Liverpool FC Forum

by **115-1073096938** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:01 am

I disagree.

You're over complicating transfer dealings.

Gerrard could easily get us £40m.

Parker would probably cost about £5m tops.

We also have players there who we could free up our wage budget with. There are other ways and means.

by **JBG** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:05 am

I don't see it Stu.

Maybe we can get a little leeway to get another good player in under my scenario, but what I said isn't complicating things at all: its the reality. Thats the way clubs try to project what they can and what they can't spend.

by **bigmick** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:08 am

Gotta say JBG, I think its game set and match to you and your thoughtful post. So we can't afford expensive players after all. Robert Earnshaw and Damien Francis it is then!

by **Dom1** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:11 am

Scott Parker is a potential january signing for us (everton for those who dont know me) but im sure he wud be more tempted to Liverpool for obvious reasons.

just thought i wud throw that into the mix of things

by **adayinthelife** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:18 am

stu_the_red wrote:Gerrard could easily get us £40m.

We also have players there who we could free up our wage budget with.

Chelsea and Madrid are the only clubs who could afford him and I reckon we would get 35m tops.

You have got a point about freeing up wages as Liverpool players whose contract end next summer are:

Hamann,Biscan,Smicer and Henchoz all on say roughly 25k a week.

With them off the wage bill thats a 5m+ saving a year.

But like JBG said every player we sign over 10m we will have to pay a big chunk to agents and 40 or 50k a week in wages.

by **115-1073096938** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:21 am

£50,000 a week works out at about £2,500,000 a year.

I imagine we'd have a £10,000,000 transfer budget a year.

If we sold Gerrard for £40,000,000 this would give us a £50,000,000 transfer budget. However, the original £10,000,000 Plus whatever Gerrards wage allowance was can now be used to accomidate new signings.

Parker wouldn't be on more than £45,000 a week. Duff may cost 60,000, Malbranque and Angel i would imagine would be on £35,000 a week tops, call it £40,000.

To me that all adds up.

by **JBG** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:27 am

Yes, it would work (to an extent) should those guys not renew their contracts and leave, as this would free up some more money.

However, we cannot assume we can get 40million for Gerrard.

The rumour last summer was that Chelsea were prepared to pay 35million for Gerrard. If he was up for sale, and Chelsea were interested again, then yes, we'd get that money. However, that goes on the assumption that Chelsea are still interested. Mourinho has stated that his spending is finished, although that said, if Gerrard were available, I think Chelsea would sign him. However, the fact that 6 months of his contract has elapsed may shave a million or two off his fee.

If Chelsea weren't interested then we'd be in trouble, as there are probably only two other parties who are both interested and have the financial means to sign Gerrard: Madrid and Man UTD. Both clubs have said they fancy Gerrard, but both clubs last summer engaged in a bit of tightarsedmanship (copyright JBG 2004

) over their main transfer dealings. Madrid insisted they would go no further than 24million for Viera, and as Dom1 will tell you, Man UTD got Rooney relatively cheaply.

If Chelsea decided not to get involvd and Gerrard wants to go, then I don't think we'll get the 35million he's worth.

by **115-1073096938** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:29 am

My point is simple, if we can get £40m plus we'd be silly not to take it.

I wouldn't sell him for less than that myself.

by **115-1073096938** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:30 am

Believe me, this isn't something i've thought up for an arguement.

I seriously think Benitez is going to build this side around Alonso and not Gerrard and i can't see Stevie being here for much longer, i'm simply preparing myself for the worst and realising in the process that the worst isn't actually that bad.

by **adayinthelife** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:35 am

IF Gerrard wants to go there is no point keeping him.

by **JBG** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:36 am

Everton insisted that they wouldn't let Rooney go for under 50million: its a known fact, Kenwright and Moyes told anybody who'd listen.

However, Roony wanted to go and rejected their contract offer.

What happened was that Everton have only got 10million for Rooney up front, with another 15 million (most of it, if not all, they should eventually get) spread out over a numbr of years and dependent on Rooney achieving certain things.

If Gerrard announces that he wants to go and is determined to walk, and Madrid are his preferred choice, then Madrid will not give us 40million for Gerrard, and will mess us about in an attempt to lower the fee and the structure of how its paid.

If a club sells a player for 15million they hardly ever get the 15million up front: Lazio, for example, owe money all over Europe from their boom and bust purple patch in 2000 to 2003: Man UTD (to the best of my knowledge) are still owed money for Stam and Valencia got two Lazio players in the summer as Lazio owed them a vast amount of money from the Mendieta deal.

by **JBG** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:39 am

stu_the_red wrote:I seriously think Benitez is going to build this side around Alonso and not Gerrard

That is one thing I tend to agree with you Stu: I have been getting that feeling ever since Alonso's first game when Gerrard was played on the flanks.

There are also rumours that Gerrard is unhappy as he thinks Alonso is Benitez' golden boy and that he, Gerrard, will have to accomdate Alosno and not the other way around.

I agree with parts of your point that any money recieved from Gerrard could, IF used wisely, be used to strengthen the team overall, but not to the extent you argue in your other thread.

by **115-1073096938** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:41 am

Another thing aswell...

This team as it is hasn't got the players to switch the play.

It has in the centre, but thats no good if there isn't the quality out wide to take advantage...

by **JBG** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:44 am

Thats what is so disapointing Stu: Harry Kewell.

His quality three years ago at Leeds was immense, yet his game has collapsed since then. If Harry lived up to his reputation then we'd safely have another position (left midfield) sorted for the next 3 or 4 years. Alas, it looks like we are right back at the drawing board yet again as far as that position goes.

by **115-1073096938** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:24 am

Agreed, also Babbel was a horrble loss.

Liverpool FC Forum

To develop stu's point.

Who is online