Michael Laudrup talks about Liverpool FC

[Darkon]

It must go deeper than that. Why on earth would you be aggrevated by the world's best side offering you a longer deal than one on the table?

Because we offered him a deal that was 1 year longer but for the same amount of total money as the former deal.

The first deal offered (amount purely for illustration)

6m total over 3 years = 2m a year

second deal after coming back:

6m total over 4 years = 1.5m a year.

[Scratch]

Because we offered him a deal that was 1 year longer but for the same amount of total money as the former deal.

The first deal offered (amount purely for illustration)

6m total over 3 years = 2m a year

second deal after coming back:

6m total over 4 years = 1.5m a year.

Could also be because contracts were more binding back then, the power was with the club, not the player...no renegotiations, no Bosmans, none of that ****e...you had a four year contract, you played 4 years unless the club decided otherwise.

[Carras_Shin_Pads]

...cringe... good interview though

[Darkon]

Could also be because contracts were more binding back then, the power was with the club, not the player...no renegotiations, no Bosmans, none of that ****e...you had a four year contract, you played 4 years unless the club decided otherwise.

That def. played some element to it as well I think. I remember from earlier interviews with Laudrup besides the trust, he was quite upset that his wages was effectively lowered by the liverpool negotiators putting on an extra year without offering the extra money.

[rudedog]

Got to be one of the biggest transfer blunders we've ever made. Way bigger than signing Diouf...

It certainly ranks up there with missing out on Keane (Roy), Cantona, and Essien.

The blunderous signing of Diouf was magnified tenfold by the fact that it was at the expense of not signing Anelka on a permanent deal

[Darkon]

It certainly ranks up there with missing out on Keane (Roy), Cantona, and Essien.

The blunderous signing of Diouf was magnified tenfold by the fact that it was at the expense of not signing Anelka on a permanent deal

and add christiano ronaldo to the blunders list as well!

[Norbs]

Because we offered him a deal that was 1 year longer but for the same amount of total money as the former deal.

The first deal offered (amount purely for illustration)

6m total over 3 years = 2m a year

second deal after coming back:

6m total over 4 years = 1.5m a year.

Criminal if correct. I just presumed we wanted 4 years at 2m a year after agreeing 3 years at 2m a year.

Is he Basshunter's dad?