Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016, Mod Warning in OP, 10/7

Agent Coulson

If we don't like the fee they come up with can we give him back.

5starpool

Harry Palmr wrote: »

TV3 will have the EL final so that's a reason for Liverpool to be there

I wonder did the tribunal decide not to bother announcing the outcome with the day that's in it?

Apparently the tribunal hearing began today, but it'll span a few days. We should find out later in the week.

~Rebel~

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

First of all he's only worth €Xm if another club would pay that for him and after this I doubt very much anyone would pay big money for him not only because he took PED's but because there must be a major question mark over whether the performances which make him a £20m type player can only be achieved with the use of PED's.

Also, I'd like to know if it's possible for the clubs to take out some form of key man insurance against players doing stupid $h1t like this and if LFC did???

I think we'll be surprised by how much this blows over as time passes. It always does. This type of thing didn't stop us from bringing in Kolo, didn't stop Nike giving Justin Gatlin an absolutely gigantic sponsorship deal after 2 doping bans, or Tyson Gay a deal after Adidas dropped him when he failed. They just waited till the noise quieted down, and signed them up. It won't stop Sharapova getting major sponsors after she comes back from her ban either.

These things always go in cycles - everyone is outraged for a while, then it dies down, and then the money comes back in again.

It's even somewhat comparable to the furore that always surrounds Suarez when he bites people/makes racist comments. You have all these shouts that he should be thrown out of the sport, but it dies down, and things return to normal.

As to his value, of course that will fluctuate with demand, but as it stands he's an expensive asset on our books, which adds to the value of the club. Even just releasing him on paper is bad for the company's finances. I've absolutely no doubt we'd get 10+ million for him if we held on. But as I said, each of those 3 options I gave is bad for the club. It's just a case of finding which is the lesser of 3 evils.

Kerrigooney

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

Has Sterling been injured the last few months?

On the bench counting his money for the last few games as far as I know.

klose

Kerrigooney wrote: »

On the bench counting his money for the last few games as far as I know.

Will be interesing to see what happens with him under pep next season, sink or swim.

corwill

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

Has Sterling been injured the last few months?

He's had a broken soul for going on 18 months

not yet

corwill wrote: »

He's had a broken soul for going on 18 months

That's what happens when you sell said soul to the devil..

#I'veadozenkidstosupport

corwill

Take a look at @TonyBarretTimes's Tweet: https://twitter.com/TonyBarretTimes/status/725076412936376320?s=09

Poor auld Bad-News, disgusted at his own paper's lack of front page coverage of the inquest verdicts. He strikes me as a decent skin as well as a good journalist, this can't be easy on him.

K-9

corwill wrote: »

Take a look at @TonyBarretTimes's Tweet: https://twitter.com/TonyBarretTimes/status/725076412936376320?s=09

Poor auld Bad-News, disgusted at his own paper's lack of front page coverage of the inquest verdicts. He strikes me as a decent skin as well as a good journalist, this can't be easy on him.

The paper of record...

corwill

K-9 wrote: »

The paper of record...

Seems they're trying to mend their hand with the 2nd edition.

Agent Coulson

Murdoch owned just like The Rag is there any surprise really.

Ben Gadot

corwill wrote: »

Take a look at @TonyBarretTimes's Tweet: https://twitter.com/TonyBarretTimes/status/725076412936376320?s=09

Poor auld Bad-News, disgusted at his own paper's lack of front page coverage of the inquest verdicts. He strikes me as a decent skin as well as a good journalist, this can't be easy on him.

What's the story there with The Times' lack of coverage?

corwill

Ben Gadot wrote: »

What's the story there with The Times' lack of coverage?

As Coulson said, owned by Murdoch, just like the S*n.

monkey9

The two papers in question do report on yesterday events in their inner pages, but very noticeable they don't have reference at all on their front pages the way every other newspaper has.

murpho999

monkey9 wrote: »

The two papers in question do report on yesterday events in their inner pages, but very noticeable they don't have reference at all on their front pages the way every other newspaper has.

Think it's time to give these papers less coverage and appearance of influence. I hardly know anybody who buys them any more.

54and56

Wrong then and in denial now - fcuk the $_n and all Murdock businesses.

Luckycharms_74

corwill wrote: »

Seems they're trying to mend their hand with the 2nd edition.

Yeah they realized the fcuk up on 1st edition.

klose

Sakho to not submit a B sample for the drugs test, id imagine he was told it was a waste of time?

BullBlackNova

klose wrote: »

Sakho to not submit a B sample for the drugs test, id imagine he was told it was a waste of time?

If he appealed and was found guilty, it would have been far worse. It would have started his suspension later and would likely have been a longer ban, too, than he will get for admitting his guilt.

--

Also Ings tribunal settled within the next 48 hours, and he's expected back in full training soon too which is great news. Give him the summer to work on his fitness instead of starting in August or something.

BullBlackNova

On Sakho - a two year ban is expected, but the player will argue 'mitigating circumstances' which will likely see it reduced, according to a few Liverpool Echo journos on Twitter.

Exactly what the mitigating circumstances are, I don't know.

kfallon

BullBlackNova wrote: »

On Sakho - a two year ban is expected, but the player will argue 'mitigating circumstances' which will likely see it reduced, according to a few Liverpool Echo journos on Twitter.

Exactly what the mitigating circumstances are, I don't know.

He thought they were only 2 Points on the WeightWatchers plan but they turned out to be 5!!!

SuperTortoise

If Sakho gets 2 years then there might be another kick of the can for kolo? if kolo leaves I'd expect a new cb to come in in the summer

Turtyturd

What'll the reduction be, a year at most? If he was gone for 6 months the club might keep him but if it's a year they will most likely cut ties.

I'd love for him to play between now and his ban, even just for the faux outrage it'd generate alone.

Harry Palmr

If it's a year or more it's impossible to imagine the club keeping him and basically pretending nothing happened.

SuperTortoise

I'd be massively surprised if we cancel his contract even if it turns out to be a lengthy ban, he's young for a cb and still worth 20 odd millon

Gaillimh1976

Harry Palmr wrote: »

If it's a year or more it's impossible to imagine the club keeping him and basically pretending nothing happened.

Rio Ferdinand ??

BullBlackNova

How long does Sakho have left on his contract, actually, does anyone know off-hand?

MD1990

I personally think we should keep Sakho. Very good player but also done some great charity work which should not be forgotten.

Turtyturd

BullBlackNova wrote: »

How long does Sakho have left on his contract, actually, does anyone know off-hand?

Only signed a new one shortly before 'The Rodgers' was sacked. 3 years I would say.

Harry Palmr

BullBlackNova wrote: »

How long does Sakho have left on his contract, actually, does anyone know off-hand?

Contract until: 30.06.2020
Date of last contract extension: Sep 18, 2015