Jump to content

Cardie

Members
  • Posts

    22,347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cardie

  1. we'll see who lasts longer believing in FSG. you or klopp.

     

    I trust in Klopp though at some point you'll realise that I don't care whether it's FSG, DIC or WTF I'll still say things as I see it rather than follow the baying mob and play to the crowd.

  2. In profit.

     

     

    Short of the year we sold Suarez we've barely broke even, sorry, correction, i think we may have hit the heady heights of 1 million profit one year.

     

    Edit - 2013-2014 accounts was the first time we'd made a profit in seven years with a mind blowing 900k, 2014/2015 it was 60 million before tax, 2015/2016 19.8 million loss (before Tax).

  3. Timescale doesn't bother me too much, it's more the actual will to get the transfer done.

     

    If the selling club have no will, move on. The problem I have is that I don't believe the will is here at LFC, although they can't admit it as that wouldn't fit with " we can compete with anyone "

     

    Can and won't are 2 completely different things

    If the will wasn't there there's a hell of a lot easier ways to go about it. The bullshit we saw about intentionally tapping up van Dijk to sabotage the deal was bizarre.

     

    Assuming you have kids whats the easieat way not to take them to Disneyland, is it to not mention Disneyland and book somewhere else or tell them they're going string them along and book somewhere else at the last minute?

     

    We might sign Keita and Van Dijk, we might sign one, we might sign different players but it doesn't make the interest any less real.

  4. We also have to realise that if you want to buy a player on a long contract that the club doesn't want to sell then it's not going to happen on a supporters timescale but on the selling clubs doesn't matter how much money you have or what order you speak to the club and player.

     

    It'd be interesting to know how many times a club is approached before a buying club reaches an agreement with a player/players intermediaries.

  5.  

     

    No.

     

    What I would like is to do is enter into constructive negotiations with clubs instead of pissing them off.

     

    If a player then doesn't come for whatever reason then fine.

     

    However, what we seem to do is leak information in an attempt to push the price down - thus pissing the selling team off and putting the player in a bad position of having to push for a move which might not happen and then be left with a bad taste in the mouth from their club and fans.

     

    Before you say that the leaks could have come from anywhere - consider the 2 embarrassing as apologies from this club!!!!

     

    FSG think they are ahead of a curve that nobody else is on and that they are cleverer than they are.

    It would be right to aspire to a position where a club submits a formal bid for a player and, once given permission to speak to him, then agree terms.

     

    It would be wrong to assume we're an outlier in the way the system currently works with the players interest tested before the clubs.

     

    People hang off every word Paul Joyce says then slag off the club for leaking the information to him yet, in his own words, the majority of the information on Keita, as an example, is coming from abroad. Infact I believe he said very little is cominv from the club at the moment, Van Dijk was obviously different.

     

    We say the club should shut up shop then complain that the absence of information is proof of the absence of work being done.

     

    We criticise the club and say how disgraceful it is that we've tapped up a player and how our best players would be well within their rights to want a move to a less morally dubious club then try to ship them off to Barcelona without a hint of irony.

     

    We judge the efficency of other clubs signings by the day they're signed and ours from the day they're first mooted as a target all while ignoring the endless headlines and assuming we should just put the money on the table like they do.

     

    It's an endless stream of contradictions and willful ignorance to whats going on around us, we don't exist in a bubble, we aren't leaving players in limbo and jeopardising their futures, it isn't the most embarrasing thing to ever happen to a club, we're just going the the messy process of transfers the same as everyone else to varying degrees of success.

    • Upvote 2
  6. Really? Can't remember grovelling apologies from any other clubs, embarrassing climb downs or leaving so many players out on a limb when they've stated that they want to sign for you.

     

    Big clubs act like big clubs.

    If thats what we were talking about the answer may have been different.

     

    But I agree we should act more like the big clubs, maybe take our lead from the Barcelona's and Madrids on how we should conduct ourselves.

  7. Yeah, like I'm going to answer that and get drawn further into this nonsense.

     

    It's interesting to note that you spend a supreme amount of time and effort defending FSG's approach to transfers yet when pressed don't think they have a good track record in this respect.

    A) not defending FSG defending the mechanics of transfers and how it applies across the board.

     

    B ) playing to the mob, as I said given you don't like detail then agreeing with you and others was the easiest option especially when the answer is neither flat yes or a flat no as a Yes would have had people descending into madness.

     

    The best thing about all of this is it isn't the detail people don't like it's the detail when it's perceived to be defending the club.

     

    When it's neutral or in reference to whats happening at another club people have far less of an issue with it but god help anyone who says exactly the same in relation to us.

  8. Nothing wrong with a yes/no question and response. It cuts through all the muddle.

    Detail and context are important.

     

    I don't think we're exceptionally bad or good and the detail would probably point fo the fact that in relation to other clubs we're not doing anything exceptional either way.

     

    But yes or no definitely conveys that....

  9. Interesting article on using data to assess a goalie's performance

     

    https://2plus2equals11.com/2017/07/07/thinking-about-goalkeepers/amp/

     

    33137c9eaf2f041dbbe4167214991a40.png

     

    #AnnounceHeaton

    That plagiarising bastard definetly reads this forum, he stole my idea*

     

    From his blog

     

    "To investigate some of these issues, I’ve built an expected save model that takes into account shot location and angle, whether the shot is a header or not and shot placement. So a shot taken centrally in the penalty area sailing into the top-corner will be unlikely to be saved, while a long-range shot straight at the keeper in the centre of goal should usually prove easier to handle."

     

    Karius thread in december.

     

    I'm not the one basing everything on a single statistic.

     

    At the very least I'd be looking at how the goals were scored, from where and the destination of the shot.

     

    Like I said beforenot all shots are created equally so as much emphasis would need to be placed on the shot itself as the goal.

     

    If you drew a grid over the mouth of the goal (say 3 across 2 down for simplicity) then the 2 boxes either side of the goal would have a lower save possibility than the 2 centre boxes (the more complex the grid the greater the change in weighting and accuracy).

     

    Likewise if you drew a grid across the penalty area you could assign a weighting to the likely hood of a goal being scored (further back or further to the sides would have a lower weighting chance than those dead centre there are a few different concepts floating around on this and the rest of what I'm saying), you'd have to account for other factors but let's keep it simple.

     

     

    Now you'd expect a shot from further back or to the side going to the centre of the goal to have a lower chance of scoring and a higher chance of being saved than a shot from central going into the top corner.

     

    If you then plotted each goal scored against a keeper or keepers you would, in theory, have a far more accurate representation of your shots to saves statistic.

     

    Obviously the above doesn't account for things like deflections but it's a start.

    *that I may have stolen from elsewhere
  10. Every single team in the Premier League is shit at transfers, which is why despite the obscene riches of the league, no team has achieved anything of note in the CL this decade besides an incredible fluke.

     

    I'd say only Leicester and maybe Spurs are even remotely competent but then both of them completely fucked up last summer.

    No club is universally good, shit, competent or incompetent.
  11. Do you think FSG have a good track record when it comes to transfers? "Yes" or "no" will suffice.

     

    My answer is no.

    If only we could boil everything in football down to the most inane yes and no response and pretend it wasn't more nuanced things would be far more simple.

     

    But to make people feel better about themselves lets go with no.

  12. I'd say there is probably enough evidence to suggest we are notoriously bad at it.....although of course we in here do pay much more attention to every little thing that is reported and written about us so maybe we are no different but as i say it feels like we are

    The fact we pay more attention is exactly the issue.

     

    We're so bad at transfers compared to everyone else, for example, that there are stories of Conte quitting for the second time this summer over failed deals. Van Dijk is such an obvious stand out CB target that given a clear run at him they went with Rudiger instead and the striker they've been linked to for months is of to Utd.

     

    We're so bad that the signings of Wijnaldum, Matip and Mane went incident free last summer but Zielinski is the focus.

     

    Man Utd just slapped the money on the table and got the player they wanted in Lindelof....if you ignore the 6 month pursuit and failed January transfer attempt.

     

    Transfers are shit, clubs are good at some shit at others but it's often transfer, and it's associated complexities, dependendent rather than the clubs as a whole.

     

    Out of interest when were the majority of the top ten to fifteen most expensive transfers completed, what was the blueprint for those transfers and how do they compare with Keita (as an example).

     

    I think Ronaldo was really early where as Bale was in the dying days and both transfers were played out in the press at various stages not sure about the rest.

    • Upvote 5
  13. Agreeing personal terms and interest in a player without the small issue of actually sorting a transfer fee and deal out with the selling club first.

    Oh that's just us then.....

    It's almost exclusively that way around, it's rare you'll see a bid being made before a club gauges a players interest.
  14. Your argument would hold more water if these owners didn't have such a prolific record of failing to get deals they 'wanted' to do done.

    Don't really care about the owners it was a comment on the mechanics of transfers and the treatment of it as unique to us on here.
  15. Now i wouldn't have a problem with that if it meant we just don't want to buy him....but of course it just means we want to try and piss his club off so it will be no deal.

    Normal machinations of a transfer.

     

    Is pissing off a club the new trope for this year on here, unless a buying club does everything the selling club wants it's just not cricket?

     

    I hope people employ the same reasoning in every day life, wouldn't want to piss of those car salesman or people selling their house by offering less or pushing for extras.

×
×
  • Create New...