As confirmed by Jose Enrique this week, Fabio Borini is one of three players currently being marginalised and isolated at Anfield, and it's clear that Brendan Rodgers is trying to force the Italian out of Liverpool. Borini has steadfastly refused to leave the club, but new reports suggest that he is finally on the verge of leaving Anfield.
Borini - the subject of a £14m bid last summer from Sunderland - is currently linked with a whole host of teams in Serie A, with Fiorentina and Lazio reportedly leading the chase, but according to Sky Sports on Thursday evening:
"Sunderland are in talks to sign Fabio Borini from Liverpool on season-long loan. Borini has been told he has no future at Liverpool and [is] set to move to the Stadium of Light"
Borini - hailed by Rodgers in October for his 'outstanding' performance against Swansea - is a bona-fide transfer flop, and his departure won't make the slightest difference to anything at Anfield.
Will he actually leave, though? Borini is reportedly on £55k-a-week at Liverpool, and unless Sunderland (or some other clubs) pays his full salary (unlikely), Borini will probably reject the move and stay at Anfield.
There's always the option of Liverpool subsidising the Italian's wages, but that defeats the object of the transfer, which is to get Borini - and his salary - off the books. Still paying, say, 50% of his wages for a year is better than paying the whole amount.
The other problem is that Borini still has two years of his contract left, so even if he goes on loan for a year, the cycle can (and probably will) repeat itself next summer, when the time comes for a permanent transfer.
Borini rejected a permanent move to the Stadium of Light last summer, so what's to stop him reject a move next summer?
Ultimately, it's just poor transfer planning by Liverpool. hy on earth did Liverpool give Borini a 5-year deal back in 2012? Deals of that length should be reserved for experienced players who are likely to have a major impact on the team, not comparatively untested young players who've achieved nothing in the game.
Despite the Borini fiasco, the club still haven't learned its lesson. Origi, Markovic, Moreno, Gomez, and Ilori (and others, I'm sure) are all on 5-year contract, which opens up the possibility of a repeat of the Borini situation at some point in the future.
In my view, FSG should institute a standard 3-year contract policy for players up to the age of 21/22. Then, after the player has proven himself, and/or shown that the potential to be a long-term asset, the club can extend the contract.
Author: Jaimie K
Borini - the subject of a £14m bid last summer from Sunderland - is currently linked with a whole host of teams in Serie A, with Fiorentina and Lazio reportedly leading the chase, but according to Sky Sports on Thursday evening:
"Sunderland are in talks to sign Fabio Borini from Liverpool on season-long loan. Borini has been told he has no future at Liverpool and [is] set to move to the Stadium of Light"
Borini - hailed by Rodgers in October for his 'outstanding' performance against Swansea - is a bona-fide transfer flop, and his departure won't make the slightest difference to anything at Anfield.
Will he actually leave, though? Borini is reportedly on £55k-a-week at Liverpool, and unless Sunderland (or some other clubs) pays his full salary (unlikely), Borini will probably reject the move and stay at Anfield.
There's always the option of Liverpool subsidising the Italian's wages, but that defeats the object of the transfer, which is to get Borini - and his salary - off the books. Still paying, say, 50% of his wages for a year is better than paying the whole amount.
The other problem is that Borini still has two years of his contract left, so even if he goes on loan for a year, the cycle can (and probably will) repeat itself next summer, when the time comes for a permanent transfer.
Borini rejected a permanent move to the Stadium of Light last summer, so what's to stop him reject a move next summer?
Ultimately, it's just poor transfer planning by Liverpool. hy on earth did Liverpool give Borini a 5-year deal back in 2012? Deals of that length should be reserved for experienced players who are likely to have a major impact on the team, not comparatively untested young players who've achieved nothing in the game.
Despite the Borini fiasco, the club still haven't learned its lesson. Origi, Markovic, Moreno, Gomez, and Ilori (and others, I'm sure) are all on 5-year contract, which opens up the possibility of a repeat of the Borini situation at some point in the future.
In my view, FSG should institute a standard 3-year contract policy for players up to the age of 21/22. Then, after the player has proven himself, and/or shown that the potential to be a long-term asset, the club can extend the contract.
Author: Jaimie K
0 Comments:
Post a Comment