Both said they wanted to sign extensions with the club so it’s up to the club. Imagine trying to replace these 3 next season especially when we spend so little under these owners.
The club spent about £120m signing Mo and Virgil. I’m sure if there are suitable replacements out there they would fund them as long as the fee wasnt crazy. The bigger question is whether the club can identify players of similar ability, available and willing to come to the club next summer.
The biggest question is will the owners fund players like that if they are not prepared to extend current players contracts.
1 Like
Only off the back of the Coutinho sale. You overestimate FSG’s largesse sadly. By some distance.
2 Likes
No, that isn’t the biggest question, because they have demonstrated a willingness to do so throughout the last decade.
1 Like
Only after big sales, Coutinho sale provided us with two of the best premier league players the league has even seen. We spend like a mid table club.
1 Like
Mo was signed before Coutinho tried to force a move, and Virgil was going to be signed regardless. We’ve gone on to buy players since then for similar fees.
Anyway, there is nothing wrong with recycling cash from sales to pay for better players, especially when it is done in an organised manner.
3 Likes
Yeah surely we could afford 34m for Mo, we are Liverpool after all.
There is a big difference between sanctioning a big money move to sign a player in their prime vs sanctioning a big money extension for a player already 33 years old. Even if you assume the hold up with Virgil is us not willing to pay what he wants, it is not good logic to treat that as a demonstration that we wouldnt pay what it took to land his (not 33 year old) replacement
But more importantly, we have no idea what the cause of the hold up is on any of the contracts, other than the understandable delay that came from having no permanent SD and the Klopp news breaking last season. Once the Klopp news broke last year I would not have expected any of these contracts to get sorted before the season started, both because the new SD would have bigger priorities and players would want to see who the new guy was going to be and what life would be like here post-Klopp.
3 Likes
No, we spend like a club that doesn’t have to go back into the transfer market to continually correct its mistakes.
Last year we brought in 4 midfielders at a cost of around £170m, One of whom cost around £70m, with outgoing players bringing in only £60m. .
The year before that we spent about £145m, with 125m of that going on Nunez and Gakpo, while only bringing in £80m from sales.
And again in 21/22 we spent about £90m bringing in Diaz and Konate while selling only £30m.
The club can be tight with its spending, but it will spend big when it is for the right players. Just go back to 18/19 when we signed both Allisson and Keita for about £60m each - £180m spent that year with only £40m coming in from player sales.
3 Likes
That represented maybe our second biggest transfer fee ever at the time. Downplaying the financial commitment it took is not a good argument.
4 Likes
I generally like the way we are run. It is sustainable. I think we (by that I mean FSG) could do a bit more, but on the whole it is fine. Arguably they are saving some money up because they know we will need some big investment coming soon.
To my mind, keep VVD. 2 year contract. He is imperious. Still fast, strong, dominant in the air, and he organizes the whole back line. Such a key player.
Mo - I would give him a one year deal on reduced terms, as I think he is past peak and not beating fullbacks or winning his duels as before. He still knows where the net is, and will score a steady supply of goals and get assists, but if he wants the same money, or more, or even a longer deal than one more year, I would let him go. Hopefully a rolling one year thing can be sorted, but if not, I would reluctantly say goodbye, with our thanks and appreciation, as he has been such a good player.
Trent is a strange one as unlike the other two he is peak age. If his head has been turned by Real Madrid, so be it. If they want him in January, and he wants to do it, it would need to be worth our while financially, or otherwise he can see out his deal. Ideally he signs a new long term deal, on great terms, and becomes our future captain and wins plenty of trophies here. But this feels like it is up to Trent.
Beyond the three contracts we will have to sort out a left back. I like the young Hungarian lad at Bournemouth, think his name is Kerkez. Or arguably, we might go with a central defender who can operate as a fullback, especially if we have a very attacking option in the other fullback position. It will be interesting to see how Slot solves it.
We also could do with another midfielder.
Then beyond that, we are all watching to see what happens with Nunez. Will he force his way in and be more of a main man? Or will he slide to the periphery, at which point, he will surely be replaced.
Lots of permutations, and it will cost a lot of dough however it pans out.
7 Likes
But if they want to sign 3 year deals at significantly higher wages, it would be a risky move of the clubs part. They will be negotiating with the players representatives to find a deal that works for both parties.
1 Like
Agree with almost all of this:
Absolutely - we should be prepared to pay overs to keep him - if thats a little more money or an extra year on a deal he is worth this.
Yep Mo has demonstrated he is declining and definitely would put him in the take it or leave it pile. Sure he’ll be missed but I think after this season he’d be phased out anyway.
Trent:
Absolutely its up to Trent now and I wouldn’t be keen to let him go to Real in January unless they offered beyond silly money. The problem is we should have got him signed up again 2 years ago - it’s absolutely negligent to have let TAA walk away for free. Had we shelled out 2 years ago as part of the ‘become vice captain’ stage, we could at least demand the ~100m for him were he wanting to leave that would ensure his departure allows appropriate reinvestment.
4 Likes
Those talking about our past spends and saying we only spunked the money for Virg and Ali due to what we received for Coutinho, are forgetting that we were in for Caicedo at over $100m with no significant outgoings!!!
As i stated earlier Virg is the one I fear losing, opposing players just wilt when they see him on the team sheet, he is so impressive 1 v 1, for me the best there has been in 1 v 1’s, just so much power, pace & strength
2 Likes
This is such a massive myth. FSG are neither generous nor stingy. They simply don’t fund our ongoing operations.
What the club has done however, is prioritise wage expenditure over transfer expenditure, because the data points towards that being the more prudent use of limited funds. And it certainly showed in our wage bill over the years.
5 Likes
Caicedo AND Lavia, at close to the prices that Chelsea eventually paid.
1 Like
But we don’t spend that money …
1 Like
Technically correct, since we didn’t actually spend that money.
Don’t you see, FSG was just playing the long game, trying to fool us all fans into believing that they’re generous! FSG OUT!
In all seriousness, I don’t think FSG even interfere into the day-to-day running of the club, except that Edwards is now an FSG employee rather than a Liverpool employee. I think they would certainly have an inquest into the working processes/organisational structure at the club if performance declines in the long run, but I don’t think they’re going to dictate spending, transfers, etc. that people seem to fantasise that they do, perhaps because of the history of activist owners like Abramovich and the like.
1 Like
Agree with most of this too,if Trent has had his head turned by RM,let him see out his contract or push for silly money to let him go earlier.
As. I said at the time about Coutinho see no point in hanging on to a player who wants out,he’ll likely just drip around the place.
I’d much prefer he stays but only if he wants to,otherwise milk RM,and bring in someone with the money who wants to be here.
1 Like