Football 2015/16

[Wooderson]

LFC's express strategy is to "buy young talent". Sterling leaving at 20 makes a sad mockery of this (bullshit) plan.

That said, LFC are selling to City/Chelsea/Barca/Real. Everyone sells to them. This is just the first time we've sold a player at such a young age to a semi-rival.

[the_hedge]

LFC didn't really have a choice though did they. He was either going now or going on a free later anyway.

[eFestivals]

Yeah but I think the point is Liverpool won't get back to being a top team if they sell 20 year olds.

It's not ideal and it makes that aim harder to hit, but a smart team can do it anyway.

A club wanting to climb either needs buckets of money or a smart buy/sell policy. If you look at the last two summers Liverpool have had a smart buy/sell policy which has given them buckets of money.

 

IF they can keep working the same magic they're very definitely a team on the climb, as the quality of their squad now is far better than it was before they bought Suarez - and that includes the big-balls-ups of Carroll and Downing that took them backwards to an extent.

 

It currently looks like they've got two more high-quality gems in Coutinho and Firmino, Sturridge might actually not hand in a sicknote (ok, that's a hope too far ), one of the better right backs in Clyne, and the likes of Can, Markovic, Ibe and Moreno who should be on an upwards curve (tho not too sure about Markovic). Plus they've got Ings (who scored more goals by himself than the Liverpool striker flops last season) and probably another striker to come in (Benteke, perhaps).

 

Its not as dire as it might first look.

 

They're not likely to jump to the top City-style (tho who knows how Firmino might go; Suarez surprised us all), but they're definitely not falling further away either. To me, it's looking like they'll start this season with greater realistic (tho on-paper*) hopes than was the case a year ago.

 

(* it's not guaranteed of course. It depends if the likes of Firmino lives up to expectations).

Edited July 14, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

LFC's express strategy is to "buy young talent". Sterling leaving at 20 makes a sad mockery of this (bullshit) plan.

 

I think you're forgetting that the strategy is nicknamed 'moneyball'.

 

It would be unrealistic for everything to go in their favour. As long as they're managing two steps forward and only one back, it's all good.

[ThomThomDrum]

LFC can still continue with their strategy to buy young and develop in the hope that one day it will help them become consistently stronger. Not all young talent will have personalities like Sterlings or have agents like Sterlings (unfortunately few will also have his potential). When a player wants to leave there is very little a club can do most of the time in reality. Sterling began rejecting contracts from LFC about a year ago. He was gone then.............offering a 19/20 year old stupid money on the back of a good season and a half would be LFC managing the issue in a worse way IMO, as they open themselves up setting such a precedent.

 

I think LFC managed it best as they could considering who they were dealing with and pocketing that cash for someone so young is impressive. I would have liked to see if City would have been so desperate with the cheque book had their quota of English player been higher however.............so I do feel LFC were circumstantially lucky

 

Now what they do with the cash will be very interesting................lets hope they dont wipe their holes with it.

[pink_triangle]

 

A club wanting to climb either needs buckets of money or a smart buy/sell policy. If you look at the last two summers Liverpool have had a smart buy/sell policy which has given them buckets of money.

 [

A smart sell policy (although there are a few duffs they havent been able to sell even at cut price) although I think the smart buy policy is debatable!

[Gucci Piggy]

Now what they do with the cash will be very interesting................lets hope they dont wipe their holes with it.

£10m will go to QPR and the rest will go on Benteke who will flop.

[eFestivals]

A smart sell policy (although there are a few duffs they havent been able to sell even at cut price) although I think the smart buy policy is debatable!

 

All clubs manage to buy plenty of duffs. Even Fergie managed to do it at around the same level as everyone else.

 

A part of why the duffs problem at Liverpool looks so bad in the last few years is because they've been in desperate need of extra numbers. The team got stripped bare under H&G.

 

And, to find the princess you have to kiss plenty of frogs. It's not like Liverpool are the only team looking for good players, so to be able to get those gems in the first place they'll always have to take a different route to the 'top' teams as the only way they can hope to compete for the best players.

 

I'm not too sure how heavy the strategy is being on money, but from the point of view of the playing squad it's certainly not failing (yet, anyway).

[eFestivals]

...and the rest will go on Benteke who will flop.

 

Latest word is that Utd are in for Benteke, which I presume means Liverpool won't get him.

 

Like you I think Benteke would flop in the current Liverpool squad, his style of play isn't right. I also think he'd probably be superb for how Utd play, so while I don't want Utd to do well it all seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. I hope Utd get him.

[pink_triangle]

 

All clubs manage to buy plenty of duffs. Even Fergie managed to do it at around the same level as everyone else.

Of course, but I dont think that liverpool have bought the amount of duffs you would expect on average. I think they have been worse than average.

 

 

[eFestivals]

Of course, but I dont think that liverpool have bought the amount of duffs you would expect on average. I think they have been worse than average.

nah, proportionally they haven't. It just looks so bad because of the sheer numbers of buys they've made.

 

How's about taking a look at Moaniho V2's transfers? He's had some right high-profile big-money shite he's shipped straight out again, where the players have been lauded pre-purchase.

 

At least Liverpool aren't doing that. They know they'll be buying plenty of shite along the way, but the point is the gems and not the shite.

[pink_triangle]

 

nah, proportionally they haven't. It just looks so bad because of the sheer numbers of buys they've made.

 

How's about taking a look at Moaniho V2's transfers? He's had some right high-profile big-money shite he's shipped straight out again, where the players have been lauded pre-purchase.

 

At least Liverpool aren't doing that. They know they'll be buying plenty of shite along the way, but the point is the gems and not the shite.

 

Chelsea have a strange transfer policy though. They seem to buy players because other clubs want them, dont play them and sell them on.

[kaosmark2]

Chelsea have made narrow profits on most players it seems. De Bruyne, Schurrle. But yeah, it's strange how they keep buying players, barely playing them, then making back the initial transfer fee + wages for the period they were there.

[ThomThomDrum]

£10m will go to QPR and the rest will go on Benteke who will flop.

 

If they buy Benteke then it will be wiping their holes with it IMO...........more rumours abound about making a potential bid for Reus but apparently it will be a massive amount of mula.

[ThomThomDrum]

Chelsea are the ultimate cock blockers in the transfer market. 

[eFestivals]

Chelsea have a strange transfer policy though. They seem to buy players because other clubs want them, dont play them and sell them on.

 

but if they sell them on they're not stopping other clubs getting them, are they?

 

So it's not how you're seeing it. They're bigger duffs than Liverpool have been making.

Edited July 14, 2015 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

 

but if they sell them on they're not stopping other clubs getting them, are they?

 

So it's not how you're seeing it. They're bigger duffs than Liverpool have been making.

By selling them they can control where they go and normally its to a team outside the premiership. Its hard to say they are duffs as they dont play and then seem to be sold without much of a financial hit.

[eFestivals]

By selling them they can control where they go and normally its to a team outside the premiership. Its hard to say they are duffs as they dont play and then seem to be sold without much of a financial hit.

 

in the main Liverpool have sold their (generally much cheaper) Rodgers-bought duffs for around what they've paid. And you can be sure Chelsea would be keeping those players if they felt they were good enough, and they'd far rather buy the 'right' players.

 

I know Chelsea have a financial interest in a big number of players thru-out Europe, and I know they're rather proud at the minute for the way their major player signings/sales have gone in the last year or three (I'm not sure if it applies lower down) - which ends up saying they're playing the market. Whether it's really also about denying players to other clubs is less clear.

 

So they have a market strategy that's working out for them, in a similar but different way to how Arsenal have been doing it for decades ... and Liverpool are working a market strategy too, but from a different place and with a different objective.

 

From the point of view of the strength of the Liverpool squad (if not the finances) - even with the two big sales this summer and last - Liverpool's strategy looks to be working for them, too.

 

They're playing different games for different reasons .... but they all manage to buy duffs.

Edited July 14, 2015 by eFestivals

[Gucci Piggy]

Latest word is that Utd are in for Benteke, which I presume means Liverpool won't get him.

Like you I think Benteke would flop in the current Liverpool squad, his style of play isn't right. I also think he'd probably be superb for how Utd play, so while I don't want Utd to do well it all seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. I hope Utd get him.

Tbh if I was Benteke I'd rather go to Liverpool. With Sturridge's injury record he's pretty much going to be their first choice striker, whereas at United he's only going to get games when Rooney's out (Rooney isn't gonna be required in midfield at all now).

Would be a smart signing for United, however, with the lack of strikers available at the moment. Reckon they should just keep Hernandez, though.

[pink_triangle]

 

Tbh if I was Benteke I'd rather go to Liverpool. With Sturridge's injury record he's pretty much going to be their first choice striker, whereas at United he's only going to get games when Rooney's out (Rooney isn't gonna be required in midfield at all now).

Would be a smart signing for United, however, with the lack of strikers available at the moment. Reckon they should just keep Hernandez, though.

 

I suspect Man Utd will pay him a lot more money. I think as a forward you have to back yourself to take the opportunities when they come your way. I doubt there are many players who would pick liverpool above man utd if given the choice.

[zahidf]

in the main Liverpool have sold their (generally much cheaper) Rodgers-bought duffs for around what they've paid. And you can be sure Chelsea would be keeping those players if they felt they were good enough, and they'd far rather buy the 'right' players.

 

I know Chelsea have a financial interest in a big number of players thru-out Europe, and I know they're rather proud at the minute for the way their major player signings/sales have gone in the last year or three (I'm not sure if it applies lower down) - which ends up saying they're playing the market. Whether it's really also about denying players to other clubs is less clear.

 

So they have a market strategy that's working out for them, in a similar but different way to how Arsenal have been doing it for decades ... and Liverpool are working a market strategy too, but from a different place and with a different objective.

 

From the point of view of the strength of the Liverpool squad (if not the finances) - even with the two big sales this summer and last - Liverpool's strategy looks to be working for them, too.

 

They're playing different games for different reasons .... but they all manage to buy duffs.

 

I dunno, hard to see them getting much for Mario e.t.c... Chelsea generally have a better system, they have far more very good players.

[eFestivals]

I dunno, hard to see them getting much for Mario e.t.c...

Mario himself seems to be an oddity of a tranfer rather than a part of a plan, so i don't reckon too much notice should be taken of him. Even so I doubt the losses will be massive, perhaps £5M.

Lambert was always a value write-off, really, at the end of his career. It's not worked out but few found anything to criticise at time of signing (unlike with mario).

 

Borini would have been sold at a profit last summer if he hadn't fought the transfer. If Liverpool lose on him now then you can't really blame Liverpool.

 

 

Chelsea generally have a better system, they have far more very good players.

yeah, but they only got to the position where they can work things like now by first having spunked huge amounts of money.

As I said above, Chelsea and Liverpool are both playing the market, but for different purposes, from their different positions. It would be astounding if a club in Liverpool's league position was able to work the market in exactly the same way as Chelsea are.

 

Edited July 14, 2015 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

 

Borini would have been sold at a profit last summer if he hadn't fought the transfer. If Liverpool lose on him now then you can't really blame Liverpool.

So its not their fault for buying him in the first place??

[GlastoSimon]

Balotelli was signed off the back of Liverpool fans wanting a 'big name'. He didn't fit their hard-working mentality of the season before, and looked an odd fit when he signed.

 

As a result, Balotelli was given a hell of a lot more time and patience than Lambert was (because he was a big name and cost a lot of money), and in truth the move to Liverpool has completely killed the latter's career. As you could see from the way Southampton worked in 2013-14, a quick, hard-working striker like Sturridge up front with Lambert, surrounded by creative players like Lallana, Sterling etc. would have worked if they played a similar style to the season before. Unfortunately Lambert is seen as a 'target man', and therefore used incorrectly. 

 

Sterling will regret the move, I don't think it'll work at City. He's not the priority there and won't get the patience he did at Liverpool when he underperformed (which was a lot last season). They've done fantastically well to get £50m and have a ready-made replacement in Coutinho. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by GlastoSimon

[eFestivals]

 So its not their fault for buying him in the first place??

 

oh FFS, is every club now fully responsible for any player's character flaws, both large and small?

 

They tried to do the standard footie thing with him, and unusually for a player he didn't want to play ball.

 

You could pin some blame on the likes of Spurs for Adebayor's attitudes because they were known before he arrived, but if Borini didn't have a history of this then i'd say it's unfair to pin it on the club.