Marca: Liverpool join the race for Sahin
- Thread starter Jürgen4PM
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Well melodrama aside. We won a trophy last year, they didnt.
We will both play in the Uefa cup this year so they havent really gained anything on us. Their starting CF has left, their starting CB has retired, their starting CM is out for three months and their key player wants to leave.
Not to mention their keeper is 130 years old. So yeah, they are OBVIOUSLY making all the right decisions.
Well if they got to CL they could afford his ridicoulous wages for another season if they think he fits their plan. If he don't they can wave him goodbye and take another route. They are free to do whatever they want regarding Adebayor and his ridicoulous wages. Mind you there is no que of clubs to snatch him up is it?!
And to take one loan signing into the the same context as selling all your strikers is not excactly fair play? They didn't have to be stupid and offload all strikers? There is nor rules saying that if you loan a player you have to sell all the other players?
I dont understand your point mate. They loaned instead of bought. Its an unstable way of running a club that has pretensions on winning things imho.
Standard.
The point is that Adebayor is an extreme expensive asset to operate. By lonaing him they would see if he fits their style and their plans and buy him even cheaper now. If he feels as a burden more than an asset they are free to let him go without having to pay for half his salary for the next club.
I will dare to say that we, Chelasea and Torres would have been better off if we loaned him to them for the remaining of the season with an option to buy at the end of the season. people would have gone bananas, but by the end of the season we would all be better off. We would have got back a guy that was motivated to put in the best for the club, after sniffing on life in the lower (yet different) end. Chelsea would have been able to let the flop go back with no huge loss. All three parts would have been better off, but there is no way such a transaction would ever take place. With the prices and operation costs in the market today there are far to few loan deals going on.
I dont mind loaning our players out mate. I just dont want to loan players in.
Aquilani was a good loan signing for Juventus and Milan?
Both are the last two teams to win the league. Just unfortunately in the seasons that Aqua was playing for the other side.
Both are the last two teams to win the league. Just unfortunately in the seasons that Aqua was playing for the other side.
Ok. I'll tell you what. Last season Spurs loaned to try to get to the promised land and spent 150k a week or whatever paying for the privelige of having a striker they didnt own. We paid out 35m for a striker who we now seemingly dont want.
So lets see at the end of THIS season who set themselves up better after their decisions last season.
If Spurs finish above us i'll concede that loaning Adebayor didnt harm them. If we finish above them overhauling the 18 point difference (or whatever the fuck it was) in the process you conceed that loaning players for one season is a short term shit idea?
If we had loaned Carroll for last season, we'd have an extra 35m to buy another striker after we realised he was shit.
That doesn't follow at all! You're placing total emphasis on the questionable and quite possibly minor disruptive effect without acknowledging any of the potential benefits. Let's say we could loan Messi for the season and he plays instead of Borini. Messi's goals get us a CL place and win us a trophy. The following season Borini takes his place and the cohesion foregone by not having him play this season costs us, say, 8 points in the league. However, the £20m player we can afford to buy with the CL money we couldn't have afforded wihtout the Messi loan gains us 10 points (just enough to requalify for CL) and another trophy.
After 2 seasons we're 2 trophies and £40m (conservatively) better off than without the loan. Extreme example, but nevertheless, the issue is nowhere near as black and white as you're making out.
Herr is completely right, you don't loan in your main players, when you do, all you are doing is delaying your problems for a year. Like Spurs this year, instead of improving on there squad they're playing catch up. You bring in loan players to compliment your squad, players who aren't essential but add something, like Larsson or Donovan, or you have a good option to buy afterwards.
You realize this makes you even more wrong? The team is not one guy. If we had spunked the 100 mill on other players last season it would not have been 18 points in the first place.
This is just as meaningless as saying that since it took Fergie 6 years to win the league, it is rock solid proof that every manager given six years will win the league. it doesn't work that way.
Im not trying to suggest it is black and white. Apologies if im giving that impression. Im just saying I (ME) would prefer not to loan players as I (ME) think it isnt a good idea for long term planning.
Nothing good came out of loaning Mascherano
I dont think thats what i was saying at all.
Spurs had a manager last year who is NOTORIOUSLY short term in his thinking.
We had a manager who thought LONG term (signing long term contracts for YOUNG players)
We will see this season whos plans stood them in the best stead going forward.
PS-Ask Ross. He already knows the answer.
Not really no. We loaned him then had to pay 18m for him.
We should have signed him for 10m in the first place.
If this main palyer, Sahin, help us qualify for the CL playing wonderful footie in the process and enjoying his life. How big is the chance we will will sign him for a lower fee as he is one year further down his contract by then? And this player has had the good feeling at Dormund, found himself in the cold in Madrid, and suddenly feel like a player again.
The risk is of course that he doesn't fit in, misses the brattwursts like crazy and only want to move home. Then it is Madrids problem to find a solution for him.
It is viable if we talk about loaning the whole squad. But we are not. Players come and go even if they are on long or short term contracts. Managers are crazy about players they don't have. Rafa i.e. was the worst of them. he could never stop talking about players he didn't have or players the others have.... Loaning a guy will not destroy our club.
You're only delaying the problems if by loaning it means you can't afford to solve them permanently this year. If without making the loan you still couldn't have afforded to solve them permanently then you'll still have that problem next year anyway - without any of the potential benefits of having temporarily solved them this year.
I didnt say it would destroy our club. Spurs arent 'Destroyed'.
But in signing old players and loanees they thought 'short term' as Redknapp has wherever he has been. I think we will see a negative on their side because of that.
I dont know why this is becoming a crusade. I simply said I dont like the idea and would prefer not to.
Honestly if you and everyone else is fine with loaning him then no problem. I would rather we did not is all.
Sold for £24 million.
He didnt cost us 24m did he?
The transfer reportedly cost Liverpool £18.6m, and covered not only the transfer fee, but also the player's wages for the four year deal
Oh right. So you think a long term plan equates to a cup final 6 years ago. I see.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked