He's had a slowish start - only one goal since his first game in February, though the fans haven't got on his back about it yet as far as I can tell.
Adam banana
- Thread starter Skullflower
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
He's had a slowish start - only one goal since his first game in February, though the fans haven't got on his back about it yet as far as I can tell.
It was clear Rodgers wanted an older attacking midfielder - someone who could be a first team regular. Markovic was bought for the future.
I'd also argue that Ibe's loan spell assisted in his development.
The money was there to splash on a striker - we choose to spend it on Baloteli & Lambert.
We're not talking about Lallana in isolation though... and even if we were, you don't ignore past and future and just consider the present when evaluating his the fee.
The fact is, we had a choice. You can overpay relative to the Lallana of past / future and other options in the market (or pay "full price" as you call it) or you can move on and find someone who represents better value for money.
I happen to think Lallana is a decent player. He's got talent. He was just a luxury signing and we could've better spent that money. If you think he was value for money at 25M then fair enough, that's your opinion but it's one I can't get my head around.
*It was clear* that Rodgers wanted Lallana. It isn't clear he was needed or even desirable. It wasn't clear how this 'first team regular' was going to fit into the first team alongside Coutinho and Sterling.
I still say it was a shit transfer.
I don't get how you don't see it - we generally play with 3 attacking players, with a variety of formations - we finished the season with 4 players for those positions (Suarez, Sturridge, Coutinho & Sterling) - I'd say we were at least 2 short for a team wanting to compete in 4 competitions.
Competition, strength in depth, options - whatever you want to call it.
I don't get you Keni - the past is irrelevant and the future is only relevant if you're looking to speculate on a transfer fee.
Still a shite signing
Excellent timing Peter.
I posted it after I knew he'd scored.
Because I don't really give a fuck about who steps up in a testimonial.
Hahaha. I knew why you'd posted it when you did, hence the comment.
.... top teams spend big on players who end up being squadies. We're not West Ham.
Anyway - if he ends up becoming a squadie it's because someone else is playing better - if he becomes the first name on the sheet it's because he's playing amazingly well.
.... and if he has an injury free season - like Sturridge - he's an important player for us.
So when making investments the past and future are of no consequence and can be ignored. Gotcha.
I'm confused.
We aren't making an investment - we're buying a player.
A player is an investment.
Oh Peter, come on.
In what sense - are you implying we should only buy players that that will increase in value?
We're not. You're right in saying big teams waste loads of money on luxury players, and that's great for us cos it means we have a chance to compete.
*If we don't do the same thing*
Seriously? I feel like we must be talking madly at cross purposes here because you've never struck me as the trolling type.
I do when we're losing but glory in it when we're winning. Not much glorifying to date.
Isn't it relative- Utd spend £50m+ on Di Maria, we spend £25m on Lallana.
City spend £40m on Mangala, we spend £20m on Lovren.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked