Page 457 of 933 FirstFirst ... 357407447450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464467507557 ... LastLast
Results 4,561 to 4,570 of 9323

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

  1. #4561
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    37,498
    So if this goes through that would make it £95m out, £63m in.

    Net spend on our rebuild will stand at an eye watering £32m.


    Rudy Galetti
    @RudyGaletti
    ·
    Follow
    🚨🗣️ Advanced talks between #LeedsUTD and #Liverpool for Nat #Phillips.

    💰 The parties are discussing some details about the proposal set at ~£10m add-ons included.

    🎯 The 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 CB has been targeted by Leeds as one of the ideal profiles to replace #Wober, now on loan at #Gladbach.

  2. #4562
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Muineachán
    Posts
    11,928
    Quote Originally Posted by miller0863 View Post
    So if this goes through that would make it £95m out, £63m in.

    Net spend on our rebuild will stand at an eye watering £32m.


    Rudy Galetti
    @RudyGaletti
    ·
    Follow
    🚨🗣️ Advanced talks between #LeedsUTD and #Liverpool for Nat #Phillips.

    💰 The parties are discussing some details about the proposal set at ~£10m add-ons included.

    🎯 The 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 CB has been targeted by Leeds as one of the ideal profiles to replace #Wober, now on loan at #Gladbach.
    Every.

    Lidl.

    Helps.

  3. #4563
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    37,498
    We are Liverpool We spend less.

  4. #4564
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Muineachán
    Posts
    11,928
    Poundland?

    Hahahaha!

    Try Pennyland...

  5. #4565
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    37,498
    We should swap kits with Brighton, blue and white stripes used to be Tesco’s Economy label.

  6. #4566
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    26,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Kev0909 View Post
    maybe the extra bit of money we need for lavia..................
    Think Lavia does or doesn't get done irrespective of the Phillips transfer.

    Am I right in saying we made an initial bid of £36m for Lavia? Fans have been of the "it's only a few million" mindset to meet their £50m evaluation - and on paper I get it - £14m isn't a massive amount of money in the grand scheme of football transfers.

    However, we are known for having our own evaluations of what someone costs and being keen not to overpay. If we did go and get him at £50m for example (versus the initial £36m) then the increase is £14m. It's worth pointing out here that £14m represents a 38.889% chunk of £36m ie an overpayment of our perceived evaluation of nearly 40%.

    I imagine - and this is purely speculation so take it for what it is - that as part of our process we will have our evaluations of players based on statistical analysis, then a ball-park percentage we are willing to overpay for the right targets as a general rule and then anything that is over that we either walk away from OR decide the extent to which we'll overshoot via debate within a committee.

    As a lesser example, I would 100% understand the frustration of us going for a target at £8m, a club asking for £12m and fans being livid because "it's only £4m" - which is a tiny amount of money in the current market. However, it would also represent a whopping 50% overpay of your valuation and if you overpay regularly, you'll get taken to the cleaners when it comes to the bigger names - so I could also understand walking from such a deal despite how little £4m is in a footballing context. A £75m Van Dijk style bid suddenly becomes a request to cough up £112.5m and so on - and thus your capacity to afford multiple targets is lessened.

    For the record I do believe that sometimes you do have to overpay and occasionally should, but I would be keen to strike the right balance. The same with sales - we could have had a combined £25m for Ox and Phillips (£12.5m bids came in) and we held out for £30m (we wanted £15m each) and in a context where we wanted/needed an extra mid (rather than Arthur) I'd have taken that money and reinvested it into recruitment immediately even though it would go against the principle of doing business at the "right" amount - having self-imposed rules to keep business sensible is great but occasionally rules need to be bent too.

  7. #4567
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    in the past
    Posts
    7,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Insidious View Post
    Think Lavia does or doesn't get done irrespective of the Phillips transfer.

    Am I right in saying we made an initial bid of £36m for Lavia? Fans have been of the "it's only a few million" mindset to meet their £50m evaluation - and on paper I get it - £14m isn't a massive amount of money in the grand scheme of football transfers.

    However, we are known for having our own evaluations of what someone costs and being keen not to overpay. If we did go and get him at £50m for example (versus the initial £36m) then the increase is £14m. It's worth pointing out here that £14m represents a 38.889% chunk of £36m ie an overpayment of our perceived evaluation of nearly 40%.

    I imagine - and this is purely speculation so take it for what it is - that as part of our process we will have our evaluations of players based on statistical analysis, then a ball-park percentage we are willing to overpay for the right targets as a general rule and then anything that is over that we either walk away from OR decide the extent to which we'll overshoot via debate within a committee.

    As a lesser example, I would 100% understand the frustration of us going for a target at £8m, a club asking for £12m and fans being livid because "it's only £4m" - which is a tiny amount of money in the current market. However, it would also represent a whopping 50% overpay of your valuation and if you overpay regularly, you'll get taken to the cleaners when it comes to the bigger names - so I could also understand walking from such a deal despite how little £4m is in a footballing context. A £75m Van Dijk style bid suddenly becomes a request to cough up £112.5m and so on - and thus your capacity to afford multiple targets is lessened.

    For the record I do believe that sometimes you do have to overpay and occasionally should, but I would be keen to strike the right balance. The same with sales - we could have had a combined £25m for Ox and Phillips (£12.5m bids came in) and we held out for £30m (we wanted £15m each) and in a context where we wanted/needed an extra mid (rather than Arthur) I'd have taken that money and reinvested it into recruitment immediately even though it would go against the principle of doing business at the "right" amount - having self-imposed rules to keep business sensible is great but occasionally rules need to be bent too.
    There's a house I want to buy..the owners want 1m... but i only want to pay 600k...

    They turned down my offer...so I went back with 750k. They turned that down too.

    Truth is that i cant afford 1m or even 900k... I've just wasted everyone's time

  8. #4568
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Muineachán
    Posts
    11,928
    FSG: we've come not to pay!

  9. #4569
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    37,498
    Nice

  10. #4570
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    37,498
    Don’t you fuckin dare Henry, don’t you even think about it.



    Saudi Arabian side Al-Ittihad will offer Liverpool 60m euros (£51.8m) for Mohamed Salah and are prepared to pay the 31-year-old Egypt forward 180m euros (£155m) over a two-year deal. (Al Riyadiah - in Arabic)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •