Liverpool FC Forum

Redman in wales » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:14 pm wrote:Isn't that a condradiction? saying if brendan knew about how much he had for dempsey he would not have let carroll on loan if he had money available -

But he DID allow carroll to go on loan, so he must have been told there was enough money for dempsey - either the owners lied, or he was mis-informed - but he wouldn't have let carroll go on loan if he didnt have money to bring anyone in. - that's not his fault. - no manager on the earth wants to lessen his striking options

Maybe so, but with a day left of the transfer window to go and so few striking options to count on, why even take the risk of letting Carroll go? There could never have been any guarantee that Dempsey would sign for us, especially after Fulham had reported us to the PL, so there was always a good chance that we'd find ourselves in this precarious situation. I'm not necessarily blaming the manager for this one, but I think it's likely he could have prevented Carroll from going on loan if he so desired. As well as being responsible for providing the manager with adequate funds to improve the squad, I also think the owners/management have a responsibility to keep the manager in check and sound code red when this kind of scenario is in the offing. It's neither one or the other: Between them, they should have sought to avoid this situation by being better prepared.

LFC2007 » Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:41 pm wrote:

Redman in wales » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:14 pm wrote:Isn't that a condradiction? saying if brendan knew about how much he had for dempsey he would not have let carroll on loan if he had money available -

But he DID allow carroll to go on loan, so he must have been told there was enough money for dempsey - either the owners lied, or he was mis-informed - but he wouldn't have let carroll go on loan if he didnt have money to bring anyone in. - that's not his fault. - no manager on the earth wants to lessen his striking options

Maybe so, but with a day left of the transfer window to go and so few striking options to count on, why even take the risk of letting Carroll go? There could never have been any guarantee that Dempsey would sign for us, especially after Fulham had reported us to the PL, so there was always a good chance that we'd find ourselves in this precarious situation. I'm not necessarily blaming the manager for this one, but I think it's likely he could have prevented Carroll from going on loan if he so desired. As well as being responsible for providing the manager with adequate funds to improve the squad, I also think the owners/management have a responsibility to keep the manager in check and sound code red when this kind of scenario is in the offing. It's neither one or the other: Between them, they should have sought to avoid this situation by being better prepared.

doesnt rate carroll so was happy to let him leave!

why else would he take the gamble?

I think thats it LFC2007. They are both culpable.

But, even if carroll doesnt fit in to rodgers plan, to loan him out and not get any striker in is suicidal - i honestky think rogders was told dempsey wants to come to us and we've got the money for him - ship carroll out, and we'll get him. Rodgers may not want Carroll, but I think even rodgers thinks that having him as a back up is better than noone. - Hence his pressers earlier about saying he'd be stupid to let andy go out on loan. I think since then he's been promised funds - and they've not materialised. No manager wants to weaken the squad - even if it only involves a player on the bench

celtic-red! » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:47 pm wrote:doesnt rate carroll so was happy to let him leave!

why else would he take the gamble?

He didn't have to big a fan of Carroll to realise that it's better to have him on the bench than to take the risk of being left with just Suarez and a few kids.

LFC2007 » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:41 pm wrote:

Redman in wales » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:14 pm wrote:Isn't that a condradiction? saying if brendan knew about how much he had for dempsey he would not have let carroll on loan if he had money available -

But he DID allow carroll to go on loan, so he must have been told there was enough money for dempsey - either the owners lied, or he was mis-informed - but he wouldn't have let carroll go on loan if he didnt have money to bring anyone in. - that's not his fault. - no manager on the earth wants to lessen his striking options

Maybe so, but with a day left of the transfer window to go and so few striking options to count on, why even take the risk of letting Carroll go? There could never have been any guarantee that Dempsey would sign for us, especially after Fulham had reported us to the PL, so there was always a good chance that we'd find ourselves in this precarious situation. I'm not necessarily blaming the manager for this one, but I think it's likely he could have prevented Carroll from going on loan if he so desired. As well as being responsible for providing the manager with adequate funds to improve the squad, I also think the owners/management have a responsibility to keep the manager in check and sound code red when this kind of scenario is in the offing. It's neither one or the other: Between them, they should have sought to avoid this situation by being better prepared.

i`m of the opinion rodgers has been left high and dry by ayre / the owners but you talk a lot of sense there mate.
good post.

LFC2007 » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:55 pm wrote:
He didn't have to big a fan of Carroll to realise that it's better to have him on the bench than to take the risk of being left with just Suarez and a few kids.

Yes it is and I think our lack of striking options will comeback and haunt us this season because if Suarez is injured/suspended, then we have to rely on two inexperienced youngsters.

Harry Redknapp and Alan Shearer were just discussing this on MOTD - They pointed out that Carroll was being played balls along the floor for most of his participation for West Ham vs Fulham and they believe that Rodgers allowed Carroll to leave because he was certain that Dempsey would sign for him. Well if that's true, then Rodgers's has made a monumental ***** up and should not have been so naive.

You ensure the player the replacement is brought in first, before you loan/sell someone.

But BR couldnt do any business until player were out the door so he had to wait till the Carroll deal and possibly Adam also were done and dusted.

BR made it clear days ago that he had to sell before he could buy.

He took a gamble as Carroll and Charlie didnt leave till the last minute and unfortunately it never came off.

Liverpool tried to screw Fulham over and instead they screwed us.

Boxscarf » Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:57 pm wrote:

LFC2007 » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:55 pm wrote:
He didn't have to big a fan of Carroll to realise that it's better to have him on the bench than to take the risk of being left with just Suarez and a few kids.

Yes it is and I think our lack of striking options will comeback and haunt us this season because if Suarez is injured/suspended, then we have to rely on two inexperienced youngsters.

Harry Redknapp and Alan Shearer were just discussing this on MOTD - They pointed out that Carroll was being played balls along the floor for most of his participation for West Ham vs Fulham and they believe that Rodgers allowed Carroll to leave because he was certain that Dempsey would sign for him. Well if that's true, then Rodgers's has made a monumental ***** up and should not have been so naive.

You ensure the player the replacement is brought in first, before you loan/sell someone.

true, but at the same time rodgers probably thought we'd offer more than £4mil for dempsey. Dempsey wanted to come too us. If we matched spurs offer of 6m, then he would have been ours. Rodgers prob thought we had 6m and he it was nailed on - until we wouldnt offer any more than 4...

Redman in wales » Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:04 pm wrote:

Boxscarf » Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:57 pm wrote:

LFC2007 » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:55 pm wrote:
He didn't have to big a fan of Carroll to realise that it's better to have him on the bench than to take the risk of being left with just Suarez and a few kids.

Yes it is and I think our lack of striking options will comeback and haunt us this season because if Suarez is injured/suspended, then we have to rely on two inexperienced youngsters.

Harry Redknapp and Alan Shearer were just discussing this on MOTD - They pointed out that Carroll was being played balls along the floor for most of his participation for West Ham vs Fulham and they believe that Rodgers allowed Carroll to leave because he was certain that Dempsey would sign for him. Well if that's true, then Rodgers's has made a monumental ***** up and should not have been so naive.

You ensure the player the replacement is brought in first, before you loan/sell someone.

true, but at the same time rodgers probably thought we'd offer more than £4mil for dempsey. Dempsey wanted to come too us. If we matched spurs offer of 6m, then he would have been ours. Rodgers prob thought we had 6m and he it was nailed on - until we wouldnt offer any more than 4...

mmm but  if reports are true that we offered cash + henderson first of all that makes me wonder how much cash was offered with henderson.  Reports say Fulham agreed but henderson rejected the move. 

the £4m offer was basically the cash we got for Adam.

Redman in wales » Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:04 pm wrote:
true, but at the same time rodgers probably thought we'd offer more than £4mil for dempsey. Dempsey wanted to come too us. If we matched spurs offer of 6m, then he would have been ours. Rodgers prob thought we had 6m and he it was nailed on - until we wouldnt offer any more than 4...

You can't just assume that things will happen as shown, Rodgers seems to have been naive and has been caught out as a result. You can make up excuses for Rodgers, but this is a big boo-boo I'm afraid and I hope it doesn't have negative ramifications for us.

However what is also concerning for me is the fact that we allegedly offered money plus Jordan Henderson while Spurs offered £7m and signed the player. Are we really in such a bad way financially that we cannot afford to make a £7m signing? If we are, then we're in serious trouble.

Boxscarf » Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:17 pm wrote:

Redman in wales » Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:04 pm wrote:
true, but at the same time rodgers probably thought we'd offer more than £4mil for dempsey. Dempsey wanted to come too us. If we matched spurs offer of 6m, then he would have been ours. Rodgers prob thought we had 6m and he it was nailed on - until we wouldnt offer any more than 4...

You can't just assume that things will happen as shown, Rodgers seems to have been naive and has been caught out as a result. You can make up excuses for Rodgers, but this is a big boo-boo I'm afraid and I hope it doesn't have negative ramifications for us.

However what is also concerning for me is the fact that we allegedly offered money plus Jordan Henderson while Spurs offered £7m and signed the player. Are we really in such a bad way financially that we cannot afford to make a £7m signing? If we are, then we're in serious trouble.

Barrett said Henderson was a straight swap so no cash and Ben Smith from BBC says Adam was offered first but Fulham said no, Liverpool then offered henderson but the player didnt wanna leave.

We received £4m for Adam and thats all we offered for Dempsey.

The only money BR had to spend was from the sale of Adam, getting no fee for spearing was a blow!

So Rodgers has ***** off two senior squad players and internationals at that. Nicely done Brendan. This ain't Reserve team coaching at Chavski or coach of Swansea minnows !

I think the fact we didnt get Dempsey is simply down to Fulham. Lets not forget, they are miffed with us for our interest in him, and one of the websites said he signed for us. So they put in a complaint. Al Fayed is an oddball, lets not forget he is the one who erected (he he, erect....) a statue of Michael Jackson, you know that famous Fulham player who always led the clubs mascots around the premises.

No, I honestly think Fulham were resigned to losing him, but no way were we to get him, unless we paid over the odds first.

Kharhaz » Sun Sep 02, 2012 12:11 am wrote:I think the fact we didnt get Dempsey is simply down to Fulham. Lets not forget, they are miffed with us for our interest in him, and one of the websites said he signed for us. So they put in a complaint. Al Fayed is an oddball, lets not forget he is the one who erected (he he, erect....) a statue of Michael Jackson, you know that famous Fulham player who always led the clubs mascots around the premises.

No, I honestly think Fulham were resigned to losing him, but no way were we to get him, unless we paid over the odds first.

fulham were resigned to losing him ages ago,they accepted the bid from villa and the player rejected it because he said he wants to go to liverpool.once we met that price or had the inteligence to offer similar to spurs then the player would be here.if he knew we were interested in him he would have held out and forced the move.
i dont blame fulham here as fsg did announce it on their website that they had signed him 2 months ago.since then the player wanted out even going awol for the start of the season.we helped unsettle probably their best player last season and then we try to offer a straight swop or a measly bid.they were correct in telling us to do one even if he is an oddball.had we of met the price then it was a different story.
fwiw im not a big fan of dempsey but he would have done seen as we loaned out carroll.id much rather dempsey coming on in the last 20 than morgan thats for sure.

Fulham may have accepted £4m originally but Villa and then Spurs moved the goalposts.

Once higher bids were offered we had to match them.