an adverse risk attitude bets.

Of course they want to get a return on their investment and rightly so but if they were truly risk adverse as you claim why not cash in their chips and walk away with a serious profit now when PL revenues are at their highest ever and there is clearly demand for the club from both Arab and Chinese buyers?

They got the club for £300m which including paying off the debt. It was a very good deal. Don’t be fooled into thinking that they came along as knights in shining armour rescuing the club for romantic sporting reasons.
It was a calculated business decision that is going to pay them off handsomely as they have hit the jackpot with the club’s value trebling because of TV deals not because of on the pitch success.

The rumours of sale have been circulating for over a year now and have gathered pace in the last week since the Echo published an article saying that the club was not for sale. More than a co-incidence I think.

Talisman

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I want this guy to negotiate my next pay rise, contract was worth £400M over 10 years and was renegotiated to £400M over 5 years!

Like I said, a proxy for the owners to pump money into the club.

Talisman

murpho999 wrote: »

By not investing in the squadlike other clubs.
They were banking on Financial Fair Play bringing about a level playing field that would allow them to compete with the big boys by other clubs having their financial wings clipped but it has not worked.
Also setting up of transfer committees instead of allowing managers to do their jobs and control spending.

Seems to be a change of transfer tactic with Klopp and his philosophy fits right in with FSG’s financial model so it’s a perfect match. I still think that they could have invested more this season.

FSG's mistake was appointing both Dalglish and Rodgers as manager - they were both the wrong fit for the structure at the club at the time of their appointment.

As Director of Football, Damien Comolli identified players for the club to sign but the targets were dropped in favour of building the British core that Dalglish wanted. Had the club signed the likes of Lukaku, Nolito, Griezmann, Defour and Witsel things would quite possibly have turned out differently on the pitch. None of them would have commanded a massive transfer fee at the time. Some fans want us to have the club that would have signed Luis Suarez before he joined Ajax, Griezmann before Atletico etc. With a manager other than Dalglish, Comolli could have made us that club.

After the departure of Comolli and Dalglish, the club were linked with Klopp but he was committed to Dortmund. The Transfer Committee system was introduced and Brendan Rodgers spent a lot of energy working against the new structure FSG put in place. The Transfer Committee is responsible for the signing of some of the best players in the current squad. Mane was also identified as a transfer target while still a player at Salzburg but the manager didn't sanction the move.

Brendan Rodger's transfer targets while manager included Michel Vorm, Ashley Williams, Gylfi Sigurdsson, Jay Rodriguez, and Clint Dempsey - they're not exactly the type of players that you're advocating the club should be signing. Rodgers wanted Adam Lallana, Rickie Lambert and Christian Benteke, all of whom were signed.

In hindsight, neither the Director of Football nor the Transfer Committee appear to have been the problem. Dalglish and Rodgers wanted to be old school British managers and have things their way. A lot of money was wasted on players that they wanted. Thankfully somebody in the club has their head screwed on and we're no longer a soft touch when it comes to negotiating and recouping transfer fees.

Just because the club aren't buying big money players doesn't mean the owners are being tight with money. Klopp has said he doesn't want them, he wants to build a group.

Talisman

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Do you think:-

a) The money isn't being made available to Klopp.

or

The money is available to Klopp but he is making a deliberate decision to only buy players he feels fit his criteria and/or which he can develop?

It has to be one or the other.

If it's "A" do you really think Klopp would have signed a new 6 year contract and be as happy as he appears to be?

If it's "B" are you saying Klopp is doing an indefensible job?

I'll take B for $1000!

Talisman

Talisman wrote: »

....... Rodgers wanted Adam Lallana, Rickie Lambert and Christian Benteke, all of whom were signed..........

.... along with Markovic & Moreno which I reckon he didn't want

Talisman

Augeo wrote: »

.... along with Markovic & Moreno which I reckon he didn't want

Are you looking for a Transfer Committee vs Rodgers spat?

Harry Palmr

Let's not go there - Firmino v Benteke ends that argument

Talisman

Talisman wrote: »

Are you looking for a Transfer Committee vs Rodgers spat?

Not at all but one does need to mention the worse with the bad imo

Talisman

ricero wrote: »

Have to say im happy klopp played a strong team last night and hope it continues throughout the season in these cup games. With no europe we can afford to do it

Klopp has said he wants to rotate as little as possible in this part of the season to bed in the team. He expects all the players to work hard in training which he knows is going to be difficult for those that are not being selected to play.

Mr.H

murpho999 wrote: »

They got the club for £300m which including paying off the debt. It was a very good deal. Don’t be fooled into thinking that they came along as knights in shining armour rescuing the club for romantic sporting reasons.
It was a calculated business decision that is going to pay them off handsomely as they have hit the jackpot with the club’s value trebling because of TV deals not because of on the pitch success.

The rumours of sale have been circulating for over a year now and have gathered pace in the last week since the Echo published an article saying that the club was not for sale. More than a co-incidence I think.

Except they have said the club is not for sale and have already rejected advances

Fact is there is more evidence that points to them not selling than there is to them selling

Did they sell the Red sox???

Buford T. Justice XIX

murpho999 wrote: »

By not investing in the squad like other clubs.
They were banking on Financial Fair Play bringing about a level playing field that would allow them to compete with the big boys by other clubs having their financial wings clipped but it has not worked.
Also setting up of transfer committees instead of allowing managers to do their jobs and control spending.

Seems to be a change of transfer tactic with Klopp and his philosophy fits right in with FSG’s financial model so it’s a perfect match. I still think that they could have invested more this season.




They got the club for £300m which including paying off the debt. It was a very good deal. Don’t be fooled into thinking that they came along as knights in shining armour rescuing the club for romantic sporting reasons.
It was a calculated business decision that is going to pay them off handsomely as they have hit the jackpot with the club’s value trebling because of TV deals not because of on the pitch success.

The rumours of sale have been circulating for over a year now and have gathered pace in the last week since the Echo published an article saying that the club was not for sale. More than a co-incidence I think.

It's very easy to spend someone elses money.

If it was your money, would you be spending huge chunks on a gamble that the payoff would be huge? And a gamble is what it would be, just ask Leeds!

I wouldn't and I doubt many others here would.

Mr.H

I dont understand why anyone thinks we need to spend loads of cash. Its not about how much we spend its about what we need.

We need a left back and thats it.

Klopp doesnt want another DM so why would we buy one?

Doesnt matter if we spent 10 million or 100 million on the new left back, all that matters is we get one that can do the job needed.

Mr.H

As for selling the club its not gonna happen.

FSG said at day one that they would be open to investors coming in and helping finance the club but they have never looked like they will sell. They didnt sell Red Sox, they wont sell Roma and they wont sell Liverpool.

If they wanted a club they could profit from the could have bought someone like Southampton, Newcastle, West Ham, Palace and loads of others they could have made money from due to their locations and/or the tv money coming in.

Selling Liverpool would have relatively lower amount of return than any of the aforementioned clubs at the time.

300 million as oppose to one of the above who you could have bought for less than 100

Harry Palmr

Mr.H wrote: »

Except they have said the club is not for sale and have already rejected advances

Fact is there is more evidence that points to them not selling than there is to them selling

Did they sell the Red sox???

Just on RS

Forbes Magazine has crunched some numbers regarding the business of baseball and revealed Wednesday what many have known for some time: The Boston Red Sox are heavy hitters.

Forbes ranks the Red Sox as the third most valuable Major League Baseball franchise, according to its latest annual study of the sport’s finances. Forbes values the Red Sox around $2.3 billion.

Only the New York Yankees ($3.4 billion) and the Los Angeles Dodgers ($2.5 billion) sit above Boston on Forbes’ list.

The San Francisco Giants ($2.25 billion) and the Chicago Cubs ($2.2 billion) round out Forbes’ top five.

These teams’ high values reflect their ability to generate revenue outside of baseball. These avenues include real estate, broadcasting and ownership in other sports, among others.

Forbes estimates the average value of a MLB franchise to be around $1.3 billion, up $100 million from last year’s numbers.

So they have two *cough* sport franchises that between them are valued at
3.85 billion ($1.55 and $2.3 billion) USD by Forbes. Why would they want to sell?!

PS Roma is not part of the FSG portfolio it's owned by NEEP Roma Holding

Mr.H

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just on RS



So they have two *cough* sport franchises that between them are valued at
3.85 billion ($1.55 and $2.3 billion) USD by Forbes. Why would they want to sell?!

PS Roma is not part of the FSG portfolio it's owned by NEEP Roma Holding

Is NEEP Roma holding not just the FSG to Liverpool?

They where both part of NESV? (open to correction of course)

Yea It is worth more to their "smaller" business ventures to have these two giants on the portfolio.

While I have no doubt that they dont LOVE the club as much as the fans, I do not think they are out to profit directly from the club. They will however profit from being the owners of the club and getting interests in their smaller enterprises as a result

murpho999

Mr.H wrote: »

Except they have said the club is not for sale and have already rejected advances

Fact is there is more evidence that points to them not selling than there is to them selling

Did they sell the Red sox???

Talisman wrote: »

A few days ago Tom Werner said the money is available if Klopp wants to buy players.

Tom Werner on Liverpool's summer signings and funds available to Jurgen Klopp (Liverpool Echo, August 20th)

I think Klopp will only sign somebody he considers to be the right player and he won't pay over the odds to sign them.

A few years ago Werner said that Liverpool would be able to compete with any club on transfer fee and/or wages. Has that happened?

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

It's very easy to spend someone elses money.

If it was your money, would you be spending huge chunks on a gamble that the payoff would be huge? And a gamble is what it would be, just ask Leeds!

I wouldn't and I doubt many others here would.

It's not my money, so what's the point in that analogy?
It's a business decision. I'm not talking about billions just more than what they have.
They have invested to make the club profitable not successful.

Mr.H wrote: »

I dont understand why anyone thinks we need to spend loads of cash. Its not about how much we spend its about what we need.

We need a left back and thats it.

Klopp doesnt want another DM so why would we buy one?

Doesnt matter if we spent 10 million or 100 million on the new left back, all that matters is we get one that can do the job needed.

Strange post: So quality doesn't matter. Are you saying that none of our players could be upgraded. We have the best possible in every position?

Using your logic, we don't need a left back as we have Alberto Moreno.

Mr.H wrote: »

As for selling the club its not gonna happen.

FSG said at day one that they would be open to investors coming in and helping finance the club but they have never looked like they will sell. They didnt sell Red Sox, they wont sell Roma and they wont sell Liverpool.

If they wanted a club they could profit from the could have bought someone like Southampton, Newcastle, West Ham, Palace and loads of others they could have made money from due to their locations and/or the tv money coming in.

Selling Liverpool would have relatively lower amount of return than any of the aforementioned clubs at the time.

300 million as oppose to one of the above who you could have bought for less than 100

What have Roma got to do with it?

They will sell Liverpool someday,guaranteed.

Fair enough they haven't sold the Red Sox but they have a greater familiarity and affinity with the Red Sox and are most likely making money out of them now.
They don't have that with Liverpool.
They got Liverpool very cheaply, people don't seem to realise that and they will reap the benefits.

Read this article from 2013 were Werner is basically sayinig that they have to be successful on the field to grow, and I think they have failed in that regard.

The acceptance of mediocrity on the field for the sake of financial stability is shocking on this thread imho. Shows how far the club has declined.

Harry Palmr

Mr.H wrote: »

Is NEEP Roma holding not just the FSG to Liverpool?

They where both part of NESV? (open to correction of course)

Yea It is worth more to their "smaller" business ventures to have these two giants on the portfolio.

While I have no doubt that they dont LOVE the club as much as the fans, I do not think they are out to profit directly from the club. They will however profit from being the owners of the club and getting interests in their smaller enterprises as a result

The link is that Thomas R. DiBenedetto a shareholder of NEEP Roma Holding is on the FSG board but that's all, FSG do not have a stake in same.

Talisman

Mr.H wrote: »

Is NEEP Roma holding not just the FSG to Liverpool?

They where both part of NESV? (open to correction of course)

Yea It is worth more to their "smaller" business ventures to have these two giants on the portfolio.

While I have no doubt that they dont LOVE the club as much as the fans, I do not think they are out to profit directly from the club. They will however profit from being the owners of the club and getting interests in their smaller enterprises as a result

Thomas DiBenedetto has a 2.5% share of FSG. From what I remember he also owns 60% of NEEP Roma. FSG have no connection to Roma.

Mr.H

We have competed with others on a financial basis!!!!

We have been one of the biggest spending teams in the league since FSG took over. We CANT spend as much as United Chelsea or City and thats just a fact but we have competed with them.

Andy Carroll
Benteke
Lallana
Lovren
Allen
Downing
Suarez
Sturridge
Sakho
Firmino

In fact 400+ million they have pumped into the squad including 3 managers

In fact if you include that to the 300 million thats 700 million not including wages, stadium costs, termination fees and contract fees.

Not exactly what I would do if I was looking for a quick sale but.......................

NEDDURC

Anyone else think buying Hart might be good opportunistic thing to do!

Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs are all set for keepers. We've by far the weakest keeper of the top teams.

Would be best move for Hart in England too. If we could get rid of Mignolet and get Hart it'd be a great achievement.
City have created a mess there now so could maybe agree a loan with a view to a permanent move.

martyos121

NEDDURC wrote: »

Anyone else think buying Hart might be good opportunistic thing to do!

Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs are all set for keepers. We've by far the weakest keeper of the top teams.

Would be best move for Hart in England too. If we could get rid of Mignolet and get Hart it'd be a great achievement.
City have created a mess there now so could maybe agree a loan with a view to a permanent move.

No.

Agent Coulson

NEDDURC wrote: »

Anyone else think buying Hart might be good opportunistic thing to do!

Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs are all set for keepers. We've by far the weakest keeper of the top teams.

Would be best move for Hart in England too. If we could get rid of Mignolet and get Hart it'd be a great achievement.
City have created a mess there now so could maybe agree a loan with a view to a permanent move.

No.

murpho999

Mr.H wrote: »

We have competed with others on a financial basis!!!!

We have been one of the biggest spending teams in the league since FSG took over. We CANT spend as much as United Chelsea or City and thats just a fact but we have competed with them.

Andy Carroll
Benteke
Lallana
Lovren
Allen
Downing
Suarez
Sturridge
Sakho
Firmino

In fact 400+ million they have pumped into the squad including 3 managers

In fact if you include that to the 300 million thats 700 million not including wages, stadium costs, termination fees and contract fees.

Not exactly what I would do if I was looking for a quick sale but.......................

Why can't we CAN'T we spend as much as Utd, City etc, on some players?

Where does this idea come from that Liverpool have no money?

Look at that list of players again. Many players are middle ground price and average (Allen, Lovren and Downing). Those signings could have been avoided and money better spend on quality players.

Also, how much money was made on sales of players.

This club is very profitable, one of the wealthiest in the world but people still persist with the FSG line that we cannot compete. I dispute that.

garra

NEDDURC wrote: »

Anyone else think buying Hart might be good opportunistic thing to do!

Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs are all set for keepers. We've by far the weakest keeper of the top teams.

Would be best move for Hart in England too. If we could get rid of Mignolet and get Hart it'd be a great achievement.
City have created a mess there now so could maybe agree a loan with a view to a permanent move.

Opportunistic? Yes
Good? No

Gbear

The spending issue is really simple, especially for LB.
We have money in the bank. We have a position that needs to be filled.
It makes no sense not to.

SlickRic wrote: »

I'm convinced that if Liverpool had Mané in the team on Saturday, we'd have got something out of Burnley, which is a sad indictment on a lot of our transfer policy.

For all the technical players we have in the attacking positions, we'd nobody to break the lines.

Mané's fitness could make or break the season, which is a precarious position to have ourselves in.

This was beautifully illustrated by Origi's goal and Mané's involvement in it.
He just pissed past a couple of lads over a distance of about 4 yards and created a goal.

I've heard people say that we wouldn't have had the space to make use of a pacy player like Mane against Burnley, but it's not just galloping into space that pace can be used for.
Pace over 2 yards to take a player (or more than 1) out of the game is vital against a packed defence.

It's what makes our transfer business so puzzling, going on for years now.
We've been linked with direct players and nearly signed a few, but it's like our managers can't see the wood for the trees and when the music stops on September 1st they look around and realise they forgot to get someone who can unlock a defence.
Konoplyanka, Willian, Sanchez.... we identified these players, but then when those deals didn't work out we didn't sign an equivalent, even stylistically.

rossie1977

murpho999 wrote: »

Why can't we CAN'T we spend as much as Utd, City etc, on some players?

Where does this idea come from that Liverpool have no money?

Look at that list of players again. Many players are middle ground price and average (Allen, Lovren and Downing). Those signings could have been avoided and money better spend on quality players.

Also, how much money was made on sales of players.

This club is very profitable, one of the wealthiest in the world but people still persist with the FSG line that we cannot compete. I dispute that.

The difference between Liverpool and the top clubs in Europe is very clear

Liverpool sell and then buy to replace. Carroll was brought in to replace Torres, Allen and a load of other mid range options to replace the hole left by masch

That kind of business just leaves the club standing still. You don't see city or man Utd (outside Ronaldo) selling their top players.

If Liverpool had man utds squad they would have sold Rooney to finance ibra and Mata and a few others to finance pogba

Harry Palmr

rossie1977 wrote: »

If Liverpool had man utds squad they would have sold Rooney to finance ibra and Mata and a few others to finance pogba

You say that like it's a bad thing!

K-9

Mr.H wrote: »

We have competed with others on a financial basis!!!!

We have been one of the biggest spending teams in the league since FSG took over. We CANT spend as much as United Chelsea or City and thats just a fact but we have competed with them.

Andy Carroll
Benteke
Lallana
Lovren
Allen
Downing
Suarez
Sturridge
Sakho
Firmino

In fact 400+ million they have pumped into the squad including 3 managers

In fact if you include that to the 300 million thats 700 million not including wages, stadium costs, termination fees and contract fees.

Not exactly what I would do if I was looking for a quick sale but.......................

We have spent money, just on a lot of shyte.

It has been that way for 25 years unfortunately, and that's why the club has regularly under achieved.

It's as simple as that really.

ERG89

K-9 wrote: »

We have spent money, just on a lot of shyte.

It has been that way for 25 years unfortunately, and that's why the club has regularly under achieved.

It's as simple as that really.

The only thing I'd say is we rarely offer top wages & top players don't sacrifice pay to join any club no more

marklazarcovic

week left in this window yet,id be shocked if one more at least did not come in

sword1

marklazarcovic wrote: »

week left in this window yet,id be shocked if one more at least did not come in

You might be leaving also

Spending big on players isn't always the answer.

Getting the right players in is what matters.

We've spent big on a lot of players in the recent past through bad management and won **** all.

Gotta trust Klopp to do the job tbh

corwill

FC Sion in for Mario, according to Pearce. Still not close enough to the window shutting for something that to happen, imho.

Kerrigooney

sword1 wrote: »

Thread might quieten down for the rest of the week ,some of the negative Nellie's will be waiting for the next bad result, put down those keyboards!!!

How's that going for ya?

corwill

And Stoke looking at a Sakho loan, apparently. Meh.

marklazarcovic

sword1 wrote: »

You might be leaving also

cool,where ya sending me,better be nice

sword1

marklazarcovic wrote: »

cool,where ya sending me,better be nice

Italy is nice ,mind the earthquakes though

Talisman

Gary Lineker on meeting Liverpool boss Jurgen Klopp for The Premier League Show

The programme airs on BBC Two this Thursday at 22:00.

Pyjamarama

We've spent a fair whack this summer. Who that we've sold will we really miss? It doesn't matter what our net spend is really. That only counts when we're defending Rafa who had to sell to buy as opposed to Klopp who doesn't have to do that but its just working out this way.

I think part of the reason we aren't signing more players is that we've signed 4 players we expect to go straight into the first team. It takes time for players to settle, you try to bed more than that and you're in super duper rebuild mode. We don't need that to get top 4. The squad wasn't that bad to begin with. Signing a top cdm and left back might look great on paper but its more players with zero experience playing under Klopp, it would mean a team with 5-6 new players being bedded in. Thats not the way to have a successful season.

The simple fact is that right now we're not really in a position to challenge the two Manchester clubs, we have to be realistic about that. If we get top 4 this season with another year of players learning the system and then next season we buy 1-2 big signings we'll be in such a stronger position than just trying to go and fix all our problems in one season.

Take our problems from last year...

a) weak at the back - we sign a new keeper and two new cbs to strengthen the area.
b) lacking runners from midfield to help create space for forwards - we sign gini and drop Lalanna back
c) lack of cutting edge up top - Mane looks like he'll help that a lot

Now i'd rather we have bought a top class holding mid than Gini but Klopp made that decision and he obv did it for a reason. Maybe its cause he thinks Can and Lucas can do that job, sucks that both of them were injured to start the season but there's no point buying one just cause Can isn't fully fit.

BorneTobyWilde

We only bought one first team player, just one.
That's our biggest problem. Mane is making team and rightly so, the rest are meh.
Grujic is bench warmer regardless of fact Henderson has been so poor.
Wijnaldum , rather play Can.
We have not improved first team except for Mane. Even that cheap keeper has looked more dodgy than Mignolet.

BorneTobyWilde

We've not spent a dime if you take our sales into account, in fact we made money. So owners have invested zero in team, but made money this summer.

TitianGerm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

We only bought one first team player, just one.
That's our biggest problem. Mane is making team and rightly so, the rest are meh.
Grujic is bench warmer regardless of fact Henderson has been so poor.
Wijnaldum , rather play Can.
We have not improved first team except for Mane. Even that cheap keeper has looked more dodgy than Mignolet.

Karius and Matip will be starters.

Pyjamarama

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

We only bought one first team player, just one.
That's our biggest problem. Mane is making team and rightly so, the rest are meh.
Grujic is bench warmer regardless of fact Henderson has been so poor.
Wijnaldum , rather play Can.
We have not improved first team except for Mane. Even that cheap keeper has looked more dodgy than Mignolet.

Really?!? When was that? His one mistake in that friendly..?

BorneTobyWilde

emmetkenny wrote: »

Karius and Matip will be starters.

I looked in his eyes, nothing there. How did people not see that when they went to sign him.

NukaCola

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I looked in his eyes, nothing there. How did people not see that when they went to sign him.

Pull yourself together man......

TitianGerm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I looked in his eyes, nothing there. How did people not see that when they went to sign him.

I think you need a good look at yourself with some of the nonsense you post :P