Football 2010-2011

[The Nal]

Probably had a better season than Young to be fair, though still fair whack.

[pink_triangle]

19 million for Downing?!

[pink_triangle]

I never rated Downing apart from the ability to whip in the odd decent cross. Young is far better, despite last season.

[ralph250]

I never rated Downing apart from the ability to whip in the odd decent cross. Young is far better, despite last season.

[eFestivals]

Am I the only person astounded by the fact liverpool look like they will pay £100 million pound for carrol, downing, henderson and suarez. Its amazing when you think 3 have hardly played international football, all have minimal to no european club expeience and of the 4 only 1would be known outside the british isles. I know they got an inflated fee for torres but surely theres better ways of spending that money.

I'd say - Downing aside (that seems a strange one to me) - that you're missing what Liverpool are trying to be under the new owners.

John Henry has a history of taking a club that's not doing great and building it to success by buying the right young prospects at a relatively cheap price and benefiting via that. OK, it's not with a football team but a yank sport, but there's no reason why the same plan can't work just as well with football, particularly when against the likes of Chelski and Shitty that will only ever buy a 'finished product' and where Liverpool don't have the funds to compete in that top-tier market.

Of course Carroll wasn't cheap, anything but, but there's a number of exceptional circumstances around that. And as I've said many times, I'd say that £10M of what they paid for him (if not more) was paid out happily (as happy as anyone is when spending money, anyway) to show their ambition to get back to being a 'top' team again.

For example, would Henderson have signed for Liverpool if they'd not shown that ambition? I doubt it. But maybe they'd have managed to tempt him by beefing up the contract - perhaps costing them an extra £10M over the length of that contract.

So there's (perhaps) £10M saved just there, £10M back if you like on what they paid for Carroll. If they manage something similar to that with three or four players then Carroll becomes as good as a 'free'. Not everything about the price they paid for him is as nutty as it might first appear from the headline transfer fee.

[lost]

Suarez looks like he could be good value. With the others, remains to be seen how they perform collectively I guess, though do wonder what the fan reaction would've been had Hodgson signed them for those amounts as opposed to Kenny/NESV.

[ralph250]

but there's no reason why the same plan can't work just as well with football, particularly when against the likes of Chelski and Shitty that will only ever buy a 'finished product' and where Liverpool don't have the funds to compete in that top-tier market.

Edited July 6, 2011 by ralph250

[eFestivals]

NFL has the draft that retains some equality of standard. More disparity in starting positions in football.

I realise that everything isn't identical both sides of the pond, but that doesn't mean that what Liverpool is trying to do can't work.

A version of it has worked at your own club, and another version has worked exceedingly well for Arsenal while they got their new stadium sorted even if it's stuttered a bit since - and Liverpool meed to get their own stadium sorted don't forget.

Yes. Still a massive club, that (with respect to worm) is a step up from SAFC. Would've been very surprised if he had turned it down even if Carroll hadn't signed.

Liverpool are certainly a big step up from S'land, but all the same, for someone like Henderson who's hit the England squad aged 20 then he might have considered that a better career move would be to stick with S'land for another season in the hope that one of the bigger (the currently more successful clubs, I mean) came for him this time next year - after all, if that didn't happen then it's not hugely likely that the chance of joining a club of around Liverpool's current level wouldn't have still been there in a year's time. But now having gone to Liverpool then I reckon it's exceedingly unlikely he'll get away from there for at least 2 years even if he turned into the next Skippy in the first weeks of the new season.

To say he'd have signed whatever the situation at Liverpool is going too far I reckon. It's on a par with fergie's false claims that no one ever turns down Utd.

Liverpool signed Adam, subject to medical

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/reds-agree-adam-deal

another one like Downing that I don't really get, given what Henry has said about signings. But at least the fee here is likely to make it look more of a sensible deal.

[Benj]

I'd say - Downing aside (that seems a strange one to me) - that you're missing what Liverpool are trying to be under the new owners.

John Henry has a history of taking a club that's not doing great and building it to success by buying the right young prospects at a relatively cheap price and benefiting via that. OK, it's not with a football team but a yank sport, but there's no reason why the same plan can't work just as well with football, particularly when against the likes of Chelski and Shitty that will only ever buy a 'finished product' and where Liverpool don't have the funds to compete in that top-tier market.

Of course Carroll wasn't cheap, anything but, but there's a number of exceptional circumstances around that. And as I've said many times, I'd say that £10M of what they paid for him (if not more) was paid out happily (as happy as anyone is when spending money, anyway) to show their ambition to get back to being a 'top' team again.

For example, would Henderson have signed for Liverpool if they'd not shown that ambition? I doubt it. But maybe they'd have managed to tempt him by beefing up the contract - perhaps costing them an extra £10M over the length of that contract.

So there's (perhaps) £10M saved just there, £10M back if you like on what they paid for Carroll. If they manage something similar to that with three or four players then Carroll becomes as good as a 'free'. Not everything about the price they paid for him is as nutty as it might first appear from the headline transfer fee.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Benj

[ThomThomDrum]

A young team with an English backbone is what Kenny is going for.........It will be well interesting to see how that pans out for Liverpool......

Adam is a neat little footballer. Did nicely for me last year in FF. See if he can take the pressure that comes with playing for Liverpool

[ralph250]

I realise that everything isn't identical both sides of the pond, but that doesn't mean that what Liverpool is trying to do can't work.

A version of it has worked at your own club, and another version has worked exceedingly well for Arsenal while they got their new stadium sorted even if it's stuttered a bit since - and Liverpool meed to get their own stadium sorted don't forget.

[ralph250]

and Liverpool meed to get their own stadium sorted don't forget.

[eFestivals]

I don't dispute that it can't: Fergie's had big success buying hungry players at mid-tier clubs with something to prove, and who have gone up a level; recently Valencia, Smalling etc. Possibility that similar could happen to Kenny if he feels they have the potential.

Just pointing out that it's easier for poor teams to bridge the gap in the NFL when get first pick on the best youngsters, virtue of the draft. Then can look for transfers beyond that. In the prem, as you stated you're up against likes of City and Chelsea where money is no object and they can buy finished products (and elite ones at that).

Also, not really sure if Liverpool's transfer activity qualifies as "young prospects at relatively cheap prices", like Henry might have done with his American franchises. Arsenal to have funded their stadium have spent the equivalent of a 4 pint round and a packet of peanuts.

Liverpool look to have spent £100-110m gross in 6 months, or mean average of £20-22m each on Suarez, Carroll, Henderson, Downing and Adam.

Think it's fair enough if PT or others have differing views on whether those players were the best usage of those funds. Have to see how they do collectively.

I agree that Liverpool's transfer activity isn't looking quite as it was said it would be, but at least some of that could, I guess, be put down to a certain urgency in getting back towards the top. I'd say that the longer they'd have let things slide the more difficult it would get to be.

And that of course is why they can't do things in the same way as Arsenal, at least not immediately - they're not starting their 'project' from the same established position as Arsenal were in. Wenger had been working the 'kids' thing in the background for quite a while before he needed to field those kids; Liverpool don't have the same luxury, as they're needing to improve what they can put on the field immediately.

All the same, I wouldn't have expected them to go for Downing, nor for Adam if they'd not tried getting him in January. The only take on those that seems to make any sense is them not wanting to end up like Arsenal where it's all youth and no experience. If the rumours are true that Maxi is off back to Argie and Miereles (sp?) is off because he was promised a contract boost that they now won't give him then those signings look a little less odd than they do at this particular moment.

Maybe, as I said though I'd be very surprised if he didn't. Understand what you're saying about holding firm for a year, but equally players are scared of missing the boat. If Liverpool hadn't signed Henderson this summer then high probability they would've identified another target, and suddenly you could find the following summer there's no vacant position there and they're no longer interested.

Tough to turn down a high profile move to a club of Liverpool's calibre/history, when the opportunity presents itself.

True, but I still think it's the case that the decision would have been all the easier because Liverpool are showing the ambition that they are. Liverpool would have defo looked more of a team that's drifting rather than climbing if they'd not bought Carroll back in January, even tho they're still likely to have had that great spell under Kenny that they did.

[Benj]

True, but I still think it's the case that the decision would have been all the easier because Liverpool are showing the ambition that they are. Liverpool would have defo looked more of a team that's drifting rather than climbing if they'd not bought Carroll back in January, even tho they're still likely to have had that great spell under Kenny that they did.

[eFestivals]

If this ambition was supposedly to enable them to attract players of the calibre and high star quality of Henderson, Downing and Adam, then their stock truly must have been terribly low!

There is no way Henderson would ever have turned down LFC to stay at Sunderland, even if they'd sold Gerrard and Reina

I hear the sound of jealousy. Have you spent this summer's two and half pence yet?

[pink_triangle]

Also, not really sure if Liverpool's transfer activity qualifies as "young prospects at relatively cheap prices", like Henry might have done with his American franchises. Arsenal to have funded their stadium have spent the equivalent of a 4 pint round and a packet of peanuts.

Liverpool look to have spent £100-110m gross in 6 months, or mean average of £20-22m each on Suarez, Carroll, Henderson, Downing and Adam.

Think it's fair enough if PT or others have differing views on whether those players were the best usage of those funds. Have to see how they do collectively.

Maybe, as I said though I'd be very surprised if he didn't. Understand what you're saying about holding firm for a year, but equally players are scared of missing the boat. If Liverpool hadn't signed Henderson this summer then high probability they would've identified another target, and suddenly you could find the following summer there's no vacant position there and they're no longer interested.

Tough to turn down a high profile move to a club of Liverpool's calibre/history, when the opportunity presents itself.

[sifi]

Le Tissier had skills that would have graced any top club of the time.

Edited July 6, 2011 by sifi

[pink_triangle]

Le Tissier had skills that would have graced any top club of the time.

[strummer77]

If this ambition was supposedly to enable them to attract players of the calibre and high star quality of Henderson, Downing and Adam, then their stock truly must have been terribly low!

[strummer77]

I never rated Downing apart from the ability to whip in the odd decent cross. Young is far better, despite last season.

[lost]

I hear the sound of jealousy. Have you spent this summer's two and half pence yet?

[The Nal]

I think Young at his best is better (not far better), but he is more of a MOTD player who appears in flashes. Most Villa fans I've read/spoke to seemed to rate Downing higher than Young. That admittedly surprised me too.

[strummer77]

Yeah I've read that too from villa fans. Remains to be seen. Villa really have been raped this summer!

[ralph250]

and evryone knows charlie adam is no matt le tissier.

[Benj]

They would all walk into the Everton side...