Liverpool related transfer speculation

[darkstarexodus]

We're an old(ish) team now. But, maybe that's working for us.
I think we need:
- A new RB if Trent goes, Bradley is unreliable health wise
- Better competition at LB
- Energy in DM. Gravy is control, a busy ball winner/spreader would be nice (a la PSG lot)
- An 'across the front' AM
- New forward options inc. a new #9

Easier said than done. Last time we won the League, we didn't strengthen and it back-fired. We need some hungry players.

I just can't fathom us signing 5-6 top class players. It's arguably what we'll need to move on from some of our aging players, including those who may not re-sign.

 

[StevieM]

You act like keeping players isn't a commitment. It can be more of a commitment than moving on from them. If they are of the vvd/Salah age where they are on short contracts and high wages, then renewal is tough because mistiming means having a player you need to replace but zero overhead to replace them and zero opportunity to move them on. Everyone acts like Nunez was some massive massive investment, but even with him shitting the bed, I don't think he will represent a massive loss, and neither he, gakpo, chiesa etc. Are on eye watering wages by today's standards.

Similarly, players like Diaz who we could countenance renewing, but who have a known ceiling, are going to at least double their wages if we keep them. We're getting astonishing value from Diaz right now. He's underpaid, and we would have to double his wages to maintain him here. The same is true of konate etc. and they are all looking to benchmark off each other.

We have so many interlocking decisions regarding wages. Keeping everyone isnt maintaining the status quo, it's revaluing who we already have and in itself has a massive opportunity cost.

I’m not sure where you’re going with this - if we keep churning players we’ll stagnate because we’ll never achieve consistency and equally we’ll stagnate if we never replace players.

That’s not in question - it’s about the balance and it’s not particularly radical.

The ideal model is to get together a group of players with high skill ceilings and have them playing together for a 4-5 year period while in their prime.

Also, I reject that Nunez wasn’t a massive investment and also that we won’t lose out - unless you’re viewing this purely as asset management and not what relying on him has actually cost us - which is no different to us relying on Kieta and what he cost us - and these “costs” bear no relation to the transfer fees or wages.

I don’t really want to single out Nunez, he’s far from the only one, but he’s in the most critical position to have failed and not be easily replaced. That’s just an example of getting a transfer wrong.

Like I said earlier we can, to a certain extent, choose whether we replace loads of players or only a few.

It’s like the Salah or Van Dijk conundrum - you can’t bring in a top quality player to cover their positions because that player is going to sit on the bench picking splinters out their arse for 90% of games unless there’s an injury.

 

[Fabio]

As always, iffy example, but City won 4 on the spin (including a treble) by bringing on roughly 1 or 2 players a year to slowly cycle out leaving/poorer players.

If you want to win 1 league, then we can keep doing what we're doing. If you want to defend a title, you need to develop