Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

garra

Interesting piece on new Chief Executive of club. It's a curious juxtaposition of belief systems for a Liverpool born lad to stand on the Kop as kid in the 1950's and cherish the socialist leanings of the club and city, to become a renowned business leader in the states and then for his life & career to come full circle and for him to return to the club as CE. At least no one can say he doesn't "get" the spirit of the club.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40115067

dogbert27

If it was the case that Klopp only wants to sign players that want to sign for Liverpool isn't Salah turning us down for Chelsea a good reason not to buy him!

21 years old would rather sign for Chelsea to be a squad player on ?40,000 a week instead of being a first team player with Liverpool.

Realised after signing that Chelsea screwed him over just to screw Liverpool over so he goes off on loan to a few clubs finally leaves Chelsea signs with Italian club and going nowhere now wants to join Liverpool as he knows he'll never be making to the likes of Real Madrid or Barcelona or Bayern Munich.

The guy is not worth ?40,000,000.

Plus he's Egyptian so we'd be losing both our wingers to the African Nations Cup again!!

ThunbergsAreGo

dogbert27 wrote: »

If it was the case that Klopp only wants to sign players that want to sign for Liverpool isn't Salah turning us down for Chelsea a good reason not to buy him!

21 years old would rather sign for Chelsea to be a squad player on ?40,000 a week instead of being a first team player with Liverpool.

Realised after signing that Chelsea screwed him over just to screw Liverpool over so he goes off on loan to a few clubs finally leaves Chelsea signs with Italian club and going nowhere now wants to join Liverpool as he knows he'll never be making to the likes of Real Madrid or Barcelona or Bayern Munich.

The guy is not worth ?40,000,000.

Plus he's Egyptian so we'd be losing both our wingers to the African Nations Cup again!!

He didn't sign as a squad player, he would have believed he would play

dogbert27

naughtb4 wrote: »

He didn't sign as a squad player, he would have believed he would play

He was going in against Willian, Oscar, Ramires, Schurrle and Hazard for an attacking midfield role.

Who did he think he was really going to be replacing in those five as an automatic starter?

Buford T. Justice XIX

dogbert27 wrote: »

If it was the case that Klopp only wants to sign players that want to sign for Liverpool isn't Salah turning us down for Chelsea a good reason not to buy him!

21 years old would rather sign for Chelsea to be a squad player on ?40,000 a week instead of being a first team player with Liverpool.

Realised after signing that Chelsea screwed him over just to screw Liverpool over so he goes off on loan to a few clubs finally leaves Chelsea signs with Italian club and going nowhere now wants to join Liverpool as he knows he'll never be making to the likes of Real Madrid or Barcelona or Bayern Munich.

The guy is not worth ?40,000,000.

Plus he's Egyptian so we'd be losing both our wingers to the African Nations Cup again!!

If he signs, grand, but I won't be celebrating his signing or playing.

He had his chance and followed the money, the big bucket of meh!

dogbert27

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

If he signs, grand, but I won't be celebrating his signing or playing.

He had his chance and followed the money, the big bucket of meh!

He had a habit of scoring against Chelsea, we could have done with him playing in red at Anfield that year!! :mad:

He's a left footed winger so ticks a box for us but yeah as you say, meh.

Osmosis Jones

Couldn't give a fcuk if he didn't want to sign for us 3 years ago, he's a fantastic player right now and one we desperately need.

Riesen_Meal

Truth is we low balled last time around, Chelsea flexed their financial muscle, and we lost out...

At least we didn't buy him, sell him and buy him back for 89 million...

dogbert27

Fieldog wrote: »

At least we didn't buy him, sell him and buy him back for 89 million...

Ah come on, no club in their right mind would be that stupid......

dogbert27

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Couldn't give a fcuk if he didn't want to sign for us 3 years ago, he's a fantastic player right now and one we desperately need.

I wouldn't say we desperately need him for 40 million. He's predominantly been playing on the right side of midfield for Roma this season, i.e. in Mane's position.

A player we would desperately need is an Aubameyang or a Suarez! Or a really good left back, we desperately need a really good left back!

eyerer

NukaCola wrote: »

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Nothing they can do if clubs meet the buyout clauses.

Tell that to Arsenal.....

Talisman

Gerrard's being kept busy... another youth player signed today.

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/811918/Liverpool-transfer-news-Patrik-Raitanen-confirmed-contract-latest-gossip

jcsoulinger

We are not in a position to turn our noses up to the likes of Salah, regardless of what went on in 14, would be a very good signing, it's not a position we are short in but given the standards of the league now you definitely need to be stacked in attacking positions to get anywhere.

I wonder what this means for AOC, I wouldn't mind seeing him signed aswell tbh.

~Rebel~

dogbert27 wrote: »

If it was the case that Klopp only wants to sign players that want to sign for Liverpool isn't Salah turning us down for Chelsea a good reason not to buy him!

21 years old would rather sign for Chelsea to be a squad player on ?40,000 a week instead of being a first team player with Liverpool.

Realised after signing that Chelsea screwed him over just to screw Liverpool over so he goes off on loan to a few clubs finally leaves Chelsea signs with Italian club and going nowhere now wants to join Liverpool as he knows he'll never be making to the likes of Real Madrid or Barcelona or Bayern Munich.

The guy is not worth ?40,000,000.

Plus he's Egyptian so we'd be losing both our wingers to the African Nations Cup again!!

First, if we were being judged on decisions we made as 21 year olds, i'd say we might all be in a bit of trouble.

Also, we never actually had a bid accepted or even close to it, so we were never even a choice for him. He didn't turn us down. Perhaps he could have forced a move by saying he'd move to no one but us - but why would he do that? What belief did we show in him, refusing to bump our bid up 3 million to at least match Chelsea's not-exactly-massive bid of 11m?

We low-balled our way out of the conversation, just like we did with Willian around the same time.

ERG89

~Rebel~ wrote:

We low-balled our way out of the conversation, just like we did with Willian around the same time.

Definitely the word of the day in this thread.
I wish it was pawns instead as it would be accurate.

Fowler87

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Couldn't give a fcuk if he didn't want to sign for us 3 years ago, he's a fantastic player right now and one we desperately need.

This. And he's left footed too which is a bonus. The only off putting thing is the dreaded Africa cup yoke :rolleyes:

Grayditch

If you love someone, let them go. If it was meant to be, they'll be back...

Lord Trollington

We are such a cluster**** in the transfer market it's not even funny.

I know obviously not all transfers rumours are true but if we are interested in half of what we are reported to be , it's so embarrassing to see them join another club constantly .

Trying to think when was the last time we signed someone coveted by a number of clubs ?

~Rebel~

Lord Trollington wrote: »

We are such a cluster**** in the transfer market it's not even funny.

I know obviously not all transfers rumours are true but if we are interested in half of what we are reported to be , it's so embarrassing to see them join another club constantly .

Trying to think when was the last time we signed someone coveted by a number of clubs ?

Actually yeah, quite true. As soon as someone else is interested, we always back the fuck right out.

Osmosis Jones

I'd rather judge our signings based on whether or not they are good players rather than on how many other clubs want them. No one else was in for Mane when we bought him but I'm sure they'd all love him now.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Lord Trollington wrote: »

We are such a cluster**** in the transfer market it's not even funny.

I know obviously not all transfers rumours are true but if we are interested in half of what we are reported to be , it's so embarrassing to see them join another club constantly .

Trying to think when was the last time we signed someone coveted by a number of clubs ?

Harry Palmr

Gianluca Di Marzio ✔ @DiMarzio
#Calciomercato | #Roma, rifiutata offerta del #Liverpool di oltre 30 milioni per #Salah​ http://gianlucadimarzio.com/it/calciomercato-roma-rifiutata-offerta-del-liverpool-di-oltre-30-milioni-per-salah ?
6:48 PM - 1 Jun 2017
Photo published for Calciomercato | Roma, rifiutata offerta del Liverpool di oltre 30 milioni per Salah​
Calciomercato | Roma, rifiutata offerta del Liverpool di oltre 30 milioni per Salah​
Il Liverpool di Klopp guarda con interesse alla Serie A per trovare rinforzi per l'attacco della prossima stagione. In particolare, occhi

.

~Rebel~

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

I'd rather judge our signings based on whether or not they are good players rather than on how many other clubs want them. No one else was in for Mane when we bought him but I'm sure they'd all love him now.

That's sort of a separate subject though.

We got some great players there wasn't competition for, and that was great. But over the past few years we've also tried for plenty where there was competition, and haven't ever succeeded. Which is a bit concerning... it totally limits our influence over events. For instance, had someone else decided they also wanted Mane, would we have gotten him? History would suggest not.

Pochettino by all accounts really wanted Levi to go in for him, but was turned down - so were we a decent argument from Pochettino away from not signing the guy who is arguably our best player? One would like to think that if we really wanted someone, we could just go out and make it happen - but evidence would seem to suggest otherwise. It's not a great precedent to have set.

LiamoSail

dogbert27 wrote: »

Ah come on, no club in their right mind would be that stupid......

I'd rather look stupid and have a world class player in my squad than look prudent and not have that world class player

ThunbergsAreGo

dogbert27 wrote: »

He was going in against Willian, Oscar, Ramires, Schurrle and Hazard for an attacking midfield role.

Who did he think he was really going to be replacing in those five as an automatic starter?

I think you underestimate the amount of belief most of these top level players would have. Hazard aside he is as good as any of them

LiamoSail

Couldn't give two ****s what Salah choose a few years back. Choosing between Chelsea and Liverpool for an Egyptian is akin to choosing between Al Ahly and Zamalek for one of us; money is the deciding factor and that's fair enough

noodler

LiamoSail wrote: »

I'd rather look stupid and have a world class player in my squad than look prudent and not have that world class player

Its like the term has lost all meaning.

ShamoBuc

LiamoSail wrote: »

I'd rather look stupid and have a world class player in my squad than look prudent and not have that world class player

Except if course if that world class player is Pogba.
I'd actually prefer to be prudent than have that merry go round they had for that money.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Its like the term has lost all meaning.

:pac:

LiamoSail

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Except if course if that world class player is Pogba.
I'd actually prefer to be prudent than have that merry go round they had for that money.

So you'd prefer Liverpool had £100m in the bank than a world class player on the pitch?

Personally I couldn't give two ****s about what it costs the club. I'd prefer Liverpool to have the strongest squad possible

LiamoSail

noodler wrote: »

Its like the term has lost all meaning.

He certainly looked it prior to playing under a manager who's only focus is in not conceding

naughtb4

naughtb4 wrote: »

I think you underestimate the amount of belief most of these top level players would have. Hazard aside he is as good as any of them

If he's that good 40m won't buy him.

ThunbergsAreGo

Augeo wrote: »

If he's that good 40m won't buy him.

Has it not bought Oscar Ramires and Schurrle in the last two years?

ricero

Rumours tonight that van dijk still wants to join but we have now lowered our wage offer to 130,000 a week with add on bonuses from the original offer of 180,000 a week.

If true then this club would drive you insane. Just pay him the original wage packet as offered ffs

brevity

https://twitter.com/GraemeKelly1/status/870357680019443713

ricero

brevity wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GraemeKelly1/status/870357680019443713

Infurating stuff. Penny pinching by fsg may once again cost us a top quality player

Vicxas

brevity wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GraemeKelly1/status/870357680019443713

Really? Are we really playing fcuking lowball.

Gbear

**** it lads.

It's not worth getting into the nitty gritty until someone's leaning or the window closes.
Plenty weren't arsed about Van Dijk for that price anyway. ?50m would get you pretty much any CB you want unless he already plays for a team who are better than us.

If you want to win the big trophies you need to stump up the cash.

Just pay the wages.

Agent Coulson

Give him the £180k a week but do the opposite of Firmino's incentive contract so for every goal we concede he loses £30k for every pen he gives away he loses £25k.

ricero

RoboKlopp wrote: »

If you want to win the big trophies you need to stump up the cash.

Just pay the wages.

I just find fsg to be very underwhelming especially when you see the money they are splashing on their baseball team

NukaCola

If that article is remotely true then whoever is negotiating should be sacked. Amateur hour. It's almost like we want to **** the deal up.

sword1

100million for five years on one defender who has been injured for months would be madness. It also would have every player looking for a pay rise and set the club back years.

NukaCola

sword1 wrote: »

100million for five years on one defender who has been injured for months would be madness. It also would have every player looking for a pay rise and set the club back years.

Well that's Klopps decision to make, and no offence but I'd take his opinion over yours. If he wants him we should do everything we can to make it happen.

ricero

sword1 wrote: »

100million for five years on one defender who has been injured for months would be madness. It also would have every player looking for a pay rise and set the club back years.

Club has plenty of money now we are the 8th richest club in world football. If we want top players then we have to pay top wages

ERG89

sword1 wrote:

100million for five years on one defender who has been injured for months would be madness. It also would have every player looking for a pay rise and set the club back years.

One hand washed the other. If we start offering top wages to players we better start competing for major honours as a result of it.

sword1

Sometimes it's like telling a child in a shop that wants a toy that costs 20 euro when you only have 10 why they can't have it. Why don't we sell the squad and buy Ronaldo and Messi, we can play two versus eleven for the season, at least until they get injured. If we spend that on an injured defender how much will it cost to get the other players we need?

eyerer

The money was better spent improving Lovren's contract :angel:
Not saying the tweet is correct though

marklazarcovic

If the tweet is true the we may as well forget titles or challenging,we will be out the top 4 for again soon enough.

jcsoulinger

That whole article is rubbish imo, they haven't a fcukin clue what's goin on with VVD.