Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Summer 2021 transfer thread.


manwiththestick
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Scott_M said:


Nobody has disputed that and it’s a separate matter to what’s being discussed.

It isn't though. The discussion is about the type of players we buy and the owners priorities. Not buying a CB during an injury crisis shows exactly where the owners priorities are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

No magic number. 

For me it is the string that broke the camels back. It is not one thing I can point at and say they are bad owners, it is whenever a decision has needed to be made, the priority has never been on pitch. 

 

The owners never take a risk. They buy "bargains" because they are low risk, if they add to the on pitch then all well and good, if they don't, it doesn't matter because they can be moved own without a great loss. Or moved on and money made to then spend somewhere else. 

 

I understand buying players and then selling at a profit should not be seen as a negative, but everything has a context. As others have pointed out, the issue is when these players can not be moved on, but add nothing on the pitch. However because they take a wage and a squad place, the low risk owners will not replace them until they are gone. So we have had the extreme this season, when the squad players have not suited the club but take a place and this then effects the on pitch performance negatively.

 

Davies appears to be a perfect example. Very cheap and will probably be sold for a profit in June. People will be called out for complaining about that. However, if he can't be sold because, ironically, because we want too much money for him, then he will potentially be fourth choice CB. This is fine if we have no injuries, but it will to the negative if we either have to play him or move a midfielder back because he is not good enough. We will point out this is what happens when you buy a "bargain" player and people will point out the unbelievable injury crisis. We are destined to play this game forever.

 

 A bit of a rambling post, this is because as I said it is not a single item but a build up, so it is not possible to just say, look at A, that proves you wrong.

 

Look don’t get me wrong, if someone offered to swap FSG with Abramovich of course like you I’d bite his hand off. I just disagree with the assessment that we only buy bargains, when clearly that has not been the case. We buy all sorts of players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aRdja said:

We paid just £2m less for Naby than City did for De Bruyne. He wasn’t close to being a bargain, with or without a release clause. 

If someone is valued at 70 million and you get him for 50 million, than that is a bargain. De Bruyne is irrelevant to that.

 

The same with Haaland, if he is valued at 120 million and we bought him for 80 million (by doing a similar deal to Naby) it is a bargain.

 

If someone is valued at 1.5 million and you pay 2 million it is not a bargain. 

The amounts are irrelevant, it is the amount paid compared to value that determines if it is a bargain or not.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SlugTrail said:

I also said do you think we would have Signed Jota or Thiago if Wolves would have asked for 50%upfront or if Thiago wasn't in the last year of his contract. Naby had a release clause at 48m and we agreed to pay a small premium a year early to guarantee we got him. I'm not saying you can't get good players from that pool but I want us to not use that as the starting guide.


On Jota, who knows. His stats at Wolves were very similar to Mane at Southampton, so it’s not inconceivable he wasn’t a target already.

 

We probably wouldn’t have gone for Thiago because you’d be talking an absolute fortune for him.

 

I’m struggling to understand why people are complaining about those 2 signings & how we negotiated the transfer fees when Jota has been such a positive this season and, although not heights expected yet, Thiago is a supremely talented player.

 

To me, it looks like we got 2 really good players, which were also really good deals for the club, or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

If someone is valued at 70 million and you get him for 50 million, than that is a bargain. De Bruyne is irrelevant to that.

 

The same with Haaland, if he is valued at 120 million and we bought him for 80 million (by doing a similar deal to Naby) it is a bargain.

 

If someone is valued at 1.5 million and you pay 2 million it is not a bargain. 

The amounts are irrelevant, it is the amount paid compared to value that determines if it is a bargain or not.

How do you assign value? Just trying to understand what you’re getting at here. Was Keita at £53m, a bargain? What was his true value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

Athletic reporting that Liverpool are one of the clubs interested in £8m transfer of French midfielder Michael Olise at Reading. He won't sign a new deal in 2022. Bayern Munich, plus former youth clubs Man City and Chelsea interested too. 

If he has a release clause I don’t want him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, aRdja said:

Look don’t get me wrong, if someone offered to swap FSG with Abramovich of course like you I’d bite his hand off. I just disagree with the assessment that we only buy bargains, when clearly that has not been the case. We buy all sorts of players. 

I wouldn't want Abramovich to own us. I actually put in my reply, but deleted that we would struggle to improve on our current owners. This is a context thing again, being pissed on is better than being shit on etc.

 

The more I think about it, I wouldn't be surprised if we went for Mbappe or Haaland, because these can be sold as low risk purchases/bargains.

 

I would use low risk as opposed to bargains or interchange them, as maybe bargain is a confusing term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I think Barca waited until the date Griezmann's buyout dropped by 80 mil - bargain.


We told Citeh we wanted £50m for Sterling. We got £49m.

 

Citeh showing us how to negotiate there. 

 

32C7B615-A5B9-4220-93B2-062C4DAEE1D2.gif

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, aRdja said:

How do you assign value? Just trying to understand what you’re getting at here. Was Keita at £53m, a bargain? What was his true value?

How does anyone assign value? 

At the time Keita was hailed as a revelation and most clubs in Europe wanted him, I believe at 70 million we seen as closer to his true value. We were very clever, I agree with @Scott_M, in the way we negotiated that deal. It was felt he was worth a lot more than his 48 release clause, but everyone was waiting for that to kick in.

 

Haaland is very similar example for me. Everyone seems to value him at approx double his release clause, so 130 as opposed to 65. Again it is believed everyone is waiting for his clause to kick in and get a massive bargain of only 65 million. If we did a similar deal, and paid 65 million with 15 million potential add one, we could quite justifiably argue we got an 80 million bargain.

 

Hence my previous post whereby I would interchange low risk/bargain. We pay 80, he doesn't work out and we would still be able to sell at a small loss/profit. I understand Keitas fall from grace kind of devalues this argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, aRdja said:

If he has a release clause I don’t want him.

Are you competing with Bayern Munich, Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool? I wish you luck. 

 

You know Michael Olise is not a pseudonym for fry up? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

It isn't though. The discussion is about the type of players we buy and the owners priorities. Not buying a CB during an injury crisis shows exactly where the owners priorities are.

 


Klopp himself said the type of player we want wasn’t available.


Should we have paid more for say, Konaté or Upamencano, or ride it out?


IMO, we weren’t helped drawing RBL, and as a supporter, I absolutely would have wanted us to go in OTT for somebody -but only if that player good enough past this season.

 

As unfortunate as it is, given funds aren’t at a premium for any club at the moment, there is quite obviously logic in waiting. I don’t agree with it, but it’s understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

The reality of course is there will be a line out the door for Haaland at his clause and wages will decide where he goes.

I don't disagree, but iirc the same was said of Naby (hard to believe I know) and we were very clever the way we bypassed the release clause, so the selling club were very happy with our option, as it was no risk to them. Obviously Klopp still had to sell the club etc but we have done it before. 

 

I am not sold on Haaland myself, but see him as a perfect FSG signing. The owners get praise for shelling out 80 million for the club, yet I can still call out the moneyball cunts.

 

We can then spend years arguing how spending 80 million confirms they are great/shit owners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is 80 mil is nowhere near what the deal would truly cost. We can't match the wages others will offer so pointing out an "undervalued" release fee is moot, that is why Thiago is an example of the opposite of what you are suggesting - that deal cost us 70mil.

 

@Scooby Dudek BTW I agree on Haaland - think he is in the purpleist of patches in the ultimate patch for him to be purple.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Scott_M said:


Klopp himself said the type of player we want wasn’t available.


Should we have paid more for say, Konaté or Upamencano, or ride it out?


IMO, we weren’t helped drawing RBL, and as a supporter, I absolutely would have wanted us to go in OTT for somebody -but only if that player good enough past this season.

 

As unfortunate as it is, given funds aren’t at a premium for any club at the moment, there is quite obviously logic in waiting. I don’t agree with it, but it’s understandable.

If was a crisis we should have gotten someone. No one was available, yet within 2 days of Matip going down, we managed to get two players in who are probably not good enough past this season.

 

We absolutely decided to ride it out, to the detriment of results, because the on pitch is not the priority. That is my major issue, you also don't agree with it but also understand why they did it. The difference is I understand why they did it but will call them out for their reasons being wrong because their priorities differ to mine. *

 

 

* Reading back, this may come across as a dig. It is not, just difficult to write down as opposed to speak with tone involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

The point is 80 mil is nowhere near what the deal would truly cost. We can't match the wages others will offer so pointing out an "undervalued" release fee is moot, that is why Thiago is an example of the opposite of what you are suggesting - that deal cost us 70mil.

 

@Scooby Dudek BTW I agree on Haaland - think he is in the purpleist of patches in the ultimate patch for him to be purple.

 

 

I agree on the deal being a lot more, but my posts are long enough without putting more information in them.

 

Thiago is an unusual one. I believe he was undervalued due to his contract, but as you say, his salary probably covers a lot of that. The club seems happy to lose players when their contact runs down, if they don't get the price they want, so Thiago fits that for me, in a slightly unusual way. The low upfront costs also helps on the spreadsheet, so that will help. 

When we initially purchased him, I thought it confirmed Gini was gone last summer, they actually bought before selling. Obviously no idea if true, but either way Gini stayed, so maybe they will not do it again ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

If was a crisis we should have gotten someone. No one was available, yet within 2 days of Matip going down, we managed to get two players in who are probably not good enough past this season.

 

We absolutely decided to ride it out, to the detriment of results, because the on pitch is not the priority. That is my major issue, you also don't agree with it but also understand why they did it. The difference is I understand why they did it but will call them out for their reasons being wrong because their priorities differ to mine. *

 

 

* Reading back, this may come across as a dig. It is not, just difficult to write down as opposed to speak with tone involved.


That’s a fair enough post. 
 

Posters aren’t always going to agree on everything, and I don’t necessarily disagree with the above, but some of the stuff thrown at FSG is just laughable and undermines any valid points that may be raised. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

Doesn't every player on the continent have a release clause?

 

Looking at the big signings over the last few years it is only Hazard that moved without one. Maybe Ronaldo went for less than his clause but not sure, I know he cost a pile and there were a bunch of add ons.

 

Kepa, Joao Felix, Greizmann, M'Bappe, De Jong, De Ligt, Werner, Havertz those were all triggered by the clause.

 

 

 

Depends on the club

 

In Spain yes its law for a release clause. It seems the likes of Leipzig put them in a few players deals. It's probably what allows them to get players wanted elsewhere. They know they will be in a good side and given a chance but be allowed to go for the right money. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haaland scored nine goals in one match at the U-20 World Cup in 2019, the kid is a goal machine.

 

Its got absolutely nothing to do with being on a purple patch.

 

He has scored 20 goals in his first 14  Champions League games, H.Kane had the record before, he used 24 games to reach 20.

 

Haaland is something the World have never seen before in modern age, what he is doing at the age of 20 is simply incredible. 

 

 

D15FDE90-03F4-4AC3-B9FF-70361B45D82C.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...