14 Jul 2014

Forget £75m: Barca reveal the shock low transfer fee paid for Suarez. LFC negligence?

The majority of credible news sources continue to claim that Barcelona will pay Liverpool a £75m transfer fee for star striker Luis Suarez, but is this an accurate figure? According to Barcelona President Josep Maria Bartomeu, the actual fee is much lower than that.

In an interview last night with Sky Sports, Bartomeu revealed that Barcelona basically mugged Liverpool in the transfer market. Here is the relevant part of the interview (verbatim):

Q: Is it true that the buyout clause was 100m, and you managed to buy him for 81m?

A: "We are not allowed to explain a lot about this, but roughly you are right with your explanation".

A Spanish interviewer put the questions to Bartomeu, so it's likely that they're talking Euros here, not pounds, and if that's the case:

* It appears that Liverpool caved-in and let one of the world's best strikers leave Anfield for a disappointing £64m (or a figure 'roughly' close to that)

* Bartomeu also confirms that Barcelona paid much less than the agreed buyout clause. If that's the case, what is the point of having a clause in the first place?!

Of course, it's also possible that the figures referenced in the exchange are in pounds, but that seems unlikely, for the following reasons:

* A €100m buyout clause (euros) is clearly far more credible than £100m.

* Suarez's previous clause was £40m, so a £60m jump seems a little unrealistic.

* Most credible sources put the clause in the £60m-£80m range.

* I doubt Suarez would've agreed to a £100m clause. It's prohibitive, and he'd probably see it as severely restricting the possibility of actually securing a move. After all, no player has ever breached the £100m transfer barrier.

I am not Suarez's biggest fan, but I recognise his amazing talent, and £64m is a pitifully low fee for one of the world's best players. Even *with* the bite controversy, the Reds should've been able to secure a minimum of £70m+ for Suarez, who is inarguably worth that (and more).

It's hardly surprising though; with Ian Ayre in charge of negotiations, Liverpool continually get ripped-off in the transfer market, and this is just another example of that ongoing negligence.

Some fans will inevitably argue that Bartomeu is lying, but with the recent Neymar transfer fiasco - and the resultant transfer ban - it's doubtful that Barcelona's top man would brazenly lie in public.

Author:


131 comments:

  1. God you are such a gullible bell end

    ReplyDelete
  2. We don't know what agreements were made with Suarez, his agent, or Barcelona or when they were made. But on the face of it a transfer fee of £64M seems low looking back over his performances last season but as I said we don't know enough about the details to be sure that Ayre is negligent though, no doubt, that will be a popular view.


    In his defence Ayre has recently been promoted so he must be doing something right in the eyes of FSG who are hard nosed business men.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No offense but I don't see champions league football next year. We are going nuts for players as we're overpaying. Sakho was a disaster that comes to mind first.

    ReplyDelete
  4. They keep dreaming6:19 pm, July 14, 2014

    from what I understand, this is the upfront part of the fee that LFC insisted on before the deal was signed off on. After the whole Neymar transfer scam, I would expect Barca are all to often claimimg one thing, but the reality is something quite different. Then they can hardly admit to being hypocrites after slagging off Real for the fee they paid for Bale. LFC are the most likely to have mugged Barca seeing as they held all the cards, no matter what Suarez may have wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh come on. You really don't think the president of Barcelona might have an ulterior motive here? Spanish clubs and press are notorious for undervaluing transfer fees when it suits the clubs. See Bale for instance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. With respect, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest any staggered payment. When considering all the available evidence, a public statement by Barcelona's President carries much more weight than tabloid speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What ulterior motives? There's nothing to suggest that Bartomeu is lying; and after the Neymar fiasco, do you really think he'd lie so brazenly in public?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Who expected other than an LFC cave-in? They seem to be experts at that having very little nous when it comes to transfer dealings - buy big and sell small is what they believe in the boardroom.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What a pointless speculative article....

    ReplyDelete
  10. They keep dreaming6:24 pm, July 14, 2014

    Remeber the whole Neymar claims, then it turns out they atually paid some €38m to his family, but neglected to declare it, hence their issues with UEFA and subsiquent transfer sanctions.. As to evidence to staggered payment plan, I'm only repeating what numerous club sources have stated, and the main reason for the delay in the deal going through.. But all this is mere conjecture.. Foe actual proof, we'll have to wait on an LFC statement or their financila records..

    ReplyDelete
  11. Other than he said it ...

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is all just speculation. There's nothing to prove that Bartomeu is lying. Clearly, you place the unsubstantiated musing of the tabloid press over the word of Barca's president. That's your prerogative, but I'll take his word for it until more persuasive evidence arises.

    ReplyDelete
  13. They keep dreaming6:31 pm, July 14, 2014

    I think in reality, we all know Suarez was worth double what anyone claims was paid, so in that regard.. Barca did mug LFC.. but only because LFC couldn't force them to pay more than the release clause.. I mean who puts in a release clause for the worlds best striker only to except considerably less? answer.. nobody.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think we will see the true figure in the accounts next year. Barca is notorious for implying they paid less than the really did.. for example they said they bought Sanchez for 22m euro but Udinese claimed it was 32m euro. They claimed they got Fabregas for £24m because he took a pay cut but they sold him to Chelsea still owing Arsenal £12m because if the gunners had exercised their option to buy him back they would have paid £18m according to some arsenal fans. They also claimed Neymar cost them £45m but after one of their own claimed fraud the figure is now said to be a considerable £71m and it could be even more.

    This is not to say they didn't get Suarez on the cheap as they claim but it puts a reality check on the statements they issue because they are economical with the truth.. It could however be the first time they are saying the truth but we have to remember Suarez is a hard sale to some of their conservative fan base who think they are an ethical run community club so the club would want to send the message they got a compelling bargain that will improve them

    ReplyDelete
  15. stop trying to stir it up when you clearly dont know what figure was paid or how long it will be paid over....just rember barca said they only paid £40 for neymar

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sakho was our best defender last year. No clue what you're talking about.

    http://www.squawka.com/comparison-matrix#premier_league/2013/2014/martin_skrtel/126/64/519/0/p|premier_league/2013/2014/mamadou_sakho/126/64/1294/0/p|premier_league/2013/2014/daniel_agger/126/64/51/0/p#tackles_won/successful_passes/interceptions/defensive_errors/clearances#avg

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, he made reference to the transfer fee. Where is your evidence he's lying?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Barce say a lot of things they lied about the Neymar transfer and how much they really paid so take the comments with a pinch of salt

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't think that Barca has paid anything less than LS's release Clause
    LS said in his letter to the fans that the club wanted him to stay..
    So saying that the club has sold him for an amount that is less than his release clause does not make sense to me

    ReplyDelete
  20. That Liverpool was not same as this one. Also that league was not as strong as this one. We need one more miraculous season. :(

    ReplyDelete
  21. its a mixture of poor negotiating ( 20 years plus now ) and the biting plus the ban...ill be honest JK i think the deal was okay and im one of Suarez biggest fans his age his history all make going into the real silly money hard

    ReplyDelete
  22. I didn't say I have evidence that what he's saying is true. I stated that (IMO), the absence of concrete evidence, the statement of Barca's president carries more weight than tabloid speculation.

    I'm simply weighing up the available evidence; you're going in all guns blazing accusing the guy of being a liar, and that accusation is based on nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Looking at it another way I think Liverpool did very well in getting Suarez to sign a new deal last Christmas allowing us get more money this window. Especially when a) he wanted out and b) if john henry is to be believed he already had a get out clause of around 40 million.


    Great player, possibly in time would have been our greatest ever but hes chosen to go and for whatever reasons we dont seem to have put up much of a fight to keep him. Lets take the 64-75 million and spend it wisely. We have to make the most of having Champions League football to offer any potential targets

    ReplyDelete
  24. Where is your evidence he's not? I've seen reports to the contrary, as have you. And Barca club legends have recently voiced their dissent regarding this transfer, so ...

    ReplyDelete
  25. No of course there isn't anything to prove he's lying. He also didn't say that the fee was £64m. You're drawing conclusions from his use of 'approximately', which could be wildly inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You amaze me. You are the first to say get rid of him but what about if no one wanted to pay what we deem him worth. Any reason to moan about LFC.

    ReplyDelete
  27. when you see the neymar situation when they said they paid like 40-50 M Euro and we discovered that they paid more than real for bale make me think he could be lying again.

    ReplyDelete
  28. They keep dreaming6:35 pm, July 14, 2014

    Common sense may yet prevail

    ReplyDelete
  29. No wonder things get twisted so much. Why don't you get your facts straight instead of spreading inaccurate nonsense? Barca stated they paid €40m to Neymar's parents; they did not say they paid a transfer fee £40m for him.

    ReplyDelete
  30. And you think it's likely that after being so severely admonished over that, they'd just go and do exactly the same thing again only a few months later?!

    People believe what they want to believe, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  31. They keep dreaming6:37 pm, July 14, 2014

    After stating they ONLY paid €40m or whatever fullstop.. The families cash was hidden from all, until they got caught out.

    ReplyDelete
  32. £64m = €81m. Bartomeu suggests that the journo asking the question is right with the figure (or in the ballpark, which I state in the article). I have every right to draw such conclusions from the public statement of Barca's President.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Spot on mate..This is exactly what i am going to say ... they won't stupidly announce how much they paid as FFP rules and tax avoidance issue .. Spanish clubs is good at that ;) They paid under table nobody know ;) H.Rednapp can explained more i suppose lol..

    ReplyDelete
  34. They keep dreaming6:38 pm, July 14, 2014

    There's nothing to prove he's telling the truth either, but he has previous for lying when he thought it would be beneficial.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Also, I find it interesting that you describe The Guardian as a credible source in your article, but apparently ignore that the same credible source has reported the fee to be £75m

    ReplyDelete
  36. what barca say they have paid and what Liverpool say they have received is irrespective now for me.It will all come out in the wash it would be futile for fsg to say they got more than they did as they would have to spend more if anything it would be in there benefit to low ball the figure.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Haggling for £5m more might have taken weeks and impacted on the planned signings inwards.

    ReplyDelete
  38. well seing the whole Neymar situation, being honest must not be what he cares about...
    After all he lied why wouldn't he do it again ? just like with Suarez people don't change.

    ReplyDelete
  39. They keep dreaming6:40 pm, July 14, 2014

    With such figures, 64 is in the 75 ball park.. certainly closer than the 100 mark. If we're talking approximate ballpark figures.

    ReplyDelete
  40. coomon sense and football make poor bed fellows

    ReplyDelete
  41. The figure reported in most of the Spanish media is around £64m which was a final settlement figure and no additional extras. I actually believe that sum to be the accurate market value of Suarez in the current market when one considers the fact that both Fabregas and Alexis Sanchez were sold for £30m and £32m respectively. Additionally there's no way Pere Guardiola, Suarez' agent, would have agreed to a contract extension which effectively priced his client out of a move when they renewed his contract with LFC in December.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The majority of credible news sources continue to claim that Barcelona will pay Liverpool a £75m transfer fee for star striker Luis Suarez, but is this an accurate figure?

    That's the first line of this article JK. You wrote that line. Why now do you continue to label these once "credible news sources" "tabloid press?"

    Very peculiar indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  43. You are a sniper. The proof of that is you have totally twisted this point, which does not represent anything I've argued.

    * I used The Guardian as a credible source for Suarez's buyout clause.

    * The fact that they reported the £75m is irrelevant. Everyone is reporting that; I haven't criticised anyone for reporting that figure. They report whatever figure is available at the time. Bartomeu's statement came last night; the £75m figure arose a week ago.

    Deliberately twist my words again and you will be banned.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Well if his original buyout clause was for £40m and we made him sign a new contract that got us a extra £24 million then what exactly is wrong with that?

    Barcelona will only get use of Suarez when October arrives so we lost some money there.but Suarez cost £23m so a £40M profit since 2011 is pretty decent profit if you had to ask me. Let's remember that bale did not go around biting people and getting himself banned for four months!

    ReplyDelete
  45. and u think Barca will come out and tell u the right price..use yr head..they did the same with neymar..they told the public that neymar cost 57mill euros and later it was discovered they paid 86 mill euros...so if u think suarez cost less than 75 mill pounds go with that..only lpool and barca know the right price and am sure its above 75 mill pounds..remember lpool didnt need to sell,so am certain barca paid heavily and they will coveer it up as they usually do

    ReplyDelete
  46. They keep dreaming6:44 pm, July 14, 2014

    or whatever.. I din't know the figure, I don't much care.. hence the or whatever after the figure.. The fact is the hidding of the real fee... that is the argument, proof the club lies. No need to insult people.. or is this a fascist state.

    ReplyDelete
  47. i agree if anything because of the ban and poor sponsor publicity i had visions of a 40 to 50m fee

    ReplyDelete
  48. I haven't insulted you at all. I simply made light of you spreading misinformation.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Fee was £75m gbp. I know for a FACT. Wait till accounts are published

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jamie the COCK again you'll believe anything...do some work and get us some facts or calm your gums!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Fascist, Liverpool hater.

    ReplyDelete
  52. What is more, if we had kept Suarez then LFC's sponsors would have also pulled out. That is how bad the situation was getting. Brilliant player but something had to give.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I wasn't sniping. Where do you think the press get the fees from? They get briefed by the club. The Spanish press have reported that it's around £63m from before it was announced by either club. Sport, Mundo Deportivo et al have consistently reported this fee. The British press have similarly gone with the £75m fee because that's what they've been briefed.

    ReplyDelete
  54. im trying to see where the debate on this thread is going but alas its beyond me .....hes gone we have been paid lets move on

    ReplyDelete
  55. speculation is what ya need.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Sakho was a disaster? Hardly. He may look awkward on the ball, but he completes his passes more than any other defender and is a better tackler than the others. His positionally sense will come in time, but he is good tactically and for his debut season he was good.

    ReplyDelete
  57. If you don't want to engage in discussion on this particular subject, then why are you posting on this thread at all?

    ReplyDelete
  58. I guess the real question is what does "roughly" mean? Relative to the scale of the transfer, 12.5M Euros (10 M Pounds) isn't really that much. If I bought something for 23 bucks, and someone asked if I bought it for 20, and I said "roughly," would I be wrong? Its pretty much the same difference as 94 M E (75M pounds) to 80 M E, just on a bigger scale.

    ReplyDelete
  59. yeah like torres oh wait, fuck of jona back to manny.

    ReplyDelete
  60. He is not lying as he had neither confirmed or denied the figure

    ReplyDelete
  61. I reckon we'd have to see through the accounts as both sides will want the fans to believe the best price was paid/received as neither is going to want to appear weak.
    However, given how swift the deal was done after bite, I reckon Barca got the best deal somehow.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Barcelona are known tax evaders... clearly u don't expect them to come out right and say we actually paid these loads of money

    ReplyDelete
  63. also, "roughly" refers to "explanation" in the quote. Whether this is just down to language differences is up in the air, but he might've just been saying "Yeah, that was the situation... there was a high clause and we got him a bit cheaper than that." If that's the case, we could've had the clause at 90 M and was sold at 75 M. His statements reveal nothing except Suarez was sold somewhere in the range of 10-15M Pounds less than his clause, which could've been anything from 60M to 90M

    ReplyDelete
  64. Think that sums it up well. I'm a big critic of Ian Ayre in the transfer market, but this was a complicated situation. I hope we got £75m, but if we got £64m it's still £24m better than if we'd caved to Arsenal last year

    ReplyDelete
  65. I don't expect anything. Ultimately, what it boils down to is credibility: For me, public statements from players, managers, club official etc carry much more weight than newspaper speculation. Other fans may think differently, and that's fine.

    ReplyDelete
  66. How do you work out the '60m to 90m' part? That's just more unsubstantiated speculation. You're twisting Bartomeu's words to suit your expectation of what the fee might be.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Bought for 22m, sold for 75m within 3 years. And you knock the club!

    ReplyDelete
  68. Nothing in your article is 'proven fact' - you have no evidence he is telling the truth - Barca have form for telling the world they paid less than they did!
    You seem to have taken his word (which is translated) as gospel ignoring what you yourself even call 'credible sources'

    ReplyDelete
  69. the OP was if the fee was low or not but thats not what is being discussed

    ReplyDelete
  70. Well what's important now is that we spend the money wisely. Unlike last year when we have made a mess with the transfer money available.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Barcelona were not exactly honest regarding the fee they paid for Neymar, so there is no reason to believe them with regard to the Suarez fee. As the article indicates, the vast majority of credible sources are citing £75m as the fee, which definitely seems more likely, not that £75m is enough either really.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Why are you stating the obvious? Yes, I take Bartomeu's word. As I've noted several times already, I will always take the word of a footballer/manager/club official over newspaper speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Repeat offenders... If you gave a murderer a suspended sentence, would you really say he wouldn't do it again???

    ReplyDelete
  74. A murderer would not get a suspended sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  75. BarcaAccountant7:18 pm, July 14, 2014

    Don't lie, I know for a FACT it was 81m euro. Wait until accounts are published.

    ReplyDelete
  76. What? You're clearly avoiding my point. Call it a burglar or whatever; you can't say that because he got caught once he wouldn't do it again.

    ReplyDelete
  77. How much is Lukaku being offered at and how much is Liverpool offering do not talk too quick Mata is better than Lukaku.You like everyone else knows we need another striker poor comment indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  78. It's nothing to do with tarring with the same brush, it's just the simple fact that you cannot say that Barca wouldn't do it again. The gain outweighs the loss in this situation - just look at their previous joke of a sanction. How about we wait and see if J.Henry comes out and claims a £75m fee shall we?

    ReplyDelete
  79. To be honest, I don't get the negativity surrounding this deal. Markovic is as good as Sterling right with a higher ceiling (imo). If we were to sell sterling right now, there is no way we would sell him for less than £20m. That's the way i see it.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Thanks for bringing this up Jaimie. I think we all knew we would undersell on Suarez. Its the way we do business with the few bigger clubs. Its such a pathetic showing that we can't negotiate anymore. Whats more, I bet that as usual the brains in the red corner havent inserted a right of first refusal option to purchase. Its amazing the Arse always seem to have these absolutely obvious clauses inserted, but with us, you know such an idea would be sacrilege. Really sour on this, but it was to be expected. I cant understand how Barca can buy Suarez, and when its time to sell, if they do, whats the bet they will be playing hardball on all sides (player and prospective clubs).

    ReplyDelete
  81. NotAnAccountant7:46 pm, July 14, 2014

    According to my resources, Suarez is a Pegasus, elephants can fly, and LFC and Barca are figments of your imagination. Wait till accounts are published.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Suarez position at anfield was almost untenable.....foreign clubs know we wont sell to a rival and real Madrid are in a mess on the transfer front that leaves Barcelona only ....coupled with the ban if i was in charge of barca i would have bid 40 mill plus add on and unsettled him hes going to miss the beginning of the season anyway and come Christmas Liverpool could have had a player who we may want rid at any cost

    ReplyDelete
  83. I think they are the biggest doubts mate

    ReplyDelete
  84. Jesus... JK, you've actually been speaking continual sense recently, which has been a pleasant surprise, but your obsessive anti hardon for Suarez has driven you back to to your old ways. He's a known bullshitter and just because he's said something publicly doesn't mean it's true. He's an electable official and will say what he needs to say to get re-elected, like Blair saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You know what tue hest thing about Suarez going is? It'll stop you talking shite.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Who knows what was paid but when you insert the idiot factor into negotiations his price does drop some what, he will screw up again you can bet on it but at least with his bans etc he is someone elses problem now.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Jeepers JK a public statement from a football player or manager is worth jack...ill kiss the badge and sign for someone else ...l

    ReplyDelete
  87. He's not allowed to say "but"?.
    And this is believable why?...this man is talking politics, I can't tell you we over paid for a player that can't play until October but if you want to guess that's up to you....
    Its not reasonable to think Liverpool to part with him on anyone's terms but theirs

    ReplyDelete
  88. Sakho's passing stats are amazing for a CB! Some people can't see beyond his ungainly style, in the same way that Agger is deemed to be 'comfortable on the ball' yet his passing stats are nowhere near as good as Sakho's.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Yeah it a good tactic, albeit dirty.
    Question: don't we ever have any tactics?

    ReplyDelete
  90. in short no ! we devalue our own players before we even sell then by letting the world know we wont play them no matter what plus rogers and previous mangers develop a sign at all cost mentality on average players from selling clubs, i genuinely think we are out on our own when it comes to being inept although spurs last year have shown they are after our mantle

    ReplyDelete
  91. Spurs even trying to steal our ineptitude. i bet they get caught though

    ReplyDelete
  92. 21 minutes and counting

    ReplyDelete
  93. Yes sign him now!

    ReplyDelete
  94. god loves a tryer and they are usually a cats whisker away from most of our targets and have helped us miss some serious bullets .....they allegedly even bid 20m for carroll a year before we got him imagine the money we would have saved

    ReplyDelete
  95. We need to trust what Rodgers is doing. He took us to 2nd last season. He has a plan set out to take us further.


    Just because we are not signing the Messi's of this world does not mean we are not going to progress. If we did not sign Markovic now then Chelsea would have the season after 2014/2015. He is very highly rated. Give the lad a chance. Portugal is a breading place for many top player including Christiano Ronaldo. It is not about who the fans want. It is about who the manager wants. Have some faith.

    ReplyDelete
  96. LOL! Funny but true

    ReplyDelete
  97. It's difficultt really. Do you believe known liars or known liars?.

    ReplyDelete
  98. This website is absolute garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  99. You just lost all credibility sakho is a great cb. Why did he start for France ahead off koscielny if he's a disaster?

    ReplyDelete
  100. He scored loads of goals, helped us get back into the CL and left us with a massive profit. I cannot be negative towards FSG or Suarez here. Barcelona had to put up or shut up and a deal was reached. End of.

    ReplyDelete
  101. He can have a shirt marked with a question mark!

    ReplyDelete
  102. I expected a difference in what the 2 clubs claim was the transfer fee. Barcelona never tell the truth as UEFA are on to them. Besides when Liverpool wanted to get rid and only 1 club is interested in buying it doesn't leave much leverage to negotiate.

    ReplyDelete
  103. im curious to what absolute garbage is as oppose to just garbage

    ReplyDelete
  104. exactly im staggered we got so much...usually we just loan them out and pay half the wages

    ReplyDelete
  105. If your Nan has a moustache, she could replace Messi as the face of Gillette.

    ReplyDelete
  106. It certainly helps them out to tell everyone that they bought players for less money than they actually paid, financial fair play and all..

    ReplyDelete
  107. I like to give the accused the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. All the allegations of fraud occurred under a notoriously despised president in Barcelona. Now that he's out, and considering Bartomeu was never privy to his practices, I'll wait and see what figures are released by both clubs. There are a lot of details that get left out in the lawyered statements released by Barcelona, doesn't mean they are lying, just means they aren't disclosing the full amount.

    And in reality, every football club is guilty of this.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Yet again the press stating the facts while telling us lies, when will we all ever learn.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Gillette, the best a nan can get.

    ReplyDelete
  110. With respect the article is pony.. it dose not suggest anywhere what was paid.. it's just another Jamie headline to get people to read it.. honestly man this is boring.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I think that last paragraph needs to be looked at again. So a club who would happily break rules would not insinuate a (because he says nothing outright) falsehood in an interview about a player a he'll of a lot of barca fans are not happy about signing the

    ReplyDelete
  112. No no.no no no more average players linked or signed plz we need top quality. Why are liverpool always paying tooooooo much for average plyers all the liverpool fans can see it BR PLZ wake up and smell the bacon southampton swansra amd mid yable team.players wont get u into the top4 let alone.winning you the epl

    ReplyDelete
  113. Yes, I was a bit slack on this one, but I got there in the end!

    ReplyDelete
  114. It's not his word though is it? He implies it yes, he generally agrees with the interviewer but does not actually say it. A club notorious for this kind of thing with a particularly decisive signing. Yes he would imply something that is not true as others at the club have done before. Personally I don't know but your reasoning for him to telling the truth is full of holes. I'm taking this one with a pinch of salt

    ReplyDelete
  115. Yes, it is his word. He's stating that the transfer fee for Suarez is close to €81m (£64m), and I will take that over newspaper speculation any day of the week. He could've just said 'I can't talk about it', but he didn't. He made the decision to directly reference the fee.

    ReplyDelete
  116. It wasn't just about the money though was it? If he is lying now the situations would be completely different. There are no rules against suggesting to the press you paid less than you did. As long as you don't lie to the relevant bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Even though they can be contradictory?

    ReplyDelete
  118. There may be scraps of something valuable in garbage but not in absolute garbage. Glad I coulf help.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Whatever the situation, actual public statements from human beings will always carry more weight that newspaper speculation (IMO).

    If a public statement contradicts a newspaper article, I will always put more weight on the public statement.

    If there's a contradiction between two public statements, then it makes no difference; it's up to the people reading to make up their own minds.

    For me, the hierarchy of sources (as used in practice on this site) is as follows:

    1. Official club statement
    2. Official legals documents (i.e. club accounts)
    2. Public statement from player
    3. Public statement from manager
    4. Public statement from Owner/President etc
    5. Public statement from ex-player
    6. Public statement from Agent/official rep.
    7. Newspaper article
    7. Journo opinion

    ReplyDelete
  120. One thing you're missing: Bartomeu was not President during the Neymar scandal. Sandro Rosell oversaw that, so why is Bartomeu being tarred with the same brush?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Bartomeu had nothing to do with the Neymar thing; Sandro Rosell was in charge during that incident.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Would it surprise you to find out that Barcelona (or ANY club) would like you to believe that they got "a bargain" in any transfer deal? It wouldn't surprise me a bit...

    ReplyDelete
  123. Y is that relevant? I was just saying the two situations were very different and lying in this case would not get him in trouble

    ReplyDelete
  124. Lying? But when you look at his comment, he says "we are not allowed to comment on this..."and he did not comment. The journo put a number forward and suggested they mugged LFC, Bartomeu simply confirmed that in his opinon the journo is about right - the figure or the feeling of mugging? Is the figure about right to the tune of +/- $1 or $10,000,000+. Nothing has been confirmed. However, there is plenty of press reporting the fee of approx. GBP75mils - which will probably not have been plucked from the air either. Someone close the the negotiations will have tipped a wink somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I think the difference is that there was some dodgy stuff going on in that Neymar deal. I don't think there is in the Suarez deal, so it's not like anything will happen if he lies about the transfer fee in public

    ReplyDelete
  126. Bullsh"£$....I can only think Barca are trying to save face by having to fork out .... John Henry calls the money shots for LFC....not Ayre...

    ReplyDelete
  127. Buy high - sell low is not something out of the world for LFC. In fact it is now pretty much a tradition for the club. Since FSG (not as if RB-era were God-like in transfer dealings but it's too far away to talk about) took over as owner of the club, only LS, DS and Coutinho and maybe Jordan Henderson are profitable transfer dealings. The 'buy-high-sell-low's are too long a list to write down for now. Anyone can claim that because Liverpool is not an attractive city therefore LFC cannot attract star players but that itself does not mean the club must spend big always to get unproven or barely-proven players. Anyway the club did not get it right most of the time when it comes to relatively cheaper players as well. Aspas and LA are prime examples. Now they have the 64 mil pounds from LS's sale, very low in fact, hope they can spend it wisely.

    ReplyDelete