Mario Balotelli (to China? Sampdoria?)

The Chinese must be F***ing mental. 

The Chinese must be F***ing mental. 

Imagine Balo and Jo up front.

Imagine Balo and Jo up front.

I'm polishing my boots as we speak Mags... "on my day I'm a top player"   

Man you gotta love the Chinese  Wonder If they are interested in a bulk deal Balo. Ben',Migs, Hendo, Milner, Skrtel,Toure,Ibe and a few more

Whether that's the case though is something we will have to wait and see. He was a shocking signing and it's one of those transfers we just have to get shifted and not be too fussy about the price. Sooner we get rid the better.

Have heard £11m mentioned. cut your losses was never more fitting.

It is reported meanwhile that Klopp expects to recover his signing fee:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/mario-balotellis-liverpool-career-over-7404420

Had to double check that the original article was posted on 31st of March and now April 1st
Here's hoping that he is sold and sharpish.

Interested to know Federer, why you think we bought him for a "relatively small fee". Relatively small based on what?  And also, when he turns this world class ability on like a tap....... in 12 months for us did he even briefly do this even once....?

Interested to know Federer, why you think we bought him for a "relatively small fee". Relatively small based on what?  And also, when he turns this world class ability on like a tap....... in 12 months for us did he even briefly do this even once....?

Well, we paid £16 million for him.  "Small fee" relative to what, you ask.  Well, we bought him for ten million less than we paid for Downing.  Twenty million less than we paid for Andy Carroll.  Ten million less than we paid for Lallana.  Only one million more than we paid for Joseph.

I would say that that is relatively small, for a player who prior to coming to us had indeed shown flashes of being world class, something that you would never accuse any of the aforementioned players of being.  I mean take Joseph for example, before we signed him even his most ardent fans would have said that at his best, he's a very good player, maybe even a top player.  But no one was saying "at his best he is world class."  So if we paid £15 million for Joseph, who even under the best of circumstances was only a very good player, then surely £16 million is a relatively small fee for a player who under the best of circumstances is world class.

And also, when he turns this world class ability on like a tap....... in 12 months for us did he even briefly do this even once....?

In fact the first game he ever played in the league for us, away at Spurs (the game we won 3-0), he was unplayable.  Shrugging defenders off, dribbling by people left and right etc.  He linked up really well with Sturridge, too.  It was alas a false glimmer of hope as he was awful the next game if I remember correctly.

He also was unplayable in one of the Europa League games at Anfield during the tail end of last season.  Don't remember which one it was, but I do remember how absurd it was that he finally played out of his skin again, and then the next game Rodgers dropped him.

Look I'm not saying that it worked out well.  Obviously it didn't.  All I'm saying is that it was worth the risk, considering the low fee, and the high potential return.

Well, we bought him for ten million less than we paid for Downing.

We didn't spend 26m on Downing. It was 20.

£16 million is a relatively small fee for a player who under the best of circumstances is world class.

Even when he should be in a good state mentally you don't see world class performances. He'll randomly put in a worldie performance like against Germany in the Euros, but 99.9999999999% of the time he's anywhere from poor to utter sh*te. sh*te players can have worldies as we've seen over the years against us.

In fact the first game he ever played in the league for us, away at Spurs (the game we won 3-0), he was unplayable.  Shrugging defenders off, dribbling by people left and right etc.  He linked up really well with Sturridge, too.  It was alas a false glimmer of hope as he was awful the next game if I remember correctly.

Unplayable? Talk about hyperbole. He had a good game. He missed a couple of good chances, but had a good game. He wasn't even close to being unplayable and I wouldn't even describe it as a great performance. It was a 7/10 performance, maybe an 8/10 if you're being really generous.

He also was unplayable in one of the Europa League games at Anfield during the tail end of last season.  Don't remember which one it was, but I do remember how absurd it was that he finally played out of his skin again, and then the next game Rodgers dropped him.

He didn't ever put in an unplayable display for us. He only played twice in the Europa league for us against Besiktas. One of the matches he was on the pitch for 27 minutes (and he scored a penalty I believe), and in the other match he played for 82 minutes before being brought off. In neither game was he good though.

Look I'm not saying that it worked out well.  Obviously it didn't.  All I'm saying is that it was worth the risk, considering the low fee, and the high potential return.

It was an awful risk to take. When one of the best man managers in the world like Mourinho comes out and says that a player is unmanageable it should send bad signals to you immediately. When one of his father figures in Mancini gives up on him, again, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When a club in the doldrums like Milan are desperate to flog him, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you've seen him perform poorly consistently over his career it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you hear about his attitude problems and training shenanigans it should send bad signals to you immediately. There were so many things wrong with this signing it is untrue. When Brendan Rodgers turned around and said he didn't want him, it should tell you to look for someone else.

Has he put in a few brilliant performances over the course of his career? Sure, but so have other sh*te strikers. It doesn't say much. It was an awful investment and it doesn't take hindsight to tell you that considering how many warnings we had to tell us not to sign the c**t.

Well, we paid £16 million for him.  "Small fee" relative to what, you ask.  Well, we bought him for ten million less than we paid for Downing.  Twenty million less than we paid for Andy Carroll.  Ten million less than we paid for Lallana.  Only one million more than we paid for Joseph.

I would say that that is relatively small, for a player who prior to coming to us had indeed shown flashes of being world class, something that you would never accuse any of the aforementioned players of being.  I mean take Joseph for example, before we signed him even his most ardent fans would have said that at his best, he's a very good player, maybe even a top player.  But no one was saying "at his best he is world class."  So if we paid £15 million for Joseph, who even under the best of circumstances was only a very good player, then surely £16 million is a relatively small fee for a player who under the best of circumstances is world class.


In fact the first game he ever played in the league for us, away at Spurs (the game we won 3-0), he was unplayable.  Shrugging defenders off, dribbling by people left and right etc.  He linked up really well with Sturridge, too.  It was alas a false glimmer of hope as he was awful the next game if I remember correctly.

He also was unplayable in one of the Europa League games at Anfield during the tail end of last season.  Don't remember which one it was, but I do remember how absurd it was that he finally played out of his skin again, and then the next game Rodgers dropped him.

Look I'm not saying that it worked out well.  Obviously it didn't.  All I'm saying is that it was worth the risk, considering the low fee, and the high potential return.

Unplayable? He has never been unplayable for us. Well I suppose he is now but not in the way you mean.

I do think he got a bit of unfair stick at times as the second he wasn't running people were on his back saying how lazy he was. He was possibly over scrutinised at first. I made a point of keeping an eye on him in a Europe game I was at (can't remember the opposition) where I think he scored his first goal for us. They equalised quite late on then Stevie nicked it with an even later pen. I thought he moved well off the ball and didn't deserve the amount of stick he was getting. He wasn't unplayable but he was definitely average.

All in all I don't think he was good enough, though, and if stories are true his attitude and professionalism were severely lacking.

What he has got is this thing about him that makes a lot of us really want him to do well. You've just got to look at the amount of chances that he has had to realise that we would be pissing into the wind, though.

It was an awful risk to take.

I just don't get this.  First of all, can we agree that EVERY SINGLE TRANSFER is a risk?  I think we can.  You never know what you're going to get, anything could happen.  Look at di Maria, arguably one of the top ten or so players in the world at the time.  Closest thing you'll get to a sure thing.  Was a total flop for the Mancs.  So every transfer entails some risk.

That being said, let's compare Balotelli's signing to some other recent signings, are you going to tell me they weren't just as risky?

£25m - Lallana; no, not a risk at all;
£20m - Lovren; no, not a risk at all;
£15m - Joseph; no, not a risk at all;
£16m - Balotelli; OH MY GOD THIS IS THE RISKIEST RISK IN FOOTBALL HISTORY
£20m - Markovic; no, not a risk at all;
£12m - Moreno; no, not a risk at all;
£12m - Borini; no, not a risk at all;

Does that really make sense to you?  when you consider that EVERY transfer is a risk, how can you argue that Balotelli, at that price, was so much riskier than any other player we've bought recently?

I mean compared to Benteke, for £32m, how can you even argue that Balotelli was a risk at all?!?!  The issue is this: to get a striker, we would've had to have paid something.  £16m for a striker is really not that much.  We bought Borini, for £12m, and he did absolutely nothing.  Was absolute rubbish.  So for £16m for Balotelli, he would have had to do barely more than nothing in order for it to be not a risk at all.  So that £4m difference was the risk? 

I just don't buy it.  Spending £50m on Balotelli, okay, that would have been a HUGE risk.  But £16m, that we will probably recoup most of if we sell him, when we knew going into it that it was unlikely to work, I don't see how that can be classified as a massive risk.  We knew what we were getting into, we knew he wasn't very expensive, the worst-case scenario really wasn't that bad etc etc. 

A risk?  Sure.  But no more of a risk than buying Lallana, or Lovren, or Allen, or or or etc.

Unplayable? He has never been unplayable for us. Well I suppose he is now but not in the way you mean.

Didn't the forum used to have a rule about Wind Ups? I mean; come off it... if that eejit saying Mario was unplayable isn't worthy of the title 'WUM' then what the F**k is? Don't answer that... I forgot about the F***ing Mo Diame love fest. 

Seriously tho'; will no one rid us of this troublesome priest? 

I just don't get this.  First of all, can we agree that EVERY SINGLE TRANSFER is a risk?  I think we can.  You never know what you're going to get, anything could happen.  Look at di Maria, arguably one of the top ten or so players in the world at the time.  Closest thing you'll get to a sure thing.  Was a total flop for the Mancs.  So every transfer entails some risk.

Yeah. We can definitely agree that every single transfer is a risk (though more expensive transfers generally increase the success rate).

That being said, let's compare Balotelli's signing to some other recent signings, are you going to tell me they weren't just as risky?

Yes, I am.

£25m - Lallana; no, not a risk at all;
£20m - Lovren; no, not a risk at all;
£15m - Joseph; no, not a risk at all;
£16m - Balotelli; OH MY GOD THIS IS THE RISKIEST RISK IN FOOTBALL HISTORY
£20m - Markovic; no, not a risk at all;
£12m - Moreno; no, not a risk at all;
£12m - Borini; no, not a risk at all;

We've agreed every transfer has an element of risk to it. Some transfers more than other.

Does that really make sense to you?  when you consider that EVERY transfer is a risk, how can you argue that Balotelli, at that price, was so much riskier than any other player we've bought recently?

Again, this is how I'd argue it: It was an awful risk to take. When one of the best man managers in the world like Mourinho comes out and says that a player is unmanageable it should send bad signals to you immediately. When one of his father figures in Mancini gives up on him, again, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When a club in the doldrums like Milan are desperate to flog him, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you've seen him perform poorly consistently over his career it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you hear about his attitude problems and training shenanigans it should send bad signals to you immediately. There were so many things wrong with this signing it is untrue. When Brendan Rodgers turned around and said he didn't want him, it should tell you to look for someone else.

I mean compared to Benteke, for £32m, how can you even argue that Balotelli was a risk at all?!?!  The issue is this: to get a striker, we would've had to have paid something.  £16m for a striker is really not that much.  We bought Borini, for £12m, and he did absolutely nothing.  Was absolute rubbish.  So for £16m for Balotelli, he would have had to do barely more than nothing in order for it to be not a risk at all.  So that £4m difference was the risk?

This logic doesn't really make sense. Every signing you make is a risk, regardless of the strange fee comparisons that you're doing here. If a player costs £1m he's a risk. If a player costs £100m he's a risk. I agree £16m for a striker isn't much for a club of our size. £16m for Balotelli was a ridiculous price to pay though. Again, Balotelli's risk is increased by the factors that I mentioned above. Benteke hasn't had past managers come out and say things like he's unmanageable.

I really don't understand what you're on about when you're comparing Borini and Balotelli's fees. That logic makes zero sense.

A risk?  Sure.  But no more of a risk than buying Lallana, or Lovren, or Allen, or or or etc.

Much more of a risk than any of those players because, again, all of those players haven't had the following: When one of the best man managers in the world like Mourinho comes out and says that a player is unmanageable it should send bad signals to you immediately. When one of his father figures in Mancini gives up on him, again, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When a club in the doldrums like Milan are desperate to flog him, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you've seen him perform poorly consistently over his career it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you hear about his attitude problems and training shenanigans it should send bad signals to you immediately. There were so many things wrong with this signing it is untrue. When Brendan Rodgers turned around and said he didn't want him, it should tell you to look for someone else.

Again, this is how I'd argue it: It was an awful risk to take. When one of the best man managers in the world like Mourinho comes out and says that a player is unmanageable it should send bad signals to you immediately. When one of his father figures in Mancini gives up on him, again, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When a club in the doldrums like Milan are desperate to flog him, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you've seen him perform poorly consistently over his career it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you hear about his attitude problems and training shenanigans it should send bad signals to you immediately. There were so many things wrong with this signing it is untrue. When Brendan Rodgers turned around and said he didn't want him, it should tell you to look for someone else.

Excellent excerpt from a good post mate. All the 'signs' were ignored, including the most relevant - the manager didn't F***ing want him!

People like to re-write history but...

The fact is; the policy, which gives 'value for money' precedence over ability kicked in and, after F***ing about for a full window, those charged by FSG to get deals done as cheaply as possible (not for the first time) left the team in the F***ing lurch.

Most football fans knew Mario wasn't up to it and yes, some of us genuinely hoped against hope he could change but only a proper simpleton would be left 'defending' the lad now. Can you really expect to have reasoned debate with such a soul? 

I just don't get this.  First of all, can we agree that EVERY SINGLE TRANSFER is a risk?  I think we can.  You never know what you're going to get, anything could happen.  Look at di Maria, arguably one of the top ten or so players in the world at the time.  Closest thing you'll get to a sure thing.  Was a total flop for the Mancs.  So every transfer entails some risk.

That being said, let's compare Balotelli's signing to some other recent signings, are you going to tell me they weren't just as risky?

£25m - Lallana; no, not a risk at all;
£20m - Lovren; no, not a risk at all;
£15m - Joseph; no, not a risk at all;
£16m - Balotelli; OH MY GOD THIS IS THE RISKIEST RISK IN FOOTBALL HISTORY
£20m - Markovic; no, not a risk at all;
£12m - Moreno; no, not a risk at all;
£12m - Borini; no, not a risk at all;

Does that really make sense to you?  when you consider that EVERY transfer is a risk, how can you argue that Balotelli, at that price, was so much riskier than any other player we've bought recently?

I mean compared to Benteke, for £32m, how can you even argue that Balotelli was a risk at all?!?!  The issue is this: to get a striker, we would've had to have paid something.  £16m for a striker is really not that much.  We bought Borini, for £12m, and he did absolutely nothing.  Was absolute rubbish.  So for £16m for Balotelli, he would have had to do barely more than nothing in order for it to be not a risk at all.  So that £4m difference was the risk? 

I just don't buy it.  Spending £50m on Balotelli, okay, that would have been a HUGE risk.  But £16m, that we will probably recoup most of if we sell him, when we knew going into it that it was unlikely to work, I don't see how that can be classified as a massive risk.  We knew what we were getting into, we knew he wasn't very expensive, the worst-case scenario really wasn't that bad etc etc. 

A risk?  Sure.  But no more of a risk than buying Lallana, or Lovren, or Allen, or or or etc.

Could of saved yourself the wrist ache typing out that sh*te by simply saying he's one lazy b***ard with a sh*t attitude who was never good enough in the first place!

Well, we paid £16 million for him.  "Small fee" relative to what, you ask.  Well, we bought him for ten million less than we paid for Downing.  Twenty million less than we paid for Andy Carroll.  Ten million less than we paid for Lallana.  Only one million more than we paid for Joseph.

I would say that that is relatively small, for a player who prior to coming to us had indeed shown flashes of being world class, something that you would never accuse any of the aforementioned players of being.  I mean take Joseph for example, before we signed him even his most ardent fans would have said that at his best, he's a very good player, maybe even a top player.  But no one was saying "at his best he is world class."  So if we paid £15 million for Joseph, who even under the best of circumstances was only a very good player, then surely £16 million is a relatively small fee for a player who under the best of circumstances is world class.


In fact the first game he ever played in the league for us, away at Spurs (the game we won 3-0), he was unplayable.  Shrugging defenders off, dribbling by people left and right etc.  He linked up really well with Sturridge, too.  It was alas a false glimmer of hope as he was awful the next game if I remember correctly.

He also was unplayable in one of the Europa League games at Anfield during the tail end of last season.  Don't remember which one it was, but I do remember how absurd it was that he finally played out of his skin again, and then the next game Rodgers dropped him.

Look I'm not saying that it worked out well.  Obviously it didn't.  All I'm saying is that it was worth the risk, considering the low fee, and the high potential return.

Sorry, been away and only catching up now. Unplayable is a huge exaggeration Federer, he had a reasonably promising game against Spurs, he sure wasn't unplayable and never has been for us.

And re the question of why was he more of a risk than Lallana, etc..... simple...his attitude, which has stunk the place out wherever he has been. We had a team of hard working individuals at that time, with a fantastic spirit - high pressing and playing with energy and commitment. And then we bought Balotelli ffs !!

Yeah. We can definitely agree that every single transfer is a risk (though more expensive transfers generally increase the success rate).

Yes, I am.

We've agreed every transfer has an element of risk to it. Some transfers more than other.

Again, this is how I'd argue it: It was an awful risk to take. When one of the best man managers in the world like Mourinho comes out and says that a player is unmanageable it should send bad signals to you immediately. When one of his father figures in Mancini gives up on him, again, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When a club in the doldrums like Milan are desperate to flog him, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you've seen him perform poorly consistently over his career it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you hear about his attitude problems and training shenanigans it should send bad signals to you immediately. There were so many things wrong with this signing it is untrue. When Brendan Rodgers turned around and said he didn't want him, it should tell you to look for someone else.

This logic doesn't really make sense. Every signing you make is a risk, regardless of the strange fee comparisons that you're doing here. If a player costs £1m he's a risk. If a player costs £100m he's a risk. I agree £16m for a striker isn't much for a club of our size. £16m for Balotelli was a ridiculous price to pay though. Again, Balotelli's risk is increased by the factors that I mentioned above. Benteke hasn't had past managers come out and say things like he's unmanageable.

I really don't understand what you're on about when you're comparing Borini and Balotelli's fees. That logic makes zero sense.

Much more of a risk than any of those players because, again, all of those players haven't had the following: When one of the best man managers in the world like Mourinho comes out and says that a player is unmanageable it should send bad signals to you immediately. When one of his father figures in Mancini gives up on him, again, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When a club in the doldrums like Milan are desperate to flog him, it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you've seen him perform poorly consistently over his career it should send bad signals to you immediately. When you hear about his attitude problems and training shenanigans it should send bad signals to you immediately. There were so many things wrong with this signing it is untrue. When Brendan Rodgers turned around and said he didn't want him, it should tell you to look for someone else.

You missed his point.  Why is Balotelli at 12m a bigger risk than Benteke at 30m+...

You missed his point.  Why is Balotelli at 12m a bigger risk than Benteke at 30m+...

Because Balotelli has a history of acting the gobs***e, Benteke didn't!!

I just don't get this.  First of all, can we agree that EVERY SINGLE TRANSFER is a risk?  I think we can.  You never know what you're going to get, anything could happen.  Look at di Maria, arguably one of the top ten or so players in the world at the time.  Closest thing you'll get to a sure thing.  Was a total flop for the Mancs.  So every transfer entails some risk.

That being said, let's compare Balotelli's signing to some other recent signings, are you going to tell me they weren't just as risky?

£25m - Lallana; no, not a risk at all;
£20m - Lovren; no, not a risk at all;
£15m - Joseph; no, not a risk at all;
£16m - Balotelli; OH MY GOD THIS IS THE RISKIEST RISK IN FOOTBALL HISTORY
£20m - Markovic; no, not a risk at all;
£12m - Moreno; no, not a risk at all;
£12m - Borini; no, not a risk at all;

Does that really make sense to you? 

Yes it makes perfect sense because out of that entire list, only one player - Balotelli - had a reputation as being unmanageable. The risk wasn't whether he'd work out as a player, the risk was whether he'd be unmanageable again. That's what people mean when they talk about signing him being an appalling risk.

You missed his point.  Why is Balotelli at 12m a bigger risk than Benteke at 30m+...

Er, no, I didn't.

This sums it up:

Because Balotelli has a history of acting the gobs***e, Benteke didn't!!

This rarely happens, but I actually agree with Fed on this one....  Yes, Balo had a reputation for being unmanageable, but he also had a cv that few others could match when he joined.  His goals per game ratio was pretty close to 1 in 2 (I know a lot of those were pens, but all goals count the same), he produced at club and international level (the title winning assist with City and a stunning brace against Germany in the Euros), and he was/is still young.  Some players with attitude problems grow out of them, like Cassano.  So, when you look at the best case scenario -- he grows up, loses the "unmanageable" tag, and fulfills his world class potential -- vs the worst case scenario -- he remains unmanageable, never settles at the club, loses his scoring touch, and ends up being a waste of 16M + wasted wages -- I actually see him as being a calculated gamble.  Benteke was also a calculated gamble and one that could cost us just as much money in the long run as Balo did, so it's harsh for some to praise Benteke and chastise Balo when both have turned out to be expensive mistakes.....

i think we basically had 16 million to spend , and at the price Balo was the best we could get (even with the risk)

Benteke (as anyone who knows that a ball is blown up and not F***ing stuffed will tell you) is a way better footballer than Mario and on every F***ing level... from application, to numbers, to actual ability. Anyone telling you any different either knows F**k all about football or is an insecure being who's still clutching at straws in the hope that they can save face. 

His price/cost is of no consequence to the football fan - only the investor.