Marca: Liverpool join the race for Sahin
- Thread starter Jürgen4PM
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Then i'd rather Sterling, Suso, Coady, Wisdom etc get the gig.
That can't be right, can it? Where did you get that from?
Wiki, so yeah, it's probably not right.
LFCHistory says:
Liverpool paid 1,6 million pounds to get him on loan in January 2007 with a view to a permanent transfer in 2008 when Liverpool paid the 17 million pounds required to complete his move.
No I think a loan signing can potentially become a long term investment but with smaller risks. Like Mascherano.
If we can negotiate a buy-out fee then I don't see why it can't be long-term if the player does well.
However if you loan a 35 year old player like Henrik Larsson, then it's definitely short term.
Ive said more than once on this subject if a loan includes an AGREED buyout fee I have no problem with it.
I still dont understand why we are loaning ANOTHER CM when we have Allen, Lucas and Gerrard to start along with Shelvey and Henderson to come in.
If we are looking to loan a player (WITH AN AGREED BUYOUT FEE) id rather it was a CF or a RW.
In fairness to Spurs and 'Arry they did actually qualify for the CL last season only to be bounced out of it by the Chavs.
Quite. But the risk is you dont make it and you have to take it all apart. Its the same as what happened to Leeds to a degree. You take things you cannot afford and hope you can make it work. If it doesnt you are back to square 1.
Oncy, would you mind if we included some sort of clause in the loan deal, so that we could buy them at the end of it?
LOL.
There's nothing wrong with loaning players, yeah it's a pity if we don't have an option to buy but if we're in a situation where we can't afford to buy a good player now but we can loan one until we have the funds to buy one why wouldn't you do it?
Fair play to Rodgers for exploring every option, for too long we've been lazy in the market thinking money could make up for a lack of imagination.
Fair play to Rodgers for exploring every option, for too long we've been lazy in the market thinking money could make up for a lack of imagination.
Ok, whilst I get your point Andy, it seems there's two issues.
Firstly, the wage bill. Loan deals are almost always cheaper cos the owners pay a part of the wages.
Secondly, the fee, if we don't have the funds should we buy a lesser player or loan a quality player in?
Once you make that equation I don't see how it can be a bad thing, even if a buy out clause isn't definitely included.
Firstly, the wage bill. Loan deals are almost always cheaper cos the owners pay a part of the wages.
Secondly, the fee, if we don't have the funds should we buy a lesser player or loan a quality player in?
Once you make that equation I don't see how it can be a bad thing, even if a buy out clause isn't definitely included.
We dont HAVE to spend money. That was Rafa's biggest issue. Lets spend every penny even if its on inferior players. Kenny and Roy did it too.
If we dont have any money then dont fucking buy anyone. If we have 5m, if we cant find a bargain who will improve us then dont spend it. Keep it and add it to the 5m for next season and play the young players.
In isolation a loan isnt a bad idea but strategically its shit.
Then we leave our forward line as is now?!
I'd prefer to spend nothing on a fee & 50k a week on a quality barca or real squad player & have someone reliable to start if needs be. If suarez or Carroll got injured, or even both, we'd be fucked otherwise, you can't rely solely on young players unless you have an inkling they're good enough, & our young forwards aren't there yet.
Also, as I pointed out, even in this system a good experienced forward can slot in & out easily enough, unlike a midfielder, defender, or even the keeper. It's the only position if agree that we wouldn't lose that much cohesion in by swapping a player.
Am I reading this right? We're potentially going to see off fierce competition from Arsenal and Spurs to sign a top class young central midfielder on loan, schooled in pass and move/pressing game and already a proven integral player (at a very young age) in a title winning side - and people are moaning?
Jesus wept. Would you rather we give Spearing or Adam more games than Sahin?
Jesus wept. Would you rather we give Spearing or Adam more games than Sahin?
No you arent reading it right. No one is moaning.
My concern is. And its fairly obvious. That Sahin IS brilliant. And we cannot afford to sign him in summer. And we have a squad that has knitted together around him. And we have to re-start next year.
Maybe if this was about......i dunno....Soldado I could understand, because we DO need a forward.
Maybe im just being prescious about it.
Either way I cant be arsed going on about it anymore.
Id prefer to build on stable foundations is all. I dont believe loan players are the way to do that. They are a quick fix for sure, but what if it doesnt work. Sahin and Tello go home and we still need to sign new players on top of those who have not worked who we own.
You should probably go and have a look at Monaco since the loan agreement for Morientes ended, league positions and current plight.
Then you will realise that youve just come up with the shittest example in history to highlight why loaning a player is a good idea.
Well done.
Quite the feat.
Loans are much more prevalent in Italy, pretty much every team has a couple loaned or part-owned players. They are used to this system and don't consider it too disruptive. I'm sure clubs there appreciate the flexibility of trying out players before having to sing a contract with them.
This was an interesting debate to read. I think FFF and Rosco's posts have swayed me in the end. We almost certainly don't have money to buy Sahin now (especially since central midfield is not the area of highest priority at the moment) and Real may or may not want to include a pre-agreed buy-out clause in a loan deal. Let's say they don't want a buyout clause or set a very high price. Should we proceed with the loan or walk away? I think the answer is clear: it's better to have a good player for a year than not at all.
This was an interesting debate to read. I think FFF and Rosco's posts have swayed me in the end. We almost certainly don't have money to buy Sahin now (especially since central midfield is not the area of highest priority at the moment) and Real may or may not want to include a pre-agreed buy-out clause in a loan deal. Let's say they don't want a buyout clause or set a very high price. Should we proceed with the loan or walk away? I think the answer is clear: it's better to have a good player for a year than not at all.
There are lots of scenarios. He can be piss poor and leave and we all say good riddance you turk. or he is brilliant and signs a long term deal and we all say fantastic.or he is brilliant and he leaves, and we all see the fate of Monaco who was relegated 8 years after a succesful loan spell, and we all starts to blame the yanks (who else is there to blame) for us going down!!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked