Football 2015/16

[thetime]

Balotelli, borini, Lambert, origi, sturridge,ings, benteke?

That is sure a few goalscorers on Liverpool's books.

Edited July 14, 2015 by thetime

[eFestivals]

Balotelli, borini, Lambert, origi, sturridge,ings, benteke?

That is sure a few goalscorers on Liverpool's books.

Balotelli, Borini, & Lambert are all supposedly going.

And I'd forgotten all about Origi in today/yesterday's posts. I was thinking there was one I'd missed.

I know he's got a bad rep and hasn't lived up to his promise of a couple of years ago, but I'm looking forwards to seeing him. i've even seen it suggested that he's perfect to play with Firmino by someone claiming to know each players strengths/weaknesses well, so I'm really hoping that turns out to be true - as product combined with that pace will be something to see.

[ThomThomDrum]

Balotelli was signed off the back of Liverpool fans wanting a 'big name'.

 

You are blaming the fans?? Thats very odd..............since when did the fans dictate the choices of the manager/those responsible for buying players?

 

Balotelli was a last minute roll of the dice as LFC were proving to be fruitless in their hunt for a striker last summer. At one point BR had even said they were not interested in him and it was only when they realised they were not going to get anyone in at all that they rolled on Mario. A gamble that failed immensely. In fact I dont think anyone thought he would be as bad as he proved, as most thought he would score some goals but give LFC headaches elsewhere due to his personality issues. He proved to be not as bad as a disruptive influence, but a lot worse on the field than imagined.

 

But yeah.............it was the fans fault for that....................??

[zahidf]

Mario himself seems to be an oddity of a tranfer rather than a part of a plan, so i don't reckon too much notice should be taken of him. Even so I doubt the losses will be massive, perhaps £5M.

Lambert was always a value write-off, really, at the end of his career. It's not worked out but few found anything to criticise at time of signing (unlike with mario).

 

Borini would have been sold at a profit last summer if he hadn't fought the transfer. If Liverpool lose on him now then you can't really blame Liverpool.

 

 

yeah, but they only got to the position where they can work things like now by first having spunked huge amounts of money.

As I said above, Chelsea and Liverpool are both playing the market, but for different purposes, from their different positions. It would be astounding if a club in Liverpool's league position was able to work the market in exactly the same way as Chelsea are.

 

 

True, but spunking huge amounts of money got them all those League titles and Chumps League:-)

[pink_triangle]

 

oh FFS, is every club now fully responsible for any player's character flaws, both large and small?

 

They tried to do the standard footie thing with him, and unusually for a player he didn't want to play ball.

 

You could pin some blame on the likes of Spurs for Adebayor's attitudes because they were known before he arrived, but if Borini didn't have a history of this then i'd say it's unfair to pin it on the club.

What flaws in his character? The 2 parties signed a contract and Borini was happy to fulfill the contract that he signed. I dont look down at Borini for taking this stand. What has happened often with liverpool in reent years is that they have signed players to wages that a potential buying club is never going to match. It has meant a delay in moving players on and liverpool often subsidising wages.

I think it was obvious to many at the time that Borini wasnt of the required level. I blame liverpool for signing him, not Borini for signing a contract he wouldnt get elsewhere.

[eFestivals]

True, but spunking huge amounts of money got them all those League titles and Chumps League:-)

 

absolutely.

 

Not all clubs are willing &/or able to do the same.

[eFestivals]

What flaws in his character? The 2 parties signed a contract and Borini was happy to fulfill the contract that he signed. I dont look down at Borini for taking this stand. What has happened often with liverpool in reent years is that they have signed players to wages that a potential buying club is never going to match. It has meant a delay in moving players on and liverpool often subsidising wages.

I think it was obvious to many at the time that Borini wasnt of the required level. I blame liverpool for signing him, not Borini for signing a contract he wouldnt get elsewhere.

 

Borini is certainly allowed to hold Liverpool to that contract and I admire his ambition in wanting to stay and prove himself. - and that's what it was about, not money. And it's the more-unusual happening.

It was similarly 'obvious' to Europe's top clubs that Suarez wasn't worth buying.

To me, it seems obvious that part of Liverpool's strategy is a numbers game. To you, not so much I guess.

Edited July 14, 2015 by eFestivals

[GlastoSimon]

You are blaming the fans?? Thats very odd..............since when did the fans dictate the choices of the manager/those responsible for buying players?

 

Balotelli was a last minute roll of the dice as LFC were proving to be fruitless in their hunt for a striker last summer. At one point BR had even said they were not interested in him and it was only when they realised they were not going to get anyone in at all that they rolled on Mario. A gamble that failed immensely. In fact I dont think anyone thought he would be as bad as he proved, as most thought he would score some goals but give LFC headaches elsewhere due to his personality issues. He proved to be not as bad as a disruptive influence, but a lot worse on the field than imagined.

 

But yeah.............it was the fans fault for that....................??

 

There was a lot of talk at the time about replacing Suarez with a 'big name', and hence there are quite a few articles from last summer about 'big names'. They had signed two strikers already in Lambert and Origi, and still had an excellent one in Sturridge on the books (and at the time, fit) - no trouble signing, or possessing, strikers. 

 

Liverpool were never going to replace Suarez as an individual player, so had to account for their reliance on him a bit. By bringing in more creative players, they could have replicated a style like Southampton had the season before, or even stuck with the one which brought them success in 2013-14. It was possible with the players they had.

 

Why would Rodgers sign a player who didn't fit their hard working, pressing mentality, didn't have the attitude Rodgers desires, nor the record to back up his 'undeniable talent' which people were told so much about? It was a panic buy before Sturridge even got injured, and when Sturridge did get injured their style of 2013-14 was abandoned. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by GlastoSimon

[eFestivals]

oh, Mario was defo a panic buy, on the basis of best available of any 'name' strikers. I think they felt obliged to get a 'name' of some sort, because they were losing such a big-part player.

 

If Sturridge had stayed fit, who knows how it might have turned out different. One of Liverpool's best performances of the season was when both of Sturridge and Mario were on the pitch.

[Wooderson]

Again with the "Balotelli work-ethic" posts on 'ere.

He was played up front on his tod with zero support. Bren's fault he's failed thusfar.

[pink_triangle]

Borini is certainly allowed to hold Liverpool to that contract and I admire his ambition in wanting to stay and prove himself. - and that's what it was about, not money. And it's the more-unusual happening.

It was similarly 'obvious' to Europe's top clubs that Suarez wasn't worth buying.

To me, it seems obvious that part of Liverpool's strategy is a numbers game. To you, not so much I guess.

I think we both agree its a numbers game, but the difference is our assessment on what sort of expectations you should have from those numbers. You think Liverpool have done as well as you would expect by the law of aveages, I think they have done worse.

I wouldn't compare the Borini and Suarez transfers. Borini joined after a good (admittedly short) spell at a championship side. He deserved an opportunity at a lower end premiership side, but I don't think there was anything to suggest more.

Suarez joined after a few prolific seasons in the dutch league and as an international footballer who had played in the latter stages of the world cup. For all the mentions of Alfonso Alves, there have been many people who have ben prolific in the dutch league and outside it, while others have had 1 prolific season in the premiership and then been crap. Suarez was a great signing, but there were more signs he could succeed than an Adam, Borini or Lambert.

[Celery]

 

 Chelsea have a strange transfer policy though. They seem to buy players because other clubs want them, dont play them and sell them on.

I don't think they've done that for close to a decade unless you can name some I've forgotten?? Though it certainly did happen in early Abramovic days - got our just deserts being stuck with SWP for so long. 

 

Chelsea have made narrow profits on most players it seems. De Bruyne, Schurrle. But yeah, it's strange how they keep buying players, barely playing them, then making back the initial transfer fee + wages for the period they were there.

Making far more than just the fee & wages. Most of them are sent on loan to clubs who then pay the wages while the value soars, leaving Chelsea a tidy profit. It's a good system, but it won't last forever. 

 

It would be astounding if a club in Liverpool's league position was able to work the market in exactly the same way as Chelsea are.

 

Why? These players aren't exactly world stars when they're joining Chelsea. 

[pink_triangle]

I don't think they've done that for close to a decade unless you can name some I've forgotten?? Though it certainly did happen in early Abramovic days - got our just deserts being stuck with SWP for so long.

Salah and I suspect Quadrado isn't far behind.

[Celery]

Salah and I suspect Quadrado isn't far behind.

I don't think we bought them to spite anyone else. Salah played 2 CL games against us and scored twice while Cuadrado was generally pretty highly rated and we needed someone to replace Schurrle. 

 

[kaosmark2]

Liverpool were in for salah. He's first choice now, but Chelsea showed no interest in willian before spurs bid for him.

[eFestivals]

I think....

 

I wouldn't compare the Borini and Suarez transfers. Borini joined after a good (admittedly short) spell at a championship side. He deserved an opportunity at a lower end premiership side, but I don't think there was anything to suggest more.

 

Perhaps think again, and nail the facts next time...?

 

But anyway, I'm claiming nothing for him except that he turned down a reasonable transfer to remain at Liverpool, and had he taken that transfer Liverpool would have turned a small profit on him.

 

It's not like he's someone who'd shown a dislike for transfers prior to that.

[eFestivals]

Why? These players aren't exactly world stars when they're joining Chelsea. 

 

so suddenly, top 4 clubs don't have a greater player attraction?

[Celery]

Liverpool were in for salah. He's first choice now, but Chelsea showed no interest in willian before spurs bid for him.

He's a first team player and has been since he signed. We were also linked with him about a year beforehand. I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to spend £30m on a player (in FFP days) and play them every week just to shit on Spurs. They're not even direct rivals

[Celery]

so suddenly, top 4 clubs don't have a greater player attraction?

Are you implying Liverpool isn't a bigger draw than playing for Genk? Plenty of decent players around to buy, you just need decent scouts. But yes, i agree Chelsea is a more attractive club to players than Liverpool

[eFestivals]

Are you implying Liverpool isn't a bigger draw than playing for Genk? Plenty of decent players around to buy, you just need decent scouts. But yes, i agree Chelsea is a more attractive club to players than Liverpool

 

of course I'm not saying that Liverpool isn't a bigger draw than Genk, I'm recognising that Chelsea are a bigger draw than Liverpool.

 

A club in Liverpool's position in the league is likely to have competition from the clubs around them, and if a top 4 club comes in they'll almost always lose out.

 

By the nature of Chelsea being at the top, they have no competition. As a result, they'll get their first choices, while Liverpool might end up with a Mario.

 

And it's not like Liverpool can't not buy a Mario if they need a player and he's all that's available, and so they end up having to take a bigger chance on a less fancied player, with the result that fewer of them are likely to be a success in the role they've been bought for, and so the club is more likely to lose money if they're sold on.

 

All of that is a natural consequence as a result of where the teams are, and that natural consequence gives the teams nearest the top an advantage with making successful transfers.

 

Not bitching, just saying: success favours success.

[Wooderson]

Chelsea's "use" of the international loan system has been discussed in detail. It's mental. Nothing illegal mind. When you have oil money you can basically do what you want.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Wooderson

[kingcrawler]

Van Gaal says Valdes not selected for the tour because he 'hasn't followed the philosophy'. Asked whether he will be sold, replied 'yes'.

— Rob Dawson (@RobDawsonMEN)

July 15, 2015

 

That's Valdes away then...

 

“Valdes is not selected [for the tour] because he doesn't follow my philosophy. The philosophy is how you play football and how you maintain your match rhythm,” said Van Gaal.

"He refused last year to play in the second team. There are a lot of other aspects in the philosophy how you have to play like a goalkeeper at Manchester United. When you are not willing [to apply] the principles of that philosophy there is only one way, and that is out. 

"For us this is a big disappointment. We thought he would follow our philosophy. It's a pity because we have given the opportunity to rehabilitate. Then we gave a contract. Then of course he is fit to play. When you're not playing in the first selection, you have to play in the second selection."

 

Edit: Rafael too

 

van Gaal asked why buy Darmian over Rafael: "MD a player who could defend on the 1st phase because right fullback you have to defend." Ouch.

— Barney @Red News (@barneyrednews)

July 15, 2015

Edited July 15, 2015 by kingcrawler

[Gucci Piggy]

Also when asked if he can confirm Di Maria is staying he said "No, it's a process" apparently.

[sdvruxk]

Alternatively he said he expects to see Di Maria on the 25th July (I think it was that date).

 

Think he's just saying 'anything can happen' for both Di Maria and De Gea

Edited July 15, 2015 by sdvruxk

[Wooderson]

Media falling over themselves with LVG shafting Valdes. Horseshit.