Glen Johnson

[red g]

He's been poor for most of the season. Only Glen knows if that was because of injury or because he lost focus due to his contract situation. Hope we can convince him to stay though because a fit and motivated Glenjo is IMO the best right back in the division. For most of this season, however, he's not even been the best right back at the club.

No way he'll take a cut in wages IMO.

I would rather take a gamble on getting Johnson back to his best specially as we have bought some horrendous full backs over the last few years!!

[Fredo]

You can't reduce someone's wage, unless the company (in this case the club) are in financial trouble etc ... Surely, Johnson's wage, of all people, should not be reduced - as he's a high performer.

[Kenneth]

He's a lower performer than he used to be. You can reduce a wage when a fixed term contract ends.

[Fierce]

We won't be able to buy a player as good as him for the same amount of money that we'd get from selling him

That's it. Surely?

[Shaggy]

You can't reduce someone's wage, unless the company (in this case the club) are in financial trouble etc ... Surely, Johnson's wage, of all people, should not be reduced - as he's a high performer.

You can reduce someone's wage on a new contract.

[RedReet]

You say core of the squad but he's only played half the games this season, our best in years. We can cope without him, replacing him would cost more in the short term but should leave us in a better position in a few years time; a 32 year old RB on 100k a week is not going to be ideal, will he ever be available to play? I don't feel strongly either way but I would rather twist than stick if the right alternatives are identified.

He's played 21 times out of 30 and in the 9 he didn't play we lost 2 and drew 2, so our results in our best season in years have been much better with him than without.

That’s not to say he’s directly responsible for the results, but to imply that we’ve had our best season in years because he only played half the games is clearly wrong (although the obvious reply will be ‘I didn’t imply anything’).

[Fredo]

You can reduce someone's wage on a new contract.

Yeah on a new contract, for that the player would have to agree to it and I'd understand Johnson if he refused to take a cut. He's in a strong bargaining position, not the club (unless we can replace him)!

[Kenneth]

We won't be able to buy a player as good as him for the same amount of money that we'd get from selling him

That's it. Surely?

Not really. He's 29, which isn't old, but in three years time will he be fit and able against the best the CL has to offer? If we let him go, invest in a good younger player then in three years time we are talking about contract renewals rather than a purchase.

[red g]

You say core of the squad but he's only played half the games this season, our best in years. We can cope without him, replacing him would cost more in the short term but should leave us in a better position in a few years time; a 32 year old RB on 100k a week is not going to be ideal, will he ever be available to play? I don't feel strongly either way but I would rather twist than stick if the right alternatives are identified.

Brendan Rodgers has only signed 4 defenders for us in nearly 2 years

Kolo Toure
Aly Cissokho
Tiago Ilori
Mamadou Sakho

the only one to make a positive impact on the playing field is Sakho, iLori is for the future so jury out.

But Cissokho has been garbage, He was on loan granted but we didnt buy him thinking he would be this poor.

I am not a big fan of Enrique and would much prefer we identified a LB and I dont think we should look at bringing in 2 new first team full backs, Specially when there are still question marks over Skrtel/Agger to.

[Shaggy]

We will be going after a left back in the summer because we need one. We don't need a right back so with that in mind it's unlikely we'll be after one.

[Kenneth]

He signed two freebies, I don't think you can use them to suggest Brendan can't buy defenders if he's given CL money etc to invest. In fact Sakho is the only real measure, and he looks ace.

[PTP]

close thread

[captainfog]

We will be going after a left back in the summer because we need one. We don't need a right back so with that in mind it's unlikely we'll be after one.

If Glenjo refused to agree to the terms offered in a new contract what do the club do? Do they let him go on a free next summer or try and sell him now? No guarantee he'll be able to find a club willing to match his current wages though in which case he may elect to run his contract down regardless of the clubs stance.

[baitman]

“No contracts will be looked at until the summer but his will be a priority for us, especially if he continues in the form that he’s in.”

“It just means you just have to sit, debate and discuss what’s best for the club and the player,”

“The beauty of this is we want to keep Glen and Glen loves it here. We just need to find a solution which is good for both"

“If we can do that then the club will have a very good player for years to come"

“That’s something that will be for the summer. The players can do themselves no harm by continuing to play in the form they are in. The club will then take a close look at it.”



brendans comments might just be to give glenn a gee-up and encourage the best out of him for the remainder of the season with the carrot of a new contract as extra incentive.
the contract will only be discussed at the end of the season. there is no guarantee that we will be offering glenn what he wants, so it may be then that glenn decides to go, or stay if he is happy with the offer.

[Zapater]

I definitely think we should be keeping him. He's a very good player, who plays in a position where there are not a premium of top players. People keep saying he's old, but 29 isn't really. He easily has 4 years left in him. I accept his wages may be high, but it's not really our job as fans to be concerned about that. Furthermore, his mystery replacement may have similar wages and a transfer fee involved. As others have stated, there's nothing to confirm they will be a success. It's funny, this notion of 'age', it seems every year players are becoming geriatric earlier and earlier. I swear, at this rate in 10 years people will be saying 26 year olds are ancient and we shouldn't be offering new contracts.

For me, it saves a lot of effort, squad disruption and potential issues to keep him. I'd be very surprised if we could get an upgrade (or even equivalent) which would be a money saving issue. Johnson's position isn't a problem one, so I see no reason to create a problem there by getting rid of him prematurely.