Summer 2017 Transfer Thread

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Liverpool have no intention of going back in for Julian Draxler as that isn’t an area Klopp is looking to strengthen. (James Pearce)

Makes sense. Just waiting for Ryan Kent to be sent out on loan now because it's not like we have four competitions to compete in. After all, of we're ever in a pickle, we can play Origi out wide and watch him do the square root of fuck all.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right, Kent and Ojo loaned Lallana injured and Firmino better inside, leaves only Mane and Salah unless he suddenly gives Wilson a chance or Ings doesn't get injured again. Coutinho if still here will be in midfield, we always have Markovic and Moreno.

[Jockey]

Kent isn't on loan is he? 

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Kent isn't on loan is he?

 

Been linked.

[jimmycase]

Id like to see Kent retained in the squad. He impressed during pre season. Obviously that might mean his first team chances are limited and he might fancy a loan instead.

[eeyore]

Liverpool have no intention of going back in for Julian Draxler as that isn’t an area Klopp is looking to strengthen. (James Pearce)

 

Makes sense. Just waiting for Ryan Kent to be sent out on loan now because it's not like we have four competitions to compete in. After all, of we're ever in a pickle, we can play Origi out wide and watch him do the square root of fuck all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the draxler thing is pure bantz.

 

is there anything that epitomizes our strategy more than that?

 

I bet Edwards was shitting himself he became available so quickly again

[sir roger]

Id like to see Kent retained in the squad. He impressed during pre season. Obviously that might mean his first team chances are limited and he might fancy a loan instead.

 

He's the new Hamdog

[KevieG]

Draxler could strengthen plenty of areas for us. Mad comment to say we are sorted for those areas. Its week 2 of the season and we are resting Salah and shifting players around to find some sort of compromise formation.

[Arl arse]

Draxler would certainly help us cover The Lallana injury, but that'd be too much like common sense to actually have strength in depth.

[an tha]

Liverpool have no intention of going back in for Julian Draxler as that isn’t an area Klopp is looking to strengthen. (James Pearce)

 

Makes sense. Just waiting for Ryan Kent to be sent out on loan now because it's not like we have four competitions to compete in. After all, of we're ever in a pickle, we can play Origi out wide and watch him do the square root of fuck all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are just trolling us now aren't they.....

[FrenchEyeGlass]

It's not even just the cover, he's a genuinely exciting prospect, is young, already knows of long standing interest (and will want to go somewhere he is wanted) and is going for relative pittance.

 

Why the FUCK are we not all over it?

 

Even if Kent was retained and Lallana wasn't injured until January (he won't play before then), it would still make sense to buy him because that's what ambitious clubs do.

 

You don't just fucking buy players when you are utterly fucking desperate for them, you continually strengthen in every area of the squad and maintain a surplus of quality. Imagine if draxler came and helped us unlock those tight games against a low block?

 

The message the club has given this summer is that they are willing to forfeit competing for all trophies this year. As a result, three things need to happen - 1) a full honest disclosure to the fans as to why the flying fuck we have not strengthened all summer, 2) no more fucking bullshit interviews from Klopp trying to sell is seven shades of shite like we don't have brains and 3) heads need to roll to ensure this never happens again.

 

None of that will happen though, and quite frankly we will be sat here watching our manager try win games with Divock fucking Origi and an unfit Sturridge once again and get nowhere.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[3 Stacks]

^^^Because if our interest last January was real, Draxler snubbed us in favour of Paris. Now, I don't care about that but Klopp clearly does and given that most of our targets are people that we seemingly court for a while in order to try to sell them our project, Klopp probably doesn't want a guy who didn't want to come here beforehand.

[whtwht]

On a positive note...just wait until Salah and Mane are out injured for a while.Mane is already being targeted by other teams with heavy challenges. Origi on the wing it will be.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[ngogswilly]

^^^Because if our interest last January was real, Draxler snubbed us in favour of Paris. Now, I don't care about that but Klopp clearly does and given that most of our targets are people that we seemingly court for a while in order to try to sell them our project, Klopp probably doesn't want a guy who didn't want to come here beforehand.

We have a bit of form for suddenly not wanting players we were chasing beforehand though and they didnt all turn us down.

 

Thing is we might go back in for him but if we dont I doubt its because he turned us down.

[eeyore]

shit gonna hit the fan big time round about October time once squad is completely obliterated

[an tha]

shit gonna hit the fan big time round about October time once squad is completely obliterated

It's all gonna be ok ovie ejaria is pretty much ready to step up

[TheResonator]

Our current position makes the most sense if you think of it less in terms of strengthening a football team and more in terms of investing in a market. World football has hit a high this year in terms of transfer fee outlays (PSG, MU, MC, Chelsea etc.) and money into the market from TV deals. Do we anticipate this trend increasing exponentially? Are more and more people signing up to Sky packages, and willing to pay more when they do? Are they paying more for kits; paying more for match tickets? Or is the squeeze becoming too tight? Are people switching to streams, buying knock off goods, skipping the game? And if not now, when?

 

If you take all of the romance out of the picture, there's a big argument for not bothering to try to win the title and instead taking a run at the top 4. You're competing with maybe 7 teams for the top 4 places. For the top 2, you're competing with United, Chelsea, City and Spurs, three of whom finished above us last season. What have their outlays been this window? Chelsea won the league and already dropped 60m on Morata, plus whatever on their other players. Can we compete with them in terms of spending power or pull? Can we buy a spine that will give us as good a platform as Spurs? How much money could we make from that in the long-term, and what's the likelihood of that?

 

Of course, with some of the money we have, we could potentially do those things. If we splashed the 130m odd that's been talked about on VVD and Keita then we would have a much better chance of taking a shot at the title. I guess the question is for me: if you're a businessman, and you're looking at the market and making a pragmatic decision, do you do that? How much of a return is it likely to yield? Are those players going to increase in value over the next 3/4 years, or is there a risk that it will drop, and you'll be tens of millions out of pocket? How likely are you, in real terms, to win the premiership over the course of the season? Is a return on your investment assured?

 

The problem with this is that we look at it as fans. We watch all of our games, and we know how good we can be on our day. But I'd also argue we have an element of optimism bias. If you take away the passion, the sentiment, the enjoyment of watching football, and look at it with pure pragmatism: are you convinced that that 130 million is  going to land you in a much better position in 2/3/4 years if you actually have to shell it out? When you might be thinking that one of the players you've bought will get injured, or the TV money will reduce, or people will stop going to the game, or buying the merch, or the many other things that could potentially take financial value out of top level football? 

 

The market this year has been absolutely insane. I'd love for us to sign a couple of players because I support the club. Taking a layman's view of it and looking at where the risk lies in the cost of strengthening vs. the benefits of strengthening, purely from a financial perspective, it's less convincing.

 

I'm not banging all this down just to piss on everyone's chips - I'm saying it because I think the trajectory of the game (when you're talking about competing for championships) is almost hopelessly lost for clubs like us, who actually look to deploy a strategy for competing that doesn't involve having endless vaults of cash and/or a huge, developed global marketing strategy behind you. That might sound basic, and it's probably been the truth for a while, but hiding the truth has never before involved banging 60 million quid down on the table for a defender with a good season behind him.

 

Stories around us not having lined up any back-ups who are more reasonably priced etc., don't ring true to me. We are a business worth hundreds of millions of pounds. There will be meetings taking place every day around transfer possibilies, risks / mitigations of signing players, how the fans are reacting, how we communicate news, etc. etc. It won't be fucking amateur hour in there. I would bet that there's a strategy behind all of our transfer activity, and I would bet that the driving principle is that as an investment, the soccer market doesn't represent good value. So in general we either go in low and we get them (good) or, we don't - but at least it looks like we're trying (acceptable).

 

In addition to fact, think that there are two facets to explain the particular lack of activity in this window: 1) we have decided that, in particular, the mid/top level of player is unlikely to produce a reasonable return on investment, and 2) that going after too many less expensive players as an alternative would cause engagement issues with the fans (and we already have 'new' signings in Moreno, Sturridge, and so on.)

 

The most plausible narrative for me is that we went after Van Dyke to make waves as being a player who can hold their own at the top table and shit ourselves when it looked like we might actually get him. Something similar with Keita I reckon, i.e we want to have a brand that looks like it can mix it with the big boys but we are actually too pragmatic to do so.

 

None of the above is an apology for our owners-- it's all deeply cynical and hugely disenfranchising, and frankly top-level football is a bubble that can't burst soon enough. The money that get's chucked around in the game is nauseating and it's quite hard to care about it these days, particularly when you have one or two teams running the transfer market. It isn't sustainable.

 

Anyway, hopefully the above is an absolute load of shite and we get the players we need in. Otherwise it's going to be a long season.

 

 

 

[an tha]

I hate doing it because i don't want you to be right bit you are and because you are so right you are duly repped.

 

 

Football is fucked isn't it - even the hope that kills you but which you cling on to isn't really there when you read the words above.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

^^^Because if our interest last January was real, Draxler snubbed us in favour of Paris. Now, I don't care about that but Klopp clearly does and given that most of our targets are people that we seemingly court for a while in order to try to sell them our project, Klopp probably doesn't want a guy who didn't want to come here beforehand.

Well then he's a fucking idiot. Who wouldn't chose PSG over Liverpool last January?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jimmycase]

Our current position makes the most sense if you think of it less in terms of strengthening a football team and more in terms of investing in a market. World football has hit a high this year in terms of transfer fee outlays (PSG, MU, MC, Chelsea etc.) and money into the market from TV deals. Do we anticipate this trend increasing exponentially? Are more and more people signing up to Sky packages, and willing to pay more when they do? Are they paying more for kits; paying more for match tickets? Or is the squeeze becoming too tight? Are people switching to streams, buying knock off goods, skipping the game? And if not now, when?

 

If you take all of the romance out of the picture, there's a big argument for not bothering to try to win the title and instead taking a run at the top 4. You're competing with maybe 7 teams for the top 4 places. For the top 2, you're competing with United, Chelsea, City and Spurs, three of whom finished above us last season. What have their outlays been this window? Chelsea won the league and already dropped 60m on Morata, plus whatever on their other players. Can we compete with them in terms of spending power or pull? Can we buy a spine that will give us as good a platform as Spurs? How much money could we make from that in the long-term, and what's the likelihood of that?

 

Of course, with some of the money we have, we could potentially do those things. If we splashed the 130m odd that's been talked about on VVD and Keita then we would have a much better chance of taking a shot at the title. I guess the question is for me: if you're a businessman, and you're looking at the market and making a pragmatic decision, do you do that? How much of a return is it likely to yield? Are those players going to increase in value over the next 3/4 years, or is there a risk that it will drop, and you'll be tens of millions out of pocket? How likely are you, in real terms, to win the premiership over the course of the season? Is a return on your investment assured?

 

The problem with this is that we look at it as fans. We watch all of our games, and we know how good we can be on our day. But I'd also argue we have an element of optimism bias. If you take away the passion, the sentiment, the enjoyment of watching football, and look at it with pure pragmatism: are you convinced that that 130 million is  going to land you in a much better position in 2/3/4 years if you actually have to shell it out? When you might be thinking that one of the players you've bought will get injured, or the TV money will reduce, or people will stop going to the game, or buying the merch, or the many other things that could potentially take financial value out of top level football? 

 

The market this year has been absolutely insane. I'd love for us to sign a couple of players because I support the club. Taking a layman's view of it and looking at where the risk lies in the cost of strengthening vs. the benefits of strengthening, purely from a financial perspective, it's less convincing.

 

I'm not banging all this down just to piss on everyone's chips - I'm saying it because I think the trajectory of the game (when you're talking about competing for championships) is almost hopelessly lost for clubs like us, who actually look to deploy a strategy for competing that doesn't involve having endless vaults of cash and/or a huge, developed global marketing strategy behind you. That might sound basic, and it's probably been the truth for a while, but hiding the truth has never before involved banging 60 million quid down on the table for a defender with a good season behind him.

 

Stories around us not having lined up any back-ups who are more reasonably priced etc., don't ring true to me. We are a business worth hundreds of millions of pounds. There will be meetings taking place every day around transfer possibilies, risks / mitigations of signing players, how the fans are reacting, how we communicate news, etc. etc. It won't be fucking amateur hour in there. I would bet that there's a strategy behind all of our transfer activity, and I would bet that the driving principle is that as an investment, the soccer market doesn't represent good value. So in general we either go in low and we get them (good) or, we don't - but at least it looks like we're trying (acceptable).

 

In addition to fact, think that there are two facets to explain the particular lack of activity in this window: 1) we have decided that, in particular, the mid/top level of player is unlikely to produce a reasonable return on investment, and 2) that going after too many less expensive players as an alternative would cause engagement issues with the fans (and we already have 'new' signings in Moreno, Sturridge, and so on.)

 

The most plausible narrative for me is that we went after Van Dyke to make waves as being a player who can hold their own at the top table and shit ourselves when it looked like we might actually get him. Something similar with Keita I reckon, i.e we want to have a brand that looks like it can mix it with the big boys but we are actually too pragmatic to do so.

 

None of the above is an apology for our owners-- it's all deeply cynical and hugely disenfranchising, and frankly top-level football is a bubble that can't burst soon enough. The money that get's chucked around in the game is nauseating and it's quite hard to care about it these days, particularly when you have one or two teams running the transfer market. It isn't sustainable.

 

Anyway, hopefully the above is an absolute load of shite and we get the players we need in. Otherwise it's going to be a long season.

 

Good post.

[aRdja]

Hmm - he was injured wasn't he?

 

Klopp seems to display Roy Evans level loyalty for some players. I'd love it if Ward came in and stayed in. He's better than Karius though - so should be a starter in the Europa League.

Really? I disagree. He had no problems dropping Mignolet for Karius last season, then reversed decision a few weeks after. He didn't start with Can at the start of last season, even tho he was our best midfielder season before. He dropped Milner for Moreno first two games of the season.

[Barrington Womble]

Really? I disagree. He had no problems dropping Mignolet for Karius last season, then reversed decision a few weeks after. He didn't start with Can at the start of last season, even tho he was our best midfielder season before. He dropped Milner for Moreno first two games of the season.

he hasn't dropped milner for moreno in reality. he's just decided as we can't sign a midfielder and lucas has gone, milner is a midfielder this season - so they're not competing for the same place. 

[aRdja]

he hasn't dropped milner for moreno in reality. he's just decided as we can't sign a midfielder and lucas has gone, milner is a midfielder this season - so they're not competing for the same place.

He dropped Milner for the first two games regardless.

[Moo]

Our current position makes the most sense if you think of it less in terms of strengthening a football team and more in terms of investing in a market. World football has hit a high this year in terms of transfer fee outlays (PSG, MU, MC, Chelsea etc.) and money into the market from TV deals. Do we anticipate this trend increasing exponentially? Are more and more people signing up to Sky packages, and willing to pay more when they do? Are they paying more for kits; paying more for match tickets? Or is the squeeze becoming too tight? Are people switching to streams, buying knock off goods, skipping the game? And if not now, when?

 

If you take all of the romance out of the picture, there's a big argument for not bothering to try to win the title and instead taking a run at the top 4. You're competing with maybe 7 teams for the top 4 places. For the top 2, you're competing with United, Chelsea, City and Spurs, three of whom finished above us last season. What have their outlays been this window? Chelsea won the league and already dropped 60m on Morata, plus whatever on their other players. Can we compete with them in terms of spending power or pull? Can we buy a spine that will give us as good a platform as Spurs? How much money could we make from that in the long-term, and what's the likelihood of that?

 

Of course, with some of the money we have, we could potentially do those things. If we splashed the 130m odd that's been talked about on VVD and Keita then we would have a much better chance of taking a shot at the title. I guess the question is for me: if you're a businessman, and you're looking at the market and making a pragmatic decision, do you do that? How much of a return is it likely to yield? Are those players going to increase in value over the next 3/4 years, or is there a risk that it will drop, and you'll be tens of millions out of pocket? How likely are you, in real terms, to win the premiership over the course of the season? Is a return on your investment assured?

 

The problem with this is that we look at it as fans. We watch all of our games, and we know how good we can be on our day. But I'd also argue we have an element of optimism bias. If you take away the passion, the sentiment, the enjoyment of watching football, and look at it with pure pragmatism: are you convinced that that 130 million is going to land you in a much better position in 2/3/4 years if you actually have to shell it out? When you might be thinking that one of the players you've bought will get injured, or the TV money will reduce, or people will stop going to the game, or buying the merch, or the many other things that could potentially take financial value out of top level football?

 

The market this year has been absolutely insane. I'd love for us to sign a couple of players because I support the club. Taking a layman's view of it and looking at where the risk lies in the cost of strengthening vs. the benefits of strengthening, purely from a financial perspective, it's less convincing.

 

I'm not banging all this down just to piss on everyone's chips - I'm saying it because I think the trajectory of the game (when you're talking about competing for championships) is almost hopelessly lost for clubs like us, who actually look to deploy a strategy for competing that doesn't involve having endless vaults of cash and/or a huge, developed global marketing strategy behind you. That might sound basic, and it's probably been the truth for a while, but hiding the truth has never before involved banging 60 million quid down on the table for a defender with a good season behind him.

 

Stories around us not having lined up any back-ups who are more reasonably priced etc., don't ring true to me. We are a business worth hundreds of millions of pounds. There will be meetings taking place every day around transfer possibilies, risks / mitigations of signing players, how the fans are reacting, how we communicate news, etc. etc. It won't be fucking amateur hour in there. I would bet that there's a strategy behind all of our transfer activity, and I would bet that the driving principle is that as an investment, the soccer market doesn't represent good value. So in general we either go in low and we get them (good) or, we don't - but at least it looks like we're trying (acceptable).

 

In addition to fact, think that there are two facets to explain the particular lack of activity in this window: 1) we have decided that, in particular, the mid/top level of player is unlikely to produce a reasonable return on investment, and 2) that going after too many less expensive players as an alternative would cause engagement issues with the fans (and we already have 'new' signings in Moreno, Sturridge, and so on.)

 

The most plausible narrative for me is that we went after Van Dyke to make waves as being a player who can hold their own at the top table and shit ourselves when it looked like we might actually get him. Something similar with Keita I reckon, i.e we want to have a brand that looks like it can mix it with the big boys but we are actually too pragmatic to do so.

 

None of the above is an apology for our owners-- it's all deeply cynical and hugely disenfranchising, and frankly top-level football is a bubble that can't burst soon enough. The money that get's chucked around in the game is nauseating and it's quite hard to care about it these days, particularly when you have one or two teams running the transfer market. It isn't sustainable.

 

Anyway, hopefully the above is an absolute load of shite and we get the players we need in. Otherwise it's going to be a long season.

It's definitely not an apology for the owners, it's a damning indictment of them (and of football in general), and of what LFC has further become under FSG.

[an tha]

It is a brilliant post and a real eye opener....well not really an eye opener - i think most of us know it but we choose to try and ignore it/push it to back of mind because of the emotional connection to what the club means to us and what the game was.....sadly reading it laid out so eloquently just sobers me up and makes me realise even more that things are fucked and a little bit more of the love has just died.

[Anubis]

Nice to see you back, Resonator. Sadly, I think your post is not an unreasonable assessment.