Daniel Agger

[tsb]

I thought the Moneyball view was to benefit (in a sporting sense more than an economic one) from players undervalued by the market. Agger was a sub £10m purchase and is now one of the best around. Surely the model isnt that ****ed that we are willing to sell a player in his prime who wants to stay and who our manager wants to stay? We're a football club ffs not some wannabe eBay salesman buying **** from a car boot sale and flogging it online.

I hope this is all a smokescreen to make it look like we are broke and therefore benefit when looking to purchase other players.

[red g]

Shifting Cole, Downing,Adam and Spearing would save some serious wages even if we did have to subsidise some.

I expect we are trying to sell all 4 of them.....but who wants them?

[Rich]

Cole, Adam and Spearing are probably available. I think Rodgers quite fancies Downing.

[Fredo]

I was always dubious of the owners and if Agger is sold it will only reinforce my view. We should spend our way to success. The commercial side of our operations should ensure there is cash coming in, not the other way round.

[tsb]

Cole, Adam and Spearing are probably available. I think Rodgers quite fancies Downing.

Looked good yesterday and should be given another shot. Let's face it, he can't have another season like the last one can he.

[dom9]

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.

It doesn't address the point that cash needs to be generated to improve the greater squad, so they (owners / manager, who actually knows) have to identify the players that can be sold in order to do that.

The article argues that to sell Agger, you have to replace him with a like for like player for a lesser price. At no point does it recognise that the money could be used to strengthen the squad in other areas to make it better overall. They (owners / manager, who actually knows) obviously (to me) feel that we are well stocked in central defence, and a direct replacement is not required at this time.

You don't have to agree with it, and I'm not saying I do. I am just saying that at no point do be people seem to be realising or understanding that this is the strategy.

[Gray]

I actually think selling Cole and Adam strengthens the squad.

[baitman]

I actually think selling Cole and Adam strengthens the squad.

even without buying someone else.

[Mello]

I actually think selling Cole and Adam strengthens the squad.

Cole is impossible to sell. On his current contract we would have to pay any other team to take him.

[Shaggy]

It doesn't address the point that cash needs to be generated to improve the greater squad, so they (owners / manager, who actually knows) have to identify the players that can be sold in order to do that.

The article argues that to sell Agger, you have to replace him with a like for like player for a lesser price. At no point does it recognise that the money could be used to strengthen the squad in other areas to make it better overall. They (owners / manager, who actually knows) obviously (to me) feel that we are well stocked in central defence, and a direct replacement is not required at this time.

You don't have to agree with it, and I'm not saying I do. I am just saying that at no point do be people seem to be realising or understanding that this is the strategy.

Completely disagree. If we sell Agger we will *clearly* need another CB.

[dom9]

I actually think selling Cole and Adam strengthens the squad.

even without buying someone else.

I think we all agree that they don't add enough value to the current squad.

But, if you need to generate income from sales (which it looks like we do), concentrating on shifting them through elongated negotiations with clubs and agents is not necessarily the best use of time right now.

If you need cash now, to get the targets you have already identified (and perhaps already opened negotiations with), then they are almost a waste of time at this juncture. Shift them to Aston Villa on deadline day as a bonus.

[dom9]

Completely disagree. If we sell Agger we will *clearly* need another CB.

That's fine.

Nobody agrees with it. But you do understand why it is happening, right?

Let's put it another way.

We need to generate a theoretical £25m so that we can improve the squad overall. Who would you sell, for how much, and how realistic are those transactions?

[Shaggy]

That's fine.

Nobody agrees with it. But you do understand why it is happening, right?

Let's put it another way.

We need to generate a therotical £25m so that we can improve the squad overall. Who would you sell, for how much, and how realistic are those transactions?

Course I understand it - it's not exactly rocket science - but I fundamentally disagree with it.

If we *must* sell to raise funds, I would much rather sell:

Downing for £10m (Sunderland, Villa)
Adam: £7m
Spearing: £3m

There's twenty million quid and none of those prices are unrealistic at all.

If you sell Agger, one of our best players, it significantly weakens not only the squad but the first team - and the squad then needs a damn sight more strengthening (the so-called reason for the sale) than it required in the first place. False economy.

[dom9]

Course I understand it - it's not exactly rocket science - but I fundamentally disagree with it.

If we *must* sell to raise funds, I would much rather sell:

Downing for £10m (Sunderland, Villa)
Adam: £7m
Spearing: £3m

There's twenty million quid and none of those prices are unrealistic at all.

If you sell Agger, one of our best players, it significantly weakens not only the squad but the first team - and the squad then needs a damn sight more strengthening (the so-called reason for the sale) than it required in the first place. False economy.

So the next question is, who in their right minds would buy those 3 for those prices? You say Sunderland and Villa. I can't see it. If there was a possibility, I'm positive it would already be happening. Particularly with Adam.

We are stuck with the legacy of what went before. Everybody wants the owners to spend £20m or more of their own cash. That is simply not going to happen. Does that make them bad owners? That depends on your point of view.

[Gray]

I'd accept £4m for Adam but its the right way forward