Liverpool FC Forum

bigmick wrote:Emerald does have an amusing way of looking at things. Aquilani only cost 15 million because you don't count the "extra's" (and of course you can't believe the press), whereas Alonso brings in 30 as all "extra's" are counted up front, and we do believe the press which suits us. The Robbie Keane fiasco is conveniently forgotten, and even when it's remembered we sign him for 20 and sell him for 12 but it only cost us a million quid . Failing that, Rafa didn't sign him int he first place, it was "fecking Parry  ". Then we'd get the same back for Ryan Babel as we paid for him It certainly is an intersting take on events, you've got to give the fella that.

Lando_Griffin wrote:Keane - signed for c.£21m (of which we paid £12m), then sold him back for £11m (even the worst mathematician in the World can see that means we lost £1m on the deal, not £8m).

Well I probably am the worst mathemitician in the World I'll give you that. Tell me though, if we sign him for 21 million and we've only paid 12 of it, we still owe them 9 million quid by my reckoning. If they come back six months later and buy him back for 11, that means they only owe us 2 million quid as we already owe them nine.

So, we've paid them twelve already, they give us back two and take Keane back. So by your reckoning we lost 10 million quid on the deal  I thought we'd only lost 8.

Now, one of two things in your calculations has to be wrong for your result to be right. Either the original buying price of 21 million is incorrect (and infact we only paid 12) or they price they bought him back for is incorrect (and they actually paid 20). Because if they gave us 11 million quid in cash, and we still owed them 9 then they have effectively paid 20. Alternatively, if they gave us eleven million cash and we didn't owe them 9 then we only paid twelve.

It seems simple enough to me, but I hold my hands up to not being too clever at this stuff.

fivecups wrote:

REDTILLDEAD wrote:

fivecups wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

kazza wrote:Lucas - Silly tackle, unfortunate for the og. Was he our worst player? No. Will he get the blame? Yes. Aside from those mistakes highlighted, he didn't really do a lot wrong. He linked up the play quite well and could have been quicker with his distribution but that could have been levelled at the rest of the team also. Prior to his substitution, he was linking the play and getting into the box to try and get on the end of crosses. When substituted at 1-3 down, Gerrard took his place. Gerrard last night, shows why he shouldn't play in central midfield for us. He was back taking the ball from the defence, not where he should be linking play and causing havoc further forward. We were 1-3 down and Gerrard was encamped in the centre circle with the ball ahead of him. Not good.

Other than failing to perform a tenth of the tasks required of a midfielder at this level, he didn't do a lot wrong. That's become the customary analysis of his game. The fact is, more often than not, the midfield is the busiest area of the pitch - that translates into 'most important area of the pitch' and at this level you can't get away with simply 'not doing a lot wrong'. You could get me on that pitch and I could quite successfully fulfil that profile. Don't touch the ball very often and give it five yards when you do.

He was poor, as were the rest of the midfield, I really struggle to find a reasonable argument against that. Kuyt, Benayoun, Masch, Lucas were all ineffectual in an attacking capacity. Stray passing, off-the-ball movement that was often the exact opposite of 'complementary'. Beyanoun inside when he should be showing for it wide to make the option for Insua - result, ball into box, headed away and start again. Kuyt, receiving it simple and playing it straight into the central area that was heavily congested. Masch, shooting from 30, 40 yards to absolutely no effect, and playing balls into feet that were slow, straight and very easy to defend against. Not good enough, not by a long stretch.

This lack of outright ability in the midfield is one reason we didn't see Johnson and Insua offering the option out wide as often as we needed them. If it broke down by virtue of said deficiencies it's a dangerous game as a full back positioning yourself 10 yards ahead of Young and Agbonlahor respectively. They were always mindful of that and you could see that in their play - Johnson found that balance very well and that's why he was our best performer. On a couple of occasions Villa did in fact expose us down the outside only for Johnson to make crucial interceptions. It all stemmed from our dodgy midfield, that's the area that failed to function properly, causing us all sorts of problems in attack and defense.

Good post. Lucas's role is crucial to the success of the team, he's got to play well and be involved in our play for us to control the game.

Lucas's role crucial?......if he keeps playing him then you can kiss goodbye to the very slim chance we might have of winning the title. he should be sold asap....the trouble is no one else would take him, i dont see any other prem clubs linning up a swoop for him...crucial you say??       

You must have realised I meant the position that Lucas is playing in is crucial to the success of the team. If our first choice right back or left sided midfielder was injured and he was asked to cover those areas his deficiencies wouldn't be as noticeable but the box to box midfielder role is absolutely crucial to the success of the team on the pitch.

Ciggy wrote:I think people are missing the point we only had to pay 5 million upfront for Aqualini, we have to pay Roma in installments so there goes the myth that we have paid a whoppping 20 million upfront for Alberto.

FuzzyBear wrote:

Ciggy wrote:I think people are missing the point we only had to pay 5 million upfront for Aqualini, we have to pay Roma in installments so there goes the myth that we have paid a whoppping 20 million upfront for Alberto.

£20 million for a piece of sh*t doesn't fill me with optimism, I think we should have signed Mark Noble.

Eh He's never even played a game for us, and even if he had and was awful there's no need for that FFS.

bigmick wrote:

FuzzyBear wrote:

Ciggy wrote:I think people are missing the point we only had to pay 5 million upfront for Aqualini, we have to pay Roma in installments so there goes the myth that we have paid a whoppping 20 million upfront for Alberto.

£20 million for a piece of sh*t doesn't fill me with optimism, I think we should have signed Mark Noble.

Eh He's never even played a game for us, and even if he had and was awful there's no need for that FFS.

FuzzyBear wrote:He is an injury prone lightweight, we might as well have signed Pablo Aimar and a direct replacement for Xabi Alonso? I think not, everytime Alberto goes into a challenge, he remains on the floor holding up the game for 5 minutes because he has snapped his pinky.

He's Gutter-trash, who will do sod all here and then everyone will treat him with the same contempt as Lucas.

Ciggy wrote:

FuzzyBear wrote:He is an injury prone lightweight, we might as well have signed Pablo Aimar and a direct replacement for Xabi Alonso? I think not, everytime Alberto goes into a challenge, he remains on the floor holding up the game for 5 minutes because he has snapped his pinky.

He's Gutter-trash, who will do sod all here and then everyone will treat him with the same contempt as Lucas.

Well most experts who have seen the player play, say he is better than Alonso, and if he keeps injury free could be one of the best players in the world, so either they are lying or you have sh!t in your eyes?

I think I will trust the experts on this occasion.

FuzzyBear wrote:Weren't the experts the one who said that Lucas Neill was a sublime player?

Oh and Alberto cannot be compared to Alonso, Alonso is completely different. If you want to compare players, you fool, you compare players of the same ilk. Namely Aimar and I'd take Aimar over Alberto, because Alberto is a nonce. Cries himself to sleep because Perrotta is everything he hasn't.

Lampard will destroy him in a match. Xabi was a hard nut, he could withstand the dirty lunges from Lampard, Alberto will cry on the pitch.

Where the fuck has this wopdong come from?

What are you on about Lucas Neill for? 

FuzzyBear wrote:

Ciggy wrote:

FuzzyBear wrote:He is an injury prone lightweight, we might as well have signed Pablo Aimar and a direct replacement for Xabi Alonso? I think not, everytime Alberto goes into a challenge, he remains on the floor holding up the game for 5 minutes because he has snapped his pinky.

He's Gutter-trash, who will do sod all here and then everyone will treat him with the same contempt as Lucas.

Well most experts who have seen the player play, say he is better than Alonso, and if he keeps injury free could be one of the best players in the world, so either they are lying or you have sh!t in your eyes?

I think I will trust the experts on this occasion.

Weren't the experts the one who said that Lucas Neill was a sublime player?

Oh and Alberto cannot be compared to Alonso, Alonso is completely different. If you want to compare players, you fool, you compare players of the same ilk. Namely Aimar and I'd take Aimar over Alberto, because Alberto is a nonce. Cries himself to sleep because Perrotta is everything he hasn't.

Lampard will destroy him in a match. Xabi was a hard nut, he could withstand the dirty lunges from Lampard, Alberto will cry on the pitch.

Are you even a LFC fan ?