Christian Benteke Player Thread (Liverpool -> Crystal Palace)

A lot of journalists well connected to the club were saying JWH was about to pull the plug on Rodgers last season at Chrustmas time.

secret journalists with secret sources confided in you personally with that then? Or you read it somewhere? You better not come back with a tweet from a guy claiming his cat is friends with john Henry's cat.

A lot of journalists well connected to the club were saying JWH was about to pull the plug on Rodgers last season at Chrustmas time.

I have no doubt he was on a knife edge , but this window proves he has overwhelming support from the board . This signing will be either the making or breaking of him .

Let me explain why this Benteke deal is so daft and dangerous.

The current financial reality of the club means we cannot compete with the big spenders at the top of the league, City, Chelsea, even the Mancs.  When things go wrong, we can't just fix it by writing a cheque for another expensive player, like those clubs can do.  We definitely can't compete in terms of wages either.

When FSG came in they were telling us how they were going to run the club much better, stop paying exorbitant wages to players, especially to players who didn't deserve them, they were going to start running the club as it should be run financially, and clean up the disaster they inherited from the yanks.

So they had this model.  Buy young players, cheaply, develop them, sell them for a larger profit; reinvest that money into the team, and build for the future; stop being taken advantage of in the transfer market; eventually qualify for CL, consolidate yearly CL qualification, use CL funds to reinvest in the squad.  Thus, the club would start to "pay for itself."  Fewer mistakes, smarter investments, etc etc.

I don't know if this model is viable.  What I do know, is that we haven't actually even tried it.  You can't say "it doesn't work" or "it does work," because FSG haven't been true to this approach. 

Let's take two examples: Lovren and Benteke.

In 2013, Lovren was purchased by Southampton for £8.5m.
In 2014, we purchased him *from* Southampton for £20m.

In 2012, Benteke was purchased by Villa for £7m.
In 2015, we have now purchased him for £32m.

Now let's think about this for a second.  Does it really make sense that Lovren suddenly became TWICE the player in one season that he was at Lyon?  of course not!

As for Benteke, we bought Borini for £10m the same summer that Villa bought Benteke for £7m.  Just think about that for a second.  And it's not even about availability; we bought Borini nearly two months before Villa bought Benteke.  So Benteke WAS on the market; we just chose to buy Borini instead.

Fast forward three years and Borini is dead wood, while we've now paid £32m for a player who was available for £7m in 2012.

Do you not see the problem?  If our club were just a bit more competent, they could've scouted and found cheaper alternatives with (allegedly) higher potential.  And don't give me this bollocks about not coming to us---if Lovren and Benteke would've gone to Saints and Villa respectively, there's no way in hell they would've said no to us.  So that means we would have had Lovren and Benteke for around £15m, total, instead of £52m. 

Does that mean they would've been successful?  Absolutely not!  maybe they would've been, maybe not.  But the key difference is: if they would've both flopped, we would've only been out £15m, instead of £52m.  £15m is a hit we can take; £52m is not. 

This is why this is so frustrating.  At £7m Benteke is a very, very low risk.  At £32m plus £140K a week, that is a MASSSIVE risk. 

I'm already wondering now which players that have been signed on the cheap this summer are we going to try to buy next summer.  Looking back over the years, what other cheap deals did we miss that could've been ours?  How about Cabaye?  he was bought in 2011, for £4m, by Newcastle.  We could've had Cabaye for £4m!!!! 

THIS is why deals like Benteke are NOT good for us.  Because the alleged plan that FSG wanted to implement---they only do it occasionally.  I would have no problem if we had a clear cut transfer policy, where we only buy players under 25, for no more than, say, £15m.  It may or may not be successful, but at least we would know where we stand.  We wouldn't have head scratchers like a 27-year old Lallana for £25m.  And we wouldn't be taken for mugs by clubs like Villa who then make a £25m profit on a player we could've had if we had just put in some effort in 2012.

THAT is the problem I have with this.  Where were our scouts in 2012 when Benteke was available but we chose Borini?  where were our scouts in 2013 when Lovren was available for £8.5m and we passed up on it?  or when we, desperately needing a DM for years, let Wanyama go to Saints for £12m?  I mean really, who would you rather have, Joe Allen for £15m or Wanyama for £12m?

I have no idea how Benteke is going to turn out for us.  What I do know is that we would have much lower risk if we were just as smart as the small clubs who sign these players before we do.  We absolutely COULD have signed Benteke in 2012; if he turned out sh*te, okay, it was a small fee anyway.  But we didn't, and now we spent a massive amount of money on a player who could've been a minor risk, but now is a massive one.

Too many words.

Too many words.

So he is opposed to the Benteke deal then?

Too many words.

He does have a point though , you have to admit .

Let me explain why this Benteke deal is so daft and dangerous.

The current financial reality of the club means we cannot compete with the big spenders at the top of the league, City, Chelsea, even the Mancs.  When things go wrong, we can't just fix it by writing a cheque for another expensive player, like those clubs can do.  We definitely can't compete in terms of wages either.

When FSG came in they were telling us how they were going to run the club much better, stop paying exorbitant wages to players, especially to players who didn't deserve them, they were going to start running the club as it should be run financially, and clean up the disaster they inherited from the yanks.

So they had this model.  Buy young players, cheaply, develop them, sell them for a larger profit; reinvest that money into the team, and build for the future; stop being taken advantage of in the transfer market; eventually qualify for CL, consolidate yearly CL qualification, use CL funds to reinvest in the squad.  Thus, the club would start to "pay for itself."  Fewer mistakes, smarter investments, etc etc.

I don't know if this model is viable.  What I do know, is that we haven't actually even tried it.  You can't say "it doesn't work" or "it does work," because FSG haven't been true to this approach. 

Let's take two examples: Lovren and Benteke.

In 2013, Lovren was purchased by Southampton for £8.5m.
In 2014, we purchased him *from* Southampton for £20m.

In 2012, Benteke was purchased by Villa for £7m.
In 2015, we have now purchased him for £32m.

Now let's think about this for a second.  Does it really make sense that Lovren suddenly became TWICE the player in one season that he was at Lyon?  of course not!

As for Benteke, we bought Borini for £10m the same summer that Villa bought Benteke for £7m.  Just think about that for a second.  And it's not even about availability; we bought Borini nearly two months before Villa bought Benteke.  So Benteke WAS on the market; we just chose to buy Borini instead.

Fast forward three years and Borini is dead wood, while we've now paid £32m for a player who was available for £7m in 2012.

Do you not see the problem?  If our club were just a bit more competent, they could've scouted and found cheaper alternatives with (allegedly) higher potential.  And don't give me this bollocks about not coming to us---if Lovren and Benteke would've gone to Saints and Villa respectively, there's no way in hell they would've said no to us.  So that means we would have had Lovren and Benteke for around £15m, total, instead of £52m. 

Does that mean they would've been successful?  Absolutely not!  maybe they would've been, maybe not.  But the key difference is: if they would've both flopped, we would've only been out £15m, instead of £52m.  £15m is a hit we can take; £52m is not. 

This is why this is so frustrating.  At £7m Benteke is a very, very low risk.  At £32m plus £140K a week, that is a MASSSIVE risk. 

I'm already wondering now which players that have been signed on the cheap this summer are we going to try to buy next summer.  Looking back over the years, what other cheap deals did we miss that could've been ours?  How about Cabaye?  he was bought in 2011, for £4m, by Newcastle.  We could've had Cabaye for £4m!!!! 

THIS is why deals like Benteke are NOT good for us.  Because the alleged plan that FSG wanted to implement---they only do it occasionally.  I would have no problem if we had a clear cut transfer policy, where we only buy players under 25, for no more than, say, £15m.  It may or may not be successful, but at least we would know where we stand.  We wouldn't have head scratchers like a 27-year old Lallana for £25m.  And we wouldn't be taken for mugs by clubs like Villa who then make a £25m profit on a player we could've had if we had just put in some effort in 2012.

THAT is the problem I have with this.  Where were our scouts in 2012 when Benteke was available but we chose Borini?  where were our scouts in 2013 when Lovren was available for £8.5m and we passed up on it?  or when we, desperately needing a DM for years, let Wanyama go to Saints for £12m?  I mean really, who would you rather have, Joe Allen for £15m or Wanyama for £12m?

I have no idea how Benteke is going to turn out for us.  What I do know is that we would have much lower risk if we were just as smart as the small clubs who sign these players before we do.  We absolutely COULD have signed Benteke in 2012; if he turned out sh*te, okay, it was a small fee anyway.  But we didn't, and now we spent a massive amount of money on a player who could've been a minor risk, but now is a massive one.

we brought Sterling for 500k and sold him for 50m. Suarez for 22.5m and sold for 75m. Gomez for 3m, Coutinho for 8m, Sturridge for 12m. The fact is, if we got all the players that would turn out great for cheap we would be better than Barcelona. We get a fair share but we don't have any crystal ball and sometimes have to buy established players. The real problem is that we get paid poorly in sponsorship deals.

Let me explain why this Benteke deal is so daft and dangerous.

No thanks.

Welcome to the club big man.

Now get scoring goals. That is all.

Well as my post history shows, I wasn't so keen on him, but its time to back the lad and that means giving him a chance to settle in for a good few months as opposed to me sounding off about him after the first game!

I pray to god I am proven wrong on him, and I hope I will be eating the tastiest humble pie in the coming months and years.

He does have a point though , you have to admit .

I have no idea, I didn't read it because it was too long.

we brought Sterling for 500k and sold him for 50m. Suarez for 22.5m and sold for 75m. Gomez for 3m, Coutinho for 8m, Sturridge for 12m. The fact is, if we got all the players that would turn out great for cheap we would be better than Barcelona. We get a fair share but we don't have any crystal ball and sometimes have to buy established players.

Yeah we have had some good bargains , but too few to mention . The club has had it's head up it's arse too long . Catching the pennies and missing the pounds .

I have no idea, I didn't read it because it was too long.

You should because he has the power of hindsight .But the club should be learning from all these mistakes and turn that hindsight to foresight . A bit of common sense wouldn't go astray .

You should because he has the power of hindsight .

20/20?

Let me explain why this Benteke deal is so daft and dangerous.

The current financial reality of the club means we cannot compete with the big spenders at the top of the league, City, Chelsea, even the Mancs.  When things go wrong, we can't just fix it by writing a cheque for another expensive player, like those clubs can do.  We definitely can't compete in terms of wages either.

When FSG came in they were telling us how they were going to run the club much better, stop paying exorbitant wages to players, especially to players who didn't deserve them, they were going to start running the club as it should be run financially, and clean up the disaster they inherited from the yanks.

So they had this model.  Buy young players, cheaply, develop them, sell them for a larger profit; reinvest that money into the team, and build for the future; stop being taken advantage of in the transfer market; eventually qualify for CL, consolidate yearly CL qualification, use CL funds to reinvest in the squad.  Thus, the club would start to "pay for itself."  Fewer mistakes, smarter investments, etc etc.

I don't know if this model is viable.  What I do know, is that we haven't actually even tried it.  You can't say "it doesn't work" or "it does work," because FSG haven't been true to this approach. 

Let's take two examples: Lovren and Benteke.

In 2013, Lovren was purchased by Southampton for £8.5m.
In 2014, we purchased him *from* Southampton for £20m.

In 2012, Benteke was purchased by Villa for £7m.
In 2015, we have now purchased him for £32m.

Now let's think about this for a second.  Does it really make sense that Lovren suddenly became TWICE the player in one season that he was at Lyon?  of course not!

As for Benteke, we bought Borini for £10m the same summer that Villa bought Benteke for £7m.  Just think about that for a second.  And it's not even about availability; we bought Borini nearly two months before Villa bought Benteke.  So Benteke WAS on the market; we just chose to buy Borini instead.

Fast forward three years and Borini is dead wood, while we've now paid £32m for a player who was available for £7m in 2012.

Do you not see the problem?  If our club were just a bit more competent, they could've scouted and found cheaper alternatives with (allegedly) higher potential.  And don't give me this bollocks about not coming to us---if Lovren and Benteke would've gone to Saints and Villa respectively, there's no way in hell they would've said no to us.  So that means we would have had Lovren and Benteke for around £15m, total, instead of £52m. 

Does that mean they would've been successful?  Absolutely not!  maybe they would've been, maybe not.  But the key difference is: if they would've both flopped, we would've only been out £15m, instead of £52m.  £15m is a hit we can take; £52m is not. 

This is why this is so frustrating.  At £7m Benteke is a very, very low risk.  At £32m plus £140K a week, that is a MASSSIVE risk. 

I'm already wondering now which players that have been signed on the cheap this summer are we going to try to buy next summer.  Looking back over the years, what other cheap deals did we miss that could've been ours?  How about Cabaye?  he was bought in 2011, for £4m, by Newcastle.  We could've had Cabaye for £4m!!!! 

THIS is why deals like Benteke are NOT good for us.  Because the alleged plan that FSG wanted to implement---they only do it occasionally.  I would have no problem if we had a clear cut transfer policy, where we only buy players under 25, for no more than, say, £15m.  It may or may not be successful, but at least we would know where we stand.  We wouldn't have head scratchers like a 27-year old Lallana for £25m.  And we wouldn't be taken for mugs by clubs like Villa who then make a £25m profit on a player we could've had if we had just put in some effort in 2012.

THAT is the problem I have with this.  Where were our scouts in 2012 when Benteke was available but we chose Borini?  where were our scouts in 2013 when Lovren was available for £8.5m and we passed up on it?  or when we, desperately needing a DM for years, let Wanyama go to Saints for £12m?  I mean really, who would you rather have, Joe Allen for £15m or Wanyama for £12m?

I have no idea how Benteke is going to turn out for us.  What I do know is that we would have much lower risk if we were just as smart as the small clubs who sign these players before we do.  We absolutely COULD have signed Benteke in 2012; if he turned out sh*te, okay, it was a small fee anyway.  But we didn't, and now we spent a massive amount of money on a player who could've been a minor risk, but now is a massive one.

Whilst I agree that Borini was a stupid signing and was never good enough to play for us, barely anybody knew of Benteke's true ability before he went to Aston Villa so how can you sit there and suddenly suggest that we should have signed him? When it comes to Cabaye, he's one of those typical signings that get made by lower clubs who are on a tight budget. Sometimes they pay off but sometimes they don't. That's the world of transfers, I'm baffled as to how very little you understand that. We've had it in the past where lesser valued players perform better than the higher value players and vice versa.

One things for sure with you though, if we had signed Wanyama and Cabaye then you would have been bitching and moaning about the lack of ambition we're showing by signing people from Celtic and Lille. You can't know for sure that the deal for Benteke isn't good for us because he hasn't even played for us yet. I respect that you have your opinion and everybody rates players differently but you only ever seem to come on and slag players off, you rarely ever come on and have consecutive posts where you're praising players.

Where were everybody's scouts when we paid a combined 42m+ for Suarez and Torres? Where were everybody else's scouts when we got Sterling for a couple of a mill and a bag of Walkers crisp (who we just happened to make about 40m profit on)? Where were everybody else's scouts when we paid 10m for Alonso? Where were everybody else's scouts when we paid 5m for Reina? Where were everybody else's scouts when we paid 17m for Mascherano? Where were everybody else's scouts when we bought Luis Garcia for 6m? I could go on forever with examples but it's the same for ever club in the world.

You say you'd be OK if we'd have signed Benteke and he turned out to be sh*t yet you're losing the plot over Borini who was only a couple of million more. The fact is, if we had have signed Benteke then you'd have just moaned about him every week like you do now anyway. Give it a rest and start being positive for once.

You should because he has the power of hindsight .

Not just sight, he's talking out of it as well. 

He's certainly short and sweet in his answers going off that interview These interviews are all samey.

Yeah they're hardly of the Frost/Nixon type are they?

To be honest they are PR spun, click bait bullshit.

In 2013, Lovren was purchased by Southampton for £8.5m.
In 2014, we purchased him *from* Southampton for £20m.

In 2012, Benteke was purchased by Villa for £7m.
In 2015, we have now purchased him for £32m.

Big profits were made but it's no different to us making near on £125mill profit from Torres, Suarez and Sterling.

Fast forward three years and Borini is dead wood, while we've now paid £32m for a player who was available for £7m in 2012.

It's all 'Ifs and Buts'. If we had signed Benteke for £7mill or but what if Barca initially signed Suarez for £22mill instead of us.

You're trying to make a point but it's no different to any situation for any other club in world football.

We paid £32.5mill for Benteke, I'm not overly happy with it but until we seem him play we can't actually make a fair judgement so all we can do is support it and hope that the transfer is a success. Trying to slate him and go on about how we could have signed him for £7mill isn't going to change what we paid for him. Also if we had signed him for £7mill instead of Villa, then no doubt you'd have bitched and moaned about that too because he was a pretty unknown player. Some people are just never satisfied.

Welcome to the club, Christian! Good luck big fella.

Welcome christian lad!

Made my thoughts clear in the transfer thread and worry if you will fit in here.

Hope you prove me wrong.

Looking forward to seeing you bully little gimps like Coleman in the Derby though.

It's easy to jump to the conclusion he's been brought in because he offers a Plan B of direct balls, crossing the ball etc. Or in other words, that method is more Plan Desperation.

But thinking back two years ago, and it's pertinent to point out Brendan wanted to buy Diego Costa  - and he's got some similar qualities to Benteke. Ex managers of Benteke - including Lambert - have been saying that it is a fallacy to believe he can only rely on crossed balls. That's a relief to hear - and that means we don't have to take Tim Sherwood's words as truth (some may be relieved to hear that). Instead, they are saying Benteke is actually better in a style where the ball is played to feet.

I would think Rodgers has got his man Benteke as he can hold the ball up in the final third of the pitch - much like Costa, and assist in link up play. Thinking back to last season, we had no striker who was able to hold the ball in the final third - and we were abject in that area of the field (in addition to defence...). Hopefully, Benteke is the key to dominating in the final third of the field.

Whilst I agree that Borini was a stupid signing and was never good enough to play for us, barely anybody knew of Benteke's true ability before he went to Aston Villa so how can you sit there and suddenly suggest that we should have signed him? When it comes to Cabaye, he's one of those typical signings that get made by lower clubs who are on a tight budget. Sometimes they pay off but sometimes they don't. That's the world of transfers, I'm baffled as to how very little you understand that. We've had it in the past where lesser valued players perform better than the higher value players and vice versa.

One things for sure with you though, if we had signed Wanyama and Cabaye then you would have been bitching and moaning about the lack of ambition we're showing by signing people from Celtic and Lille. You can't know for sure that the deal for Benteke isn't good for us because he hasn't even played for us yet. I respect that you have your opinion and everybody rates players differently but you only ever seem to come on and slag players off, you rarely ever come on and have consecutive posts where you're praising players.

Where were everybody's scouts when we paid a combined 42m+ for Suarez and Torres? Where were everybody else's scouts when we got Sterling for a couple of a mill and a bag of Walkers crisp (who we just happened to make about 40m profit on)? Where were everybody else's scouts when we paid 10m for Alonso? Where were everybody else's scouts when we paid 5m for Reina? Where were everybody else's scouts when we paid 17m for Mascherano? Where were everybody else's scouts when we bought Luis Garcia for 6m? I could go on forever with examples but it's the same for ever club in the world.

You say you'd be OK if we'd have signed Benteke and he turned out to be sh*t yet you're losing the plot over Borini who was only a couple of million more. The fact is, if we had have signed Benteke then you'd have just moaned about him every week like you do now anyway. Give it a rest and start being positive for once.

i love this post. i hate the armchair expert that knows nothing but pretends he knows everything. all the information and numbers these people absorb are made up to begin with, yet they use it the foundation for an opinion. like you said it's typical for those smaller clubs to take those risks and for the bigger club to come in if it pays off. gaston ramirez came straight to mind, personally. gylfi siggurdson. guys like that weren't worth the fuss at all. there's no indication benteke would have been better than borini in the prem. there's absolutely nothing to suggest benteke would have signed for us in 2012. what happens if we told him he wasn't first choice and might not even play? how many 7mil purchases from genk end up sh*t hot in the prem? bloody armchair experts. what happens if we WERE interested back then but knew we couldn't give him the game time so we watched him grow at villa? so many factors, so why make up one and run with it? armchair experts are just the worst.

Interesting quotes from Carra reflecting the views I believe many share that Benteke may struggle to fit the style of play Brendan aspires to:

​Carra on Benteke
​
​So while we’ve been impressed by how Benteke has torn teams apart — Liverpool, against whom he scored five goals in six games, have really suffered — we also know when his touch has been poor and his lack of interest has been apparent. He can be devastating and infuriating in equal measure.

​The hope at Liverpool is that surrounding him with better players will see him become even more devastating and consistent.
​
​I like him as a striker and actually think he would be great for Chelsea. Jose Mourinho likes that profile of forward and sets his teams up to get the best out of them.
Benteke

​My worry at Liverpool is, will he be suited to the short, sharp and incisive passing game that Rodgers favours?
​
​ Brendan wants his side to play through teams, rather than getting the ball into him from wide areas, a fact Tim Sherwood pointed out as soon as Liverpool’s interest became public.

​Parallels have already been drawn with Andy Carroll and people have pointed out that Rodgers wasted no time in getting rid of him but that decision had nothing to do with the fact that Carroll was a big man. It was purely down to him lacking pace and movement.
​
​Those are qualities Benteke does not lack but his biggest problem at the moment, where a lot of Liverpool fans are concerned, is that they know him. He would have liked the welcome that Firmino has received, but in a few months a warm reception will count for nothing.
​
​All that will matter is how many goals they have managed to score. That alone will determine how popular they become.

Source: http://www.90min.com/posts/2385563-carra-i-worry-that-benteke-might-not-fit-in-with-br-style-of-play?a_aid=35322

Welcome Bentaker.

Hope you be a success.

Now put a few past Stoke in the first match