Daniel Agger

[Tee]

The quote by steveie g has been well and truly misunderstood by many on here. Its not a case of the owners deciding he can stay or that he must go. I read that as stevie indicating its up to the owners whether or not they buckle to aggers's agents apparent demand for a ridiculous wage increase at a time where we are trying to undo the damage caused by previous regimes horrendous contract offers. "It's up to the owners" is simply a case of "it's up to the owners to agree a contract with him." If we cant then with 2 years left on his deal of course it makes more sense to get a large amount in for him now - regardless of the fantasy football managers feelings on here.

Thanks for that Meg. Can we have this weeks lottery numbers now please.

[MosRay]

What's his wage demands?

This is my thought too, Agger must have been offered a new contract/extension,and as such would defo want more money p/a.. Danny has a bit of a record where injuries/long lay off's are concerned. .. may be just may be this is the problem..

what if it's a case of club will not go to the requested amount, Agger will not sign, doesn't want to leave but club not budging either (agent pushing for more cash), thus situation forcing the clubs hand to look at selling..If and but's I know, but always a possibility....

Agger is a brilliant CB and I for one want him at LFC for his whole career or the best of it..

But he has issues with injuries, back, foot and such like meaning long lay off's, should we cash in NO, but if it is about money who should compromise?

[Norbs]

This is my thought too, Agger must have been offered a new contract/extension,and as such would defo want more money p/a.. Danny has a bit of a record where injuries/long lay off's are concerned. .. may be just may be this is the problem..

what if it's a case of club will not go to the requested amount, Agger will not sign, doesn't want to leave but club not budging either (agent pushing for more cash), thus situation forcing the clubs hand to look at selling..If and but's I know, but always a possibility....

Agger is a brilliant CB and I for one want him at LFC for his whole career or the best of it..

But he has issues with injuries, back, foot and such like meaning long lay off's, should we cash in NO, but if it is about money who should compromise?

I think this is exactly what's going on. What sort of figure do you think would represent a sensible deal for him though? Personally I'd think he would warrant a 80-90k 4-year deal and I guess he's pushing for 100k+

It's a difficult one this. If Man City want him and are prepared to pay him 120k, to pluck a figure out of the air, then that's what he's worth isn't it? If he's as loyal to Liverpool as he says then he should be signing that 80k a week package as it's still a pretty decent offer. We're all guessing but, bearing in mind that the money element isn't of interest to me, I'd like him to stay and would make him vice-captain

[Vermilion]

Gerrard said what he did and meant what he said imo, no paranoia, no made up ****e about it being Aggers demands, just fact...that if Agger go's it's the owners choice to cash in rather than pay what a top center back deserves.

Call me paranoid and i'll say you have blind faith in the ownership.

[Pablo]

Gerrard said what he did and meant what he said imo, no paranoia, no made up ****e about it being Aggers demands, just fact...that if Agger go's it's the owners choice to cash in rather than pay what a top center back deserves.

Call me paranoid and i'll say you have blind faith in the ownership.

Exactly Gerrard made it perfectly clear it's the owners who are considering cashing in. I'm not sure why people on here are trying to ignore that?

[Norbs]

If that's the truth then where does it leave Brendan? In all seriousness is he fronting the 'please stay Agger' campaign in order to drive the price up and so that Ayre can be the fall guy? I hope that's the case as if he really REALLY wants to keep him then this is going to undermine his position from the outset.

[Pablo]

I'm guessing but I think he is reluctant to lose him, but is willing to accept it so long as we only accept a HUGE offer and he gets to reinvest the money.

I think if he really put his foot down he could stop it, but even he thinks if we get nearly £30m for him (I don't think we will by the way), it may well be in the best interests of the club to take it.

We're running out of time to reinvest that money anyway though so I'd say the longer this goes on the more likely he is to stay.

It's a bit of a mess having all this played out in public. Along with this and the Andy Carroll saga I think we've been a bit of an embarrassment this summer

[Lecter]

Gerrard said what he did and meant what he said imo, no paranoia, no made up ****e about it being Aggers demands, just fact...that if Agger go's it's the owners choice to cash in rather than pay what a top center back deserves.

Call me paranoid and i'll say you have blind faith in the ownership.

Thats exactly as I read it

[Lecter]

I'm guessing but I think he is reluctant to lose him, but is willing to accept it so long as we only accept a HUGE offer and he gets to reinvest the money.

I think if he really put his foot down he could stop it, but even he thinks if we get nearly £30m for him (I don't think we will by the way), it may well be in the best interests of the club to take it.

We're running out of time to reinvest that money anyway though so I'd say the longer this goes on the more likely he is to stay.

It's a bit of a mess having all this played out in public. Along with this and the Andy Carroll saga I think we've been a bit of an embarrassment this summer

Personally I think the most likely scenario is that when Brendan was appointed it was made absolutely clear that the wage bill had to fall to £X amount

He could keep and they would offer contracts to any players he wanted to keep on the proviso that the total wage bill was reduced

This meant off-loading certain players (Maxi, Kuyt, Aquilani, Bellamy) and possibly other players some of which almost certainly Brendan hasnt been able to shift yet (Cole, Carroll, Adam???) before any renewals were offerred

As such there is still pressure for him to offload players and it will become a Hobsons Choice decision for him (most probably between Agger & Skrtel) unless he can manage to offload one of his "undesirables"

The fly in the ointment is Agger and he seems unwilling to leave which makes unloading him much more difficult

[Muddled]

"An element of"? Both those explanations are pretty dumb imo and indicative of unrealistic or utterly fictional views of how our club (or any club) operates. Nobody is forcing Agger out. Everybody at the club however lives in the real world and are prepared to think about a ridiculous bid. There is no scandal, conspiracy or anything else. Its just football.

I'm not saying there is a scandal, conspiracy or anything else; I'm saying that, in my opinion - formed by the statements in my earlier post - that *IF* Agger leaves, it's because the owners have made a decision to balance the books by selling an asset at its highest value. With or without Rodgers' blessing.

[Muddled]

The quote by steveie g has been well and truly misunderstood by many on here. Its not a case of the owners deciding he can stay or that he must go. I read that as stevie indicating its up to the owners whether or not they buckle to aggers's agents apparent demand for a ridiculous wage increase at a time where we are trying to undo the damage caused by previous regimes horrendous contract offers. "It's up to the owners" is simply a case of "it's up to the owners to agree a contract with him." If we cant then with 2 years left on his deal of course it makes more sense to get a large amount in for him now - regardless of the fantasy football managers feelings on here.

Equally, it could be your understanding of the Gerrard quote is misunderstood.

You've just added six more words to a Gerrard sentence that he himself finished.

[Muddled]

Gerrard said what he did and meant what he said imo, no paranoia, no made up ****e about it being Aggers demands, just fact...that if Agger go's it's the owners choice to cash in rather than pay what a top center back deserves.

Call me paranoid and i'll say you have blind faith in the ownership.

+1.

Gerrard could have quite easily referred to 'the club' like he has done on numerous occasions. This time, I reckon he *chose* to say 'the owners'.

[the rev leeroy brown]

All this conspiracy, "forced by the owners" stuff is, as far as I can see, baseless and quite illogical.

Yes, yes it is.

what evidence of any sort is there for this rumour being anything other than complete ****e?

None whatsoever

I have to say I really don't get the overall Ayre dislike that seems to have permeated on here.

People just havent a clue and as is continuoulsy said, they are jumping on baseless bull**** peddled on twitter from people who are so far out of the loop with lfc business that they only post for a wind up yet so many retards are sucked in!


Being prepared to consider the idea if we get a silly bid would only be them doing their duty to the club imo. But as for actively pushing the sale against the manager's wishes etc, that one there is no evidence for at all that I can see.

thank you MrMichael for contiunously trying to bring some sense and reason tothe conversation but i feel we are fighting a losing battle against so many close minded people

[Tee]

+1.

Gerrard could have quite easily referred to 'the club' like he has done on numerous occasions. This time, I reckon he *chose* to say 'the owners'.

He was also taking any potential heat off BR and ensuring the fans know who to blame if Agger leaves.

[the rev leeroy brown]

Equally, it could be your understanding of the Gerrard quote is misunderstood.

You've just added six more words to a Gerrard sentence that he himself finished.

thats my point though, ive added 6 more words of what is realistically what he meant just as 90% of people on here are adding their own words to make the doomsday scenario they crave.