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

[CCTV]

You said
"Some may say we should have "shown Ox the door" for example but the fact that we generally don't freeze players out is probably one of the factors that makes lads want to come to us in the first place,"

That is a direct quote.
I read it as
1 Some say we should have shown ox the door for example.
2 But the fact we don't generally freeze players out
3 Is probably one of the reasons that makes lads want to come to us in the first place

This is your post that was quoted and my summary, I've not seen any breakdown of where I've twisted your words.

The question you felt added layers from me was....
You identified Ox as a player we've not frozen out, how has keeping Ox made us a more attractive club for the players we want to add ?

This question was addressing the 3 parts of your proposition.

[justincredible]

Shuh de phuck up you's...

[Insidious]

This is your post that was quoted and my summary, I've not seen any breakdown of where I've twisted your words.

The question you felt added layers from me was....
You identified Ox as a player we've not frozen out, how has keeping Ox made us a more attractive club for the players we want to add ?

This question was addressing the 3 parts of your proposition.

Your hyper-fixation on one small segment of an 8-paragraph post is baffling fella.

[CCTV]

Your hyper-fixation on one small segment of an 8-paragraph post is baffling fella.

I focused on that paragraph as it was the most ridiculous assertion.

I've broken down how it read to me, with a near verbatim summary. So far this summary has not been corrected. It could be perhaps, but it hasn't been.

[Insidious]

I focused on that paragraph as it was the most ridiculous assertion.

I've broken down how it read to me, with a near verbatim summary. So far this summary has not been corrected. It could be perhaps, but it hasn't been.

Again, Page 85 - "I have not claimed that keeping Ox makes us more attractive. That is your interpretation of what I said, or "twisting" if you will.

I have claimed that actions such as, to use my own words, "not freezing players out" will be a factor (only one of many, might I add) in us being an attractive proposition for a player - ie we don't treat our players like crap."

But please, keep saying "verbatim" and "proposition" and numbering points 1, 2 and 3 on a loop. It's all terribly exciting.

Your quoted proposition has 3 parts

1) the idea that we should freeze Ox out is introduced, some may say we should, you argue against this,
(Is this an unfair twisting of your words ?)

2) another idea is introduced, we don't generally freeze out players..
(Is this an unfair twisting of your words ?)

Not discussed this, I think its a bit of a stretch, but I get your idea here that youth players are given more time here,
Though Trent didn't need the extra time. Top players rarely do, there are late developers. Most of our youth players end up frozen out.

With senior players we look to sell players and I'd argue a few were frozen out effectively already.
We only look to push out unwanted players in the main.

3) this not freezing players out, is an advantage in landing targets.
(Is this an unfair twisting of your words ?)


1 You directly cite Ox, in freezing out or not,
2 Propose not freezing out players is a thing we do generally
3 And this is probably a factor in landing players

This 3 step summary of your proposition, is taken from a direct quote, nestled together in one paragraph and not seperated out over pages.

I'd argue that having players like Ox & Keita whose reported wages near 300kpw between them,
and losing these players on free transfers next summer which seems likely now, a net loss in terms of transfer spending,
when their contributions have not met their expectations to date,
Is not an example of how we entice players to the club for me.

You might note where I said playerS in that one little bit of my 8-paragraph post that you're obsessed with when I said -

"Some may say we should have "shown Ox the door" for example but the fact that we generally don't freeze players out is probably one of the factors that makes lads want to come to us in the first place, same with giving younger lads a chance"

I was talking about a good dressing room, where the Manager generally doesn't boot lads out and players get a fair chance - one of many factors, some bigger than others, that would make joining us appealing.

You however presented it as a key reason for a target to potentially land, focusing on specific lads (such as Ox) with sardonic comments such as "I'm sure when Nunez signed it was because we have Ox and Naby both potentially leaving next summer as free agents, and rarely contributing" and adding questions like "how has keeping Ox made us a more attractive club for the players we want to add?" as if I was genuinely suggesting that the retaining of Ox in the squad was in-and-of-itself a key factor in player acquisition to belittle my comment.

Then repeatedly asked how you have misrepresented my point. Which was explained on page 85 - oh and on page 86, I quoted myself when you again prompted for an explanation (that you'd already been given) as follows -

""I have not claimed that keeping Ox makes us more attractive. That is your interpretation of what I said, or "twisting" if you will.

I have claimed that actions such as, to use my own words, "not freezing players out" will be a factor (only one of many, might I add) in us being an attractive proposition for a player - ie we don't treat our players like crap."

Page 85.

Your discrepancy my liege."

This really is incredibly boring. Verbatim. Proposition. Summary. 1, 2, 3.

[CCTV]

Again, Page 85 - "I have not claimed that keeping Ox makes us more attractive. That is your interpretation of what I said, or "twisting" if you will.

I have claimed that actions such as, to use my own words, "not freezing players out" will be a factor (only one of many, might I add) in us being an attractive proposition for a player - ie we don't treat our players like crap."

But please, keep saying "verbatim" and "proposition" and numbering points 1, 2 and 3 on a loop. It's all terribly exciting.



You might note where I said playerS in that one little bit of my 8-paragraph post that you're obsessed with when I said -

"Some may say we should have "shown Ox the door" for example but the fact that we generally don't freeze players out is probably one of the factors that makes lads want to come to us in the first place, same with giving younger lads a chance"

I was talking about a good dressing room, where the Manager generally doesn't boot lads out and players get a fair chance - one of many factors, some bigger than others, that would make joining us appealing.

You however presented it as a key reason for a target to potentially land, focusing on specific lads (such as Ox) with sardonic comments such as "I'm sure when Nunez signed it was because we have Ox and Naby both potentially leaving next summer as free agents, and rarely contributing" and adding questions like "how has keeping Ox made us a more attractive club for the players we want to add?" as if I was genuinely suggesting that the retaining of Ox in the squad was in-and-of-itself a key factor in player acquisition to belittle my comment.

Then repeatedly asked how you have misrepresented my point. Which was explained on page 85 - oh and on page 86, I quoted myself when you again prompted for an explanation (that you'd already been given) as follows -

""I have not claimed that keeping Ox makes us more attractive. That is your interpretation of what I said, or "twisting" if you will.

I have claimed that actions such as, to use my own words, "not freezing players out" will be a factor (only one of many, might I add) in us being an attractive proposition for a player - ie we don't treat our players like crap."

Page 85.

Your discrepancy my liege."

This really is incredibly boring. Verbatim. Proposition. Summary. 1, 2, 3.

You started your 8 paragraphs as such...

"Very fine margins - we have failed to sell Ox for example (which we would have hoped to do) when giving out game time to 8 midfield options - we definitely wouldn't have been able to give him more minutes last season say if he was NINTH choice had we gotten another midfielder - then you're also potentially giving less minutes to lads like Keita - who needs game time so we can decide to keep or sell - and definitely needs game time to attract a buyer if we want to sell."

I'm aware it is part of a bigger post. And the derision is aimed at a part of the bigger post. Which I found hilarious.

Ox is part of the opening paragraph (which we would have hoped to sell).
He is also prominent in the paragraph in question.

"Some may say we should have "shown Ox the door" for example but the fact that we generally don't freeze players out is probably one of the factors that makes lads want to come to us in the first place, same with giving younger lads a chance. Add in what we're up against in Man City and it's definitely a fine balancing act to compete - which to be fair we are managing to do."

He is the example for freeze or not, before positing some opinions about the dilemma of Freeze out or not. He appears in the preceding paragraph too.

The idea my question is adding layers by asking how is Ox supposed to.. in the scenario you cited him as an example in, and he's one of the top 2 examples amongst current discussions.. seems null and void.

He is a clear example at the start of your post a player we are trying to sell, failed, who might well leave regardless, and is the example in the paragraph of freeze out or not explicitly.

You're talking about Ox a lot, as is the wider LFC fan base, but my asking about the player you gave for example in this specific instance is putting words in your mouth.

The rest of that proposition talks about 2 things thereafter,
We generally don't freeze people out (debatable imo, Klopp has got a great environment)
And not freezing out players has an advantage in landing transfers, young and older. (Again debatable)

I'm hardly putting words in your mouth,
by asking you how does the player you mentioned most and as the example in your scenario,
getting the benefit you mentioned,
benefit us in landing us our targets as you mentioned.

Ox is the mot prominent example of such a player in the post, and is the cited example in your proposed situation.

After Ox, the next most mentioned by you player was Keita. Who was also brought up by me in response to your words, 8 paragraphs.

You talk about them the most, you cited Ox as the example and then claim there's little connection between what you are saying and the player you cited for example and most throughout your 8 paragraphs.
Ox is the exemplary case for the example, and discussion at hand amongst the wider fan base.

I don't believe I typed the word key today as you have suggested. I did ridicule the idea.

[CCTV]

Shuh de phuck up you's...

Sorry Justin, I gather it irks you and some others.

[Insidious]

For the sake of my sanity and potentially that of the forum's, you're on the ignore list for a bit CCTVerbatim.

First time I've done so for any user in all my time since 2009. Says a lot.

I'll likely undo this action in a month or so as I don't especially believe in locking the front door, but I need to close the window and turn the TV up for a bit.

Sincerest apologies to everyone for the absolute yawn-fest.

[shminkyred]

still think we should get another midfielder in....lolol

[miller0863]

Naaah.., we’ve got plenty of “bodies” in midfield already