Liverpool have officially confirmed the loan signing of Valencia left-back Aly Cissokho, and on the face of it, the deals seems to be a good one for all concerned. The powerful French defender will bring much-needed competition to the squad, but I can't help feeling that there's something slightly worrying about the nature of the transfer.
The question I have is this: why a loan deal? Why not just buy Cissokho outright, especially when there are so many benefits to his acquisition:
* Only 25, so best years ahead.
* Averages 48 apps per season.
* Full France international.
* Powerful, fast, and rarely injured.
* Experience of three different European leagues (Ligue 1, Primeira Liga, and La Liga)
* Based on the option to buy, would've cost around €5m.
Where is the downside? Why would LFC *not* sign Cissokho on a permanent deal, especially when the asking price is comparatively cheap? Rodgers is happy to spend £26m on Joe Allen and Fabio Borini, and £8m on Luis Alberto, but won't stump up €5m for a player who is older and infinitely more experienced than all three players?
It's not as if a permanent deal wasn't an option. As Cissokho himself confirmed last week, a permanent deal was on the table, but LFC specifically pushed for a loan:
"Liverpool have made me an offer and I have reached an agreement with them. It is now up to the clubs to agree terms. The conditions of the transfer are the problem. Liverpool prefer a loan deal with an option to buy, while Valencia want to sell straight away"
It doesn't make sense to me, and (IMO) there are only three possible reasons why the club would only consider a loan deal:
* Rodgers is not 100% convinced that Cissokho is good enough for a long-term deal. He wants to see how he performs over the next year before deciding to make a long-term commitment.
* Cissokho is a stop-gap. Rodgers has his eye on someone else, and hopes that this player will become available at some point over the next year.
* FSG refuse to sanction a permanent deal because they either don't have the money, or don't want to spend the money.
Any of the above reasons is a major cause for concern:
- If BR is not convinced of Cissokho's ability, why take the risk of signing him in the first place? Rodgers should just sign someone in whom he has 100% faith.
- If Cissokho is a stop-gap; a placeholder until next season, this again is ultimately counter-productive. The players will suss this out straight away, which may affect the Frenchman's ability to successfully integrate into the team. Additionally, as the Sahin fiasco showed, it's easy to marginalise a loan-signing if he doesn't immediately set the world on fire.
- If FSG refused to sanction a permanent deal, then this means they either don't trust Rodgers' judgment in the transfer market (in this particular instance), or they refuse to make any more funds available for transfers. If it's the latter, that doesn't bode well for the rest of the transfer window.
Some may argue that a loan deal is financially prudent, but after the recent sales of Andy Carroll, Stewart Downing, Jonjo Shelvey and Jay Spearing, it's not as if LFC don't have the money to splash out €5m on Cissokho.
You don't see the likes of Man United, Arsenal, Spurs or Chelsea signing quality, experienced players on loan. They just buy them outright. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that Liverpool's insistence on a loan deal is mildly insulting to the player.
Bottom line: if LFC really wanted Cissokho, and had total faith in his ability, the club would've opted for a permanent deal.
Obviously, I hope Cissokho turns out to be a success, and Liverpool take up the option to buy next season, but I've got one of my gut feelings about this deal, and I predict:
* Cissokho will start off brightly, then find himself on the bench more often than not.
* As with Oussami Assaidi, perplexed fans will question why he never plays.
* Rodgers will provide no real reason why Cissokho doesn't feature that much.
* LFC will not take up the option to buy next season.
Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Jaimie Kanwar
NOTE: Please stick to the Comment Policy (Click to read)
The question I have is this: why a loan deal? Why not just buy Cissokho outright, especially when there are so many benefits to his acquisition:
* Only 25, so best years ahead.
* Averages 48 apps per season.
* Full France international.
* Powerful, fast, and rarely injured.
* Experience of three different European leagues (Ligue 1, Primeira Liga, and La Liga)
* Based on the option to buy, would've cost around €5m.
Where is the downside? Why would LFC *not* sign Cissokho on a permanent deal, especially when the asking price is comparatively cheap? Rodgers is happy to spend £26m on Joe Allen and Fabio Borini, and £8m on Luis Alberto, but won't stump up €5m for a player who is older and infinitely more experienced than all three players?
It's not as if a permanent deal wasn't an option. As Cissokho himself confirmed last week, a permanent deal was on the table, but LFC specifically pushed for a loan:
"Liverpool have made me an offer and I have reached an agreement with them. It is now up to the clubs to agree terms. The conditions of the transfer are the problem. Liverpool prefer a loan deal with an option to buy, while Valencia want to sell straight away"
It doesn't make sense to me, and (IMO) there are only three possible reasons why the club would only consider a loan deal:
* Rodgers is not 100% convinced that Cissokho is good enough for a long-term deal. He wants to see how he performs over the next year before deciding to make a long-term commitment.
* Cissokho is a stop-gap. Rodgers has his eye on someone else, and hopes that this player will become available at some point over the next year.
* FSG refuse to sanction a permanent deal because they either don't have the money, or don't want to spend the money.
Any of the above reasons is a major cause for concern:
- If BR is not convinced of Cissokho's ability, why take the risk of signing him in the first place? Rodgers should just sign someone in whom he has 100% faith.
- If Cissokho is a stop-gap; a placeholder until next season, this again is ultimately counter-productive. The players will suss this out straight away, which may affect the Frenchman's ability to successfully integrate into the team. Additionally, as the Sahin fiasco showed, it's easy to marginalise a loan-signing if he doesn't immediately set the world on fire.
- If FSG refused to sanction a permanent deal, then this means they either don't trust Rodgers' judgment in the transfer market (in this particular instance), or they refuse to make any more funds available for transfers. If it's the latter, that doesn't bode well for the rest of the transfer window.
Some may argue that a loan deal is financially prudent, but after the recent sales of Andy Carroll, Stewart Downing, Jonjo Shelvey and Jay Spearing, it's not as if LFC don't have the money to splash out €5m on Cissokho.
You don't see the likes of Man United, Arsenal, Spurs or Chelsea signing quality, experienced players on loan. They just buy them outright. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that Liverpool's insistence on a loan deal is mildly insulting to the player.
Bottom line: if LFC really wanted Cissokho, and had total faith in his ability, the club would've opted for a permanent deal.
Obviously, I hope Cissokho turns out to be a success, and Liverpool take up the option to buy next season, but I've got one of my gut feelings about this deal, and I predict:
* Cissokho will start off brightly, then find himself on the bench more often than not.
* As with Oussami Assaidi, perplexed fans will question why he never plays.
* Rodgers will provide no real reason why Cissokho doesn't feature that much.
* LFC will not take up the option to buy next season.
Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Jaimie Kanwar
NOTE: Please stick to the Comment Policy (Click to read)
Jamie , I don't think there is anything wrong , try before you buy.
ReplyDeleteAnyway , do you think we need a left winger?
Henderson when he plays brings balance to the midfield on the left and raheem sterling is there.
http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2892/transfer-zone/2013/08/21/4202207/-
ReplyDeletejamie, what do you think about signing tom ince as a squad player , he will only cost 5m because we receive a large amount of the total fee believed to be 8m
ReplyDeleteAlso will hughes , should we buy him?
Try before you buy? For a teenager, maybe, but a 25 year old France international, with bucketloads of experienced? This hardly ever happens. 'try before you you buy', by it's very nature, means you're not convinced that the player is good enough.
ReplyDeletethis IS a permanent deal if lfc want it to be next year - what's your problem?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it's as clear cut as you say. It seems likely from various media sources that he was a 2nd choice (behind Granada's left back, can't remember his name). Not only that, but arguably a 2nd choice to act as a backup for Enrique, so he may be happy to save the transfer fee to put towards other players.
ReplyDeleteObviously if LFC take a player on loan it's substantially cheaper than an outright purchase, and if the deal contains a clause allowing them to purchase him next year for a price agreed now (not sure if this is the case or not, but I think so) then it's a no-brainer to sign him on loan, unless another bidder is willing to buy in which case that might have forced LFC to match it. As there apparently wasn't another bidder, and Valencia are skint, LFC have got the best of all worlds surely?
Then having him on loan frees up £5m towards another attacking player. The transfers you mention out of the club are exactly why money isn't that freely available - LFC have made a substantial loss on all of the players you mention.
new financial fairplay rules makes taking players on loan rather than buying them a better option.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a permanent deal at this stage. It is only a loan, and LFC don't have to take up the option next season. My 'problem' is clearly outlined in the article.
ReplyDeletesterling is still a kid and needs to learn abit more so i would be made up to see an old head come in for a year or 2 (the way we did we gary mac) so buy then stering and ibe will be ready. but i dont think we need to to spend so big on a winger when we have two of the biggest stars for the future in these 2.
ReplyDeletePlease expand on this comment and explain why this is the case.
ReplyDeleteYour 3 reasons, I think, are spot on. I just wonder if we lost out on Willian (so it seems) because we can't afford him or FSG don't want to spend that money as opposed to Spurs being a preferred destination. FSG have been working hard to convince us that there is money available though. When our net spend has a -ve in front of a number, followed by a capital M, then I'll believe.
ReplyDeleteAll that fuss about keeping Suarez! Unless FSG actually sign those quality players that Rodgers keeps talking about, we're all gonna have to relieve the 'I want a Champions League club' saga all over again.
it is if they want it to be - the option is OURS not theirs
ReplyDeletePutting the transfer fee towards other players? That's pure supposition. The option to buy is allegedly £4m, so if the club are convinced that Cissokho is a good option - which they should be - why not just buy him outright now? It's not as if the money isn't there; the cash from Shelvey, Carroll, Downing et al would more than cover Cissokho.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the club is happy to splash out 8m on Luis Alberto, who has practically zero experience, but won't pay for a player who has experience of THREE different European leagues.
This one has been bugging me as well. Something doesn't add up with this guy. Lyon bought him for 15 million and apparently he performed well for them but they then sold him to Valencia for around 5 million (I think) which makes no sense at all. Does the guy maybe have some sort of issue that the medics think might blow up at anytime and end his career. His transfer history certainly seems a bit bizarre to me. Well at least he will keep Enrique on his toes.
ReplyDeleteCant see any problems with it frees up more funds for a marquee signing god knows they need one.
ReplyDeleteThe other being if he fails to perform in the EPL send him back great deal.
Good points. And if there is some kind of 'issue', why are LFC taking him in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI would have thought Rodgers was trying to get the best out of the situation at hand. Valencia clearly wanted him off the wage bill and so since LB position is not top priority bring him in on loan and save the money to buy that marquee signing we're probably never going to see. It is possible that he just wants to bridge the gap until Jack Robinson is developed enough to start.
ReplyDeleteSo what? It doesn't change the fact that, right now, the deal is not permanent.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prozonesports.com/news-article-analysis-the-loan-player-system.html
ReplyDeleteIf Cissokho's transfer fee was massive then I'd buy that, but £4m?
ReplyDeleteThe idea that it 'frees up' money for other signings is just wishful thinking. What about the £15m from Carroll; the £12m from Shelvey and Downing? The cash is already there. The fact remains that LFC will spend 8m on Albert - who has zero experience - and won't pay for a vastly experienced player.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest concern with 2 weeks left of the transfer window is that we have made some 3 to 4 million pounds in profit from buying and selling. Selling Carroll, Downing and Shelvey has brought in some 27 million pounds. Buying Mignolet, Iaspas, Alberto, Toure (Free) and now Sissoko (1 million for 1 year loan) and we have roughly spent 23 million pounds. All this talk about putting in bids for Mihityaran, Costa and Willian, sounds like Arsenal bidding big dollars without really wanting to buy the players. Because if those players are as classy as we make out, you would spend that extra few million to capture them.
ReplyDeleteI read a report a few weeks back that the club was unofficially for sale, which John Henry denied. Apparently the shareholders are furious that having spent 300 million pounds buying the club and another 187 million pounds on transfers, we have still not made the top 4 and qualified for the champions league. They can now see that they cant compete with the millions of Abromovich and the Qataris and Man Ure. Without Champions League money, they now as each year passes, so does a return on their investment. I didn't want to believe what I was reading, but with 2 weeks to go and a net profit of 4 million on transfers, I am really starting to believe it is true.
I have to say that I have been questioning the logistics of this move all along. People seem to think that it frees up money for a marquee signing, but we're running out of time and, more importantly, players.
ReplyDeleteI can only imagine there must be some sort of medical issue and if that is the case, we shouldn't be taking him. As you stated above, maybe BR is waiting for his main target to become available for next season and just wants him to put pressure on Enrique but I don't like the look of this one.
ReplyDeleteThat's a third of a Fabio Borini right there...
ReplyDeleteIt is a fairly decent speculation though given that we do appear to be trying to sign at least one £20 million plus attacking player...even if we have been getting knocked back so far...and there is talk of further defensive cover. We don't have infinite resources. It makes sense in that regard.
ReplyDeleteThats true, If he doesnt fit in and Robinson develops like crazy on loan send him back.
ReplyDeleteThis "Season Long Loan" policy isn't all that bad, its used a lot in foreign leagues across Europe, such as Italy where the likes of Milan (Aquilani) have been on season long loans. Its used to plug a gap in the "squad" while not using up funds that may be needed for other players (such as William that i don't think we will/or should buy)
ReplyDeleteUsing this "season Long Loan" policy also allows "us" to send out other future talents such as Jack Robinson to gain VITAL first team experience, something that he would not get if he was to say for this season as "we" need someone with slightly more experience.
I feel this is a good move for all parties involved, if it works out great sign him up for 5m, if it doesn't work out great pack your bags (at the end of the season and we have Jack Robinson back who will have more 1st team experience (someone who i believe has a very bright future ahead of him.
So JK for me this is a win/win IMO
I repeat - it IS if WE want it to be - we get the best of both worlds - in fact of any worlds - it's a win win situation all the way down the line
ReplyDeleteIMO I think the loan singing of Cissokho is a great deal. Rogers has made some blunders in the past and has obviously learned from this. Having Cissokho on loan for a season insures us if he flops in the EPL and also, let's not forget Jack Robinson is on loan at Blackpool. He could have a blinding season getting first team football and we could opt to lose Cissokho and give Robo a chance next season. I think it's a very low risk deal which could pay off rather nicely for us... for once!
ReplyDeleteNo disrespect meant ....but all what you write is ..in your opinion .....and every Tom,Dick and Harry have options ...and only in time will any know if there opinion was valid or not ....regardless ..of the opinion being that of a ...columnist ...player....fan.....manager ...or owner
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same irrelevant point. At this stage, it is an irrefutable fact that the Cissokho deal is not permanent. It is a loan deal, and only after LFC take up the option to buy does it become a permanent deal.
ReplyDeleteCan't see a problem myself, agree about Assaidi however it really is weird, he is a good player.
ReplyDeleteYeah exactly! I have a lot of time for Robinson I hope he does well.
ReplyDeleteWell , then it is up to him to prove he is good enough
ReplyDeleteRodgers challenged Enrique and Henderson in the past and they have improved
I've been making the Arsenal comparison for a while now. Is the wool being pulled over our eyes? Apparently, Spurs tried to hijack the Osvaldo deal at the 11th hour, but it was too late to get the deal done, so he ended up at Southampton. How come the whole world knew for days that we were chasing Willian? Who put the information out there, and if we really wanted him, why was the deal not closed quickly?
ReplyDeleteElsewhere, I read that we sent one of our scouts to negotiate for Willian. It could all be nonsense, but if there's any truth in it, then it shows a grave lack of commitment on our part.
And this is relevant...why? Of course it's my opinion. That's why the article contains several uses of 'IMO'.
ReplyDeletei was a bit shocked we did loan him out as apparently he showed alot of good play at wolves last season.
ReplyDeleteArsenal Mk II. If you're gonna emulate someone, at least emulate champions.
ReplyDeleteIf Robinson was good enough, he'd be at the club right now, not on loan. The idea that he's suddenly going to develop into some superstar left-back in one year is extreme wishful thinking (IMO)
ReplyDeleteBasically, you don't send players with amazing first team promise out on loan.
Of course it does free up funds but the main issue is if he does not become the number 1 L.B its up the road.
ReplyDeleteNo need to sell just send him packing remember the Aquilani loan deals well Liverpool looked the silly ones there as are Valencia here.
You haven't really answered my point. Both of our opinions are just that, and are both supposition.
ReplyDeleteThe reason not to buy him now is that there's a clear benefit to waiting if - as I understand it - we have a guaranteed option to buy at the end of the season. The only reason to buy now in those circumstances is fear that someone else will buy him, which clearly isn't an issue because the deal has been done.
Luis Alberto, as I understand it, was likely to return from Barcelona B and become a first-team player at Sevilla (supposition of course). They would have been unlikely to be willing to loan him out again, so they needed the cash or the player. In those circumstances we had to buy him or lose him. It doesn't matter how experienced he is, it's about the needs of the club, as in all transfers.
Maybe BR needs some experience in the squad, and at the moment Robinson doesn't have the experience, hence the season long loan to Blackpool (why else loan him out)!
ReplyDeleteWhy spend that extra millon if the player is not worth it? , you hve got to stick to your valuation.
ReplyDeletetoo many times we have paid too much for a flop
carroll,downing,allen , keane , aqualani
30m is way too much ,
I dont mind this deal.
ReplyDeleteHe's here for depth/competition in a position that needed it but its not like Enrique is horrible.
IMO its a good deal as we hold all the cards, There is always questions on a deal like this but i would be more concerned if this was the situation for a definite starter rather than competition.
Personally it doesnt bother me that Man U and other big teams arent doing deals like this as it shouldnt matter what they are doing aslong as it works for us.
But thats just my opinion
I would understand if it was mkhitaryan but what does willian offer lfc that coutinho does not , goals ? no willian is a bad goal scorer
ReplyDeleteWillian just a show pony who looks good on the ball but offers nothing
I bet sterling and hendrrson would offer as much as willian
another blessing in disguise like siggurdson and dempsey
Where is the benefit in waiting? Either way, he's going to cost £4m, so if LFC genuinely see him as a long term option, why not just buy now, and let him properly integrate with the team?
ReplyDeleteAt this stage, players don't know if he'll be around next season, and that can have an impact. Additionally, the progression of the team will be affected if LFC don't take up the option. What's the point in gelling with Cissokho if he's just going to leave again next summer (or earlier, if the Sahin situation repeats itself).
If loan deals for experiences players are such a good idea, why does this almost never happen at top clubs? For LFC, it's only happened twice in the last 15 years (Mascherano and Anelka).
I don't see your Alberto reasoning applies here. LFC didn't have to spend 8m on a player with no experience outside reserve level in Spain. Buying him is much more of a risk than paying 5m for Cissokho, who has experience of three different leagues, and the Champions League.
As for needs of the club: Alberto didn't feature in the first league game, and there are several players who play in his position. With left back, there's only Enrique.
Well then the same can be said about Cissokho too then. Basically he's not going to shift Enrique this season and we don't have Europe to blood him in so his chances would be limited. Ideally I would like to see him on loan at a PL side but I don't think there are too many sides out there willing to take on an untested LB when it's one of the more affordable positions to cover
ReplyDeletePerhaps the mediocre performances of other expensive signings has pushed caution to the top of the list when investing heavily on players. You look too deeply into it. If the deal reported is true, then £1M plus wages is good business if he performs and likewise if he doesn't. It means there are 12 months to see if investing a further 5 or 6m quid is worth it. It is a win win situation. It will expose the character of a player as a trier or a light weight, which has to be good for the team in the long term. He knows he has 12 months to prove himself, enhance his reputation and secure a world cup slot with France. Again it's win win in my book and leaves 5 or 6m in the bank for Papadopoulus or whoever else is needed to build a competetive side. Negative vibes helps nobody.
ReplyDeleteEeeer i heard he played for France ONCE in 2010.....
ReplyDeleteJamie let me take this opportunity to ask this question......do u see any difference between SUSO and ALBERTO ?
ReplyDelete'Lyon bought him for 15 million and apparently he performed well for them but they then sold him to Valencia for around 5 million (I think) which makes no sense at all'
ReplyDeleteMost likely sold by Lyon because of his wages. They've sold quite a few players. Lyon have financial issues at the moment, with the new stadium being a financial handicap around their neck in the short term. Hence the focus they have put on youth. And one of his successors isn't half bad, Umtiti. Though Valencia are worse off financially, imo.
Not really. The only difference seems to be that Alberto's end product last was far superior (albeit for Barca B)
ReplyDeleteFSG don't want players to get too comfortable rightaway. That's what happened with the likes of Downing and Carrol and they played and behaved like they had nothing to prove. Another factor that may weigh in is that they still have some belief in Robinson and want to see how he does on a season long loan. At the end of the day 5 million is 5 million and the transfer board may have been split on this signing, the fans sure seem to be. The compromise they came to may have been that they would go for the player but only on loan.
ReplyDeleteBR may see a future for Jack Robinson, who's playing well at Blackpool. By doing this, he can wait until pre season and see what condition Robinson is in. If Robinson impresses him in his loan spell and at the start of the 2014/15 season, he doesn't need to buy Cissokho. If Robinson fails to perform, Cissokho can be bought. Also, if Enrique doesn't do well this season, he could be sold, and our 2 left backs for the 14/15 season could be Aly and Jack.
ReplyDeleteI hate to say this but I was "fireballed" on other sites many mnany months ago for believing FSG are a selling club ownership and with the way things stand now I definitely do NOT change my opinion. We exist as a sell-to-buy outfit and that is the sad truth.
ReplyDeleteMay be a good thing thing the club never got Deulofeu then.
ReplyDeleteIf this is the reasoning, how is this effective management? If Cissokho is just a stopgap whilst the club waits for Robinson, that's not really fair on him, and if that's true, he will discover that proetty quickly, and probably become demotivated.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely doubt that Robinson has any long term future at LFC.
I think its more financial than anything. Truth is we need to spend a fair amount of money on a CB and a winger. We only have £30m-ish to spend, and if we signed someone like Papa, then went to sign a winger and that Will Hughes dude we have been linked with, it leaves us no money or next to no money. I think Rodgers knows how good Cissokho is, and has only made the loan deal, so he can pay next year instead of this year. Cissokho will be a Liverpool player beyond next summer. Mark my words.
ReplyDeleteIt could be viewed many ways. I feel a left back was not a top priority but did need cover, so maybe the money we have kept back will be used for other players and Cissokho is a stop gap. Or from another angle maybe the board aren't going to cough up the cash and it was a case of make do for Rodgers either way only time will tell. But as it stands Cissokho is a Liverpool player for now and I wish him all the success as he seems delighted joining the club.
ReplyDeleteEnd of day he is at Liverpool, what is your problem or concern?
ReplyDeletePlenty of very good players have been sent out on loan to develop for a season or two - Beckham and Wilshere both come to mind. Sturridge and Coutinho also had similar experiences, even if they never managed to make it at their respective teams.
ReplyDeleteIf Cissokho was taken for a season long loan in order to give Robinson the chance to develop and come back into the team/squad next season then it makes total sense.
I personally don't think Robinson is ready yet, and it makes no sense to have him sitting on the bench for all but the odd cup game. Instead he's at Blackpool playing week-in week-out.The aim of this being, in the best case scenario, to ready him for regular first team football at Liverpool. Or in the worst case scenario increasing his transfer value should he be deemed surplus to requirements.
With respect, please don't ask me stupid questions. Everything is in the article.
ReplyDeleteIMO u always to argue what everything that LFC did. But its ok, its just u urself.
ReplyDelete1. We gonna do what Aly can do i PL eventhough he got vastly experience. Mayb he can be good and can be bad. But, LFC wont risk our money for that anymore. If he can be good, may be Aly will be our permanent player later.
2. I believe that LFC wanna use Aly as cover for Enrique. LFC dont wanna to switch Johnson anymore to left and use Wisdom (which Johnson been so good for that). So, considering we dont have any cover yet (Robinson loan), so LFC prefer to have another one to cover.
3. U forgot that LFC have Robinson, which loaned to other club at 20 years old age. So, LFC will analyse whether Robinson develop for the next year which be good for cover or even get the LB spot for next year. If not, Robinson sure be loaned again or even sell, then we will looking another LB player later.
In LFC's case, players who go out on loan almost always end up leaving. I can't think of one young player who went out on loan, came back and then went on to become a long-term fixture in the first team. The most recent example of this is Shelvey. Went on loan to Blackpool. Did well. Came back. Bit part player. Now he's at Swansea.
ReplyDelete...Why not buy him now?....husbanding of resources.
ReplyDelete...A loan will prevent him properly integrating with the team? That is definitely just speculation, especially as we have the option to purchase if he works out, so it is to all intents and purposes the same as a normal transfer but without the risk if he doesn't work out.
...it's not the same as Sahin as we didn't have a purchase option and it is unlikely this guy will be playing in any other position than the one he's used to.
....the two loans you highlight Masch' and Anelka turned out well enough....so take heart from that.
maybe they have got cissokho in because they might let jose go, could be on high wages.
ReplyDeleteI don't really think there is much cause for concern. The way I see it, he provides good competition for Enrique, which the likes of Robinson, or any other youngster might not be able to provide.
ReplyDeleteIf Cissokho wants to stay, then he will have to work that much harder to prove he is worth a permanent place in the team. It could provide a better incentive for the player.
Just because Rodgers hasn't stumped up the money doesn't mean he doesn't have faith. There has to be some level of faith in his ability, otherwise why sign him at all?
Agreed we don't have a good record with integrating young players into the team who have previously been sent out on loan. But in the club's defence, I think more thought and opportunities are being given to developing youth team players under Rogers. As for Shelvey, he was at least given a chance on his return. It was more down to his patchy performances, than a lack of opportunities ,which led to him leaving.
ReplyDeleteThe player's getting well aid and will be getting valuable playing time in a World Cup year. Not really that unfair to him at all. Good move I say.
ReplyDeletegive up, Jamie - you've lost - your point doesn't stand - now is not next year I agree - but the point means absolutely nothing at all - you're just trying to win a bet over words - bad loser!
ReplyDeleteThen, there are nothing wrong if we loan him. We will rather buy him if he good enaf for LFC even in the Dec we can nego to have him later. Im proud that LFC dont risky another 4 or 5m for a player which yo-yo development. Mayb Robinson can be good or can be bad later. But, if not good enaf, we can sell him and fund to another better LB. He is just a cover for Enrique. BR dont want to switch Johnson juz like last year. And i would rather that, LB was our prime target for next season if both of them (aly and Johnson) doesnt work. I agreed that sometimes, LFC was too cautious to splash money. But for this situation, i would totally behind LFC decision.
ReplyDeleteAgreed with you, if both plan cant work (ally and Robinson), im sure we will sell Robinson (will get 1-2 m extra) , while we dont lose 4m to buy Ally now. I do believe that Ally was not our 1st target, seems like we have to cover LB, so loan is the best way. Ally given a chance to take responsibility for that since he got vastly experiences.
ReplyDelete'its used a lot in foreign leagues across Europe, such as Italy where the likes of Milan (Aquilani) have been on season long loans'
ReplyDeleteThe Italian league is skint. Liverpool could not afford to have Aquilani's wages on the books, so the Italians knew that we were very flexible in terms of getting him off the books. In financial hard times like these, clubs are more willing to loan out players as it is hard to justify now players on big wages that aren't going to play. It is becoming more common, loan deals but the top tier clubs still don't loan in players normally, unless they are in financial difficulty.
They usually do co-ownership loan deals. But usually it is among one big club and one small club, rather than among two big clubs.
Agree...good move...no down side that I can see. He's big, strong, mean and from what I've seen plays smart too.
ReplyDeleteOur net spend is almost zero this season and if FSG still don't have money, they better sell the club.
ReplyDeleteI think you need to let players develop in different stages and situations, look at lukaku he went out on loan and was mighty, zaha was signed and loaded back. Robinson needs to improve his game in a real match situation tatics/training are one part but real world application is where the best and mediocre are separated.
ReplyDeleteOn this loan deal your right in what you have said which is basically why, but I think you can believe in a player and want to see at the same time.
'it IS if WE want it to be' and if Cissokho wants it to be
ReplyDeleteSay if he performs very well, not impossible for another club to negotiate a fee with Valencia and for Cissokho to choose said club over us.
It is not guaranteed we will get him at the end of the loan. Yes, Valencia and Liverpool have agreed a fee but normally, it also takes a player to also have a agreed to a move to make a transfer happen.
Not almost zero. 5 million in the plus!
ReplyDeleteone of the reason that, Alberto was bought to cover Coutinho IMO. Since, we loaned out Suso to get experinces at Almeria, so we dont have the cover. If he doesnt good enaf, Barcelona wont knock to have this player for Barcelona B. He also considering have good season for reserve league. So, i wont rather argue 8m for 20 years old player. We dont blinded that he got technique and ability to be good later. IMO he is much better that Shelvey where we offload to Swansea.
ReplyDeleteI was using the Aquilani deal as an example of season long loans in European leagues, not in terms of "our" financial might (or lack of it). i do not think the loan deal of AC is anything to do with finance, its future planning (well i hope it is).
ReplyDeleteEven more if you take into account of the new wage structure of the course of the season.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you in the cases where we sent players out on loan to League one, Scotland or at an advanced stage in their career. With players like Robinson though they can learn from playing regular football. I think even Beckham spent a year at Oldham or something didn't he? Robinson is not able to displace Enrique yet but Rodgers acknowledges that Enrique is not the best solution for left back. He's just the best solution right now. By sending Robinson on loan and getting Cissokho in he's pretty much spreading his bets. 1. Enrique could improve because of the increased pressure Cissokho provides. 2. Cissokho could regain his old form and displace Enrique. 3. Robinson could develop into where he needs to be at the expense of Wolves promotion push (I realise Wolves are League One too but I doubt they'll be there long)
ReplyDeleteThe Anelka deal didn't turn out well. Houllier dumped him after 6 months, which meant that 6 months of team-building went down the pan.
ReplyDeleteNot sure I would blame them. They spend they get hammered. They don't spend they get hammered. The fact is that they've spent nearly £200M in the last three years and most of it has been wasted by Dalglish and Rodgers. It has been crucial for the last two years or so that Liverpool spent wisely with players that improved the team. You would have been blind not to see that Tottenham were improving but Arsenal were for the taking. Instead we brought in Downing, Henderson, Carroll, Borini, Allen, Adam etc and we lost ground. Now we can't compete. FSG gave the money, they never chose the players. Dalglish was the main culprit. We can't blame FSG for reconsidering their options. The fact is that we've spent around £200M in three years and we're no better than where we started. I'd be having second thoughts too.
ReplyDeleteI thought Valencia didn't want to sell coz that would mean they would have to give 40% of the profit to his previous club, where as if they sell next year they don't need to do it. That is what "reliable" media sources have said
ReplyDeleteI wish i was a Spurs fan right now, i could then be at least excited about the business my club would be doing. As it is we have to put up with incompetent negotiators or even worse tight fisted owners
ReplyDeleteIt is linked. Most of the teams in the top divisions that do these season long deals are either in financial difficulty or can't afford the potential transfer fee AND wages. The only reason I would agree with that isn't to do with our financial situation is that Valencia are struggling financially and thus we're able to negotiate a deal to take advantage of their situation. If not that, than it is do with financial planning by FSG, in my view. Either way, most of the time, it is to do with finances as to why teams loan in or loan out players among themselves in the top divisions, especially in times like these.
ReplyDeleteThe Jack Robinson theory is nice though, even precedent for such a situation being motivated by waiting for youth to develop and that has actually paid off (in relation to said youth being a success) isn't that great me thinks.
I believe Rodgers is hoping jack Robinson makes the grade and gains some experience from his loan deal,that way we'll have to spend nothing,shrewd move in my opinion!
ReplyDeleteWe bought lots of LBs in the past that the manager was 'totally convinced ' of
ReplyDeleteKonchesky
Insua
Dossena
How did that turn out?
We are in a decent position with Aly here. He needs to prove that he's worth it. We have a decent back up to spur Enrique on to better performances like at Stoke. We have an option to buy .
I'd prefer it to Rodgers just saying I know best and spending the £4m now. Any transfer is a risk. The risk here is minimal; we don't have a 4 year contract to pay up if it doesn't work. We can offer a 3-4 year contract next year if it does. And even if we had bought him, that doesn't stop other clubs putting in bids next year does it?
...it was a short term loan till the end of the season, Houllier then signed El Hadji Diouf...I'd put that one down to his bad call not Anelka who did ok.
ReplyDeleteIt makes financial sense. That's enough for me. Liverpool absolutely do not have free cash to spend, they're still in debt. I have a home loan and it's the same for me. Every major spend means less money reducing your debt and that debt carries interest. If you can make a deal without paying up front then you do it. I put all my purchases on the credit card to take advantage of the 45 days of zero interest. It all adds up so any time you don't have to spend outright you don't.
ReplyDeleteAlso, at the price maybe Rodgers has no targets worthy of 100% confidence. Seems fair enough. Every transfer is a risk so why not take advantage of this added security if you can? It's not an indicator that's someone to "worry about", it's just reality of players in that low transfer fee bracket. Maybe we'll see it develop as a new standard way of clubs to negotiate transfers.
In my opinion i hate the use of IMO, can we all be adult enough to realise when JK writes a piece it is his opinion and not 100% fact (unless he states otherwise)?
ReplyDeleteCringe.
ReplyDeleteGo get yourself a Spuds shirt then, i have never wish i have ever supported anyone else, the spuds are spending money that they are going to get from the GB transfer, i would be very surprised if they can afford to keep hold of him after spending so much, and might i add while trying to finance a new stadium also!
ReplyDeleteIf its for financial reasons, than I'm fine with that as this is a small deal, imo. We're not owned by oil barons and we have needed to get our house in order, in terms of finances, especially without CL money. I just hope we do not lose out in bigger and important targets on this basis though, as we've been cost cutting since the KK II/Comolli debacle, so there has to be a time when we need to go beyond 'value for money'.
ReplyDeleteI hate the use of 'IMO' too, but if I don't use it, I get lots of people posting the same comments as the above.
ReplyDeleteAgree, but the same thing could happen with Cissokho. He could do okay, and BR still gets rid of him.
ReplyDeleteBale is gone, but at least they get the players in before he is sold, we are just left sucking our thumbs and hoping something good will happen
ReplyDeleteAlso money they are getting from the new TV deal. They have also offloaded big wage earners in Dempsey and Parker. Still risks involved but Levy isn't stupid.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't see how that can be true because Cissokho said the following last week:
ReplyDelete"The conditions of the transfer are the problem. Liverpool prefer a loan deal with an option to buy, while Valencia want to sell straight away".
I understand why you do it, i just hope we can all be adult and understand that you represent your views and opinions..oh well, i guess probably not
ReplyDeleteName one LFC young player over the last 10 years who went out on loan then became a fixture in the first team.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe the third of your options is the case.There is no money,every signing has been financed by a sale that is why Willian or anybody else good will not be coming to anfield.LFC at the present time are doing an 'arsenal' pulling the wool over everybody's eyes until the transfer window closes,then come out with the pathetic 'we worked very hard but our targets weren't available' excuses.FSG must think we are all idiots and that is why Suarez was not sold because the money would have been gobbled up by debt.We as fans will not see any more above average players coming to Anfield until we are in the CL and getting there is going to be nearly impossible.We won't make it this season and next summer we will lose Suarez,Coutinho and anybody else that is good.Bye bye Liverpool we are slipping into modern day oblivion.
ReplyDeleteLike Steven said, go and support them then.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you :-) As I said though, if I don't use 'IMO', loads of people pop up spouting abuse, telling me I'm trying to state opinions as fact/trying to ram my views down peoples' throats etc. It's ridiculous, but that's just the way it is.
ReplyDeleteYeah, we're doomed.
ReplyDeleteKeep away from sharp objects for the next few days eh?
Hopefully BR is Trying to change that :)
ReplyDeleteOff subject i know (sorry JK) - Looking forward to watching Arsenal lose tonight :-)
ReplyDeletedon't you worry mate i will.
ReplyDeleteCan't be third option. We do have money, also I think they just wanna see how he does for a year if he good or not.
ReplyDeleteWhile we're off topic, apparently spuds offered 30mil for Willian. The writing on the wall would suggest that Bale is about to head to Madrid but if he stays they'll look like actual title challengers and our top 4 finish will look all the more bleaker especially if we don’t buy anyone else in the next week and a half
ReplyDeleteTheir getting 90 million from bale. We are keeping Suarez, we could of easily taken the 40 million but. We didn't. Stop the moaning. Still time in the window to buy players. Little facts for you. Go see every window. They've hardly spent unlike us. So "tight fisted owners" is very unfair.
ReplyDeleteA loan deal is a much safer option considering the real deal we were pursuing cost the club £12 m ,i'm not sure there is any established player who would want to play for us unless we pay crazy money for him.So its a win win for both the Club and player ,he gets to impress the French coach and we get a good performance from the guy/and backup for Enrique .
ReplyDeleteReserve your judgement until the end of the window.
ReplyDeletei highly doubt bale is staying to me levy has always been cheap and all of a sudden now tottenham is splashing almost 90 up million in the transfer market.... bale is clearly going on another note upset on the whole willian deal and terrified on tottenham's singings but if is anything our team has chemistry and fluidity buying a new team (tottenham 6 players all surely in the starting 11) is a gamble so hoping for the worst for tottenham
ReplyDeletemaybe the player only want to come on loan and maybe see where we are at the end of the season, because it doesn't seem like any really good player is attracted to playing for LFC at the moment.
ReplyDeleteThere are none. None came through the academy since Gerrard to become a permanent fixture either so should we get rid of the academy? It could very well be that Robinson won't return to be our first choice left back next year, I also don't expect that to be the case but it won't make him any worse either. Like I said, Rodgers is spreading his bets and in case Robinson does not cut the mustard, at least a year of playing regularly (presuming he will) will make it easier to sell him and will increase his price.
ReplyDeleteIt could but If he does ok and BR gets rid of him hopefully it would be for a better player again, so again we wouldn't be losing out....unless we end up with another El Hadji of course (God forbid)...and that's just down to poor decision making by the manager, or committee now, not anything inherently wrong with a loan.
ReplyDeleteI do have a concern though about whether he is the right calibre of player given he wasn't our first choice and apparently he can be a bit erratic in his tackling and passing but that makes me think a loan makes even more sense at this stage. As with any transfer...fingers crossed it works out.
But they are getting the replacements in first, there is still a chance that Suarez goes and then it will be too late to replace him, i'm very unhappy with the business we have been doing.
ReplyDeleteGood point and I wouldn't blame him! I do think the driving force for the loan is LFC, however. Melgarejo, the guy we almost got first was a loan deal also. So, I'm not sure whether this loan thing is about the player or more about transfer policy. I would ask why we haven't seemingly attempted to loan anyone else, why just the left backs?
ReplyDeleteyeah why not my thoughts exactly,do you have any suggestions maybe fsg or BR visit this site and steal ur ideas m8 ;)
ReplyDeleteIf we have money, why not buy someone who is good? We seem to have done that for other positions. It's strange that we only want to loan a left back. I think the Siqueira deal was the only outright purchase attempt.
ReplyDeleteHe took Aly on loan because you can't be sure with a player - even when he is French - and this is the absolutely best way to find out: If you aren't happy with him at the end of the year, back he goes. Buy him and you can get the following: Grimaldi, Cygan, Sylvestre, Squillaci
ReplyDeletehttp://talksport.com/football/reason-arsenal-havent-signed-defender-13082056400
Of course we've had our share of flops at Anfield, I just don't have a link at the moment. One thing for certain: If the pundits were putting their own money on the table, they'd be a bit more cautious.
Brilliant move, BR.
He might have an attitude problem? It's not the Liverpool way to come out and say you have agreed to sign and release a picture of you signing a contract before we do. On the other hand he has never really reach his potential at his other clubs so BR might be thinking take him on loan and see how he does as he was probably not our number 1 target for LB. I agree it's a strange one to get him on loan when his value is only £5million.
ReplyDeleteMalgarejo was also wanted on loan despite the fact that he was higher up the pecking order.
ReplyDeleteIm past trying to understand our transfers, just close the window already im getting sick of losing out to teams that are no better than us.
ReplyDeleteBut in FSG and rogers I trust, it will take a couple of years (most of the way into that) but the hard stance will make it better for us when we back in CL trying to buy players.
Were not that bad atm to be totally fair, out of all the teams displayed over the weekend we played the best football simple as no denying that, they looked sharp and in 5 games time we have a new signing starting for us ... I think his name was Swaroz or Suarez or something, heard he has an eye for the onion bag
Stuff it Underdogs is what we do, we get to be laughing about THFC wasting loads of money soon and watch Levi quickly start doing what we have done this last couple of windows
Solid player, but we do not want to waste money if he turns out to be unadjustable to epl. And there are better options that could become available, specially when we finish top 4 this season...
ReplyDeleteI hope you're right about Suarez. Rumours abound that Chelsea might make a play for him. That would be an even more significant blow than our transfer woes thus far. Especially if we are unable to replace him.
ReplyDeleteim hoping rodgers is saving funds for big purchase in this window, he needs cover for left back but doesnt want to prioritise on signing one.
ReplyDeletehe makes a marquee signings, of Toby and Eriksen and signs cissokho next year when window opens, when we have CL also...
or am i daydreaming?
So .. we have a backup player on loan wicked lets all panic, we have our own youth that can cover the position and another year they should be ready, good deal saves us cash and gets us backup where we needed it. Frees up cash for DM AM and CB, whats not to like?
ReplyDeleteWe also have in the kitty about 20 - 25 million judging buy our bidding.
Team is ready now its a case of we will buy if its looks an improvement and good value, read a good comment that maybe we goaded Spurts to spend their bale cash before we get our other targets
But they wanted £8.5 million and god knows how much for the loan deal upfront (if he was one our our main targets then why not just buy him outright). He wasn't a viable option imo at that price same with Siqueira. The question still remains... Why loan Cissokho when his value isn't that high maybe he is just for this season and BR is waiting to see how Robinson does at Blackpool. God Knows mate.
ReplyDeleteWhats £5 million when we have already sold players to cover what we have already spent? FSG said we can compete with anyone if the player is right. Strange one really but I don't care as he is good competition for Enrique.
ReplyDeleteIm going to uncross my fingers and just trust JWH on the fact he said if we cant replace he aint going.
ReplyDeleteIf we had got Costa I think he was gone but it didnt happen, I don't think FSG will sell to rivals like prev owners JWH just seams a cocky twat that wouldn't want to lose face unless he new we were selling them a shitter lol
Because we only wanted cover, no point putting alot of money into a LB when we need a CB and LW more...
ReplyDeleteBut they wanted £8.5 million and god knows how much for the loan deal upfront (if he was one our our main targets then why not just buy him outright). He wasn't a viable option imo at that price same with Siqueira. The question still remains... Why loan Cissokho when his value isn't that high maybe he is just for this season and BR is waiting to see how Robinson does at Blackpool. God Knows mate.
ReplyDeleteYes but we won't sell Suarez. He happy again and back in training. We need to give BR time to get his other options ready :) plenty of time to get in a LW. And another CB.
ReplyDeleteWell Houllier was after all a very very poor manager who was blessed to work with some very talented individuals like Gerrard and that other guy but could not handle a god given talent like Ginola or Fowler so there is no surprise he couldn't handle Anelka.
ReplyDeleteCould mean the funds in the LFC bank account are otherwise tied up. People forget that when you sell a player for 30 million you dont usually just get 30 million in your bank, you will get 5 million a season and stuff like that. speculation speculation speculation who knows maybe BR wants to see if he can fly on a broom stick before agreeing who knows
ReplyDeletejamie i think its a great move . i say br is hopeing he get 100% out of cissokho to get the permanet move hes wants .
ReplyDeleteLyon was/is a mess fianancially. They just dumped whatever excess assets they could cash in on. Not sure how Valencia got him so cheap, could be something with his wages.
ReplyDelete'He happy again'
ReplyDeleteHmm...... ;)
It is an insult to Rodgers to even consider he would make a similar mistake as Houllier. I think Rodgers has shown with Suarez that he can handle "difficult" personalities. Not surprising as he was around plenty of them at Chelsea. Houllier got rid of Anelka because he couldn't handle players with an opinion which is how we ended up with mediocre yesmen like Smicer, Heskey, Cheyrou and Diao.
ReplyDeleteI am a little surprised by the loan instead of purchase. Maybe he wants to give Skrtel another chance since Cissoko can play CD and LD. At the moment I don't care. What I DO care about is the way we can't sign any of the players we are supposed in the "in line for", "following closely", or have for top 4for the "pole position for". It's a BS. We are destined 5th or 6th at best because the 4 SIGN their targets and ours as well. CL play is a big deal to players and the only way to get there is to get lucky on players who are developing and hope they are the next Messi or Ronaldo. It's a tough climb but results from blowing big bucks, getting duds and then having to recover financially to get solvent again......feel a bit better than last summer but still aggravating when mc,Chelsea and tott do great business and blow us away........
ReplyDeleteI think we should outbid for Willian .. not to get him just because we know they will outbid again to look good.
ReplyDeleteJWH show us how you play big money Ebay and cost them a little bit more
I wouldn't trust him at CB, he is hardly consistent defensively at LB as it is. Definitely better going forward than he is at defending.
ReplyDeleteAt a conservative 3% interest it's £150,000 for the year. Easy to dismiss if it's not your money, but why waste it? That money is better off in the coffers. That's why rich people are rich - they don't say things like "what's £5 million?" As fans we treat it a bit like it's not real money, but have you ever personally just spent £5,000,000 when you didn't have to?
ReplyDeleteHaha well looks it anyway in training :D
ReplyDeleteRodgers recently said last week in the Daily Mirror: "
ReplyDelete"I think when you are managing change, especially the change that is needed here and what was being asked of myself in the job in terms of the financial element, I think of course it's a huge ask," he added.
"But that's the job, I knew the job I was coming into. Liverpool has to be a sustainable club and four years ago it almost went into administration. So that's part of it."
You dont' have to read to too much between the lines to figure out that there is a cash issue. What "sustainable" means exactly, don't know. Is it sustaining current spending, reducing, or increasing in managable chunks?
Given the "sustainability" aspect, Rodgers might have a tight budget for this year and is either saving money just for the sake of it, or perhpas making room for bigger spending elsewhere.
At least he got a player, wether the method is best suited to get the most out of the player, even still get the most for the club is to be seen.
There definitely needs to be some tweeking on the business side as much as the football side. Given the owners involved, I suspect that there is a bit of a moneyball experiment going on, and there are probably couple bean counters locked up in some basement in Boston that have a say on the business deals.
Jamie, maybe you have a little short memory as you state that you don't see other big clubs to loan experienced players as this is not true. In the last 10 years all of the big clubs have loaned experience players and here's a breakdown (non-senior players are excluded):
ReplyDeleteMan United:
07/08 Tevez, 23 years old at the time of loan (I'll admit, this is a bit shady, but ManU never actually owned the player as it was 3rd party ownership); 06/07 Kuszczak, 24
Chelsea:
08/09 Quaresma, 25; 05/06 Maniche, 28
Arsenal:
11/12 Benayoun, 31; 06/07 J. Babtista, 24
Spurs:
11/12 Adebayor, 27; 10/11 Pletikosa, 31; 09/10 Gudjohnsen, 31, 04/05 Mido, 21; 04/05 Cerny, 30; 03/04 Konchesky, 22
(note that both Mido and Konchesky had nearly 100 top tier appearances by the time of the loan)
Additionally Man City has loaned 7-9 experienced players depending on the notion of what you consider experienced player over the course of past 10 seasons.
More interestingly, France actually lost that match to Norway(!). Both of the Norwegian goals were scored by their right winger and you guessed it right A. Cissokho was playing against him the whole match. The second goal was even labeled as a solo run by Transfermarkt.co.uk's match report. Well, i guess that didn't go to well for Cissokho then.
ReplyDeleteI think the Man United ones are very unorthodox. You've highlighted a little as to why the Tevez loan was unorthodox. But even the Kuszczak one was as well. David Gill at the time of his signing said:
ReplyDelete"He has come to us on loan for the first year and then will join us permanently in July 2007," said United chief executive David Gill.
"We would not have been interested in signing any player, even as one as good as Tomasz, on loan."
As to how that work out in terms of paperwork (and why it was done like that), especially considering he was given a 4 year contract at the time and two players went the other way, who knows.
So I don't really count the two loans by Man United there, even if it is labelled as a loan.
'Additionally Man City has loaned 7-9 experienced players depending on the notion of what you consider experienced player over the course of past 10 seasons.'
How many have they done since the current owners took over? As this is mostly when really City became big, with the money they got. They were hardly a top side before then.
Spurs have hardly been a regular top side, at least not until recently. Only from 2005/6 onward did they finish in the top six most of the time in the PL era.
----
Don't get me wrong, top clubs do sometime sign players on loan. Most of the time it is for back up or for when they can't afford to buy the player. Most of the players that go on loan aren't anything to write home about, especially at the time in terms of their form
Man City have loaned three players with the current regime (11/12 Pantilimon, 24; 11/12 Pizarro, 32; 09/10 Fülöp, 26).
ReplyDeleteWith your logic regarding Spurs they have also loaned three players. So then Man United is only one that stands out as they have not really loaned players.
However, Liverpool doesn't stand too different from the top teams apart from ManU as the last loans prior to Sahin and Cissokho are Mascherano in 06/07 and Fowler back in 05/06. Mascherano can be discounted here also as it was shady business in the vein of Tevez deal and we end up buying the man eventually.
In my opinion these facts quite well refutes the Jaimie's claim of other big teams do not loan players. ManU is the only exception, but, heck, they have been quite exceptional team in the past 20 years. Gutted to admit it!
Fulop and Pantilimon are hardly quality established player. Though Pizarro has been quality but at the time, he was in the twilight of his career, although still does a good job in the slower Serie A tempo. At best, only one of those players comes under 'quality, experienced players' at the time
ReplyDeletePletikosa has been around for ages but he has never really established himself as a top player.
Gudjohnsen's quality and career was on the downhill when he moved to Spurs. Hardly a quality player at the time. Adebayor was a unwanted and struggling player that Spurs, at the time, couldn't afford or didn't want to buy on a permanent as it would have been too expensive along with his wages. Even when they did sign him on a permanent, City still paid some of his wages. Sorry for going on here as I know some of this doesn't fit into the context of the point being discussed here. At best, only one of those players comes under 'quality, experienced players' at the time.
We are hardly a big club now, in terms of financial power, so its no surprise we are loaning players in Sahin and Cissokho. So I don't count as a big club, in terms of the current food chain. The same , at the time at least, with Arsenal loaning players in as they were operating under financial constraints at the time.
Big clubs do loan players but most of the time it is for players that aren't doing great or are players for back up or during financial. It simply isn't that common for a big club to sign players on loan but certainly could increase in the current financial climate as selling clubs can't afford to have expensive players on the wage bill and potential buyer clubs can't afford (or don't want to) pay a transfer fee as well as pay the wages.
How is it " wishful thinking " ? It's basic maths ! save 5 million now add it to the 2-4 million we have gained and there you have 7-9 million to spend (" wishful thinking " would be buying another Coutinho with that cash) The reality is we truly do not know FSG/Brendans stance this window, could be spend, no more than than we sold, time will tell. (mentioning willian or HK will not support your argument because they were not signed IE. could have been a bluff in an attempt to please fans). In conclusion I will try and trick myself into believing that Cissoko will be a gem of a signing and that our squad is in a fighting position for top 4 , while Spurs are linked to contrao at Lb and Lamela and Wllian ..Sigh...
ReplyDeleteJaimie, I read somewhere that having him on loan for a year, and then buying him afterwards would help Valencia earn more money then they would have with a straight purchase this year. Something to do with a sellon fee to his old club.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right OC, but wouldn't you agree that the polarizing statement of Jaimie was only about experienced players rather than quality players. My aim was only to shoot down Jaimie's provocative claim that the big ones do not do loan deals.
ReplyDeleteEvidently, there is proof that big clubs do make some loans although very rarely and pretty much only in the cases of some level unproven players as you seemed to concede. I would include both Sahin and Cissokho in the same line of somewhat unproven players as Sahin had not nearly played a game in a year due to injuries and what ever was going on in the Real Madrid at the time. Cissokho on the other hand has had bags of promise, but he has never been able to deliver at the highest level of competition as I do not rate French Ligue 1 as highly as premiership or Spanish la liga. Cissokho actually started losing his starting position in the end of the season at Valencia.
In my opinion it is wise piece of business to loan Cissokho since we have a low risk situation here as many here has pointed out. However, really big successful teams should not need to loan players as you said and definitely we are not at that kind of position anymore. Though, sometimes it is wise to alleviate the risks of transfer dealings by using loan option such as the aforementioned loan deals made by Chelsea. Therefore, Jaimie's polarizing point of big do not loan is also somewhat untruthful.
Evidence suggests (mkhitaryan, costa, Willian) that we are willing to spend £20 - 25 million on a good attacking player this window. That's as much as Torres or Suarez. If we miss out it'll be because we're maybe aiming too high or simply unable to convince our specific targets to come here. We've been rejected for CL finalists, not preferred by a player and then simply outbid. None of that is about being unwilling to spend, it's just that what we're trying to do is quite ambitious. So do we lower our standards and get a decent player or continue to try for the best and risk ultimately signing no one? It's harder than some fans seem to think it is. The cry of "just sign the player" makes me wonder if they'll be equally disappointed when there is no PS4 under the tree this Christmas.
ReplyDeleteI thought they were linked together by JK, 'experienced' and 'quality'. I don't see it as a case of one or the other, let alone just experienced. I saw it as both.
ReplyDeleteI agree Sahin and Cissokho wasn't/isn't of established quality yet. So I wouldn't include Cissokho in the 'experienced, quality' bracket either. Like I said/implied in a separate post (i.e., un-linked to this), I don't mind this deal. Generally, don't see much wrong with us loaning deals in our current state. We are fighting a different battle, we aren't in the same battle as Chelsea, Man United, etc.
I understand where you are coming from
Not sure how Quaresma has managed to get Barca, Inter and Chelsea on his CV but outside of the Portuguese league bubble, he has never established himself as quality, let alone a experienced quality player. Maniche never looked liked kicking on well from Porto. Seemed like hopeful punts by Chelsea to inflate their squad, as they certainly weren't in any state to be regarded as experienced quality at the time as they were almost both flat-lining then.
Cissokho of course played for Porto too and loaned to PL, like Quaresma and Maniche. Good sign(!) ;)
that is just.... fantastically put sir
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. There is such a clear difference between last year and this year and I think a lot of it has to do with us doing our business early on and giving our new signings a full pre-season. Our chemistry is what keeps me hoping we'll be the dark horse this year and really cause some big upsets. We don't have the most fearsome line-up but we do have players that work together and I have a feeling that's going to be our trump card. On to the weekend and, more excitingly, our first major test against the manics in a week and a half at anfield!
ReplyDeleteRafa did it with Javier Mascherano and turned out to be a good deal...keeps the player hungry. Those deals are for a player that has something to prove. Heard that Cissokho had a set back in past with a move to milan falling through maby his level has dropped of since then...because spurs didn't want him.
ReplyDeletenice outlook let's all hope for the best for LFC
ReplyDeleteWillian has reportedly agreed a five-year contract with Tottenham. The Brazilian has told Sky Sports he expects to complete his medical tomorrow. yup that sells it there
ReplyDeleteWillian has reportedly agreed a five-year contract with Tottenham. The Brazilian has told Sky Sports he expects to complete his medical tomorrow. (can't post link but its sporting life transfer centre)
ReplyDeletewhat has annoyed me the most over this TW is LFC takes forever to get a transfer done (barring opening of the TW) look how long they took for willian (hope he flops badly) Levi and Baldini wrapped it up in 48 hours and other transfers pretty well done all before selling Bale (no doubt in my mind he's gone) Ian Ayre and his damn incompetence strikes again Ian Ayre out
ReplyDeleteIt's a good move. Stop trying to find fault with it.
ReplyDeleteIf we bought him at it didn't work out you would be writing an article about how Liverpool should of loaned him 1st.
Just can't win.
Sorry if I wasn't clear but by pushing the boat, I mean paying the premium to get a player. Hence why I said going 'beyond 'value for money' '. Going a good £5-10m beyond what we think is value for money. That is what Spurs did with Willian and we didn't, hence they had a bid accepted and we didn't. Yes, Costa is no more than a £20m player max but if he is what we need to get the team to move forward (not saying that I agree that he is), than throw in that extra bit of money. The same with Willian. The same principle applies to any player that the club thinks will genuinely push the quality of the first XI considerably forward. If we miss out, your theories are possible but so too is the idea that we weren't/aren't prepared to go that extra mile. I'm not saying they aren't unwilling to spend, to date, but possibly, emphasis on possibly, unwilling to spend a premium. Its all very noble, sensible and financially prudent doing the 'value for money' way and looking to save the pennies (especially after the mess left by G&H as well as KKII/Comolli) but once in a while or sooner/later, you need to do whatever it takes to get a player.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if Rafa ideally wanted him on loan, instead of a transfer initially, as it wasn't exactly a straight forward situation with Tevez and Masch, in relation to ownership. Be nice if someone could fill me on that.
ReplyDeleteJK, where did my reply go?
ReplyDeleteCissokho was a signing that smacked off "Don't mess up like we did by sending Carol on loan last season without having a replacement. DAMN! we sent robbo out on loan and we've been turned down by three-four preferred leftback-asitis. Lets sign anyone half decent as our backup-Asitis"
ReplyDeleteJamie, you keep mentioning the money we 'made' from selling Carroll Downing Shelvey ect - you must be deluded. We actually incurred massive losses on those players. You really do hypocritically labour redundant points. There are no downsides to this deal whatsoever. Cheer up skeptical one! ;)
ReplyDeleteNo lose situation as far I can see - I much prefer the try before you buy approach, to paying over the odds for the likes of Borini and Allen before finding out too late that you don't actually need them in your squad...
ReplyDeleteWhy would we buy him when we can essentially give him a year long trial and buy him if he proves himself?
ReplyDeleteImagine how much cash would not have been wasted if we had done the same with Carroll and Downing etc.......
Surely this situation is ideal.......
A fourth reason is what it says about Enrique's position. I expect he'll be shipped out next year if Cissokho performs (to save more money). I don't buy the nonsense about needing competition for every position. You need cover and you need to be developing young players or buying to improve particular positions. If you have good enough players you do not need to create a specific competition for that place. A top player should be self motivated and push himself on to be the best he can. You would not say you needed competition for Messi or Suarez or Gerrard.
ReplyDeleteRelying on players / agents quotes during transfer window is like relying on the bankers responsible for Irish banking crisis.
ReplyDeleteI know it's all we have to go on as members of public but some journalists actually have sources that reveal underlying details..... Also some journalists invent stuff.......
I see Yarmelenko is linked...... Better move quick before Spurs nick him :)
BR must not be 100% on Cissokho. While he very good and fits our style of play, as it has already been mentioned, there are a few question marks over the player. I imagine there is a financial constraint with a player fairly down the order of preference and therefore a loan makes sense since it carries no financial risk. The option to buy is important. I think he needs to prove himself. The club are just not sure.
ReplyDeleteTo add to that I feel BR would like a season to see what he could do with him. In BR I see the desire to develop players and while Cissokho should be the finished article maybe BR sees his faults as things he can work on. A no financial risk experiment.
Would love to waste £5 million :-) You make a valid point but is spending £5 million on a proven french international really a waste? Why spend £7 million on Luis Alberto when we could just do the same with that money in fact why spend any money this transfer window? What your saying is save it so we have an extra £150,000 on next years budget? Awesome i really am looking forward to next years window. Are you John Henry by any chance ;-) We haven't even spent anything yet in terms of net spend. Really ambitious owners. Your saying that like it's coming out of his personal bank account and if that was the case then i'd understand. This is a football business, you have to invest money to make money.
ReplyDelete"No free cash to spend"?. what planet are you living on, we have just increased season ticket prices, record multiple sponsorship deals, record TV revenue, wage bill lowered by a lot, more money generated from the sale of players.......why are we skint. That's a load of rubbish, FSG are just tight, why not just admit it.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem a strange thing for us to do, 4 million for an experienced French international but instead we loan him?......I don't quite understand this one.
ReplyDelete