KopTalk

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
I'm not sure we had to sell or whether others have to. Just pointing out the situations were completely different.

I'm not trying to defend our transfer dealings as on the whole they're pretty poor. We've fecked up plenty of times, over paid plenty of times too and I now see the Metro reporting we're going to offer £23.5m for Berahino ffs!

But not all our failures are completely down to us and maybe these 'excuses' are just what happened?

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
With Kono, it was widely reported we met the clause, met the personal terms and the their chairman didn't sign it off as he wanted all the money up front. Even their general manager pretty much said the same in the press and iirc said that Kono was gutted it didn't go through. The only thing we fukked up there was not doing it sooner.

Not sure what happened with Costa but if you read the report in the op it gives an 'excuse' and a reason why Chelsea got him.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605
V
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
V Offline
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605
It's also strange that City happened to get their targets even before they became a big force. Could it be that they didn't dither around with wages and fees, but simply decided to get the deals done?

I'm leaning against this to be the case - at least in general.


Last edited by van Gogh; 29/12/14 09:13 AM.
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
The article clearly States many clubs have had this problem. Also a buy out clause forces the club to let the player speak to the club making the offer but i don't think you have to sell...not sure.

In the case of Costa, the agent that represents him, Jorge Mendes is the same agent that represents Mourinho...it stinks to high hell.

Something is definitely messed up in our transfer dealings, no denying it, but this TPO bull needs to be stopped.


Sign Reus
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
As soon as the Arabs took over, City had a [oops] load of money. Can't compare their dealings to ours even before they were winning things. And let's not forget, their first big signing thought he was signing for Chelsea!!

Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,813
Under 23 Player
Under 23 Player
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,813
Originally Posted By: wilkij1975
Originally Posted By: van Gogh
It's also strange that we suddenly had the money available for Markovic, but not for Mkhtaryan and Konoplyanka.

When we tried to sign those players we suddenly stopped bidding around the £ 22 M mark.

How come?

Did we rate Markovic higher than the other 2?


Champions league money has helped but with Miki we offered the same as Dortmund but he chose them and Kono was in the bag as we met his release clause. Their chairman then decided to be a nob and not sign the deal off. What more could we have done?


Dortmund clearly have someone in charge who knows what he's doing. We failed due to incompetency.

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Or just maybe he fancied playing in Germany?

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By: Ninja Skrtel
Originally Posted By: sixtiesred
But some use this for a reason / excuse for not getting the players we go yet use it in the opposite for suarez it can be both can it ?

Originally Posted By: wilkij1975
Originally Posted By: van Gogh
It's also strange that we suddenly had the money available for Markovic, but not for Mkhtaryan and Konoplyanka.

When we tried to sign those players we suddenly stopped bidding around the £ 22 M mark.

How come?

Did we rate Markovic higher than the other 2?


Champions league money has helped but with Miki we offered the same as Dortmund but he chose them and Kono was in the bag as we met his release clause. Their chairman then decided to be a nob and not sign the deal off. What more could we have done?



So explain how we had to except suarez sale once the buy out was met as stated by you and others yet with kono they don't ? There's always excuses on our failings can you not see it ?
If a buy out clause is met as you and a lot of others have said and (personal terms MONEY met) it has to happen is what you all have been saying with Suarez, yet here you say with Kono it don't ? You guys can't have it both ways! so which is correct ? All you in the know re transfers ? Personally I don't buy it I think we didn't offer the terms the player wanted or why didn't it go ahead after the release clause was met ?.
_________________________
He who dares wins !
. Actually it can. The way it works is "good business practice". We met Costa's release clause too but were never given the chance to speak to him. When a release clause is met it is standard practice to allow the player to speak to the club, however i don't believe it is a legal obligation to sell.

Like with a car dealer, you could agree that the car is worth 3grand...and you could offer 3grand...but he doesn't HAVE to sell. It is good business practice though and there isnt much you can do with a disgruntled player in your squad. We cheated Suarez' out of his release clause once, then we revised the contract...no point in forcing him to stay a 2nd time. He would have just sulked and taken us to the court of sport arbitration.



When the buy out clause is met it becomes the player's decision, the owner club has no say provided of course the clause is well written and doesn't need any interpretation. The buying club however cannot force the deal, the clause is between the player and the club owning him as it is an agreement signed by those 2 parties. In Suarez case the clause was not explicit enough in the first case, this was clarified when Suarez signed the new contract

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
There was a report stating we met all personal terms for Kono. Even their general manager was reported as saying so ffs! The payment terms were changed at the last minute by their chairman. Again this was widely reported. Get out more and stop watch 24. Not everything is a conspiracy!

And release clauses have nothing to do with personal terms. Vish said it's about the player and owning club agreeing to it and not being forced by the buying club. How is that about personal terms? Of course you can offer to double the players wages but if he still doesn't want to move what can you do?

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605
V
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
V Offline
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605
I don't believe for one second that we have offered the same salary as for example Chelsea and/or Man City. Never mind double.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  KopTalk Team 

Link Copied to Clipboard
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Advertisements
Liverpool FC Discussion