shurlock

You've changed the topic. I didn't say she's stripping assets - I ridiculed the idea. Read my earlier post. What I am saying is that you've confused a fire sale with asset stripping. A firesale is motivated by the need for liquidity -namely hard cash in order to avoid a disaster or meet some other urgent obligation. You take what's on the table, however low, because you have no choice. Asset-stripping is motivated by the desire to extract as much value as possible from your assets. You claimed that since we've rebuffed offers for Shaw, Lallana etc that this evidence that the board is not interested in stripping assets. Yes I don't think KL wants to strip assts but you can't draw that inference from the evidence you provided.

This is a thread about asset-stripping, not firesales. Stay on topic.

Neither a fire sale nor an asset strip is going to happen. But just for your info the two are very different. Holding out for the highest possible price is not inconsistent with asset stripping. Indeed the two go hand in hand.

Christ knows - is probably Krueger's operations man, charged with the details of implementation. Am sure his degree in accounting is being stretched to the limits figuring out how to enhance the 'consumer experience' now that they've discontinued the Benny Hill HT relay race.

Depends on the owners motives Glasgow. It's the owner who does the asset stripping, not the buyers.

No chance. If they were in it just for the money, it might make more sense for them to sell our best players and try to do the bare minimum to keep us in the prem to milk the TV money (an approach that usually ends in tears). Way too early to conclude anything yet - other than that they have a lot of learning to do.

Ever seen it in your line of work, Glasgow?

I thought you wanted more Reed, less Krueger -yet in everyone's eyes, he's the one who is selling prime real estate for beads and trinkets.

He's a scouser; he's going home; he's getting his dream move - he can take care of himself ffs.

Taking it for granted we can shift Osvaldo in some way. Hope and expectation are different things - I'd hope that Lambert wouldn't be our first choice striker, do I expect it -much less so today than before. Indeed, if KL is scaling back the ambition, then our definition of a first choice striker has to change.

Anything less than one proven and one Jrod-type striker (unproven but with potential) and I'll be disappointed. That assumes of course we sell no other strikers.

It depends on the board's plans - but am much less confident that we're committed to strengthening in every position. So no I wouldn't sell him and, compared to last season, there's a much greater chance he'd be our first choice striker.

We were in a completely different position 6-12 months ago -we had strikers fit and a squad of attacking talent that didn't look like it was going to be dismantled; the assumption was that the resources were available to improve on the position; and the fee touted was considerably higher.

Not sure what this shows - other than poor business. Look at Nasri and Silva- both bought at around £23-25m, younger than Lallana and with more pedigree. In Nasri's case, he had already shown he could cut it in the prem - part of the English premium. Let's not pretend it's a million miles off what's being offered for AL. The fact that we have to pay Bournemouth 25% is neither here nor there for Liverpool or market value. £25m is £25m. Never mind the perception -right or wrong- that we need the money.

This must be hard for you Roge

Some of the rumoured statements by the players haven't helped our negotiating position one jot.

Agree it's not too good to refuse -assuming the board is genuine about its ambitions and happy to turn down the money. That confidence has been tested these last couple of days.

I didn't say it was fantastic value - I said it was closer to the value we should expect for him given the circumstances.

Which is fair enough - we just better hope that like the scousers with suarez we kick on next season. Lallana's too much of a good professional to throw a strop but it is neither good for him or us or indeed his value if he's stagnating in a mediocre team. Of course, that's making assumptions about what KL's ambitions are for the side.

Edit

Look I want to hold out for as much as possible but our hand is significantly weaker than it was a week ago. If Poch was still around and there were reasons to think Lallana might want to stay, we would have much more leverage. But that's gone and we have a player whose head is increasingly elsewhere. Any final deal has to be evaluated against these constraints.

Obviously I want to hold out for as much as possible but we stand a much better chance of replacing him than we do Lambert. The reality is that the lad is intent on leaving -that resolve will have only been stiffened by this week's events which I'm critical of. At one point pragmatism has to enter the picture. If we had to settle for £25m minus the fee to Bournemouth, I wouldn't see as a one-sided i.e. unfair deal.

We might - we might not. We might even come out on top. Just saying for a player who's intent on leaving, that's closer to his fair value, even with the fee to Bournemouth. Unlike Lambert of course.

That offer is fair value.

Lambert isn't manager material. Deary me- the tears are flowing tonight.