Summer transfer rumours, speculation and out-and-out b*ll*cks.

[Redman]

Hands up, who's in the mood for bindippers coming here and telling us what our players are worth and what their piss taking club will or will not pay?
Oh yes, delightful.

It's the curious logic of it all that I find most enjoyable.
 
Overpaid. But 'on their terms.'  Confused, much?

Downing is not the equivalent of Henderson and Carroll which is why Liverpool won't overpay.

I agree with the first part, which is why the second part makes no sense.  Absolutely 100% spot on that Downing isn't the equivalent of Henderson or Carroll.  He's infinitely better - to date. As far as potential/ resale value goes too, It's not as if he's on his last legs either, with no room for improvement. He's 26.

Liverpool's strategy is perfectly logical. It doesn't help the debate to suggest otherwise simply because you aren't in favour of it.

Clearly, Liverpool are valuing potential higher than they are proven ability. As Downing is also infinitely better than Albrighton, presumably you'd value the youngster at a lot less too?

Downing isnt infinitely better than Albrighton. What are you going on about?

And a big fucking "lol" to a strategy of paying what may well be £55m on Carroll and Henderson being "perfectly logical".

I'm going on about the exact same shite your mate was. If Downing is infinitely better than Carroll and Henderson, he's infinitely better than Albrighton.

If you weren't so belligerent, we could probably have a sensible discussion, you know. Never mind your views of what Carroll and Henderson are worth - we know that already. The point is that investing in potential is a sound strategy. That isn't to say it's guaranteed to succeed.

[Dante Lavelli]

£17 and their fullback Kelly please.

Marginally off topic but am I the only person that thought Barry was pretty shit in that "extra season" we got out of him. To me it was clear that his heart was not in it as such and his performances dropped considerably, not to mention the knock on effect with the other squad members. I actually think we were lucky man city came along and offered £12m.

Similarly are Arsenal that much better off keeping Fabregas when it is clear their captain would rather be somewhere else.

Sell downing for as much as we can get and buy an up and coming player who will be proud to wear the shirt.

[Toronto Villa]

It's not about satisfaction. It's about knowing that our board have stated publicly that they want to keep our best players but in the event that the players have made it clear they want to go, the board have said that's it's on our terms. You seem to be missing/ignoring that bit every time. Yes, off course we could have kept all of the players that we've lost but no club turns down that kind of money. It would have financially irresponsible and especially at a time where our wages and expenses were spiralling out of control.

So we've weakened the team on our own terms.  Three, possibly four times.  Rah rah.

yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting isn't it? FFS.

[Mazrim]

Only if they end up being any good.

Indeed.  But I thought you were one of Carroll's biggest champions.

I was. I think he has great potential but equally the potential to end up in some sort of institution. He was worth taking a gamble on for a reasonable fee but £35m? Alternatively I dont rate Henderson at all. Certainly not to justify that price.

The future will decide but I doubt those deals will be looked on retrospectively as wise.

[adrenachrome]

i think people need to re-evalutate where the club is going with a bit of realism. If Liverpool for example had let Hodgson go and appointed AM, then let 4 first team players go this summer would anyone be surprised if Gerrard left? would anyone neutral think they were on the up? Whatever the reality is, we've given every impression of downsizing and being on the way down. It brings me back to the General's frankly ludicrous suggestion that who you appoint as manager has no bearing on how ambitious the club is. if we'd appointed FSW or kept GH and spent 20 odd million by now, would Downing be more or less likely to stay?


We give off all the signs of being a club in decline so it becomes a self-fullfilling prophecuy and we become a club in decline.

I agree with the analysis, if not the conclusion.

Retrenchment rather than decline is the word I would use. To use a maritime metaphor, we are steadying the ship which came perilously close to collapsing last season, finishing position notwithstanding.

Hold on to the main brace!
 

[hilts_coolerking]

It's not about satisfaction. It's about knowing that our board have stated publicly that they want to keep our best players but in the event that the players have made it clear they want to go, the board have said that's it's on our terms. You seem to be missing/ignoring that bit every time. Yes, off course we could have kept all of the players that we've lost but no club turns down that kind of money. It would have financially irresponsible and especially at a time where our wages and expenses were spiralling out of control.

So we've weakened the team on our own terms.  Three, possibly four times.  Rah rah.

yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting isn't it? FFS.

It does appear to be, yes.

say what you want about Randy/Faulkner they haven't let us down at all when selling our better players.

[Mazrim]

O.K Redman, I'm probably being out of order to you in regards to the Downing situation and I apologise for that. It's not your fault. I do find some of your reasoning skewed but no matter.

[Toronto Villa]

i think people need to re-evalutate where the club is going with a bit of realism. If Liverpool for example had let Hodgson go and appointed AM, then let 4 first team players go this summer would anyone be surprised if Gerrard left? would anyone neutral think they were on the up? Whatever the reality is, we've given every impression of downsizing and being on the way down. It brings me back to the General's frankly ludicrous suggestion that who you appoint as manager has no bearing on how ambitious the club is. if we'd appointed FSW or kept GH and spent 20 odd million by now, would Downing be more or less likely to stay?


We give off all the signs of being a club in decline so it becomes a self-fullfilling prophecuy and we become a club in decline.

I agree with the analysis, if not the conclusion.

Retrenchment rather than decline is the word I would use. To use a maritime metaphor, we are steadying the ship which came perilously close to collapsing last season, finishing position notwithstanding.

Hold on to the main brace!
 

that's kind of how I see it. The AM appointment while not ambitious or glamorous is an attempt in my opinion to settle everything down again. I'm sure the board could have gone for Benitez but what would be the point if we couldn't support his spending requirements "at this time"? I look at this very much like a David Moyes appointment. Getting in a man with something to prove, that will stay loyal and will hopefully build something that is sustainable while being back responsibily in the market.

[Greg N'Ash]

i think people need to re-evalutate where the club is going with a bit of realism. If Liverpool for example had let Hodgson go and appointed AM, then let 4 first team players go this summer would anyone be surprised if Gerrard left? would anyone neutral think they were on the up? Whatever the reality is, we've given every impression of downsizing and being on the way down. It brings me back to the General's frankly ludicrous suggestion that who you appoint as manager has no bearing on how ambitious the club is. if we'd appointed FSW or kept GH and spent 20 odd million by now, would Downing be more or less likely to stay?


We give off all the signs of being a club in decline so it becomes a self-fullfilling prophecuy and we become a club in decline.

I agree with the analysis, if not the conclusion.

Retrenchment rather than decline is the word I would use. To use a maritime metaphor, we are steadying the ship which came perilously close to collapsing last season, finishing position notwithstanding.

Hold on to the main brace!
 

heh. I like the cut of your jib. I hope you're right and for whatever reason Lerner just thinks AM is the man who will get us into the upper reaches and will back him. Sadly i think he believes he's the man who can keep us up on a limited budget. Mind you the latter sounds as barmy as the former to me.

[Toronto Villa]

It's not about satisfaction. It's about knowing that our board have stated publicly that they want to keep our best players but in the event that the players have made it clear they want to go, the board have said that's it's on our terms. You seem to be missing/ignoring that bit every time. Yes, off course we could have kept all of the players that we've lost but no club turns down that kind of money. It would have financially irresponsible and especially at a time where our wages and expenses were spiralling out of control.

So we've weakened the team on our own terms.  Three, possibly four times.  Rah rah.

yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting isn't it? FFS.

It does appear to be, yes.

say what you want about Randy/Faulkner they haven't let us down at all when selling our better players.

No it isn't and again you're ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that these players wanted to leave. The board had two choices. They could have been stubborn and told the players to stay under contract or did what they did. Let's look at the keep the players option.

1) Barry goes for free.
2) Milner would have stayed professional and in time we would have hoped we'd have built around him. Then again MON was sinking the ship and likely would have spent another 40 million on his type of player and we'd have finished top 6 or 7 again. You hope in that same time Milner isn't continuously tapped up, and his performance isn't affected by what his agent is telling him.
3) Young goes for free.
4) Downing stays for another 2 years and like Milner you hope his performance isn't affected by a pissed off player.

So we are guaranteed to have lost around 30 million at a time where our finances need to be brought back into reality. You're very, very quick to criticise the board. Offer an alternative. What would you have done differently? Would have got the best deal possible, or would you have made the players sit it out because that's what you must think every other club does.

[hilts_coolerking]

that's kind of how I see it. The AM appointment while not ambitious or glamorous is an attempt in my opinion to settle everything down again. I'm sure the board could have gone for Benitez but what would be the point if we couldn't support his spending requirements "at this time"? I look at this very much like a David Moyes appointment. Getting in a man with something to prove, that will stay loyal and will hopefully build something that is sustainable while being back responsibily in the market.

Bloody hell Mr Brightside, you're working overtime tonight. 

Selling our best players?  Well done the board for getting good money for them! 
Appointed a manager who has been relegated twice in three seasons?  Great we've got someone with something to prove! 
Not spending big to replace our now departed players?  Great we're going for slow growth anyway!

You remind me of Comical Ali.

If this is a David Moyes-type appointment, then it is a third-rate, cut-price David Moyes.

[Dante Lavelli]

What's clear is the club need to demonstrate some sort of statement of intent. Play their cards right and people will forgive selling downing (who was probably the biggest target of the boo-boys coming into last season remember).

We somehow need to reverse this cycle of seemingly bad news and create sone positivity. If the money is available as the club keep saying then spend some. If it's not, then I'd prefer some honesty and we can all adjust our expectations accordingly.

[hilts_coolerking]

No it isn't and again you're ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that these players wanted to leave. The board had two choices. They could have been stubborn and told the players to stay under contract or did what they did. Let's look at the keep the players option.

1) Barry goes for free.
2) Milner would have stayed professional and in time we would have hoped we'd have built around him. Then again MON was sinking the ship and likely would have spent another 40 million on his type of player and we'd have finished top 6 or 7 again.
3) Young goes for free.
4) Downing stays for another 2 years and like Milner you hope his performance isn't affected by a pissed off player.

So we are guaranteed to have lost around 30 million at a time where our finances need to be brought back into reality. You're very, very quick to criticise the board. Offer an alternative. What would you have done differently? Would have got the best deal possible, or would you have made the players sit it out because that's what you must think every other club does.

My point is why praise the board for doing something that you yourself say they had no alternative to?  They didn't do anything remarkable whatsoever in getting the money they did for those players.

[Redman]

Hands up, who's in the mood for bindippers coming here and telling us what our players are worth and what their piss taking club will or will not pay?
Oh yes, delightful.

It's the curious logic of it all that I find most enjoyable.
 
Overpaid. But 'on their terms.'  Confused, much?

Downing is not the equivalent of Henderson and Carroll which is why Liverpool won't overpay.

I agree with the first part, which is why the second part makes no sense.  Absolutely 100% spot on that Downing isn't the equivalent of Henderson or Carroll.  He's infinitely better - to date. As far as potential/ resale value goes too, It's not as if he's on his last legs either, with no room for improvement. He's 26.

Liverpool's strategy is perfectly logical. It doesn't help the debate to suggest otherwise simply because you aren't in favour of it.

Clearly, Liverpool are valuing potential higher than they are proven ability. As Downing is also infinitely better than Albrighton, presumably you'd value the youngster at a lot less too?

At this point in time, yes.

Excellent delivery from wide, and shows promise. But he's still raw. Though I think it unlikely, he could yet go the way of Peter Whittingham and a few others.  Downing won't. He's an international, at the top of his game and was our player of the year last year. Yet he's still young enough to improve further.

You seem to speak with the assurance or authority that you are somehow instep with Liverpool's buying strategy. Does Comolli have you on speed dial if he's ever unsure about the merits of a prospective transfer?

Though on this one, I do actually hope you're both singing from the same hymn sheet. If your top brass value him to the extent that you do - ie less than a rookie like Henderson- that's hopefully where the matter ends.

Liverpool's strategy is pretty transparent. I don't know more than any other Liverpool supporter who has seen the interviews and read the quotes.

I would have thought Villa supporters would be more upset about selling Albrighton at this point, right? He is, at best, your future. It costs a lot of money to buy a club's future. And while there is an obvious risk investing heavily in unproven players, my guess is Liverpool are trying to reinvent themselves as a club where potential can be fulfilled. They don't want the finished product because they want to develop the player themselves and will pay big for the opportunity.

[Redman]

O.K Redman, I'm probably being out of order to you in regards to the Downing situation and I apologise for that. It's not your fault. I do find some of your reasoning skewed but no matter.

No worries mate. Understandable really.