Henderson to Liverpool

[GeeForce 0]

 

i'm obsessed

 

You think Liverpool are doing it wrong, and we are doing it right then ? And you think the strategy of the mackems, of selling one of their prize assets [in their view] and replacing with 3 poorer players is the one we should be following ?

 

You've got a lot to learn.

 

In this case I think it is actually great business for Sunderland. One thing they lacked massively last year was squad depth and if they could have swapped Henderson for them 3 in January they would have finished much stronger.

 

You are forgetting that they are swapping one player with 6 months of form in his whole career for 3 international footballers all who have played in the champions league, won league titles and cups and been around some of the best players in the world for their whole careers. Also, in Gibson they could have a player who has not yet shone because he hasn't had a run of games but actually he could turn out very good with a full season of appearances behind him.

 

I am sorry to say it but I would have everyone of those three in our squad, and they would certainly serve a better purpose than one Jordan Henderson. Sunderland suffered from a complete lack of experience last season and in o'shea and baked bean they have picked that up in abundance.

 

Anyway you wouldn't understand any kind of footballing analysis as all you feel matters is the more a player costs the better he will turn out to be!

[Holden McGroin 6585]

I'd personally do a direct swap for Gibson with Henderson.

 

Not sure how Henderson has deserved this attention.

[LeazesMag 0]

Ha you really are an idiot.

 

Liverepool arent doing it wrong just mugs for paying that kind of money for players who dont justify it.

 

We are doing it right...AT THE MOMENT....i dont want us blowing huge figures on players who arent worth it. Theres been too many... Boumsong, Luque, Owen, Viana etc... Under which regime too LM?

 

so, which regime has done the best ?

 

Simple question. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion before you reply

 

Are you sure when you chose your new username you haven't made a typo and meant to use "Beano"

[LeazesMag 0]

In this case I think it is actually great business for Sunderland. One thing they lacked massively last year was squad depth and if they could have swapped Henderson for them 3 in January they would have finished much stronger.

 

You are forgetting that they are swapping one player with 6 months of form in his whole career for 3 international footballers all who have played in the champions league, won league titles and cups and been around some of the best players in the world for their whole careers. Also, in Gibson they could have a player who has not yet shone because he hasn't had a run of games but actually he could turn out very good with a full season of appearances behind him.

 

I am sorry to say it but I would have everyone of those three in our squad, and they would certainly serve a better purpose than one Jordan Henderson. Sunderland suffered from a complete lack of experience last season and in o'shea and baked bean they have picked that up in abundance.

 

Anyway you wouldn't understand any kind of footballing analysis as all you feel matters is the more a player costs the better he will turn out to be!

 

go onto a Liverpool website and tell them they would be better off with O'Shea, Gibson and Brown than Henderson

 

No wonder people laugh at NUFC supporters.

[StevenL 0]

Can someone ban LM from using ? I didn't think the bloke could get anymore annoying, but all those faces are annoying me.

[LeazesMag 0]

Can someone ban LM from using ? I didn't think the bloke could get anymore annoying, but all those faces are annoying me.

 

sorry if I think some of these posts by deluded people are hilarious like

[Phil 6]

I'd personally do a direct swap for Gibson with Henderson.

 

Not sure how Henderson has deserved this attention.

 

I've not seen much of hair gel Henderson, but Gibson is utter shit.

[Holden McGroin 6585]

I'd personally do a direct swap for Gibson with Henderson.

 

Not sure how Henderson has deserved this attention.

 

I've not seen much of hair gel Henderson, but Gibson is utter shit.

 

Average player. Great shot. You'd get 8 goals a year from him. Henderson looked sharp in the U21s and has potential to be handy but thats all it is. Potential.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Holden McGroin

[khay 10]

I'd personally do a direct swap for Gibson with Henderson.

 

Not sure how Henderson has deserved this attention.

 

I've not seen much of hair gel Henderson, but Gibson is utter shit.

 

Average player. Great shot. You'd get 8 goals a year from him. Henderson looked sharp in the U21s and has potential to be handy but thats all it is. Potential.

 

Gibson has barley got more than 8 goals as it is.

[GeeForce 0]

In this case I think it is actually great business for Sunderland. One thing they lacked massively last year was squad depth and if they could have swapped Henderson for them 3 in January they would have finished much stronger.

 

You are forgetting that they are swapping one player with 6 months of form in his whole career for 3 international footballers all who have played in the champions league, won league titles and cups and been around some of the best players in the world for their whole careers. Also, in Gibson they could have a player who has not yet shone because he hasn't had a run of games but actually he could turn out very good with a full season of appearances behind him.

 

I am sorry to say it but I would have everyone of those three in our squad, and they would certainly serve a better purpose than one Jordan Henderson. Sunderland suffered from a complete lack of experience last season and in o'shea and baked bean they have picked that up in abundance.

 

Anyway you wouldn't understand any kind of footballing analysis as all you feel matters is the more a player costs the better he will turn out to be!

 

go onto a Liverpool website and tell them they would be better off with O'Shea, Gibson and Brown than Henderson

 

No wonder people laugh at NUFC supporters.

I didn't say that, I said sunderland are better off. At no point did I mention Liverpool at all, i merley pointed out that you claimed sunderland are worse off for getting rid of their "prize asset" and bringing in the three man u lads and I disagreed. If you are gonna try to pick fault maybe you should learn to read first!

[Guest alex]

I'd go along with that. Liverpool wouldn't necessarily benefit from signing those players (apart from it being unacceptable with their fans to sign 'Man Utd rejects') but Sunderland would probably be in a better position than they were if they got those 3 in.

[LeazesMag 0]

In this case I think it is actually great business for Sunderland. One thing they lacked massively last year was squad depth and if they could have swapped Henderson for them 3 in January they would have finished much stronger.

 

You are forgetting that they are swapping one player with 6 months of form in his whole career for 3 international footballers all who have played in the champions league, won league titles and cups and been around some of the best players in the world for their whole careers. Also, in Gibson they could have a player who has not yet shone because he hasn't had a run of games but actually he could turn out very good with a full season of appearances behind him.

 

I am sorry to say it but I would have everyone of those three in our squad, and they would certainly serve a better purpose than one Jordan Henderson. Sunderland suffered from a complete lack of experience last season and in o'shea and baked bean they have picked that up in abundance.

 

Anyway you wouldn't understand any kind of footballing analysis as all you feel matters is the more a player costs the better he will turn out to be!

 

go onto a Liverpool website and tell them they would be better off with O'Shea, Gibson and Brown than Henderson

 

No wonder people laugh at NUFC supporters.

I didn't say that, I said sunderland are better off. At no point did I mention Liverpool at all, i merley pointed out that you claimed sunderland are worse off for getting rid of their "prize asset" and bringing in the three man u lads and I disagreed. If you are gonna try to pick fault maybe you should learn to read first!

 

I don't agree the mackems are better off. Based on Hendersons potential, as he didn't show up in the derby game and its the only time I've seen him but nobody else turned up for them either, they are significantly worse off in my opinion, and if he becomes a good player and performs for Liverpool, the mackems are massively worse off and Liverpool are better off.

[NJS 4385]

I don't agree the mackems are better off. Based on Hendersons potential, as he didn't show up in the derby game and its the only time I've seen him but nobody else turned up for them either, they are significantly worse off in my opinion, and if he becomes a good player and performs for Liverpool, the mackems are massively worse off and Liverpool are better off.

 

I think you're dismissing practicalities a bit there LM - those 3 players over the next 2 or 3 years could make more of a difference to them and arguments about ambition aside, horse trading and mixing things up has always been part of football no matter who you are - think KK "swapping" Cole for Ferdinand as a good example.

 

I don't think Henderson is destined to be a mega star which he would have to be imo to support your view.

[GeeForce 0]

In this case I think it is actually great business for Sunderland. One thing they lacked massively last year was squad depth and if they could have swapped Henderson for them 3 in January they would have finished much stronger.

 

You are forgetting that they are swapping one player with 6 months of form in his whole career for 3 international footballers all who have played in the champions league, won league titles and cups and been around some of the best players in the world for their whole careers. Also, in Gibson they could have a player who has not yet shone because he hasn't had a run of games but actually he could turn out very good with a full season of appearances behind him.

 

I am sorry to say it but I would have everyone of those three in our squad, and they would certainly serve a better purpose than one Jordan Henderson. Sunderland suffered from a complete lack of experience last season and in o'shea and baked bean they have picked that up in abundance.

 

Anyway you wouldn't understand any kind of footballing analysis as all you feel matters is the more a player costs the better he will turn out to be!

 

go onto a Liverpool website and tell them they would be better off with O'Shea, Gibson and Brown than Henderson

 

No wonder people laugh at NUFC supporters.

I didn't say that, I said sunderland are better off. At no point did I mention Liverpool at all, i merley pointed out that you claimed sunderland are worse off for getting rid of their "prize asset" and bringing in the three man u lads and I disagreed. If you are gonna try to pick fault maybe you should learn to read first!

 

I don't agree the mackems are better off. Based on Hendersons potential, as he didn't show up in the derby game and its the only time I've seen him but nobody else turned up for them either, they are significantly worse off in my opinion, and if he becomes a good player and performs for Liverpool, the mackems are massively worse off and Liverpool are better off.

It's alright I accept your apology for your previous comment

 

That is fine, I respect your opinion as it is possibly the first post you have made since I joined this board without you trying to take the piss, call someone deluded and ultimately make a fool out of yourself, well done. I will point out mind, you are basing your point on the opinion that Liverpool will be better off in Henderson comes good, regardless of how Gibson, O'Shea and Brown turn out for the mackems. Gibson has been poor, but against schalke this year he was absolutely phenomenal and using your 'potential' argument it is more than plausible for him to turn out close to, as good as or even better than henderson with a run of games, something he has never really had and therefore his potential is hard to judge by us and for him to realise!

[Guest alex]

Not sure how you can argue Sunderland are definitely not better off like LM. Especially since the only time you've seen Henderson he was anonymous. He was anonymous in both derby games. Not saying a young kid can be expected to have a blinder in those matches (even if he is a 'special talent') but if he was going to be as good as Bruce reckons he is or as Liverpool's fee suggests, then you'd expect him to show for the ball a bit more and to at least try and impose himself in those matches. The fact he didn't makes me question his temperament a bit. At the same time he's meant to be very down to earth and a good trainer etc. so he's got a chance from that side of things.

[Guest alex]

Remember the derby games, eh Manfat?

[Phil 6]

I don't agree the mackems are better off. Based on Hendersons potential, as he didn't show up in the derby game and its the only time I've seen him but nobody else turned up for them either, they are significantly worse off in my opinion, and if he becomes a good player and performs for Liverpool, the mackems are massively worse off and Liverpool are better off.

 

I think you're dismissing practicalities a bit there LM - those 3 players over the next 2 or 3 years could make more of a difference to them and arguments about ambition aside, horse trading and mixing things up has always been part of football no matter who you are - think KK "swapping" Cole for Ferdinand as a good example.

 

I don't think Henderson is destined to be a mega star which he would have to be imo to support your view.

 

 

It makes no sense to dilute the ability of the squad with four average players (inc N'gog). Your basically cementing your place as a mid table team.

 

 

What people quickly forget is wages. Henderson be on 20k max (1m a year), whereas these four average players will want a wage hike to move (30k x 2 and 40k x 2 is 7.3m a year). When you take this into account these average players simply arent worth it.

 

Buy cheap, buy twice.

[Tom 14011]

Apparently the fee is set at £16m and N'Gog isn't going.

[NJS 4385]

I don't agree the mackems are better off. Based on Hendersons potential, as he didn't show up in the derby game and its the only time I've seen him but nobody else turned up for them either, they are significantly worse off in my opinion, and if he becomes a good player and performs for Liverpool, the mackems are massively worse off and Liverpool are better off.

 

I think you're dismissing practicalities a bit there LM - those 3 players over the next 2 or 3 years could make more of a difference to them and arguments about ambition aside, horse trading and mixing things up has always been part of football no matter who you are - think KK "swapping" Cole for Ferdinand as a good example.

 

I don't think Henderson is destined to be a mega star which he would have to be imo to support your view.

 

 

It makes no sense to dilute the ability of the squad with four average players (inc N'gog). Your basically cementing your place as a mid table team.

 

 

What people quickly forget is wages. Henderson be on 20k max (1m a year), whereas these four average players will want a wage hike to move (30k x 2 and 40k x 2 is 7.3m a year). When you take this into account these average players simply arent worth it.

 

Buy cheap, buy twice.

 

Unless you think Henderson will never be beyond average and think they've "conned" Liverpool to get so much.

 

Fair point on wages though.

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't agree the mackems are better off. Based on Hendersons potential, as he didn't show up in the derby game and its the only time I've seen him but nobody else turned up for them either, they are significantly worse off in my opinion, and if he becomes a good player and performs for Liverpool, the mackems are massively worse off and Liverpool are better off.

 

I think you're dismissing practicalities a bit there LM - those 3 players over the next 2 or 3 years could make more of a difference to them and arguments about ambition aside, horse trading and mixing things up has always been part of football no matter who you are - think KK "swapping" Cole for Ferdinand as a good example.

 

I don't think Henderson is destined to be a mega star which he would have to be imo to support your view.

 

maybe, but over a long period of time, the transfer policy of Liverpool has been proven vastly "better" than the mackems, and NUFC too for that matter [apart from the Halls and Shepherd era]. Of course, if you or anybody else think otherwise, put up the proof in results and league positions.

 

I repeat. Tell anybody on a Liverpool message board that the mackems, or NUFC is the better transfer policy, and see how they laugh at you. Justifiably so.

Edited June 9, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't agree the mackems are better off. Based on Hendersons potential, as he didn't show up in the derby game and its the only time I've seen him but nobody else turned up for them either, they are significantly worse off in my opinion, and if he becomes a good player and performs for Liverpool, the mackems are massively worse off and Liverpool are better off.

 

I think you're dismissing practicalities a bit there LM - those 3 players over the next 2 or 3 years could make more of a difference to them and arguments about ambition aside, horse trading and mixing things up has always been part of football no matter who you are - think KK "swapping" Cole for Ferdinand as a good example.

 

I don't think Henderson is destined to be a mega star which he would have to be imo to support your view.

 

 

It makes no sense to dilute the ability of the squad with four average players (inc N'gog). Your basically cementing your place as a mid table team.

 

 

What people quickly forget is wages. Henderson be on 20k max (1m a year), whereas these four average players will want a wage hike to move (30k x 2 and 40k x 2 is 7.3m a year). When you take this into account these average players simply arent worth it.

 

Buy cheap, buy twice.

 

precisely. Especially the bold bit.

 

And the "self proclaimed football mathematicians/accountancy experts" should take a long look at this fairly basic, common sense and proven approach in the 2nd paragraph too.

[LeazesMag 0]

Not sure how you can argue Sunderland are definitely not better off like LM. Especially since the only time you've seen Henderson he was anonymous. He was anonymous in both derby games. Not saying a young kid can be expected to have a blinder in those matches (even if he is a 'special talent') but if he was going to be as good as Bruce reckons he is or as Liverpool's fee suggests, then you'd expect him to show for the ball a bit more and to at least try and impose himself in those matches. The fact he didn't makes me question his temperament a bit. At the same time he's meant to be very down to earth and a good trainer etc. so he's got a chance from that side of things.

 

they are buying potential Alex, they have obviously watched him a lot more than me and you. I'm the first person to cite temperament as being vital, but he's also been in the England squad. It's the approach to the transfer policy and aims of the club, that I'm mainly emphasising. See previous post.

 

They are aiming to get back into the Champions League spots, minimum. What is wrong with that ?

[NJS 4385]

maybe, but over a long period of time, the transfer policy of Liverpool has been proven vastly "better" than the mackems, and NUFC too for that matter [apart from the Halls and Shepherd era]. Of course, if you or anybody else think otherwise, put up the proof in results and league positions.

 

I repeat. Tell anybody on a Liverpool message board that the mackems, or NUFC is the better transfer policy, and see how they laugh at you. Justifiably so.

 

In terms of base level transfer policy, you could argue the Mackems have spent more than Liverpool over the last 3 or 4 years - obviously with no reward - which shows that raw money is useless without the management to go with it.

 

Both Liverpool's and Sunderland's recent transfers have been funded from outside of turnover as opposed to us in the majority of the Hall years - not saying you're wrong in terms of ambition etc but again that shows the changing face of football. Our problem being Ashley won't mirror other owners.

[Toonpack 9404]

I don't agree the mackems are better off. Based on Hendersons potential, as he didn't show up in the derby game and its the only time I've seen him but nobody else turned up for them either, they are significantly worse off in my opinion, and if he becomes a good player and performs for Liverpool, the mackems are massively worse off and Liverpool are better off.

 

I think you're dismissing practicalities a bit there LM - those 3 players over the next 2 or 3 years could make more of a difference to them and arguments about ambition aside, horse trading and mixing things up has always been part of football no matter who you are - think KK "swapping" Cole for Ferdinand as a good example.

 

I don't think Henderson is destined to be a mega star which he would have to be imo to support your view.

 

maybe, but over a long period of time, the transfer policy of Liverpool has been proven vastly "better" than the mackems, and NUFC too for that matter [apart from the Halls and Shepherd era]. Of course, if you or anybody else think otherwise, put up the proof in results and league positions.

 

I repeat. Tell anybody on a Liverpool message board that the mackems, or NUFC is the better transfer policy, and see how they laugh at you. Justifiably so.

 

The fundamental difference being Liverpool can afford the level of spend their "policy" currently exhibits, but hey, don't let that wee irrelevant fact get in the way of your diatribe.

[LeazesMag 0]

maybe, but over a long period of time, the transfer policy of Liverpool has been proven vastly "better" than the mackems, and NUFC too for that matter [apart from the Halls and Shepherd era]. Of course, if you or anybody else think otherwise, put up the proof in results and league positions.

 

I repeat. Tell anybody on a Liverpool message board that the mackems, or NUFC is the better transfer policy, and see how they laugh at you. Justifiably so.

 

In terms of base level transfer policy, you could argue the Mackems have spent more than Liverpool over the last 3 or 4 years - obviously with no reward - which shows that raw money is useless without the management to go with it.

 

Both Liverpool's and Sunderland's recent transfers have been funded from outside of turnover as opposed to us in the majority of the Hall years - not saying you're wrong in terms of ambition etc but again that shows the changing face of football. Our problem being Ashley won't mirror other owners.

 

what you are saying, actually only adds further weight to the correct view [ie the one Liverpool have] that spending money on essentially more average players, in the mistaken belief that "financial prudency is the way forward" gets you nowhere.

 

Which only further again amplifies why you should keep the best ones you already have and show them the ambitious football club so they want to keep playing for you.