That the signing at the time looked stupid but worked in the long term.
Joe Allen is 22 so it will more than likely turn out good value in the long term ala Johnson.
Joe Sideways
- Thread starter Piedro
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Joe Allen is 22 so it will more than likely turn out good value in the long term ala Johnson.
I'm fairly certain that Rodgers was convinced he would have got more financial backing to strengthen the front line especially when he was certain that Carroll was leaving but he didn't so it's all if's and but's.
Of course we would be better off but you could do the same with 99% of transfers.
No you can't. The differential of (£20m??) we paid for Johnson over Arbeloa in terms of fees and salary was IMO a bad, bad, deal, all things being equal. Those resources could *clearly* have been put to better use.
Therefore I think it's a bad argument to cite it in defence of the Allen signing, another deal whose resources could, IMO, *clearly* have been put to better use.
Therefore I think it's a bad argument to cite it in defence of the Allen signing, another deal whose resources could, IMO, *clearly* have been put to better use.
Joe Allen will come good because things always work out ok in the end.
Using that logic you'd never criticise any signing ever. Aquilani for £17m? Well, it's easy to say that was a bad signing, but you'd have to have been sure of spending the money on a good player to make that argument stand up. Easier said than done!
You're not the only one.
What's your agenda? I didn't realise you had one.
Hahaha
Arbeloa wanted to leave and return to Spain, so its a hopeless example.
What if Dossena wasnt shit or Aurelio wasnt made of glass, would we have had a decent left back in that periode then? Yes we would.
Allen wasnt a luxury signing. Its one for the future but also a player that impressed greatly last year and could go straight into the first team. Adding Sahin could be seen as a luxury signing.
We had Lucas out injured and Gerrard had up until this season been a bit part player for almost 2 years.
We needed a midfielder.
Allen is already very good but will only improve. Its a shame some are so fickle that they judge a young player after 4 months.
He'll be an integral part of our rise to the top, so you'll just have to get used to him.
What if Dossena wasnt shit or Aurelio wasnt made of glass, would we have had a decent left back in that periode then? Yes we would.
Allen wasnt a luxury signing. Its one for the future but also a player that impressed greatly last year and could go straight into the first team. Adding Sahin could be seen as a luxury signing.
We had Lucas out injured and Gerrard had up until this season been a bit part player for almost 2 years.
We needed a midfielder.
Allen is already very good but will only improve. Its a shame some are so fickle that they judge a young player after 4 months.
He'll be an integral part of our rise to the top, so you'll just have to get used to him.
Did we also need a striker?
A winger?
Which was the greater need?
Which of the three could therefore be considered the most luxurious option?
Why am I bothering?
Didn't he know we were selling Carroll? Shouldn't there be some attention paid to the order of priority when making signings?
Didn't we have Lucas, Henderson, Suso, Spearing, Gerrard, Shelvey all capable of filling in in midfield??
Isn't it just fucking blindingly obvious which need was greater??
Didn't we have Lucas, Henderson, Suso, Spearing, Gerrard, Shelvey all capable of filling in in midfield??
Isn't it just fucking blindingly obvious which need was greater??
To be fair, I think (we all think) that Rodgers thought he had a striker pretty much nailed (Dempsey) until FSG shat on him.
1. We bought Borini
2. We were going to replace Carroll with Dempsey/Sturridge
Of course it was a greater need to adress the striker situation.
But seeing as we fucked it up on the last day of the transfer window we looked like mugs.
Regarding in which order we signed players that could be down to the negotiations with the respective clubs.
Allen had a release clause which made that easier.
Fulham and Chelsea were demanding ridiculous fees for a long time.
2. We were going to replace Carroll with Dempsey/Sturridge
Of course it was a greater need to adress the striker situation.
But seeing as we fucked it up on the last day of the transfer window we looked like mugs.
Regarding in which order we signed players that could be down to the negotiations with the respective clubs.
Allen had a release clause which made that easier.
Fulham and Chelsea were demanding ridiculous fees for a long time.
I don't particularly buy this line that Rodgers was somehow betrayed by FSG. I think he knew perfectly well that money was tight - he's on record as saying so, after all. Essentially he gambled on being able to sell Carroll. It was as much his fault as anyone's that he couldn't sign a striker, and the major factor was spending the money on Joe Allen.
ha ha ha
The Hague is shittin all over you Hansern
The Hague is shittin all over you Hansern
By squatting over your open mouth and dropping big steaming turds into it.
From a great height.
Whether or not FSG fucked him over, we'll never know. But the point is he had Dempsey pretty much lined up. His intention was obviously to bring both players to Anfield. The order in which he did it shouldn't matter a shite. As Hansern said, the order pretty much depends on the other club(s).
Riiiight
- Status
