Mohamed Salah

[Carra_is_legend]

1 hour ago, m0e said:

That's basically what he means, to be fair to him.

 

It makes LA Galaxy a final destination.

Purely from a money point of view, yes, it is one of the final destination. 

 

The Brazilian we were supposed to have bought a few years ago - Texiera something - he went to China for money in his mid 20s. 

Oscar went to China at the age of 25. Ramires too I think when he was relatively in his prime.

[m0e]

1 hour ago, Carra_is_legend said:

Purely from a money point of view, yes, it is one of the final destination. 

 

The Brazilian we were supposed to have bought a few years ago - Texiera something - he went to China for money in his mid 20s. 

Oscar went to China at the age of 25. Ramires too I think when he was relatively in his prime.

That was my point.

 

Final destination is the wrong terminology. It means nothing.

 

What Barry was saying is we won't compete with those clubs that pay silly wages just to bring in the big names.

 

My point was, aside from corruption, its never a sustainable model.

 

There are possibly only 3 clubs in world football that can afford to beat us on wages on their own revenues.

 

United, Juventus and Munich. Barcelona, you could make a case for, but clearly it didn't work for them, and they lost Neymar and Messi to PSG.

 

Those 3 clubs have the largest number of domestic fans, particularly those willing to spend on merchandise, and the biggest capacities

 

They also have unbelievable commercial models that took full advantage of the satellite TV boom way before anyone else got wind of it.

 

Once our stadium expansion is done and paid for, we'll be in a similar position. 

 

And once the TV rights get sold to big tech, we'll be able to compete with anyone.

 

That's why FSG invested in us, and why other Americans are willing to now spend billions to get in on the action.

[Daisy]

3 minutes ago, m0e said:

That was my point.

 

Final destination is the wrong terminology. It means nothing.

 

What Barry was saying is we won't compete with those clubs that pay silly wages just to bring in the big names.

 

My point was, aside from corruption, its never a sustainable model.

 

There are possibly only 3 clubs in world football that can afford to beat us on wages on their own revenues.

 

United, Juventus and Munich. Barcelona, you could make a case for, but clearly it didn't work for them, and they lost Neymar and Messi to PSG.

 

Those 3 clubs have the largest number of domestic fans, particularly those willing to spend on merchandise, and the biggest capacities

 

They also have unbelievable commercial models that took full advantage of the satellite TV boom way before anyone else got wind of it.

 

Once our stadium expansion is done and paid for, we'll be in a similar position. 

 

And once the TV rights get sold to big tech, we'll be able to compete with anyone.

 

That's why FSG invested in us, and why other Americans are willing to now spend billions to get in on the action.

Arsenal pay much higher wages than us. Shite players but Ozil and Aubameyang both got £350k a week. 

 

It's also still not clear how we have a higher wage bill than the mancs but wages aren't a problem for them

[Carra_is_legend]

14 minutes ago, Daisy said:

Arsenal pay much higher wages than us. Shite players but Ozil and Aubameyang both got £350k a week. 

 

It's also still not clear how we have a higher wage bill than the mancs but wages aren't a problem for them

You could not have picked worse examples than Ozil and Aubameyang.....

[bossy]

There’s no guarantee of winning anything so I’m fine with a season where we regroup and bed in new players and systems in order to sustain for a few years and then… do it again. Providing we are still playing exciting footy and winning most of our games. I don’t like just buying oven ready players, we need to make them ‘ours’ so to speak. 

[VladimirIlyich]

6 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

Who's to say it will take half a million? Nobody knows it has to be that high. The leak the other week said we offered him a 15% pay rise, which would leave him on about the same as Marcus rashford. 

My guess is because he's free one of the Spanish two will be able to find a salary he is happy with. 

Thiago came here because he accepted a salary where he wasn't even our top earner. Now it could be argued that's because that's what his market price was. It might be because working for klopp made him accept less. It doesn't matter which of those two reasons, he wasn't demanding the salary of a world class player. To give a comparison, he earns about the same as Thomas Partey, who is fucking shite and less than ngolo kante. So i dont think the two are remotely comparable - Mane has just left Liverpool for a salary that is 50% more than our top earner. And he hasn't gone to a petro club. 

Thiago probably got a fat signing on fee or some other scheme ,which is a way that a lot of top teams get around reduced wages and so on. 

[El Dangerous]

41 minutes ago, m0e said:

That was my point.

 

Final destination is the wrong terminology. It means nothing.

 

What Barry was saying is we won't compete with those clubs that pay silly wages just to bring in the big names.

 

My point was, aside from corruption, its never a sustainable model.

 

There are possibly only 3 clubs in world football that can afford to beat us on wages on their own revenues.

 

United, Juventus and Munich. Barcelona, you could make a case for, but clearly it didn't work for them, and they lost Neymar and Messi to PSG.

 

Those 3 clubs have the largest number of domestic fans, particularly those willing to spend on merchandise, and the biggest capacities

 

They also have unbelievable commercial models that took full advantage of the satellite TV boom way before anyone else got wind of it.

 

Once our stadium expansion is done and paid for, we'll be in a similar position. 

 

And once the TV rights get sold to big tech, we'll be able to compete with anyone.

 

That's why FSG invested in us, and why other Americans are willing to now spend billions to get in on the action.

How is big tech getting in on the action going to even the playing field for us? Money cheats will just have more money.

[VladimirIlyich]

3 minutes ago, El Dangerous said:

How is big tech getting in on the action going to even the playing field for us? Money cheats will just have more money.

If Everton are involved it will be Hi-Tech.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

The situation we have found ourselves in with Salah (and Mane before he left for pittance) is awful. It's borderline amateurish.

 

The concept that one of the best players in the world (who carries a personality of unrelenting self-belief and a justified high self-worth) was going to "blink first" in the contract stand-off is laughable. You're not negotiating with Jordan Henderson. 

 

If you were 20K-30K apart in negotiations, then fair enough, maybe let it drag out. But what's evident is that we are nowhere near close on valuations, and as such have snookered ourself. It's justifiable for the club to decide not to break their wage structure to spend 300k p/w on him (justifiable...but I think many on argue on here as being myopic) but then why the fuck not just be brave with that stance and put him on the market this summer? If the club think they're clever enough to replace him with somebody who wants 150Kpw, then back yourself.

 

He will end up going to PSG, Real, Bayern or City. If you think he won't go to City then you're bilnkered. They will all offer attractive money, so it will be about the project. Bayern will entice him with Mane link up; Real will entice him with CL and La Liga promises; PSG will entice him with Mbappe and co; City will entice him with Pep and Haaland.

 

You either sell him or you pay him what he wants. Anything else and you are taking a massive L. Quite literally your biggest asset walking out of the door for free can never be spun as a good thing.

[Scott_M]

If we can get a good fee and adequate replacement, I think we should force a sale.

[3 Stacks]

8 minutes ago, FrenchEyeGlass said:

The situation we have found ourselves in with Salah (and Mane before he left for pittance) is awful. It's borderline amateurish.

 

The concept that one of the best players in the world (who carries a personality of unrelenting self-belief and a justified high self-worth) was going to "blink first" in the contract stand-off is laughable. You're not negotiating with Jordan Henderson. 

 

If you were 20K-30K apart in negotiations, then fair enough, maybe let it drag out. But what's evident is that we are nowhere near close on valuations, and as such have snookered ourself. It's justifiable for the club to decide not to break their wage structure to spend 300k p/w on him (justifiable...but I think many on argue on here as being myopic) but then why the fuck not just be brave with that stance and put him on the market this summer? If the club think they're clever enough to replace him with somebody who wants 150Kpw, then back yourself.

 

He will end up going to PSG, Real, Bayern or City. If you think he won't go to City then you're bilnkered. They will all offer attractive money, so it will be about the project. Bayern will entice him with Mane link up; Real will entice him with CL and La Liga promises; PSG will entice him with Mbappe and co; City will entice him with Pep and Haaland.

 

You either sell him or you pay him what he wants. Anything else and you are taking a massive L. Quite literally your biggest asset walking out of the door for free can never be spun as a good thing.

The goal is to win trophies. Selling Salah this summer, along with Mané, because you don't want to "take a massive L", makes it much less likely.

[Freddo]

5 minutes ago, FrenchEyeGlass said:

The situation we have found ourselves in with Salah (and Mane before he left for pittance) is awful. It's borderline amateurish.

 

The concept that one of the best players in the world (who carries a personality of unrelenting self-belief and a justified high self-worth) was going to "blink first" in the contract stand-off is laughable. You're not negotiating with Jordan Henderson. 

 

If you were 20K-30K apart in negotiations, then fair enough, maybe let it drag out. But what's evident is that we are nowhere near close on valuations, and as such have snookered ourself. It's justifiable for the club to decide not to break their wage structure to spend 300k p/w on him (justifiable...but I think many on argue on here as being myopic) but then why the fuck not just be brave with that stance and put him on the market this summer? If the club think they're clever enough to replace him with somebody who wants 150Kpw, then back yourself.

 

He will end up going to PSG, Real, Bayern or City. If you think he won't go to City then you're bilnkered. They will all offer attractive money, so it will be about the project. Bayern will entice him with Mane link up; Real will entice him with CL and La Liga promises; PSG will entice him with Mbappe and co; City will entice him with Pep and Haaland.

 

You either sell him or you pay him what he wants. Anything else and you are taking a massive L. Quite literally your biggest asset walking out of the door for free can never be spun as a good thing.

I don’t think it’s right to say pay him what he wants. That surely affects the overall morale of the squad. 
Surely people can see the detrimental effect that paying a player what he wants could have.

I agree that letting the biggest asset leave for free isn’t the best and not a good look but not a lot else we could do apart from a huge signing on bonus.

Maybe the club think that Mo should want to stay here on what will be a huge contract and the biggest in the clubs history and be happy to be idolised by the masses. 
Using what others pay can’t be used as a stick to have a go at the club when some of these clubs are either nation states, badly run i.e Barcelona.

The one thing I do think is that Mo will look at what Sadio is now earning as a basic wage and wondering why our club haven’t offered similar. 
For all any of us know Mo is earning after bonuses much more than 300k a week, I’d wager he is and quite a bit more.

Hope he stays for another three seasons as I think he is vital to the group but it will be what it will be.

 

[HBenn]

2 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

If we can get a good fee and adequate replacement, I think we should force a sale.

How do you force a sale? He just says no.

 

The club have no leverage now.

 

Personally I can see the dilemma for the club. He wants a huge wage and whose to say he will be the same player he was the first part of the season in 1 or 2 years time. Fair enough if he only wants a 2 year deal but the club are probably looking at Hendo's fitness problems over the last 18 months and thinking what if? 

 

 

[m0e]

1 hour ago, Daisy said:

Arsenal pay much higher wages than us. Shite players but Ozil and Aubameyang both got £350k a week. 

 

It's also still not clear how we have a higher wage bill than the mancs but wages aren't a problem for them

Firstly, they have a much bigger stadium and corporate offering.

 

Secondly, you could have added Willian to that list too.

 

Thirdly, they're not paying anyone anything like that anymore, since the rest of their squad got fucked because of it.

[m0e]

40 minutes ago, El Dangerous said:

How is big tech getting in on the action going to even the playing field for us? Money cheats will just have more money.

Explain that to me. Why would they have more and us less?

[Daisy]

21 minutes ago, m0e said:

Firstly, they have a much bigger stadium and corporate offering.

 

Secondly, you could have added Willian to that list too.

 

Thirdly, they're not paying anyone anything like that anymore, since the rest of their squad got fucked because of it.

Champions league is worth more than the extra 10k seats they have. 

 

So they've given three players ridiculous wages while being out of the champions league and we can't afford to do it for one? 

 

I didnt/don't want it to be Salah, but absolutely did want Mane to stay. 

[Daisy]

Just now, Daisy said:

Champions league is worth more than the extra 10k seats they have. 

 

So they've given three players ridiculous wages while being out of the champions league and we can't afford to do it for one? 

 

I didnt/don't want it to be Salah, but absolutely did want Mane to stay. 

And what about our wage bill compared to mancs? 

[FrenchEyeGlass]

26 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

The goal is to win trophies. Selling Salah this summer, along with Mané, because you don't want to "take a massive L", makes it much less likely.

 

You denigrate my point by quoting my use of terminology (which was obviously said in jhest) but it still stands. Letting the biggest asset you've had at the club since Steven Gerrard walk away for free is a failure. It's not debatable.

 

Do we want to win trophies in 23/24 too? Because we're banking on being able to replace him with $0m once he walks away. If we are so sure of winning trophies without him then, why are we too scared to win without him now?

 

I don't want to sell him now either (because I don't trust we will replace him or have even planned to replace him), but my point is that the situation we are in is a disgrace.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

26 minutes ago, Freddo said:

I don’t think it’s right to say pay him what he wants. That surely affects the overall morale of the squad. 
Surely people can see the detrimental effect that paying a player what he wants could have.

I agree that letting the biggest asset leave for free isn’t the best and not a good look but not a lot else we could do apart from a huge signing on bonus.

Maybe the club think that Mo should want to stay here on what will be a huge contract and the biggest in the clubs history and be happy to be idolised by the masses. 
Using what others pay can’t be used as a stick to have a go at the club when some of these clubs are either nation states, badly run i.e Barcelona.

The one thing I do think is that Mo will look at what Sadio is now earning as a basic wage and wondering why our club haven’t offered similar. 
For all any of us know Mo is earning after bonuses much more than 300k a week, I’d wager he is and quite a bit more.

Hope he stays for another three seasons as I think he is vital to the group but it will be what it will be.

 

 

I can understand the clubs position - I agree, you cannot break the structure unless you are willing to deal with the influx of contract demands from other players. But then we should have planned for this a year ago.

 

I do also think its puts a very clear ceiling on our talent here. Once you are cemented as the best in the world in your position, Liverpool football club can't afford you. I dread to think how we handle Van Dijk and Fabinho in coming years.

[aRdja]

11 minutes ago, FrenchEyeGlass said:

 

You denigrate my point by quoting my use of terminology (which was obviously said in jhest) but it still stands. Letting the biggest asset you've had at the club since Steven Gerrard walk away for free is a failure. It's not debatable.

 

Do we want to win trophies in 23/24 too? Because we're banking on being able to replace him with $0m once he walks away. If we are so sure of winning trophies without him then, why are we too scared to win without him now?

 

I don't want to sell him now either (because I don't trust we will replace him or have even planned to replace him), but my point is that the situation we are in is a disgrace.

I’m in the “pay him what he wants” camp but surely keeping Mo for another year is a better outcome for the club and the fans than losing him this summer? Losing both Mane and Salah this summer would be disastrous IMO. 

[Freddo]

Just now, FrenchEyeGlass said:

 

I can understand the clubs position - I agree, you cannot break the structure unless you are willing to deal with the influx of contract demands from other players. But then we should have planned for this a year ago.

 

I do also think its puts a very clear ceiling on our talent here. Once you are cemented as the best in the world in your position, Liverpool football club can't afford you. I dread to think how we handle Van Dijk and Fabinho in coming years.

Virgil will be what 34 when he’s out of contract, this deal may be his last. Fabinho will be similar off the top of my head. Fabinho not long since signed a five year deal.

The acid test will be Trent. He’s highly paid now and up with the top earners though not there yet.

It’ll be then that the club move the structure higher. For Trent, no one else.

[Freddo]

6 minutes ago, FrenchEyeGlass said:

 

You denigrate my point by quoting my use of terminology (which was obviously said in jhest) but it still stands. Letting the biggest asset you've had at the club since Steven Gerrard walk away for free is a failure. It's not debatable.

 

Do we want to win trophies in 23/24 too? Because we're banking on being able to replace him with $0m once he walks away. If we are so sure of winning trophies without him then, why are we too scared to win without him now?

 

I don't want to sell him now either (because I don't trust we will replace him or have even planned to replace him), but my point is that the situation we are in is a disgrace.

In terms of planning to replace him, I think we will have done that and have some irons in the fire. Everything points to the fact that we have planned lots of things, one of the key things being squad building and progression of the playing staff. Our scouts and analysts will have all the data on who we will replace him with.

I’d hazard a guess he is being scouted now and has been for a while. That’s how we roll. 

[3 Stacks]

27 minutes ago, FrenchEyeGlass said:

 

You denigrate my point by quoting my use of terminology (which was obviously said in jhest) but it still stands. Letting the biggest asset you've had at the club since Steven Gerrard walk away for free is a failure. It's not debatable.

 

Do we want to win trophies in 23/24 too? Because we're banking on being able to replace him with $0m once he walks away. If we are so sure of winning trophies without him then, why are we too scared to win without him now?

 

I don't want to sell him now either (because I don't trust we will replace him or have even planned to replace him), but my point is that the situation we are in is a disgrace.

That's very easy to answer; because having to replace 1 attacker next summer is way easier to do than having to replace 2 attackers this summer. 

 

That said, of course we're trying to replace him, we've bought 3 attackers for lots of money in essentially the last 3 years. It leaves us in an ok position because we can gradually replace Mané, and next season if Salah leaves for free, we can gradually replace him. It's not a full rebuild where we have to buy a whole new attack because the bulk of the work has been done and you're only losing one player per season. If we sell him now, we lose 2 key players. That is too much replacing in one summer and it hurts our ability to win.

 

Also, your argument is you want to give him what he wants. That's neither a nuanced or original take. Your only point is you want to have us pay a player on par with the highest earners in the world. It's fine to hold that opinion, but it's not a disgrace to not want to do that. We're competing with mostly irrational financial actors. If we don't want to get involved, so be it.

 

[El Dangerous]

51 minutes ago, m0e said:

Explain that to me. Why would they have more and us less?

Well they’d have the same boost in revenue as us on top of their already superior reserves of oil money. Explain how we’d be able to compete with them once we get a bump in money?

[FrenchEyeGlass]

9 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

That's very easy to answer; because having to replace 1 attacker next summer is way easier to do than having to replace 2 attackers this summer. 

 

That said, of course we're trying to replace him, we've bought 3 attackers for lots of money in essentially the last 3 years. It leaves us in an ok position because we can gradually replace Mané, and next season if Salah leaves for free, we can gradually replace him. It's not a full rebuild where we have to buy a whole new attack because the bulk of the work has been done and you're only losing one player per season. If we sell him now, we lose 2 key players. That is too much replacing in one summer and it hurts our ability to win.

 

Also, your argument is you want to give him what he wants. That's neither a nuanced or original take. Your only point is you want to have us pay a player on par with the highest earners in the world. It's fine to hold that opinion, but it's not a disgrace to not want to do that.

 

 

Oh really, where have I made that argument then? The only thing that isn't nuanced is your reading comprehension. To quote my original post:

Quote

It's justifiable for the club to decide not to break their wage structure to spend 300k p/w on him

 

On your initial paragraph, whilst we're rating the difficulty of replacing him, is it easier to replace him with $0m or $75m? 

 

Absolutely none of the attackers we have bought play in Mo's position. He is a right sided left footed forward. Jota definitely doesn't operate there, Nunez is left aligned if anything and Diaz quite evidently a left-sided forward first.

 

If you actually read what I am saying, it's not that we should sell him, it's that it's a disgrace we have gotten ourselves in this position. That position is not just about Salah - if you know you're going to run Salah's contract down, sell Firmino (who would also leave on a free next year) and extend Mane. 

 

I can't be bothered going back and forth on this because you don't actually read words, but the be all and end all is that letting Salah, Mane and Firmino all run down their contracts and walk on frees is bad from a business and sporting standpoint. We'll probably end up extending the one player who we shouldn't have, and that's Bobby.