Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

BorneTobyWilde

Liverpool got 150m pounds from TV deal and league position this season. We were on tv more than most. 29 of the 38 games. That is a lot of transfer money.

SuperTortoise

ricero wrote: »

paddy power has suspended betting on van dijk to lfc. I know it could be all pie in the sky but paddy power usually get it right

I've yet to be convinced by Van Dijk, but i trust Klopp.
Probably going to be in the 50m range...yikes!

BorneTobyWilde

ricero wrote: »

paddy power has suspended betting on van dijk to lfc. I know it could be all pie in the sky but paddy power usually get it right

We have a great relationship with Southampton, I can imagine the deal if there is one has been agreed in principal a long time ago.

BorneTobyWilde

SuperTortoise wrote: »

I've yet to be convinced by Van Dijk, but i trust Klopp.
Probably going to be in the 50m range...yikes!

Not a big deal if we sell 100m worth of dead wood.

Agent Coulson

Van Dijk also been out injured for the last 4 months I'd hate to see us spent ?50m on a player that isn't fully recovered and fit.


We've done enough of that in the past.

murpho999

ricero wrote: »

paddy power has suspended betting on van dijk to lfc. I know it could be all pie in the sky but paddy power usually get it right

Ah yes, remember the time all betting on Ribery to Liverpool was suspended?

murpho999

https://twitter.com/LFC/status/869101010488348673

As Hillsborough is commeorated by many on this forum I think it's also important to remember that today is the anniversary of Heysel.

A truly awful day.

murpho999

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Van Dijk also been out injured for the last 4 months I'd hate to see us spent ?50m on a player that isn't fully recovered and fit.


We've done enough of that in the past.

That's what a medical would resolve.

I would love to get him.

He's going to be top class.

NukaCola

All goals from last season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53xgzvCHhzQ

Morzadec

Having a little gander at Naby Keita's stats. They're impressive and back up the view of him as a very all round complete box to box central midfielder.

He has very high stats for what you would associate with a destroyer / defensive midfielder (tackles and interceptions). Not quite Kante level but not far off.

He still has a fairly high amount of goals and assists, and other key attacking metrics like key passes and dribbles (more dribbles per game than any other Liverpool player) to go along with this.

No single stat stands out but it's the combination of the defensive and attacking contributions that is very impressive. Looks like an "engine" player, a true all round centre mid who can break up the play and get forward and contribute to goals too.

Main downside I can see is that he's short so won't win many ariels.

I can see why the fee they're talking about is so high when you look at his stats last year.

May do a more detailed write up if it looks like he's coming!

Osmosis Jones

He's a lot more like Nainggolan than Kante. Also didn't realise he's only 22!

JimboJones99

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Van Dijk also been out injured for the last 4 months I'd hate to see us spent ?50m on a player that isn't fully recovered and fit.


We've done enough of that in the past.

I dont know why fans get too caught up about the transfer fees of players. We are fans not accountants. I'd prefer to see us sign someone like Van Dijk for £50m rather than us miss out on him because we only value him at £40m. Transfer fees are gone outrageous anyway and doesnt look like it will slow down anytime soon.

It is highly unlikely we could end up doing a Portsmouth and spending beyond our means so who cares what we pay for a player as long as we get them in. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

SuperTortoise

JimboJones99 wrote: »

I dont know why fans get too caught up about the transfer fees of players. We are fans not accountants. I'd prefer to see us sign someone like Van Dijk for £50m rather than us miss out on him because we only value him at £40m. Transfer fees are gone outrageous anyway and doesnt look like it will slow down anytime soon.

It is highly unlikely we could end up doing a Portsmouth and spending beyond our means so who cares what we pay for a player as long as we get them in. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

The long term future of the club is the most important aspect, never mind Portsmouth look at the mess Leeds are in, There was a post on here last year giving a fairly detailed look at our accounts, now i'm no rocket surgeon but my understanding was that we were turning only a small profit once the big money transfers are taken out of the equation, (Suarez, Sterling), the increase in tv money is more than cancelled out for the repayments on the new stand, so we're not rolling in it exactly.

Agent Coulson

JimboJones99 wrote: »

I dont know why fans get too caught up about the transfer fees of players. We are fans not accountants. I'd prefer to see us sign someone like Van Dijk for £50m rather than us miss out on him because we only value him at £40m. Transfer fees are gone outrageous anyway and doesnt look like it will slow down anytime soon.

It is highly unlikely we could end up doing a Portsmouth and spending beyond our means so who cares what we pay for a player as long as we get them in. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Yes highly unlikely but don't forget the club was very close to going into administration and doing just that 7 years ago.

As much as I want to club to sign everyone I don't want it mismanaged and that happening again.


Spending £50m on a player who has been out injured for months with no know return date could be seen as a risk.

sword1

JimboJones99 wrote: »

I dont know why fans get too caught up about the transfer fees of players. We are fans not accountants. I'd prefer to see us sign someone like Van Dijk for £50m rather than us miss out on him because we only value him at £40m. Transfer fees are gone outrageous anyway and doesnt look like it will slow down anytime soon.

It is highly unlikely we could end up doing a Portsmouth and spending beyond our means so who cares what we pay for a player as long as we get them in. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Because if we blow the budget when a better player becomes available we won't be able to buy them, it all comes out of the one pot, 10 million here and there adds up

rob316

Kieta, VVD, a top striker/wide forward like Mane and LB. I'd be very happy with that.

NukaCola

JimboJones99 wrote: »

I dont know why fans get too caught up about the transfer fees of players. We are fans not accountants. I'd prefer to see us sign someone like Van Dijk for £50m rather than us miss out on him because we only value him at £40m. Transfer fees are gone outrageous anyway and doesnt look like it will slow down anytime soon.

I think its more about having opinions than worrying about money. When we sign a player, the signing is discussed by looking at stats/performances and how much we paid. How did you feel about us buying Carroll for 35M for example?

I dont think anyone will lose any sleep if we pay 50M on a CB, but I think its valid to question it and discuss it.

54and56

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

dead wood.

What a horrible derogatory term to use to describe players of the club we support, I really hate it.

Of course some players will move on. Some are ageing and past their best and some (particularly the academy players) just haven't been able to rise to the required standard but to refer to them (or anyone trying their best) as "dead wood" is the polar opposite of what YNWA and the club ethos is supposed to be about.

ERG89

Je_suis_Jean wrote:

What a horrible derogatory term to use to describe players of the club we support, I really hate it.

Saying we'd get 100m from the players we sell was more insulting to me.

JimboJones99

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Yes highly unlikely but don't forget the club was very close to going into administration and doing just that 7 years ago.

As much as I want to club to sign everyone I don't want it mismanaged and that happening again.


Spending £50m on a player who has been out injured for months with no know return date could be seen as a risk.

I agree to a point but that was a different scenario, we were getting bled dry by 2 owners who couldn't care less. They weren't exactly spending a fortune on transfer fees so that isnt the reason why the club was in trouble. Would spending, lets say, £30m or £40m on a player out injured for months be any less of a risk??

sword1 wrote: »

Because if we blow the budget when a better player becomes available we won't be able to buy them, it all comes out of the one pot, 10 million here and there adds up

So what is our budget?? We will never know so you have to assume if they pay £50m for a player, that is what they have budgeted for. I doubt a player that we desperately want is suddenly going to become available and then we say we cant afford them because we overspent on another player. That would be an extreme lack of foresight.

NukaCola wrote: »

I think its more about having opinions than worrying about money. When we sign a player, the signing is discussed by looking at stats/performances and how much we paid. How did you feel about us buying Carroll for 35M for example?

I dont think anyone will lose any sleep if we pay 50M on a CB, but I think its valid to question it and discuss it.

I get that it is a great point for discussions but I dont know why some people get so caught up with it. All transfer fees are crazy at the minute so how can it be accurately judged. I hear some people say no way I'd pay that much money for a certain player but then complain when other clubs are buying players that we aren't.

As for Carroll, of course he was a waste on money at £35m, he would also still have been a waste on money if we spent £20m. Likewise with Mane, he was a great signing at £34m, the same way he would have been a great signing if we spent £50m.

Agent Coulson

JimboJones99 wrote: »

I agree to a point but that was a different scenario, we were getting bled dry by 2 owners who didn't care less. They weren't exactly spending a fortune on transfer fees so taht isnt the reason why the club was in trouble. Would spending, lets say, £30m or £40m on a player out injured for months be any less of a risk??.

Of course that is That is what I am saying I would rather not by a player who is out injured for months with no know return date at any price.


We spent a club record on Andy Carroll when he was returning from injury and that was a proven waste.

We spent close to a club record on Benteke who wasn't fully recovered from an injury and that turned into a wasted season for him and the club and he isn't the same player since that injury and that what signing players with injures can be like they may never return to the same level they were at.


If we spend money on VVD and he isn't recovered till next Christmas all we will hear why didn't we buy someone fit.


Buy fit players that are ready to go and if they get injured playing for us so be it but don't be buying injured players.

sword1

As for Carroll, of course he was a waste on money at £35m, he would also still have been a waste on money if we spent £20m. Likewise with Mane, he was a great signing at £34m, the same way he would have been a great signing if we spent £50m.[/QUOTE]

If we paid 50 million for mane we might not have been able to spend 25 million for wjnaldum so it would not have been as good a transfer for the club

charolais0153

Koulibaly anybody, would suit our high line much better than vvd

JimboJones99

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Of course that is That is what I am saying I would rather not by a player who is out injured for months with no know return date.


We spent a club record on Andy Carroll when he was returning from injury and that was a proven waste.

We spent close to a club record on Benteke who wasn't fully recovered from an injury and that turned into a wasted season for him and the club.


If we spend money on VVD and he isn't recovered till next Christmas all we will hear why didn't we buy someone fit.


Buy fit players that are ready to go and if they get injured playing for us so be but don't be buying injured players.

Fair enough, I focused in on the transfer fee part rather than your point about injuries.

My point about transfer fees was purely based on people complaining about why we are paying so much for a player.

mikeym

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Van Dijk also been out injured for the last 4 months I'd hate to see us spent ?50m on a player that isn't fully recovered and fit.


We've done enough of that in the past.

He is a decent player but he is injured at the moment.

I dont like buying injured players either.

JimboJones99

sword1 wrote: »

As for Carroll, of course he was a waste on money at £35m, he would also still have been a waste on money if we spent £20m. Likewise with Mane, he was a great signing at £34m, the same way he would have been a great signing if we spent £50m.

If we paid 50 million for mane we might not have been able to spend 25 million for wjnaldum so it would not have been as good a transfer for the club[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but you don't know that. You just have to assume that the club have detailed plans regarding transfers and budgets and they just are not going to decide f**k it, blow everything on Mane and dont worry about a decent central midfielder.

I'm sure there are loads of players that we could have signed if we offered an extra £10m but decided not to. My point is if the club buy a player for £50m, I can only assume they have budgeted for it and Klopp knows the consequences of doing so i.e potentially missing out on another player by paying so much.

But we as fans we will never know, maybe they still had £20m left over from last years budget but just couldn't get deals done for players they wanted. We'll never know so why get too caught up in it?

garra

JimboJones99 wrote: »

I dont know why fans get too caught up about the transfer fees of players. We are fans not accountants. I'd prefer to see us sign someone like Van Dijk for £50m rather than us miss out on him because we only value him at £40m. Transfer fees are gone outrageous anyway and doesnt look like it will slow down anytime soon.

It is highly unlikely we could end up doing a Portsmouth and spending beyond our means so who cares what we pay for a player as long as we get them in. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Maybe you have no interest in the club getting value in the transfer market, personally I am interested in off field matters such as transfers... obvously not as much as I am interested in watching the team play football but still interested.

If you are a fan of Liverpool and are not discouraged by the ridiculous fees paid for the likes of Andy Carroll in the past, then you probably dont care about the club spunking its load on an injured defender.

Fair play to you, ignorance is bliss and its someone else's money I suppose. But if we "miss out on him", who is to say we are not dodging a bullet in terms of his fitness?
If we move quickly and risk a "watered down" fitness test & offer 10m more for him than other clubs, that 10m is now not available to Klopp to buy a young left-back or similar.

JimboJones99

garra wrote: »

Maybe you have no interest in the club getting value in the transfer market, personally I am interested in off field matters such as transfers... obvously not as much as I am interested in watching the team play football but still interested.

If you are a fan of Liverpool and are not discouraged by the ridiculous fees paid for the likes of Andy Carroll in the past, then you probably dont care about the club spunking its load on an injured defender.

Fair play to you, ignorance is bliss and its someone else's money I suppose. But if we "miss out on him", who is to say we are not dodging a bullet in terms of his fitness?
If we move quickly and risk a "watered down" fitness test & offer 10m more for him than other clubs, that 10m is now not available to Klopp to buy a young left-back or similar.

I have already said in a previous post I wasn't focusing on the injuries part. I agree that I wouldnt want us to sign a player with injury problems for any money. I get that when I entered the conversation it was about paying £50m for a currently injured defender. I am making my argument on the basis that he will fully recover and that we wouldn't spend any money on a player who is a long term injury risk.

The point I am trying to make is about transfer fees in general. Of course I would prefer that we got value in the market but I would prefer even more to get players like Van Dijk in, ahead of rivals, and take my chances that he will turn out to be top class rather than mediocre instead of being afraid to overpay for a player as long as the money is there and the manager is happy with the effect it may have on remaining budgets. I can only assume this is currently the case.

No I am not discouraged about paying big transfer fees, I would be more discouraged about our scouting system if we continue to pay big fees for players that do not preform or don't fit our system or style. Because we have been bitten in the past with large fees should we stop paying them?? Cant see us regularly challenging for the title and competing in Europe anytime soon if that's case.

Every transfer is a risk and we obviously haven't always "dodged the bullet" but the same can be said for every club. If the club take a chance on an injured player with a watered down fitness test then that is obviously crazy. But again I am only assuming if they spend an extra £10m on a player, Klopp will have sanctioned it and happy with the consequences of it

J Mysterio

D'Agger wrote: »

The truth hurts, eggball w@anker

I spat my coffee everywhere. Thanks.

Osmosis Jones

With the way the play-off is going we could easily be looking at another penalty shootout for Danny Ward.

DrumSteve

Lads I couldn't care less what we pay for players, it's not my money.

If the club can afford it (and relatively speaking we are drowning in scrooge mcduck levels of money at the moment) I dont see the issue.

martyos121

Huddersfield are going up! Well done Danny Ward and David Wagner.

mosstin

martyos121 wrote: »

Huddersfield are going up! Well done Danny Ward and David Wagner.

And Danny Ward with the crucial save. Hope we keep him there next season and see how he fares.

Talisman

Delighted for Ward.

martyos121

mosstin wrote: »

And Danny Ward with the crucial save. Hope we keep him there next season and see how he fares.

Yeah he looks a promising keeper and considering Mignolet is only now hitting his prime at 29, Ward has potentially another five or six years of improving to do. I'd like to see Karius stick around next season though and give Danny one more year at Huddersfield, both of them have big potential but with Mig as the undisputed number one now, only one can stay in the long-term.

klose

Quite a couple of seasons for ward, gets his premier league debut, starts a game for wales in the euros and is the hero in two penalty shootouts for Huddersfield to go up to the premier league.

Bowlardo

Van dijk is worth every penny of that 50 million. He has everything we need and is a leader. If we buy him he is certain to be a success. Id we get 25 million for sakho(and we will) then van dijk is a no brainer for me. Anyone saying otherwise is pretty silly. We are champions league now there is no need to be ****ing around with the keanes and maguires of this world.

jcsoulinger

Bowlardo wrote: »

Van dijk is worth every penny of that 50 million. He has everything we need and is a leader. If we buy him he is certain to be a success. Id we get 25 million for sakho(and we will) then van dijk is a no brainer for me. Anyone saying otherwise is pretty silly. We are champions league now there is no need to be ****ing around with the keanes and maguires of this world.

Only certainty in life is death, I'm all for us spending 50 million on him regardless of what we get for Sakho, but there is no guarantee it will be money well spent.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Bowlardo wrote: »

Van dijk is worth every penny of that 50 million. He has everything we need and is a leader. If we buy him he is certain to be a success. Id we get 25 million for sakho(and we will) then van dijk is a no brainer for me. Anyone saying otherwise is pretty silly. We are champions league now there is no need to be ****ing around with the keanes and maguires of this world.

Ah, no, we're not.

We have a two legged tie to win first before we qualify for the CL.

And that win isn't guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination.

martyos121

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Ah, no, we're not.

We have a two legged tie to win first before we qualify for the CL.

And that win isn't guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination.

Did you not hear him? We are Champions League, it sounds pretty cut and dry to me. No way they'll make us compete for our place if we are the competition itself.

RainMakerToo

we are Champions League, tra la la la...

Jesus Wept

sword1 wrote: »

As for Carroll, of course he was a waste on money at £35m, he would also still have been a waste on money if we spent £20m. Likewise with Mane, he was a great signing at £34m, the same way he would have been a great signing if we spent £50m.

If we paid 50 million for mane we might not have been able to spend 25 million for wjnaldum so it would not have been as good a transfer for the club[/QUOTE]

Wrong on Andy.

~Rebel~

Good news for us that Huddersfield got up I think... perfect option to send a few loanees to. Not too far from Liverpool, similar footballing philosophy, and Wagner and Klopp being best buddies.

Umaro

You would think Ward's loan deal will be renewed - great experience for him and it saves Wagner from having to gamble and buy a new keeper.

Also, saw a few suggestions on Twitter that Huddersfield could be a good spot to send Ings on loan as well next season. He needs to get a full season under his belt after all those injuries.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Is there a limit on how many players can go on loan to the same team?

Colemania

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Is there a limit on how many players can go on loan to the same team?

Think it might be 3 for the premiership and also I think only 3 long term loans are only allowed each season also, regardless of which clubs they're loaned from

BorneTobyWilde

ERG89 wrote: »

Saying we'd get 100m from the players we sell was more insulting to me.

I'd want 65m just for Sakho and Sturridge .
Then we have
Moreno
Lucas
Klavan
Ings
Stewart
Markovic
Flanagan
Randall
Wisdom
Bogdan
Players that need to be moved on, they'd make more than 35m combined.

54and56

Klopp and Wagner could be very useful to each other next season in terms of sharing info on opponents which could pay significant dividends for us e.g. if what would otherwise be losses for Huddersfield against other top 6 teams can be turned into draws because Klopp can feed Wagner info from when we played that team it will have a very positive impact for Huddersfield and potentially for us also!!

SuperTortoise

DrumSteve wrote: »

Lads I couldn't care less what we pay for players, it's not my money.

If the club can afford it (and relatively speaking we are drowning in scrooge mcduck levels of money at the moment) I dont see the issue.

I look at it as if it were my money!, and it sort of is, at least a tiny fraction, i'm a paid member and i buy the shirts, not every year but i do contribute to the LFC balance sheet with maybe 100 euro or so, so therefore i want value for money, i want us to win the league and i want us to be financially sustainable going into the future.

Not all those things are possible, but there needs to be a balance.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.buzz.ie/football/simpsoncarragher-twitter-spat-erupts-239826