That's two players of £30m or thereabouts...

[Davo]

Originally posted by RUDDY:
<strong>

not saying that but if you listened to the whole interview you would see what he ment

but if fergie asked for more money for Gudjohnsen for 10mil-15mil then he would get it if yorke is offloaded</strong><hr></blockquote>


So how was the above comment re strikers taken out of concept? Have a look at the transcript next door and see if you agree thats what was said...

You're guessing re Eider, and contradicting what Kenyon has said

 

[RUDDY]

Originally posted by Davo:
<strong>


So how was the above comment re strikers taken out of concept? Have a look at the transcript next door and see if you agree thats what was said...

You're guessing re Eider, and contradicting what Kenyon has said</strong><hr></blockquote>

im not guessing about eider because we have already had a bid of 10mil turned down

mate i sat and watched the interview yesterday so i dont need to read what he said

 

[phunky]

Originally posted by Davo:
<strong>

He's also said this morning that you will be buying no one else..

I don't know if he's telling the truth or not? But you must be aware he's said this</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah he did say that. But i'd like to think he meant it on the status quo right now. So if Disco makes his way out of OT which is sooner rather than later, of course we have to spend again.

 

[Davo]

Originally posted by RUDDY:
<strong>

im not guessing about eider because we have already had a bid of 10mil turned down

mate i sat and watched the interview yesterday so i dont need to read what he said</strong><hr></blockquote>

You clearly do as you thought he was only refering to defenders...

I don't believe such inside info I'm afraid..you once told me we'd signed Kanoute...

 

[RUDDY]

Originally posted by Davo:
<strong>

You clearly do as you thought he was only refering to defenders...

I don't believe such inside info I'm afraid..you once told me we'd signed Kanoute... </strong><hr></blockquote>

that was on the radio at work when i posted that,on talksport

answer me this whis is Gudjohnsen asking for a big pay rise from a club with no money then saying that he would be intrested in a move to OT?

and we really did have a 10mil bid rejected but blackburn and roma had there bids of 10mil accepted

its just bates being bates

 

[Davo]

Originally posted by RUDDY:
<strong>

that was on the radio at work when i posted that,on talksport

answer me this whis is Gudjohnsen asking for a big pay rise from a club with no money then saying that he would be intrested in a move to OT?

and we really did have a 10mil bid rejected but blackburn and roma had there bids of 10mil accepted

its just bates being bates</strong><hr></blockquote>

Its all hearsay to me Ruddy...why would I believe you about transfers? Its nothing personal..

But you are contradicting what Kenyon has said, there is no doubt about that...and your earlier piece about him only refering to defenders has been proven incorrect

 

[kemo]

1.Houlier would be sacked instead.

2.Yes.

 

[Jens]

Originally posted by Nigel Borrington:
<strong>

1) By Unsackable do you think he has ever come close to being sacked?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes.

 

[Jens]

Originally posted by Davo:
<strong>

He's also said this morning that you will be buying no one else..

I don't know if he's telling the truth or not? But you must be aware he's said this</strong><hr></blockquote>

do you know if the media didnt take words out of context etc.?

 

[R A Softlad]

Originally posted by lchk:
<strong>

Ah, the return of softlad!

Aren't you calling your scouse pals from koptalk to "pile them" in here again?

Be careful of Raoul's itchy finger on the ban button though </strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know you go away for a few days and the mancs (and the odd dirty leeds fan) are destraught!

I haven't been on Koptalk in a VERY long time little man - do try and keep up. There also appears to be only Davo in this thread - he's more regular here than you. Raoul has no reason to get his finger out of his arse at this point.

Good to see that in general the question has been answered in a serious manner and not as a slanging match.

 

[Davo]

Originally posted by Jens:
<strong>

do you know if the media didnt take words out of context etc.?</strong><hr></blockquote>


I've read the article and it looks pretty straight forward to me...

If anyone knows otherwise then say so?

 

[Jens]

Originally posted by RUDDY:
<strong>also said the size of the sqaud will also play apart in the moves we make</strong><hr></blockquote>

thats interesting ... a fullback is our next target if this is to come true

out

denis - fullback
ronny - center half
rai - goalie

in

rio - center half
steele - goalie

 

[Knoxy]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

Possible, though highly improbable. If Fergie really wants a player then he's going to get him.</strong><hr></blockquote>

He didn't want DiCanio last summer then?

 

[Davo]

Originally posted by Knoxy:
<strong>

He didn't want DiCanio last summer then?

</strong><hr></blockquote>


<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by Knoxy:
<strong>

He didn't want DiCanio last summer then?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

He did, but Yorke wouldn't agree to the transfer. There's nothing we can do about it if the player doesn't agree to the move. I doubt we'd have any such problems with Duff and Gudhjonsen, especially since Duff is a United fan.

 

[Davo]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

He did, but Yorke wouldn't agree to the transfer. There's nothing we can do about it if the player doesn't agree to the move. I doubt we'd have any such problems with Duff and Gudhjonsen, especially since Duff is a United fan.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You needed to sell Yorke first...

Despite this huge budget you've been going on about..

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by Davo:
<strong>

You needed to sell Yorke first...

Despite this huge budget you've been going on about..</strong><hr></blockquote>

I didn't understand why they claimed they needed to sell Yorke. Maybe they didn't want 5 strikers, when one was sitting around and not doing much. It obviously wasn't a money issue since we've spent about 90m on players in the past 24 months.

 

[Davo]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

I didn't understand why they claimed they needed to sell Yorke. Maybe they didn't want 5 strikers, when one was sitting around and not doing much. It obviously wasn't a money issue since we've spent about 90m on players in the past 24 months.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What was it then?

Fergie wanted him, and yet Kenyon didn't get him....which doesn't really fit with what you said earlier does it?

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by Davo:
<strong>

What was it then?

Fergie wanted him, and yet Kenyon didn't get him....which doesn't really fit with what you said earlier does it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The scope of what I said earlier was based on the presumption that the player himself didn't object to being transferred. In this we case we obviously made a decision at that time (pre Forlan) that we wanted to sell Yorke before we brought in someone (logically sound). Again, if Fergie really wanted PDC that badly, we would've upped the offer that instant, but we obviously felt that for whatever reason (age, temperment etc), he wasn't worth as much as they were asking, irrespective of whether Yorke stayed or left.

 

[phunky]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

The scope of what I said earlier was based on the presumption that the player himself didn't object to being transferred. In this we case we obviously made a decision at that time (pre Forlan) that we wanted to sell Yorke before we brought in someone (logically sound). Again, if Fergie really wanted PDC that badly, we would've upped the offer that instant, but we obviously felt that for whatever reason (age, temperment etc), he wasn't worth as much as they were asking, irrespective of whether Yorke stayed or left.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Rationalised argument, dude

 

[Davo]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

The scope of what I said earlier was based on the presumption that the player himself didn't object to being transferred. In this we case we obviously made a decision at that time (pre Forlan) that we wanted to sell Yorke before we brought in someone (logically sound). Again, if Fergie really wanted PDC that badly, we would've upped the offer that instant, but we obviously felt that for whatever reason (age, temperment etc), he wasn't worth as much as they were asking, irrespective of whether Yorke stayed or left.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You're just rambling now..

You wanted PDC, the board prevented you from getting him....thats the reality of the matter..

Kenyon has said no more transfers, you're taking this as meaning you're about to buy a 15m striker??


I think you may be disappointed

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by Davo:
<strong>

You're just rambling now..

You wanted PDC, the board prevented you from getting him....thats the reality of the matter..

Kenyon has said no more transfers, you're taking this as meaning you're about to buy a 15m striker??

I think you may be disappointed</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not rambling. It was a well thought out response.

We were interested in PDC for a given price and West Ham wanted more money. Pure and Simple.

To use an analogy...

It's like negotiating for a used car. You go in with loads of cash and have several options in mind. You approach the owner of an older make/model and offer him an amount that you think is fair. The owner rejects the amount and makes a counteroffer for more. You weith the pros and cons of accepting the counter offer and decide that your interests would not be best suited by spending more on an older car, when you could easily invest your money in a more recent model (Forlan).

Because quite frankly it wouldn't have been good business for us to pay 5m for Di Canio when we ended up getting Forlan for a couple mil more, and he's going to be around for years whereas Di Canio isn't.

Do you not agree that this is sound business logic?

 

[Davo]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

I'm not rambling. It was a well thought out response.

We were interested in PDC for a given price and West Ham wanted more money. Pure and Simple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thats not what happened!

The fact that Yorke wouldn't go to Boro meant that Demento wasn't allowed to buy PDC..

As to whether that was due to cash, wages, squad size or whatever...who knows

It certainly disproves your earlier suggestion tho

 

[rz99]

Originally posted by Davo:
<strong>

Thats not what happened!

The fact that Yorke wouldn't go to Boro meant that Demento wasn't allowed to buy PDC..

As to whether that was due to cash, wages, squad size or whatever...who knows

It certainly disproves your earlier suggestion tho</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well the fact that the PLC insisted upon this shows that they do have good business sense (unlike other clubs). That's what this thread is questioning isn't it?

 

[gaz hacket]

Originally posted by R A Softlad:
<strong>...if you finish next season trophyless again:

1) Will Sir Unsackable lose that tag... and his job?
2) Will the PLC EVER sanction such high spending on one player again?</strong><hr></blockquote>

K`nnell your still alive soft bollocks

 

[Wibble]

I didn't hear the interview but the quotes I have read don't seem quite as definative as the headlines that they have produced.

If Kenyon is trying to lower fee expectations then it wouldn't be the first time someone connected to a footy club told a little less than the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So it wouldn't suprise me at all if we made further signings - particularly if disco finally goes to Blackburn.

A left back, and a striker (who could preferably back Giggs up as well) would be great. Having said that Kenyon might simply have said that Rio's transfer is it.

We shall see.

Whatever happens then I think that Fergie might step down if he has another trophyless season. Particularly if the right replacement is available. Whoever that might be.

 

[Davo]

Originally posted by rz99:
<strong>

Well the fact that the PLC insisted upon this shows that they do have good business sense (unlike other clubs). That's what this thread is questioning isn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't doubt the fact that you're well run, the shareholders no doubt insist on it..

But if Rio flops, are they going to be keen to allow another huge transfer? I was under the impression this is what the thread was about...

 

[redinoz]

Originally posted by Nigel Borrington:
[QB]

1) By Unsackable do you think he has ever come close to being sacked?

Yes, he was probably only one game from being sacked, and a vocal majority of your support wanted him gone as well.

 

[rz99]

Originally posted by Davo:
<strong>

I don't doubt the fact that you're well run, the shareholders no doubt insist on it..

But if Rio flops, are they going to be keen to allow another huge transfer? I was under the impression this is what the thread was about...</strong><hr></blockquote>


I was implying that big money tranfers in the future will depend on our financial capability not on whether Rio flops or not. And I think that even you'll admit that you don't see Rio being a failure. IF he doesn't do that well, I see us going out and buying a quality cb partner for him rather than refusing any more big-money transfers.

 

[Davo]

Originally posted by rz99:
<strong>


I was implying that big money tranfers in the future will depend on our financial capability not on whether Rio flops or not. And I think that even you'll admit that you don't see Rio being a failure. IF he doesn't do that well, I see us going out and buying a quality cb partner for him rather than refusing any more big-money transfers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not convinced Rio is the type of defender you need, but I'm sure he'll do ok at worst...

But if he does flop, your board are likely to raise questions as to why you're the only club spending 30 odd million a player, and yet these players aren't working out...

Its all speculation tho

 

[ManRyan]

Counterquestion : If David O'Leary got the sack after spending all those money and winning nothing significant, why hasn't the same thing happened to Houllier ? Poo hasn't won anything significant either...blablablaCUPtrophy...
Sorry mates, just being realistic...how many cup trophys would you trade for a league title ?

 

[dicko]

1) Fergie's job is unlikely to be in danger. I think he will retire before his current contract finishes.

2) The board will continue to sanction spending 30 million on players if they think it justified.

Having never sanctioned anything like 30 million on a player will Liverpool ever spend that on a player if required?

Houllier has bought many players for 5-10 million and one scouser on this forum named three sides of, supposedly, premiership ability. Will Houllier be sacked if he doesn't deliver success (such as a plastic treble or the reserves league). <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

 

[Waz]

Don`t really think there will be any more 30 million+ transfers any more.Those days are finished all clubs now bar Manchester United can`t afford it.

Also don`t think there are any players out here worth that amount(maybe ZZ).

Football is coming to an end as we know it.

 

[Bex]

Originally posted by Knoxy:
<strong>

He didn't want DiCanio last summer then?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

No. It was March this year.

 

[Bex]

Originally posted by Davo:
<strong>
But if Rio flops, are they going to be keen to allow another huge transfer? I was under the impression this is what the thread was about...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I find it highly unlikely that there will be a fee anywhere in the world this high anymore, with the possible exception of Real Madrid.

The arse has fallen out of the transfer market and fees are likely to drop still further in this country with the negotiation of the TV deal in a year's time. Worse case scenario is that the new deal will be worth only a third of what it is now to clubs in the Premiership - that's a hell of a drop in income for the likes of Villa, Spurs, Everton and West Ham. It's a blow to the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal. It'll be a fecking disaster for cITY and Chelsea.

Point is, the money won't be there to spend for most clubs. Man Utd WILL have it as the only club that a drop in TV income will barely affect - but they won't be held to ransom like thay have been by Leeds this time. For two reasons - firstly, there will be other targets availabel at lesser cost and secondly because clubs simply won't have the bottle to hold for so much and then see a deal collapse leading to them losing the player for nothing later on.

In other words - no, they will not sanction another £30m transfer fee. Whether Rio is a flop or not.

Transfer fees are likely to level out with the top end of the scale being circa £15m.