When Klopp has recently spoken about us needing to 'take risks' in the transfer market, how should we interpret that?
Transfer Rumours Transfer Rumours thread
- Thread starter Bozz
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
On the subject of stadium infrastructure, don't forget that NESV, as was, and RBS defended themselves in the high court from Hicks' "Epic swindle" allegations on the basis that though they'd got the club at less than half its book price, this was because it was a distressed sale AND NESV had £250m set aside and verified to build the new stadium. Now don't get me wrong - I'm more than happy that they shafted H&G: Hicks blocked a £550m sale to DIC in 2009 because he was still holding out for $1bn (@£660m at the time), after which, as the financial crisis bit, DIC eventually walked (who could blame them?). BUT, they said they had the money to build a new stadium, not lend it to the club. I don't blame them for not building a new stadium, though we're now pretty well boxed in for any future development. I do think it's ****ing rich to hamstring, as you say, the spending power of the club by saddling it with unnecessary debt WHEN THE VALUE OF THEIR ASSET HAS INCREASED MORE THAN TENFOLD in that time.
It's like when we won the Prem during Covid and they said "Well that's ****ed it - we had big plans for our worldwide sales celebrating the first league title in 30 years, but now, because of this, we have no money to spend". Didn't stop anybody else! In fact, there was a report in the Indy last summer that we had the most wiggle room under FFP (£450m) after Spurs spent a few bob. But that's it with FSG - if I could do memes I'd do one of John Henry as Rigsby from Rising Damp - there's ALWAYS an excuse not to put his hand in his pocket, and ask yourself this about 2018 - would we have got both Virgil and Ally within 2 windows had it not been for the Coutinho money? As I remember, they were going to still stick with Karius that summer even after his CL horror show until someone (presumably Jurgen?) put their foot down. And I drag this up because the Virgil and Ally signings are ALWAYS chucked up as chaff to 'demonstrate' how FSG will "Pay big bucks when they have to". Yeah, if only we had a Coutinho to sell each summer, and mugs like Barca were to throw funny money at them.
But they're not as bad as Hicks and Gillett, so everything is groovy, if we're setting the bar of 'groovy' to be lower than a limbo dancer couldn't get under.
Guimaraes (spl) and Alvarez are two players we could have bought but didn't, that would suit us down to the ground. These are the types of players we usually go for ie not big names but quality and value for money.
I wonder if we have been waiting for Bellingham knowing that he would have a high fee but hoping it was an Alisson type fee and not what is being quoted currently - €160m now I believe which is half again on what was already an outrageous fee for a teenager albeit the hottest property around. That's why I wonder about the risk comment. When does value for money - in Bellingham's case potentially a player who we could have for the next 10 years with transfer fee spread over those 10 years - become an unacceptable risk?
The FSG model also relies on selling players at their peak value so it can be reinvested. Unfortunately, we held onto players for too long - which is further exacerbated because Klopp is an emotional manager with a deep connection with the players.
This. Completely agree.
Football clubs should be run sensibly. Overspending money they don't have has left many clubs world wide on the brink of collapse.
The issue is that FFP has not been implemented properly.
Surely the art is in finding them young, seeing the potential before it's realised and before the hefty price tags (and wages) kick in?
Lots more variables that could go wrong at a younger age. We wait until they're that little older so some of those variables have been answered. Yes, they cost a bit more but much less risky and reduces overall waste of funds
Of course some players fail to live up to their potential - that's why I called it an art. It's never going to work every time, but if you're not paying big money for them it should be cost-effective in the end for a club that doesn't chuck money about.
Each to their own I guess.
I'd prefer to spend £30m on a player that as proven themselve up to a certain level and consider a low risk than buy three that haven't done anything of note in the game and are therefore high risk players at £10m each
I'm just thinking that you don't get much for £30m these days. Bellingham is a stupid price, but the other names being bandied about as alternatives are hardly going to be value buys.
You could argue that holding onto players for too long is because when players come to play for Klopp, they don't want to leave. You can't force players to move on. It's not just one simple answer.
You don't get many half decent youngsters for £10m either, was just an example
I mean you can.
You tell them they wont be playing, freeze them out. Not a guarantee but most footballers (aside from Bale) want to be playing football.
But ultimately, you can't force them to leave if they want to do a Bale
I tend to believe what Fabrizio Romano reports. He's usually very accurate. Liverpool, United and Chelsea only clubs who have made an enquiry to Brighton about him. And it's largely accepted he's leaving in the summer.