Daniel Agger

[Shanks]

Really hoping we can keep him and maybe sell off some of the other dross if things are that tight..

Given the amount of games we are going to have to play next season with the Europa Cup, CC, FA etc, we're going to need a decent squad..

Offloading Bellamy, Kuyt and Maxi means we dont have that strength in depth anymore..

[DannyMan2006]

I don't think you get cup tied from Europe for playing in these rounds.

I am not an ITK and will not pretend to be so but I do know someone who works within the club at a level which sees him speak with a lot of senior staff at training. He told us Tuesday that he spoke to Mike Marsh who told him Allen was a done deal and Agger was staying.

Whether MM would be privy to this as fact is another thing but I thought I'd pass it on here.

You get cup tied from the CL group games. Would be available for the knockout stages if they qualified.

That said, I think he'll stay if he signs a new deal at reasonable terms. I'm happy if he stays as he's class. I could see the value in selling him as £25m for an injury prone CB with two years on his deal is good value.

But if Agger wants to stay, and the manager wants him to stay - then it would be crazy to sell him at any price. Quality players that are happy at the club should not be moved on. Ever.

[Doc_antonio]

Euro League and Champs League are treated as 2 different Cup's you can play in one cup with a team and the other cup with another team, Torres did it when he left us. He isn't cup tied.

[dww]

Euro League and Champs League are treated as 2 different Cup's you can play in one cup with a team and the other cup with another team, Torres did it when he left us. He isn't cup tied.

Here's a good summary of the full rules:

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/263283-explained-eligibility-of-cup-tied-players-in-uefa-competitions/

Explained: eligibility of 'cup-tied' players in UEFA competitions
By Grant Russell 22 July 2011 13:12 BST

UEFA rules allow for players to compete with two clubs in any given season, based on the performance of their old side.

With Champions League and Europa League qualifying games starting at a time that most managers are still putting together their squads, many clubs will be poring over UEFA’s rule books to see if their transfer targets will be free to play in European competition.

Worried supporters have watched on as names linked with a move to their side have played in European competition, potentially ruling the target out of playing in Europe for them or, worse, a deal collapsing as a result.

However, UEFA regulations however can clear a player to play for two clubs in Europe in any given season, based upon an exception which applies to participation in the qualifying rounds.

Rule 18.07 states that if a player features in the first, second or third qualifying rounds of either the Champions League or Europa League, he can play for another club in either competition from the group stages onwards, provided his former employers do not reach the group stages themselves.

If a player is involved in any of the aforementioned qualifying rounds for a side which then goes on to play in the group stages of either UEFA competition, he is not eligible to play for another club in Europe in that season.

There is a common misconception regarding rule 18.19, which states that from the knockout stages, a player cannot be registered to play for another club if he has already played in the same competition that season, or if his previous side remain in that competition.

However, this rule does not mean that a player would be able to play in the group stages for his new club, and then find suddenly himself ineligible to play in the knockout stages.

Provided a player’s former side were eliminated prior to the group stages, and the player was then registered to play in the groups of either competition for his new club, he is free to continue playing in the knockout rounds of either the Champions League or Europa League.

Current example

Player A features for Club A in a Europa League second qualifying round tie. Player A has been linked with a possible move to Club B, who are participating in the qualifying stages of the Champions League.

If Player A is subequently sold to Club B, he would not be able to play in the qualifying rounds of either the Champions League or Europa League.

However, provided Club A do not reach the group stages of the Europa League, Player A could be registered to play for Club B in the group stage of the Champions League or Europa League, as per rule 18.07 of the regulations of the two competitions for 2011/12.

Under the same set of circumstances, Player A would also be free to play in the knockout stages of either the Champions League or Europa League, provided he had previously been registered for the group stages with Club B.

If Club A were to reach the group stages of the Europa League, Player A would not be able to play for Club B in European competition in the 2011/12 season.

Past example

Rangers faced similar circumstances when they signed Nikica Jelavic from Rapid Vienna at the start of the 2010/11 season, with the striker having turned out for the Austrians in the Europa League qualifying rounds.

However, as Rapid went on to qualify for the group stages of the Europa League, Jelavic became ineligible for the group stages of the Champions League.

Jelavic would have been clear to play in the knockout rounds of the Champions League but, as Rangers dropped into the Europa League, he was unable to play for the same reason.

[Yozza]

Here's a good summary of the full rules

Since when did Est become a place of rules & facts?

Be off with you...

[dom9]

Every time we start looking good we do something really stupid that sets us back. If we sell either Agger or Skrtel I will lose all faith in the owners.
The risk of selling does not outweigh the financial benefit. Stinks of off field issues.

We have not looked good for at least a coupe of season though.

[dom9]

Quite clearly any rumour that the owners are specifically forcing the sale of Agger is utter bull****, and possibly quite malicious into the bargain. That they've told Rodgers there are limited funds and he will have to sell to raise more is pretty much the same thing most owners tell most managers. Hence why we were trying to flog Carroll a few weeks back. Obviously though the clubs with the big money are only actually interested in our good players, thus the issue with Agger.

So if Rodgers wants to spend more, he has to generate some funds. If he chooses to do that by selling Agger that is his decision, and not forced by the owners nefarious hatred of all things Danish, but by financial reality and the manager's desire to overall improve the squad. Surely it is that simple?

It really is not that hard to understand.

It looks to me that the priority is to generate income in order to reinvest. Who in the squad can generate the most value, versus needing to retain them?

If you say that Suarez, Lucas and Reina need to be retained at all costs, have a look at other areas where income can be maximised. Tried it with Carroll, no takers for the fee asked for. Next down the line is Agger. So far no takers for the fee asked for. Next will be Skrtel imo.

Selling Adam, Downing, Cole et al is desirable, but it won't buy you a good player in return for the fee.

[Shaggy]

This is bang ****ing on

Is it owner and out for Daniel Agger?

by Gareth Roberts // 10 August 2012 // 19 Comments

“It might be one of those situations where it’s not in Daniel’s hands, and it’s up to the owners at the end of the day.

“The manager has gone on record and said that every player has got his price, so we’ll have to wait and see, but of course if you ask me I want him to stay. I want all our best players to stay.”

IF Daniel Agger is sold, it could be the vanishing point; the point where the lines of economics and football blur, converge and disappear into the sunset.

The ‘every player has his price’ line from Brendan Rodgers may well be true – but it’s not what fans want to hear. Especially when the player in question is a key one like Agger.

OK, he’s 27. Yes, he’s only made 119 appearances in seven years in the league. But regardless, he’s Liverpool’s most accomplished centre half, and one of the best in Europe as his performances at the Euros underlined.

Agger’s not just another defender. He’s a left-footed playmaker – a Rolls Royce of a defender and the type that aren’t readily available. That’s the reason Manchester City have offered what they have offered. He’s an influential proven Premier League performer. He provides balance in the Liverpool defence and his presence lifts the performances of players around him – especially Martin Skrtel. When those two are in tandem at the centre of defence, the back four looks settled and confident. That’s a base to build things on – why undermine it?

Also, despite being labelled a crock, it was only the 2007/8 season when Agger’s appearances in a season for club and country have dipped below 30. Then he managed just eight through injury. Last season it was 39, the season before 42, 32 in 08/09 and 49 in 06/07. The last two seasons Agger has played more games than Steven Gerrard. Would the club consider selling the skipper if the right offer came along?

If Liverpool take the cash – and the ecomomic model Fenway seem to be following certainly suggests they will - will Brendan Rodgers end up with an adequate replacement of the same standard? And if that player exists why haven’t City bought him?

Or will it be another young player – a player liable to make mistakes, a player that might grow into the role eventually but isn’t ready for the here and now?

Any player will need time to settle and time to build an understanding with the players around them. Frankly, with the first Premier League match a week away, Liverpool don’t have that time. The Moneyball/Soccernomics/Lyon approach makes a lot of sense but following the model so rigidly that it allows one of your best players to leave the club in his prime when the team is in transition doesn’t. The key is to have a younger back-up knocking at the door when the time comes to sell your top player.

The back ups already on the books just don’t pull the strings like Agger does. The jury is still out on Sebastian Coates (21), Martin Kelly (22) is a prospect but inexperienced at centre half at the top level and Jamie Carragher (34) is at the wrong end of his career and with an entirely different style to Agger.

Selling Agger just seems like creating another problem for a new manager who already has plenty on his plate. Liverpool need less problems, not more.

Tellingly, the manager has said he wants to him stay. The player wants to stay. Yet Gerrard – with the quote above – is hinting that it is the boardroom that want to sell up if the price tag is met. Is £25-£27m THAT much? Cynics would say it’s just enough to cover the fees for Fabio Borini and Joe Allen…

And once that cheque is banked, won’t Liverpool suffer from the same age-old problem that has plagued them through the eras: clubs will know there’s money to be spent and a squad to be improved and prices will be ramped up accordingly when Liverpool come knocking.

It could be a false economy. Agger seems a perfect fit for what Rodgers is trying to do with the side and Liverpool have made the mistake many times in the past of opting for numbers in the squad rather than quality on the pitch. Yes, that fee for Agger could bring in two or three players. But how good will they be from the get go? How influential will they be by the end of the month?

There’s also the PR aspect. What message will selling Agger send out? That an economic model is triumphing over football sense? That Liverpool’s players are ripe for the picking? That the club can no longer bat away offers from modern football’s ‘big boys’?

In this instance, football should triumph over economics.

http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2012/08/is-it-owner-and-out-for-daniel-agger/

[dom9]

It's missing the point Shaggy. Completely.

[Lee]

This is bang ****ing on



http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2012/0...-daniel-agger/

Word for word.

[souliv]

It's missing the point Shaggy. Completely.

I am afraid it is not Dom, it is bang on the owners should not be forcing the sale of our star players and in fact should not be getting involved in any football related matters, the owners are the ones responsible for the sacking of 2 managers so the transfer budget should not suffer because of their decisions if there is a shortfall they should cover it not force the sale of players.

[Shaggy]

I don't get what point it's supposed to be missing. It addresses the purported reason for considering selling him and in my eyes it makes a mockery of it. We should not sell Daniel Agger, it's that simple for me. Rodgers wants to keep him, Agger wants to stay. So keep him.

[Alex]

Rodgers also wants to buy other players and build his team. What if he cant do that without selling first?

[Lee]

Exactly. We've a really strong defence so why change it?

Without meaning to sound all Championship Manager (or whatever it is), are you telling me that we can't raise £20m-odd by selling Downing, Adam and Spearing? You would hardly notice them three gone.

But to sell one of your best players - one who should be integral to the team - not having it.

[Shaggy]

No one will ever convince me that selling your best players for £25m, £30m or whatever is the way forward.

A bit different I know cos he wanted to leave, but flogging Xabi for £30m went well didn't it.