The reasons behind the Yehven Konoplyanka fail seem to change on daily basis, but however it happened, the cold, harsh reality is that Liverpool once again lost out on another target, which (IMO) highlights an ongoing pattern of transfer market incompetence. All is not lost, though, and according to Dnipro executive director Andriy Rusol, the Reds will sign Konoplyanka this summer.
Speaking to the Ukrainian press today, Rusol once again blamed Liverpool for failing to tie-up the €19m deal, and suggested that LFC reps 'could've arrived a day or two earlier'. He also added:
"I am a thousand per cent sure that Liverpool will try again in the summer and then we'll let him go. Money was not the problem, the problem was that Liverpool came too late.
"But in the summer everything will be fine. If Liverpool, in the summer, report to us, Yevhen will still go to this club."
As is usually the case, many Liverpool fans will choose to believe whatever story fits their preferred version of events, and in this case, the *unconfirmed* media story about Dnipro owner Igor Kolomoisky refusing to sanction the deal will probably be the preferred reading of the situation.
For me, though, factual quotes always carry more weight than unsubstantiated journalist speculation, and I do not believe that Rusol would brazenly lie in public just to save face. Dnipro are clearly amenable to a deal in the summer, so it makes absolutely no sense for the club to antagonise LFC right now.
Both Liverpool and Dnipro know exactly what went down, so if Rusol fed the media a pack of lies, then LFC would obviously see that, and there'd probably be no chance of resurrecting a deal in the future.
I maintain - as I have from the beginning of this saga - that Konoplyanka would've been an overpriced panic buy, and Rusol's comments simply underline that even further:
* 2.5 months pointlessly tracking Salah, and then right at the last moment, the club decides to go for Konoplyanka. If this was a planned second option, the transition would've been a lot smoother, more organised, and would've happened earlier.
* Surely, at some point during the 2.5 month pursuit, someone in the LFC hierarchy should've suggested that the club start looking at other options? If after 65 days a deal cannot be struck, then it's clearly time to look elsewhere. That Liverpool didn't is one of the reasons the club lost out on Konoplyanka.
* On transfer deadline day, Rodgers admitted that it 'all happened very quickly', which agains suggests a lack of forward planning.
* What part of this whole saga proves that LFC had any kind of plan with regards to Konoplyanka?!
Whether Liverpool go back in for the Konoplyanka this summer remains to be seen, but I don't see it happening. Other transfer targets will arise, and hundreds of player will be in the shop window during the World Cup, so LFC won't be short of option, especially if the club qualifies for the Champions League.
Author: Jaimie K
Speaking to the Ukrainian press today, Rusol once again blamed Liverpool for failing to tie-up the €19m deal, and suggested that LFC reps 'could've arrived a day or two earlier'. He also added:
"I am a thousand per cent sure that Liverpool will try again in the summer and then we'll let him go. Money was not the problem, the problem was that Liverpool came too late.
"But in the summer everything will be fine. If Liverpool, in the summer, report to us, Yevhen will still go to this club."
As is usually the case, many Liverpool fans will choose to believe whatever story fits their preferred version of events, and in this case, the *unconfirmed* media story about Dnipro owner Igor Kolomoisky refusing to sanction the deal will probably be the preferred reading of the situation.
For me, though, factual quotes always carry more weight than unsubstantiated journalist speculation, and I do not believe that Rusol would brazenly lie in public just to save face. Dnipro are clearly amenable to a deal in the summer, so it makes absolutely no sense for the club to antagonise LFC right now.
Both Liverpool and Dnipro know exactly what went down, so if Rusol fed the media a pack of lies, then LFC would obviously see that, and there'd probably be no chance of resurrecting a deal in the future.
I maintain - as I have from the beginning of this saga - that Konoplyanka would've been an overpriced panic buy, and Rusol's comments simply underline that even further:
* 2.5 months pointlessly tracking Salah, and then right at the last moment, the club decides to go for Konoplyanka. If this was a planned second option, the transition would've been a lot smoother, more organised, and would've happened earlier.
* Surely, at some point during the 2.5 month pursuit, someone in the LFC hierarchy should've suggested that the club start looking at other options? If after 65 days a deal cannot be struck, then it's clearly time to look elsewhere. That Liverpool didn't is one of the reasons the club lost out on Konoplyanka.
* On transfer deadline day, Rodgers admitted that it 'all happened very quickly', which agains suggests a lack of forward planning.
* What part of this whole saga proves that LFC had any kind of plan with regards to Konoplyanka?!
Whether Liverpool go back in for the Konoplyanka this summer remains to be seen, but I don't see it happening. Other transfer targets will arise, and hundreds of player will be in the shop window during the World Cup, so LFC won't be short of option, especially if the club qualifies for the Champions League.
Author: Jaimie K
Jaimie,
ReplyDeleteJames Lippett, Konoplyanka's agent posted and then deleted straight away a tweet on his twitter account saying that Dnipro's owner refused to sign the paperwork after the player had agreed terms, passed his medical and LFC triggering his buyout clause.
I posted an image of the tweet yesterday but it went for moderation and never made it onto the site.
Jaimie,
ReplyDeleteJames Lippett, Konoplyanka's agent posted and then removed straight away a tweet on his twitter account saying that Dnipro's owner refused to sign the paperwork after the player had agreed terms, passed his medical and LFC triggering his buyout clause.
I posted an image of the tweet yesterday but it went for moderation and never made it onto the site.
"I do not believe that Rusol would blatantly lie"...is this the same Rusol who said LFC failed to transfer the money on time....and then the Echo reported it had actually seen the paperwork which showed it arrived two hours before the deadline? That Rusol? Yeah thought it was.
ReplyDeleteI may not know a huge amount about international business dealings, but it seems odd that you would send someone £15 million and then say "Will you sign the contract, please?".
ReplyDeleteSurely, sort the contracts out and then send the money, right?
Now all of a sudden Agents are bastions of truth and honesty?! Obviously, Lippett deleted it for a reason, probably that he was posting second-hand hearsay. Why else delete it? I sincerely doubt he witnessed the the negotiation.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly would the Echo see confidential paperwork that's in the Ukraine? Explain that one to me because it's a mystery? Did Ian Ayre take a photo whilst the owner's back was turned and then Whats App James Pearce at the Echo? Utter nonsense if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteI'd assume it's sent to a "neutral" third party source such as a reputable bank and then accessed once the contract is signed.
ReplyDeleteHave you not heard of international banking?
ReplyDeleteAnd how would the Echo see confidential international banking documentation?
ReplyDeleteThey stole it.
ReplyDeleteScouse.
I come down on the other side of this one to you JK. I lean more towards the Ayre face-saving series of events. The fact that the player's agent and multiple journalists, reliable ones at that (I'm talking BBC and Echo- Echo journos in particular who basically wait outside Melwood until someone at the club goes "Hey, write this down").
ReplyDeleteThere is motivation to lie on the part of LFC and Rusol. LFC could be feeding the media a line of so that Ayre looks less incompetent, but equally if Komoloisky is as unreasonable as we've been led to believe, then Rusol would have to please him, even if it meant telling blatant lies to protect his reputation.
The main two things that make me believe the 'refusal to sign' theory (we're getting into JFK theory with all of these theories now- "back and to the left, back and to the left") are the following:
1. What motivation has the player's agent to lie? He isn't accountable to LFC and LFC wouldn't respond negatively to him anyway if the deal collapsed because they may have to deal with him in the future.
2. The player, Konoplyanka, when asked about the move, said he was "bitter". If LFC had just failed to sort all the paperwork out in time and what have you, bitter wouldn't be the right word. Bitter sounds more like he has been wronged in some way, which fits the 'refusal to sign' theory.
I wrote this in reply to a JK message about agents being untrustworthy and not their for the deal, that appears to have been deleted, but I'm not going to waste nearly two lines of writing!
ReplyDeleteSo, out of context, get ready for this bonus comment:
He may not have witnessed the deal, but it seems very unlikely that as the player's agent, he wouldn't have been privy to it.
Now you must be being deliberately obtuse? It's called journalism... it's different from blogging as it involves actually having contacts and primary sources.
ReplyDeleteNo way well get him, spurs or chelsea will jump in as always... Plus we have the legend ayre there, and you know the rest...
ReplyDeleteWell that message is back now, and I look mental.
ReplyDeleteExcellent!
I replied to this before but the comment has disappeared? Not sure if that was you or Disqus as it does do odd things from time to time...Anyway ....it's called journalism...they have contacts and primary sources
ReplyDeleteThat's not an answer. The probability of the Echo seeing confidential financial documents is slim-to-none IMO. They have a vested interest in protecting LFC's interests and/or making LFC look better, and I have no doubt that the story is manufactured - probably in cahoots with LFC officials - to put a positive spin on the situation.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly would this happen in practice anyway? Some banking official dealing with the transaction decides to remove the documents from the bank for a few hours, then surreptitiously meets with someone from the Echo? Ir is some James Boond spy-stuff we're talking about here, with secret photographs being emailed etc?
I don't believe it for one second.
I think January was just a bunch of smoke screens tbh. The owners arrived for talks, supplied a set amount for the transfer of salah and Ian 'amateur' ayre cocked it up, as per usual. As long as he is MD of the transfer committee, I doubt we'll see a marque signing, even if we finish top 4. He's only good at commercial deals, which is the minimum you would expect from an MD.
ReplyDeleteIf that's not an answer perhaps you do not understand the role of a journalist?
ReplyDeleteNow you are saying that you prefer to believe the utterances of Rusol rather both LFC and the Echo, which you now accuse of manufacturing the story...(I'd also be careful if I was you as that's a potentially highly defamatory statement.)...well as ever it's your choice!
But...just to enlighten you as to how it would happen in practice (and to be clear a bank official would be unable to do as you say for confidentiality reasons, certainly not without the club's permission)...
Someone sanctioned within the club however would be able to do it and they would simply have to show that they transferred the funds as they claimed....any transfer has a corresponding electronic trail and paperwork....It would be the club's copy and not involve removing documents from the bank for a few hours, why on earth do you think it would?
Imagine if you will electronic transfer of funds, it shows up on your account and you also get a record of the actual transfer....not sure why you think you need James Bond spy stuff for that?
He could have been asked to remove the tweet.
ReplyDeletePosting second hand hearsay when he is the agent of the player and will be getting a cut out of the deal...
I am pretty sure he knows exactly what went on from start to finish.
Would he not have first hand information being the players agent?
ReplyDeleteI read VermHats pot and totally agreed. Then I read yours and totally changed my mind. In transfers that big there would surely be that kind of third party inclusion, but doesn't that mean that the money was never received by the Ukranians?
ReplyDeleteFor me there are still many unanswered questions. I am not entirely convinced by either side.
It's very odd for the Echo to just lie about something like that. I would say the scenario you suggest does have a high chance of likelihood but if they were to work so closely with LFC (in cahoots) then if the transfer had been done does it not stand to reason that the documented evidence of the transfer would also be shown to a journalist? It would be done by the bank rather than in paper copy and there would be something sent back, perhaps in paper copy in fact in way of a fax as this is legally binding. There would be evidence available outside of the bank itself. If LFC wanted to show it that is. It doesn't take a strange scenario like the one you talk of at all. I know for a fact that many journos lie. But I have not seen as much of that kind of thing from the Echo as I have other papers.
ReplyDeleteUnder moderation?????
ReplyDeleteyeah my reply to him explaining exactly how it'd work in practice disappeared into that too.
ReplyDeleteMine too. Similar scenario. Lets see.
ReplyDeleteObviously it wouldn't take James Bond stuff. If we can believe the club would collude with the Echo in misinformation we can surely believe they would show evidence of said transfer, if it had been done. There would definitely be electronic confirmation of money transfer to third party bank and most probably a fax as this is still seen as a legal document. This can be shown without any strange happenings at a bank. Could be done anywhere the owner of the document takes it.
Odd.
ReplyDeleteBasically similar to what I said....the club simply shows a record of the electronic transfer...doesn't need documents as such, or bank officials. It's very simple. Also warned him he should be very careful about saying the Echo "manufactured" the story....he's publicly questioning their integrity.
ReplyDeleteMy first comment disappearing maybe....but a second one goes into mod and then goes too?
ReplyDeleteJudas.
ReplyDeleteNah, I don't really know what I'm talking about, it just seems that us not transferring money in time is an unlikely reason for something like this to fall through. As you say, us doing it in advance seems likely, and the middle man failing to do it also seems unlikely since (presumably) this is their bread and butter.
The first one didn't go into moderation, because I saw it.
ReplyDeleteI saw something that suggested Liverpool had cold feet about the legality some of the fees they were required to pay. Perhaps both sides had second thoughts and were looking for a way out. Who knows the truth of the matter ? No one on here that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteYep, we're all basically just standing around with our dicks in our hands, none the wiser.
ReplyDeleteI know...just disappeared. most peculiar.
ReplyDeleteWhat you do as you read the site is of course entirely your matter....but I'll never be able to see another post of yours in the same light again! :-)
ReplyDeleteWhat most do not also know is that Dnipro's owner owns a small stake in a Roman Abramovich's steel company.
ReplyDeleteCould it have been a case of Abramovich asking his business partner to not sell his best player to one of Chelsea's rivals???
Something to ponder...
Mine went to mod and then disappeared.
ReplyDeleteI know what it was.
Werewolves!
Yes I believe the co-op was involved.
ReplyDeleteAs we've been a bit "bargain bin" in our transfers at times it really wouldn't surprise me. :-)
ReplyDeleteI prefer the one about (Manu supporting) aliens abducting the owner at the crucial moment preventing him from signing the contract. But then you just couldn't make up some of this stuff.
ReplyDeleteis it strange that Jose sold mata to man u whilst liverpool had been chasing him for years ,we ask for betrand on loan, they ship him off to aston villa blaming it on the reason that they have
ReplyDelete'a flop (moses)', who is making us loose games and we should give him more game time to "fool" ....that he hijacked the salah deal......abrahmovich is best friends with fellow billionaire and country man ihor Kolomoyskyi (he owns dnipro) ...what the f**k do u expect .. just a phone call from abrahmovich and the deal is cancelled.....we see soccer , but Jose sees this game as war...to be frank ayre didn't see this one coming.don't blame him too much.
this is a what ave been saying all evening there are buddies, betrand deal, mata, salah.... just a phone call and all our deals are off..
ReplyDeleteihor has a stake in abramovich's steel business ... they are buddies ...the story continues...
ReplyDeleteThis is a disqus glitches. The system is a bit of a nightmare, but there's nothing I can do about it. Another reason comments might sometimes appear late is due to the word filter picking them up. It grabs perfectly innocent posts sometimes (mine included)
ReplyDeleteBeam me up scotty
ReplyDeleteFair enough...ta for letting us know...the other thing it does it change all the names round...so you think you are posting to A and it's X instead...really confusing.
ReplyDeleteDefamatory? LFC can sue me. They won't though because there is problem elements of truth to what I'm suggesting, and I honest believe the truth of what I've posted.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I believe Rusol over the Echo:
* In his statement, he makes it clear he thinks a deal can be done in the summer. Why on earth would he say that, then lie about LFC in the same sentence, making the club look bad?! How is that going to entice the club back to do business with Dnipro again?
Rusol has no motive to lie; if he lies, then he potentially alienates a possible big money buyer in the summer, and how does that make sense?
Plus, LFC's own manager, Brendan Rodgers, has repeatedly stated that it wasn't a money issue - which matches Rusol's comments - so is he lying about that now?!
No fella, I was more referring to the Echo...and it was intended as friendly advice after having read some of the "Truth" stuff and not wishing mischief being made.
ReplyDeleteI think the point is that they don't have to "entice" the club back.
ReplyDeleteThey have a prized player who is sought after by a number of parties and if Liverpool want him, they HAVE to do business with Dnipro. It will matter little to Dnipro if Liverpool don't come back in for him- they clearly didn't want to sell him in the first place and furthermore, they're unlikely to be short of suitors.
Generally I type with both hands.
ReplyDeleteI dunno JK, this werewolf theory Greg has put forwards seems like it has some legs. Hairy legs.
ReplyDeleteLet's not rule anything out at this stage.
We've been rooting through the bins, but I don't think we've picked up too many bargains.
ReplyDeleteOn second thoughts, I've unwittingly delved into bindipper territory.
ReplyDeleteI'm obviously a Manc in disguise.
My God! Where do you put it then?! ;-)
ReplyDeleteI get where you're coming from :-) In this case though, I don't believe it's defamatory.
ReplyDeleteIt lies in wait in my trousers, until such time as I have to hold it in my hands to express the helplessness with our on-going transfer impotence,
ReplyDeleteFair enough....but my concern is that you are basically calling their journalistic integrity into question, something news organisations can get very touchy about. If you put something like "it wouldn't surprise me if....." it's fine but to baldly state it is a manufactured story is a different matter. P.S. Absolutely intended just as advice.
ReplyDelete...no wonder you like to debate the subject here then. ;-)
ReplyDeleteYou can dish out advice any time you like; I don't take it personally, and it's your right to do that anyway.
ReplyDeleteI am emphatic in my statement because I have a 100% honest and reasonable belief that what I'm saying is true, and that is a defence to defamation.
If the Echo had seen the proof of transaction, why not post a photo of it? If someone from LFC is unprofessional enough to show a journo the document, why not allow them to photograph it to really make the club's point?
....it's not quite as cut and dried as that....otherwise you could say anything and say it's your 100 per cent honest belief.... You've stated you've no doubt the story IS manufactured....it could be argued you are mixing "facts" with opinion which then removes this defence....hence my previous advice. Also, when you mention LFC ...the truth is only a defence if you can show all of the defamatory statements are true, "elements" being true can still lead to being done. Not saying you would be, or any of them would even bother...just better to not give others opportunity to make mischief. Anyway all getting very technical now.
ReplyDeleteThat would be a mass debate then?
ReplyDeleteC'mon. Let's not lower the tone of this conversation about my crank.
ReplyDeleteJaimie, you are a bully and have no facts whatsoever yet you act like you do, I haven't sworn nor will I, so moderation isn't necessary, you write about your "belief", who cares what you believe, what makes your conjecture more real than any other reasonable intelligent person, its a question not an insult, although, rhetorical, its still a question.
ReplyDeleteThe Dnipro president may have felt Dnipro stand a realistic chance of coming 2nd to either Kiev or Shakhter and chose not to sell his "Suarez", after all he isn't cash strapped
A player's agent not being privy to the deal ?, are you seriously Jaimie, really?
ReplyDelete