The Issue of Pepe

Hi folks,

Just wondering what your thoughts are on Reina's recent comments about potentially leaving if we don't get Champions League football and/or money spent on the squad in the summer?

After all that's gone on this season with the owners, Roy and Torres, this realy felt like the knife being twisted. I was realy annoyed with Pepe, considering the timing just before the United game and the fact the squad was finally settling.

I'm usualy quite sentimental, I was generally shocked with how Torres took a dump on us and left so quickly that he took a helicopter! But now I feel a little more immune to player loyalty, or lack of it, and am now willing to believe that Pepe would probably go to Man U given the chance.

Or am I misjudging Pepe? Is he doing this to make the owners cough up more for players? I think as fans we are often oblivious to what is happening, or chose not to believe it.

My stance is he has alrealy got one foot out of the door, and if he doesnt like the current set up, then we should book the plane for him. We need commitment in difficult times, not pampering to supposedly untouchable players. £20 Mill however is not a lot.

YNWA

 

I appreciated his interview, it was honest and to the point. Unlike Judas who lied to us and kept saying how he'd fulfil his contract and never play for another English club... Anyway, I got the impression that only another start to the season like this year, ie lots of losses, no investment from owners, and Hodgson as boss, would force him to leave. As it stands, that won't be the case. Kenny will almoost certainly be boss still, we WILL get investment in the summer and we will be better next year. If he is clever, and Pepe is, He will know we are on the up and have gone through the worst. The likes of United and Chelsea, well United more so, have some serious squad rebuilding to do which I think will see them fall back slightly in the next couple of years.

On a side note, does anyone have one of those league tables that show the rankings of teams since Christmas? Opta used to do one on the BBC and I bet we'd be top 4, or close, if results were counted from when Dalglish came...

 

As a Utd fan, I'd be very shocked if you let Reina come to us. I remember the **** storm that was thrown up when Heinze wanted to go to 'pool, and by then he wasn't even first choice for us having been replaced by Evra. Whilst NESV may be tempted to sell him to us if he wants to leave and we offer a lot, Dalglish would probably throw a fit at even the suggestion that he might be allowed to go to Utd.

Ironically, whether or not you keep Reina could depend on whether Utd, Arsenal or City win the FA Cup. I doubt you'll overhaul Spurs / Chelsea / City for fifth place, but I reckon you're odds on to get 6th place now. With Brum getting the CC place, that could mean you need one of the top 5 to win the FA Cup to get into the Europa League. I think Reina would be quite likely to stay if you got into the EL, as it will help you attract players in the summer and move the club forward faster. But even if he leaves, I can't see him going directly to us. Arsenal would be most likely, if Wenger will meet the asking price.

@Red, you are actually right - custom table is here:

http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/2010-2011/custom-table

You'd be on 3rd based on results since 9th Jan, behind Arsenal and Chelsea in that order, with Utd fourth. Interesting reading, but I wouldn't read too much into it given we've had away games against you and Chelsea in that time!

 

They wouldn't be tempted. This is an ownership who said if the fans don't want a ground share or a new ground then they're non-starters. Their commercial considerations are based on customer satisfaction, not necessarily the most expedient financial solution.

It doesn't seem like it. Despite the "Ronaldo money" assurances, the Glazers won't pay top wages and I can't see top players queuing up to pay 50% tax on peanuts for the privilege of playing with Anderson and a couple of 37-year olds. And I can't see Reina believing that'll be worth it, either.

Reina is January:
"I signed a new contract last summer and still have more than five years left to run on it.

"Obviously, I want to be part of a team that has the chance to win the title, win major trophies and to play with the best players - but I expect that to happen here at Liverpool, and for the club to return itself to that level. I plan to stick with my contract."

Reina in the March interview:
"It depends, above all, on the ambition of the owners in building a better team; hopefully, they will be generous in their efforts but we know the economic reality."

The economic realities of Utd and Arsenal are hardly wallet-busting, while FSG are making all the noises of an ambitious ownership ready to do whatever it takes. That includes increasing Reina's wages with a new contract.

 

I agree with the last line of the post.Tom Werner said a while back,that he wasn't happy with the Liverpool wage bill for 2 reasons.He said there is players that need to be moved on due to their age in the squad.I reckon I know who he is refering to and its not Kuyt and Carragher.It likely to be Poulsen,Konchesky and Jovanovic.He also said the wage bill isn't too large,its not large enough.He also was asked would he be willing to make ''Torres type purchases'',He said yes without a seconds thought.He was as good as his word as the Suarez signing was sanctioned before Torres declared his interest in leaving.The speed in the way they allowed Kenny to make the Andy Carroll signing was very impressive.If it were Hicks and Gillett,Liverpool would have put in a £10 million bid in for Carlton Cole.And they would have pocketed the £40 million.
Is Andy Carroll worth £35 million.No without a minutes thought.However I wrote an article on the same subject,to ask people,to name another player that is his type at his age.Nobody could name one.He's the best at his age at what he does.And does Kenny know what he does best,He surely does.He signed a similar player 18 years ago for a then large sum of money.Does Alan Shearer ring a bell.?Now with Southampton Shearer scored goals,but wasn't prolific.
Kenny wanted a player to compliment the delicate skills of Luis Suarez.And that player is a big man,a battering ram,that can win headers and be a real handful.That has Andy Carroll written all over it,He's 6 ft 4 and he's built like a tank.Some were saying he's a £35 million Peter Crouch,no he's not.He would make 4 of Peter Crouch.Andy Carroll has the build to frighten defenders to death.This is the beginning.

 

In the past Pepe has been quick to come out and say that he is staying, it just worries me a bit that he has remained quiet this time.

I hope he stays and don't beleive for a second that we would sell him to Man Utd.

But it wouldn't be the end of the world and he would be easily replaced with the money we would get for him.

 

Do you actually believe that, or are you just trotting out the party line? United are England's richest club, make an operating profit of over £100 million a year, have over £135 million in the bank, and spent more over the summer on three pretty much unheard of youngsters than FSG spent on their marquee signing (I'm referring to Suarez - Carroll was only signed as a replacement for Torres).

All the noises the Glazers have made is that the money is there to invest, and it's up to SAF to decide how he spends it. All the noises FSG have made are about making "value" investments and making sure that they will earn a return on any transfer spending. Didn't John Henry specifically state that he wasn't a Sheikh and he wasn't going to bankroll you on that kind of level? I seem to remember H&G making larger promises than that when they bought you.

Experience says otherwise. Every time a top club has sold / lost their best keeper without having an adequate replacement they have suffered for a long time afterwards. Look at Utd when they lost Schmeichel, Arsenal with Lehmann and Liverpool with Grobelaar. All three took years to find a suitable replacement, and all three suffered as a result. Replacing Torres was child's play compared with replacing Reina.

 

Stop scaring me Swarbs! I prefer my head in the sand it will all be ok world!

 

In that case don't worry. Reina will leave for £50 mill and you'll get Casillas for £3.50 with Buffon as a backup. FSG will spend the profit on giving every season ticket holder a free lapdance

 

Jokes aside, I think if we sold Reina for 20 mill, then I reckon we could get given for 2-3 Mill, or Yussi Yaskilinem (excuse spelling!) for a max of 8 mill. That would still give us a min 12 million profit. I think like the situation with Judas No.2, we might be better off without him.

 

If Reina goes at the end of the season then I wish him to have a successful career wherever he goes (as long as it doesn't stop Liverpool from winning silverware). I'd imagine Liverpool will find it quite easy to get a replacement (probably not one as good as Reina, but certainly a solid keeper none the less)

 

I feel better now!

 

Firstly Swarbs is an expert on how much money NESV and Liverpool have.
NESV sanctioned the Suarez transfer BEFORE Torres decided he wanted to leave.If anyone contributed to the deal it was Ryan Babel and not Torres.
So to suggest that Liverpool ''broke even'' on their deals is pure nonsense as the Suarez and Carroll/Torres deals were completely separate.Liverpool have £15 million in the bank following the Torres sale/Carroll signing.This and John Henry and Tom Werner have insisted is put aside for the summer.They if they had their way would have spent in January plus more if necessary as they wanted Ashley Young and Charlie Adam.To suggest that NESV only want to ''break even'' on their transactions is coming from a bitter Man United fan that is afraid that if Liverpool go on a spending spree they are going to be left behind.
Finally we have been hearing the stuff about Man Uniteds £135 million cash reserves since 2009.When in reality,its like a Man United fan from Manchester it doesn't exist as most of it is in Florida paying off creditors on the Glazers two bankrupt shopping malls.

 

When did I suggest they only "broke even"? I pointed out that your major planned signing, Suarez, cost less than we spent on three youngsters. My question was simply why Liverpool fans seem to be experts on how much cash FSG is going to throw around 'outbidding' us on all and sundry. Expecially when, in every interview he has given, John Henry has claimed he wants the club to only spend the cash it generates:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/feb/04/john-w-henry-interview-liverpool

""We've always spent money we've generated rather than deficit-spending and that will be the case in Liverpool," he said, referring to the group's ownership of the Boston Red Sox baseball team. "It's up to us to generate enough revenue to be successful over the long term. We have not and will not deviate from that."

"That, he said, will be Liverpool's two-pronged approach to rebuilding the squad, which will be financed only out of its income; he and his fellow investors in Fenway will not be pouring cash in."

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/john-henry-my-reds-vision

"It is hard for me not to be incredibly impressed by what Arsene Wenger has created at Arsenal, and of course what Sir Alex Ferguson has accomplished at Man United. They both have built relatively young squads, tremendous talent and they have tremendous networks. We have to do the same."

As for United, those cash reserves have financed £45 million worth of spending since 2009. So like I said to MF earlier, I'm not holding my breath waiting for Liverpool to come crashing past us on a wave of American money...

 

Well I'm not going to hold my breath to see Ferguson going on a £100 million spending spree either,that was only said to make Fatso sign a new contract.Its not going to happen,so you can waste all your time on the Man United board discussing the players your not going to sign in the summer.It'll be like the BBC 606 board when Man United fans were convinced that they were signing Angel De Maria and Mesut Ozil for them to end up at Real Madrid.When all Man United ended up doing was signing a Portugese tramp for £8 million and signing a defender that Roy Hodgson paid £100,000 to Maidstone for £10 million.

 

Ah right. So your logic is that United won't be going on a massive transfer spree, so Liverpool obviously will be? Good argument

 

Well it seems that Liverpool Chairman Tom Werner has been contradicting John Henry,Tom Werner has said when asked about ''Transfer budgets''.He said there isn't a transfer budget.Which basically means that he and his partners will back the manager for signings as long as they fit into their blue-print,there is a list of stipulations,age,are they better than whats currently there,do they strengthen weakened positions.One stipulation which is not there is cost.John Henry was asked would and you left this out on purpose,would he go head to head for the best players.He said yes,He would have no problem with that as long as they met the stipulations of his blue-print.

 

I personally prefer the statement that means we will be self sufficient. If we can only spend what we generate then that's good for the game and the club. Without the debts of the H&G era Liverpool would have made quite a bit of money, and in fact still do. Uniteds model over the past 20 years or so has not been to spend spend spend, more like spend when you need to, as long as the player fits the profile. A couple of world class players each year or two to replace players that have moved on or retired is a good policy in my eyes and is one we should follow (already are by the looks of things with Suarez/Carroll). The trick is getting the squad players good enough to sub the first team when there are injuries/tiredness/loss of form etc.... This is what we do not have at the moment. Benitez tried to do it, but his squad players were poor in my opinion (you get what you pay for). Kenny is having a good look at the reserves and the younger players probably to decide whether or not he needs to replace some of them in the summer.

 

I believe the small print in the Glazers' bond issue. I believe we're almost entirely clear of debt, something which is going to be vital in the coming years. I believe only the Yankees outspend NESV in MLB and in some cases NESV have broken records to outbid them. I believe NESV have a much better record of success in running a sports club than the Glazers have running malls.

The bond issue brought universal predictions from financial analysts that Utd would have to keep winning titles to keep the fanbase spending to service it. It certainly appears Utd have been on a downward curve since then and the titles are becoming less certain.

Noises are your belief system? Have you asked yourself why Fergie isn't spending? No value in the market is BS. Fergie's certainly privy to the Glazers, more than you or I, and I don't really believe he supports them at all. I think he's holding on and performing as much damage limitation as he can until they're gone. He can't let on, though, because they'd just sack him. I believe there must be a reason Fergie appears ideologically opposed to the fans:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/17/manchester-united-glazers-ferguson-resign-protest

If it's as rosy as you say why are the fans protesting so much?

http://www.joinmust.org/about/ouraims.php

Are you all just gullible for one internet gossipmonger? Some were so gullible they formed a new club.

As you said yourself, Hicks made big promises coming in. He also promised us a huge transfer kitty last summer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/27/liverpool-tom-hicks-transfer-budget

He was promising in January and still doing it in May. Do you see the lies?

Isn't that a clue? Over £22m on three youngsters. They ain't for the youth team. Raheem Sterling cost us £600,000. They must be some youngsters. That is how Fergie's rebuilding.

We're not experts but I think we know a little about owners, lies and squad erosion.

He and Tom Werner have also made clear they want to win and they bought the club believing they could. We have no debt so that's income into our kitty. For all H&G's incompetence, they actually increased income, too, so there'll be more of that in the kitty. And nobody at the club is having to talk about how much we've got saved up for a rainy day.

Meanwhile, Utd have interest payments of £42m-£45m soaking up profit, along with the leeching of "administration fees" and all sorts from that bond issue small print I mentioned:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/jan/12/manchester-united-glazers-debt

The Glazers have paid off their PIKs but they were never a Utd debt. Where the money came they don't have to tell anybody, least of all Utd fans.

Yes, NESV responsible, but they've also got a record of spending big when it's necessary:

http://www.suite101.com/content/what-does-red-sox-spending-mean-for-liverpool-fc-a318775

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/spor...wners-say-big-spending-worth-it#axzz1GC6Kgiba

But we won't be a Galaticos squad and amen for that. Many Red Sox fans worried when NESV bought Liverpool that their spending would diminish. In fact, it went into spree-mode.

Hicks and Gillett spent. Squad erosion is caused by diminishing investment. Plot a graph of the Glazers' spending. MUST must've.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...s-debt-than-on-new-players-article596595.html

My logic is that there isn't a fan in the world who'd rather have the Glazers than FSG based on the financial realities of their records. There really isn't an argument there to be had.

 

I did see his comment about the blue print and going head to head for the best players, and I don't think there being no transfer budget is a contradiction. In most of his interviews he says he wants to make Liverpool like Utd and Arsenal. Which to me implies developing the majority of the squad in house, or from value signings, and only going into the market for the top players when there is a clear need. Henry specifically referred to their use of stats and analysis when deciding what players to sign for the Red Sox, to make sure they were only getting players that they really need and are confident will succeed, and not just throwing money at the squad in the hope that some of it sticks a la City or Chelsea.

There's no transfer budget as such, cos they're not going to turn around to Kenny and say "Here's £xx million go buy some players", they're going to wait until he and Commolli find top players that the club needs and then say either yay or nay based on whether they believe they will actually improve the squad. But then he also said he expects the club to be self financing with regards to transfers, which implies they won't be buying large amounts of players when the club only made a $37 million operating profit (before debt and player trading) last year. I expect their business plan is based on getting the squad back to a good enough level to qualify for the CL, and then using that revenue to make further gains.

In all honesty I expect Utd and Liverpool to have similar transfer activity over the summer. They'll both go in for one or two top class players, and maybe buy up some more promising youngsters that have the potential to provide value in the long term. But I don't see either club going nuts and taking big punts on players that won't necessarily provide long term value for money. We may have the debt to hold us back, but we also have four times as much operating profit as 'pool, so financially we'll be pretty even.

It'll also be interesting to see what City and Chelsea do in the summer now the FFP rules are coming in. I'd expect them to be selling some of their excess squad members to try and book some profit to offset their losses, so the market could be a lot lower than it has been in recent years.