About losing a Van Dijk: sign two Van Dijks, put one on the bench, and I can guarantee one would leave the club to become a starter elsewhere.
We don’t need two Van Dijk, we need a deputy that can do a job when Van Dijk gets assaulted, because he’s otherwise always available.
Certain posters only show up to moan about A) Results or B) Lack of signings.
And they’re struggling for option A’s right now.
May it continue.
And then when those toys don’t work throw them out of the pram and ask for more!
Clearly Canadian internet infrastructure hasn’t quite caught up
You know, funny you should mention that…
This smacks of “Ian Rush Syndrome”
“Who will score the goals when he goes to Juventus?”
I really hope we retain Virg and sign Huijsen, who I think has it in his locker to take over in time, while seeing plenty of action as part of the group until then.
To be Supreme Chancellor of the Intergalactic Super League.
Not that I’m anti-FSG but it does seem odd that they can sanction spending $120,000,000 on a player for the Red Sox but seem to be unable to resolve the situations with the ‘Contract Three’.
Well I am assuming that the financial dealings of the Redsox have no impact on Liverpool’s FFP.
I doubt FSG has direct input into either of those decisions.
Surely they would have some say over spending such substantial sums?
Why? It is not like the Red Sox are having to go to FSG for the capital, it is from their operating budget. Doubtless they are aware of it, but they hire people to develop the strategy, make those decisions, and execute. Similarly, we all know what the basic problem with the Salah contract is, his age makes it a risk. For TAA, for whatever reason he hasn’t been willing to take up the offers that have been made. I am a little less clear on the state of negotiations with VVD, but I really don’t think FSG does much but sign off on a decision. With the Bergman/Sox deal, it is their biggest ever, still within the framework of their operating revenue though.
I’m always puzzled that fans seem to think a million pounds spent by the red sox is automatically a million that could have been spent by us.
It’s obviously different pots of money. Red Sox money and Liverpool FC money. It’s not coming from John Henry’s wallet in either case.
I wonder if it’s just the common misconception, perpetuated by the know-nothings in the media and reinforced by the billionaire owners who treat clubs like their personal playthings, that the idea is that the owners are spending, and have to spend, out of their own personal fortune and run the clubs themselves making recruitment and contract decisions.
Newsflash to those who think so (although they probably will ignore it): most decently-run clubs have no inputs from their owners apart from whichever executives they hire to run the clubs.
It also happens the other way - whenever Liverpool do something Red Sox fans go ballistic that they aren’t getting the money. It is very tiresome.
Despite it’s high annual rate, it isnt really a substantial sum over the length of the contract. That total commitment is what moves the needle in baseball, not the per year amount. So in this case its limited scope and multiple get out clauses means the overall financial commitment is pretty small.
It is an interesting move from a purely baseball perspective, but I am struggling to see how it is remotely noteworthy outside of the question of what this means for the Sox’s prospects this season.