He may well go but if we do get CL qualification then his goals will have played a massive part in that. So the decision to play hardball (for want of a better expression) will still have been justified especially given that his spectacular performances and the Bale transfer fee have now pretty much doubled his value relative to what you offered. As for Henry looking a ****...not from our side of the fence mate to be fair. Ask yourself who is the bigger ****? The owner who sells to and strengthens a direct rival (yours) or the owner who fights tooth and nail to keep his most valuable asset (ours)? We've had ****ish owners before remember and from where I'm sitting these guys are a damn site different...not faultless but in this instance I'm damn glad JDubbya dug his heels in. Suarez is the best player I've ever seen at Anfield and I've had the pleasure to see Dalglish, Rush, Fowler, Barnes, Beardo, Heskey () et al. As for this dispute putting players off coming to Liverpool that doesn't concern me one iota. It might put off a few of the kind of ****s who'll happily sit on the chavs bench for their whole career (or do the belgian loan thing for years on end) but there are plenty out there that will look and see a club with ambition....and CL footy (hopefully)....and if we can keep him they also see a team with one of the worlds best players in it.
Can't argue with that fella I only think he's a **** because he didn't sell Suarez to us. I wish we'd been more '****ish' with RVP when he was angling for a move.
No doubt in mind that LFC came out with credit during this episode. We looked like idiots witha lottery win no not knowing what to spend on. To go from bidding £40m bids for a striker to not getting one at all, and then saying we don't need one smacks of a complete lack of a planning.
Rage? Lol I thought id given you a nice reply and explained my point for you. As for the second bit I wasn't implying that all players have a deep interest in Suarez contract, but that if Henry is telling the truth and there was a buyout clause but they chose to ignore it players may have concerns when signing a contract with Liverpool as to wether they would honor the contract. Don't think that's a particularly far fetched point to add to the conversation...
It is far fetched because it's not a question of not honouring the contract, the PFA agreed we weren't breaking any such contract. We just didn't honour a buy out clause that wasn't really a buy out clause worth having in the first place When it comes to "honouring" contracts you have sympathy with footballers now? The people who generally couldn't give a **** what's written in their contract....if they really, really want out there's nothing a club can do about it (it's called a transfer request....remember them). Besides which you're looking at it from only one angle. The kind of player I prefer us to sign is the guy who's NOT thinking about how easy it's going to be to leave next year or the year after. I'd suggest keeping players like Suarez and having CL football (if we get it) will be a far bigger draw for us than any worries a player might have about the solidity of buy out clauses.
You obviously missed the bit where I said "if Henry is telling the truth" lol.... And I'm not taking sympathy with anyone simply commenting on possibly implications if Henry (or any manager or club for that matter) where to choose to ignore a clause in a players contract.
That's what I don't get Piskie. Fair enough it's a kick in the teeth as a fan when you're constantly linked with player x,y or z only for it to fall through because the other club digs its heels in (we had it only last month) but you can't really criticise another club for fighting for their best players eh. Surely we all want to see a bit of spirit and ambition from those upstairs at our respective clubs. It was a risky strategy from our owners and a big gamble as it would have slashed Suarez value had he spent half the season sulking (or going home to play golf for 6 months). As it's turned out though you'll be hard pushed to find a Liverpool fan who'll say it was anything other than a top, top poker move We got "the nuts" of a hand this time round. We could take the same gamble again with another player in future and it blows up in our face.....football's a ****ing mad business.
But had they "chosen to ignore" part of his contract the PFA would have been all over it like a rash (did you miss the bit where I said that?). Wording of contracts is vital and there was obviously some kind of clause but it was as water tight as a ducks arse. By the sounds of it it was a clause we simply didn't have to "honour" as in letting him leave....and one the player actually didn't care about that much either. As I said, he still could have left had he been that desperate to. We didn't put a gun to anyones head after all. Does the player then blame the club? Or does he in reality turn to his agent and say "you're a ****ing useless piece of ****?" As for the possible implications....personally I think you're overestimating the problems it may cause, as stated I think it might put off a handful of the ultra mercenary types but the vast majority of potential signings simply won't give a crap. The thing that's much more likely to see us miss out on a few players is actually our wage structure. All our latest contracts are much more bonus driven and lower basic wage but then the players who perform will get rewarded as well as any. Somebody I know calculated (yes he's a total nerd) that Suarez will have earned close to Rooneys new contract (£300k a week) this season....because he's played so well and scored so many. As a fan I think that's a bloody great way to run the club and so far it's getting results....everyone's happy.
So I dug out the Gordon Taylor statement ----------- Professional Footballers' Association chief Gordon Taylor says Luis Suarez's contract does NOT require Liverpool to sell him if they receive a bid of £40m. The players' union chief also warned that formal escalation of the dispute would kill the player's proposed move to Arsenal - for this transfer window at least. Taylor has been called in by Suarez to try and seek a resolution between the player and the club over the exact meaning of the '£40million trigger' clause in the Uruguayan's contract – specifically whether it cues a sale... or merely negotiations. And the PFA chief sees no swift resolution if the rift between club and player ends up being put before the Premier League for a ruling. Taylor said on talkSPORT: "There are different ways it can be interpreted. If it goes to the Premier League it will take time, and the window is then closed." Taylor had earlier been critical of the use of 'buy-out clauses' in player contracts. He said: "It is a delicate situation and we are trying to help. "These buy-out clauses have caused no end of problems in the past and they continue to do so because of the way they were drafted at the time. "He [Suarez] believes the £40million amount that is mentioned, if that is offered that gives him the right to go. "Liverpool, from their side, are saying that is a minimum figure from which they will consider negotiation and of course they will want to keep the player, unless they replace the player with someone as good or better, which is not going to be easy in a short period of time. "We have been asked to try and help to sort the situation out and we have been trying to do that." Taylor later told the Press Association the contract does NOT oblige Liverpool to sell Suarez: "If you are going to have a supposed buy-out clause it should be that, but it is different as it says if there is no qualification for the Champions League [by Liverpool] and if there is a minimum offer of £40million then the parties will get around the table to discuss things but it does not say the club has to sell. "It quite clearly states £40million is a minimum offer for discussions, but it becomes really difficult with such clauses. "There is a 'good faith' clause in relation to serious discussions but I can't say it is cast-iron buy-out clause. "Luis is one of our members and we want to be supportive, however, he may well have thought such an offer would trigger a move. "The interpretation is not that simple by any means and there is no guarantee of getting a (successful) result if it is referred to the Premier League. "I just feel like in any other transfer it is better for both parties to get around the table to try to resolve it. "You are hoping the club say 'If you are determined to go this is the figure we are looking at but if you are prepared to stay another year and you still want to go we will accept this much'. "At the moment it is certainly festering and I don't think it is a good situation for the player or the clubs involved. "It is not edifying and that is why I feel we had to do our best to get round the table and see if there are grounds for consideration for the move but it (the clause) is not specific and 100% certain. "We are in touch with both parties to try to see if some resolution can be achieved that is satisfactory to both sides." http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...#ixzz2uwThCwOJ Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-transfer-news-pfa-chief-2137102
Dont know why our owner admitted to this. Has to be to furnish his ego as i cant see such a statement being beneficial to the club and could, (not will) cause issues.
Seems my post went straight over your head again. The stuff about the paf is totally irrelevant to the discussion we are having. I'm not arguing about what the clause was at all. I couldn't care less what the clause actually was and what the paf said etc.... Try to read my comments again. Not sure how I. Can make it more clear. Hmmm.
If only eh? You would have walked the league to be fair. http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/252866-Classical-Suarez
i think Liverpool will live to rue Henry's statement that "contracts don't mean anything in English football, or in world football". when Real Madrid come calling in the summer for Suarez, and they bid a very low figure [because they will promise Suarez a massive signing on fee], and Liverpool say they don't won't to sell for that figure and that he has a release clause of £pickafigure in millions, then Real Madrid will say "contracts done mean anything in English football" and then Surarez will tell Liverpool that he wants to join the club of his boyhood dreams, and if Liverpool don't let him go he will go on strike. contracts are a legal document that mean **** all if the player wants to go. i think Suarez wanted to go when we bid, but was hoping for RM to come in with a bid.
Wasn't that meant to already happen, there was such certainty that he would have been a problem this season, going on strike, not performing disrupting the dressing room drop in transfer worth ect ect ecfuckingt, now it's gonna be next season Are you basing this on the Mayan calendar?
wait till end of this season and see if it happens from RM. personally would love us to go back with a **** off sized bid, just to shut Henry up and test Liverpool
won't be laughed at if we bid and then Real Madrid bid. then we will see if Suarez wants to stay or not
so if we bid £50 million you would laugh then would you. every player has his price and Suarez will go. either us or Real madrid will buy him. i am surprised Suarez didn't take legal action before, and now that contracts "don't mean anything" according to Henry, i expect you won't be able to stop Suarez going in the summer.
