Liverpool F.c.

[StevieH]

35 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

^Just stating the facts, precious get or not!

 

you sounded like an old tory writing to complain to the local newspaper about neighbourhood kids playing football near your just-polished volvo. cheer up granddad, it's christmas.

[mrbojangles]

1 hour ago, StevieH said:

city fans really are touchy about this money and ownership thing. 

Eh

[wilai]

Don't normally do cut and paste jobs, but here is the VVD background from the Irish guy who broke the story before Christmas (has connections in Soton)....Bold bids relate to the Citeh effect and inflated price.

 

This is a guest post from Kevin Palmer, the journalist who originally broke the Virgil van Dijk news – follow him on Twitter! @RealKevinPalmer

"Southampton would have been open to selling Virgil van Dijk to Liverpool for a reduced fee if the player and his agent had not staged unsanctioned meetings with Anfield officials, we can reveal.

 

Liverpool’s willingness to meet with Van Dijk and his agent to stage what Saints insiders suggest were ‘detailed discussions’ infuriated his employers and ensured that they would block any move in last summer’s transfer window, with that stance not affected by the Dutch centre-back’s decision to hand in a transfer request last August.

 

Southampton insiders have told Empire of the Kop that Liverpool were hoping to sign Van Dijk for around £50m last summer and an offer in that region in May or June of last year may have been enough to encourage Saints to consider a sale.

 

Yet Van Dijk’s value was dramatically inflated when Kyle Walker sealed a £50m move from Tottenham to Manchester City in July, inspiring Saints to up their valuation of their centre-back.

 

Southampton always intended to review their position on Van Dijk in the January transfer window and hoped the player may re-engage with their own ambitions, but he made it clear earlier this month that he was still determined to sign for Liverpool and that is when the decision was made by Saints officials to sell their star man.

Van Dijk was left out of their last three Premier League games when it became clear his days at the club were numbered, with Liverpool finally given the green light to negotiate a deal to sign Van Dijk in mid-December, when talks began in earnest.

 

With relations between Southampton and Liverpool strained by the events surrounding the unsolicited Van Dijk talks last summer – which resulted in a public apology to from the Anfield club to their Premier League rivals for their unsanctioned talks – the south coast club made it clear that they would not accept a deal below their £70m valuation and also informed Anfield chiefs that Manchester City were also in talks to sign the player.

In the end, the deal was thrashed out relatively quickly, with Liverpool’s opening offer only needed to be upped slightly before agreement was reached.

 

His availability for the knock-out phase of the Champions League inflated his value to potential suitors and it was Liverpool who put an offer on the table earlier this month that cemented their commitment to signing the player.

Liverpool are believed to have assured Van Dijk that they would return to try and sign him in the January transfer window and they have backed up that promise with an offer that seems to have satisfied all parties in this deal.

 

Southampton have a windfall they would not have expected to receive on an under-motivated player who has been well below his best in his eleven Premier League starts this season, while Liverpool have the defensive leader they will hope adds solidity to their wonderfully dynamic team.

Now we wait to see whether Van Dijk can live up to the hype that has made him one of the most talked about players in the Premier League throughout 2017. 

 

 

[mrbojangles]

13 minutes ago, wilai said:

Don't normally do cut and paste jobs, but here is the VVD background from the Irish guy who broke the story before Christmas (has connections in Soton)....Bold bids relate to the Citeh effect and inflated price.

 

This is a guest post from Kevin Palmer, the journalist who originally broke the Virgil van Dijk news – follow him on Twitter! @RealKevinPalmer

"Southampton would have been open to selling Virgil van Dijk to Liverpool for a reduced fee if the player and his agent had not staged unsanctioned meetings with Anfield officials, we can reveal.

 

Liverpool’s willingness to meet with Van Dijk and his agent to stage what Saints insiders suggest were ‘detailed discussions’ infuriated his employers and ensured that they would block any move in last summer’s transfer window, with that stance not affected by the Dutch centre-back’s decision to hand in a transfer request last August.

 

Southampton insiders have told Empire of the Kop that Liverpool were hoping to sign Van Dijk for around £50m last summer and an offer in that region in May or June of last year may have been enough to encourage Saints to consider a sale.

 

Sorry wilai but blaming City is a crock of......

 

Nothing to do with a "Citeh effect" it's to do with Southampton having a cob on with you for having talks with him. Your quoted first 3 para's say it all.

 

Last week we were being accused of having untold riches that nobody could compete with and yet you smashed a transfer record for a player in that position and got mugged off by Southampton.

 

Therefore, we either A) don't have untold riches to spend, as like I said last week, we still have to stay in FFFP and didn't think he was worth that kind of money. Or B )  We didn't go in and bid for him anyway. There's maybe a C and D as well, we'll never know. But either way don't try and shift the blame on City for Southampton screwing you. You didn't have to pay it you know.

[Bredbury Blue]

1 hour ago, RonniePickering22 said:

 

When you get all tough BB I can almost see you stamping your feet. 

...and i cross my arms and sigh, loudly.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Bredbury Blue

[Bredbury Blue]

1 hour ago, StevieH said:

 

you sounded like an old tory writing to complain to the local newspaper about neighbourhood kids playing football near your just-polished volvo. cheer up granddad, it's christmas.

Thanks for putting me right Stevie!

[Bredbury Blue]

33 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

Eh

I find it's the other way around. Non-City fans are pissed/jealous about City's financial position post 2009 and so continually bring it up, and if they didn't raise it then City fans would have no need to respond on comments on City's financial position post 2009.

[wilai]

^^^ No intention to blame Citeh at all but the bold bits are just as relevant to the price as is the well known spat between the clubs. You lot (as has been mentioned by others) are extremely touchy regarding money these days and will bite at anything...reminds me of a shoal of pla-chon in the early evening

[Bredbury Blue]

" Liverpool were hoping to sign Van Dijk for around £50m " - seems like my valuation of 50m was about right then. So Liverpool paid half as much again his actual worth.

[wilai]

55m plus add ons so only an additional 5m initially.

 

Citehs's purchase of Walker moved the goalposts as far as defender prices were concerned.

 

Were Citeh in for him as well as LFC? Well, given the propensity for buying defensive cover, and given that VVD is probably the best replacement for the injury prone Kompany there is, I would think it highly likely that they were. However VVD made his intentions clear in the summer and again in early December that LFC was his choice....so as long as we didn't haggle....he was always ours

 

We have the money, and I'd rather see it on the pitch than in an American Bank.

[mrbojangles]

2 minutes ago, wilai said:

Citehs's purchase of Walker moved the goalposts as far as defender prices were concerned.

No, I think United buying Ferdinand did that long ago.  Paying £34 m I think it was in 2002. Looking at how prices have moved in the last few years alone, so paying £53 m 15/16 years later isn't that much of a jump. Blame United bud

[smokie36]

35 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

I find it's the other way around. Non-City fans are pissed/jealous about City's financial position post 2009 and so continually bring it up, and if they didn't raise it then City fans would have no need to respond on comments on City's financial position post 2009.

 

 

Actually you are totally wrong.

 

I've been saying you are buying crappy players not fit for your financial muscle for years.

 

Its about time you headed in this direction but the test this season will be in the CL.

[smokie36]

33 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

" Liverpool were hoping to sign Van Dijk for around £50m " - seems like my valuation of 50m was about right then. So Liverpool paid half as much again his actual worth.

 

Actual worth is what is paid for him.

 

He wasn't worth that to Citeh cos you don't need him so badly.

[wilai]

8 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

No, I think United buying Ferdinand did that long ago.  Paying £34 m I think it was in 2002. Looking at how prices have moved in the last few years alone, so paying £53 m 15/16 years later isn't that much of a jump. Blame United bud

Can't do that mate, I feel sorry for them although they still have the most expensive defender in Lukaku .....To be fair, Walker is nowhere near Ferdinand's standard. VVD is however and for me, is well worth the extra 2m plus add ons compared to the Walker deal (Don't know the breakdown of that one)

Edited December 29, 2017 by wilai

[smokie36]

12 minutes ago, wilai said:

Can't do that mate, I feel sorry for them although they still have the most expensive defender in Lukaku .....To be fair, Walker is nowhere near Ferdinand's standard. VVD is however and for me, is well worth the extra 2m plus add ons compared to the Walker deal (Don't know the breakdown of that one)

 

 

When you see the quality of the defender we bought in the summer it looks poorer value by a considerable margin.

 

But who cares eh?

 

He will significantly improve your defence for sure.

[alfieconn]

2 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

Sorry wilai but blaming City is a crock of......

 

Nothing to do with a "Citeh effect" it's to do with Southampton having a cob on with you for having talks with him. Your quoted first 3 para's say it all.

 

Last week we were being accused of having untold riches that nobody could compete with and yet you smashed a transfer record for a player in that position and got mugged off by Southampton.

 

Therefore, we either A) don't have untold riches to spend, as like I said last week, we still have to stay in FFFP and didn't think he was worth that kind of money. Or B )  We didn't go in and bid for him anyway. There's maybe a C and D as well, we'll never know. But either way don't try and shift the blame on City for Southampton screwing you. You didn't have to pay it you know.

Having untold riches has nothing to do with breaking a transfer record, see below !!!

 

Spend last 5 seasons, bit of a difference me think's, well only 386,000,000 GBP  

                                      PURCHASE             SOLD                NET                 PER SEASON

Manchester City

£723,850,000

£217,750,000

£506,100,000

£101,220,000

 

Liverpool

£396,300,000

£277,080,000

£119,220,000

£23,844,000

Edited December 29, 2017 by alfieconn

[Bredbury Blue]

"Walker is no where near Ferdinand's standard. VVD is however"

Walker and Ferdinand, apples and oranges, RB and CB, but I'd have Ferdinand in my team over Walker any day (Walker's plus is his speed only).

I remains to be seen if VVD is as good as Ferdinand. Ferdinand played in decent teams and decent defences and clearly was a very cultured and excellent defender. VVD will be joining a decent attacking team but a terrible defence. So he may struggle until Liverpool build a defence around him. VVD as good as Ferdinand? Not for me but I think VVD is a very good player that will improve Liverpool.

[evenstevens]

10 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

Having untold riches has nothing to do with breaking a transfer record, see below !!!

 

Spend last 5 seasons, bit of a difference me think's, well only 386,000,000 GBP  

                                      PURCHASE             SOLD                NET                 PER SEASON

Manchester City

£723,850,000

£217,750,000

£506,100,000

£101,220,000

 

Liverpool

£396,300,000

£277,080,000

£119,220,000

£23,844,000

hey caveman,give  everyone a break on your breakdown figures etc etc,  ,nobody gives a fluff (apart from Spuds)

only a few weeks ago i stuck it right up you ,in posting that Leicester  proved your load of Sh#t  Numbers Theory is not bullett proof

you come across not only a sore loser, but a fluffing pain in the Rectrum ,and know fluff all on how the numbers work in the E.P.L and good luck to Man/City

who have the savvy ,to make them work this season, now if you want to debate the above please do, but do not throw yourself into your usual tangent replies such as,   none of this bottler crap and  do you want a wager sh#t,   keep on subject

[Bredbury Blue]

"Actual worth is what is paid for him."

Nine years ago we paid £6 million for captain Kompany. He's only actually worth £6 million...bargain of the decade then.

[alfieconn]

2 minutes ago, evenstevens said:

hey caveman,give  everyone a break on your breakdown figures etc etc,  ,nobody gives a fluff (apart from Spuds)

only a few weeks ago i stuck it right up you ,in posting that Leicester  proved your load of Sh#t  Numbers Theory is not bullett proof

you come across not only a sore loser, but a fluffing pain in the Rectrum ,and know fluff all on how the numbers work in the E.P.L and good luck to Man/City

who have the savvy ,to make them work this season, now if you want to debate the above please do, but do not throw yourself into your usual tangent replies such as,   none of this bottler crap and  do you want a wager sh#t,   keep on subject

 

Well i'm going to keep putting them on here if they relevant, if you don't like them don't read them ,easy really , anyway fancy that bet yet  

[evenstevens]

11 minutes ago, evenstevens said:

hey caveman,give  everyone a break on your breakdown figures etc etc,  ,nobody gives a fluff (apart from Spuds)

only a few weeks ago i stuck it right up you ,in posting that Leicester  proved your load of Sh#t  Numbers Theory is not bullett proof

you come across not only a sore loser, but a fluffing pain in the Rectrum ,and know fluff all on how the numbers work in the E.P.L and good luck to Man/City

who have the savvy ,to make them work this season, now if you want to debate the above please do, but do not throw yourself into your usual tangent replies such as,   none of this bottler crap and  do you want a wager sh#t,   keep on subject

 

5 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

 

Well i'm going to keep putting them on here if they relevant, if you don't like them don't read them ,easy really , anyway fancy that bet yet  

typical gutless reply.

[alfieconn]

1 minute ago, evenstevens said:

 

typical gutless reply.

Sorry i forgot the Bottler bit 

[evenstevens]

3 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

Sorry i forgot the Bottler bit 

SNNNZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ  Fluff Wit

[alfieconn]

7 minutes ago, evenstevens said:

SNNNZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ  Fluff Wit

 

reply on chavs thread

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by alfieconn

[StevieH]

walker was an excellent signing by guardiola and clearly what city needed. mad money for a fullback sure, but so was dani alves back in the day. changes the way you play entirely, as has ederson at city. big signings are big signings. 

 

now can you all eff off out of the liverpool thread please so we can talk about stuff without daft semantics and pointless comparisons? :)

[evenstevens]

 

 

8 hours ago, StevieH said:

 

 

now can you all eff off out of the liverpool thread please so we can talk about stuff without daft semantics and pointless comparisons? :)

Same To  You !!!!!

[Bredbury Blue]

Vvd, the 8th most expensive player of all time.

[wilai]

So what?......gets into the most expensive defence as well.......alongside Ederson, Walker, Stones and Mendy

[wilai]

cont from Man U thread where R2D2 wants us to sell Coutinho now!!!

 

'I'd prefer we went half a season without a sparkle and it be noted early on and increase the pressure to get that replacement early.:

 

Ludicrous statement.....For a supposed LFC fan to wish the above is beyond reason! Without a sparkle???.......Run the risk of not finishing top 4 and damaging chances in the CL just to increase pressure on the owners.... yeah right!.....On a par with previous nonsensical comments about replacing JK with Rafa!!!! Sometimes I wish there was a law banning wools from having opinions 

Edited December 30, 2017 by wilai

[smokie36]

5 minutes ago, wilai said:

cont from Man U thread where R2D2 wants us to sell Coutinho now!!!

 

'I'd prefer we went half a season without a sparkle and it be noted early on and increase the pressure to get that replacement early.:

 

Ludicrous statement.....For a supposed LFC fan to wish the above is beyond reason! Without a sparkle???.......Run the risk of not finishing top 4 and damaging chances in the CL just to increase pressure on the owners.... yeah right!.....On a par with previous nonsensical comments about replacing JK with Rafa!!!! Sometimes I wish there was a law banning wools from having opinions