Liverpool Banter Archive June 12 2017

12 Jun 2017 23:28:40
i have read a few times of Ojo going on loan to newcastle, the question i have is do you think he has the quality to start for them and make a significant contribution.

I am sick of our players being sent out and just not playing it is so bad for their development!

12 Jun 2017 23:57:21
Absolutely. he's top quality. Loom at ake last year.

Id do a 6 month so if it doesn't work we can salavge it with the fa cup.

Hes soo young and has everything. Pace, power, skill, crossing and passing.

13 Jun 2017 00:33:46
I think Newcastle will have too much quality to take ojo, I'd rather he go to someone with a little less depth.

13 Jun 2017 00:51:07
If he can't get good game time with Newcastle and prove himself, then he's never going to get it with us. The fixture list this coming season will be full on at times and after watching him at the U20's, I'd like to see him in the first team squad playing some cup games and getting some minutes in the league.

13 Jun 2017 01:07:56
A team fighting for relegation would rather play their own young player who will have more sympathy for the cause. Throwing in an untested youngster on loan is hard at a team who is pushing for survival.

13 Jun 2017 06:29:22
Think a team like Swansea would be perfect.

12 Jun 2017 23:19:00
Any Eds knows if ....................

{Ed002's Note - It really doesn't work like that. The subject has been done to death - move on.}

12 Jun 2017 22:14:55
Any of the ed's think all our primary targets will be in place ready for pre season training.

{Ed002's Note - I have no idea.}

12 Jun 2017 20:09:31
It would go to far to say I'd welcome a transfer ban, but if it happens, it gives a greater chance to our young players.

The collective group-think about spending vast sums just because our rivals do is flaky logic. Rather than a short-term tactical view let's have a long-term strategic approach where we innovate and not follow the herd in lemming fashion.

It's worth remembering that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result; my view is Liverpool's future would be better served taking an iconoclastic path as that way is more likely to bring long-term success.

Naturally there's zero chance of it happening because of the external maelstrom of pressures from media and fans, but peer pressure is not the best foundation on which to make decisions.

12 Jun 2017 20:40:26
I've seen enough of our LONG TERM tactic for development. Let me tell you this: it does not work. We aren't competitive. We are mediocre.

12 Jun 2017 20:43:34
Why do people think our youth players are destined for greatness? The majority won't play more than a handfull of games, I can't remember the last player to come through the ranks and be a first team regular. Could argue Sterling but we bought him at 16 I believe?

12 Jun 2017 20:48:40
Wow there really are some utter mouth breathers on here atm.

12 Jun 2017 21:19:04
Innovate, lemming, iconoclastic, maelstrom?
Not a clue mate.

12 Jun 2017 21:52:15
Name me a team on the last 20 years bar one anomoly that has not spent money and won the league? Off course we would all love to see the next Gerrard, Fowler and McManaman coming thru the ranks and ripping it up in the Premier League but we would be fortunate to get one, never mind 3. I think you are living with your head in the clouds, possibly best to follow the rest of us lemmings mate.

13 Jun 2017 00:01:57
Liverpool spent money when we dominated. We were one of the h8ghest spenders.

There a difference between good and bad spending though.

Its not about only wanting to soend 3 mil on a young cb. We can spend 40,50 and 60 million. Its just got to be on the right players.

We were paying 6o mil for vvd and united got a top quality cb for 30 mil.

There all out there. Good players who will really help us, a lot of money and not alot.

12 Jun 2017 18:51:40
Watched a bit more of the U20 World Cup than I had planned to because I wanted to see a bit more of Solanke playing. I understand Ojo was there too but I wanted to see Solanke as I hadn't seen him play.
Strong lad, seems to have a decent football brain too. In the final when some of the other young lads were still going for the killer goal he was standing strong in the corner. Got golden boot too, not to overhype him but that has previously been won by Aguero, Messi, Pogba and Maradona. Really think he will be able to offer something off the bench straight away.
What are you opinions on him Eds?

{Ed001's Note - I would not judge him from that tournament because he was so much more physically advanced than the opposition. It was men against boys with him, he towered over the opposition he faced in the games I saw. Makes it impossible to judge him fairly as he could have been getting the Freddy Adu effect of just being fully grown playing against kids.}

12 Jun 2017 19:24:52
Jesus Freddy adu! Used to rock my champ man team legend that kid whatever we happend to him anyone know?

12 Jun 2017 19:51:03
I think he got released from some second tier American team and now has a normal job haha.

12 Jun 2017 21:14:37
Thanks for the reply ed, and the nostalgia of Freddy Adu. Last I saw was that he was a nightclub promoter somewhere.

12 Jun 2017 21:14:44
I agree with ed1 on this, his junior record is quality but he's a lot bigger and stronger than the majority of his age group and won't be able to physically bully his opponents in the prem. Look at Connor Wickham, he was quality coming through the ranks but struggled once he lost his physical advantage.

12 Jun 2017 22:53:04
Cherno Samba was the beast of all beasts until he played against actual men.

13 Jun 2017 11:05:04
The award Solanke got was "Player of the Tournament". He just missed out on the Golden Boot which is for top scorer. He scored 4 but some Italian guy scored 5.

12 Jun 2017 16:34:01
Apparantly lazio have rejected an opening bid of €28 million for sergej savic anyone confirm?

12 Jun 2017 16:51:56
Scroll down mate. It seems not.

12 Jun 2017 17:23:18
Decent player, more of an attacking player having watched quite a bit of Serie A last season, but I don't think he is any better than Wijnaldum and Lallana.

12 Jun 2017 13:55:00
So Liverpool now have the cash and the will to buy ready-made talent, but are so used to buying upcoming acts they are messing up everything. Maybe we should stick to what we know and hope we dig up a diamond-in-the-rough.

12 Jun 2017 11:01:43
I wish we could troll Man U now by quickly offering £40M to Benfica for Lindolof. (no chance but would be quite funny)
He looks a great prospect for their team (said with gritted teeth) .

12 Jun 2017 11:25:47
Man Utd will pay him more money and the possibility of trophies with Jose will always be more so why would Lindlof even want to join us? The player will simply make it clear that he wants only Man Utd and Benfica will have no choice but to sell to them.

12 Jun 2017 14:13:23
Why? is he any good? Who is he?

12 Jun 2017 14:49:53
Another player who is okay in a poor league so might step up or might look out of his depth.

12 Jun 2017 08:16:01
Edd. My Sly contract and my bt up soon . Do you ever see a situation where we can pay to see our team play . Like a match choice and pay to view Liverpool . I'd like to have a choice to my viewing .

{Ed001's Note - yes mate, clubs want to take control of their own streaming rights in the future.}

12 Jun 2017 08:26:22
Makes Some sense I guess - people won't have to subscribe to two providers and even then not be able to watch all their club games. better the club benefits from the subscription fees too. Can't help but think might be some unintended consequences though.

Any downsides you can foresee eds (eg. If not on normal television and accessible to everyone is there a risk the overall supporter base dwindles a bit like what's happened to F1 and boxing? Is there a downside to people potentially only watching their own clubs? ) .

Is there also a chance to channels starr televising more Football from other leagues or countries to compensate, raising interest in more local clubs?

{Ed001's Note - those downsides you mention are very possible. I know I would not want to just be limited to watching one team, as I watch hundreds of games a season. Putting it on a subscription basis really does limit future audiences in return for a short term gain. I am not sure it is the right way to go personally. I would think it would be better for clubs to work together to produce packages that allow access to more than just one particular club's matches.}

12 Jun 2017 09:22:28
Givr sky and bt all the games they get and then allow the clubs to sell viewing for there 3 oclock games at 15 quid a game. Also thr cuo ganes that aren't showing.

That way we can all watch a lot of football, don't really wanna lose super sundays or mnf or watch othrr teams but would like to watch all of liverpools games.

12 Jun 2017 09:28:27
Fiver a game . 15 fffs .

{Ed025's Note - supermane forgot to tell you that he is actually rupert murdoch,s love child echo.. :)

12 Jun 2017 10:25:34
15 a game? Geez I watch all liverpools games so that's a big hit to the main supporter base a year, not to mention the costs of watching any other big matches from other sides. think it should be more like 1/ 3 of that as Echo says.

{Ed001's Note - why not a fiver a month to sign up and watch all games recorded, rather than live? I mean every game, so you can't watch it at 3pm but say from 6pm or 7 or whatever time they agree on. Maybe more than a fiver, but a monthly fee of some kind just for all the Premier League games would be a lot better than just getting the stream of one team only.}

12 Jun 2017 10:54:15
I think Liverpool have already looked into it somewhat haven't they?
I seem to remember Ed002 saying as much, and that we have a guy who's a bit of an expert in that field.

{Ed001's Note - yep, all clubs are looking into it.}

12 Jun 2017 10:46:42
With the fast amount of fans that all support different clubs . The fiver on top of the subscription is the least I'd pay . I might bring the idea to dragons den lol . Vouch for me on the copyright.

12 Jun 2017 11:27:18
Streaming your own team works well in the nfl and I would pay for that as getting tickets is difficult and I don't drive .

12 Jun 2017 12:58:26
Has to be about 15/ 20 so people still go the game.

Thats why there's a ban on live 3oclock games being broadcast.

If the tickets to watch it at home are 5 quid a month but 45 at the ground what are you going to do.

Its about what germany charge aswel. 18 i think it is to watch at home and about 25 at the ground.

The only way it would work is if the anfield tickets camr right down so it was aboht a tenner difference live or at home.

Ed the live games are already on the same evening on lfc chanel recorded like you said. Either same evening or next morning. Its £7.99 a month for lfctv.

{Ed025's Note - the thing is supermane is that you can go to the local boozer and get 6 pints and watch the game for free , it has to be affordable mate and £15-20 puts it out of reach for some..

12 Jun 2017 13:56:51
But its never going to be about giving what the fans want. It will still be a luxury.

Its the fast food sort of thing. You can et a dominose for like 18.99 and the same pizza in asda for 99 p minus the stuffed crust haha.

Can you be assed cooking though. So if its pissing down and you wsnt to trek the pub so be it but if you esnt to relax in your own home with some bevvies and your mates then 15 quid isn't so bad.

For the die hards who watch every game, well they'll save money aswel becsude they go the match and spend about a grand a year

5 quid a month would just stop people going the game.

You wouldn't buy all the games abyway. Only probably the bigguns. Or it could br a popular basis. Yano the bigger the opponent.

Liverpool vs united 15.99
Liverpool vs westbrom 7.99
Liverpool vs huddersfield 4.99
Liverpool vs everton 0.50p haha

Be the same as sky box office. And there's no complaints about paying 20 quid then. It just seems because its the working mans game it has to be made accesible for buttons. I would happily cancel all subscriptions and spread the 45 i currently pay on 3 liverpool games a month and give the money to the club rather than sky.

{Ed001's Note - lots of people complain about box office prices.}

12 Jun 2017 15:27:33
Still people pay it. Supply and demand.

Premier league football isn't poundland is all im saying. How cheap do you want it if 15 quid a game is to much? It hasn't bren the workings mans game for about 30 years.

Theres onl6 so many who go every hame or watch every game with work and such. So 2 games a montb and MOTD for the others would be 30 quid. that's soundo.

12 Jun 2017 16:16:56
Agree Ed - I actually use LFC TV as well - very good service, but still pay on top for the TV coverage (am in singapore at the moment and they have all the games - good value for the extent of the coverage actually)

Point is I'd happily pay 20 a month for the games to LFC, but would be good to able to pay a 5'er a game for others if you want to watch another match. Or alternatively if clubs agreed to share highlights of each other's matches as a pool deal perhaps for another 10 a month, plus an additional free 1-2 games from the league for that and then a 5er on top for every match after. It would be painful to miss some of the other great games around.

12 Jun 2017 16:26:11
It's a strange World. I live 4,600 miles away from Liverpool. And yet I have seen all Liverpool matches on TV, free of cost, the past 10 years or so (aside from the 8 pounds per month that I pay for cable service and get around 1,000 channels - skysports included) . I understand supply and demand very well. But it still defies logic that people living in and around Liverpool (or even the UK) have so many constraints, and yet those living miles and miles away have it so much easier.

12 Jun 2017 18:36:34
I agree ra, if I was sitting with my feet up in California I'd be able watch whatever games I wanted to, yet here in Liverpool you only get to watch a few. I guess they don't wanna turn people off going the game. Could they balance it all out though. Say £20 to go the game or £5 to watch at home. With the amount of home subscribers that would surely cover lost gate income. £15-20 at the ground would still see it full every week I'm sure.

{Ed001's Note - it is more the effect it has on other teams playing in the lower leagues, which rely on fans who can't go to their Prem team that week.}

12 Jun 2017 18:41:22
Agree ra - singapore isn't cheap but it's a lot better coverage, and a lot better value for money than the UK!