10 Aug 2023 13:27:11
We’re is all this nonsense coming from. We haven’t bid for caicedo so why everyone says we have is nonsense.

1.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 13:35:34
And you know this how?

{Ed002's Note - There has been no bid from Liverpool.}

2.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 13:37:15
Hi Ed2 have Liverpool actually bid for Caicedo or just made an enquiry? Do they have the financial ability to pull off the transfer.

{Ed002's Note - There has been no bid from Liverpool.}

3.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 13:40:17
Apparently we have contacted Brighton with due diligence on the player expressing our interest to BHA incase he doesn’t complete with Chelsea.

{Ed002's Note - It is nothing to do with "due diligence". Try not to overcomplicate anything.}

4.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 13:49:24
Sorry Ed I’m just trying to make sense of it all. We can’t afford a 50M player but have shown an interest in an 100M player who is surely well out of our reach. I just don’t get it.

{Ed002's Note - Who said Liverpool "cannot afford" a £50M player?}

5.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:05:44
She try Ed I was obviously going with the Lavia situation. I just don’t see us stumping up 100M on one player. Chelsea have more financial clout than us so if they see him as to expensive then I can’t understand why we even asked BHA.

6.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:27:00
Why do people fail to understand value. Us not paying 50 mill for Lavia which we still might has nothing to do with an inability to afford it.

Have you ever been at a cinema or an airport and though wow I'm not paying 5 quid for a bottle of water. That has nothing to do with an inability to afford it you make a choice not to.

Only difference is here is it is a once off commodity. Similar to if you are trying to buy a house there will be many houses you might be able to afford but choosing not to pay the asking price on one doesn't equal you can't afford it.

Before people bring up Bellingham now and say we should have bought him, one the player wanted to go Madrid, I assume the wages would be a hell of a lot higher too something that has to be considered. And as ed002 has spent a long time trying to explain there are other factors like agent fees various taxes depending on where deals get done and occasionally 3rd party payments for whatever service may be provided. This is before getting into how the fee is to be structured in terms of fixed payments and add ONS and when they take place.

The club will weigh all of this up and decide whether they are still interested. Similar to if you were buying a house and weigh up the price the location the size the interest rate the duration of any mortgage the agents fees and so on and decide whether it is right for you. Just much easier to play with others money.

7.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:09:54
It seems to be about valuation. We don’t value Lavia at £50m so we won’t pay it but we might value Caicedo at £100m so we might pay that.
Still seems a bit steep to me bit hey ho it’s not my money. I do miss the more recent trend of getting our business done early though.

8.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:15:30
OP The news was not that we bid for him. It was that we made contact with Brighton. Nothing more. I presume that once the understand what Brighton expect regarding payment terms they may or may not bid accordingly. We’ll have to wait and see. Life would be much easier if we didn’t torture ourselves looking for minute by minute updates. If it happens it happens.

9.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:16:10
Daretodream it’s not that we can’t afford Lavia it’s more how much we value him at. Maybe we value caicedo more and did not think we had a chance to sign him because it looked like he was nailed on to join Chelsea and if they are not willing to go any higher than there last bid. maybe we are just checking to see what sort of payment plan Brighton are after because if reports are right Southampton want £40m upfront so if we can spread the payments over a longer period maybe caicedo fits better.

10.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:18:09
So Ed2 how do you think that is going to unveil? You seem almost clear than Chelsea do not want to bid more than what they have already offered.

{Ed002's Note - I really don't know.}

11.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:19:32
There is a big difference between 'can't afford' and 'deem too expensive'. If somebody tried to charge me £10 for a portion of chips I would deem it too expensive but I would happily pay £20 for a quality steak. Liverpool deeming a player to expensive is exactly the same - we could easily afford to give Southampton £50M for Lavia but the club do not see this as good value. If the club think Caicedo is worth £90M or £100M (and I don't think we do) then I suspect we would pay it.

12.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:35:53
Ok everyone seems to be putting me down on my post and challenging me when I say we can’t afford a 50M player. I should have perhaps said we won’t or don’t see the value in him to bud 50M would that be better suited? Truth is we are not paying 100M for a player fact. Anyone think we will?

13.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:39:38
Schmadtke plays too much! their transfer approach has gone backwards to the time when FSG's era began, when they admitted they didn't know much about football and that they were still learning.
Am happy if they buy Caicedo and get nobody else in this transfer window, but this at best is a desperate move if not just a PR stunt. Expect for the sporting director to let go at the end of his temporary term, John Henry to have some interview and say something that sounds like an apology.

14.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:42:11
Not me daretodream. I d be utterly shocked if it happened.

15.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:50:40
Dare to dream we would have spent that on Jude but he wanted to go elsewhere.

We made more than expected on Hendo and Fab sale.

We would have spent near £50m on a 19 year old.

We have bought several players over £75m

We are currently speaking with Brighton about a player we know they turned down an offer over £80m recently for

I don’t bet but I wouldn’t bet against it 100%.

16.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:52:45
The posts are coming from sky sports reporting that Liverpool had outbid Chelsea for Caicedo. This was taken from a journalist surname Law (forgive me not knowing his forename) .

Fans, myself included, have taken this rumour reported and asked questions on a rumour page.

Sky sports have since retracted that report and replaced it with Liverpool have made contact with Brighton.

This Liverpool-rumours page wouldn't be much if fans of the team couldn't come here with a rumour they had heard.

{Ed002's Note - Matt Law.}

17.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 14:54:05
Daretodream- I doubt it but we have backed ourselves into a corner and the market for a suitable DM is thin on the ground to say the least, FSG might see the money we got for Henderson and Fabinho as a bonus and are maybe willing to stretch to buy Caicedo if the terms are right. We have spent big money on individuals under FSG’s ownership in the past so it’s not beyond the realms imo.

18.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 15:00:41
Maybe we will buy caicedo and lavia ?.

19.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 15:06:53
DtD, 100,000,000% not going to happen, in my honest opinion. I would also worry about paying £50M for Lavia but given that the league starts this weekend then I do think we need to buy someone. With Andre ruled 'not for sale', Caicedo off to Chelsea and no one else being rumoured then I would suggest that we should take a chance on Lavia and hope that both he and Bajetic develop into world class DMs.

20.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 15:09:54
I see a scenario where Chelsea get Lavia Caicedo Adams and we put our faith in Bajetic.

21.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 15:29:33
My two pence on this is that if the Caicedo interest is true it makes complete sense. I could not see the logic in getting Lavia to be the one and only CDM in the squad. He has a lot of potential, but is not ready to be a regular starter across a full season.

I always thought he was going to be a project alongside a more experienced player. I worried we were putting all our eggs in the Tchou basket and would end up short. Caicedo fits in the ready to start bracket. He proved last year alongside Mac that they could match any midfield in tge league.

He would be transformative and maybe the club have heard Chelsea are not prepared to pay and are willing to pay the extra for a ready made starter. I guess it would be him only and not one additional CM, but I would rather one top player than a back up and a project player.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but it makes complete sense to me and also for Chelsea. They get two in, which they need for the combined cost of Caicedo and we get our ready made Fabinho replacement.

Cheers.

{Ed002's Note - Perhaps Liverpool should make an offer of £100M then?}

22.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 15:38:39
There we go Ed002 putting it like that, just no way on this planet that we sign him.

23.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 15:47:52
Rolls eyes.

24.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 15:51:15
I very much see a scenario where we may or may not get lavia and that's the window done for us. Very disheartened. can we please have hendo back.

25.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 15:48:27
Putting it like what? No one anywhere (other than fans who have ZERO idea) has definitively said we cannot afford a £100,000,000, nor that we wouldn’t spend that on the right player. It remains to be seen if caicedo were deemed the right player, but all this definitive nay say nonsense is pure guesswork. Makes more sense than Lavia at 50 mil in my opinion, but its not my money so i don't care either way as long as someone comes to fill the void.

26.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 15:54:24
What you reckon ed002? I know you’ve said you really don’t know and I wouldn’t want you to put your neck on the line… but if you were a betting man, where do you see Moises and Romeo playing come September 1st?
Thanks as always for your time and knowledge.

{Ed002's Note - I don't expect either to be playing on September 1.}

27.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 16:08:40
It doesn't matter if we pay it or not, the lad wants to go to chelsea just like Bellingham wanted to go to Real Madrid, unfortunately not every player wants to play for us.

28.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 16:13:59
Agree entirely with Ed. Might do on the 2nd or 3rd though.

29.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 16:19:37
Nice swerve… either way, I wish liverpool would employ similar level staff to Brighton and Southampton who both seem to have very good scouting personnel, they both do very well signing these young talents.

{Ed002's Note - You will have to askChelsea about that.}

30.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 16:23:09
You don't think he's going to Luton or West Ham then Ed? :)

{Ed002's Note - Nope.}

31.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 16:42:05
Cheers Ed - maybe we have a chance of either coming and playing for Sligo Rovers - are we all love a dream!

32.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 17:24:12
Ok, we didn't make an offer for Caicedo. Did we get in contact today with brighton regarding the player and was the conversation regarding a possible transfer of said player?

{Ed002's Note - I have explained all of this. Liverpool have not made an offer and are not negotiating a transfer. This is really tedious.}

33.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 18:12:20
I see either of 2 things

Chelsea bid on our target so Liverpool with a false bid for Caicedo to warn Chelsea away from our Lavia target

With Sky Sports retracting the statement it means Liverpool didn't speak to caicdeo to see if he was interested in coming to liverpool before a bid can be made - it would be embarassing bidding for caicedo if he wasnt interested to come to us.

{Ed002's Note - A “false bid” eh. Wow. Brighton should accept their £100N “false bid” then and let’s see how Liverpool react. This is one of the most embarrassing days ever for the posts.}

34.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 19:34:54
There's a lot of this 'Smokescreen' nonsense being mentioned, or so I've seen.

Does anybody really believe that clubs go out of their way to annoy other clubs, just to leak that nonsense to Sky Sports and other media outlets? - rubbish.

Chelsea have interest in Lavia, we've known that for a while - if they bid, they want him. Simple as that. It's the same as us; if we want him, we know what we need to do.

35.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 19:35:56
Of course we haven’t bid for Caicedo, we haven’t tapped the player up yet.

36.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 19:39:20
im waiting for the Sander Berg rumours to start up again lmao.

{Ed077's Note - sadly joined Burnley instead...}

37.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 19:49:05
£45 million for Kalvin Phillips.

{Ed077's Note - Ed001 is doing sommersaults in his room out of Joy ;-P}

38.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 18:19:16
Ed's can you explain what is going on please? Is this gamesmanship, and, in your opinions, will Caicdeo goto CFC and Lavia to LFC?

{Ed002's Note - I am not aware of a bid for Caicedo by Liverpool yet.}

39.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 18:24:43
This is an interesting thread, the interpretations going on here, firstly, have LFC tried to tap Caicedo, does anyone know, if not, then this is a step away from our normal operating practices it appears, lol

Just add something of speculation, Macca I believe said it may be something from left field re recruitment of a DM, is this the left field thing, idk

But things are definitely interesting atm.

Spare a thought for the Ed’s guy’s, I’m sure they need a pint or 2.

{Ed002's Note - No doubt Macca will be dealing with this soon.}

40.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 18:32:50
Ed002 just a question then on club relationships with journalists in the modern world.

Obviously Matt broke the “news” this morning and as far as I can tell he’s pretty well respected. I doubt he would have put it out there unless he would have received that from a source in one of the clubs (who clearly had the wrong end of the stick) . Unfortunately for him obviously it was proven false within an hour.

Do journalists then ever look to verify the information they get or will they simple trust their sources and run the risk, like poor Matt, you end up looking a bit of a burk.

{Ed002's Note - Some Journalists are able to talk directly with agents and sometime clubs. I woul not try o build too much out of it.}

41.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 19:20:10
Can I just say well done to Ed002 for not having spontaneously combusted today (or this window) with having to repeat answers to utter nonsense.

Please keep up the good work ED002 (and the other Ed’s of course) I look forward to your insights.

{Ed002's Note - Thanks.}

42.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 22:13:06
WDS must have chomped through an entire crate of electric brownies today.

He deserves it bless him.

43.) 10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023 22:42:14
daretodream - the problem with your questions is that you're answering your own question with your own bias against the owners. there's no point trying to speculate whether we would pay this or that because we don't really know what we see as value. We've broken our transfer record every other year, so why not break it again? Who knows.

For me, of the two, Caicedo is the player to go for. Chelsea have been told how much Brighton would accept and have low-balled them (my interpretation ed2, be gentle lol) . So maybe they miss out if, as ed2 says, they don't want to go higher than they already have. If he is in limbo then it would be interesting to see what happens next!