Mamadou Sakho

[G]

Exactly what I'd do too. He can't prove himself to Jürgen by being somewhere else. I'd accept I won't be playing much by staying but I'd knuckle down and show the manager I can be professional, focused and willing to fight for a chance.

[kev776]

French outlet L’Equipe claim the 26-year-old will remain on Merseyside, despite being urged to take a loan move by Jurgen Klopp.

Sakho’s behaviourial issues are reported to have changed Klopp’s opinion on Sakho, with the Reds manager telling him to join another club on loan this season.

However, the centre-back has turned down moves to Besiktas, West Brom and Stoke City, and is said to be desperate to win Klopp round.

The Daily Mail‘s Dominic King also believes Sakho will not move on before Wednesday’s cut-off, despite being told by Klopp that he will not play for Liverpool this season.

King says Sakho has been training alone “after being seen to challenge the authority of his manager”, which goes to show the relationship between the two is not healthy as things stand.

DORTMUND, GERMANY - Thursday, April 7, 2016: Liverpool's Mamadou Sakho before the UEFA Europa League Quarter-Final 1st Leg match against Borussia Dortmund at Westfalenstadion. (Pic by David Rawcliffe/Propaganda)

If Sakho does indeed stay, it will certainly be interesting to see how the relationship between him and Klopp develops, and whether the manager relents and brings him back into the fold.

Many supporters were bemused when it emerged he was not wanted, although footballing reasons do not appear to be the reason for this.

It is time for Sakho to knuckle down and grow up, with his immature attitude something that has been questioned over the years. He will have to change immeasurably for Klopp’s opinion to change.

Sakho took a fat burning substance behind the club’s back earlier in the year, which resulted in a suspension for a failed drugs test, for which he was eventually found innocent.

He was then sent home from Liverpool’s tour of the United States due to his disruptive behaviour, casting further doubts over his Anfield future.

[Kenneth]

Isn't that just L’Equipe reporting from the Daily Mail?

[Rich]

So further proof that Sakho doesn't listen to the advice he's been given. If your manager it telling you to GO for a season to prove yourself then you do it.

[G]

He has to do what he feels is right, not what Klopp tells him to do. What's the worst that can happen, he gets sold, that's likely either way even if he goes on loan. If he wants to stay and fight he should do, he doesn't have to accept Klopps assessment. Most of the fan base don't accept Klopps assessment of our left back options. He's not infallible.

[Buzzo]

He is not infallible, but his word counts.

[BillobShaisley]

So you are dismissing the fact that we’ve signed 2 new CM’s, a new CB and a new keeper? You know for a fact we haven’t tried to sign a LB and are still not actively trying to do so?

So you’d be happier if we kept Benteke on the books so we had a negative spend, or spent and extra £50m on Karius, Matip and Grujic, just so we can have a negative spend? You don’t see it as a positive that we have strengthen the squad massively (the Mane signing alone) without breaking the bank meaning we’ll have cash to spend if we need to in January or more importantly, next year if we have CL to offer and can attract the sort of player that’s worth paying the extra for?

Ahh, good point. I’m sure one of the main stipulations when Klopp signed his new 6 year contract was that he doesn’t ‘win stuff’, no way FSG are committing to that.

It's this type of strawman argument that starts heated debates.

Nobody wants us to spend for the sake of it. But I wouldn't mind being ripped-off fixing a position in which we are glaringly weak (that is negotiation and the cold, hard reality of competition) provided we can afford it, which we can, or should be able to and it needs explaining if we cant!

Had we bough a Reus and Hummels, spent £100mil Net and still were weak at LB most of us would accept that we'd had to make some compromises and gambled on getting in some top talent whilst we could and that meant we had to wait on a LB, our ability to build a team and squad was limited by funds and we made hard choices about where to invest. But that is not the situation.

To not sign a LB during this helicopter money phase, when we must have it available is IMHO a big mistake. I could be wrong, football is not an exact science, but a decent solid LB is 'worth' about £30mil to us. Man City or Everton have options there so the value of making a signing for LB is not the same.

The 'cost' to the club of not having a first choice LB (in terms of lost points, final league positions and perception/status of the club amongst potential signings, sponsors) could very easily outweigh the perceived lack of value in the market.

That is the decision people are disagreeing with, what we're worried about and, frankly, can't understand the logic of. If Klopp thinks Chillwell is the future then splash an extra £5-10mil on it to get it done.

I will be utterly gobsmacked if we don't sign a LB before the window shuts and it will reduce my faith in the manager come tomorrow morning if that's the case. If Milner/Moreno then go on to prove me wrong then great, but if other teams keep focussing on and getting joy down our left flank and we drop points due to it then our penny pinching will be shown to be poor economics.

[kev776]

Our defensive woes will disappear once Midge is back on the bench

[BillobShaisley]

What we know so far:

1) banned for substance abuse - cleared of charges!

2) turned up late for flight - not serious, can be forgiven

3) interrupts Klopp during filming - not serious, meant in jest

It just doesn't add up to why he's been banished.

On point 2) you can argue how important missing a flight is, but you then add in short sequence being late for a meal and for training - 3 events like this wouldn't be tolerated without some sort of response by any employer.

[G]

He is not infallible, but his word counts.

It certainly does but I don't see anyway he's going to change Klopp's opinion of him by leaving the club. The only way is if he stays and proves he's changed and Klopp see's it first hand. I'd do that if it were me, especially since we are a couple of injuries away from actually needing the fella and with our record on that score I wouldn't say that's an unlikely scenario. He's on borrowed time if he stays or goes unless he actually changes.

[Le Chef]

What we know so far:

1) banned for substance abuse - cleared of charges!

2) turned up late for flight - not serious, can be forgiven

3) interrupts Klopp during filming - not serious, meant in jest

It just doesn't add up to why he's been banished.

1) He failed to advise the club he was taking it. That's a biggie IMO, why was he taking a fat burner, sounds like he wasn't following the advice from the club in terms of diet etc, etc

2) kept everyone waiting - lack of respect to his team-mates and the manager

3) again lack of respect towards the manager, and the crew

4) misses a treatment session - again shows lack of respect for the physio who was treating him

seems to be a reoccuring theme to me.

[~LFCHistory~]

Our defensive woes will disappear once Midge is back on the bench

Klavan, Lovren and Moreno are immense without Mignolet causing all the problems.

[Kenneth]

Our defensive woes will disappear once Midge is back on the bench

[Charly]

To not sign a LB during this helicopter money phase, when we must have it available is IMHO a big mistake. .

[emoji106]

Add to that a defensive midfielder, both of whom we have been waiting for for a long time, and this windows still feels disappointing somehow

[BillobShaisley]

I DM would be nice for the games we need it, but if there isn't one in Klopp's formation then you can see why he might not get one in.

Everyone can see we don't have a single Left Back worthy of a place in the team after 3 windows. For all Klopp's qualities this is a glaring oversight for which he must have provided some explanation internally.