England’s Anthony Gordon

[Wallace]

I think it is just a matter of time now before he leaves. - if not this season then next.  I think Liverpool need to get rid of players so they couldn’t justify the outlay for him at this stage but if they manage to sell a couple they may come back in for him and he would probably then agitate for the move.

[KingArthur]

3 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

Keep seeing June 2026 from all the typical places you'd check.

 

Club never mentioned the number of years he signed for too, which is weird.

Club mentioned "long term deal".

 

3,5 years does not sound like that.

[jack j]

So did we offer him to Liverpool or not? Were they just sniffing cos they knew we needed to sell?

[KaKa]

1 minute ago, Mattoon said:

I'd be gutted if he did decide to leave, but he's not as untouchable as Bruno or Isak and we would only let him go for c£100m and we could do a lot with that.

 

Saying that, I hope it is hot air and I don't think Liverpool will pay that money for him and we won't let him go on the cheap so iyam this is a non-starter, just hope it doesn't affect his season. He's proven to be a professional with his head screwed on though so I don't think it will.

 

Yeah, for some reason, I wouldn't be as concerned with him leaving as those two either.

 

Regarding the fee, the issue is when his current contract runs out. All the info available is saying 2026.

 

If that is true he needs a new contract pronto, otherwise by next summer, which would then be his final year, we would have to accept fees way under his value.

[andycap]

He's a boyhood evertonian not a Liverpool fan. 

[Fezzle]

5 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Transfermarkt says Jun’26

.com say tbc so fair to say 26 is a guess

[Yorkie]

If we sign a significant upgrade at RW then we're looking at one of the deadliest attacks in the league, so naturally it would be heartbreaking if he left. There no onus on us to sell now, by all accounts, so it would come down to the player itching to move. I'd be very disappointed if he was twisting due to whatever happened over the weekend; he's worshipped by the fans and has all the trust and loyalty in the world from his manager, so I don't think he could convince me that he doesn't feel valued here. 

[KaKa]

2 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

Club mentioned "long term deal".

 

3,5 years does not sound like that.

 

The issue is the typical places you'd check, that have the contract lengths right for all our other players, are all saying June 2026.

[STM]

"Gordon considered Liverpool move", is the same story but without the cunty headline. 

 

Luke being Luke.

 

He's going nowhere and will likely get a new contract.

[jack j]

4 minutes ago, andycap said:

He's a boyhood evertonian not a Liverpool fan. 

He's a Liverpool fan (as a kid) said that in a few interviews he's done

 

 

Edited July 1, 2024 by jack j

[SUPERTOON]

If he does want to go, then he will

leave. Players always get their way.

[The College Dropout]

21 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

Was really strange to discover that he only signed a 3.5 year deal.

 

I think this is all a play to get an improved contract which is valid, coming off the season he had. Currently on £60,000 a week.

 

Also tend to see players use interest from other clubs to justify a new contract too, which is fair enough.

 

If when he returns contract talks are difficult, can see a scenario where he does move, because next summer he will then be in the last year of his deal.

That 3.5 year deal makes no sense in hindsight. 
 

Surely you sign a promising player that needs to develop to a 4-6 year deal? Like the Isak deal.   

[andycap]

6 minutes ago, jack j said:

He's a Liverpool fan (as a kid) said that in a few interviews he's done

 

 

 

I don't think he is mind. But I could be wrong. 

[SUPERTOON]

As long as it’s true, that the club didn’t offer him out then I’m happy with whatever develops. I’d be gutted if he went don’t get me wrong.

[STM]

There's no way we gave him 3.5 years.

[The College Dropout]

Just now, STM said:

There's no way we gave him 3.5 years.

It doesnt make any sense. 3.5 + year option for us.  Aye. 
 

If it was 3.5 surely we would be in contract negotiations already. 
 

Maybe it was smart FFP play. Have 3.5 year contract with an option for 1-2 more years. That front loads his amortisation costs.  If we extend at the end of the 3.5 year period he would’ve amortised nearly all his fee.  

[GeordieT]

1 minute ago, STM said:

There's no way we gave him 3.5 years.

You wouldn’t have thought so, almost £13m a year amortisation charge.

[andycap]

Your right he is a Liverpool fan lad. My mistake. 

[Away Toon]

You'd like to think that Eddie or someone from the club rang him up before this all hit the press. Maybe explains why he fell off his bike while on a call.

[KaKa]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

That 3.5 year deal makes no sense in hindsight. 
 

Surely you sign a promising player that needs to develop to a 4-6 year deal? Like the Isak deal.   

 

It's all very strange to me. 

 

No idea why he would have been given a contract of that length.

[STM]

Will be 5.5 years.

 

Nobody pays 45m for a 21 year old and gives them 3.5... not even 4.5.

 

Would certainly like to get to the bottom of that.

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

Both would probably happen so it's not that paranoid tbf.

Okay Eeyore 

[r0cafella]

You don’t spend 45n on a 22 year old to give out 3.5 year deals

 

it will be 4.5 at least with 5.5 being the most likely. 

[Fezzle]

21 minutes ago, STM said:

Will be 5.5 years.

 

Nobody pays 45m for a 21 year old and gives them 3.5... not even 4.5.

 

Would certainly like to get to the bottom of that.

Just gave a free cripple 5+1 so doubt we spend big on shorter 

[Pixelphish]

I'd argue it's not a great time to join LFC even if it his club. I think he'll be here at least another year to see how it goes there post Klopp.

Wishful thinking maybe but i'm trying to be an optimist.