Liverpool transfers in/out and rumours 22/23 + Contracts

[Taksin]

I don't think it supports what you believe to be true.

Which part of it? And what is actually true - that Jurgen and pep are masterminding our transfer activity?

As said, I wouldn't put much value on the testimony of the calm guy, shitting kittens on his crazy day.

Why not - do you think he is a fantasist when he tells the story as he did? It seems a fairly well rendered account to me.

Typically players agree terms in advance of clubs.

I don't think this is typical at all. In fact, the usual story is the transfer is agreed between clubs and then followed by 'all that's left is for the club to agree terms with the player'. And then a medical.

Where they speak to the new manager and resolve financials.

this happens at the end - it's where the contract is signed by the player, at which point the signing has happened. That's why it's called a signing.

With the advent of the powerful agent, verbal agreements may be sought in advance, but who are those agreements between?

We'd identified Diaz as a target, not a hard job.

If it's such an easy job, how come so many clubs are so bad at it? Someone might have said (they did in fact) its an easy job to identify Ronaldo to sign for Utd but it turns out to be extremely problematic identifying the right targets, allocating funds from the budget and then finding the right player for the right manager.

If you don't have a clear strategy for recruitment, clear boundaries with the budget, and good negotiating skills with clubs and players, you can end up with a rush of blood leaving you with a bigger problem on your hands and a long wait to get over it - see Sanchez at United. Or see Barcelona.

Late Ferguson United had degraded into an oligarchy, which lead to decentralised decision making and therefore poor governance. The solution for them is to return to being a functioning monarchy, as that seems to be the only way shit gets done properly. Spurs look like being the most likely team to rival us on the non-sugar daddy model, and everyone knows who's in charge there.

We were in discussions with him.

We may have been but it sounds like that was the first contact Klopp made with him - the use of a translator emphasises this. It didn't sound like they were talking numbers at that meeting either.

Had Jurgen & Pep had their way, he'd have been coming in during the January window regardless of spurs interest.

This is the Roy of the Rovers approach to running a club. Klopp and Pep may have a little boy inside them that wants all the best players right now. But Klopp has always expressed a mature solidarity with the process that is going on behind the scenes - the one where there is a plan that is being carefully exacted and where they try not to deviate from it too far.

[CCTV]

Which part of it? And what is actually true - that Jurgen and pep are masterminding our transfer activity?

Me - That it shows how little Klopps involved with transfers


Why not - do you think he is a fantasist when he tells the story as he did? It seems a fairly well rendered account to me.

Me - I've already said I found it childlike. He's not even there for the entirety of the call, he only relates his experience.
It's a poor piece of testimony to provide as your proof. The latter half of an end point conversation.


I don't think this is typical at all. In fact, the usual story is the transfer is agreed between clubs and then followed by 'all that's left is for the club to agree terms with the player'. And then a medical.

Me - From what I've read, it appears players are sorted first. Then a deal is done between the clubs, or not. This is what has occurred before with Klopp, and our apology to Southampton.
The only piece of Peps testimony that seems anyway PR savvy, is his representation of Klopp speaking to Diaz for the first time.



this happens at the end - it's where the contract is signed by the player, at which point the signing has happened. That's why it's called a signing.

With the advent of the powerful agent, verbal agreements may be sought in advance, but who are those agreements between?

If it's such an easy job, how come so many clubs are so bad at it? Someone might have said (they did in fact) its an easy job to identify Ronaldo to sign for Utd but it turns out to be extremely problematic identifying the right targets, allocating funds from the budget and then finding the right player for the right manager.

Me - I'm saying finding a player like Diaz at that time isn't hard.
He and Nunez both had great stats.

If you don't have a clear strategy for recruitment, clear boundaries with the budget, and good negotiating skills with clubs and players, you can end up with a rush of blood leaving you with a bigger problem on your hands and a long wait to get over it - see Sanchez at United. Or see Barcelona.

Late Ferguson United had degraded into an oligarchy, which lead to decentralised decision making and therefore poor governance. The solution for them is to return to being a functioning monarchy, as that seems to be the only way shit gets done properly. Spurs look like being the most likely team to rival us on the non-sugar daddy model, and everyone knows who's in charge there.



We may have been but it sounds like that was the first contact Klopp made with him - the use of a translator emphasises this. It didn't sound like they were talking numbers at that meeting either.

Me - That's the only part of the testimony that seems pr savvy, or putting out a positive message.
We didn't speak to him until it was all done and dusted between the clubs.



This is the Roy of the Rovers approach to running a club. Klopp and Pep may have a little boy inside them that wants all the best players right now. But Klopp has always expressed a mature solidarity with the process that is going on behind the scenes - the one where there is a plan that is being carefully exacted and where they try not to deviate from it too far.

You seem intent on painting a picture of an extreme, Barca/Manu, Roy of the Rovers.

I've already asked how it is soulless for a person to buy a company, invest in a company, bring it to a higher standing within its own market, and turn a massive profit.
You didn't answer that question.

I've brought up the likely financial gains for our owners, were they to sell.
Referenced our debt and large leeway with regards FFP and spending.
How spending a little more securing players in the short term, can drive success on the field and develop the brand and business beyond those costs.

If you want to discuss matters of fact regarding financials, the opportunity is here to do that....


If you're going to use vague terms interchangeably around monarchies and olligarchies can you please clarify what you mean

At which point under Fergusom did united change from a monarchy to an oligarchy?
He succeeded under a monarchy and an oligarchy?
Was he the oligarch?
After him who is the oligarch ?
Or detail the changes as you see it when they occurred.

What was Romans Chelsea ?
A Republic, social democracy, Olligarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, Theocracy?

[CCTV]

There are a few

Me - responses in the quoted bit above

[CCTV]

"Julian then walked with his phone to the trophy cabinet at AXA and finished with ‘we want to add to this and that’s why we want you’. If the boy wasn’t convinced, he would be now."

Do you believe that without this trick, the transfer might never have been sealed?

This is your witness's testimony, I'm being asked to accept as a full or reasonable account of the Diaz transfer ?

[Taksin]

You seem intent on painting a picture of an extreme, Barca/Manu, Roy of the Rovers.

The question is about how a successful club is run. The belief that it's all down to Klopp (and I'm not entirely attributing this view to you but you certainly flirt with it) is, in my view, ignorant of what is actually happening.

I've already asked how it is soulless for a person to buy a company, invest in a company, bring it to a higher standing within its own market, and turn a massive profit.
You didn't answer that question.

I'm not sure what the question is here. I don't see all investing in businesses as soulless, especially if you are improving that business. A strong business is good for everyone involved in it, including the fans (customers), employees and local community. They have souls.

I have stated numerous times that I don't like the current situation because selling the club is the end goal and that leaves us vulnerable, but that problem is shared by all clubs, except a very few. The fact is our owners are very highly functioning - it is in their interests to be so and that is also in the interests of supporters.

I've brought up the likely financial gains for our owners, were they to sell.

I don't dispute these. see above

If you want to discuss matters of fact regarding financials, the opportunity is here to do that....

No thanks. I wish to counter the endless, tedious moaning about the running of our club, which is actually very well run. I'm also interested in what creates success and so I enjoy discussing it

At which point under Fergusom did united change from a monarchy to an oligarchy?

I don't know. They almost sacked him at one point - he wasn't the king then. Then he gradually grew in power, some strange things went on with the Glazers and it appeared to turn from the rule of one to the rule of the few, which I suggest is a disaster. That change tends to happen gradually.

He succeeded under a monarchy and an oligarchy?

Yes. That can happen. Businesses that mature can lose their shape but not their profits (for a while). A start up tends to be run directly from its CEO. A legacy company can rumble along until suddenly it is obvious that it needs new direction - new ownership, let's say.

Similarly, Elizabeth I had much more power than Elizabeth II. That loss of authority happened gradually and governance lost its shape badly in the process - we went from a monarchy to an oligarchy. That doesn't mean there aren't successes still happening under our current oligarchy, but trying to work out who's in charge is confusing and people tend to disagree about it. Some say Boris, some say the Tories, some say big business, some say the media, some say the elites, some say the globalists..

What I believe is that it is because we are governed by an oligarchy that we are headed into further entropy and disaster as a country and as 'the West', which is actually the US empire. And the US is not governed by Jo Biden, in case you haven't noticed. People think he is in charge, people think they voted to influence power, but that is another example of a Roy of the Rovers belief, in my opinion.

Was he the oligarch?

An oligarch yes, that's what I'm saying. Oligarchy is the rule of the few so, as he seemed to grow in power along the way, which is probably a part of why they are in a mess now, I think things fractured above him and he gained a more equal footing in terms of power. That describes an oligarchy for these purposes.

It is my impression that Klopp has no designs on growing his power, probably because he has no need of it - the king is strong - so we do not appear to be threatened with the same fate.

What was Romans Chelsea ?

A clear monarchy, highly functioning until the points where the king seemed to lose interest in his toy and eventually the point where he got taken out - dethroned, regicide..

[Taksin]

"Julian then walked with his phone to the trophy cabinet at AXA and finished with ‘we want to add to this and that’s why we want you’. If the boy wasn’t convinced, he would be now."

Do you believe that without this trick, the transfer might never have been sealed?

This is your witness's testimony, I'm being asked to accept as a full or reasonable account of the Diaz transfer ?

Do you?

No, I think the whole zoom call with the translator was probably the icing on the cake, the welcoming party, the feel good moment that had very little to do with the transfer. What little Diaz already knew about LFC would include that we are a bigger club than Spurs with a more exciting manager and squad to play with.

[Taksin]

Me - That's the only part of the testimony that seems pr savvy, or putting out a positive message.
We didn't speak to him until it was all done and dusted between the clubs.

They needed a translator - there can't have been much conversation going on. Plus, the transfer was rushed at the end so there was less time for preparation in the middle of a busy season at its most congested period.

I would be surprised if that wasn't the first time Klopp had anything to do with the transfer (or any contact with the player) apart from approving of scouting videos.

[CCTV]

You said

"An organised LFC is harder to beat than another club that is well organised for a number of reasons. The only way you can beat us is to way overspend your income, selling the soul of your club in the process, and get some help from VAR officials along the way."

Were our ownership, JwH, LeBron etc to spend within FFP compliance limits (more)
And see a return on their investment as Roman saw at Chelsea,
Increasing the odds of us winning titles,

How would that be selling the soul of the club ?

Had our owners signed say Bellingham last summer, how would that ruin the soul of the club?

[CCTV]

1) the question is about how a successful club is run. The belief that it's all down to Klopp (and I'm not entirely attributing this view to you but you certainly flirt with it) is, in my view, ignorant of what is actually happening.



I'm not sure what the question is here. I don't see all investing in businesses as soulless, especially if you are improving that business. A strong business is good for everyone involved in it, including the fans (customers), employees and local community. They have souls.

I have stated numerous times that I don't like the current situation because selling the club is the end goal and that leaves us vulnerable, but that problem is shared by all clubs, except a very few. The fact is our owners are very highly functioning - it is in their interests to be so and that is also in the interests of supporters.



I don't dispute these. see above



No thanks. I wish to counter the endless, tedious moaning about the running of our club, which is actually very well run. I'm also interested in what creates success and so I enjoy discussing it



I don't know. They almost sacked him at one point - he wasn't the king then. Then he gradually grew in power, some strange things went on with the Glazers and it appeared to turn from the rule of one to the rule of the few, which I suggest is a disaster. That change tends to happen gradually.



Yes. That can happen. Businesses that mature can lose their shape but not their profits (for a while). A start up tends to be run directly from its CEO. A legacy company can rumble along until suddenly it is obvious that it needs new direction - new ownership, let's say.

Similarly, Elizabeth I had much more power than Elizabeth II. That loss of authority happened gradually and governance lost its shape badly in the process - we went from a monarchy to an oligarchy. That doesn't mean there aren't successes still happening under our current oligarchy, but trying to work out who's in charge is confusing and people tend to disagree about it. Some say Boris, some say the Tories, some say big business, some say the media, some say the elites, some say the globalists..

What I believe is that it is because we are governed by an oligarchy that we are headed into further entropy and disaster as a country and as 'the West', which is actually the US empire. And the US is not governed by Jo Biden, in case you haven't noticed. People think he is in charge, people think they voted to influence power, but that is another example of a Roy of the Rovers belief, in my opinion.



An oligarch yes, that's what I'm saying. Oligarchy is the rule of the few so, as he seemed to grow in power along the way, which is probably a part of why they are in a mess now, I think things fractured above him and he gained a more equal footing in terms of power. That describes an oligarchy for these purposes.

It is my impression that Klopp has no designs on growing his power, probably because he has no need of it - the king is strong - so we do not appear to be threatened with the same fate.



A clear monarchy, highly functioning until the points where the king seemed to lose interest in his toy and eventually the point where he got taken out - dethroned, regicide..

As said in particular examples you can point to different realities underpinning the success, and level of success.

Tbh if you're not interested in discussing the financial position of the club, leeway to spend, and potential rewards from sales & sponsors, I'm not sure what else there is to discuss.

With regards Klopp, I guess we have different appraisals of the man.

With regards your monarchy chatter it's too vague and unspecified to make any sense of what you're trying to say.

Again it just feels like forcing an abstract belief you have onto each and every specific example. Although it's not clear who you believe the monarchy to be, in one hand you seem to suggest it's the owners, and in another its Fergie the Monarch.
Which seems to contradict your general belief that is the owners.

[CCTV]

Do you?

No, I think the whole zoom call with the translator was probably the icing on the cake, the welcoming party, the feel good moment that had very little to do with the transfer. What little Diaz already knew about LFC would include that we are a bigger club than Spurs with a more exciting manager and squad to play with.

I have found it the height of hilarity.

Here's how I read the Diaz transfer from what I've seen.

We contact Diaz, he wants to come, we're stalling. Spurs enter the scene, perhaps enabled by his agent, we then act.
Diaz wanted to come here, he ended up here.

Money, Manager, Status & Opportunities.

The Money was made available, the impact was seen and we almost did a brand magnifying quadruple season.

He's already settled to a degree here now which is an advantage, and we all hope he keeps it up.