except ...... ? Liverpool's frenzy of transfer activity does not extend to a move for Newcastle striker Alexander Isak, 25, with a deal for the Sweden not said to be imminent. (Telegraph - subscription required)
Liverpool boss Arne Slot is interested in a move for Crystal Palace and England defender Marc Guehi, 24. (Talksport), external Guehi will only move to Anfield if he is guaranteed to be starter. (Sky Sports) .... that attitude needs recalibration.
Tyler Morton, Jarell Quansah and Harvey Elliott are all older than both Florian Wirtz and Milos Kerkez.
Liverpool-target Marc Guehi, 24, is prepared to see out the final year of his contract at Crystal Palace if the centre-back does not get the right offer for his career, despite the Eagles being keen to cash in on the England defender. (Guardian)
Doubt it - seems like posturing to me. If we know Konate isn't signing - we can easily tell Geuhi that he will be taking over the starter role.
Possibly , we'll have to see. but he may be running his deal down too and see who is interested next season. He's not showing a great desire to join us when the opportunity is there right now. If thats the case I think Liverpool will move on as we did with Zubimendi.
If Guehi threatens to see out his contract and leave for free that’s great leverage for Liverpool in negotiations. Palace can either accept the offer or get nothing for him. I’m sure Guehi has concerns about playing time with the World Cup next summer. If I’m the England manager, I’d rather have a player who plays 40-50% or the games for one of the best teams in the world than a player who plays all the games for Crystal Paalce.
Isn’t this TAA and Real with us in the Real role? I’ve read this in the past few days about his running down the contract as a leveraging move and I’ll admit it doesn’t stick well with me. I know officially that Anfield never said anything about TAA running down his contract, but there was enough commentary from some close to the club to indicate displeasure at the move, at the very least losing the opportunity to cash in. Amongst us here in the chattering classes, there certainly was outrage at losing out on a big payday whatever about losing out on a player of TAA’s calibre. But sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. We can’t decry Real’s tactics and then adopt their policies (which they’re trying to replicate with Konate) with what we consider to be a lesser club.
It’s just leverage in the negotiation. Liverpool aren’t going to pay a huge asking price for a player who will be available for free in 12 months.
But - we are willing to pay for Guehi now - and a good amount (unlike reals derisory bid in January). Also, Guehi hasn't planned this with Virgil for 2 years already behind the scenes. Also palace had a chance to sell him to Spurs in January for 65m - but declined. They have had many chances to get a large fee for him.
It’s just leverage in the negotiation. Real Madrid aren’t going to pay a huge asking price for a player who will be available for free in 12 months. That’s my point. We’re not them. With the possible exception of Southampton and VVD, we have good relations with most/all clubs in the top 2 divisions. In part because we don’t indulge ourselves in Real-type shit. Even with Southampton, apologies were made and my sense is that we’re all good now. That’s not to say we always pay the asking price or more in every transfer because we are Liverpool, but the reputation of the club would seem to be straight shooters. If there’s even a hint that we TAA’ed Guehi to gain an edge over Palace, that’s being Real and not being us. I’ll grant this may be a Pollyanna-esque view, nice guys finish last and all that, but it does seem to have served us well to date. (Once again, VVD excepted).
Rumours have it that when/if Quansah goes for whatever price (£30-40m?) there’ll be a buyback clause. As appears to be standard. But that got me to a dangerous place: thinking. I can’t recall any buyback clause of note or otherwise being exercised (ever?) and I’m hard pushed to remember a player that left Club A only to return to Club A down the line, certainly not as part of any buyback clause. Bellamy and Fowler are two for us, but neither was a buyback. Sell-on clauses are more common (and I’m guessing more expensive) and make sense. I believe Köln FC will be on a nice Wirtz earner. But the psychology of buyback clause intrigues me. “Hey Jarell! We don’t rate you enough to keep you, but if you kick on at Leverkusen, we might bring you back. Maybe.” My guess is that the way buyback clauses work in reality is that if Leverkusen decide to sell him, then LFC will get a payoff to relinquish their interest the buyback.
let's not lose sight of the fact that all of the following are perfectly possible: (a) Guehi is putting pressure on CP to make a deal now to get $$$ for him and (b) we have no interest in waiting 12 months for him given the question marks over Ibou's intentions - we want to get a CB in asap. and (c) we have done nothing untoward at all. otoh .... if LFC have decided to 'do a Madrid' I'm not sure how many pearls I'm gonna start clutching. my sense is that strategy will start being copied a lot in coming years by a lot of clubs. the money in the game is too huge for that not to happen (unfortunately). passing a purity test won't make many owners and fans happy if they are repeatedly losing top talent for nowt.