General Premier League Thread 2024-25

My own personal opinion I can't see both Salah and VVD leaving, but that's for another argument.

As for FSG spending money, maybe Liverpool fans can correct me on this. But I don't think FSG have ever spent any of their own money on players, but they allowed the club to spend all revenue generated, they don't take anything out, unlike the Glaziers. The Athletic reported a few weeks back, that due to Liverpool's inactivity the last 2 windows, and the potential windfalls heading their way, they could have upwards of 250m + to spend if they wish this summer.

it perhaps is the club but Liverpool were going to spend 80-100 million on one or the other but now it seems they had title winning options at half those prices

is Caiciedo an 100 million sterling player? The best DM in the world if you go by the money hes on what and what the bidding war priced him at. Unlikely I’d say.

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Liverpool not outbid Chelsea for Caiceido, but the player had no interest in joining Liverpool?

Having been relegated Southampton were very keen to cash in on Lavia. There was no guarantee that Man City were going to take up the buy back clause before it expired in June 2024. The story in the Belgian media at the time was that Southampton were touting the player to would be suitors without any consultation with the player or agent.

Todd Boehly believed that Chelsea would be shafting Liverpool by signing the player and offered a ridiculous contract. In reality Klopp wanted Gravenberch, Lavia was the backup option and Liverpool were prepared to wait until the transfer deadline to sign either player.

If Southampton didn't want him and Liverpool didn't appear to want him, accepting Chelsea's offer would have seemed like the only real option. On paper the signing of Caicedo and Lavia gave Chelsea a midfield lineup that could dominate teams for the foreseeable future.

Liverpool outbid Chelsea's initial offer and the deal looked on, but Chelsea countered with a higher bid (5m) and a nice 75k more a week than Liverpool's deal in wages. I'd imagine that would turn most peoples favour.

That's not necessarily the case. If any club have proven that you don't have to spend 50+ million on a good player, it's Liverpool. They didn't buy Caicedo or Lavia and instead bought Gravenberch and Endo. For about a third of the money.

While Caicedo and Gravenberch have been the 2 of the best central midfielders in the league this season, it just proves that higher transfer fee does not mean higher caliber player. Whats the better deal - Gravenberch for 40m or Caicedo for 115m? I love having Caicedo at Chelsea but when it comes to value, there is one clear winner there so far. Liverpool's transfer business is a lot smarter than neutrals are willing to admit. It's why some clubs try and copy them. Some with success, some fall flat on their face.

I think Liverpool's was £111m, for some reason that figure is in my head.

I think it was a blind auction thing and they figured Chelsea might go to £110m

We already had Mac Allister so idea was to recreate the partnership he had with Caicedo and ended up having to try Endo instead.

Caicedo is still a quality player I think and he'd have done well.

Lavia is the dodged bullet

Well if you want to get someone close to Salah who will get u 20+ goals a season you are going to have to spend 50+ million. Isak's name has been mentioned and he won't go for any less then 100m

Newcastle won't let Isak go for less than £130m.

Caicedo's been brilliant this season, miles better than last year. Top of the league in the tackles and interceptions stat. Given his age at the time, that price wasn't too far wrong tbh I think. I'd have him at Liverpool in a heartbeat with the rediscovery of form he's found for most of this season.

This is correct by the way, FSG have never directly funded transfers, it's always been funded by the club's revenues

The only time they put on debt was for the Man Stand expansion in 2016, FSG gave Liverpool a £110m loan for that infrastructure work and the club subsequently paid it off over 6/7 years

They do, of course, have oversight of the transfer budget, but it's not their own money and never has been

I can never understand people trying to compare the impact of Ferguson leaving Manchester United with Klopp leaving Liverpool. Ferguson managed United for 26 years and won 13 league titles. Klopp was at Liverpool for almost eight years and won one league title.

From the year Ferguson won his first title, United finished 1st 12 times in the next 20 seasons, 2nd five times, and 3rd three times. In contrast, after Klopp’s title win, Liverpool finished 2nd once, 3rd twice, and 5th once in the following four seasons. In Fergusons final four seasons he finished 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 1st. Ferguson left United as Champions, Klopp left Liverpool after finishing 3rd.

In some ways, Liverpool might have needed fresh energy from a new manager. United under Ferguson, however, had absolutely no such need.

The Fergie/Klopp transitions just highlight how important it is to separate responsibilities within football clubs.

Ferguson and his team did it all, coached and managed the team, dictated the style of play, decided on recruitment, and built several title winning sides. Hugely impressive and why he’ll go down as the best PL manager - but because he did everything trying to ask someone else to come in and do that and be successful is basically an impossible ask. And the club never moved on from that process in a meaningful way, which makes it very hard to see how they manage to become consistently successful.

Moving on from Klopp was more seamless - he had gathered more influence over the years he’d been there but Edward’s coming back in was a clear sign the club wanted to go back to overseeing certain aspects. So Klopps main role was coaching the senior team. With the club overseeing recruitment they were in a far better place to review who’s be the best fit for the team they currently have and how they want to play.

I do wonder if United would have been better off long term had Ferguson retired when he was going to in 2002. Obviously United fans wouldn’t trade those extra years for anything but it might have been an easier transition as the football landscape hadn’t really changed, and maybe the glazers wouldn’t have gotten the club either.

The comparison gets made because of the cultural influence he had on the club. Like Ferguson before him, Klopp completely restored the identity and direction of the club. Brough back pride, and most importantly trophies to the Liverpool fan base. He was such a huge presence and influence within the club. Like it wouldn’t take a genius, to come to the conclusion, that someone like that moving on could have catastrophic consequence if not adequately replaced!