Hugo Ekitike (not playing for Liverpool for a while)

[Nucasol]

1 minute ago, Bunk Moreland said:

 

£85m including add-ons apparently 

Probably paid the add ons out from winning the league.

[Fak]

"outline of agreement". 

[Kanj]

Fuck Liverpool. Don’t ever fucking complain about other team’s spending again. 

[Andy84]

Like all the cartel they also sell very well

[Kooiman]

Perhaps he makes me (and other doubters) look very stupid, but that feels like a chronic overpay for a young man with little goalscoring pedigree and an awkward looking technique in open play.

 

 

Edited July 19, 2025 by Kooiman

[duo]

This week started out so well...

[Sibierski]

One positive to end the week, Isak isn’t leaving. Unless head is turned by Al-Ahli.

[Shearergol]

Just now, Sibierski said:

One positive to end the week, Isak isn’t leaving. Unless head is turned by Al-Ahli.

[Yorkie]

So, for this 23-year-old with everything to prove, we offered them nearly £70million: an astronomical fee that would've been one of the highest ever paid to a Bundesliga club, higher than Haaland, higher than Lewandowski, higher than Frankfurt's own Marmoush - not to mention it would've meant they'd make a €50m profit on the guy in twelve months... and apparently that still it wasn't enough to get us at the table. 

 

I mean, what sort of a market is this where that incredible offer isn't even entertained? Answer: one which is dominated by the cartel clubs. 

 

I share the frustrations with everyone about our lack of progress but I honestly don't think we've conducted ourselves badly. We're going into negotiations with reasonable offers as far as I can see.

[TRon]

I'm surprised Liverpool had to go so high to get an agreement. Eintracht really didn't want to let him go is my reading of it. 

[Kid Icarus]

I don't necessarily disagree on this one, but now do James Trafford...

[Holmesy]

10 hours ago, mouldy_uk said:

It’s a shame that the TV companies don’t want another Leicester (however temporary), to break the cartel stranglehold of the prem and add some variety.
 

Personally, outside of our games, I found last season to be absolutely dreadful and I watched very few ‘other’ games. 

Leicester didn't threaten to leave the league to be part of the European Super League. They're not interested in keeping the Leicesters of this world happy

[Hanshithispantz]

1 minute ago, Yorkie said:

So, for this 23-year-old with everything to prove, we offered them nearly £70million: an astronomical fee that would've been one of the highest ever paid to a Bundesliga club, higher than Haaland, higher than Lewandowski, higher than Frankfurt's own Marmoush - not to mention it would've meant they'd make a €50m profit on the guy in twelve months... and apparently that still it wasn't enough to get us at the table. 

 

I mean, what sort of a market is this where that incredible offer isn't even entertained? Answer: one which is dominated by the cartel clubs. 

 

I share the frustrations with everyone about our lack of progress but I honestly don't think we've conducted ourselves badly. We're going into negotiations with reasonable offers as far as I can see.

Although they've always dominated the market, PSR has made it even more unbearable as you cannot even sell players anymore for their fair market value unless they're highly regarded.

 

PSR was sold like it was going to bring down crazy transfer fees and make everything a bit more even, all it's done is drag down the value of average to good players as teams cannot afford the outlay.

 

The odd ones you can nab are half the time tied to Chelsea in some way 

[hoppaz]

4 minutes ago, TRon said:

I'm surprised Liverpool had to go so high to get an agreement. Eintracht really didn't want to let him go is my reading of it. 

He put a transfer request in a few days ago so Eintracht would not have to pay him a percentage fee. So yes they received more money but looks like Liverpool have had to cough up a bit extra in the end for the player to get some sort of sell on fee.

 

Our bid in comparison was not satisfactory. This has been our story since last summer. Problem is the tactic of paying what you feel is a fair price only works when there aren"t others fishing in the same pond.

[TRon]

2 minutes ago, hoppaz said:

He put a transfer request in a few days ago so Eintracht would not have to pay him a percentage fee. So yes they received more money but looks like Liverpool have had to cough up a bit extra in the end for the player to get some sort of sell on fee.

 

Our bid in comparison was not satisfactory. This has been our story since last summer. Problem is the tactic of paying what you feel is a fair price only works when there aren"t others fishing in the same pond.

 

 

It seemed like Liverpool wanted Isak above Ekitike though. I just thought once they had unsettled Ekitike they would have used that to drive the price down more given he wasn't their primary target. But fair play to Eintracht for sticking to their guns. 

[Yorkie]

27 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

I don't necessarily disagree on this one, but now do James Trafford...

 

It's exactly the same imo. We get him for a fair price if cartel club X aren't waiting in the wings.

[Andy84]

Well could have had Trafford weeks ago like if we’d just compromised on the fee 

[madras]

1 minute ago, Andy84 said:

Well could have had Trafford weeks ago like if we’d just compromised on the fee 

What if we did compromise but they still wanted more?

 

Wasn't "moving the goalposts" mentioned ?

[Yorkie]

1 minute ago, Andy84 said:

Well could have had Trafford weeks ago like if we’d just compromised on the fee 

 

Matching whatever inflated price the highest bidder might go to isn't 'compromise'. Besides, Man City would've just come in then anyway, it wouldn't make a difference imo.

[Ben]

Just now, Yorkie said:

 

Matching whatever inflated price the highest bidder might go to isn't 'compromise'. Besides, Man City would've just come in then anyway, it wouldn't make a difference imo.

 

That's the horrible truth I've learnt this summer, we can't get close to matching any of the top 6, Chelseas wages are more than our entire turnover.

[Kid Icarus]

29 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

It's exactly the same imo. We get him for a fair price if cartel club X aren't waiting in the wings.

Our idea of a fair price and club value aren't necessarily the same though. And our value is nigh on always way lower than club value.

 

If Burnley have a price and we have the money to pay it it's our decision whether we pay it or not. If the decision is that we won't pay it because we need 5 players (for example) but the reality is that other clubs come in and pay the price leaving us with 0 players never mind 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 then that's a problem with the transfer policy.

 

By all accounts Trafford was desperate to come here and we've let him go because we won't pay the extra 5-10m (that we have and more) for a player who'd likely be here for 10 years. It's insanity. 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2025 by Kid Icarus

[Gawalls]

1 hour ago, Yorkie said:

So, for this 23-year-old with everything to prove, we offered them nearly £70million: an astronomical fee that would've been one of the highest ever paid to a Bundesliga club, higher than Haaland, higher than Lewandowski, higher than Frankfurt's own Marmoush - not to mention it would've meant they'd make a €50m profit on the guy in twelve months... and apparently that still it wasn't enough to get us at the table. 

 

I mean, what sort of a market is this where that incredible offer isn't even entertained? Answer: one which is dominated by the cartel clubs. 

 

I share the frustrations with everyone about our lack of progress but I honestly don't think we've conducted ourselves badly. We're going into negotiations with reasonable offers as far as I can see.

At some point of say offering fifteen grand for Ferraris, after visiting every Ferrari dealer you need to accept your budget and buy a Vauxhall. We’re not offering reasonable offers cos they’re getting more so we need to look for players we will land in that price bracket. I knows it’s extremely difficult which is why you need a helluva back room setup to maybe think out of the box a little more like we seemed to when Staveley and co were here.

[Cf]

8 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Our idea of a fair price and club value aren't necessarily the same though. And our value is nigh on always way lower than club value.

 

If Burnley have a price and we have the money to pay it it's our decision whether we pay it or not. If the decision is that we won't pay it because we need 5 players (for example) but the reality is that other clubs come in and pay the price leaving us with 0 players never mind 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 then that's a problem with the transfer policy.

 

By all accounts Trafford was desperate to come here and we've let him go because we won't pay the extra 5-10m (that we have and more) for a player who'd likely be here for 10 years. It's insanity. 

 

 

 

 

But the issue is your Chelsea's, Man City's, etc are throwing silly money around and selling clubs know this so if there's a hint any of them are remotely interested then it's best to knock back any initial offers to see if you can get more from them. 

 

In the Trafford case if we went up to £40m we might find ourselves in the same situation. Burnley just go to City and say what we've bid and if they want him back now's the time to act. Burnley would rather City buy him I imagine as I assume that would negate the sell on clause. 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2025 by Cf

[andycap]

27 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

Matching whatever inflated price the highest bidder might go to isn't 'compromise'. Besides, Man City would've just come in then anyway, it wouldn't make a difference imo.

Not necessarily reports are saying city want the price lowered. So if we had bid 40 it wasn't a certainty city would've matched it. 

[Gawalls]

10 minutes ago, andycap said:

Not necessarily reports are saying city want the price lowered. So if we had bid 40 it wasn't a certainty city would've matched it. 

 They want it lowered but have a 20% sell on clause, then getting it lowered to 35, Burnley still get more than us giving them £40 and there’s reports they want to do a deal to get City’s current second choice keeper so it’s in their interests to sell to them.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2025 by Gawalls