Toon Saint

The board have had quite some time to sort a replacement. As I've said beforehand, Newcastle managed it no problems with selling Debuchy and bringing Janmaat in on the same day. Obviously the Debuchy to Arsenal deal was a formality, but they didn't confirm it until they were sure they had their man. It would make a big difference to players and fans if there was somebody already lined up, but as it stands, we've been made to look reactive in the transfer market once again.

Agreed. Failing that, Kongolo instead of Rojo and Van Dijk for De Vrij. Having a player like Kongolo or Rojo who can play LB or CB would be a smart move, as it would allow us to be selective about when we give Targett opportunities at LB and also ensure that Jos is no where near the first-team picture.

Shame as he is a very good manager (putting aside our rivalry with Brighton). Wonder whether this is over the Borini deal, as it seems he now wants to stay at Liverpool and fight for his place.

They certainly gave the nod for Lambert. Lots of talk about his 'dream move' but our board were obviously keen to sell in the first place. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jun/01/football-news-in-brief

I've made the odd comment, Jeff. I have also contributed to a lot more threads that haven't involved you, so the obsession thing is a bit ridiculous. I couldn't care less if nobody knows who I am on here, though you do seem to care intensely. I am not Glasgow, this is my only account I have ever had on here despite your paranoia, and I've been pretty clear about who I am before, via my twitter account. If you'd only PM me your address and telephone number then I'm sure we could sort this misunderstanding out.

DPS gets annoyed and impatient when times are good, but is remarkably content when the club is going through a period of serious disruption. He also likes to call out others as 'bed wetting' and 'hysterical', conveniently forgetting his own posting history. I think he just likes to have a 'different' opinion for the sake of it. Will the real DPS please stand up?

Nope, absolutely spot on.

What was Gazzaniga doing at 2:38?

No, he said we put a £6.2m bid in for Marshall.

I'm not sure you properly understood what I wrote. I assume that we will sell Lovren to Liverpool and that when it is announced we will not have an immediate replacement lined up. That is based on my own reading of the football press, and once again, I am happy to be proved wrong. I am sure we have targets, and I am sure the recruitment department is trying for players, but I do not believe there is anything imminent in terms of replacing Lovren. I gave the example of Newcastle and the transfers of Janmaat/Debuchy to suggest that we could stage-manage the departure of players better. We have been led to believe that the scouting network is brilliant and that top players and their agents were contacting the club desperate to join. Yet aside from Koeman's pull in the Eredivise helping to land Tadic and Pelle, we don't seem to have made much progress on landing domestic targets. I'd suggest that might be a result of the negative perception of the club that is continually being recycled in the media. I've not said anything about the club keeping us updated on a day-to-day basis. All I have said is that we could agree to the Lovren transfer provisionally in private, but only confirm it publicly after we have signed adequate replacements. That would only ever work if things were kept under wrap, and the whole point of such an arrangement would be to ensure that clubs do not know that we have an extra £20m in the kitty. I'm not sure why you've used that point against me when it was almost precisely the reason I argued for getting in replacements before selling key players. Not sure I really understood what you were saying in that last sentence. Surely selling Lovren first, without replacements already lined up, would preclude that very possibility of limiting our expenditure on transfers? Your erratic use of bold, quotation marks, and underlining don't really help I'm afraid!

Cheers gump for giving us some stats on a player we have watched all season long. About as sophisticated as Liverpool's scouting department gets it would seem.

I'm not assuming it has been confirmed, but I am assuming we will sell him without a replacement being lined up as there is no news to suggest otherwise. As said above, I'm happy to take some stick if that doesn't pan out like I expect it to. Liverpool have already signed two of our best players. Are our new board that weak that they can't simply say to Liverpool 'we will confirm the Lovren deal once we have replacements brought in'? Do you think Liverpool would run off indignant shouting 'well you aren't having our money any more!'. They want our player and we've already seen how hollow their 'ultimatums' are. I'd argue that the order that we do things does make a difference to who we can attract to the club. Why would top players want to join a club continually portrayed as one lacking in ambition and willingly flogging off its best assets? Important to build on positive momentum and PR, rather than continually trying to strengthen from a weakened position.

It certainly looks that way. No news of incomings and Lovren to Liverpool all over the media. If it happens I'll gladly eat my words and praise the board for handling it well. I don't hold out much hope though.

I didn't say it was simple. We can control when players leave though, so why not agree to a deal in principle with Liverpool for Lovren but get those replacements in before confirmation of the deal, in order to stage-manage the situation better? Newcastle seemed to do that with Debuchy to Arsenal and getting Janmaat in. Both were confirmed on the same day but Debuchy to Arsenal deal was wrapped up about a week before they signed Janmaat. Point is that the Newcastle board weren't willing to confirm the departure of a key player until they had a new signing lined up. Is that so difficult? Advantages of such an approach is that it makes the board look far more organized than they are currently coming across in the media; selling clubs don't hike their prices up with the knowledge that we have a lot of money sloshing around; it also reassures current players, perhaps sitting on contract offers, that we will adequately replace those that are leaving. Do you honestly feel that the board are coming across as in control of the situation?

All indications point to Lovren leaving in next 48 hours and to nobody coming in. What happened to all these top players and agents of top players supposedly showing their interest in joining the club? Scared off by the perception of the club as 'in crisis'?

Sign replacements before we sell players? Perfectly achievable and might save us quite a bit of dosh if selling clubs aren't aware of how much money we have sloshing around.

Don't think the initial bid was £20m as quoted by Sky - probably another exaggerated fee leaked by Liverpool to put more pressure on the club to sell - but the £16m figure now cited as the agreed fee doesn't sound anything like the 'top' amount we were supposed to be holding out for. I think Crook said an initial £16m down and £4m in add - ons, so maybe he is right for a change, but once again it just seems like the board have wilted far too easily - especially coming so soon after Koeman's recent comments on the matter. Of course if we do go in for Vlaar or whoever, Villa will just crank up the price as they know we have another £16m to go with the £55m we have already recouped. Why can't we start getting in replacements before our current players p1ss off, rather than this annoyingly reactive transfer policy? 1) It reinforces a weak image of the club for current players and our targets 2) It inflates the fees of those players we are trying to bring in 3) It negatively impacts our ability to prepare for the coming season as there is constant change and disruption in dressing room Guan says the board are learning from their mistakes, but they should have built on the momentum from the Tadic and Pelle signings and strengthened elsewhere before even considering let others leave. We had the chance to stem the negative flow of information surrounding the club and start to turn the tide, but just fear the board have relinquished that initiative.

Bit worrying that we continue to be linked to average journeymen. Hope it is all a smokescreen for the real activity. Though doesn't seem as if anything is actually close. Once Lovren leaves, I make that 5 more signings needed. 2 centre backs, a left back, a wing forward, and another striker. Tick, tock...

Honestly don't think it's KL's commitment or desire that has cost us but her inexperience and competency. The decision to appoint Krueger as Chairman over Williams was an absolute clanger in retrospect, and we seemed to sleepwalk through January to May with little public leadership or direction. There's been an improvement with Reed taking a more prominent role and Krueger kept back, but the damage was done - both to player morale and media perception - during that time.

The problem is that the board no longer seem to be able to control the meta-narrative that now surrounds the club. We are portayed by the press as a crisis club that is under siege, and no doubt prospective players - especially those based in the UK - will think the same and be reluctant to join. I'm sure that the perception of the club that is driven by the media is quite different to the actual circumstances surrounding the club - but what matters more when you are trying to attract new signings? Selling Lovren before any more signings will only reinforce that perception, and will make it doubly harder to get a player of equal quality in.

Probably J - rods agent given that the story about him delaying contract talks appeared in the Mirror the very same day.

Guan did say something about the transfer committee becoming the 'penetralia' of the club, so maybe a good sign?

Good to hear the new kit is actually fitted properly, might even go for the away one this year. Black away kit for 125th anniversary in XL boys was a personal favourite.

Independent article is only saying 'reportedly' and I think the original story about Arsenal 'opening talks' was broken by goal.com, so not overly worried...yet.

Ralphy has been busy working on a new leadership model that will blow your mind.