Suarez: Sell or Keep?

[ngogswilly]

It's easy to say Torres downed tools, which he did, but at the end of the day we were kicking the ball at his throat for 1/2 a season. So he lost any belief that we could match the ambitions he had for us and him when he joined. Doesn't justify it, but let's not make out there's only one side to the story.

 

 

 

Of course, he's lying. Everyone is. We just choose what we want to believe rather than what's believable.

 

 

 

Torres was pissed because they made out he put a transfer request in at the last minute that blind-sided them and forced their hand. When in fact he had been trying to leave for over a year, he even had release clauses put in. So it was no surprise to the club. But they insisted the chelsea deal would only be done if he put in a request which he did. And lo and behold, headlines last minute transfer request yada yada yada. They orchestrated it to make sure they got no flack for selling him. So he was pissed. He got played.

 

Definitely some valid points there.

[Whelan]

It's easy to say Torres downed tools, which he did, but at the end of the day we were kicking the ball at his throat for 1/2 a season. So he lost any belief that we could match the ambitions he had for us and him when he joined. Doesn't justify it, but let's not make out there's only one side to the story.

 

I'm not - i'm pointing out that the players also felt he put his tools down - it wasn't a story put in the press by the club.

 

Of course, he's lying. Everyone is. We just choose what we want to believe rather than what's believable.

 

That's not entirely true, in fact it is a bit disingenuous to state that - lying and pushing your side of the story are two different things. One is simple - the other is biased and not the whole story, but it isn't always a lie - which is what I think the difference between Suarez and the club is at the moment.

 

Torres was pissed because they made out he put a transfer request in at the last minute that blind-sided them and forced their hand. When in fact he had been trying to leave for over a year, he even had release clauses put in. So it was no surprise to the club. But they insisted the chelsea deal would only be done if he put in a request which he did. And lo and behold, headlines last minute transfer request yada yada yada. They orchestrated it to make sure they got no flack for selling him. So he was pissed. He got played.

 

I've a certain degree of sympathy for Torres, but again - if you want to go put the transfer request in - it is simple, if you want your 10% then don't expect the club to play along. Kuyt managed to leave on the back of his clause, so I am a bit surprised that others have struggled.

 

Everything is about controling the message -Liverpool are just as guilty as any club, or organisation in this regards (see Fowler, McManaman, even Rush for proof of that) - but there can't be a blanket accceptance that everyone lies. Bias is the biggest influence.

 

But I still maintain it is a stupid argument to reference past owners behaviour as proof that the current owners are lying!

Edited August 8, 2013 by Whelan

[Pureblood]

I have my doubts over whether Torres had a release clause. Rafa is on record as saying he would have been able to get more than £50m for him, I think a figure of £70m was mooted. That being the case it throws doubt on this supposed clause.

 

I think it was handy for FSG to say there was a clause and all parties were happy to go along with it, rather than risk pissing off the fans by accepting a bid from a rival for a star player as soon as they had purchased the club.

[piscinin]

I'm not - i'm pointing out that the players also felt he put his tools down - it wasn't a story put in the press by the club.

 

The whispering started long before Carargher and Gerrard commented.

 

 

That's not entirely true, in fact it is a bit disingenuous to state that - lying and pushing your side of the story are two different things. One is simple - the other is biased and not the whole story, but it isn't always a lie - which is what I think the difference between Suarez and the club is at the moment.

 

It's not disingenuous at all. For me if you deliberately seek to mislead, it's the same thing just of a different hue.

 

 

I've a certain degree of sympathy for Torres, but again - if you want to go put the transfer request in - it is simple, if you want your 10% then don't expect the club to play along. Kuyt managed to leave on the back of his clause, so I am a bit surprised that others have struggled.

 

There's loads of ways the club and torres could have played it differently. The fact of the matter is though, these are the choices they made. I personally don't think it was necessary to do what we did and I'd prefer we cut that out.

[piscinin]

I have my doubts over whether Torres had a release clause. Rafa is on record as saying he would have been able to get more than £50m for him, I think a figure of £70m was mooted. That being the case it throws doubt on this supposed clause.

 

I think it was handy for FSG to say there was a clause and all parties were happy to go along with it, rather than risk pissing off the fans by accepting a bid from a rival for a star player as soon as they had purchased the club.

 

I thought the release clause was a purslow era thing.

[Bjornebye]

I'm not - i'm pointing out that the players also felt he put his tools down - it wasn't a story put in the press by the club.

 

 

 

That's not entirely true, in fact it is a bit disingenuous to state that - lying and pushing your side of the story are two different things. One is simple - the other is biased and not the whole story, but it isn't always a lie - which is what I think the difference between Suarez and the club is at the moment.

 

 

 

I've a certain degree of sympathy for Torres, but again - if you want to go put the transfer request in - it is simple, if you want your 10% then don't expect the club to play along. Kuyt managed to leave on the back of his clause, so I am a bit surprised that others have struggled.

 

Everything is about controling the message -Liverpool are just as guilty as any club, or organisation in this regards (see Fowler, McManaman, even Rush for proof of that) - but there can't be a blanket accceptance that everyone lies. Bias is the biggest influence.

 

But I still maintain it is a stupid argument to reference past owners behaviour as proof that the current owners are lying!

 

We could have done with him last season. Still pisses me off we let him go.

[piscinin]

Everything is about controling the message -Liverpool are just as guilty as any club, or organisation in this regards (see Fowler, McManaman, even Rush for proof of that) - but there can't be a blanket accceptance that everyone lies. Bias is the biggest influence.

Everything shouldn't be about controlling the message though should it. There should be shit like morals, principles, etc in the mix as well.

 

But I still maintain it is a stupid argument to reference past owners behaviour as proof that the current owners are lying!

 

Of course it is. I think it's fair to say that FSG have continued on the proud tradition.

[Mustangt125]

If no foreign clubs come in, he stays.

 

Has he really said now in Marca that he's not desperate to leave LFC and will continue to defend the shirt?

 

Really?

[Pureblood]

I thought the release clause was a purslow era thing.

 

Did he get a new contract in between Rafa leaving and his transfer to Chelsea? I don't think he did. So why would Rafa say he could have got more than £50m for Torres? I'm assuming Rafa would have known about the release clause if there was one.

[DooooodekNo5]

There so be an 'execute him' option added the poll.

 

Thinking about that, do clubs have life insurance on their players?, if Suarez was to drop dead tommorow would the club get any money? if so how much?

[stringvest]

 

It's easy to say Torres downed tools' date=' which he did, but at the end of the day we were kicking the ball at his throat for 1/2 a season. So he lost any belief that we could match the ambitions he had for us and him when he joined. Doesn't justify it, but let's not make out there's only one side to the story.

 

Of course, he's lying. Everyone is. We just choose what we want to believe rather than what's believable.

 

Torres was pissed because they made out he put a transfer request in at the last minute that blind-sided them and forced their hand. When in fact he had been trying to leave for over a year, he even had release clauses put in. So it was no surprise to the club. But they insisted the chelsea deal would only be done if he put in a request which he did. And lo and behold, headlines last minute transfer request yada yada yada. They orchestrated it to make sure they got no flack for selling him. So he was pissed. He got played.[/quote']

 

They would have got no stick for selling a plainly uncommitted player. Torres conducted himself poorly on the pitch, never mind off it.

[piscinin]

Did he get a new contract in between Rafa leaving and his transfer to Chelsea? I don't think he did. So why would Rafa say he could have got more than £50m for Torres? I'm assuming Rafa would have known about the release clause if there was one.

 

Ah, got ya now. Just joined up the dots.

[stringvest]

Everything shouldn't be about controlling the message though should it. There should be shit like morals' date=' principles, etc in the mix as well.

.[/quote']

 

:) as you well know, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

Managing the message is one of our strengths these days.

[piscinin]

:) as you well know, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

Managing the message is one of our strengths these days.

 

When it comes to sticking the boot in on players, sure. Leak wages. Check. Training performance dip. Check. Last minute transfer request. Check.

 

When it gets a bit more complicated though, like with the FA etc etc. Not so much.

[Paco]

I d still have him here next season.

[piscinin]

I d still have him here next season.

 

TBH the only person that can judge whether he should be or not is the manager. Only he will know how malignant suarez is likely to be and whether he can handle it or not. Which is why I'd prefer it if John Henry would belt up. Ultimately a football decision needs to be made.

[GJM]

With the type of money involved, the quality of lawyers used and the experience of the agent in question, to suggest there is a "clause" that is in any way ambiguous or worse has any amount of "verbal" content or context is imo laughable.

 

Exactly. If the verbal agreement was that important then you don't leave it as a verbal agreement. If there is an ambiguity in the contract that the player signed that does not work in the player's favor, then the agent has screwed up.

 

Nobody on the Suarez side of the fence is coming out of this looking particularly dazzling.

[piscinin]

They would have got no stick for selling a plainly uncommitted player. Torres conducted himself poorly on the pitch, never mind off it.

 

So you think it was just out of spite then?

[Stu Monty]

I bet RVP earns more at Manure than Juventus are paying Tevez.

 

So do I. Someone has picked up the bill for Tezez' wages though and the low fee would suggest Juventus must have took some of the hit.

 

I accept you're saying the Tevez situation didn't go that swimmingly for City but to say "when others went for £50m" is to overstate the case. Even Van Persie only went for £22m and he wasn't damaged goods on a £250k contract.

[Megadrive Man]

There so be an 'execute him' option added the poll.

 

Thinking about that, do clubs have life insurance on their players?, if Suarez was to drop dead tommorow would the club get any money? if so how much?

 

40,000,000 and 50p

[Anubis]

Even Van Persie only went for £22m and he wasn't damaged goods on a £250k contract.

 

He was in the last year of his contract which affects price.

[piscinin]

So do I. Someone has picked up the bill for Tezez' wages though and the low fee would suggest Juventus must have took some of the hit.

 

I accept you're saying the Tevez situation didn't go that swimmingly for City but to say "when others went for £50m" is to overstate the case. Even Van Persie only went for £22m and he wasn't damaged goods on a £250k contract.

 

It's not overstating the case, it's characterizing an inflated market.

 

I still don't think keeping Suarez is as risk free an endeavor as the original poster thought. I certainly don't think Tevez is a good benchmark either. And I certainly doubt you disagree . . .

[Evil_Ways]

It's not overstating the case, it's characterizing an inflated market.

 

I still don't think keeping Suarez is as risk free an endeavor as the original poster thought. I certainly don't think Tevez is a good benchmark either. And I certainly doubt you disagree . . .

 

I dont think it's risk free, but i would take that route any day of the week before selling to Arsenal. Unless they offer us their entire £70m tranfer kitty.

[Guest San Don]

TBH the only person that can judge whether he should be or not is the manager. Only he will know how malignant suarez is likely to be and whether he can handle it or not. Which is why I'd prefer it if John Henry would belt up. Ultimately a football decision needs to be made.

 

I wish you'd fucking belt up, to.

[MOGLET]

Sell him and be done, he is no longer a red in my eyes, so fuck him.

 

Torres, Suarez, Tevez, why do players who have names that end in an Ez Es always seem to be wankers as people?

 

Im sure there are more, but those three alone make me think there is a link forming.