Daniel Agger

[kris90210]

Who says they didn't?

Who says they did? Actions speak louder than words

[Tee]

The only reason that the City owners went for them - a medium-sized club with zero global presence - is that they already had a new stadium.

I'm convinced our lot will do the minimum, like extend Anfield, after which we'll be a much more attractive proposition to potential buyers. Then they'll cash in

I hope it is not too late by then. Personally I think they are in deeper than they ever thought and will accept an offer as long as they recoup their money and a small return. They are decent people who do have the clubs interests at heart but are just not in a position to fulfill their promises.

[MrMichael]

There are potentially huge investors around the world. We are still a big attraction and I see absolutely no reason why we cannot have owners to compete with the likes of Chelsea, City and PSG.

Really?

Not having a go at you mate, but that quote for me exemplifies how modern football pretty much is just ****ed. When the only blueprint possible for success is to be taken over by someone who simply doesn't care about blowing the GDP of some small countries then the game really is in massive trouble.

There really aren't that many "investors" in the world who are prepared to spend the amounts of money that PSG, City and Chelsea are for little tangible financial return. And why us? Why not Everton? Or any one of a hundred other clubs? And what if it does happen then you turn into Malaga?

LFC fans are really going to have to get their heads around the reality of the current football world; and that unless something changes, along with most teams, we are going to have to live within our means. Complaining all the time about what we had before or what others are able to do is just going to make the whole football supporting thing an extremely unhappy experience.

[Tee]

You speak alot of sense as usual MrM. I am desperate for us to be in a poistion to regularly compete and win the league title. And right now we seem to be heading in the opposite direction, at an alarming pace.

We have always lived within our means (aside from G&H) haven't we? I am talking about a clear strategy by an investor/owner to build a winning team relatively quickly (as City and Chelsea did) whilst building the new stadium.

A consistently successful Liverpool team has the potential to be the biggest club in the world commercially. Is that not a major attraction? I know the investment needed would be huge, but the clubs value would also increase accordingly.

[red g]

You speak alot of sense as usual MrM. I am desperate for us to be in a poistion to regularly compete and win the league title. And right now we seem to be heading in the opposite direction, at an alarming pace.
We have always lived within our means (aside from G&H) haven't we? I am talking about a clear strategy by an investor/owner to build a winning team relatively quickly (as City and Chelsea did) whilst building the new stadium.

A consistently successful Liverpool team has the potential to be the biggest club in the world commercially. Is that not a major attraction? I know the investment needed would be huge, but the clubs value would also increase accordingly.

This bit I do not see, maybe i am just an Optimist

[Mattshark]

You speak alot of sense as usual MrM. I am desperate for us to be in a poistion to regularly compete and win the league title. And right now we seem to be heading in the opposite direction, at an alarming pace.

We have always lived within our means (aside from G&H) haven't we? I am talking about a clear strategy by an investor/owner to build a winning team relatively quickly (as City and Chelsea did) whilst building the new stadium.

A consistently successful Liverpool team has the potential to be the biggest club in the world commercially. Is that not a major attraction? I know the investment needed would be huge, but the clubs value would also increase accordingly.

I think that our lack of forward progression has not been down to FSG, sadly a lot of it has been down to the management as has our ability to challenge for the title, the only time we have been screwed over by owners is under H&G. Aside from that it has been down to a failure of the manager to bring in the right players/use the right tactics.

[MrMichael]

You speak alot of sense as usual MrM. I am desperate for us to be in a poistion to regularly compete and win the league title. And right now we seem to be heading in the opposite direction, at an alarming pace.

We have always lived within our means (aside from G&H) haven't we? I am talking about a clear strategy by an investor/owner to build a winning team relatively quickly (as City and Chelsea did) whilst building the new stadium.

A consistently successful Liverpool team has the potential to be the biggest club in the world commercially. Is that not a major attraction? I know the investment needed would be huge, but the clubs value would also increase accordingly.

We're taking this thread off at a serious tangent... but anyway, I think we all want us to be in that position, the issue is how to get there.

What you're talking about is someone coming in who has a billion pounds to spend. You use the word "invest", but do you think the money Roman has put into Chelsea he could ever recoup? Or the guys at City? Neither of them has built a stadium either? The word "investment" is a total red herring, it seems to me like there are 3 sorts of takeover these days.

1) The leveraged buyout or other sort of financial calamity, with chiefs like H&G out to make a quick buck and dumping the club in a worse state than it was before. We've had that, and we don't want to go back.
2) What we've got now, few debts, sensible owners who want us to be sustainable, not pay ridiculous wages for players who aren't performing, bring through youth, and still spend where we can in the transfer market. I make it around £55m net (here it is relevant) that FSG have spent on transfers in 18 months, most clubs would kill for that.
3) The wealthy billionaire plaything, only available to a very limited number.

Now if the third were so easy to get, wouldn't all clubs have one? In a way we're lucky we're now in the second group rather than the first, for every Chelsea there's a Leeds, Portsmouth or Rangers and we really could have been there too. There is no reason a club in our position can't go on to be extremely successful. Yes it might be more difficult, and require a substantially different model from the "buy the title" plan, but the biggest team with the highest paid players doesn't always win in sport. Our job as fans at the moment, imo, is to adjust our expectations accordingly and appreciate where we're really at and what really needs to be done to compete until or unless this mythical magnanimous Chinese Zillionaire takes over

[ashey]

We're taking this thread off at a serious tangent... but anyway, I think we all want us to be in that position, the issue is how to get there.

What you're talking about is someone coming in who has a billion pounds to spend. You use the word "invest", but do you think the money Roman has put into Chelsea he could ever recoup? Or the guys at City? Neither of them has built a stadium either? The word "investment" is a total red herring, it seems to me like there are 3 sorts of takeover these days.

1) The leveraged buyout or other sort of financial calamity, with chiefs like H&G out to make a quick buck and dumping the club in a worse state than it was before. We've had that, and we don't want to go back.
2) What we've got now, few debts, sensible owners who want us to be sustainable, not pay ridiculous wages for players who aren't performing, bring through youth, and still spend where we can in the transfer market. I make it around £55m net (here it is relevant) that FSG have spent on transfers in 18 months, most clubs would kill for that.
3) The wealthy billionaire plaything, only available to a very limited number.

Now if the third were so easy to get, wouldn't all clubs have one? In a way we're lucky we're now in the second group rather than the first, for every Chelsea there's a Leeds, Portsmouth or Rangers and we really could have been there too. There is no reason a club in our position can't go on to be extremely successful. Yes it might be more difficult, and require a substantially different model from the "buy the title" plan, but the biggest team with the highest paid players doesn't always win in sport. Our job as fans at the moment, imo, is to adjust our expectations accordingly and appreciate where we're really at and what really needs to be done to compete until or unless this mythical magnanimous Chinese Zillionaire takes over

Spot on for me that.

[Tee]

We're taking this thread off at a serious tangent... but anyway, I think we all want us to be in that position, the issue is how to get there.

What you're talking about is someone coming in who has a billion pounds to spend. You use the word "invest", but do you think the money Roman has put into Chelsea he could ever recoup? Or the guys at City? Neither of them has built a stadium either? The word "investment" is a total red herring, it seems to me like there are 3 sorts of takeover these days.

1) The leveraged buyout or other sort of financial calamity, with chiefs like H&G out to make a quick buck and dumping the club in a worse state than it was before. We've had that, and we don't want to go back.
2) What we've got now, few debts, sensible owners who want us to be sustainable, not pay ridiculous wages for players who aren't performing, bring through youth, and still spend where we can in the transfer market. I make it around £55m net (here it is relevant) that FSG have spent on transfers in 18 months, most clubs would kill for that.
3) The wealthy billionaire plaything, only available to a very limited number.

Now if the third were so easy to get, wouldn't all clubs have one? In a way we're lucky we're now in the second group rather than the first, for every Chelsea there's a Leeds, Portsmouth or Rangers and we really could have been there too. There is no reason a club in our position can't go on to be extremely successful. Yes it might be more difficult, and require a substantially different model from the "buy the title" plan, but the biggest team with the highest paid players doesn't always win in sport. Our job as fans at the moment, imo, is to adjust our expectations accordingly and appreciate where we're really at and what really needs to be done to compete until or unless this mythical magnanimous Chinese Zillionaire takes over

Need a little patience....

[dww]

to Mr M

Also, the Malaga experience seems to be showing that all mega-rich billionaires are not good club owners.

[Yozza]

We're taking this thread off at a serious tangent... but anyway, I think we all want us to be in that position, the issue is how to get there.

What you're talking about is someone coming in who has a billion pounds to spend. You use the word "invest", but do you think the money Roman has put into Chelsea he could ever recoup? Or the guys at City? Neither of them has built a stadium either? The word "investment" is a total red herring, it seems to me like there are 3 sorts of takeover these days.

1) The leveraged buyout or other sort of financial calamity, with chiefs like H&G out to make a quick buck and dumping the club in a worse state than it was before. We've had that, and we don't want to go back.
2) What we've got now, few debts, sensible owners who want us to be sustainable, not pay ridiculous wages for players who aren't performing, bring through youth, and still spend where we can in the transfer market. I make it around £55m net (here it is relevant) that FSG have spent on transfers in 18 months, most clubs would kill for that.
3) The wealthy billionaire plaything, only available to a very limited number.

Now if the third were so easy to get, wouldn't all clubs have one? In a way we're lucky we're now in the second group rather than the first, for every Chelsea there's a Leeds, Portsmouth or Rangers and we really could have been there too. There is no reason a club in our position can't go on to be extremely successful. Yes it might be more difficult, and require a substantially different model from the "buy the title" plan, but the biggest team with the highest paid players doesn't always win in sport. Our job as fans at the moment, imo, is to adjust our expectations accordingly and appreciate where we're really at and what really needs to be done to compete until or unless this mythical magnanimous Chinese Zillionaire takes over

Good work.

[el matador]

back to daniel agger.

im not saying we should definitely let him go but up until last season he's only played 20 games a season and was very unreliable. On his day there's none better but its the amount of games he misses due to injury that makes agger someone you cant count on for a full season.

25m for daniel agger is a good deal for us because he could break down at any time. Which you can say for most players but daniel's has more than his fair share of injuries.

However, if the club want to make a statement of intent then keep him and give him a new contract.

Of the two I would prefer to lose skrtel because he's an old fashioned stopper who can play a bit but is prone to being ruffled by quick aggressive forwards. but agger is on a different level.

[Phoenix07]

How has this thread managed to derail itself into a takeover thread instead of a Rafa thread? Come on folks, you know the drill. £6m was an absolute steal for him.

£25m would be very difficult to turn down, but I can't see any offers like that, the same for Skrtel. Offer him a new contract and tell him he's one of the key men in the team and it'd be much appreciated if he could help the younger centre-backs coming through the ranks.

[el matador]

How has this thread managed to derail itself into a takeover thread instead of a Rafa thread? Come on folks, you know the drill. £6m was an absolute steal for him.

£25m would be very difficult to turn down, but I can't see any offers like that, the same for Skrtel. Offer him a new contract and tell him he's one of the key men in the team and it'd be much appreciated if he could help the younger centre-backs coming through the ranks.

when begeristin left barca the crap negotiations left with him. that guy spunked so much money on piss poor signings its untrue. Barca paid top dollar for rubbish players so you might be right phoenix.

city bid 16m for agger when they paid 24 for lescott. shows exactly what people think of us.

[RichC]

back to daniel agger.

im not saying we should definitely let him go but up until last season he's only played 20 games a season and was very unreliable. On his day there's none better but its the amount of games he misses due to injury that makes agger someone you cant count on for a full season.

25m for daniel agger is a good deal for us because he could break down at any time. Which you can say for most players but daniel's has more than his fair share of injuries.

However, if the club want to make a statement of intent then keep him and give him a new contract.

Of the two I would prefer to lose skrtel because he's an old fashioned stopper who can play a bit but is prone to being ruffled by quick aggressive forwards. but agger is on a different level.

Skrtel of the two is far easier to replace and I don't think that job would be an easy one, Agger going would be a very bad move IMO as we'd have allowed yet another of our top players to leave and who realistically would we replace him with ?

We are in yet another re-building phase and we simply must keep hold of our best players