Shit signing, we'd be overpaying and I don't think he suits our style. 24's a bit elderly as well.
Liverpool Sign Clyne (Confirmed)
- Thread starter Skullflower
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Shneiderlin would be a wonderful signing... Sadly we probably won't sign him..
Joseph Musker @Musker_LFC 4m4 minutes ago
A resounding yes. Clyne has already indicated he wants to join Liverpool, so all we have to do now is agree a fee with Southampton.
A resounding yes. Clyne has already indicated he wants to join Liverpool, so all we have to do now is agree a fee with Southampton.
Next bid will be for Fonte, to partner Lovren. 😛
The plan was to get him game time with the rest of the Southampton players, especially Fonte, Clyne and Forster!😀
Southampton have had a the luxury of Wanyama and Schneiderlin protecting their back 4 for the last few seasons. There's no point us signing their entire back 4 if we're gonna have Lucas and Allen offering "protection".
@ILD @737Max @King Binny Thanks for remembering about my Ings/Trippier posts 🙂 but I'm not sure I ever recommended us signing Trippier. I think I mentioned that IMO Trippier and Ings were Burnley's best 2 players and would easily handle the the step up to the premier league but I have never been convinced that Trippier is good enough for a team with top 4 aspirations. That said, I haven't seen as much of him this season (I don't watch much non-LFC premier league footy) so am not sure exactly how effective he's been.
I've always championed us signing Ings because IMO he's a natural goalscorer and will score goals at all levels.
Good signing.
I'm not sure he'll be any good in cm though, which is probably where Rodgers will play him.
I'm not sure he'll be any good in cm though, which is probably where Rodgers will play him.
But Rodgers is part of the committee....
Well it looks like Rodgers' not going anywhere.
I think one of the aims of the committee was to ensure stability in spite of managerial comings and goings, with signings being made according to majority votes rather than the peculiar choices of any particular manager. So the reasoning is: we buy players who ought to be useful for any manager, not just the current incumbent. Obviously, in practice many or even most of our recent signings have undermined that optimistic idea, but it should at least suggest that Rodgers' fate is not linked to the players we have earmarked for arrival.
Trouble is that you have to employ managers that buy into the ethos and accept the need to coach and improve players that may not have been their picks. We know that BR refused a similar arrangement on appointment. Perhaps he'll get a second chance based on his acceptance now?
I also find it strange that the committee is still buying players when there's supposed to be a review going on. FSG seems to be very weak in controlling the committee if this was true.
TBH, it just seems like Clyne's agent is feeding info to the press to get a better deal for his client; or encouraging other bidders.
Do you mean that as always he should be focused on training and coaching his team?
Well I think he did, sort of, accept this when he came. He rejected a D of F but he's always been in a position where any of his transfer targets can be blocked by the others on the committee.
It is a bit odd, yes, but I guess, from their perspective, the reasoning is: we can all see what's needed in terms of areas of the team that need strengthening, so we should be getting on with that regardless of what happens to Rodgers. Any manager will need a new striker, at least one new defender and a midfielder, so the plans go on. I suppose to a lesser extent it was ever thus: Ray Kennedy - a club record signing at the time - was still bought even though Shanks had told the board he was off; Fagan inherited Paisley's last signings; etc. I'm fairly reliably informed that Peter Robinson was sounding out Houllier about Roy Evans' targets before it was confirmed that Ged would be joining the club. Obviously the big problem now is the dubious judgement of this committee.
So BBC running the story we've had a £10million bid rejected, I have to ask, what's the point of doing this bidding lower and then coming back with a revised bid negotiating bollocks, leaving the door open for another club to steal the player from under our noses, when Southampton only want £12million, a wholly reasonable figure. I sometimes feel people at the club insist on negotiating on every occasion to justify their own positions.
Pretty sure that's the nature of negotiating though. I would imagine that the first offer is always rejected unless there is a buy out clause met.
Maybe it is, but in this situation it all seems very clear cut, Southampton would have probably been upfront about the situation as they know they've got little power with him in his last year.
I always thought it was more like this:
Southampton: we want £10m
Liverpool: Ok we bid £5m
Southampton: Errr... we still want £10m
Liverpool: Ok, we bid £5.5m.
Southampton: We're getting a bit bored of this now. £10m please!
Liverpool: Ok, we bid £25m
Southampton: Athankyou!
Southampton: we want £10m
Liverpool: Ok we bid £5m
Southampton: Errr... we still want £10m
Liverpool: Ok, we bid £5.5m.
Southampton: We're getting a bit bored of this now. £10m please!
Liverpool: Ok, we bid £25m
Southampton: Athankyou!
Because we are liverpool
Go in with low ball offer, wait for another club to come in and sign the player.
Rinse and repeat
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked