Liverpool FC Forum

Who heard that last night. Where the commentator said biggest trick in book bringing andy carroll and not putting him in squad to p-iss him off so he would think feck it and wona make him leave. Carnt remember if it was on radio or television.

If all these things are true someone at the club needs a good talking to. Our club does not treat its players this badly.

They aren't true - its people coming up with their own conclusions ignoring what the manager has said

Carroll was due to play - BR stated that

Carroll got a twinge in his hamstring - then went for a scan and was given a day to see if he could recover which unfortunatly he didn't.

Our club - our manager are not the club to deliberately do that to a player.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:38 pm wrote:he`s as good as gone, probably going to be shoved out so we can bring a 30 year old yank in to flog a few shirts in the states.
terrible decision if you ask me.

You really don't half talk some tosh

redalltheway36 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm wrote:Who heard that last night. Where the commentator said biggest trick in book bringing andy carroll and not putting him in squad to p-iss him off so he would think feck it and wona make him leave. Carnt remember if it was on radio or television.

makes no sense @ all!

BR has already made it clear that he would be happy to sell Carroll if he can get the right fee.  He doesnt have to make Carroll wanna leave as Andy already knows that BR doesnt see him as a first XI player.

BR has said on countless times that he has been open and honest with carroll.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:38 pm wrote:he`s as good as gone, probably going to be shoved out so we can bring a 30 year old yank in to flog a few shirts in the states.
terrible decision if you ask me.

so are you trying to claim that if Dempsey is signed the it is by FSG and not BR.  Are you saying that BR doesnt actually want the player?

Thats pure BS.  I get it your a fan of andy carroll and your upset that BR doesnt fancy him but dont come up with this drivel please.

we were linked with dempsey under kenny and i just find it a bit too coincidental that rodgers wants to sign him too.
especially when you have werner saying in interviews that the quickest way for the club to grow it`s fanbase in the u.s is to sign an american player.
signing dempsey would be so at odds with this moneyball philosophy (young player under valued by the market with good sell on value) of ours that it would have to have come from the top. there would have to be some good reasons for such an anti-moneyball signing to be okay`d by the owners and i dont think they are footballing reasons, dempsey`s decent but he`s not that good
people who think rodgers has got the type of control over footballing matters that the likes of shankly, paisley, fagan etc had are living in la-la land, bean counters rule the world these days, rodgers has already stated that he wants to keep agger but the decision may be out of his hands.
doesnt sound like someone in total control of footballing matters to me if one of his best players can be sold against his wishes.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:00 pm wrote:we were linked with dempsey under kenny and i just find it a bit too coincidental that rodgers wants to sign him too.
especially when you have werner saying in interviews that the quickest way for the club to grow it`s fanbase in the u.s is to sign an american player.
signing dempsey would be so at odds with this moneyball philosophy (young player under valued by the market with good sell on value) of ours that it would have to have come from the top. there would have to be some good reasons for such an anti-moneyball signing to be okay`d by the owners and i dont think they are footballing reasons, dempsey`s decent but he`s not that good
people who think rodgers has got the type of control over footballing matters that the likes of shankly, paisley, fagan etc had are living in la-la land, bean counters rule the world these days, rodgers has already stated that he wants to keep agger but the decision may be out of his hands.
doesnt sound like someone in total control of footballing matters to me if one of his best players can be sold against his wishes.

no what rodgers said about Agger was that he wants to keep him but if City make an offer which is too big to refuse then he may have to think about it.  Thats not FSG making a decision behind his back but instead BR accepting that an offer of £25m+ would help him buy players so thats why he may sell.

I dont believe for one minute that BR would have taken the job if players were gonna be signed or sold behind his back.  Dempsey will come if BR wants him, if not then he will stay @ fulham or go somewhere else.

BR already made it clear it to FSG before he took the job that he wouldnt come if they went and replaced Comolli with a new Director of Football!

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:00 pm wrote:we were linked with dempsey under kenny and i just find it a bit too coincidental that rodgers wants to sign him too.
especially when you have werner saying in interviews that the quickest way for the club to grow it`s fanbase in the u.s is to sign an american player.
signing dempsey would be so at odds with this moneyball philosophy (young player under valued by the market with good sell on value) of ours that it would have to have come from the top. there would have to be some good reasons for such an anti-moneyball signing to be okay`d by the owners and i dont think they are footballing reasons, dempsey`s decent but he`s not that good
people who think rodgers has got the type of control over footballing matters that the likes of shankly, paisley, fagan etc had are living in la-la land, bean counters rule the world these days, rodgers has already stated that he wants to keep agger but the decision may be out of his hands.
doesnt sound like someone in total control of footballing matters to me if one of his best players can be sold against his wishes.

Rodgers said they made an enquiry about Dempsey about 6 weeks ago and that was it - nothing else ( has BR told you he wants to sign him ?)

celtic-red! » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:14 pm wrote:

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:00 pm wrote:we were linked with dempsey under kenny and i just find it a bit too coincidental that rodgers wants to sign him too.
especially when you have werner saying in interviews that the quickest way for the club to grow it`s fanbase in the u.s is to sign an american player.
signing dempsey would be so at odds with this moneyball philosophy (young player under valued by the market with good sell on value) of ours that it would have to have come from the top. there would have to be some good reasons for such an anti-moneyball signing to be okay`d by the owners and i dont think they are footballing reasons, dempsey`s decent but he`s not that good
people who think rodgers has got the type of control over footballing matters that the likes of shankly, paisley, fagan etc had are living in la-la land, bean counters rule the world these days, rodgers has already stated that he wants to keep agger but the decision may be out of his hands.
doesnt sound like someone in total control of footballing matters to me if one of his best players can be sold against his wishes.

no what rodgers said about Agger was that he wants to keep him but if City make an offer which is too big to refuse then he may have to think about it.  Thats not FSG making a decision behind his back but instead BR accepting that an offer of £25m+ would help him buy players so thats why he may sell.

I dont believe for one minute that BR would have taken the job if players were gonna be signed or sold behind his back.  Dempsey will come if BR wants him, if not then he will stay at fulham or go somewhere else.

BR already made it clear it to FSG before he took the job that he wouldnt come if they went and replaced Comolli with a new Director of Football!

he said the decision may be taken out of his hands!
bean counters rule the roost in practically every aspect of society these days and football is no different, if the OWNERS think city`s (or whoever`s) offer for agger is too good to turn down then they`ll make the decision not rodgers.
you may believe that rodgers just happens to want to sign dempsey just like kenny and werner did, thats up to you. i`m a bit more cynical, i think these days commercial decisions come first and signing dempsey has got $$$$ written all over it.
thats just my opinion of course.

Can you please show me where BR says he wants to sign Dempsey.

Can you highlight where the club are saying they want to sign Dempsey.

You are reacting to gossip and nothign else

Benny The Noon » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:46 pm wrote:Can you please show me where BR says he wants to sign Dempsey.

Can you highlight where the club are saying they want to sign Dempsey.

You are reacting to gossip and nothign else

erm, i think you`ll notice if you read the posts again that there are plenty of `probably`s` and `if`s` in there, it was a general conversation.

And you are making dramatic conclusions on ifs and maybes ?!?

Benny The Noon » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:22 pm wrote:And you are making dramatic conclusions on ifs and maybes ?!?

dramatic? wtf are you on about?
whats dramatic about me thinking carroll will leave, the owners want to sign dempsey and rodgers hasnt got the type of power that managers before him had?
thats my opinion, i may not be right but i dont see whats dramatic about it.
it`s football we are discussing here not the cuban missile crisis.

Come up with some backing to these fairytale theories of yours. It's fine having opinions but ffs at least make them close to the truth.

The owners have not once suggested they want to sign Dempsey - not once.