Mohamed Salah Player Thread (F)

There's a limited pot of money to spend on the playing staff and new contracts and transfers will be drawn from the same pot, so yes, a new contract for Salah will reduce the transfer budget assuming he's getting a rise (whether he should be getting a rise at his age is questionable but that's up to Edwards).

Let's say Edwards gives Mo a £50k a week rise, that's 'only' £2.5m so it's pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things, getting £2.5m sliced out of this year's transfer budget (and next year's, and next year's etc depending on how long he signs for)

Let's say instead that Edwards offers him a new contract that Mo doesn't like and he says I'm off and we agree and we get £100m for him, we are gonna get charged £100m at least to replace him. Even if you could clone him, a 25-year old Mo is always going to cost more than a 30-year old Mo.

Then there's the more hidden costs of transfers, agent's fees, which are pretty standard 15%, so if we replaced Salah by buying God knows who for say £120m, there's gonna be an additional £18m going to the agent (it's a tough life being a football agent but somebody's gotta do it).

If we had say £100m to cover transfers and wage increases, losing £18m on agent's fees makes a big dent in that pot of money. You're basically setting light to £18m.

So in the short term, getting players to renew contracts instead of signing replacements is a major positive (as long as they're performing).

But in the long term there's a downside as Salah's value will inevitably start dropping like a stone when he's in his 30s and if we keep him until he's a pensioner we'll never be able to put his sale proceeds towards buying his replacement.

Personally I'd rather give Klopp what he wants right now, and renew Mo's contract rather than trading a player that has performed in every season for us, for someone you just think will do the same - there are no guarantees.

We can't take the short term approach on every single player though as we need to constantly rejuvenate the squad so if Salah gets a new contract that means that one of the other players whose contract is up for renewal this summer probably needs NOT to be given a renewal deal. If not Mo, then who. For me the obvious answer, for obvious reasons, is Keita.

But we don't want Mo Bobby and Sadio all to grow old at the same time, and all their contracts have 2 years left this summer, so if Mo's getting a new contract then maybe either Bobby or Sadio ought NOT to be getting one. That's a b***ard of a call and I'm glad I don't have to make it but based on this season if I had to choose which of them not to renew it would be Sadio. That doesn't mean we'd have to sell him, but are we really going to keep all 3 of these players till they're all say 33 and then suddenly have to cough up £300m or whatever to buy some new lads? That would be irresponsible and I dont see us doing it.

I don't look at the accounts but supposedly the trend under FSG has been to weight more of the playing staff budget towards wages than transfers, so we may not be able to act Billy Big Bollocks in the transfer market but we can at least attract players with decent wages. I'm not stating it as a fact. Seems credible though.

The sooner we can get new contracts sorted the better, so we know who's gonna be here next season and we can concentrate on transfers, so it would be a surprise if we weren't talking to Mo and whoever else at the moment.

It's a massive summer for the club, I think there's about 10 players down to 2 years left. The big priority for me is Virg, who is down to 18 months. I'd be talking to him ahead of any of the others.

There's a limited pot of money to spend on the playing staff and new contracts and transfers will be drawn from the same pot, so yes, a new contract for Salah will reduce the transfer budget assuming he's getting a rise (whether he should be getting a rise at his age is questionable but that's up to Edwards).

Let's say Edwards gives Mo a £50k a week rise, that's 'only' £2.5m so it's pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things, getting £2.5m sliced out of this year's transfer budget (and next year's, and next year's etc depending on how long he signs for)

Let's say instead that Edwards offers him a new contract that Mo doesn't like and he says I'm off and we agree and we get £100m for him, we are gonna get charged £100m at least to replace him. Even if you could clone him, a 25-year old Mo is always going to cost more than a 30-year old Mo.

Then there's the more hidden costs of transfers, agent's fees, which are pretty standard 15%, so if we replaced Salah by buying God knows who for say £120m, there's gonna be an additional £18m going to the agent (it's a tough life being a football agent but somebody's gotta do it).

If we had say £100m to cover transfers and wage increases, losing £18m on agent's fees makes a big dent in that pot of money. You're basically setting light to £18m.

So in the short term, getting players to renew contracts instead of signing replacements is a major positive (as long as they're performing).

But in the long term there's a downside as Salah's value will inevitably start dropping like a stone when he's in his 30s and if we keep him until he's a pensioner we'll never be able to put his sale proceeds towards buying his replacement.

Personally I'd rather give Klopp what he wants right now, and renew Mo's contract rather than trading a player that has performed in every season for us, for someone you just think will do the same - there are no guarantees.

We can't take the short term approach on every single player though as we need to constantly rejuvenate the squad so if Salah gets a new contract that means that one of the other players whose contract is up for renewal this summer probably needs NOT to be given a renewal deal. If not Mo, then who. For me the obvious answer, for obvious reasons, is Keita.

But we don't want Mo Bobby and Sadio all to grow old at the same time, and all their contracts have 2 years left this summer, so if Mo's getting a new contract then maybe either Bobby or Sadio ought NOT to be getting one. That's a b***ard of a call and I'm glad I don't have to make it but based on this season if I had to choose which of them not to renew it would be Sadio. That doesn't mean we'd have to sell him, but are we really going to keep all 3 of these players till they're all say 33 and then suddenly have to cough up £300m or whatever to buy some new lads? That would be irresponsible and I dont see us doing it.

I don't look at the accounts but supposedly the trend under FSG has been to weight more of the playing staff budget towards wages than transfers, so we may not be able to act Billy Big Bollocks in the transfer market but we can at least attract players with decent wages. I'm not stating it as a fact. Seems credible though.

The sooner we can get new contracts sorted the better, so we know who's gonna be here next season and we can concentrate on transfers, so it would be a surprise if we weren't talking to Mo and whoever else at the moment.

It's a massive summer for the club, I think there's about 10 players down to 2 years left. The big priority for me is Virg, who is down to 18 months. I'd be talking to him ahead of any of the others.

Summary 🤷‍♂️

https://twitter.com/lfc/status/1398654613381812225?s=21

Salah has taken his finishing to a new level.

Those first time shots this season were absolutely lethal, keepers can’t react quick enough. Do you think he’s been working on it in training?

Leeds
West Brom
Everton
Leicester

So deadly, we are lucky to have a forward that is unbelievably consistent and a big game player. Love him.

There's a limited pot of money to spend on the playing staff and new contracts and transfers will be drawn from the same pot, so yes, a new contract for Salah will reduce the transfer budget assuming he's getting a rise (whether he should be getting a rise at his age is questionable but that's up to Edwards).

Let's say Edwards gives Mo a £50k a week rise, that's 'only' £2.5m so it's pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things, getting £2.5m sliced out of this year's transfer budget (and next year's, and next year's etc depending on how long he signs for)

Let's say instead that Edwards offers him a new contract that Mo doesn't like and he says I'm off and we agree and we get £100m for him, we are gonna get charged £100m at least to replace him. Even if you could clone him, a 25-year old Mo is always going to cost more than a 30-year old Mo.

Then there's the more hidden costs of transfers, agent's fees, which are pretty standard 15%, so if we replaced Salah by buying God knows who for say £120m, there's gonna be an additional £18m going to the agent (it's a tough life being a football agent but somebody's gotta do it).

If we had say £100m to cover transfers and wage increases, losing £18m on agent's fees makes a big dent in that pot of money. You're basically setting light to £18m.

So in the short term, getting players to renew contracts instead of signing replacements is a major positive (as long as they're performing).

But in the long term there's a downside as Salah's value will inevitably start dropping like a stone when he's in his 30s and if we keep him until he's a pensioner we'll never be able to put his sale proceeds towards buying his replacement.

Personally I'd rather give Klopp what he wants right now, and renew Mo's contract rather than trading a player that has performed in every season for us, for someone you just think will do the same - there are no guarantees.

We can't take the short term approach on every single player though as we need to constantly rejuvenate the squad so if Salah gets a new contract that means that one of the other players whose contract is up for renewal this summer probably needs NOT to be given a renewal deal. If not Mo, then who. For me the obvious answer, for obvious reasons, is Keita.

But we don't want Mo Bobby and Sadio all to grow old at the same time, and all their contracts have 2 years left this summer, so if Mo's getting a new contract then maybe either Bobby or Sadio ought NOT to be getting one. That's a b***ard of a call and I'm glad I don't have to make it but based on this season if I had to choose which of them not to renew it would be Sadio. That doesn't mean we'd have to sell him, but are we really going to keep all 3 of these players till they're all say 33 and then suddenly have to cough up £300m or whatever to buy some new lads? That would be irresponsible and I dont see us doing it.

I don't look at the accounts but supposedly the trend under FSG has been to weight more of the playing staff budget towards wages than transfers, so we may not be able to act Billy Big Bollocks in the transfer market but we can at least attract players with decent wages. I'm not stating it as a fact. Seems credible though.

The sooner we can get new contracts sorted the better, so we know who's gonna be here next season and we can concentrate on transfers, so it would be a surprise if we weren't talking to Mo and whoever else at the moment.

It's a massive summer for the club, I think there's about 10 players down to 2 years left. The big priority for me is Virg, who is down to 18 months. I'd be talking to him ahead of any of the others.

I just don’t agree with any of this, the top players in Europe are playing well into their mid 30s now. Salah will still be banging them in at 33.

I don’t care about the money thing, it’s not my money. All I care about is keeping our best players and Salah is one of the best players in the world.

I just don’t agree with any of this, the top players in Europe are playing well into their mid 30s now. Salah will still be banging them in at 33.

I don’t care about the money thing, it’s not my money. All I care about is keeping our best players and Salah is one of the best players in the world.

well said mate Silva at Chelsea is 36 and in superb condition apart from last night. look at Sadio what an athlete he is he will be playing when he is 50

Summary 🤷‍♂️

Summary probably depends on the person reading it, what you want to take from it and where you stand on FSG. I've just tried to present some facts or what I believe to be facts. I'm not trying to persuade anybody about anything. You can make your own minds up.

You stated earlier that wage increases don't affect the transfer budget. They do. But unless we go mental on wage increases it should only have a minimal impact on the transfer budget. If tying down Salah and Virg and some others for a few more years costs £10m or even £20m out of a £100m transfer budget, who cares? Get them tied down.

The other thing I'd imagine you'd be interested in was the anecdotal evidence (could be false but I doubt it) that FSG decided at some point (probably Day 1) to skew LFC's limited pot of money towards wages rather than transfers. Might help to explain why our net transfer spend isn't very high in Premiership terms. But we are good payers I believe, which has the advantage that once you've got players you want at the club, you've got a fair chance of keeping them. There was a choice to be made: transfer fees or wages. Our success suggests they got that call right.

On a football level, deciding to renew Salah's contract isn't a difficult decision. The only thing to bear in mind is needing to rejuvenate the squad constantly, but that can be achieved by moving on other players rather than your best ones, hopefully.

Generally I'd say stability is good, instability is bad. Instability costs vasts amounts of money: replacing managers costs money and then the new manager wants lots of shiny new players but new systems tend to need time bedding in and if the manager isn't given time then it's the sack and then it's new manager again, new players again, and round and round you go, spending vast fortunes on transfer fees, getting rid of duff players at massive losses, compensation for sackings, agents' fees etc. We were that club for far too long a time.

Salah's agent seems a massive bellend to me so I'm looking forward to Mo signing an extension so we don't have to put up with whatever the fella's name is posting his F***ing full stop tweets if Mo gets subbed or whatever, and trawling his client round interviews with the Spanish shitstirrer footie media.

Hope that clarifies...

I just don’t agree with any of this

You don't agree that LFC have a limited amount of money to spend?

You don't agree that players get older?

You don't agree that we should give Mo an extension?

 

Do you agree it's going to be Monday tomorrow or have you got an alternative theory?

Wow, just wow...what a talent!

There's a limited pot of money to spend on the playing staff and new contracts and transfers will be drawn from the same pot, so yes, a new contract for Salah will reduce the transfer budget assuming he's getting a rise (whether he should be getting a rise at his age is questionable but that's up to Edwards).

Let's say Edwards gives Mo a £50k a week rise, that's 'only' £2.5m so it's pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things, getting £2.5m sliced out of this year's transfer budget (and next year's, and next year's etc depending on how long he signs for)

Let's say instead that Edwards offers him a new contract that Mo doesn't like and he says I'm off and we agree and we get £100m for him, we are gonna get charged £100m at least to replace him. Even if you could clone him, a 25-year old Mo is always going to cost more than a 30-year old Mo.

Then there's the more hidden costs of transfers, agent's fees, which are pretty standard 15%, so if we replaced Salah by buying God knows who for say £120m, there's gonna be an additional £18m going to the agent (it's a tough life being a football agent but somebody's gotta do it).

If we had say £100m to cover transfers and wage increases, losing £18m on agent's fees makes a big dent in that pot of money. You're basically setting light to £18m.

That's a lot of speculation. You are assuming the "limited money" applies to everything. What if the club assigns £200m on transfers, and a separate amount on maintaining the squad - e.g. contract extensions? That's what I would expect, and that would not diminish the pot of money for transfers if we are able to extend Salah's contract and others.

There's a limited pot of money to spend on the playing staff and new contracts and transfers will be drawn from the same pot, so yes, a new contract for Salah will reduce the transfer budget assuming he's getting a rise (whether he should be getting a rise at his age is questionable but that's up to Edwards).

Let's say Edwards gives Mo a £50k a week rise, that's 'only' £2.5m so it's pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things, getting £2.5m sliced out of this year's transfer budget (and next year's, and next year's etc depending on how long he signs for)

Let's say instead that Edwards offers him a new contract that Mo doesn't like and he says I'm off and we agree and we get £100m for him, we are gonna get charged £100m at least to replace him. Even if you could clone him, a 25-year old Mo is always going to cost more than a 30-year old Mo.

Then there's the more hidden costs of transfers, agent's fees, which are pretty standard 15%, so if we replaced Salah by buying God knows who for say £120m, there's gonna be an additional £18m going to the agent (it's a tough life being a football agent but somebody's gotta do it).

If we had say £100m to cover transfers and wage increases, losing £18m on agent's fees makes a big dent in that pot of money. You're basically setting light to £18m.

So in the short term, getting players to renew contracts instead of signing replacements is a major positive (as long as they're performing).

But in the long term there's a downside as Salah's value will inevitably start dropping like a stone when he's in his 30s and if we keep him until he's a pensioner we'll never be able to put his sale proceeds towards buying his replacement.

Personally I'd rather give Klopp what he wants right now, and renew Mo's contract rather than trading a player that has performed in every season for us, for someone you just think will do the same - there are no guarantees.

We can't take the short term approach on every single player though as we need to constantly rejuvenate the squad so if Salah gets a new contract that means that one of the other players whose contract is up for renewal this summer probably needs NOT to be given a renewal deal. If not Mo, then who. For me the obvious answer, for obvious reasons, is Keita.

But we don't want Mo Bobby and Sadio all to grow old at the same time, and all their contracts have 2 years left this summer, so if Mo's getting a new contract then maybe either Bobby or Sadio ought NOT to be getting one. That's a b***ard of a call and I'm glad I don't have to make it but based on this season if I had to choose which of them not to renew it would be Sadio. That doesn't mean we'd have to sell him, but are we really going to keep all 3 of these players till they're all say 33 and then suddenly have to cough up £300m or whatever to buy some new lads? That would be irresponsible and I dont see us doing it.

I don't look at the accounts but supposedly the trend under FSG has been to weight more of the playing staff budget towards wages than transfers, so we may not be able to act Billy Big Bollocks in the transfer market but we can at least attract players with decent wages. I'm not stating it as a fact. Seems credible though.

The sooner we can get new contracts sorted the better, so we know who's gonna be here next season and we can concentrate on transfers, so it would be a surprise if we weren't talking to Mo and whoever else at the moment.

It's a massive summer for the club, I think there's about 10 players down to 2 years left. The big priority for me is Virg, who is down to 18 months. I'd be talking to him ahead of any of the others.

It was an even more massive summer for the club last season and a failure to build on our success has resulted in our present predicament.

I was thinking to myself "who'll be the first to turn those news into a negative"

Congrats on being the tool of the day.

Some people just do not deserve a team like Liverpool to root for, unable to find happyness and always looking for ways to live in misery.

Going on FSG's apparent sell to buy policy the assumption proffered by the poster makes a lot of sense, you do seem to support the owners which on recent events does not make sense.

That's a lot of speculation. You are assuming the "limited money" applies to everything. What if the club assigns £200m on transfers, and a separate amount on maintaining the squad - e.g. contract extensions? That's what I would expect, and that would not diminish the pot of money for transfers if we are able to extend Salah's contract and others.

The club spends what it generates so if you spend x amount on new contracts you will have less for transfers

That’s not a stretch

What is a stretch is that they’ve ever given us 200m for transfers. Unless we’re selling Mo then that’s your stretch

If you offer wage increases and your wage bill goes up by 15%-20% then yes you have less for transfers
That’s not including agent fees etc

That's a lot of speculation. You are assuming the "limited money" applies to everything. What if the club assigns £200m on transfers, and a separate amount on maintaining the squad - e.g. contract extensions? That's what I would expect, and that would not diminish the pot of money for transfers if we are able to extend Salah's contract and others.

it's not speculation, it's a cold hard fact.

The club has limited money to spend on the playing side.

Unless you think they've got a money printing machine in the boardroom and use it?

It was an even more massive summer for the club last season and a failure to build on our success has resulted in our present predicament.

They did build on their success.

I honestly never had you as thick Stuey but you're making it hard mate.

They bought one of Europe's best midfielders and added a quality attacker along with the back up LB we all had been whining for.

The only thing we didn't buy was a CB but that was as much down to the manager as anyone else as well.

You tell me what club would be able to still finish where we did if they lost their three first choice CB for more or less the entire season?

City lost Laporte, one player, the season before and it totally ruined them. We lost three.

They did build on their success.

I honestly never had you as thick Stuey but you're making it hard mate.

They bought one of Europe's best midfielders and added a quality attacker along with the back up LB we all had been whining for.

The only thing we didn't buy was a CB but that was as much down to the manager as anyone else as well.

You tell me what club would be able to still finish where we did if they lost their three first choice CB for more or less the entire season?

City lost Laporte, one player, the season before and it totally ruined them. We lost three.

FSG bought nobody, LFC acquired the players.

FSG bought nobody, LFC acquired the players.

 

FSG bought nobody, LFC acquired the players.

 


You surely are on a wind up

 


You surely are on a wind up

😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😁😁🤣😁😁😁😁😁😁😁

it's not speculation, it's a cold hard fact.

The club has limited money to spend on the playing side.

Unless you think they've got a money printing machine in the boardroom and use it?

 

Read this thread guys, just confirms we have the one of the best ever forward player in terms of overall contribution.

He’s a Liverpool legend and deserves to be spoken about amongst the greats already. So blessed to have him and we can’t take him for granted.

https://twitter.com/michael_reid11/status/1407266454890860549?s=21

Reports are saying that in the next two days Egypt will ask Liverpool to release Salah for the Olympics

Then in January, he will be over worked

At least his fitness is good.

James Pearce
@JamesPearceLFC
·23m
Mohamed Salah set to miss Tokyo Olympics. #LFC don’t intend to release him for Egypt duty and the club don’t expect to have any players involved in the tournament.

James Pearce
@JamesPearceLFC
·23m
Mohamed Salah set to miss Tokyo Olympics. #LFC don’t intend to release him for Egypt duty and the club don’t expect to have any players involved in the tournament.

Minamino and Konate also informed they won't be released. In Salah's case, the fact that he will be missing matches in January should help him understand he really can't miss preseason as well.

I'm glad to hear this news because I think we are going to see something much closer to a typical Klopp-prepared team for the coming season.


Hoping to see Mo get off to a great start this campaign.