Tony Barrret Article
- Thread starter Squiggles
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Spot on. The problem is that the players for the future end up playing not playing enough games, players that cost a lost of money. We can't afford to do both. We should be doing what City did. Buy players for the first eleven and then after we finished in the top four a few years in a row then we can afford to do both, signing players for the future and players for the first eleven. If we continue to do what we do now then we will end up with a lot of players that want to leave.
Ha, paraphrased from here. I don't think there's any reason to doubt their authenticity.
It seems it's about adding more possible points of failure to me. Any evidence it's a superior system?
Yeah, and La Liga sides have shown greater success in Europe in recent years.
I think Ross said it best a while ago - the idea that a manager who has his hands full in overseeing training, tactics and analysing opposition on a daily basis should also scout players, and have the knowledge of finding value in the transfer market is quite unfeasible.
Most times, managers will just go for players they're familiar with, or latest sensations from the league in which they operate.
I think Ross said it best a while ago - the idea that a manager who has his hands full in overseeing training, tactics and analysing opposition on a daily basis should also scout players, and have the knowledge of finding value in the transfer market is quite unfeasible.
Most times, managers will just go for players they're familiar with, or latest sensations from the league in which they operate.
I dunno. I've managed to hold down a full time job, be addicted to the internet, play computer games, spend 60% of my waking hours drunk or high, watch at least one shit film a day - and I still know about every player ever available on the global football market and all of their stats and mood swings because of you guys and twitter and shit.
In what division?
Anyway, this is Rodgers on the day Firmino signed. You know, Firmino, the one who must be a committee signing because he was on the bench at Stoke: 😵
Firmino is an outstanding talent. He’s got a wonderful touch and appreciation of the game. The key when you watch him play is his determination and how hard he works.”
Firmino is an outstanding talent. He’s got a wonderful touch and appreciation of the game. The key when you watch him play is his determination and how hard he works.”
I didn't say he was a committee signing because he was on the bench. In fact, I've already said that I don't think he was a committee signing because he was on the bench. I'm not sure how you're getting so confused about this.
I said he was a committee signing because Barrett strongly implied he was.
I said he was a committee signing because Barrett strongly implied he was.
It must be true then.
No he didn't. He implied that his starting XI was largely his own players and that our two (arguably) best players weren't his signings but he wouldn't ignore their talents. Which is selective bullshit that's right up your tree.
Do you want me to dig out his interviews from when we signed Coutinho? If you're talking about stark contrasts between his attitude and responses over certain signings. I'd contrast his comments about Mario a week before we signed him, to his comments about Coutinho and Firmino. It's a crap, speculative point used to beat him with. Same with the rubbish about him not wanting Sturridge, despite the fact that it was widely reported in the Summer before we got him that Rodgers wanted a loan deal with a view to buy, but Chelsea initially wanted in the region of £17m upfront. We waited 5 months and saved £5m.
I'm not getting confused about anything, it's an agenda driven rationale. You've basically stated twice now that it's true because Barrett said so. For such a bright lad you don't half talk shite.
I've already had this out with you. You seem to think the reputation of these guys counts for nothing. Fine. I disagree. In my experience he gets things right consistently.
Again, I think the it's true because Barrett says so reasoning is sound. His reputation as a sound reporter is established; his reputation as a trouble-causing bullshit merchant - the one you're trying to rely on - quite frankly, isn't.
Therefore I'd suggest it's incumbent on you to establish that reputation using logic and evidence. So let's hear it.
"I saw that in this time at Inter Milan as a young player and obviously going to Manchester City when we had a real close eye on him there.
"He's got all the qualities. He's 6ft 3ins, he's quick, his touch is terrific and he can score goals
Rodgers on Mario
Manager in praising signed player SHOCKA
If he wanted to make the point about Firmino not being his player, if he had any inside track, he's have said as much. Instead he dropped a half arsed ambiguous point in there to drive speculation. Either say it, or don't bother. He's just trying to add weight to his poor opinion of Rodgers, which is the ultimate point of the article.
Like I've said elsewhere, it must grate that we look to have got it right this Summer, when idiots want to see us crash and burn to be proven right.
Also, I don't get why Peter is getting slated here?
Hes using Barratt as a source (someone who has very credible sources at the club), and is someone who is willing to say thing not necessarily on the clubs agenda
Considering a lot of people jump over stories from other (less credible) journalists, it's fucking obscene to criticise Peter for using a good source
Hes using Barratt as a source (someone who has very credible sources at the club), and is someone who is willing to say thing not necessarily on the clubs agenda
Considering a lot of people jump over stories from other (less credible) journalists, it's fucking obscene to criticise Peter for using a good source
What was he going to say though? I'd take more stock from his comments a week before we signed him, that he pretty much didn't want him. He hasn't said the same of many/any other players. Like I say though, I'm not the one who made the point about it being obvious which signings were his and which ones weren't. I notice no one's bothered to respond to James Pearce's interview stating that he doesn't believe there's any truth in the Sakho/Lovren point.
He's not getting slated for using Barrett as a source. If he wanted to make a "no smoke without fire" point then fair enough, he's driving his point as though it's hard fact.
Hahahaha so confirmation of the obvious that even Firmino wasn't his choice.
That's why he's getting slated.
It's not even a point that Barrett had the balls to make, it was a point that was halfheartedly insinuated.
Apparently mark now thinks Barrett is some kind of fulminating anti-Rodgers gutter journalist.
Which sounds remarkably like
Lazy
Selective
Ageneda-driven
Bullshit
To me.
Peter, I work with the press every day. Yesterday a news reporter I get on very well with told me the story behind a story that had he'd written and which was the front page lead in his paper the day before. The inside line had to be left out of the story completely, therefore completely screwing the tone of the piece, on the advice of lawyers. My point is I know how these guys work. I know that sounds arsey and I apologise for it.
Some football reporters have better access and contacts than others and it may well be that Barrett is one of the former. However when did you last read or hear a journalist accept there might be some doubt in their story due to them not having the inside line? It just doesn't happen. It's not just you the reader they have to convince, it's the editors and publishers who employ them. They have to be convinced their reporting team has better access than their rivals otherwise they hire the rivals. Believe me. In a previous job, admittedly many years ago, I used to provide PR support to a premier league team's in-house guy (not Liverpool but this team is in the PL today). He used to handle team stuff and my firm supported him on corporate matters. He had his favourite journalists who were fed lines but to the guy in the street it was impossible to tell the difference between those who claimed ITK status and really had it and those who claimed it but who never had their calls returned.
Which is all fine and dandy, but people with even better inside knowledge than you (well, macca) say he is reliable.
So I guess that's for you two to duke out.
Brendan Rodgers signings:
Nathaniel Clyne (£12m), Adam Lallana (£25m), James Milner (Free), Dejan Lovren (£20m), Christian Benteke (£32.5m)
Transfer committee signings:
Mamadou Sakho (£18m), Lazar Markovic (£20m), Alberto Moreno (£12m), Divock Origi (£10m)
He played three new signings which is common practice. Last season Moreno, Markovic and Sakho all played a big part, so why was he playing them then, if it's such a transparent strategy?
He had other players in all of their positions he could turn to. Yet they made 99 appearances between them last season. It's a retarded, unsubstantiated point.
I've never once said I have inside knowledge of the club. This is because I don't have inside knowledge of the club. I've never claimed I have.
- Status
Similar threads
