The Prophet Posted Monday at 19:35 Share Posted Monday at 19:35 Romano has said there was an enquiry, but Liverpool had no intention of coming near our asking price and it went no further. Just Edwards running with this then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andycap Posted Monday at 19:40 Share Posted Monday at 19:40 He'll stay he's happy here we are bringing the best out of him and he's adored by the masses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Monday at 19:55 Share Posted Monday at 19:55 33 minutes ago, The Prophet said: Mark Douglas' take... DID THEY REALLY CONTEMPLATE SELLING ANTHONY GORDON? It depends who you ask. Insiders say the communication with Liverpool over Gordon last week was more “testing the market” for their player of the year, assessing the sort of price he could command, than coming up with a formal proposal or forcing him out of the door. They have been honest about the need for player trading and the fact that everyone in their squad has a price so doing due diligence around one of their most saleable assets when they had a pressing PSR issue was responsible. But it is also alarming that Gordon’s name was being floated a week before a deadline they had known about for months given his huge importance to the way Newcastle play at their best. Liverpool certainly believed there was a deal to be done – indeed sources on Merseyside confirmed the offer over the weekend, indicating it was “not for us” because they had too many wingers. I said the same thing earlier today. If not for the surprising emergence of Minteh - we would’ve had to go begging to Chelsea and co. got favourable shady deals or sell Gordon or the like. That’s baaaad man. I said it before that Minteh deal is 70% great talent spotting and 30% luck. No club would model that a 19-year-old would 4x his value in 12 months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted Monday at 19:59 Share Posted Monday at 19:59 2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: I said the same thing earlier today. If not for the surprising emergence of Minteh - we would’ve had to go begging to Chelsea and co. got favourable shady deals or sell Gordon or the like. That’s baaaad man. I said it before that Minteh deal is 70% great talent spotting and 30% luck. No club would model that a 19-year-old would 4x his value in 12 months. I'm not sure we would have. The sale of Anderson may well have been enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Monday at 20:04 Share Posted Monday at 20:04 1 minute ago, The Prophet said: I'm not sure we would have. The sale of Anderson may well have been enough. The Anderson sale is a farce tbf. It’s proof that we weren’t sufficiently prepared. Scot some balance - over a quarter of the league weren’t prepared either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted Monday at 20:08 Share Posted Monday at 20:08 1 minute ago, The College Dropout said: The Anderson sale is a farce tbf. It’s proof that we weren’t sufficiently prepared. Scot some balance - over a quarter of the league weren’t prepared either. Why is it proof we weren't prepared? For all we know, we're so well stocked in LCM, he could have been identified as a sacrificial lamb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ7 Posted Monday at 20:16 Share Posted Monday at 20:16 The Anderson sale was a pretty obvious one to do I thought. Along with Longstaff, it’s been talked about for months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Green Balls Posted Monday at 20:18 Share Posted Monday at 20:18 (edited) 10 minutes ago, The Prophet said: Why is it proof we weren't prepared? For all we know, we're so well stocked in LCM, he could have been identified as a sacrificial lamb. I think more proof that we weren’t prepared would be an actual purple player. Not someone “who can do a job”. i don’t know why some appear to be so desperate to make this out to be a travesty. Edited Monday at 20:18 by Vinny Green Balls Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted Monday at 20:52 Share Posted Monday at 20:52 The BBC are again repeating the story of us offering Gordon to Liverpool with Quansah coming the other way, that Liverpool rejected. There is no reason to believe they are lying about it, they are not click bait journalists on Twitter but a publicly owned media outlet. They have even reached out to us for comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted Monday at 20:55 Share Posted Monday at 20:55 Just now, Matt1892 said: The BBC are again repeating the story of us offering Gordon to Liverpool with Quansah coming the other way, that Liverpool rejected. There is no reason to believe they are lying about it, they are not click bait journalists on Twitter but a publicly owned media outlet. They have even reached out to us for comment. And if you respond, the next time, if you don't, it condemns you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted Monday at 21:01 Share Posted Monday at 21:01 6 minutes ago, Matt1892 said: The BBC are again repeating the story of us offering Gordon to Liverpool with Quansah coming the other way, that Liverpool rejected. There is no reason to believe they are lying about it, they are not click bait journalists on Twitter but a publicly owned media outlet. They have even reached out to us for comment. They base alot of their reporting from what other journalists say or what they are told by whoever talks to them. It's no different to other football journalists... apart from that they don't knowingly lie. Doesn't mean they are correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted Monday at 21:01 Share Posted Monday at 21:01 1 minute ago, madras said: And if you respond, the next time, if you don't, it condemns you. The privately owned media I would say yes, the publicly owned media no. As I said, they are not interested in click bait material or the latest transfer scoop. If anything their football coverage on the website is bland as they don’t write an article on anything without having it verified. They would likely have been told this by Liverpool, which the BBC believe is enough to make it factual and have given us the right to respond, which we don’t appear to have done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted Monday at 21:02 Share Posted Monday at 21:02 Just now, STM said: They base alot of their reporting from what other journalists say or what they are told by whoever talks to them. It's no different to other football journalists... apart from that they don't knowingly lie. Doesn't mean they are correct. What are you going by to say it isn’t correct? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted Monday at 21:03 Share Posted Monday at 21:03 Just now, Matt1892 said: What are you going by to say it isn’t correct? I'm not saying it is or it isn't. Neither do you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted Monday at 21:05 Share Posted Monday at 21:05 46 minutes ago, Vinny Green Balls said: I think more proof that we weren’t prepared would be an actual purple player. Not someone “who can do a job”. i don’t know why some appear to be so desperate to make this out to be a travesty. Questions, Chuck, askin em. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted Monday at 21:07 Share Posted Monday at 21:07 1 minute ago, STM said: I'm not saying it is or it isn't. Neither do you. I am saying that a varied party has told the BBC, that there is no reason to disbelieve. There isn’t anything to say that it isn’t true, other than people not wanting to believe it is, despite the club facing a hefty points deduction if we didn’t sell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted Monday at 21:07 Share Posted Monday at 21:07 5 minutes ago, Matt1892 said: The privately owned media I would say yes, the publicly owned media no. As I said, they are not interested in click bait material or the latest transfer scoop. If anything their football coverage on the website is bland as they don’t write an article on anything without having it verified. They would likely have been told this by Liverpool, which the BBC believe is enough to make it factual and have given us the right to respond, which we don’t appear to have done. There ya go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted Monday at 21:09 Share Posted Monday at 21:09 Just now, STM said: There ya go. Again, you will happily ignore a verified source of information because you don’t want to believe it to be true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted Monday at 21:11 Share Posted Monday at 21:11 Liverpool: We were offered Anthony Gordon, we said no. Newcastle: Liverpool asked about Gordon and we named our terms. Agent: Fuck sake, use your brains. It's never black and white, it's always somewhere in the middle. Of course we thought about selling him, if we didn't we might have got a points deduction. Did we offer? Did Liverpool ask? Did the agent do a bit of both? The truth will never be known. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted Monday at 21:11 Share Posted Monday at 21:11 1 minute ago, Matt1892 said: Again, you will happily ignore a verified source of information because you don’t want to believe it to be true. Verified? Do understand the words you are using? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted Monday at 21:16 Share Posted Monday at 21:16 5 minutes ago, Matt1892 said: Again, you will happily ignore a verified source of information because you don’t want to believe it to be true. The verified source is "likely have been told this by Liverpool" ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted Monday at 21:16 Share Posted Monday at 21:16 2 minutes ago, STM said: Verified? Do understand the words you are using? There you go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted Monday at 21:17 Share Posted Monday at 21:17 Just now, madras said: The verified source is "likely have been told this by Liverpool" ? Someone from Liverpool would know that we offered Gordon to them. Yes, that is how it works. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted Monday at 21:18 Share Posted Monday at 21:18 1 minute ago, madras said: The verified source is "likely have been told this by Liverpool" ? It's a hard concept to grasp Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted Monday at 21:19 Share Posted Monday at 21:19 1 minute ago, Matt1892 said: Someone from Liverpool would know that we offered Gordon to them. Yes, that is how it works. So you agree, the person at Liverpool could have lied, misled the press? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now