Daniel Agger

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

His past injury record is poor.

 

With six months to go we take a view. Extending the contract of an injury prone player under contract is high risk.

 

If all is well with six months to go we make him a good offer, if he has been, or is, crocked we breathe a sigh of relief.

 

The problem with him is quite a tricky one.

 

What your saying is very risky to do.

 

If we let his contract run down I would be amazed if he stayed here.

 

Which would mean losing millions of pounds profit on him.

 

Leaving it to even a year left on his contract could lose £15 million plus on him.

 

Worse still he could decide to let his contract run out compleatly,and if I was him and the club not offering a new contract till then I would do that.

 

Which is why it needs to be sorted out now.

 

He is injury free and it is now time to decide to either cash in on him for a high price or tie him down on a long term contract.

 

Either way it needs to be sorted sooner rather than later or else the club could easily find themselves losing out both the cash and him to.

[TheHowieLama]

Search out the recent Van Gaal interview. He wanted the job but only on the condition that he got to make the footballing appointments. He wanted to repeat his successful blueprint from elsewhere. They said no.

 

I know that - I also know you think he was an outstanding candidate, I am saying they, after speaking with him and weighing the needs of the club going forward may not have come to that conclusion.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Sorry, you've lost me with this bit. I thought you said my post (#990) wasn't based on anything real. Anyway:

 

No, no, that was just a timing thing. You probably posted just before I posted. I was referring to some of the stuff Coro was making up.

 

What's not said is just as important. If for example Rodgers wants to permanently sign two forward players but can only afford it if he sells Agger, then he's not being forced to sell anyone. But that situation would be still unacceptable.

 

That is, however, based on nothing. I don't mean that in an antagonistic way, it's just guesswork. Most of what we're talking about is, which is why slamming the owners with it is, I think, harsh.

 

Still, I don't agree that it's not acceptable. He's signed £26m worth of players, including a striker, if he wants to go and sign another two forwards, I'm not shocked players have to go. That doesn't mean it has to be Agger. It could be Carroll. Depends on the fees. If he has the money to reinvest, there's certainly no financial incentive for the owners to do it, but there's a managerial incentive.

 

I was talking about transfer dealings in general, not just the Agger business. Rodgers has been very forthcoming to the press about Carroll, Dempsey and Allen (weeks before he signed) as well as Agger. There was no need to say anything about any of these players, but he's been very open and Ayre and Chang are presumably ok with it, so it appears to be a club policy, or maybe lack of. There has certainly been no edict to keep everything behind closed doors.

 

Yep, Rodgers has definitely acknowledged certain things. Whether that is club policy or not is a total guess. Whether it's a bad thing is subjective. I don't think it particularly matters. I think he's handling the press better than Kenny did. That's subjective, too. We're not entrenched. Jose Mourinho played the press to his advantage, I don't see why Rodgers can't.

 

Rodgers has attempted to justify his / the club's position over their potential willingness to sell Agger, so presumably he, or Ayre or FSG or someone senior at the club, cares what the fans and players think of it all. Agger stalling on a new contract would be a perfectly legitimate reason to be prepared to sell him, one that most fans including me would accept. So if that had happened, I would expect that at the very least it would have been leaked to Barrett, Bascombe et al.

 

That's a lot of presumption and expectation, mate. I'm not sure I'd agree he'd justified the willingness, he just said that everybody has their price. Which they do.

 

I get your point, I just don't agree with it as it doesn't give the whole picture. My point is that just because "every player has his price", it's not always the right decision to sell at that price. Figo is a case in point. You made no comment on how those transfers turned out, but how transfers turn out is absolutely key to assessing whether it was the right decision to sell.

 

Sure, but it's hard to tell before it happens. Sometimes it turns out really well, like Newcastle, and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the money and who the replacements are. That's where the level is.

 

Given a big enough offer, I think it's perfectly possible to finish in a significantly better place than you were perviously.

 

I'd consider selling for an amount that's so far beyond the player's value as to be ridiculous. For Agger I'd probably start this at £40m. Nobody is going to offer that though – the only time this happens is when a club gets a big windfall from a sale and is desperate to sign someone else quickly, e.g. Torres / Carroll. Man City and Barca aren't desperate like that.

 

Besides, it's not just about how much you get from the sale, it's about how much the replacement will cost. I said in my previous post, if selling clubs know you have a massive pile of cash from a sale they'll take the piss over the price of a replacement, especially if the window is soon to close.

 

How did Newcastle manage it? The sold for big money and purchased for small. They bought smart.

 

We don't have the resources City or Chelsea have. That's just a fact we need to deal with, so we need to be smart, like Dortmund were. We need to outsmart City, United, Chelsea, in the window because we're not going to outspend them. Sometimes it's smart to sell players, and I'd suggest the very talented, ageing, injury prone ones are the best ones to sell.

 

I'm not saying we should look to sell him, I'm saying if a big offer comes in, and I suspect it will, then we should seriously consider it. I don't think that's a stick to beat the owners with, I really don't.

 

If, and it's a huge if, they sell him from under Rodgers' feet, then there's a big fucking problem. If an offer of 27m comes in, Rodgers says no but he's sold anyway, then I'd question two things. Firstly, Rodgers' sanity. That's a subjective call. Secondly, the owner's intentions with the club. But it's a massive if, based on nothing, about future events that may well never happen. I'm not going to kick 'em for that.

 

See my previous reply to you – central defence is the only part of the team that we know works at the moment, and we'll be making enough changes to other areas of the team as it is. It's not a risk worth taking at this time in our position.

 

Again, that's a perfectly valid opinion. I just don't share the same one. Both are subjective calls, so we'll just have to agree to differ on the best way forward should a giant offer come in.

 

See above re selling teams taking the piss. If we sold Suarez for £100m, the bidding for Higuain and Llorente would start at £80m each. It's not speculation, it's what happens – see Torres / Carroll.

 

And Cisse, Cabaye, Ba, et al. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Llorente isn't going to cost 80m just because we sold Suarez for 100m. I could give you lots of other examples of teams selling big players and spending it out on others. It'll take me a bit of time though.

 

Again: established partnership with Skrtel, one of the best in the league, and the only part of the team that we know works.

 

It was the word "hope" I had a problem with, as the word implies that the situation isn’t entirely in our own hands. It is.

 

It's in our own hands to turn down offers that we'd be, in my opinion, daft to turn down. I was basing it on the assumption we'd be daft.

 

Until we made it clear we'd be prepared to sell one of our best players to a rival team that we're hoping to catch up with in the not too distant future. It's indicative of a mindset that I am deeply unhappy with.

 

We've just acknowledged that it'll take a hell of a lot of money to sell him.

 

You talk about money running out as if there isn't any more to spend. There is – FSG have got money. Get Rodgers the players he needs to get us into the CL, and the additional revenue will cover the additional transfer costs and wages. Speculate to accumulate, invest to recoup.

 

That's what I'd do, too. They've promised to invest what the club earns. I think that's what they're doing.

 

The logic that says we shouldn't invest until we've cut our outgoings sufficiently is the same faulty logic being used by the government. They won't countenance the idea that deficit spending can pay for itself by bringing in additional revenue.

 

Say we chose not to sign Walcott because we couldn't shift Cole or Adam, and we missed out on CL qualification by a few points. That so-called prudence would suddenly look pretty shortsighted.

 

Yep, I agree.

 

I agree, the buying side of the equation is looking as though it could turn out pretty well.

 

Than that's what really matters, as far as I'm concerned. It's going to take time, but I think we're going okay from a business point of view. I'd like an extra 50-100m to spend, but it's not happening. At least until we make it ourselves. Simple as that, really.

 

If, by this time next year, we're back in the Champions League and have played brilliant football, maybe even picking up the Europa League, will the shouts of 'clueless FSG' be as loud?

[Bloke]

Hi Baltar. Your name backwards is "Ratlab".

 

Did you know that? Ratlab. It's better than Baltar, actually.

Unless that is actually your name

 

Hi silverining. Your name backwards is "gninilrevlis".

 

Did you know that? gninilrevlis.It's better than silverlining, actually.

Your name will always resemble a bitter fucken cunt to me, regardless if that is your real name.

 

Sad fuckwit.

[silverlining]

Hi silverining. Your name backwards is "gninilrevlis".

 

Did you know that? gninilrevlis.It's better than silverlining, actually.

Your name will always resemble a bitter fucken cunt to me, regardless if that is your real name.

 

Sad fuckwit.

 

Oh dear.

[ngogswilly]

Rory smith is supposed to have said that Agger might be sold to balance the books.

 

Not sure I'd buy that.

 

Regardless, I'd be fuming if we lost Agger for anything less than ridiculous money and I'd be even more fuming if we didn't use a decent chunk of it to sign a quality replacement.

 

I think despite everyone wanting to keep Agger the crux of the issue has always been who the fuck would we replace him with thats anywhere near as good.

 

I've seen people post names and I've no doubt there would be some good players out there we could get, but its all easier said than done.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Rory smith is supposed to have said that Agger might be sold to balance the books.

 

I'd sooner trust Mathewbet1.

[Major Tom]

I'd sooner trust Mathewbet1.

 

haha

 

mathewbet1 got my hopes up on more than one occasion with his transfer insider info.

 

He ended up being a big, freaking let-down.

[Whelan]

Rory smith is supposed to have said that Agger might be sold to balance the books.

 

Not sure I'd buy that.

 

Regardless, I'd be fuming if we lost Agger for anything less than ridiculous money and I'd be even more fuming if we didn't use a decent chunk of it to sign a quality replacement.

 

He never, he said that Liverpool and Tottenham are seemingly selling Modric and Agger to balance the books (or something similar), it was a flippant and lazy comment to be fair. It was a Q&A so that probably explains the lack of context.

[ngogswilly]

He never, he said that Liverpool and Tottenham are seemingly selling Modric and Agger to balance the books (or something similar), it was a flippant and lazy comment to be fair. It was a Q&A so that probably explains the lack of context.

 

Ah well there you go. The word "Seemingly" certainly implies some creative thinking on his part.

[Hand Shandy]

Rory Smith knows fuck all about anything.

 

Especially football.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Rory Smith knows fuck all about anything.

 

Especially football.

 

Oops, you forget to call him a cunt. Silly you.

[piscinin]

I know that - I also know you think he was an outstanding candidate, I am saying they, after speaking with him and weighing the needs of the club going forward may not have come to that conclusion.

 

That they obviously came to that conclusion and for the reasons LVG outlined is why people be scratching their heads and questioning their judgment.

[MLB]

We don't need to balance the books because we haven't spent more than our budget.

[Rising_Phoenix]

And isnt it ironic that when BR was stating that should Agger leave it would be only for the right price, and he went on to compare him to Thiago Silva, another one of Europes leading centre backs - a player who was forced to leave Milan, despite his desire to stay there, but was sold coz they wanted to balance the books!!!! The irony.............

[xerxes]

We don't need to balance the books because we haven't spent more than our budget.

 

I would guess that Kenny's net spend over and beyond the Torres receipt, and Rodger's net spend, leaves us in deficit.

 

It's all about only spending what you earn you know.

[vanball]

HAHA Owned!!!!!!

 

His likely response - "Yeah but, pubic Ayre - Ayre Head - Owners gave no leadership"

 

and on and on into infinity..................

 

Agreed - 10/10 Moody - his response could be addressed to others as well.

[corro]

Denmark v Slovakia tonight. Are both centre backs playing. Haven't read it anywhere.

[Unrighteous]

Denmark v Slovakia tonight. Are both centre backs playing. Haven't read it anywhere.

 

Both are playing... according to Eurosport UK

[Phoenix]

How did Newcastle manage it? The sold for big money and purchased for small. They bought smart.

 

And Cisse, Cabaye, Ba, et al. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Llorente isn't going to cost 80m just because we sold Suarez for 100m. I could give you lots of other examples of teams selling big players and spending it out on others. It'll take me a bit of time though.

 

 

Even Rodgers has conceded that as soon we are interested the prices increase. Comparing us to Newcastle is doing us quite a disservice to our standing on the continent.

 

How much would have Barry cost us if we had sold Alonso that summer? Just as one example.

[DT]

Both are playing... according to Eurosport UK

 

Agger played 75 minutes, Skrtel the full 90. Slovakia won 3-1.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Even Rodgers has conceded that as soon we are interested the prices increase. Comparing us to Newcastle is doing us quite a disservice to our standing on the continent.

 

How much would have Barry cost us if we had sold Alonso that summer? Just as one example.

 

Then we're fucked mate, because if we can never pick up players at decent prices, like Chelsea did with Marin, then we're fucked. I think we can, but I take your point about Newcastle. I still think the paradigm is sound, though; you can sell for high and buy two or three players and improve.

[xerxes]

I guess I didn't make myself clear. By "remain competitive at the top level" I meant regularly challenge for the title, and by "purely through their own self-generated income" I meant assuming that the club was established in the Champions League and was bringing in the income that goes with that. If FSG can get us to that point, they won't need to keep forking out hundreds of millions the way Abramovich and Mansour have done and continue to do.

 

Where has all that extra revenue that you say Arsenal are earning been going? Wenger should have a warchest as big as Mancini's by now if those figures are accurate.

 

Neil G– point taken on para one. My own view is that without investment in excess of income we won’t crack the top four on a regular basis. Of course I could be wrong.

 

The Arsenal figures are a matter of record. Where the money is going is another question.

 

What is certain is that Arsenal are generating an extra £60m a home game because of their stadium. They are paying off their stadium debt ahead of schedule (wise) which leaves them in a very strong position in the next quarter of a century.

 

A thought on the stadium issue. FSG would have us believe that a new stadium cannot be afforded. A £400m stadium over 10 years would cost £40m a year over ten years. We are £30m a year better off as a result of the new Sky deal, a £100m namimg rights deal ( a quarter of the Ethiad deal) would be worth the balance, and if we got half of the extra receipts that Man U and Arsenal get from their stadium that would kick back £30m a season into the pot. And there would be a legacy for the next generation.

[Coro]

I actually pissed myself laughing at that stuff. If you hadn't made half of it up, I'd have said you couldn't make it up. But you did.

 

No money in the winter window because of Suarez situation. Conspiracy theory crackpot. .

 

My biggest mistake was ever taking you seriously.

 

What a typically and unsurprisingly weak response. This is your domain, you're an internet champion. What bits were funniest? Was it when I asked where have I shown that I'm ready to throw Rodgers to the wolves? When I asked why there was no money spent in January? HAHA yeah. What about when I asked about your sudden change of attitude? What's it based on? L to the O to the L. Was it when I said you spat your dummy? That was more embarrassing for you than comical, surely.

 

What bits have I made up? You're gonna have to be more specific otherwise your internet friends are gonna start thinking you're just some dismissive blowhard with not much to say. I've given opinions and I've given facts to support those opinions.

 

My conclusion is that no money was spent in January because FSG had 'changed their minds' about Dalglish and Comolli and weren't willing to commit any more funds. Lo' behold Comolli is sacked in April, Dalglish a month later. Ian Ayre receives new contract. Absolutely hilarious. Obviously you cannot take any of this seriously because you apparently cannot take me seriously now. What a way to try and marginalise another persons opinion. You're no good for discussion. You're a weak minded individual. No wonder you didn't wanna show up at any union meetings. Anywho, what brought about this 'change of mind' for FSG. I mean it's fair to assume they were no longer willing to back manager or DoF with funds given nothing was spent in January and both men were sacked just months later. Was this 'change of heart' brought on by how the Suarez case was dealt with? (Oh but Ian Ayre got a new contract) The money spent on Carroll? (Surely not, they're all about the long term, no?) Dalglish holding too much sway? This is all hilarious.

 

I don't see long term strategy, just short term manoeuvres and a lot of bluster, like Werner saying we have the resources to compete with anyone. Surely with such ambition and such wealth we shouldn't be considering selling one of our better players to a rival team?

 

You like to try and dazzle with big words and hyperbole. Knock that on the head and respond with something more substantial. Ta.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Didn't even bother to read it, Coro. Like I said, I made the mistake of taking you seriously, and treating you like you have a clue. I'll not make the same mistake again.