Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,061
- Location
- Surrey
*Starts rumour that Liverpool are owned by DM*
** Summer Transfer Window 2011/12 Season Rumours/Signings **
- Thread starter Tummy
- Start date
- Status
*Starts rumour that Liverpool are owned by DM*
Modric signed a deal last year for 5 years, he's not eligible to buy himself out. Besides you need to give notice of your intent 2 weeks prior to the end of the season to go down that route.
Adam finally puts an end to one of the duller transfer sagas of the last year. If he steps up his game he could be decent I guess.
Also Baz, have you noticed that every time Liverpool pay a fee for a player you always say 'looks like the deal for x is x million (less than reported) with potential add ons' not that it's a major thing but it is a habit of yours!
Adam finally puts an end to one of the duller transfer sagas of the last year. If he steps up his game he could be decent I guess.
Also Baz, have you noticed that every time Liverpool pay a fee for a player you always say 'looks like the deal for x is x million (less than reported) with potential add ons' not that it's a major thing but it is a habit of yours!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,061
- Location
- Surrey
My view on Sissoko is probably distorted a bit by how awesome he is on FM, no idea how he is IRL.
As is Brown, apparently.
Brown had his yesterday.
Like a shot!
They'd be superstars in the Championship
Konchesky was very average for us last season. Thick as anything too.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,061
- Location
- Surrey
How long is left on Gibson's contract? How long before we can just cut him loose?
Are any of the meetings interesting? It seems that they get sorted before they've happened on the news.
"Nasri is going to have a meeting with Arsene Wenger to say he wants to leave for United.
Wenger will say that he won't be sold."
"Nasri is going to have a meeting with Arsene Wenger to say he wants to leave for United.
Wenger will say that he won't be sold."
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Why are we fighting to keep a player, who really isn't very good(nor bad), while wanting to give him ridiculous wages(matching/beating RVP and close to Fab). Ditch him, stop screwing around over Mata and just sign him. Nasri was abysmal in cesc's role last year, as a winger he created almost nothing for anyone else, he's not very fast so spent the entire season running into a dead end in the corner(when he ran down the wing) then passing backwards.
If we stop messing around we can switch Nasri for Mata, who has a better scoring, assist, fitness record and is younger. He's played 5 full seasons already at 23, scoring more than Nasri in almost every season by a pretty large margin, while also massively out assisting him.
Nasri, not a winger, Mata, a winger, and we can make a profit on the deal? Instead we want to over double Nasri's wages and ask him to do a job he failed to do spectacularly last season....... all while Nasri is trying to leave and has had an attitude problem for years.
Last edited:
I really hope the rumour about the meeting is nonsense tbh.
I think most people agree that for the first two thirds of last season he was comfortably our best player. 15 goals and 5 assists is nothing to be sniffed at and I'm sure that would have been more had his form not taken a slump. I think by then the form of the whole team had gone though so he wasn't alone in that.
Massive potential in him but he is a cocky little sod and I don't think he is the sort of player you can keep around if he is not commited.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
Modric "Will not hand in transfer request"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/14061176.stm
So relieved about this.. Hats off the Levy for being so persistent and sticking to his principles. It would have sent the wrong message if he'd gone. Now we can concentrate on season prep without having the worry of missing key players to replace.
Ok, slightly aside to this.. I have a stupid question. If a player decides to break his contact early then shouldn't the player himself pay the financial penalty? As far as I'm concerned the contract is as useful as a chocolate fireguard if the player is allowed to move freely mid-contract. When Modric signed his 6 year contract last summer, he should have thought about the implication then, not 12 months down the line. 6 years is a long time in a footballers career.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/14061176.stm
So relieved about this.. Hats off the Levy for being so persistent and sticking to his principles. It would have sent the wrong message if he'd gone. Now we can concentrate on season prep without having the worry of missing key players to replace.
Ok, slightly aside to this.. I have a stupid question. If a player decides to break his contact early then shouldn't the player himself pay the financial penalty? As far as I'm concerned the contract is as useful as a chocolate fireguard if the player is allowed to move freely mid-contract. When Modric signed his 6 year contract last summer, he should have thought about the implication then, not 12 months down the line. 6 years is a long time in a footballers career.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Complete tosh, please look at the results and when he played. In the league I don't think Nasri was involved in a win until early OCTOBER, he completely missed our first run of wins, including the 6-1 at Blackpool, he came into the team and we had a run of draws.
His goals were sporadic, in the league he got a single assist, while playing in a creative role where he's supposed to be creating chances for others.
If you have Arsenal tv, go watch the West brom game, he got 2 goals but his entirely selfish awful play throughout the entire game, constantly losing posession hurt us throughout the 90 minutes, 2 late goals didn't make up for him being woeful for the other 88 minutes.
Fabregas missed the first game, draw, he played in the next few, big easy wins, missed another few games when Nasri came back in, draw, loss loss, beat a crap brum, then Fabregas was back and it was a run of wins.
Even that draw Cesc scored the ruddy goal before going off injured, and like with Stoke later in the year when again Cesc scored the goal before going off injured, Nasri stepped into the middle and was utterly useless with Arsenal looking toothless and poor the second Cesc stepped off the field.
Nasri wasn't even close to our top 5 best players in the first half of the season, the second half he wasn't in the top 10.
Chamakh got 7 goals 5 assists in the first half of the season, Nasri got 8 goals 1 assist, one was new to the club, the players, the league.
Nasri put getting himself goals (and a new contract or a move) ahead of the team winning, his attitude was wrong, he was fairly rubbish when the big players weren't in the team, I don't think we won a single game in the entire season because he dragged the team through a tough game.
Even the idea he was our best player for 2/3rds of the season, he scored his 8th goal(with 4 in consecutive games) in the 16th league game of the season, no where near 2/3rds into the season. He was crap till late September, he didn't get his first win till early October, and his goals dried up before the end of December, he had essentially a just over 2 month run of form, nothing more or less, and was useless for the rest of the season.
Its fairly hard to compare, I think in games Nasri played that Cesc didn't Nasri got 3 wins, 5 draws, 2 losses. The wins against Brum, Fulham and Villa, both of whom were in relegation situations when they were played before xmas. Now thats excluding the fact that Cesc played against Stoke and Sunderland, got the goals, went off injured and Arsenal were rubbish without him. Without Cesc's involvement those would be another loss and a draw in the Nasri without Cesc pile.
Hmm, Nasri played in 6 of our 8 league losses, Cesc played in 2, a 3rd if you count Utd, but he went off injured before we had conceded.
Last edited:
Less than reported by who?
The Times and Independent are both reporting the deal as £7m with no mention of add-ons, the Guardian are running a headline figure of £7m but mention the £1.5m add-ons, as do the Telegraph. Even the local Blackpool rag claimed the fee as less than £7m when the news broke yesterday.
And sorry for wanting to add a little detail to the thread. I only do it as I realise that a lot of the posters on here may never find out these things as they're hard to fit into 140 characters
Less than reported by who?
The Times and Independent are both reporting the deal as £7m with no mention of add-ons, the Guardian are running a headline figure of £7m but mention the £1.5m add-ons, as do the Telegraph. Even the local Blackpool rag claimed the fee as less than £7m when the news broke yesterday.
And sorry for wanting to add a little detail to the thread. I only do it as I realise that a lot of the posters on here may never find out these things as they're hard to fit into 140 characters
SSN were (dont know about now..) reporting 8mill+2 players, which makes you wonder. If everyone's saying about 7 mill, why did SSN feel the need to 'be different' ?
Maybe its a rounding up thing, maybe its £7.6 million or something and so some places are reporting it as just £7m and others are reporting it as £8m.
- Status