Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

Buford T. Justice XIX

redzerdrog wrote: »

We know Joe was not up to the required standard, we are yet to find out if Wijnaldum is or isn't but at least it is possible

I think one of the huge plus points in that transfer is the near certainty that Wijnaldum will score more goals in a season than Allen in a midfield that is sorely deficient in goal scoring.

Harry Palmr

BullBlackNova wrote: »

So that's Luis Alberto and Andre Wisdom gone, Mario Balotelli shuffling towards the door (I bet he f*cking trips and unplugs the fax machine...)

Lazar Markovic linked with Sporting and Newcastle, but nothing materialising yet.

Mamadou Sakho rejecting loan bids from Stoke, WBA and Besiktas.

Tiago Ilori the subject of loan bids from two sides but the club want a permanent deal so he looks set to stay in the reserves for the season (Daily Mail reporting that one).

Is that everyone?

Looks like it though talk suggests Markovic may stay rather than leave.

Gbear

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I think one of the huge plus points in that transfer is the near certainty that Wijnaldum will score more goals in a season than Allen in a midfield that is sorely deficient in goal scoring.

Our record at home under Klopp in the league was awful last year - 6 wins from 15 games.
Even if the Newcastle fans are correct and he's just a flat-track bully for home games, we need those, so that's grand.

Agent Coulson

Markovic & llori will end up staying I'd bet.

Gbear

murpho999 wrote: »

I disagreed with the poster saying that the window has been mediocre which it hasn’t as we have some upgrades. However, I have suggested in the past that FSG are not investing in the team as they should despite the record revenues from TV this season but I got shot down here.

“They saved the club”
“They paid off the debt”
“They built a new stand”
“They signed Klopp”
“Klopp doesn’t want bigger signings”

All rubbish, they are making a lot of money out of their £300m investment, which despite what many people think, included the debts. They now have a club worth over a £1bn.

They have now given us a negative net spend transfer window this summer which is shocking. Not one world class player chased after and I refuse to believe that Klopp would refuse to have one in the squad like many posters here say.

FSG have done a great job into convincing people that the 9th wealthiest club in the world has no money and cannot afford to compete, it’s totally bizarre.

They're perfectly entitled to make money by increasing the value of their asset.
They win. We win. Win win.

The issue is if they're actively taking money out of the club. There is no evidence that that is the case or ever has been.

They've happily spent £30m-£40m a season up until this point.
We've had it from the horses mouth that there's money still available and that Klopp is electing not to spend it.
We have no reason to doubt his sincerity. He has a track record of candour and forthrightness.

FSG have done nothing to spread the delusion that we have no money to spend.
However, you'd need to be innumerate to think we can keep pace with the top 3 in this league and even Arsenal, if they had a mind to spend the money they're hoarding.

It's a straw man to say being out of the CL is a deal breaker.
There are many push and pull factors.
While we too have no Europe, we also have no track record of recent success, we have nothing like the level of quality, the spending power, the wage bill.

The league champions and Spurs, who've consistently finished above us - have they signed loads of world class players with their CL spots?
Top players don't want to take gambles like this and like Leicester and to an even greater degree than Spurs, we're a huge gamble.

Turtyturd

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Balotelli to Nice for 3.75m with sell on clause apparently.

That's the best bit of business....

Agent Coulson

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Balotelli to Nice for 3.75m with sell on clause apparently.

Disappointed there is no buyback clause

murpho999

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Utd are the richest club in the world and have been blowing money for fun over the last 3 seasons to prove it.

Chelsea have bought what 2 players this summer.

To say Liverpool don't spend money in the transfer market is wrong FSG have spent to guts of half a billion on players since they arrived most of those players have been the wrong players and now we have a manager who wants to buy the right players and and people give out FSG still can't win.

There's no way FSG have pumped half a billion into the club. Most purchases have been funded by sales.
They lost the run of themselves in 2011 with Torres/Carroll and that £35m on Carroll 5 years ago remains the club record signing. That is wrong when you look at how the market has changed.

I think it's fair to say that Liverpool could be competing for one World class player in the last few seasons but it hasn't happened.

ricero

Have to say im delighted that sakho looks like staying and that lucas is staying as his experiance and cover will be key i feel.

Nerdlingr

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Yes, I saw the game, thanks. I saw one bad mistake by Milner and an equally bad one by Clyne.

Milner is gonna be under the spotlight more but people should be fair when talking about that Spurs game as Clyne's ball watching for the goal was probably worse than Milner's error imo.

You've also got to give the fella a run of games there before getting on his back.

Clyne ball watching ? He had to cover the run of lamela to get in front of him from getting a clean header at goal. He can hardly cover the left mid and left back on his own.

No-one is getting on milner's back. Its not a personal attack on the player. He's a midfielder being asked to play in a totally alien position. But the fans have a right to question why the LB position hasnt been addressed properly since it has been a problem area for so long now.

Just like we continued to persevere with an inadequate LB in the slight hope he might improve, persevering with a right footed midfielder 'filling in' at LB can only spell trouble imo.

murpho999

Gbear wrote: »

They're perfectly entitled to make money by increasing the value of their asset.
They win. We win. Win win.

The issue is if they're actively taking money out of the club. There is no evidence that that is the case or ever has been.

They've happily spent £30m-£40m a season up until this point.
We've had it from the horses mouth that there's money still available and that Klopp is electing not to spend it.
We have no reason to doubt his sincerity. He has a track record of candour and forthrightness.

FSG have done nothing to spread the delusion that we have no money to spend.
However, you'd need to be innumerate to think we can keep pace with the top 3 in this league and even Arsenal, if they had a mind to spend the money they're hoarding.

It's a straw man to say being out of the CL is a deal breaker.
There are many push and pull factors.
While we too have no Europe, we also have no track record of recent success, we have nothing like the level of quality, the spending power, the wage bill.

The league champions and Spurs, who've consistently finished above us - have they signed loads of world class players with their CL spots?
Top players don't want to take gambles like this and like Leicester and to an even greater degree than Spurs, we're a huge gamble.

This bit is not true though is it? We've won feck all. One league cup and one competitive league season. Very poor return.

How is that Win Win?

Gbear

murpho999 wrote: »

This bit is not true though is it? We've won feck all. One league cup and one competitive league season. Very poor return.

How is that Win Win?

The issue is on the football end of things - not on how tightly the purse strings are being held or how well our club has been developed financially.
Don't be so obtuse. A win-win doesn't only pertain to winning trophies.
It was a comment on how developing the value of the club as an asset has positive effects for both the owners and the club.
We have more money than before. We've failed to spend it efficiently but that's a separate issue.

You need an edge to win.
Spending money can't be our edge because we can't match other teams.
It is for a club like Utd. They've blundered along, spending nearly half a billion net in a few years in a completely haphazard fashion and have eventually got to the point where they look like challengers.

We have to be some combination of better coached, better managed, more efficient in our spending, more lucky, more patient or whatever.

murpho999

Gbear wrote: »

The issue is on the football end of things - not on how tightly the purse strings are being held or how well our club has been developed financially.
Don't be so obtuse. A win-win doesn't only pertain to winning trophies.
It was a comment on how developing the value of the club as an asset has positive effects for both the owners and the club.
We have more money than before. We've failed to spend it efficiently but that's a separate issue.

You need an edge to win.
Spending money can't be our edge because we can't match other teams.
It is for a club like Utd. They've blundered along, spending nearly half a billion net in a few years in a completely haphazard fashion and have eventually got to the point where they look like challengers.

We have to be some combination of better coached, better managed, more efficient in our spending, more lucky, more patient or whatever.

In 10 years time when FSG will most likely be gone, and people look back at the club record of 2010 -2016, could it be looked at as a success.

One trophy, one top 4 finish, other seasons finishing around 6th-8th place.
This from owners who said they are here to win.

It will be looked at as a dismal failure. Nobody will look at the balance sheet looks or new stands.

I'm not saying that we should be spending money like Utd but in the 5 years that have passed since Andy Carroll was signed, wouldn't you have expected the transfer record to have been broken since?

Shouldn't Suarez have been replaced with a World class player?

Have we had a world class signing since Suarez? I would say no.

To have a net negative spend this summer to me is evidence of them withholding funds and Klopp is just toeing the party line. It all works out very convenient that people believe that Klopp would not want big signings.

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

There's no way FSG have pumped half a billion into the club.

It's actually a net spend of £163.3m which is the 4th highest in the PL.



Taken from http://anfieldindex.com/22995/fsg-failed-deliver.html

Gbear

murpho999 wrote: »

In 10 years time when FSG will most likely be gone, and people look back at the club record of 2010 -2016, could it be looked at as a success.

One trophy, one top 4 finish, other seasons finishing around 6th-8th place.
This from owners who said they are here to win.

It will be looked at as a dismal failure. Nobody will look at the balance sheet looks or new stands.

I'm not saying that we should be spending money like Utd but in the 5 years that have passed since Andy Carroll was signed, wouldn't you have expected the transfer record to have been broken since?

Shouldn't Suarez have been replaced with a World class player?

Have we had a world class signing since Suarez? I would say no.

To have a net negative spend this summer to me is evidence of them withholding funds and Klopp is just toeing the party line. It all works out very convenient that people believe that Klopp would not want big signings.

Nobody will look at the balance sheet but that's what we were discussing.
They're not bleeding the club dry.
Their competency is perhaps questionable but their commitment isn't.

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

To have a net negative spend this summer to me is evidence of them withholding funds and Klopp is just toeing the party line. It all works out very convenient that people believe that Klopp would not want big signings.

It's a straight choice here murpho999. Either you're wearing a tinfoil hat promoting a conspiracy theory that Klopp hasn't a shred of integrity and is lying through his teeth in order to keep FSG happy and collect his wages or the reality is that just like he did at Dortmund (before he had even heard of FSG) he is following his preferred method of operation and buying in players who he feels he can coach to play the way he wants them to rather than finished article type players who he doesn't feel will adapt to his style of management and the way he wants to play.

Which is it I wonder?

Sappy404

The negative net spend is more due to the sale of poor purchases and fringe players than any FSG policy. It doesn't mean the quality of the squad hasn't improved.

We're lucky that the likes of Benteke, Ibe, Allen, Skrtel and Smith were all sold for considerably more than most would say they were worth, and that we bought Mane when we did. If we'd bought him this week he'd have cost north of £45m, easily.

There's also the not insignificant factor of the lack of European football. We don't need to replace all of the players we're selling.

murpho999

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

It's a straight choice here murpho999. Either you're wearing a tinfoil hat promoting a conspiracy theory that Klopp hasn't a shred of integrity and is lying through his teeth in order to keep FSG happy and collect his wages or the reality is that just like he did at Dortmund (before he had even heard of FSG) he is following his preferred method of operation and buying in players who he feels he can coach to play the way he wants them to rather than finished article type players who he doesn't feel will adapt to his style of management and the way he wants to play.

Which is it I wonder?

No tin foil hat but Klopp is employed by FSG and part of the club management team so I would not expect him to come out and tell the world that he's not being funded.

I think he could lie through his teeth at a press conference and still keep his integrity. He works for the club not the media or fans.

I refuse to believe that Klopp would not want a class player such as Kante, Ibrahimovic etc in his team.

murpho999

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

It's actually a net spend of £163.3m which is the 4th highest in the PL.



Taken from http://anfieldindex.com/22995/fsg-failed-deliver.html

So as I said, FSG have not pumped half a billion into the club.

Harry Palmr

Further to earlier.

Telegraph Football
✔
@TeleFootball

Liverpool sell Luis Alberto to Lazio for £4.7m, with 30% sell-on clause #LFC #DeadlineDay http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/08/31/liverpool-transfer-deadline-day-live-balotelli-in-france-to-comp/ …
4:31 PM - 31 Aug 2016

7 7 Retweets
2

Sell on clauses all round at Liverpool these days, a good policy. It served QPR well.

Harry Palmr

murpho999 wrote: »

So as I said, FSG have not pumped half a billion into the club.

You forgot the Main Stand! 150m give or take.

super_furry

Harry Palmr wrote: »

You forgot the Main Stand! 150m give or take.

In fairness, that's like painting a house before you put it on the market.

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

I think he could lie through his teeth at a press conference and still keep his integrity.

Enough said.

murpho999

Harry Palmr wrote: »

You forgot the Main Stand! 150m give or take.

A capital investment that will return extra revenues. A no-brainer.

murpho999

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Enough said.

It's true, he does not have to reveal everything to the media.

54and56

super_furry wrote: »

In fairness, that's like painting a house before you put it on the market.

Seriously? I'd say it's more like putting on a £114m extension rather than a lick of paint.

BTW, how much do you spend painting your house?

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

It's true, he does not have to reveal everything to the media.

Your use of the word "true" to justify how someone lying to the public (the media are only a conduit for what he says) is beyond ironic.

Je_suis_Jean

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

It's a straight choice here murpho999. Either you're wearing a tinfoil hat promoting a conspiracy theory that Klopp hasn't a shred of integrity and is lying through his teeth in order to keep FSG happy and collect his wages ...............


or the reality is that just like he did at Dortmund (before he had even heard of FSG) he is following his preferred method of operation and buying in players who he feels he can coach to play the way he wants them to rather than finished article type players who he doesn't feel will adapt to his style of management and the way he wants to play.

Which is it I wonder?

There's huge scope for the truth to be somewhere in between both of the scenarios you describe.

murpho999

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Your use of the word "true" to justify how someone lying to the public (the media are only a conduit for what he says) is beyond ironic.

No it's not.

The majority of managers would lie at press conferences. Why would you not expect that?

5starpool

Gbear wrote: »

Giving him time means support, so like I said a few days ago, he has that near unanimously.

There's a long-term game we're not privy to here.
If Klopp is going for some kind of slam-dunk at LB then overcomitting to players in that position now wouldn't make sense.
Fair enough.

But it feels like there's a pragmatic compromise to be had there.
We're a bit more sensitive to this than others might be or we would be if it was at RB.
We tend to play with very little width on the left and nobody in the squad seems capable of providing it.
Even so, it's probably not the end of the world, but I don't think we're ultimately a great side overall, I think we're very vulnerable to injuries to Mane and Can in particular and leaving something to chance like this just frustrates me immensely.

My sense is that we have among the worst LB options in the top 12. We don't need to have the best, but I don't think anything negative would come from addressing the position in some way.

Sadly I don't speak for Jurgen Klopp, but I would guess that he is happy that we are gaining more than we are losing from our LB options. Personally I can't understand it myself, but I'm not foaming at the mouth about it either (not saying you are).

Maybe there are financial constraints placed on him that no one is talking about, maybe he is stubborn, maybe he believes differently to nearly everyone else, who knows.

54and56

Augeo wrote: »

There's huge scope for the truth to be somewhere in between both of the scenarios you describe.

Not really. He's either lying about not wanting to sign (for example) a LB or not. You can't be a little bit pregnant.

DaveSuarez

Arbeloa heading to West Ham, would of been a decent pick up for a season as cover on both sides but sure **** it we'll just carry on with 2 senior fullbacks in the squad. Be grand

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

No it's not.

The majority of managers would lie at press conferences. Why would you not expect that?

And those that do have lost their integrity. You're saying you can be a liar and at the same time retain your integrity.

Also, if your hypothesis is true it implies Klopp signed a new 6 year contract in the full knowledge that FSG would not be providing him with the funds he wants to invest in players.

Do you also believe that to be true or will your comeback be some other makey uppey theory that FSG somehow pulled the wool over Klopps eyes and as soon as he'd signed the new contract they withdrew whatever spending promises they'd made to him and he's playing along? Really?

murpho999

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

And those that do have lost their integrity. You're saying you can be a liar and at the same time retain your integrity.

Also, if your hypothesis is true it implies Klopp signed a new 6 year contract in the full knowledge that FSG would not be providing him with the funds he wants to invest in players.

Do you also believe that to be true or will your comeback be some other makey uppey theory that FSG somehow pulled the wool over Klopps eyes and as soon as he'd signed the new contract they withdrew whatever spending promises they'd made to him and he's playing along? Really?

You're judging lying as black and white.

If Klopp has a meeting with FSG/Transfer committee or whoever and is told that that there are now funds there for players over £40m or no funds to replace Moreno, I would not expect details of that to be spouted to the media by the manager.

Those details of internal meetings should never come out so if a manager lies to the media by saying he's happy with what he has them he is not losing his integrity but protecting his role and his employers.

Dickerty

DaveSuarez wrote: »

Arbeloa heading to West Ham, would of been a decent pick up for a season as cover on both sides but sure **** it we'll just carry on with 2 senior fullbacks in the squad. Be grand

Milner is as good an option as him, IMO. Dunno why keep p*ssing over that option, he's played in pretty much even outfield position, he's well able...

hefferboi

Right lads we're not signing a fckuing left back so get over it.

BullBlackNova

#signreus

martyos121

BullBlackNova wrote: »

#signreus

We're not signing a fcuking left back!











:pac:

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

Those details of internal meetings should never come out so if a manager lies to the media by saying he's happy with what he has them he is not losing his integrity but to protecting his role and his employers.

Fixed that for ya

Lying, regardless of the motivation is lying.

Integrity and lying are mutually exclusive.

Bottom line is you have an unsubstantiated theory that says Klopp is unhappy that FSG are not allowing him spend big on players when he actually wants to but he has accepted that, signed a new 6 year contract and is lying to everyone by saying he doesn't actually want to buy any expensive players.

I call total and utter BS.

~Rebel~

murpho999 wrote: »

In 10 years time when FSG will most likely be gone, and people look back at the club record of 2010 -2016, could it be looked at as a success.

One trophy, one top 4 finish, other seasons finishing around 6th-8th place.
This from owners who said they are here to win.

It will be looked at as a dismal failure. Nobody will look at the balance sheet looks or new stands.

That just means they've lost any sense of realism.

For a lot of people, liverpool is this fantasy land entertainment source. The people who don't understand that it's an actual bricks and mortar entity that can go out of business from mismanagement or recession just the same as your local textile factory.

I frankly don't give a toss about the opinions of someone who doesn't understand that Liverpool were on the brink of collapse before FSG took over. Where many many other clubs in our position folded under their own bloated weight and dropped down, we actually held firm, got our feet under us and gained real, genuine financial stability. Sure, some people will always act like children, always demanding more shiny things, but that doesn't make them right.

A real title run, and 4 finals winning one isn't big time massive success, but given the circumstances and level of competition it's not bloody bad.

~Rebel~

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Doesn't mean he can't either.

People seem to be making up their minds before he's even had a run there.

Look, I'm not 100% sure this will work out, nor can anyone else be 100% sure that it won't.

But Klopp feels confident that it will so that's good enough for me, we shall see in time.

Y'know, you're right, it could all work out, and I really hope it does.

But i'll never be happy with a window which ends while we're 3 games into the season, without knowing that we have a solid option in every position. Hoping isn't good enough. But alas it's all we have now.

Vanolder

Xabi Alonso deal looks done.

DrumSteve

Vanolder wrote: »

Xabi Alonso deal looks done.

For who?

corwill

Vanolder wrote: »

Xabi Alonso deal looks done.

Kerrigooney

Harry Palmr wrote: »

You forgot the Main Stand! 150m give or take.

A loan that will have to be paid back.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Kerrigooney wrote: »

A loan that will have to be paid back.

Aye, but FSG aren't Glazer-like(or G&H), sucking funds out of the club to pay for the club. They put in their own money but they expect the club to be able to pay its own way in transfers, wages, repaying loans for capital expenditure etc.

We are able to stand on our own two feet now, with a bigger stand, more commercial revenues, a top class manager with mostly his own squad.

FSG may sell us on or they may sell off a portion to recoup their investment and I have little problem with them doing that (depends on who the buyer is).

That financial stability alone is some comfort compared to the abyss we were looking at under the two deluded yanks that owned us before.

~Rebel~

Kerrigooney wrote: »

A loan that will have to be paid back.

An interest-free loan with no fixed deadline. That can't be underestimated. Again looking outside football's surreal alternate world, that sort of deal makes a huge difference and doesn't come about very often aside from charitable circumstances. Just look at the massive interest costs that Arsenal were faced with on their stadium development, or even just the loan arrangement - a massive convoluted 30 year bond scheme. On the other hand, FSG just gave us the money, in full, up front, with no financial strings.

Back under Hicks and Gilette, every penny we earned went into interest payments without ever even beginning to nibble into the actual hundreds of millions of debt.

NukaCola

https://twitter.com/JamesPearceEcho/status/771055596716064768

Looks like no fee in the end....

Grayditch

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be Nice.

Kerrigooney

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Aye, but FSG aren't Glazer-like(or G&H), sucking funds out of the club to pay for the club. They put in their own money but they expect the club to be able to pay its own way in transfers, wages, repaying loans for capital expenditure etc.

We are able to stand on our own two feet now, with a bigger stand, more commercial revenues, a top class manager with mostly his own squad.

FSG may sell us on or they may sell off a portion to recoup their investment and I have little problem with them doing that (depends on who the buyer is).

That financial stability alone is some comfort compared to the abyss we were looking at under the two deluded yanks that owned us before.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

An interest-free loan with no fixed deadline. That can't be underestimated. Again looking outside football's surreal alternate world, that sort of deal makes a huge difference and doesn't come about very often aside from charitable circumstances. Just look at the massive interest costs that Arsenal were faced with on their stadium development, or even just the loan arrangement - a massive convoluted 30 year bond scheme. On the other hand, FSG just gave us the money, in full, up front, with no financial strings.

Back under Hicks and Gilette, every penny we earned went into interest payments without ever even beginning to nibble into the actual hundreds of millions of debt.

I agree with both of you and actually have no problem with FSG. I appreciate what they have done and continue to do for the club but a couple of times I've seen it mentioned they are paying for the new stand and that's not really true,is it?