KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum I love klopp but

agree with that bit, I didn't see how sakho was a solution to the problem even if he played with either of our two new signing. therefore it would be interesting if klopp is telling the truth and our big frenchman does have a big future with the team.

but I beg to differ that sakho is no better than dejan, and will probably ruffle a few feathers because he's a fans favourite but lovren is a better header-er of a ball, tackling is about the same but lovren is quicker, I think he's shown that so far last season and the start of this.

The illusion is working... start thinking that its all Klopps fault when FSG are probably the ones shifting sakho out. Klopp will walk from this mark my words. Its all a load of BS.

Yeah we want you and we want you as part as our future plans but we're FORCING you out of the club on loan to stoke. If you dont your not gonna get game time. Now where have I seen this before....

"I dont want Mario Balotelli at Liverpool"

2 weeks later..... And didnt even try cover it up because he didnt want him which I agree with. This has to be FSG's transfer committee making a balls of this. How can it not? All the evidence points toward it. Its not a conspiracy anymore because even the manager is making no sense in what hes been forced into saying.

Your conspiracy theory is bullsh1t.

The committee signed sahko as our marquee signing. So I'm pretty sure they just back the man in charge.

Carroll was brought in by kenny. Bombed out by Rodgers
Benteke was brought in by Rodgers bombed out by klopp.
Sahko in by comitee or Rodgers. Bombed out again.

They're ruthless. They back the manager. Sahko is obviously being punished for taking substances missing a final screwing around in America. And god knows what else.

He's a decent defender. That's it. Being our best defender is hardly an endorsement. That's like being the best accountant at Portsmouth

Balotelli was brought into Liverpool when Rodgers didnt want him. He said it before he was signed and after he left the club. Theres your eveidence. WTF is with this BS, we think your good and have a future at Liverpool and although your 26 years old we think going to stoke on loan is best. Why dont they just sell him? Hes obviously not wanted. Sending him on loan is gonna do nothing for us. The only way it gets affected is the wage bill gets decreased.

Oh and before you mention Klopp been under different circumstances at Liverpool under FSG. Ill leave it with Steven Caulker. The CB brought in as cover. But never played CB. Even Lucas covered more at CB than him. The games he did play in and all 25 mins in total or whatever it was, he was playing as a forward. Klopp didnt want him and the fact he moved other players around instead of playing him proves it.

But he was cleared of any wrong doing wasn't he?

The whole farce is a fiasco, but hey ho, qwe are not privy to some stuff that's been going or not going on.
All just mere guessing, gossip, tittle tattle rumours and speculation.

The classic argument on here is that Rodgers was a puppet and greedy and should have walked away as soon the transfer committee started exerting too much power over the manager's decisions.

Klopp will have to walk in the next few days if Sakho does leave if you're argument is to be believed, otherwise he is a puppet as well?

Without further evidence I think it is best assuming that this is a Klopp decision, but I would be suspicious of FSG's involvement.

It's most likely that Klopp may see Sakho as a distraction if he is not fit to play.

It's interesting not everyone is behind the manager when it becomes a fan favourite vs manager debate.

Yeah I'm not buying these conspiracy theories. He fukked up with the drug ban thing and then fukked about on tour and was late etc. so he hardly seems the type we want around. Getting rid of £140k a week in Benteke would also suggest we don't need to save on wages. Add to that Skrtel as well.

Rodgers said he was given a choice of balotelli or eto'o

He decided balotelli was a calculated risk. Don't be so naive as to think a manager distanced themselves from a potential transfer option.

Steven caulker. I'm quite sure klopp had never heard of him. He maybe asked for cover in defence and got a decent CB on loan for half the season. He never used him because he never needed him.

Why would klopp commit to another 6 years of he wasn't happy with what was happening? If klopp leaves in a year or so and says the transfer strategy or whatever is the reason I'll admit I was wrong.

I just don't see why he stay if he wasn't happy. It's blatantly obvious that we are not as big a draw as a lot of other clubs any more. We don't make big signings. We don't pay big wages. Our stadium isn't new and shiny (a quarter is) and we aren't near London. Yet despite all this he has decided to stay with us when he could have quit any time he wanted and kept his Dortmund reputation in tact.

He's bought players he wanted. And got rid of players he doesn't want. Not one player who has left this year played more than a handful of games last year.

Sahko is behind Matip lovren klavan and probably Gomez and Lucas. Maybe because of talent. Maybe because he is a tool and is going down the Enrique route of being an Instagram warrior.

How is having a comitee of people different to taking recommendations from a scout?
Scout goes out and finds a player. He's further scouted. The committee sit down and says scout A has found a player. As has scout B C and D. We are discarding scout D's find as he is too old. Choose from scout A B and C.

That's how i see it. I may be wrong. I may be naive. I may be downright stupid. I've been called all of these and been all of them at one point.
I just feel that it's being made into more of an issue that it needs to be.

Because its happening again under a new manager. This is Klopps 1st transfer market with us (proper transfer market). He signed that 6 year deal towards the end of June/ start of July. The fact that Lucas, a midfielder who never played CB, was been played ahead of a CB who was brought in for cover shows he didnt want Caulker. Its like getting Gareth Barry on loan as cover for henderson and wijnaldum, then when the 2 of them get injured, play Sturridge/ origi in that place instead.

People are giving Lovren way too much credit for what he deserves. He had a good 6 months last season and thats it for his Liverpool career. This season hes turned his back on shots and hasnt put in challenges for tackles which resulted in us conceding goals against Burnely and Arsenal. Its this about attitude or performances on the pitch?

As ive said previously, the fact he says he has a future at Liverpool but hes sending him on loan doesnt add up because he contradicts himself. We've been a massive failure under FSG with a transfer committee so why not scrap it? It hasnt been working and we've wasted millions.

Yeah he was cleared but he'd definitely taken something which if not sanctioned by the club is a little stupid in itself.

You're right though, we're all guessing as to what's going on.