Didcot Saint Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 Should have made the arrogant disrespectful greedy **** rot in the reserves.
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 Just get rid, move on & get someone else in! Yes, the sooner the better. "If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly"
Ivan Katalinic's 'tache Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 If we are just selling him on, why did we bother insisting he travelled out to Belgium with the rest of the squad? Should've just left him behind if we've been convinced he's been off as far back as May.
Dellman Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 I do not understand what is going on, we say we have no need to sell, we say we are not a selling club, we know the players are under contract and we surrender to their wishes and sell them. Why?
Sour Mash Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 Which just makes the fans look like bitter dicks. Silence followed by cheers for Lambert is the best possible statement. No more or less d!cks than any other football fans in the world. You'd let a player say what they want about your club and not give them any stick in return, fair enough, but most won't feel the same I'm afraid.
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 I feel sorry for Liverpool fans. They are going to be pretty unhappy having to settle for 8th next season.
Sour Mash Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 still think allowing him to go is a bad move, any agent looking at this will now just tell the player to throw a similar tantrum and we'll end up selling. He should have been made an example of, make him stay till at least next year, if he sulks make him train on his own. I know we're makingh best of a bad situation but this one sale has firmly placed all the power in the players' hands Should have made the arrogant disrespectful greedy **** rot in the reserves. Guess, it's ultimately impractical for the club, but I'd have loved to see us do that.
Smirking_Saint Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 Another gone... I ****ing dispair at this board
kpturner Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 Another gone... I ****ing dispair at this board Good riddance IMHO. His behaviour has been poor, he has no desire to play for our club, and I would rather see him replaced with somebody who actually wants to be here. If we double our money then better still......although I would still get some pleasure out of seeing him getting the Pierre van Hooijdonk treatment next season.
Didcot Saint Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 (edited) Millbrook Saint you make a great point and I agree. I just wish RK could have turned him around, but shamefully the overpaid arrogant c..t would probably be more of a liability than a help to the team, so take the money and Invest. God, I have never known a close season, or a bunch of disloyal f...wits like this before. Edited 20 July, 2014 by Didcot Saint
Ewell Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 I think its fine to be a stepping stone club, but you have to manage departures better. You cannot sell the number of good players we have without a detrimental effect. Im not paid to run the club and Im sure its difficult, but tell some of them they could go next year, or in January if needed. Its not selling the players thats the concern, its selling them all over the same summer that is mental. Koeman IMO has the hardest PL job. Good luck to him and a mid table finish would be a top effort. Great post and spot on!
Block34 Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 Another gone... I ****ing dispair at this board Nothing to do with the players of course, oh no no no no no, sun shines out of their collective @rses you see! Has to be the board, otherwise how could SS support a group of players that actually had no support for his club? He must feel the pain quite deeply I suspect, have to feel sorry for the guy. Time to see what a lot of footballers really are and accept it, move on and wait to see what happens this coming season
angelman Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 At the rate Liverpool are signing players, I wonder whether they will end up having a surfeit of players where some will miss out on the 25 man PL squad?
Smirking_Saint Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 Nothing to do with the players of course, oh no no no no no, sun shines out of their collective @rses you see! Has to be the board, otherwise how could SS support a group of players that actually had no support for his club? He must feel the pain quite deeply I suspect, have to feel sorry for the guy. Time to see what a lot of footballers really are and accept it, move on and wait to see what happens this coming season The irony is that you could easily just reword your post to fit the other agenda. FWIW I think some of it is definately the bigger club arguement but ignoring the fact it could be board incompetance is as moronic as it is hypocritical. But fair enough, the sun shines out of the SFC boardroom. Thats your particular agenda, Im trying to look at both sides of the arguement abd from where Im stood 4-5 of our best players leaving is ****ing incompetant Im not even going to answer the personal aimed stuff to myself.
buctootim Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 Thats your particular agenda, Im trying to look at both sides of the arguement abd from where Im stood 4-5 of our best players leaving is ****ing incompetant But you're not looking at both sides, thats the point. Had four or five of our best players been leaving for Stoke or Swansea for the same money or less, thats incompetence. Good players leaving for double the money and CL, its blindingly obvious - or not apparently.
Smirking_Saint Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 But you're not looking at both sides, thats the point. Had four or five of our best players been leaving for Stoke or Swansea for the same money or less, thats incompetence. Good players leaving for double the money and CL, its blindingly obvious - or not apparently. Its a variable, the fact that 4 are leaving possibly 5 ? That strikes me that there are certain issues that have been capitalised on IMO We will get through it, it wont be the end of saints etc, ut its a poor situation that hasnt been handled particularly effectively. Id argue that saying 'its all CL football' is a naive as those talking about asset stripping. Im saying the board are obviousky trying, they just arent really managing very well.
buctootim Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 Its a variable, the fact that 4 are leaving possibly 5 ? That strikes me that there are certain issues that have been capitalised on IMO We will get through it, it wont be the end of saints etc, ut its a poor situation that hasnt been handled particularly effectively. Id argue that saying 'its all CL football' is a naive as those talking about asset stripping. Im saying the board are obviousky trying, they just arent really managing very well. I didnt say its all CL. Its mainly money. What is it exactly you're advocating - pay every first team player £100,000pw to match Liverpool or Man U's offfers? Is that your idea of board incompetence, refusing to bankrupt the club in a vain attempt to match the finacial firepower of cluubs with four times our income?
Saint Fan CaM Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 May as well give every player a 1 year contract for all the ******* use they are now.
CB Fry Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 May as well give every player a 1 year contract for all the ******* use they are now. They are incredibly useful when securing high transfer fees. That's primarily what they are for. And for players to get pay rises. A one year contract, on the other hand is effing useless, except for very old players desperate for one more season.
Matthew Le God Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 May as well give every player a 1 year contract for all the ******* use they are now. As CB Fry said above, if for example Lallana and Shaw had deals at Saints until 2015 we wouldn't have got remotely close to £55m offers from Liverpool and Man Utd for them both and they'd still have gone once those teams made bids.
Smirking_Saint Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 I didnt say its all CL. Its mainly money. What is it exactly you're advocating - pay every first team player £100,000pw to match Liverpool or Man U's offfers? Is that your idea of board incompetence, refusing to bankrupt the club in a vain attempt to match the finacial firepower of cluubs with four times our income? We hold their footballing registration, you can refuse to do anything, they are happy to sign long contracts, hold them to it. Do what NC did, give them a pay rise, promise them CL ambition and buy a player, you never know they might be stupid enough to believe you. Make friends with the media, serve them snippets you want them to write, pay them off. Whatever, its all part of a football boards arsenal. Like you keep ignoring, we were bound to lose players, its the ease, the amount and the reported discontent thats most worrying, but ignore it and call me a fool if you wish
Dig Dig Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 They are incredibly useful when securing high transfer fees. That's primarily what they are for. And for players to get pay rises. A one year contract, on the other hand is effing useless, except for very old players desperate for one more season. You're right, better get Cork and Fonte sorted and those entering their last two years.
Olallana Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 So probably some CL clause that might give us an extra £3-5m if they reach CL/advance from the group stage... Would you want those extra millions or do you prefer them to fail miserably?
Saint IQ Posted 20 July, 2014 Posted 20 July, 2014 My prediction. 2 more signings max, largely unimpressive. Lovren 100% off to Liverpool. He will go for well under £20m at the last minute. Schneiderlin will sign for Arsenal in the next 10 days. Koemans latest rhetoric is about securing best price... We are not planning to keep them,we are holding out for the best price. We are in a fire sale. You sell damaged goods in a fire sale. The Board have failed thus far - spectacularly. Koemans appointment is our only hope. We will not sign any 'better' players than Lovren or Schneiderlin. All of our targets are pretty mediocre, which indicates that players are unsure over Koeman, but more so about Southamptons perceived lack of ambition. Saints are damaged goods. So who's to blame? Krueger and Les Reed. And frankly our owner. That's how I feel at the moment. We are entering a relegation battle season. Hope I'm wrong but without reinforcement and with the negativity of the club still festering over our players who want out I can see only one positive... Koeman. We need 6 quality players and we need to off load those who don't want to be here faster than we are. Let's admit we are in a fire sale and rebuild faster. We are running out of time. We can't even get Osvaldo to report for his pay packet FFS. There is no respect for our club from our better players. The Board are to blame and so is our owner. BUT IT CAN STILL BE TURNED AROUND IF KOEMAN CAN ATTRACT SOME QUALITY. WE NEED TO BUY. Mental.
Saint IQ Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 So they play Sakho and Skrtel...won't change the result in any way at all..well probably not anyway.
Leslie Charteris Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 We haven't lost 5 or 6 players? We've lost 3, looking like 4. Atheltico lost Courtois, Costa and Luis - Koke is also the next off according to rumours. Big clubs circling the so called smaller clubs. Victims of our success, same with Feyernord. Welcome to football. And we had a manager who couldn't wait to move to a bigger money offer rather than finish the "project".
toe_punt Posted 21 July, 2014 Author Posted 21 July, 2014 So why is the price now 16 million when supposedly 20 million was offered previously? Or are all of these numbers fantasy?
Toon Saint Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 So why is the price now 16 million when supposedly 20 million was offered previously? Or are all of these numbers fantasy? Don't think the initial bid was £20m as quoted by Sky - probably another exaggerated fee leaked by Liverpool to put more pressure on the club to sell - but the £16m figure now cited as the agreed fee doesn't sound anything like the 'top' amount we were supposed to be holding out for. I think Crook said an initial £16m down and £4m in add - ons, so maybe he is right for a change, but once again it just seems like the board have wilted far too easily - especially coming so soon after Koeman's recent comments on the matter. Of course if we do go in for Vlaar or whoever, Villa will just crank up the price as they know we have another £16m to go with the £55m we have already recouped. Why can't we start getting in replacements before our current players p1ss off, rather than this annoyingly reactive transfer policy? 1) It reinforces a weak image of the club for current players and our targets 2) It inflates the fees of those players we are trying to bring in 3) It negatively impacts our ability to prepare for the coming season as there is constant change and disruption in dressing room Guan says the board are learning from their mistakes, but they should have built on the momentum from the Tadic and Pelle signings and strengthened elsewhere before even considering let others leave. We had the chance to stem the negative flow of information surrounding the club and start to turn the tide, but just fear the board have relinquished that initiative.
Donatello Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 Guardian are reporting the deal to be sealed at £16m. Hardly eye-watering given Liverpool's recent windfall. A hefty fee, of course, but it should've been £20m. The board should've held out for the former figure (assuming they didn't), but then Loren did weaken our position considerably. I hope the board make public which players handed in transfer requests.
angelman Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 And we had a manager who couldn't wait to move to a bigger money offer rather than finish the "project". Is that the case? Football business is fairly opaque at the best of times. IF, and I know that is a huge if, reports are to be believed, Spurs are offering the man who can't understand why contracts are important because he is contracted with a year left to run, £3m a year. There are further reports, admittedly not very widespread, that the board offered him twice that much to stay.
angelman Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 Guardian are reporting the deal to be sealed at £16m. Hardly eye-watering given Liverpool's recent windfall. A hefty fee, of course, but it should've been £20m. The board should've held out for the former figure (assuming they didn't), but then Loren did weaken our position considerably. I hope the board make public which players handed in transfer requests. As I say above, business affairs are opaque so you never quite know what's what.
sussexsaint Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 We're the second from the right. 3rd plaice ? excellent - thats a CL spot
kpturner Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 3rd plaice ? excellent - thats a CL spot They don't look like plaice to me. They are much flatter than that.
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 £16m doesn't mean anything unless we sign a capable replacement. Not expecting the replacement to be anywhere near as good as Lovren as I suspect our days of attracting players of that calibre are over however hopefully we'll sign someone who is good enough for mid-table.
ecuk268 Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 I do not understand what is going on, we say we have no need to sell, we say we are not a selling club, we know the players are under contract and we surrender to their wishes and sell them. Why? If the club refuses to sell, you have a disgruntled player moping about, not really trying too hard but still picking up his not inconsiderable wages.
kpturner Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 Guan says the board are learning from their mistakes, but they should have built on the momentum from the Tadic and Pelle signings and strengthened elsewhere before even considering let others leave. We had the chance to stem the negative flow of information surrounding the club and start to turn the tide, but just fear the board have relinquished that initiative. Signings don't just happen at the drop of a hat. It's nowhere near that simple to get deals over the line. You can't just conjure players out of a hat whenever you feel like it just to create some positive news.
Toon Saint Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 (edited) Signings don't just happen at the drop of a hat. It's nowhere near that simple to get deals over the line. You can't just conjure players out of a hat whenever you feel like it just to create some positive news. I didn't say it was simple. We can control when players leave though, so why not agree to a deal in principle with Liverpool for Lovren but get those replacements in before confirmation of the deal, in order to stage-manage the situation better? Newcastle seemed to do that with Debuchy to Arsenal and getting Janmaat in. Both were confirmed on the same day but Debuchy to Arsenal deal was wrapped up about a week before they signed Janmaat. Point is that the Newcastle board weren't willing to confirm the departure of a key player until they had a new signing lined up. Is that so difficult? Advantages of such an approach is that it makes the board look far more organized than they are currently coming across in the media; selling clubs don't hike their prices up with the knowledge that we have a lot of money sloshing around; it also reassures current players, perhaps sitting on contract offers, that we will adequately replace those that are leaving. Do you honestly feel that the board are coming across as in control of the situation? Edited 21 July, 2014 by Toon Saint
Olallana Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 I didn't say it was simple. We can control when players leave though, so why not agree to a deal in principle with Liverpool for Lovren but get those replacements in before confirmation of the deal, in order to stage-manage the situation better? Newcastle seemed to do that with Debuchy to Arsenal and getting Janmaat in. Both were confirmed on the same day but Debuchy to Arsenal deal was wrapped up about a week before they signed Janmaat. Point is that the Newcastle board weren't willing to confirm the departure of a key player until they had a new signing lined up. Is that so difficult? Have the club confirmed Lovren leaving without having a new signing lined up at the same time now? (since this is the Lovren thread I disregard the other transfers...)
Toon Saint Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 Have the club confirmed Lovren leaving without having a new signing lined up at the same time now? (since this is the Lovren thread I disregard the other transfers...) It certainly looks that way. No news of incomings and Lovren to Liverpool all over the media. If it happens I'll gladly eat my words and praise the board for handling it well. I don't hold out much hope though.
kpturner Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 (edited) I didn't say it was simple. We can control when players leave though, so why not agree to a deal in principle with Liverpool for Lovren but get those replacements in before confirmation of the deal, in order to stage-manage the situation better? Newcastle seemed to do that with Debuchy to Arsenal and getting Janmaat in. Both were confirmed on the same day but Debuchy to Arsenal deal was wrapped up about a week before they signed Janmaat. Point is that the Newcastle board weren't willing to confirm the departure of a key player until they had a new signing lined up. Is that so difficult? Advantages of such an approach is that it makes the board look far more organized than they are currently coming across in the media; selling clubs don't hike their prices up with the knowledge that we have a lot of money sloshing around; it also reassures current players, perhaps sitting on contract offers, that we will adequately replace those that are leaving. Do you honestly feel that the board are coming across as in control of the situation? You are assuming the deal has been confirmed. Maybe it has.....I just haven't seen it. "Is that so difficult" - sometimes yes I imagine it is. The important thing is what (or whom) we start the season with, not the order in which things happen. Edited 21 July, 2014 by kpturner
yellow&blue Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 Just found this on an LFC forum, I must admit it made me smile...... "in the first game against Southampton could the Kop sing the following to the Southampton fans You've lost that lovren' feelin' Whoa, that lovren' feelin' You've lost that lovin' feelin' Now it's gone...gone...gone...woah"
Saints foreva Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 Just found this on an LFC forum, I must admit it made me smile...... "in the first game against Southampton could the Kop sing the following to the Southampton fans You've lost that lovren' feelin' Whoa, that lovren' feelin' You've lost that lovin' feelin' Now it's gone...gone...gone...woah" The Kop won't sing anything. Atmosphere at Anfield is ****e when it's not a big game.
Toon Saint Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 (edited) You are assuming the deal has been confirmed. Maybe it has.....I just haven't seen it. "Is that so difficult" - sometimes yes I imagine it is. The important thing is what (or who) we start the season with, not the order in which things happen. I'm not assuming it has been confirmed, but I am assuming we will sell him without a replacement being lined up as there is no news to suggest otherwise. As said above, I'm happy to take some stick if that doesn't pan out like I expect it to. Liverpool have already signed two of our best players. Are our new board that weak that they can't simply say to Liverpool 'we will confirm the Lovren deal once we have replacements brought in'? Do you think Liverpool would run off indignant shouting 'well you aren't having our money any more!'. They want our player and we've already seen how hollow their 'ultimatums' are. I'd argue that the order that we do things does make a difference to who we can attract to the club. Why would top players want to join a club continually portrayed as one lacking in ambition and willingly flogging off its best assets? Important to build on positive momentum and PR, rather than continually trying to strengthen from a weakened position. Edited 21 July, 2014 by Toon Saint
kpturner Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 (edited) I'm not assuming it has been confirmed, but I am assuming we will sell him without a replacement being lined up as there is no news to suggest otherwise. As said above, I'm happy to take some stick if that doesn't pan out like I expect it to. Liverpool have already signed two of our best players. Are our new board that weak that they can't simply say to Liverpool 'we will confirm the Lovren deal once we have replacements brought in'? Do you think Liverpool would run off indignant shouting 'well you aren't having our money any more!'. They want our player and we've already seen how hollow their 'ultimatums' are. I'd argue that the order that we do things does make a difference to who we can attract to the club. Why would top players want to join a club continually portrayed as one lacking in ambition and willingly flogging off its best assets? Important to build on positive momentum and PR, rather than continually trying to strengthen from a weakened position.Well, I don't agree, so I guess we can leave it at that. If they sell Lovren and we start the season without a decent replacement, then I will be whining with the rest of course. Edited 21 July, 2014 by kpturner
sussexsaint Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 Hey dudes We're not that sad We took some young kids , and made them better And whilst Lambert will always be in our hearts The rest are all unts with c as the first letter La la la lallalana lallallana, get screwed
BotleySaint Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 I always wondered why Lovren came here in the first place, leaving a Champions League team behind. £20m is good business if we reinvest it.
Wade Garrett Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 Wish it was him that Osvaldo chinned now. He could make a hero's return after the disloyal Croat goes to the bin-dippers.
SB Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 16 million or 25 million, doesn't really matter to me unless it's filtered back into rebuilding the squad, IMO we shouldn't be selling anyone else until replacements are found
eelpie Posted 21 July, 2014 Posted 21 July, 2014 I didn't say it was simple. We can control when players leave though, so why not agree to a deal in principle with Liverpool for Lovren but get those replacements in before confirmation of the deal, in order to stage-manage the situation better? Newcastle seemed to do that with Debuchy to Arsenal and getting Janmaat in. Both were confirmed on the same day but Debuchy to Arsenal deal was wrapped up about a week before they signed Janmaat. Point is that the Newcastle board weren't willing to confirm the departure of a key player until they had a new signing lined up. Is that so difficult? Advantages of such an approach is that it makes the board look far more organized than they are currently coming across in the media; selling clubs don't hike their prices up with the knowledge that we have a lot of money sloshing around; it also reassures current players, perhaps sitting on contract offers, that we will adequately replace those that are leaving. Do you honestly feel that the board are coming across as in control of the situation? I absolutely agree with you. This would be such a logical, common sense policy. Why can't the Board do this?
Recommended Posts