Transfer targets 2020/21

[Muzzy_Larsson]

I like Under from the little I've saw of him. Get the impression though Rodgers must have some serious resrvations over him though given his reluctance to use him. I'd be surprised if the deal got made permanent unless he has a barnstorming second half of the season.

 

The main reason for this is the right hand-side wide position was one of the key areas to strengthen and I expect Rodgers thought/wanted someone who would go straight in and make a difference. Similar to the impact Castagne has made in a different position. I don't think it was ever the plan or intention tor Under to take 6 months to settle and rely on the same guys as last season in that position. 

[shen]

Just now, Muzzy_Larsson said:

I like Under from the little I've saw of him. Get the impression though Rodgers must have some serious resrvations over him though given his reluctance to use him. I'd be surprised if the deal got made permanent unless he has a barnstorming second half of the season.

 

The main reason for this is the right hand-side wide position was one of the key areas to strengthen and I expect Rodgers thought/wanted someone who would go straight in and make a difference. Similar to the impact Castagne has made in a different position. I don't think it was ever the plan or intention tor Under to take 6 months to settle and rely on the same guys as last season in that position. 

It was about getting him match fit and integrated early on (his English is very poor I believe). He's been out injured since his last appearance. I think Rodgers very much likes what he sees. I think Ünder has improved gradually with each appearance.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

Just now, shen said:

It was about getting him match fit and integrated early on (his English is very poor I believe). He's been out injured since his last appearance. I think Rodgers very much likes what he sees. I think Ünder has improved gradually with each appearance.

I'm no debating that I'm saying I highly doubt the plan when signing him was that your signing a player that's going to take 6 months to threaten to make league appearances. Like a previous poster said there have been spells he's been available where he's hadly been seen.

[Fox85]

Under is a good player and the little time he has had he has made an impact if it wasn't for him Leicester would be 7th and not 4th due to his instant impact in the arsenal game.

 

The guy can also take a corner.

 

Players do not get to show what they are about whwn they don't play

[shen]

2 minutes ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

I'm no debating that I'm saying I highly doubt the plan when signing him was that your signing a player that's going to take 6 months to threaten to make league appearances. Like a previous poster said there have been spells he's been available where he's hadly been seen.

I think the management are being sensible about it. He's been appearing in every European game, so it's not because he's far down the pecking order. Fofana was thrust in there as we had very little choice, but I assume Ünder has found it challenging to integrate. Judging by his performances, I think there's absolutely a PL level player there, but I think that the current situation illustrates perfectly why a loan (or essentially a 1-season trial) makes sense. 

[Muzzy_Larsson]

Just now, shen said:

I think the management are being sensible about it. He's been appearing in every European game, so it's not because he's far down the pecking order. Fofana was thrust in there as we had very little choice, but I assume Ünder has found it challenging to integrate. Judging by his performances, I think there's absolutely a PL level player there, but I think that the current situation illustrates perfectly why a loan (or essentially a 1-season trial) makes sense. 

Yeah agreed, it's the best possible deal as there's essentially no risk. He needs to start making a regular impact in league games soon though or I'd be surprised if he's here next season given what it's going to cost to sign him.

[AjcW]

Brendan has a lot of similarities to Klopp in that he beds new signings in slowly. Yes it's bit of a risky option with a loan player, and i'm sure ideally he'd have planned to have him in more regularly by now, but I think we will see a lot more of him in the coming weeks. 

 

Little off the pitch influences shouldn't be underestimated either. Maddison went from not being able to take a corner to save his life, to pinging 6 or 7 beauties in a row into the box in one of our recent games. Pressure of having someone ready to replace you on corner duties, coupled with studying them in training can be vital to player progression across the team.

[shen]

8 minutes ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

Yeah agreed, it's the best possible deal as there's essentially no risk. He needs to start making a regular impact in league games soon though or I'd be surprised if he's here next season given what it's going to cost to sign him.

There's potentially also a lot of bluffing going on here. His first half of the season being unremarkable might mean we can negotiate a better price in the end. But agreed, he absolutely needs to show that he's the man for the future during the second half of this season. Thankfully we have a LOT of games potentially still to play (COVID-19 willing). 

[MPH]

2 hours ago, Shit_arse said:

Ravel Morrison 

 

2 hours ago, GingerrrFox said:

Would you like Ravel in or have you heard anything?

 

he’s been seen shopping at his Dads shop

[Raw Dykes]

2 hours ago, Lineker's Left Foot said:

For under achieving footballers I’ll raise you - Adel Taarabt.

 

Seriously if Fergie at Yanited couldn’t get Ravel Morrison’s head straight nobody would

I used to work with a QPR fan. He said that once, Taarabt played a game for them when there were scouts from one of the big 6 in the crowd and he knew that. Not long into the match, Taarabt misplaced a pass or something, then instantly signalled to the bench to be subbed off.

[Dusty]

12 minutes ago, shen said:

There's potentially also a lot of bluffing going on here. His first half of the season being unremarkable might mean we can negotiate a better price in the end. But agreed, he absolutely needs to show that he's the man for the future during the second half of this season. Thankfully we have a LOT of games potentially still to play (COVID-19 willing). 

Roma are also struggling financially so we could be able to knock a few million off the price if they desperately need cash.

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, Muzzy_Izzn’t said:

I suppose there is a couple of ways of looking at this though no? 
 

Obviously the above being one..

 

But also could it not be that we are giving him time to come up to speed with the rigour of Premier League football as well.. we’ve tried to nurture him through the first half of the season to make sure he is getting up to fitness and up to the speed of the Premier League, which could be a sign that he is a longer term prospect, rather than an instant quick fix.

 

I’m sure when Fabinho first joined Liverpool he didn’t get a tonne of starts and didn’t have as big an impact on the first team as many assumed, but Klopp asked for patience in getting him accustomed to the PL and now he’d arguably be one of the first name’s on their team sheet.

 

Personally I think he has looked tidy in the short glimpses we’ve seen so far, but it will be telling to see how much he is utilised the second half of the season.. 

 

I understand this point and I sort of agree but I'd say a couple of things on this. 

 

1. The managers that tend to do this the most, guys like Pep and Klopp, they have fantastic squads already. Pep always takes a year or so to integrate a new player, guys like Bernardo Silva and Mahrez got a lot less football in year one because he wanted them to learn his system.

 

But he has the luxury to do that because he's got a great squad. We're supremely lacking in wing options and if Under was the best choice in Rodgers eyes then I imagine he'd have been fast tracked to the first team as quick as we could get him there. 

 

2. Unless we've decided 100% to buy him regardless and the choice of an Option over an Obligation was purely because we were considering Covid financial insecurity, this is his audition. He's not a long term prospect, he's not someone we're developing, he's a car that we're taking for a test drive to see if we want to buy. And Rodgers doesn't want to get behind the wheel. 

 

Obviously this is all speculation and over the next couple of months he could become a really regular fixture but whilst that would please me personally, it'd also really surprise me. 

 

Edited 15 January 2021 by Finnegan

[Scotch]

8 minutes ago, Dusty said:

Roma are also struggling financially so we could be able to knock a few million off the price if they desperately need cash.

I could be wrong but I thought in these kinda of 'option to buy' deals, there was an agreed fee before hand?

[RowlattsFox]

Part of Under's problem has been the formation, difficult to pick him when we played with wing backs. I know we had 3 forwards but they were more central. And since we've gone to  a back 4 he's been injured. 

 

I don't think Rodgers trusts his defensive work too much yet either, which makes subbing him on difficult unless we are extremely comfortable but then the games dying out and not a lot happens. 

[Dusty]

49 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I could be wrong but I thought in these kinda of 'option to buy' deals, there was an agreed fee before hand?

Yes they are. But I’d be surprised if we couldn’t reach a deal that was slightly lower than the “agreed” fee as long as it works for both parties.

[Fox85]

1 hour ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I could be wrong but I thought in these kinda of 'option to buy' deals, there was an agreed fee before hand?

I think with it being option LCFC could say we don't want to pay that amount but could offer a different amount ofcourse it could get rejected.

 

Obligation to buy is a different story 

[Scotch]

38 minutes ago, Fox85 said:

I think with it being option LCFC could say we don't want to pay that amount but could offer a different amount ofcourse it could get rejected.

 

Obligation to buy is a different story 

But surely that works the other way. If he ripped the league up, Roma could say "we want to sell but not for that price".... Making the agreement useless. 

[Fox85]

1 minute ago, Foxy_Bear said:

But surely that works the other way. If he ripped the league up, Roma could say "we want to sell but not for that price".... Making the agreement useless. 

Roma have the option to say no to us yes because that's their option if he rips it up in the premier league.

 

LCFC could say they don't want to pay that price at the end of the agreement and then come back in for him with a smaller price a few weeks after but like I said it's Roma option to say yes or no 

 

Edited 15 January 2021 by Fox85

[Scotch]

1 minute ago, Fox85 said:

Roma have the option to say no to us yes because that's their option if he rips it up in the premier league.

 

....So really there is no point in agreeing an option price if either team can change it depending on how he is doing? 

[Fox85]

Just now, Foxy_Bear said:

....So really there is no point in agreeing an option price if either team can change it depending on how he is doing? 

It's a set price really if both party's are happy at the end of the agreement.

 

Obligation to buy means it must happen for that price no matter what.

[jeffschlupp]

5 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

But surely that works the other way. If he ripped the league up, Roma could say "we want to sell but not for that price".... Making the agreement useless. 

No. The €24m fee is a minimum fee release clause - Roma cannot deny Leicester the ability to speak to the player and agree terms if City match the €24m in the contract. The player can turn us down and sign for someone else (see Alderweireld to Spurs over Southampton), but Roma cannot reject a bid that matches the agreed fee.

 

However, you're correct in saying that if he's average and Roma still want to get rid, we could negotiate a fee lower than said €24m.

[Scotch]

1 minute ago, jeffschlupp said:

No. The €24m fee is a minimum fee release clause - Roma cannot deny Leicester the ability to speak to the player and agree terms if City match the €24m in the contract. The player can turn us down and sign for someone else (see Alderweireld to Spurs over Southampton), but Roma cannot reject a bid that matches the agreed fee.

 

However, you're correct in saying that if he's average and Roma still want to get rid, we could negotiate a fee lower than said €24m.

That makes more sense. Cheers. 

[sacreblueits442]

3 hours ago, AjcW said:

Brendan has a lot of similarities to Klopp in that he beds new signings in slowly. Yes it's bit of a risky option with a loan player, and i'm sure ideally he'd have planned to have him in more regularly by now, but I think we will see a lot more of him in the coming weeks. 

 

Little off the pitch influences shouldn't be underestimated either. Maddison went from not being able to take a corner to save his life, to pinging 6 or 7 beauties in a row into the box in one of our recent games. Pressure of having someone ready to replace you on corner duties, coupled with studying them in training can be vital to player progression across the team.

...do not disqualify Foxestalk....in his recent epiphany....!!!

[Muzzy_Izzn’t]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

I understand this point and I sort of agree but I'd say a couple of things on this. 

 

1. The managers that tend to do this the most, guys like Pep and Klopp, they have fantastic squads already. Pep always takes a year or so to integrate a new player, guys like Bernardo Silva and Mahrez got a lot less football in year one because he wanted them to learn his system.

 

But he has the luxury to do that because he's got a great squad. We're supremely lacking in wing options and if Under was the best choice in Rodgers eyes then I imagine he'd have been fast tracked to the first team as quick as we could get him there. 

 

2. Unless we've decided 100% to buy him regardless and the choice of an Option over an Obligation was purely because we were considering Covid financial insecurity, this is his audition. He's not a long term prospect, he's not someone we're developing, he's a car that we're taking for a test drive to see if we want to buy. And Rodgers doesn't want to get behind the wheel. 

 

Obviously this is all speculation and over the next couple of months he could become a really regular fixture but whilst that would please me personally, it'd also really surprise me. 

 

Yeah I suppose my original point would make more sense if we’d gone in with the loan + obligation.

 

Completely agree with the above and the fact that the RW role has been lacking, realistically since Mahrez left, and Under was always going to be a bit of a punt considering his history of injuries and lack of playing time.. but surely this had to be considered at length before we brought him in and must be playing a factor in why Under has been used so infrequently so far.

[BlackFox]

1 hour ago, Fox85 said:

Roma have the option to say no to us yes because that's their option if he rips it up in the premier league.

 

LCFC could say they don't want to pay that price at the end of the agreement and then come back in for him with a smaller price a few weeks after but like I said it's Roma option to say yes or no 

 

No, Roma doesn't have a say in this, only Ünder and City