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
-
I don't care about top players wanting to join tbh. I'd rather get a player for their best years over signing a player because of their best years.
Sorry, but that's just silly - of course they want him, why on Earth wouldn't they? It's nothing to do with whether the club wants him per se but whether they are prepared to pay the price required to keep him. The sticking point - if there truly is one - is the contract that he supposedly wants.
So, like I said earlier the responsibility is equal on both parties to reach an agreement. It's a negotiation - not a stand-off.
I agree and that's the way our club has always done things irrespective of who the owners were. However, every now and again we should and do break the mould. We made Alisson the most expensive goalkeeper transfer in history. We needed to do it and we did. It proved to be the right move.
You don't know when a player has peaked until after it happens. Is Salah at his peak now? Will he peak next season or the season after? He's a generational talent and there aren't many about. I can't think his wage 'demands' will either set a precedent or make the other players unhappy. There's already a disparity between him and Mané for instance. Also worth adding that having Salah in the team will draw other good players to want to join Liverpool to play alongside him.
That's the way I interpreted what he said. How would you interpret "it depends on what the club wants"?
It's the 'wants' bit.
I imagine the club wants him to stay - but at a price that it finds acceptable. It's hardly unprecedented for a player's agent to want to screw as much as he possibly can from a club. That's why I said the responsibility lies equally with both parties to come to an agreement that suits both. But I repeat, it has to be a negotiation, not just a demand which either is or is not met.
Its not really though is it?
One party wants to get paid and the other wants to pay as little as possible.
Market forces are at play so the going rate from psg, newcastle, chelsea, city or indeed a real or barca is going to be 400k a week. Salah knows it and so does his agent. Lfc know it too.
The comments sounds like a ready to sign but you know what we want sort of thing to me.
It's entirely in lfc camp to put something on the table.
We have time.yet but not infinite time.
It's not what - a negotiation? What else would you call it?
Two parties have to come to an agreement - unless thy resort to fisticuffs what else is there?
Of course we have an idea what others would pay, but it will require a break with our policy to match them. It's well-known that we don't operate in the way those clubs do so why is it likely to be different now - because he's a prize asset we can't afford to lose?
If someone is going to tell me how we're going to afford it I'll listen. Either there's a sack of used fivers under Edwards' bed or FSG are going to dig into their own pockets. I'd be mightily surprised if they did, not just because of the one-off situation with Mo, but because of the precedent it sets.
And he's since become a world star.
We don't know when players will peak exactly but nor do we know if young players will fulfil their potential or if a signing will suit our style / the PL. These are calculated risks taken by the club. Signing an established star will cost a lot and it's much riskier in longevity terms.
I think we're digressing away from the my original point. It wasn't about buying stars vs young talents and developing them. It's about keeping them and being THE place where players want to come and stay.
We signed young talents like Torres, Alonso, Mash etc but they all wanted to leave to win trophies.
It's not equally both parties responsibility to come to agreement.
Mo has options, if he knocks in 45 goals this season which is certainly on and has 1 year left there will be people offering 400k a week.
We dont have the same scope imo to just lose him on a price we can get out of Newcastle
The onus is on us to put a deal in front of him, he cant sign anything until he has one.
Then I'll be saying the onus is on him to sign or reject and not string us along as if he rejects I will be saying sell asap.
I would have an offer in now and if he rejects then january is open no matter how bad that affects us.
Tbh the north west of england is never the end location. We should the the location to come to but staying is not the be all and end all.
We need to be winning things not just retaining players.
Rumours going on that Liverpool are to sign Raheem Sterling in January. He is a rebel and must not wear Liverpool's shirt again.
I think a compromise will be reached. Salah is a very kind and charitable man away from the pitch and I can't see him being unreasonable over this.
Lols, never happening.
City would veto
We would never pay him 400k per week needed.
I didn't say that.
All our top earners have recently signed contracts and come away happy with their new deals. Salah is next. I think he will sign a new deal (that may or may not be the rumoured £400k) that could include massive incentives rather than a steep rise in his basic. That's the sort of compromise I mean.
Don't most clubs have a top earner? You don't see the other players unhappy because one of them is getting paid a lot more, it's the norm.
Whilst ever we have the FSG model, that's how we'll continue to be.
We're better now and players will want to play for us (or klopp?) but our wage structure will always see players wanting to leave to "claim their pension"...