I totally agree, Dempsey is definitely good for a starting spot at Liverpool I suppose you could quibble over how he would fit into Rogers' system, but I think he's definitely good enough. One problem is age; as I asid before I think FSG are trying hard to avoid signing any more players in their late 20s. The other problem is that we already have a ton of midfielders, many of whom play similar roles. But I'd take him over Aqualani or Cole. I know how you feel. As a Liverpool supporter I would be thrilled to see him play. But I want him to go wherever is best for him personally and the USA national team. I'd even be OK with him going to Man U (as much as I hate to say it), if it meant his club and national career were better off for it. I support the national team and US players above all. Clubs are secondary to me.
Is there a director of football at liverpool? The reason I ask is because if Rogers brought the guy in then discussing whether he is going to start is a moot point as he would only buy players that he thinks would fit his system. However if this was an acquisition over his head then it might not be a certainty. Also I saw a report on the BBC website that suggested Carroll to West Ham as a possible loan deal http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18794865
Liverpool are going to take a huuuuuge financial hit on Carroll when they sell him. They are not going to get anywhere near what they paid for him. I will laugh at them the whole time because they deserve it.
I have a feeling that new coach does not see carroll fitting in to his grand plan. however new coach can not go to board and say "you know that 30million striker we have, yeah? I don't need him". Also trying to offload now, as you say, will not get anywhere near the money they paid for him back. Therefore loaning this guy out, hoping he gets maybe 10-15 goals, or even better 15+, may raise his value enough to offload next season...?
Well, technically they already took a huge financial hit when they bought him. They should probably loan him out.
Carroll will end up in Serie A this season on loan for a year with an option to buy. Juve have already done a lot of business so I don't think it will be them. I think it will be either AC Milan or Roma.
I have read and heard rumour of the same. I was talking to someone just recently about the fact that if england want to improve internationally they would benefit greatly if some of the best players played abroad in Italy, Spain.
Wasn't there a quote from the coach (I think) of AC Milan saying that he was impressed with Carroll in the Euros and would like to take him on loan.
Well yes, but that has been obvious for years now. If England want to improve by sending players abroad, they'll need more players abroad than Andy Carroll. And Liverpool will do what's best for Liverpool. They won't think, "hmm, let's send Carroll to Milan. It'll be good for England, after all!" Not saying it's impossible. Would be interesting, to say the least. Didn't know Carroll was on anyone's radar outside of England.
If England really cared about improving England then they would put foreign player limits on teams and force more English players to be developed and played.
They gave up the right to do this when the joined UEFA. They can limit players from outside the Eurozone, but not within. All the Euro leagues have that condition. It is why PSG can freely buy Ibra and Modric but had to clear room for Silva by cutting ties with Nene.
Even going that route. I like La Liga only allowing 3 non EU players on the roster. Again, I like it that they don't but if England wanted to grow as a soccer country and win something then this would be a step in the process.
They could certainly go further and limit the number of non-Euros but that wouldn't necessarilly mean more English players. My point is that they can't limit the number of non-English players. The limit is on non-Eurozone players.
The EPL did bring out squad size rules last year which included provision for a minimum of home grown players. Home grown players do not have to be english but must have satisified certain criteria which I can't remember. Also they can have unlimited U21 players outside of the squad size limit. I am sure this rule was to help bring on more young english players, although they probably had to be careful to not make "home grown" mean english bit wishy washy in my opinion, but a start?
Yeah, I don't think it going to be enough. There seems to be this cultural thing within side English football that going outside the UK would kill your career. Very few venture outside of England. Your domestic league is how you feed your national team for most European countries. Maybe with the squad limits and FFP which in theory (I am skeptical) will make it more beneficial to develop your own players, that those things will help.
Again, I know that but that's why I am suggesting they do exactly what Spain does. Only 3 non-euro players allowed per team. They won't necessarily go to English players but it would help. In combination with squad limites, and FFP. It would make a difference. Chelsea 1. Davif Luiz 2. Michael Essien 3. Oriol Romeu 4. Ramires 5. John Obi Mikel 6. Lucas Pizaon
The trouble with the premier league is that they have no incentive either to strengthen the English team. The only incentive they have is to make money. Now I wonder what if the Englaish national team became the sole responsibility of the EPL and not the FA....
This was once true in Germany. It was once very rare for a german player to move outside Germany. Bert Trautmann was a rare German playing postwar in the UK but never played for Germany. Helmut Haller went to Serie A early in the 1960's He did play for Germany in the 1966 World Cup. At the time Germany was not fully professional, and it may be that this was one of the reasons the Bundeliga was formed in 1964 (my speculation). The next really big name player to go outside Germany was Gunter Netzer in the 1970s (along with Paul Breitner) to Real Madrid. The Germans really didn't like this and it hurt Netzer's (but not Breitner's) career with Die Mannschaft. Uli Stielike and Beckenbauer were left out of the team in the 1978 World Cup as the DFB (German Fed) decided that only players playing club soccer in Germany could play for the national team (Breitner transferred back to Germany with Braunschweig that season for this reason). I was living in Germany at the time and a big deal was made about this combined with the large number of other players from the Bundesliga who were competing in that Cup. But Germany got their comuppance--while they did qualify for the second round, they failed to finish in the final four--finishing with an embarrassing lost to neighbor Austria in their last game. That began to change things. Then players who held citizenship but were not 100% ethnic Germans began to make an impact--like Mehmet Scholl--and Germany was winning. That changed things. England needs this too--but it is harder for them as England is the birthplace and motherland of the sport.
I got my tickets to see PSG play DC United in RFK in a couple of weeks. It will be too early to see Ibra (if he even signs) or Silva, but I am still pretty psyched. Hopefully PSG will soften them up a bit before the Crew visit the next week.
Romeu is Spanish. Essien and Mikel have been in the UK long enough that they can probably apply for a British passport.
That's what I get for looking at wiki. My point is the same. There is a benefit to your domestic players when you limit who can play in your league. Basically everyone else does. http://www.globalsoccertransfers.com/info/regulate.html
No I am not. Teams that are affiliated with UEFA-joined leagues are allowed 8 non-UEFA players on the roster. I may have been abbreviating the Eurozone for UEFA but anyone who can't get the idea is just being obtuse.