Our current owners and transfer committee

usually the first thing I know is when a new signing's announced.

same with most of the journos as well.

I think Klopp saw the needs as:

Another wide forward who can benefit the attack the way Mane and Bobby do - signed Saleh.

A top class two-way midfielder to upgrade our entire midfield game
A center back who is better than Lovren
A left back who is better than Milner (or will be).

with the midfielder, it's not a case of signing just any midfielder, he has to bring a real upgrade.
Same with the center back. Dej isn't awful, but could be improved upon.
The left back I think there is a broader or deeper pool from which to choose from. I feel less certain about what is in the works here.

But from the article, Klopp doesn't seem all that exorcised about it. Not that he doesn't want any more new faces, but it needs to be an upgrade. I don't think there is a hint about the ownership not being willing to fund a particular transfer.

So like JK said - be patient.

Fairy muff, totally in agreement with your comments about strengthening our Achilles Heel(s), as for your views about don't panic and be patient I do have issues with that aspect of your comment.

How  long would you suggest is a suitable enough  period for 3 or 4 additions to the team getting to familiarise themselves with their team mates, their styles, their preferred attacking/defensive options etc etc.

How many weeks to go and you advise patience?

Issues involved in transfers.

Two clubs
Transfer fee
Wages
Player
Agent(s)
Players owner(s)(if the player has just one)
Wives (if they work new jobs have to be found by the new club)
Children (schooling)
New house
Relocation and all that entails
Image rights
Squad number

As an outsider in such things that's all I can think of but all them issues need to be covered to the satisfaction of all concerned with most of them people probably communicating on a sporadic basis.

Rome wasn't built in a day and these multi million pound deals take longer, especially if one of those issues isn't covered to the satisfaction of one of those involved.

At some moment in time, this is something that becomes old. Teams like Manchester City when they had been bought by the Sheikh did not have an issue signing players like Tevez, Yaya Toure or those Arsenal players that they had no issue getting.

Manchester United without Champions League football were able to get players like Pogba and Ibrahimovic. Arsenal have just signed Lacazette and one of the best left backs from last season in Germany. Chelsea without Champions League football were able to land Kante, David Luiz and Alonso last season, they were able to get Hazard in 2012. It is not something that has hamstrung any of these teams  in the market.

At the end of the day, only one thing matters in the market today, and that is money. Meet the asking price, and make a good enough proposition to these players that they are enticed to join. Then sell them on the project that you are building.

All these things come up in play when a transfer concerns Liverpool because they form an easy excuse to cover for failed transfers.

Teams like Manchester City when they had been bought by the Sheikh did not have an issue signing players like Tevez, Yaya Toure or those Arsenal players that they had no issue getting.

That's your problem right there....we don't have hundreds of millions to gamble with...they can buy players at £50-75 million and if they flop they flop...not a big deal just move on to the next; for us it is a big deal.

That's your problem right there....we don't have hundreds of millions to gamble with...they can buy players at £50-75 million and if they flop they flop...not a big deal just move on to the next; for us it is a big deal.

It's actually not, we are flush with cash at this point. Many reports that we've 200m to spend even without outgoings. (and with outgoings,  that's still a huge amount). In fact, I would be willing to guess that the clubs that finish above us don't spend that much this summer. Of course I don't think we will either, but if FSG want us to be able to stay up where we are and go further, they are going to have to loosen the purse strings.

That's your problem right there....we don't have hundreds of millions to gamble with...they can buy players at £50-75 million and if they flop they flop...not a big deal just move on to the next; for us it is a big deal.

Not forgetting we have a manager head-hunted by the owners because of his extraordinary ability to spot the skills that others miss.
Kind of negates peoples fears of big signings being crap.
FSG have made their bed.

It's actually not, we are flush with cash at this point. Many reports that we've 200m to spend even without outgoings. (and with outgoings,  that's still a huge amount). In fact, I would be willing to guess that the clubs that finish above us don't spend that much this summer. Of course I don't think we will either, but if FSG want us to be able to stay up where we are and go further, they are going to have to loosen the purse strings.

Us being flush with cash for this window does not place FSG in the same category as Monsour or Abromovich....that's like comparing someone worth 10 million and has multiple businesses with to somebody who just inherited a million while working as a dental hygienist.

Us being flush with cash for this window does not place FSG in the same category as Monsour or Abromovich....that's like comparing someone worth 10 million and has multiple businesses with to somebody who just inherited a million while working as a dental hygienist.

No not really, for the sake of this window and he sake of where we want to go this year, we have plenty of cash to spend to put a competitive team on the field. It's just up to FSG to spend it. And if we continue to be successful (thanks to good signings and Klopps influence) then every year we will likely have plenty of money to spend to compete. The owners of those other clubs aren't allowed to just spend their own money as they see fit, there is still FFP among other things. This isn't Major League Baseball. 

That's your problem right there....we don't have hundreds of millions to gamble with...they can buy players at £50-75 million and if they flop they flop...not a big deal just move on to the next; for us it is a big deal.

Chelsea have just sold Atsu, Begovic, Ake, Cuadrado and Bertrand Traore, and in January they sold Oscar for big money. This is how Chelsea have operated in the transfer market for some time, selling high to then fund their transfer spending, and talk is that they will also sell Diego Costa this window.

Basically, Marina Granovskaia does a splendid job when it comes to negotiating sales, even for players that they may not want around.

Manchester United are over and above several stages ahead of the rest of the teams when it comes to revenues, especially the commercial component, and that has been something that has always come to their aid when they have needed to spend.

Does this mean that there is no money in the league? No! Bournemouth have just spent £20 million on Ake without having to sell any of their players.

City? They have got Bernado Silva who will no doubt replace Jesus Navas who has been released, and that gives them a young playmaker that can play somewhat wider. They have brought in another goalkeeper in Ederson who is unproven in the Premier league, so it will be fascinating to see how he pans out. They have also lost Sagna, Clichy, Zabaleta and Caballero, some of those need replacing too.

Now, there is this thing where people come up and say that ''we do not have hundreds of millions to gamble with''. It is nonsense for the most part. Reality is this, this team needs depth, and the kind of depth that is generated by bringing in a few players that are better than what is available. Players that will come in and do what Sadio Mane did for the team last season. Reality is that there will be Champions League games........games unlike the cups where Klopp chose to mainly go with kids. So you will have two games to qualify, and six group games. You will take off one game that applies to teams that are not in Europe in the Capitol One Cup, so that is an extra 7 games for a team whose style of play drains energy.

That, is my biggest worry, and those issues raised up there can only be solved by spending in the market. If the scouting is really good (something it hasn't been for some time), then you can go on and have faith that the players that come in for little money will most likely pan out. However, looking at history, that does not seem to be the case.

What I find fascinating is that the same people that come up and complain about there not being enough money to spend will always come up and say how well the team sells some of the players that are not it's plans going forward. Last season, Ibe was sold for £15M. This season, the team is looking to raise £30M from a Sakho sale, £20M from Markovic and £10M from Stewart. That is a player that the manager does not want, and will not play.....he would rather play a midfielder back there, a winger who has been on two loan spells two straight seasons, and a midfielder who can count himself lucky if he makes the matchday squad.

You cannot be charging that rate and crying that there is no money to get your first choice targets, not with the increases in Television money. Even Everton are spending (although they may well be spending money and looking to recoup it off Lukaku and Barkley sales).

No not really, for the sake of this window and he sake of where we want to go this year, we have plenty of cash to spend to put a competitive team on the field. It's just up to FSG to spend it. And if we continue to be successful (thanks to good signings and Klopps influence) then every year we will likely have plenty of money to spend to compete. The owners of those other clubs aren't allowed to just spend their own money as they see fit, there is still FFP among other things. This isn't Major League Baseball.

It is a strange line of thought. The Champions League or lack of has been used as an excuse as to why the team is unable to go on and attract some of these players, but when you see teams attracting the likes of Hazard, Lacazette, Pogba, Ibrahimovic, Yaya Toure, David Silva without it, you realize that it is a ruse conveniently used.

If the likes of Van Dijk and Keita are too expensive (and the quoted prices do not seem to make sense), then move on to other targets instead of hoping that they will demand a transfer and you can then get them for a far lower fee. Leipzig do not need to sell, and Southampton have a history of not honoring transfer requests too e.g. Schneiderlin and Wanyama.

There is still time to go on and get things right, but my hope was that the team would have done some significant business by the time pre season was starting.

Chelsea have just sold Atsu, Begovic, Ake, Cuadrado and Bertrand Traore, and in January they sold Oscar for big money. This is how Chelsea have operated in the transfer market for some time, selling high to then fund their transfer spending, and talk is that they will also sell Diego Costa this window.

Basically, Marina Granovskaia does a splendid job when it comes to negotiating sales, even for players that they may not want around.

Manchester United are over and above several stages ahead of the rest of the teams when it comes to revenues, especially the commercial component, and that has been something that has always come to their aid when they have needed to spend.

Does this mean that there is no money in the league? No! Bournemouth have just spent £20 million on Ake without having to sell any of their players.

City? They have got Bernado Silva who will no doubt replace Jesus Navas who has been released, and that gives them a young playmaker that can play somewhat wider. They have brought in another goalkeeper in Ederson who is unproven in the Premier league, so it will be fascinating to see how he pans out. They have also lost Sagna, Clichy, Zabaleta and Caballero, some of those need replacing too.

Now, there is this thing where people come up and say that ''we do not have hundreds of millions to gamble with''. It is nonsense for the most part. Reality is this, this team needs depth, and the kind of depth that is generated by bringing in a few players that are better than what is available. Players that will come in and do what Sadio Mane did for the team last season. Reality is that there will be Champions League games........games unlike the cups where Klopp chose to mainly go with kids. So you will have two games to qualify, and six group games. You will take off one game that applies to teams that are not in Europe in the Capitol One Cup, so that is an extra 7 games for a team whose style of play drains energy.

That, is my biggest worry, and those issues raised up there can only be solved by spending in the market. If the scouting is really good (something it hasn't been for some time), then you can go on and have faith that the players that come in for little money will most likely pan out. However, looking at history, that does not seem to be the case.

What I find fascinating is that the same people that come up and complain about there not being enough money to spend will always come up and say how well the team sells some of the players that are not it's plans going forward. Last season, Ibe was sold for £15M. This season, the team is looking to raise £30M from a Sakho sale, £20M from Markovic and £10M from Stewart. That is a player that the manager does not want, and will not play.....he would rather play a midfielder back there, a winger who has been on two loan spells two straight seasons, and a midfielder who can count himself lucky if he makes the matchday squad.

You cannot be charging that rate and crying that there is no money to get your first choice targets, not with the increases in Television money. Even Everton are spending (although they may well be spending money and looking to recoup it off Lukaku and Barkley sales).

Yup, and I bet you if we wanted to shop where Everton shops then we could have 1/2 dozen deals done already. City has a had a £93,000,000 per year average net spend over the past 5 seasons; up unto the past couple of seasons Chelsea were spending hundreds of millions net every year stockpiling talent...which is fine but when you buy that kind of talent and you move them on of course you can fund your purchases; Chelsea are selling (Atsu, Begovic, Ake, Cuadrado and Bertrand Traore) were selling Alberto Moreno and Kev Stewart.

Plenty of money there as FL has said, but not enough to just go and blindly throw £100 million here and £100 million there....if we did go snag VVD and Keita those two + Salah were talking £170,000,000 on three players.

Personally I think we are going after the right players but that also means the teams we are trying to get them from are probably a different profile than who Everton is going out doing deals with.

Yup, and I bet you if we wanted to shop where Everton shops then we could have 1/2 dozen deals done already. City has a had a £93,000,000 per year average net spend over the past 5 seasons; up unto the past couple of seasons Chelsea were spending hundreds of millions net every year stockpiling talent...which is fine but when you buy that kind of talent and you move them on of course you can fund your purchases; Chelsea are selling (Atsu, Begovic, Ake, Cuadrado and Bertrand Traore) were selling Alberto Moreno and Kev Stewart.

Plenty of money there as FL has said, but not enough to just go and blindly throw £100 million here and £100 million there....if we did go snag VVD and Keita those two + Salah were talking £170,000,000 on three players.

Personally I think we are going after the right players but that also means the teams we are trying to get them from are probably a different profile than who Everton is going out doing deals with.

Either we can afford to blindly throw 170M on 3 players, or we can't. There's a contradiction there.

Hilarious some posters, we can now compete with the Oil Barons and Russian stolen money, it's been a hot day I can sympathise 

Either we can afford to blindly throw 170M on 3 players, or we can't. There's a contradiction there.

I didn't say that did I?

I said we just can't go throwing £100,000,000 here and £100,000,000 there...no contradiction at all.

If City wanted Keita and VVD I suppose they could just go to Soton and RB and offer 100 million and drag it over the line and still fill whatever holes they need to..an extra 20-30 million means nothing to them....we go and do whatever it takes to make it happen and it can make a difference because then the manager is going to have to do without somewhere else.

That's all I was trying to get across.

Yup, and I bet you if we wanted to shop where Everton shops then we could have 1/2 dozen deals done already. City has a had a £93,000,000 per year average net spend over the past 5 seasons; up unto the past couple of seasons Chelsea were spending hundreds of millions net every year stockpiling talent...which is fine but when you buy that kind of talent and you move them on of course you can fund your purchases; Chelsea are selling (Atsu, Begovic, Ake, Cuadrado and Bertrand Traore) were selling Alberto Moreno and Kev Stewart.

Plenty of money there as FL has said, but not enough to just go and blindly throw £100 million here and £100 million there....if we did go snag VVD and Keita those two + Salah were talking £170,000,000 on three players.

Personally I think we are going after the right players but that also means the teams we are trying to get them from are probably a different profile than who Everton is going out doing deals with.

I think you are picking and choosing what you want to reply to.

This is a comment I made in a post just below what you have quoted

If the likes of Van Dijk and Keita are too expensive (and the quoted prices do not seem to make sense), then move on to other targets instead of hoping that they will demand a transfer and you can then get them for a far lower fee. Leipzig do not need to sell, and Southampton have a history of not honoring transfer requests too e.g. Schneiderlin and Wanyama.

You do not have to go out there and spend £70M on a defender when other teams will be willing to sell for somewhere in the range of £35M. You do not have to go on and spend £70M on a midfielder considering what Tolisso cost Bayern or what Zenit have just signed Paredes for. There are also other midfielders out there, there is Seri at Nice who would be worth a look.

If you do not want to spend much, you scout well, and you either move before the big clubs have moved, or you have to wait for the biggest clubs to move before looking at what players they want to sell, or what players are left in the market. Either way, one has to be clever about it.

Again, my biggest worry is that the people concerned with transfers will be caught flat footed, something that has happened for quite a few windows now. One worry is that there will not be quality options available, or that you will get teams not willing to spend because there is not enough time left in the window. That is a possibility.

By the way, I actually admire Chelsea, the only exception being selling a player and then going back for him thereby paying far more money than you sold him for, but for the better part, they are making profits off sales.

I didn't say that did I?

I said we just can't go throwing £100,000,000 here and £100,000,000 there...no contradiction at all.

If City wanted Keita and VVD I suppose they could just go to Soton and RB and offer 100 million and drag it over the line and still fill whatever holes they need to..an extra 20-30 million means nothing to them....we go and do whatever it takes to make it happen and it can make a difference because then the manager is going to have to do without somewhere else.

That's all I was trying to get across.

City's record signing is De Bruyne at £55M. The thought that they will just spend £100M is neither here not there. They have the capability to spend that but have not shown the willingness to do it. Huge difference.

I didn't say that did I?

I said we just can't go throwing £100,000,000 here and £100,000,000 there...no contradiction at all.

If City wanted Keita and VVD I suppose they could just go to Soton and RB and offer 100 million and drag it over the line and still fill whatever holes they need to..an extra 20-30 million means nothing to them....we go and do whatever it takes to make it happen and it can make a difference because then the manager is going to have to do without somewhere else.

That's all I was trying to get across.

But if we can supposedly throw £70 m on VVD and Naby each, then we are in a position at the very least test the waters, are we not?

We don't even show the conviction of ambition that we have at our disposal. We conveniently cock-up the mooted £70 million bid for VVD. And then we posture over making a bid for Keita - anyone would think our club are hoping the likes of City and Chelsea come calling to validate your point.

On a separate point though, is there any evidence that Klopp does ACTUALLY want Keita?

Or is this the usual PR spinning exercise that we're accustomed to in order to placate fans before we sign Dean Whitehead from Huddersfield town at £2.8M, and all avenues exhausted.

I mean, every twit on twatter seems to know what nobody else doesn't. It's either fake news or it isn't.

I recall back in the 1960s when Bill Shankly was paying record fees to sign the likes of the Mighty Emlyn Hughes and Alun Evans.Now in those days the club did not have that much cash, we actually employed a ground development officer (Colin Addison) and part of his job was to raise funds for ground development.He organised raffles and the prizes were tickets ,travel etc for away European matches .I was a lucky winner and won tickets and meals and transport to Villa Park for the semi final against Chelsea.Now if Shanks could go out and make big signings (with the help of Peter Robinson) whats the problem these days.

And Chelsea have agreed deal to sign Rudiger.
I don't remember the likes of Chelsea and City have ever failed to sign any of their targets in recent years.

Very typical of how the owner and their charlatan transfer committee conduct their business. Nothing different, year in year out trying to be too cute and too smart buying no one and presses the panic button only  on the 11th hours and bought overpriced thrash.   

I'm not in the patient camp I want these things done.

I couldn't care less that City/Chelsea/United haven't signed many yet we are still playing catch up to them in terms of signings for years now.

We've had 8 years is it of dithering about and done F**k all, we've missed out on how many targets due to low balling and wasting F***ing time whilst others swoop in and get it done.

FSG pay up, get moving or F**k right off.

By the way, I actually admire Chelsea, the only exception being selling a player and then going back for him thereby paying far more money than you sold him for, but for the better part, they are making profits off sales.

Rightly so, looks like we have a hopeless bunch of softies in the transfer committee, over digesting the information and options, a case of over analyse until it becomes paralyse. They are handsomely paid and will continue to destroy the club bit by bit over the years. Blame no one but the owners and the rot has started easily 5 years and yet they continue to allow such model to continue. No need the transfer committee, just do some research on the successful scouts of other teams, pay them handsomely and get them to come over. I;m sure that's what the owners will support, it is all about cost cutting and dump the transfer committee.

I think we should have a poll that ask the supporters here; How well has the "Transfer Committee" performed over the last 5 years. Options of reply being.

1. Very Well  2.  Fairly Well 3. Average  4.  Poor   5.  Very Poor

Curious to know what would the results be.

I think we should have a poll that ask the supporters here; How well has the "Transfer Committee" performed over the last 5 years. Options of reply being.

1. Very Well  2.  Fairly Well 3. Average  4.  Poor   5.  Very Poor

Curious to know what would the results be.

You forgot the sixth option........










  6. f***in sh*te





YNWA