Yorkie

Never heard of him. Let's do it.

Wise of them to make it big enough for Dan Burn to hold this year.

He chopped off the end of my post which confirmed that Gordon as second choice isn't what we ideally want. I maybe overcomplicated the point TBF. I think I'm just trying to mentally prepare myself for the squad being in a state. Finding the positives, Gordon's probably alright as a second choice CF - easily better than Wilson - though clearly it's not what we want.

We are having more games this season with CL. Isak played more than enough last year as it was. That's why I said the last bit. Basically all I'm saying is Gordon > Wilson, and there may be hope for him through the centre, on the basis of the first two games. While it wouldn't be ideal if he ends up second choice, it could be worse.

I'm just making a general observation around the 'need' to replace Wilson. We would be replacing next to nothing so if Gordon ends up as second choice, I don't think our backup is really any worse than it was last year. In fact I think there's evidence he can grow into the role and he said in his interview post-Villa that he always pictured himself moving centrally. Obviously if he's suspended it's a moot point. He was great on Monday; absolutely no way Wilson keeps up with that full throttle first 30. My preference come September 2nd is that our strikeforce is: New Striker, Isak, Osula, (Gordon).

Tbh Wilson was so useless last season that one in, one out (Isak) leaves us pretty much as we were in terms of numbers. Red card aside, Gordon demonstrated he's far more useful as a second choice striker than Wilson ever was. And that's before we get to the fact Osula actually scored. Replacing only one of Isak or Wilson is more of a missed (/denied) opportunity than it is a net loss.

I think the big turning point was Pedro tbh. We were in pole position to sign him until Chelsea (who already had Jackson, Delap, Guiu and Nkunku) arrived with their much bigger wage offering. If we had a system which doesn't facilitate their unchecked investment, then Pedro is ours mid-June and the whole story of the summer is different imo. Ekitike was the cherry on top of the cake of piss. Everything thereafter has been scrambling and affected by the Isak situation.

3-0 up, 3-3, 4-3?

Nice one. Hopefully more entertainment than the Wimbledon one.

This gonna be soon?

Fantastic

Tbf I don't wanna put words in KI's mouth as he didn't say disaster, just that it would be terrible business. I assume there's a distinction there anyway.

The matter of "does Larsen + Wissa represent good value" isn't something we necessarily have polarising views on, in the same way we apparently do on the matter of "just how much is NUFC to blame for their situation." Just to set the context... That said, I'd be quite excited by that pair of signings and would have seriously renewed optimism for the season. Plus I'm totally on board with the general principle that we need to invest our finances in proven PL talent. Those two players clearly aren't our first choices but they're really good. Regarding being able to re-tool our squads with Isak money, the accounting these days isn't as simple as 'net spend', is it? I don't want to engage in a mind-numbing accounting discussion because I have nothing to offer there... but, given how Eddie Howe has talked endlessly about how PSR dictates literally everything we do (something you disagree with); if he thinks the numbers work then I'll trust his view. Also, the Bale golden goose was in a completely different market, where competent PL players weren't going for £30/40/50m, and a completely different financial context, where pricey 'misses' weren't the death knell to your future planning they are now. I think you can probably apply those differences to Coutinho as well tbh. Again, if a PSR experts wants to explain to me why those signings would be a disaster I'll listen, but I'm not convinced.

It's becoming beyond me what people want/expect at this point.

Nah, Brighton knocked back ~£50m bids from both us and Chelsea. The player then itched for Chelsea (obvious reasons) and the two clubs got the deal done.

Why?

I don't know if I've ever known a saga(s) to be so defined by this concept of a chain. I guess it's a sign of the times, where most Premier League squads have just one striker who is very much defined as the first choice. Selling that player therefore represents a massive risk and inflates their value. You wondered if Outtara might break the logjam, in that Brentford were gaining a striker but Bournemouth weren't losing one. However that logic turned out to be false. Jackson could've been the domino, seeing as he's expendable to Chelsea, but I think a team like us holds out until the deadline, where his price will presumably be lowest. So, if you're targeting PL strikers, you have to engage in a chain which must start with a very willing seller, probably from a less cash-rich league. Hopefully Wolves can dig someone up from Belgium and we can get Larsen.

I'm all in after those two goals from last night, like. Those are two very, very good strikers' goals; particularly the first one - not an easy finish at all. He'll score plenty in our team with those instincts, I've no doubt. Fingers well and truly crossed.

Every point is crucial of course but, in the heat of the moment, I think the difference between one point and no points was considered relatively negligible. Meanwhile a win would've been absolutely momentous - arguably the best league victory in Howe's era - so I've no beef whatsoever in us going for it. It was a bit like being sat on £125k and gambling on the 250 without any lifelines. We got it wrong and lost what would've been a great prize, but I don't think we left with nothing.

It would be absolutely amazing we retained it, man. No one outside the ESL clubs has done that since Forest in 89 and 90.

Had meant to make this point; yeah, they seemed to cause a lot of trouble. Wonder if this is a Marty Mark idea.

Hopefully we can get to something Wolves will accept. Don't really see what the beef is in incrementally increasing our offer if we're the only club in for him.

Two cracking poacher's goals there. He'd get 10-15 for us no bother, maybe more. Get him and Jackson, fuck Isak off to Red Star Belgrade or some shit, and let's win the lot.

Last post:

Begrudgingly I think the best outcome is that he stays and treads the road to forgiveness, which will probably be fairly short, at least with the match-going fans imo. One reminder that he's an exceptional striker who we're infinitely better off with than without is probably all it will take to break the ice. It's unpalatable but the only way we 'win' I think. Second prize is he leaves but somewhere other than Liverpool. Even if it's a can-kicking loan. Third, he goes to Liverpool for something like the asking price. Fourth (and last), he goes to Liverpool for something under the asking price. 'Rots in the reserves' is a disaster where literally everyone loses, including us. There's saving face and then there's allowing a £150million asset becoming £0.