Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I hope so Matt, but they say everyone has a price.



I think Matt is right in this instance. Torres is one of the only players left that looks as though he has some form of loyalty.


Love him!!

Don't want to piss on your chips Anna, but Glen Johnson and his partner said something very similar to me, personally at the beginning of the month.


Looks like he is now going back to Chelsea. Loyalty is sadly a concept that 99.999% of all footballers struggle with immensley, whereas the concept of ?????????????????????????s they all seem to be able to grasp!

I thought Glen Johnson was coming to Liverpool, until I read we were signing Micah Richards.. maybe the papers are correct on both and they'll be fighting for the right back slot..


I'd have thought Glen Johnson going back to Chelsea would be a footballing mistake as all the ingrediants that took him off the tracks in the first place are still going to be at the Bridge..

Liverpool probably cannot afford him. I think they merely started off the bidding process with Man City and Chelsea wading in, however I believe his release clause relates to Champions League and the England manager has ben pressing him to get CL experience ahead of the world cup.


Of course, Chelsea could activate the release agreement, and that basically means he is available to any club, because Pompey would then take the highest bid regardless of CL involvement. Either way, it aint liverpool.

Crouch money not due for another 12 months but is outstanding. Looks like we will be offloading him to Tottenham however (note this is not from the player himsef though so could be wrong). That'll pay up the 'Pool debt.


As soon as we get our takeover complete the better, cos with all these players leaving we could really do with a manager to identify some new ones!

I think ?18.5m would be too much for Glen Johnson - I'm not even sure we'd see much of his attacking ability as he'd soon have to follow the party line of sitting deep to cover Carragher's lack of pace. I'd like to keep Arbeloa as he can do a good job at left back or right back. Hopefully Rafa can raise some money by flogging Dossena back to Italy.

Carling Cup Draw - Fixtures w/c 10 Aug


Accrington Stanley v Walsall

Huddersfield v Stockport

Rotherham v Derby

Tranmere v Grimsby

Sheff Weds v Rochdale

Bury v West Brom

Notts County v Doncaster

Lincoln v Barnsley

Scunthorpe v Chesterfield

Coventry v Hartlepool

Darlington v Leeds

Preston v Morecambe

Crewe v Blackpool

Carlisle v Oldham

Nottm Forest v Bradford

Macclesfield v Leicester

Sheff Utd v Port Vale

Cardiff v Dag & Red

Wycombe v Peterborough

Southampton v Northampton

Barnet v Watford

Hereford v Charlton

Bristol Rovers v Aldershot

Millwall v Bournemouth

Gillingham v Plymouth

Colchester v Leyton Orient

Reading v Burton Albion

Exeter v QPR

Cheltenham v Southend

Brentford v Bristol City

Yeovil v Norwich

Crystal Palace v Torquay

MK Dons v Swindon

Swansea v Brighton

Shrewsbury v Ipswich

matthew123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think ?18.5m would be too much for Glen Johnson

> - I'm not even sure we'd see much of his attacking

> ability as he'd soon have to follow the party line

> of sitting deep to cover Carragher's lack of pace.

> I'd like to keep Arbeloa as he can do a good job

> at left back or right back. Hopefully Rafa can

> raise some money by flogging Dossena back to

> Italy.



Johnson would be good in those home games like Stoke etc.

We only need a RB a centre back cover and a striker cover in my opinion, so if he thinks 18 mill gets one of those then is OK by me.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • These statements were in the Consultation Findings report published (later than promised) just before the licence was granted:  "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the delivery of the council’s Events service, which supports the delivery of up to 100 free-to-attend community events per year – please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" I've drafted an email to request some more details of these "free-to-attend" events, as "up to" is a fairly meaningless description - could be 100, could be none? - and therefore doesn't help anyone to decide whether it is actually a benefit to the community or not. Even if it is 100, I'm not sure I could name even one of them? "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the provision of a grants fund – the Cultural Celebrations programme - please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" A similarly meaningless statement in terms of gauging whether, or how much, this is a benefit to the local community. What is it, what does it do, how much of the fee goes to it? And how can the fee go "directly" to two different things? Surely, "directly" means without deviation, straight to, without being changed or reduced?? Again, I'll be asking all these questions to the events dept. I find it outrageous & insulting that a public body can try to justify such an intrusive & disruptive event with such flimsy and opaque "benefits", with zero figures or details to quantify them. They may as well not bother with a consultation, just say "Look, we can't be arsed to justify our decision, it's happening so just deal with it".  
    • Thanks so much. Yes I have. Really appreciate your kindness in replying. Thank you.
    • Have you posted on Nextdoor? There's a big cat community on there. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...