Why buy, when you can have him for free? Thiago Alcantara

[bluebell]

We can bemoan about the owners not putting a penny in, but this policy on letting players leave for free has to be tackled. Sell him this season, if a large offer comes in for Salah sell him too.
Liverpool to let Thiago leave at the end of his contract: report
Story by Mark White • Yesterday 18:00


Liverpool look set to release Thiago Alcantara at the end of his current contract.


The Spaniard moved to Merseyside in 2020 after winning the Champions League with Bayern Munich, playing the final against Paris Saint-Germain as his last match for the Bavarian outfit. Since then, the No.6 has gone on to win the FA Cup and League Cup with the Reds.
But Thiago has struggled for fitness during his three years in English football, playing in just 24 and 25 matches in his first two seasons respectively. Jurgen Klopp has chased Jude Bellingham as a serious upgrade in his midfield options, with two plyers in that position likely this summer.
In the midst of this midfield regeneration, The Mirror claims that Thiago will be allowed to leave at the end of his current deal.
The Italian-born maestro has another year on his contract but recently turned 32. It is likely that the Reds would entertain any kind of offer – but may be willing to part with him on a free transfer if finances become an issue.


Related video: Klopp on Liverpool injury updates, transfer budgets and Leeds (English Football Channel)
The Merseysiders have had to put the Bellingham pursuit on the back burner given that they don't have the money to spend on a £100 million player if they don't qualify for the Champions League this season.
Equally, if Thiago were to find a move to get his wages off the books ahead of a rebuild, it's likely that Klopp would let the player leave without a fee.
Liverpool are also expected to move for full-backs and centre-backs along with two midfielders this summer.

[/article]

 

[binomial]

Tbf with players like Matip, Thiago Gini etc I don't think these players were brought in with the intention of having a sell on value....we were happy enough to let them see their contracts out as they were bought in for modest fee's....either that or maybe no one out there wants our now dead rubber players.

Whether the same happens with Virg Jota Salah etc remains to be seen.

 

[Frogfish]

Sell him? Honestly who would buy him for anything worth selling him for? He's still a valuable / quality player for us, even if only off the bench next season. You often seem to think we can get inflated fees for our players.
The reality is that holding on is financially a better option in some circumstances (whether it's better for our squad is another question entirely and that depends on the player) and this clearly looks like one of them (which is what the club have decided).

 

[KopRed]

Tbf with players like Matip, Thiago Gini etc I don't think these players were brought in with the intention of having a sell on value....we were happy enough to let them see their contracts out as they were bought in for modest fee's....either that or maybe no one out there wants our now dead rubber players.

Whether the same happens with Virg Jota Salah etc remains to be seen.

Gini and Matip are not in the same bracket though. They were brought in in their mid 20s, there were always a possibility of making a return or selling them for some sort of fees anytime in the tertheir contract. We just didn't do so.

Not so for Thiago. He came in at 30. Generally when you buy a 30yo player these days, you wouldn't expect much of a fee for them when you want to let them go.

 

[binomial]

Gini and Matip are not in the same bracket though. They were brought in in their mid 20s, there were always a possibility of making a return or selling them for some sort of fees anytime in the tertheir contract. We just didn't do so.

Not so for Thiago. He came in at 30. Generally when you buy a 30yo player these days, you wouldn't expect much of a fee for them when you want to let them go.

That's true I agree which is why I brought up the modest fee we spent on Gini (bringing Matip on a free) so perhaps that came into our thinking that we didn't have to capitalise on that for financial benefits despite them being worth 40-50m+ 3-4 years ago.

It's a bit of a catch 22 what a club should do with a player who is say 26-28, just had their best season or entering their prime years etc....do you keep the player on and let them get on with what they've been so good at doing for you or do you cash in?

Once you build a side that Klopp has you need to allow that side to settle together so it can go on the run of success they've had.....if the owners then can't keep up with todays market and bring in what we need when players run out of steam, then what can a manager do about that?

 

[bluebell]

Sell him? Honestly who would buy him for anything worth selling him for? He's still a valuable / quality player for us, even if only off the bench next season. You often seem to think we can get inflated fees for our players.
The reality is that holding on is financially a better option in some circumstances (whether it's better for our squad is another question entirely and that depends on the player) and this clearly looks like one of them (which is what the club have decided).

£5-10m is what I put a value on his head... If he is useful extend his contract for another 24 months. Joel Matip's contract runs out next year too, why not let him walk for free?
When we are as financially strapped as we are, every penny helps

 

[Frogfish]

It's a bit of a catch 22 what a club should do with a player who is say 26-28, just had their best season or entering their prime years etc....do you keep the player on and let them get on with what they've been so good at doing for you or do you cash in?

There's a simple answer to that ... and it depends on the ambition of the club concerned.

 

[binomial]

There's a simple answer to that ... and it depends on the ambition of the club concerned.

It's a simple answer for a narrow minded person who possesses a high level of naivity,

"depends on the ambition of the club" - that's a very vague response though and offers nothing because a lot of thinking factors go into that by a group of people....you've literally opened the door for that to mean anything.

Take that club concerned of yours being Liverpool around the time we won the Prem (after winning the CL and getting to another final)...what would you have done with the likes of Virgil and Mo if to you it's a simple answer.

 

[Donavan Ried]

£5-10m is what I put a value on his head... If he is useful extend his contract for another 24 months. Joel Matip's contract runs out next year too, why not let him walk for free?
When we are as financially strapped as we are, every penny helps

Is that "why not let him walk for free?" or "why let him walk for free?"
If"why" then i totally agree

 

[localny]

Need some insights here from someone who knows this game.

Is it possible the cost of a new contract (with a view to selling a year into new contract) makes it cheaper to let them run them down?

is it possible, we tell players if they sign for us they maybe be able to leave on a free (for a payday). Making joining us more attractive - that future payday has to look good at the end of their career, no?

 

[Beamrider]

Need some insights here from someone who knows this game.

Is it possible the cost of a new contract (with a view to selling a year into new contract) makes it cheaper to let them run them down?

is it possible, we tell players if they sign for us they maybe be able to leave on a free (for a payday). Making joining us more attractive - that future payday has to look good at the end of their career, no?

Not quite sure if this is what you are asking in the first point, but it is rare that the FA / Premier League would allow you to register a contract with a player that reduces their existing wages. So if you have a player on (say) £100k a week with 12 months to run, you could offer him a 2 year extension at £50k per week but you couldn't reduce his existing £100k for the remainder of his current deal - so you amend his terms to £100k per week for a year, then £50k a week for two years after that. And you'd end up paying an agent commission on the extra 2 years at £50k per week. So you'd need to be 100% sure you'd be able to sell him for more than the cost of the agent fee after 12 months, otherwise you're better off letting him run his contract down or you risk paying him an extra 2 years when you don't want / need him.
On the second point, it doesn't really matter what you tell a player, what matters is what goes in his contract, and you could put something in allowing him to leave for a minimum fee (even potentially £nil) at a fixed future point. That will affect the accounts though, as you'd need to write down the player's value over a quicker period (did see this in practice once where a player went out on loan and the loan included an option to buy which was lower than his accounts value, so we had to write it down).

 

[Frogfish]

It's a simple answer for a narrow minded person who possesses a high level of naivity,

"depends on the ambition of the club" - that's a very vague response though and offers nothing because a lot of thinking factors go into that by a group of people....you've literally opened the door for that to mean anything.

Take that club concerned of yours being Liverpool around the time we won the Prem (after winning the CL and getting to another final)...what would you have done with the likes of Virgil and Mo if to you it's a simple answer.

Again pretty obvious - if you actually understand how the term 'ambition' actually applies to LFC.

You'd have invested more in supporting those CL & PL winning players. Any other answer is wrong.

 

[binomial]

Again pretty obvious - if you actually understand how the term 'ambition' actually applies to LFC.

You'd have invested more in supporting those CL & PL winning players. Any other answer is wrong.

But we're not in a position to invest more & we weren't otherwise we would've done so, clearly....so again I ask what would you have done with those players at their peak?

You can go on about ambition all you like, it's clear the club has very different ambition to what the fans have....Klopp has to accept whatever ambition FSG have of the club or walk away.

The options to Klopp back then were to either sell those players for absurd amounts and use that to rebuild or what he decided to do which was to keep them all together this long with the odd unplanned investment here and there.

 

[Frogfish]

But we're not in a position to invest more & we weren't otherwise we would've done so, clearly....so again I ask what would you have done with those players at their peak?

You can go on about ambition all you like, it's clear the club has very different ambition to what the fans have.

I've answered you. That position is resolute.

And FSG not having ambition doesn't mean they couldn't have raised the money - Beamrider clearly demonstrated at the time that they could have but didn't want to saddle themselves with any debt. Therein lies the answer you seek young padawan.

 

[Squiggles]

I'm all for selling at the right time, we really what's an injury prone 32 year old going to be worth? I do have a soft spot for Thiago, but I do feel he's worth the cost of keeping him. He makes a big difference to the side and as he ages further he'll still be useful at coming on to keep the ball, controlling play and protecting leads. He seems to be mentoring Bajectic too, which will only be beneficial for us.

 

[localny]

Not quite sure if this is what you are asking in the first point, but it is rare that the FA / Premier League would allow you to register a contract with a player that reduces their existing wages. So if you have a player on (say) £100k a week with 12 months to run, you could offer him a 2 year extension at £50k per week but you couldn't reduce his existing £100k for the remainder of his current deal - so you amend his terms to £100k per week for a year, then £50k a week for two years after that. And you'd end up paying an agent commission on the extra 2 years at £50k per week. So you'd need to be 100% sure you'd be able to sell him for more than the cost of the agent fee after 12 months, otherwise you're better off letting him run his contract down or you risk paying him an extra 2 years when you don't want / need him.
On the second point, it doesn't really matter what you tell a player, what matters is what goes in his contract, and you could put something in allowing him to leave for a minimum fee (even potentially £nil) at a fixed future point. That will affect the accounts though, as you'd need to write down the player's value over a quicker period (did see this in practice once where a player went out on loan and the loan included an option to buy which was lower than his accounts value, so we had to write it down).

Thanks amigo. So on the first point, I'm not saying that per se, but I am saying perhaps it's cheaper to let someone run a contract down and let them go for free, than giving them a new contract? Simple cost benefit analysis on cost of improved contract v expected gain from sale = cheaper to let them go?

on the second point, yes I am wondering if in the contract, (and in whispers too, to be fair), it could be said that "Hey you could make money elsewhere, Mr Midfielder, but Liverpool will likely let you go for nothing down the line - so you'll likely make a killing in your last contract with another club, without a transfer fee. Much more than a extra $50K a week that Man United will pay you.."

 

[Beamrider]

Thanks amigo. So on the first point, I'm not saying that per se, but I am saying perhaps it's cheaper to let someone run a contract down and let them go for free, than giving them a new contract? Simple cost benefit analysis on cost of improved contract v expected gain from sale = cheaper to let them go?

on the second point, yes I am wondering if in the contract, (and in whispers too, to be fair), it could be said that "Hey you could make money elsewhere, Mr Midfielder, but Liverpool will likely let you go for nothing down the line - so you'll likely make a killing in your last contract with another club, without a transfer fee. Much more than a extra $50K a week that Man United will pay you.."

On the first point, yes. If you're happy to let them go then there's a good chance that extending the contract so you'll guarantee a fee could bite you in the arse. It all depends on the numbers but it's not necessarily the madness you might think to let a player run their contract down. There may also be other factors in play (e.g. on Emre Can I heard the player wanted a release clause and the club refused on principle because they thought everyone would want one).
On the second point, again it's plausible but the player will want a clear clause in the contract - e.g. Haaland's low release clause (in his Dortmund deal) is probably a good example of this as clubs almost certainly won't agree to a free transfer (unless they acquired the player on a free / knock-down fee), the Suarez £40m + £1 is a good example of how it can go wrong for the player (and why they wouldn't take the club on trust).

 

[bluebell]

Anyone want take a bet the following players will all be allowed to run their contracts down VVD, Fab, Salah, Matip, Robbo, Thiago, Hendo and Alisson?

 

[binomial]

They probably will yeah.

Only few clubs out there can afford these players and let's be honest no one wants to be signing 30+ year olds on massive wages.

 

[MomoWASright]

Van Dijk and Robbo will be sold in 14 months time. Matip will go on a free alongside Thiago. Salah and Hendo won’t move because we’d have to supplement their wages.

Alisson will be sold in 2025.

 

[King Binny]

 

[Markeh]

Mega eyeroll

 

[moron]

Sell him? Honestly who would buy him for anything worth selling him for? He's still a valuable / quality player for us, even if only off the bench next season. You often seem to think we can get inflated fees for our players.
The reality is that holding on is financially a better option in some circumstances (whether it's better for our squad is another question entirely and that depends on the player) and this clearly looks like one of them (which is what the club have decided).

this is right, he can still impact games by being a ball playing midfielder, and we can't afford to sell for a few million to fund a multi-million buy to replace him. Also in what world do you find a guaranteed striker that will make up Mo's goals if we sell him ? - there is no winger out their that will match his goals regardless of how bad he has been this season in comparison to previous seasons and you cannot ignore that the overall team and supply line to him has been dodgy to say the least. Selling either of them this summer makes no sense.

 

[moron]

Anyone want take a bet the following players will all be allowed to run their contracts down VVD, Fab, Salah, Matip, Robbo, Thiago, Hendo and Alisson?

Hendo will run down his contract coz no PL team has any use for shouter in their team, he might find a place in a league 1 team.

 

[binomial]

Another ear operation is it?

Hand over the translation duties to Diogo and get him gone.

Might sound harsh but for me doesn't matter who you are, if you're missing 40...50%+ of games then what good are you?

He hasn't started a game in over 3 months now....we're paying the man 200k a week, stop playing games with us.

 

[rurikbird]

 

[RedStar]

I thought Operation Anfield was some sort of security drill, apparently it's the name of our medical team

 

[Dreambeliever]

No need to worry about accomodating Trent and Thiago now!

 

[bluebell]

Why do we have so many injuries? A few months ago I read put the blame on the fitness coach. The training method he allegedly used put too much stress on the muscle. How true any of this is, I don't know.

 

[The Nomad]

Did he injure himself giving Nunez instructions?