January Transfer Thread 2018/19
- Thread starter BaZ87
- Start date
I'd be stunned if either made it at Liverpool. Kent's not nearly good enough but even with Wilson, we massively underestimate the step up from the reserves or loan spells at lower league sides to our first team, particularly given the strength of our attacking options. Wilson isn't that young either - he'll be 22 before the end of the season and Klopp's not even looked at him in our side in 3 years, which given Klopp's views on loaning out youngsters, makes me pretty sure he doesn't rate him. He'll make a good career for himself but I suspect it'll be after a £15-20m transfer to somebody else in the summer.
As for what deals, if any, we could do this window. Maybe if a long term target becomes available and there's no January tax to sign him then we might move now rather than wait for the summer but I can't see us signing anybody with the view the view that they'll make a difference between now and the end of the season. With Gomez and Matip due back within the next few weeks, we're not going to be desperately short at CB where we'd need to make a short-term signing and while we're probably still a creative midfielder short, Klopp won't throw players straight into our midfield so any new signing probably wouldn't feature much until next season anyway. The need for another creative/attacking mid might only be for a couple of months too - Klopp's confirmed that Ox is ahead of schedule in his recovery and providing there's no new issues, he could return to full training by the end of February. Obviously he'll need a good few weeks training to get up and running but even having him for the last 5-6 weeks of the season would be useful.
Yea and if not them there will be a Bournemouth (like with Ibe) or similar that'll pay it. He's a talented player and has a goal in him and even if he's not good enough to compete with Salah and Mane, he's good enough for a lot of PL sides.
It's an interesting one. I've said before that I'm certain we're interested in him but there's been a clear policy at the club in the last few years to not gamble on outright potential but to take more calculated risks on players just on brink of becoming stars. If the reports are true and Chelsea have offered around £50m for him then he very much falls into the gamble category - £50m for a player that's not nearly at the level of our front 4 and no guarantees that he'll reach that level just doesn't make sense. Had we been looking at £20-30m, which given his actual progress (or lack of) and contract situation in the summer would have been more reasonable, then I could have seen us making a move for him.
He's actually (potentially) an exception to the rule
Superstars from markets that don't have established club sides of their own can actually make a meaningful difference from a commercial point of view. Not enough to be the main reason why you'd sign them but it possibly could persuade you to spend an extra 10% (for example) to sign them. Pulisic is probably on the lower end of the scale compared to a Salah or a Son in that regards though - not only isn't he nearly as big a star in the US as they are in Egypt/South Korea, I'm still not convinced football will ever be big enough in the US to attract big money commercial deals.
The rumour is it's a loan deal, right? Not sure how that deal makes sense for Chelsea, why would they want to strengthen Arsenal? For Arsenal a loan would be ok but there's no way they should be signing him on a permanent deal. Arsenal's mistake in the summer was signing so many average players. Torreira, despite his performance at the weekend, looks a decent player and the sort of player Arsenal needed but the rest (who knows re Geuendouzi) have been a complete waste of money and haven't improved them one bit. Rather than spend £35-40m on Sakratis & Leno, hoping for marginal improvements over what you've got, put that money towards signing 1 player that you feel will be an obvious upgrade.
I'm not sure anybody said or expected a complete rebuild in one transfer window but I can't help but think that Arsenal have wasted a lot of money and most of the signings made aren't long term answers.
I stated the day you signed Cech that he was well past his best but can you honestly say that Leno has been more than a marginal upgrade, if an upgrade at all? And he's 26, the same age or older than Alisson, Ederson and Kepa - all 3 of which are massively out performing him. Do you really believe that over the next couple of years you're going to have a keeper on a par with the best sides around or will you be looking to replace him? I agree that you needed a new/another CB and given that fact it only made the Leno signing even more questionable. When money's tight and other areas need addressing more, why spend over £20m on a keeper that at best is only a small upgrade? Surely it would have made more sense to stick with Cech and put the money towards signing the first choice, long term CB you need and then looking at the keeper situation next summer? Instead you ended up with an average keeper and a 30 year old 4th choice CB for near £40m.
He cost less because he's not nearly as good, which is part of the point I'm making. You've spent nearly £40m on two players that aren't good enough. Rather than gamble on £20m players in the hope that they are going to be marginal upgrades, spend £40m on somebody that's more likely to be a bigger upgrade. Long term Cech needed replacing but if Leno's the replacement then wait a year, sign a better CB now and replace Cech after. Instead Arsenal are going to go into the next summer still needing a CB and if they realistically want to challenge at the top of the table, still in need of a better keeper too.
£58m isn't that much? People have become so blasé over transfer fees in the last few years. Yes we've seen signings for far more money but these have typically been for far better and more established players. If Pulisic wasn't American he'd not be considered half the prospect he is now. It's not just Sancho (2 years younger than him) that's playing more often than he is at Dortmund, he's fallen behind another youngster in Larsen too - could you imagine if anybody offered £58m for him?
I think it was actually in a reply to you some months back that I mentioned Liverpool's interest in him but I said we wouldn't gamble on him and would have been happier to pay more than what he may have cost last summer if and when he'd proven himself. Since then he's done nothing to prove himself and if anything he's gone backwards in his development. This deal looks a lot like when Owen went to Newcastle and Pogba to Utd - Chelsea have paid OTT to blow any other interested sides out of the water because despite what I said, he's still got potential to develop and being American I'm sure there were other sides interested in him in the summer but probably at around half the price they've paid.
Wow. I'm glad you used the Keita example as it's exactly the point I'm getting at. The season prior to Liverpool signing Keita he was the best midfielder in Germany and arguably the best player in the league (I think he was voted 2nd to Lewandowski). While I'm sure we hope/hoped he may improve even further, we weren't signing him purely on his potential because he had already reached a level to justify the sort of money we paid given the way fees had risen. Pulisic isn't the best player in Germany, he's not the best player at Dortmund, he's not the best player in his position at Dortmund, he's not even the top 2 players in his position at Dortmund, he's not even in the top 2 under-21 players in his position at Dortmund. Chelsea have signed outright potential, nothing more because at the level he's playing now he's not nearly worth the fee paid. Btw Pulisic is only 18 months or so younger than Keita was when we signed him.
Re fees for keepers you can only mean Alisson and Kepa. I think I said in the summer that Chelsea had backed themselves into a corner with their keeper situation and were faced with paying ott or accepting an inferior keeper. Alisson was and has continued to perform as one of the best keepers in the world so again, we were buying proven quality at a young age, with potential to get even better.
Sounds like Clyne is going on loan to Bournemouth and Solanke may now be signing for Brighton on a permanent deal rather than joining Palace on loan.
Assuming both Sturridge and Origi aren't going anywhere then I'm not too fussed about Solanke, he had a few chances and while he looks a decent youngster it's a massive step-up to get into our attack. Letting Clyne go is more than a bit concerning. Aside from him we've got 5 fit defenders, two of which are LB's and one of those being Moreno. We have no cover at RB and even when Gomez is fit again he's been our first choice CB so an injury to Trent would mean making at least 2 changes to the backline.
Assuming both Sturridge and Origi aren't going anywhere then I'm not too fussed about Solanke, he had a few chances and while he looks a decent youngster it's a massive step-up to get into our attack. Letting Clyne go is more than a bit concerning. Aside from him we've got 5 fit defenders, two of which are LB's and one of those being Moreno. We have no cover at RB and even when Gomez is fit again he's been our first choice CB so an injury to Trent would mean making at least 2 changes to the backline.
The only possible positive I can take from this is that we might get a look at this Hoever kid vs Wolves. 16 years old, signed from Ajax in the summer, he started in the under 17's, within a month was a regular in the under-23's and for the last month or so has been training full time with the first team. Not sure I want a 16 year old in the first team for a PL or CL game if we get an injury at RB or CB though :/
I think Solanke's going to make a decent career for himself but god I love Bournemouth. Over £40m for Ibe, Smith and Solanke.
Confirmation of the Solanke deal:
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/fi...anke-liverpool-bournemouth-transfer-confirmed
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/fi...anke-liverpool-bournemouth-transfer-confirmed
They've just let Defoe go so he could just be replacing him.
Clyne's loan move is also confirmed now:
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/fi...el-clyne-liverpool-bournemouth-loan-confirmed
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/fi...el-clyne-liverpool-bournemouth-loan-confirmed
You've got to assume it was his decision. I'd have definitely rather he stayed but when you think about it, we're not going to be massively short at RB. Gomez, Milner and Fabinho can all play there and as I guessed, there's talk that Hoever could be in line to play on Monday. I've only seen him play twice and he looked exceptional and it's a view shared by those that have seen him play more than me - one journo commented that he's going to be the shortest lived 'best kept secret'.
I wonder whether Ox is closer to returning than what Klopp let on too. His return would make using Milner or Fabinho at RB a lot more managable.
I wonder whether Ox is closer to returning than what Klopp let on too. His return would make using Milner or Fabinho at RB a lot more managable.
Warnock has made Clyne leaving far more acceptableWarnock apparently thought Clyne was Cardiff bound until he read about his move to Bournemouth instead. Sounds really angry
I'm not sure there's too much substance to the Origi rumours and previously I would have said that there's no way that we'd let him go without signing somebody but history suggests that it's very possible. I think Klopp's generally happier with a smaller squad than what most supporters would like and he's shown that if a player wants to move that he won't stand in their way.
I am sure the club are looking at transfers beyond just what we need in the short-term though and one way or another Origi and probably Sturridge won't be here at the start of next season. I'm sure we're going to be in for a striker at some point in the next two windows, it's just a case of whether the striker(s) we're interested in are available now.
Yea, Klopp said as much regarding both Solanke and Clyne but I do think that letting Origi go would leave us shorter in attack than Clyne leaves us in defence. Klopp's said that both Matip and possibly Gomez will be back after the Brighton game and with Fabinho and Milner, plus youngsters like Camacho and Hoever, you do have options at RB even if they're not ideal. Letting Origi go without a replacement would leave us with 5 + Lallana for the front 3/4 positions which really leaves you an injury away from being down to your barebones.
For a start I can't see Shaqiri playing as a striker for us - I can't even think of a game where he's played wide in a 4-3-3 let alone be as advanced as the main striker. The issue with letting Origi go isn't that we'll be short of players that can play centrally - we only play with 1 striker and with Salah playing there more and more, we've got 3 players (Salah, Firmino & Sturridge) and possibly Mane if needed that can play there. The issue is just a lack of attacking options full stop as both Salah and Firmino are also options in other attacking positions. At the moment we're seeing a lot of 4-2-3-1 with Firmino behind Salah but an injury to Mane or Shaqiri means you're having to move Firmino to the left or Salah to the right and bring Sturridge in - without Origi you've suddenly got no senior attacking players on the bench and relying on Keita or Lallana, who are more midfielders, to cover the front 4.