Here's a good writeup from the Independent. Some of this has already been discussed yesterday but this article provides greater detail on why we didn't proceed with the Dempsey move. I've cut out a piece of the full article (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/liverpool-reject-owen-as-henry-admits-errors-8102806.html) In summary, here's why FSG were reluctant to sign Dempsey.
1) Jordan Henderson's refusal to move. Hmm... it says that he was offered as "makeweight". We signed him for close to $20 million and Dempsey was offered to us at $7 million so how much do were we going to value Henderson at for this deal to go through? Doesn't make sense unless we were going to ship him to them on loan.
2) Fulham wanted us to pay a higher price than the others because of the messy summer where even on FSG's website, we claimed he was already joining us. I can understand why Fulham were pissed. What we did is almost akin to tapping up a player. I don't think either party was wrong here. We refused on principal and they wanted more because of what we did.
3) Buying prudently. To be honest I don't think that refusing to sign a player who had just scored 23 goals for a paltry sum despite his age (not even 30 btw) was being prudent. I think it had more to do with reason 2).
As to why we loaned Carroll out? Well it had to do with our cash flow I feel. With FFP taking effect, we cannot afford expensive passengers.
But did the club acted behind BR's back ? That's the big question here. It's all fine that we needed to conduct ourselves based on principles but the game changed when we loaned Carroll out. The prudent thing, regardless of principle, was to find a replacement. There had to be a compromise from the board. And who's idea was it to use Hendo as a sweetener? It sounds ridiculous that we needed to get rid off 2 players (whos fees were over 50mil combined) in order to get one in, and it's only Dempsey we're talking about here. And if getting rid of Carroll was to sort out our cashflow, then what would have happen if we did end up signing Dempsey ? Surely it would all even out. Something doesn't add up.
$3million? Disgraceful or our mathematical calculation seems to have big problem. We can afford $35million Caroll but not $7million Demps. If Fulham had asked for $17million, we may probably go for it. It's cheap. While $7million is too expensive.
Haha well if the offer for Hendo + cash is true, we actually did kinda offered 17mil. Because Hendo being British, more or less has a price tag of 15mil. So 3mil cash + 15mil Hendo = 18mil. It's baffling.
I blame Comolli. Ever since he came, our control of figures screwed up. Maybe Newcastle asked for $45million for Caroll and we managed to bargain down to $35million. So when Fulham ask for a straight forward honest price of $7million, we thought we can bargain down to $3million when it doesnt work that way. LOL.
Well at least we can say that we're consistent at something. Which is making a fool of ourselves in the transfer market.
In January... what's the point though? We could sign someone else in January as well.
I can just imagine it. Carroll starts banging goals for WH, gaining tremendous form. We get all excited and recall him in January but only for his form to deteriorate yet again.
If the team cannot score a goal from open play through "possession football", I do not see why or any harm trying plan B of high ball, and physical. After all many said PL is more physical than most other league, isn't it?
If manager cannot have all the money to buy whoever players suit to their philosophy of football, then with existing resources available, won't be better to try to utilise what the player can offer aka play at the strength accordingly, until the manager can find the target personnel, only change the way of play?
But in our situation we're desperate to get the Plan A sorted out first. There's no point having Plan A or B or C, when your primary tactic is not even polished. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the idea of having various tactics. But i think we need to realize that our priority for the moment is to get one tactic sorted out first. Unfortunately, this would mean leaving ourselves tactically exposed. But this won't even be an issue if we can get our primary tactic sorted out.
Personally, I'm not fond of having to resort to long ball tactic. It's understandable if it's the team's primary tactic but as a plan B it's a sign of desperation. Ideally, the team shouldn't ever have to put itself in that position. For instance, Rafa seldom had to make that kind of adjustment. He would either inject pace or craft to penetrate, but never purposefully resorting to long ball tactic - Carra hoofing away doesn't count lol.
The Gerrard combo happened with Suarez against Gomel at Anfield. They had one of their best game together yet. Almost synchronized movement, pinpoint passes and telepathic connection. I think this is why BR is persisting with Suarez playing upfront because their link up can be really good. But unfortunately, it's not really working in the league thus far.
Imo, the player we are missing the most atm, is Lucas. People can say whatever they want about him but a fit Lucas is someone who can keep the midfield together. Against Arsenal, we really missed his cynical fouls that could have kept the Arsenal midfield at bay. I really don't think Diaby could have run ravaged at us with a fit Lucas in our side.
I think BR will have have to feature some of the younger players. It's not like he has a choice. If there's room for Morgan, there's defintely some room for the likes of Yesil and Suso.
Anyways, some interesting comments from BR in regards to Lucas. He's getting Lucas involved tactically while he recovers.
QUOTE
"He has been one of the players that has come in and he was really excited about this way of working. He understands totally the ideas of what I'm trying to implement. So, for him, this was going to showcase his qualities even more. I'm going to use him to also go out and look at some games for me, because he's tactically very good. He's someone that I will get to go with my analysts and look at some games to make sure that tactically he still stays in the game. Because that's important. When I put the idea to him, he thought it was good. Hopefully when we get him back, he will have benefited from it and come back a better player. "
u look at lucas u dun find motivation, u find comfort. not fierce enough for captain, maybe vice-captain more like it
Disagree. He's very vocal, works hard for the team. When the going gets tough, he kept his head down, avoided any media exposure and worked even harder despite being hated by his own club supporters. If that's not motivational enough, then i don't know what is.
i thought Roy was about to ship him out. there too were scores of Lfc fans who wanted him out when he played under rafa!!
Don't think he did. I vaguely remember him saying Purslow suggested that he should sell but he didn't act on it. One of the good things, well perhaps the only good thing he did during his brief career with us.
for this reason, lucas would rise to the occasion. i think lucas (bar injuries, would have a better consistancy in his game, that i suppose helps)
skrtel, may be very vocal, however he hasn't be able to as consistant performer as lucas (i think)
Agreed. Carra is vocal but the lack of calmness means you often see him berate at his teammates for the slightest of mistakes. A captain, ideally has to be calm and composed. You can be godly in terms of football skills but that doesn't necessarily make you a great captain. After all, captaincy is all about leadership and not everyone is a leader.
It's important to have the person that have the presence and influence in the dressing room. Lucas is a very good player but I dont think he has that leadership quality. Almost all the managers love Lucas during their time here. None has selected him as possible captain when Stevie and Carra are not playing. Instead it goes to Reina. It says a lot.
He was the captain of Gremio and Brazil. Surely you must have some leadership qualities to be able to captain those 2 sides. The likes of Reina and Kuyt were normally picked over Lucas because they are/were senior players. If i'm not mistaken, I think Kenny gave Lucas the captaincy in one of the matches last season.
It's a very different dressing room in liverpool than Gremio. Charlie Adam was captain of Blackpool and if he captain us, I guess many fans will be upset. No disrespect to Lucas but I just can't see him leading the team. He's more Mr. Congeniality than big brother. Plus, we need to be careful in captain selection. The burden that comes with sometimes bring more pressure to the player which influence his performance.
That's a fair point but i'm not sure you can compare Charlie to Lucas tho. For starters, Lucas has been with us ever since he was 19 years old. He's every bit the flesh and blood of this team, where as Charlie was just someone we signed to fill a gaping hole in the team and even then struggled to adapt to the high standard that is required from a Liverpool player.
Imo, Lucas is already a big brother to a lot of players. I remember reading about our youth looking up to Lucas and some even said that he's their favourite player. He's been a great role model for them both on and off the pitch. I think in this era of transitioning, where our youth will play a big part in laying a new foundation, having someone they can relate to will be crucial.
I reckon with Doni gone MIA, there's no one else can really push Pepe for a place in the first 11. Perhaps complacency setting in ? Look at Enrique last season, he had no one else fighting for that position and he slowly drifted out of form. Maybe the rumor about us signing a new keeper is exactly what Pepe needs. He could use some wake up call.
I know that many still side Benitez but as a die hard Liverpool fan, I think Benitez gets too much credit than he deserves. Yes, he won us the Champs League and FA Cup and came a close second but it is also more often than not that Stevie G carried us through alone. Most of his "signings" failed to live up to the expectations and didn't really add anything to the team. Granted those handful of his "signings" performed, even then we still relied heavily on Gerrard and his tactics sometimes were too negative. I feel he spent way too much money on way too many players that ultimately led to this whole incident referred to by him. I know of fans who seem to forget that he spent a lot on players that ultimately we don't even remember (i.e. Josemi, Nunez, Morientes, Sissoko, Gonzalez and the list goes on). He spent a total of 226m and 76 players. Of all 76, it is safe to say that only 10 really helped the team play better. Not saying he's shit but he has to take as much of the blame as G&H.
Anyone that puts a star on the Liverpool's crest deserves all the plaudit that he gets. No offense but it's ludicrous to suggests that it was all down to Gerrard. So Rafa gets no credit for moving Gerrard to right, against all popular view - that ended up seeing him scoring over 20 goals ? How about the time when he shifted him behind the striker, and unleashing one of the most potent striking partners in the league ? I
To say it was all Gerrard is not only disrespectful to the manager, it's downright insulting to his ex-teammates i.e. Xabi, Mascherano, Garcia, Torres etc. They all played their part in putting this club back to where it belongs - competing valiantly in European football. I suppose the defense that helped Reina winning back to back golden glove has nothing to do with it either. People can pull out the numbers out of the hat, but nothing can take away the fact that it was under Rafa (bar the last season) that Liverpool FC were consistently competitive in modern football. That's the very least one should expect from any manager, and even then 2 managers who succeeded him have failed to reconstruct the competitive edge that Rafa's Liverpool's team had.
I don't see a problem people wanting to talk about his upcoming book. He's very much an important figure concerning LFC after all. So i'm sure some people are curious and interested in regards to the content of the book.
Again, not my point. I'm just saying that he shouldn't keep blaming the ex-owners and also fans should stop defending him like he has never done anything wrong at Anfield. Like I said, I don't think he is a bad manager and I don't dislike him either. I'm just sick of hearing him saying that he didn't get enough money and whatnot. I think he should just move on and focus on his current position and we as fans should also stop focusing on the past.
Don't get me wrong, the team definitely contributed altogether but again, maybe we would be much better if the money spent was spent on better players instead of bringing a host of below-average players. I'm merely suggesting that we look at both sides and remain a neutral on this matter as we don't know the full story and just move on from this.
Constantly debating about who's right or wrong is pointless. Just like a break-up, both parties are always at fault no matter how small the fault so I'm just saying he had some fault for his departure as well and it's not entirely the fault of the ex-owners and directors. So maybe fans should stop blaming it all on the ex-owners.
I don't think i missed the point at all. You said it was mostly down to Gerrard carrying the team, which is utterly nonsense. Everyone concerning the club; the manager, the players, the fans, all played their part in making sure we remained competitive during all those years under Rafa.
I don't think he's perfect either but to say that he shares the blame as much as G&H is a bit over the top don't you think ? One were driving this club into the ground through debt, the other had us punching above our weight despite messing up in transfer markets.
And for what it's worth, no one was debating about Rafa until you started slagging him off.
Sep 4 2012, 05:11 PM
Quote
0.0264sec
1.10
7 queries
GZIP Disabled