The saga continues with Brian McBride chumming up to Dempsey. The pair of them had a dinner date last weekend and shortly after McBride went on ESPN and openly said that Dempsey had not told the Club that he refused to play. Now he's being quoted in goal.com (Dempsey's brother is a contributer to them) that L'pool is a must - http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2012/08/21/3320709/- No doubt our tabloids will pick it up and add to the murkiness.
If Clint stays, and assuming we don't win every match 5-0, then he's going to be back in the side sooner or later even if he starts on the bench. And Clint being Clint I would fully expect him to score a couple in his first game back and while this whole fiasco won't be forgotten it'll soon be forgiven.
I can understand your point, the difference between Hodgson and Dempsey is that Roy was offered the job and took it, where as Dempsey is offering himself for the job in advance of the proposal. I agree that Dempsey has served us well- but we have treated him equally good, taking a punt on him when he was a relative unknown and providing a platform to demonstrate his talents to European teams. The main reason I feel animosity, although it's not malicious, is that he is agitating for a move that probably would have come regardless, not neccesarily to Liverpool, but to a 'bigger' club. It all just seems unneccesary- I'd expect him to understand that Fulham aren't just going to ship him on because he wants out- he has a value and a contract- both need to be taken into consideration. If another club offers us his value then he can go, if they don't then he is contracted to play for. Fulham couldn't simply decide we wanted rid without adequately compensating him (Wayne Bridge a good example).
Looks like you'll be fine without him based on last weekend! Anyway, it looks like Liverpool are holding out for their valuation of the player, and we'll probably get our way in the end. A far cry from Carroll/Henderson/Downing-gate.
You think you're still after him, despite since your enquiry signing Allen and Assaidi? Also considering all the reports saying you're not interested and your owner explicitly saying you've "moved on"? You may well sign him but if you do it'll be a bolt from the blue.
DR if you ask me I believe Dempsey served Fulham well. He has expressed the wish to leave and although saddened to see him leaving I would let him go. But as others have said there are contracts and needs to be honoured. I will not applaud Roy because of the way he left the club. Thankful to him for what he did but he should always be grateful to this club because Fulham brought him back into the picture.
Spin from the pool, I reckon. And Allen and Assaidi are different positions Bidley. But hey, no problem the big spenders are said to be interested - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2191227/Sunderland-hoping-pip-Liverpool-Fulhams-Clint-Dempsey.html I hear what NI says about certain of L'pool's previous signings being over priced (different manager as well) but I really doubt if they would quibble about halving the difference between their valuation and ours for Demsey. Which is what I think will happen.
I think there's a good a chance as any. I'd be very surprised if we only made two forward signings this summer (Borini and Assaidi).
Dr, i don't think there's animosity per se. As C58 said and others, things get interpreted in different ways by different people. I thought the chants were banter also, taking the piss a bit, if you like. he is a proper legend but there are still more questions than answers regarding the posturing and the leverage he's trying to make. Does that make sense? I'm still at a loss with the CL thing though. The other thing is that there hasn't been an offer for him (that we know of) so if this is the case he is definitely trying to leverage a deal and force someone to come in for him. Other clubs are waiting to get him for a free, he's not RVP after all.
Montreal Gazette's got a piece on Dempsey http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2012/08/21/premier-league-three-things-we-learned-this-week/
Not exactly a shock, but Jol has confirmed that Dempsey will not be in the line-up for Saturday's game v ManU - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2192519/Clint-Dempsey-involved-Fulham-Manchester-United.html?ITO=1490
The club has made an official complaint about Liverpool's conduct re: Dempsey. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18886354 Not sure that we can expect anything to come from this.
Strangely Jol has not mentioned this in any of his Club interviews, including his preview of the ManU game today (see 'ManU Away' thread). This may well be because lodging a complaint is an Executive issue and outside of his remit as Coach/Manager. Whatever, I'm pleased we have taken action because L'pool's behaviour at all levels has been dodgy to say the least. The PL have acknowledged the complaint and confirmed the rules in question - http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/premier-league-receives-complaint-from-fulham.html
I am somewhat bewildered by what i have read about CD,surely if an employee refuses to work,and thats what this professional appears to be doing,why does the club not withold all his wages.
I see the Liverpoo fans are getting a suitable amount of proverbial sand up their vaginas about this The gigantic contradiction of Rodgers talking about their inquiry about Dempsey and how he's a talented player, suffixed by saying he "doesn't talk about other team's players" seems to have completely passed them by! It's like saying "I don't really like black people, but I'm not racist!".
This article I believe is the nearest we'll get to understanding the story behind the headlines - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer-dirty-tackle/failures-communication-led-fulham-clint-dempsey-complaint-against-023244894--sow.html An ommision in the article is the role of Dempsey's Agent who was clearly in contact with FSG even before the transfer window opened and, at some point, 'shopped' Fulham's asking price to L'pool. This I believe led all parties to assume it was going to be a done deal. However, as Henry Winkler said, "Assumptions are the termites of relationships". None of this resolves the situation of course, or answers the question whether trust can be restored. Still, as somebody else said, "Better out than in".
I find it a bit strange that in all of Jol's quotes I can't find one part that explicitly states that Dempsey is refusing to play, yet that fact is taken as read? He says Dempsey isn't committed and that he wants to join Liverpoo - if that is the case (and he's not refusing to play) then surely leaving him out is a fair course of action?
