Liverpool FC Forum

by **Yooj Bigullz** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:36 am

NANNY RED wrote:Youve got to ask yourself here if Torres did get injured would he have been good enough anyway to fill the gap if he had stayed. Imo he wasnt

His form was poor, no denying that (I believe a lot of that is down to mismanagement)

Beardsley and Rush weren't pulling up trees in their first half seasons either. I'm drifting slightly off my point here, to not bring in another striker is farcical

by **bigmick** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:36 am

NANNY RED wrote:Youve got to ask yourself here if Torres did get injured would he have been good enough anyway to fill the gap if he had stayed. Imo he wasnt

You're possibly right Nan, but you also have to ask yourself if he was more suited to filling the space if Torres was unavailable than say, Egg Nog, or Kuyt, or Babel, or the Voronator?

He was at least a credible alternative to Torres. Not in the same league in terms of quality, but a good player at least.

by **Zidane** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:37 am

NANNY RED wrote:Youve got to ask yourself here if Torres did get injured would he have been good enough anyway to fill the gap if he had stayed. Imo he wasnt

But he already proved he was Nanny, at the start of the season. He wasn't scoring but we were winning and that's what it's all about no? Oh well though maybe just the way I looked at it I suppose. He could have been a very useful squad player imo, our best even. I thought he would be good enough to start but maybe he really wasn't. That said, he certainly was good enough to get some games in when Torres needed rest/got injured though, he proved that much.

by **Kharhaz** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:38 am

NANNY RED wrote:Youve got to ask yourself here if Torres did get injured would he have been good enough anyway to fill the gap if he had stayed. Imo he wasnt

Name someone who is? Thats the problem right there. Hell, you may as well ask, what chance do the youngsters here at the club stand? If there not of Torres quality, give it up.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:40 am

Zidane wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:
Zidane wrote:
Sabre wrote:Lando, he has played in much of the games that gave us the points we currently have in the table mate. We haven't the points we have dragging 5 players all over the way. His contribution may be not good enough and not worth 20M, but it was a contribution. We can't say he hasn't played.

Exactly, I've posted this many times but people disregard Keane just because he didn't score goals. Like it or not we would not be in contention for the title without Robbie Keane.

Similarly, if he were not such a mardy, self-centred punk who tried to showboat his way around matches, he would not have been sold and we would have had more points on the board.

Hey ho.

If Rafa had done quite a few things differently we might have put more points on the board as well, it's irrelevant. I'm just saying I don't like the fact that people act as if his contribution was nothing.

I'm not saying his contribution was nothing.

I'm saying his future contribution would have been , as he would NOT HAVE PLAYED ANOTHER GAME!

It can't be that hard to understand, surely?

by **Yooj Bigullz** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:40 am

Zidane wrote:
Effes wrote:I cant believe this is such a busy thread

I think half the post on this thread are from GYBS, so maybe it isn't -that- long.

Oh Lord

I haven't read the thread but I'm guessing it was guff like 'He had to go, Kuyt will do the business, In Rafa we trust, Babel is the next Henry...'

by **Zidane** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:44 am

Lando_Griffin wrote:I'm not saying his contribution was nothing.

I'm saying his future contribution would have been , as he would NOT HAVE PLAYED ANOTHER GAME!

It can't be that hard to understand, surely?

That wasn't directed to you, so yeah.. that was for some other posters. I replied to you saying had he "not been such a mardy, self-centred punk who tried to showboat his way around matches, he would not have been sold and we would have had more points on the board." with the Rafa comment. So yes. I understood it completely.

by **NANNY RED** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:49 am

Im not slatin the lad as i said before i was made up when we signed him an yes i do feel he has been treated badly but he turned out not good enogh for us so was moved on . Noone knows the real in an outs of what went on , So until that comes out in the wash ill keep quiet.
An yes its seems like madness not to have cover for Torres but who was available that was good enough an cheap enough. Im not defending anyone here theres two much politics going on at the club at the mo to fathom anything out

by **NANNY RED** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:07 am

FROM TOMORROWS GUARDIAN

Keane's return could have been foreseen• Striker was pawn between Benítez and Parry
• White Hart Lane always a likely destination
Matt Scott guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 February 2009 00.05

Robbie Keane's deadline-day transfer away from Liverpool seemed the best outcome for all parties.

There have been credible suggestions that Keane, through no fault of his own, had been at the centre of recent tensions between Liverpool's manager, Rafael Benítez, and the chief executive, Rick Parry. Benítez said last week that he "did not sanction" paying £20m to Tottenham Hotspur for Keane last summer.

So far only about £10m has changed hands between Liverpool and Spurs. There are strong rumours in the financial world that only £5m came from Liverpool's reserves. The rest, it is said, was borrowed money, coming from a specialist football-loans company.

That would mean that not only would Liverpool have to take the £10m balance of payments out of Benítez's future budget, but they would also have to furnish the debt service on the loans.

Liverpool's American co-owner, George Gillett, said at a conference last year that Liverpool had "no covenants" on their £350m senior loan with RBS and Wachovia. That situation would enable further borrowing for transfer activity.

That all meant that the most sensible outcome regarding Keane would have been for Tottenham to cancel the two tranches of the fee due on the first transfer, and take him back. And, lo, Keane returned to Tottenham yesterday.

by **112-1077774096** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:16 am

the only good I can see coming from this debacle is that it's another nail in rafas coffin, we proved recently we don't have the ability when torres is injured, lets hope he stays fit, oh and now he cant even be rotated out of the team, lets hope he stays fresh

benitez you fecking clown

by **Bam** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:20 am

I'm glad we have sold the moaning c*nt, whether we have a replacement or not.

Kn.objockey

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:21 am

Right on cue...

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:22 am

Bam wrote:
I'm glad we have sold the moaning c*nt, whether we have a replacement or not.

Kn.objockey

Go away, peasant.

You and your shadow have both mysteriously appeared at the same time again, I see.

Is it difficult for you both to sit down, what with you being so far up one anothers bottoms?

by **ConnO'var** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:28 am

On the whole, it was probably the best thing for both parties involved. It has become abundantly clear that Rafa didn't want to use Keane any more, so there was no point in us paying high wages for someone who would have inevitably been no more than a passenger. For Keane, he's likely to get more playing time with Spurs under the tutelage of a manager who actually rates and wants him. At his age, and for someone who has an abundance of passion for the game still, it would have been inconceivable to expect him to be content with just warming the bench and at times not even being on it.

The 20 million figure that seems to be the bone in the throat of most posters is really no fault of Keane's. We won't know for sure until someone comes right out and say it, but apparently it wasn't Rafa's decision either. All around bad investment for us.... one of many in recent times it would seem.

Having said that, I do think that this decision may bite us in the @rse should Torres get injured.... and lets face it, with hamstring injuries, this could become an issue before long. We need another recognized striker and I don't think that Kuyt, Babel and N'gog fits the bill. Perhaps it's time for Nemeth to come to the fore. I'm not best pleased with the decision to go without a replacement.... it's too much of a gamble.

Even though Keane did not score too many goals for us, it would be prudent for us to remember that he had played a part in other ways when we were winning so many early in the season. I was happy with his signing and thought that he could be a very good addition but was mistaken as we don't set up to best utilize his strengths..... for better or worse. He did his best but it just didn't work out.

Keano represents the last in a long line of failed strikers at the club. A list headed by a fair few number of players....... Morientes (the best of the lot), Pongolle, Cisse, Baros and the last return of god. In my opinion, this is just a fact we will have to accept with management under Rafa..... we will play with 1 recognized striker (thank feck that he's about the best in the business) and Stevie playing behind him. I maybe wrong (Sabre, can you confirm?) but in most, if not all, of Rafa's successesful periods in management, he's played with only 1 upfront.

Good luck Keano.

by **Bam** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:31 am

Lando_Griffin wrote:
Bam wrote:
I'm glad we have sold the moaning c*nt, whether we have a replacement or not.

Kn.objockey

Go away, peasant.

You and your shadow have both mysteriously appeared at the same time again, I see.

Is it difficult for you both to sit down, what with you being so far up one anothers bottoms?

Wa wa wa

Liverpool FC Forum

Robbie keane was a red thread - Lasting memories of robbie

Who is online