fair enough...about the age/rating non-connection, the rest is your opinion to which you are entitled
clearly i don't (or you are just poor at expressing you opinion)....but if you base your opinion on him failing, then what am i supposed to comment on.....where is the upside, what about the bit where he succeeds? so me commenting on the outcome of the downing's stay as a flop is me not comprehending what exactly? and again, you are basing your value of his acquisition on his resale value, how have i misunderstood this?
Well, it seems you haven't paid attention to the context of my posting re risk. If Downing succeeds, great. But the overpaying creates a risk for Kenny, financially and otherwise. That is why it obliges me to look at it as an "If he fails" type scenario. For if he doesn't, even after 2 years, his value won't be anywhere near 20m and we take a big hit...unnecessarily.
so your answer is that in your opinion young is better than downing and therefore we got done in the transfer, well done, wll thought out case, put in a way that is clear and unequivocal, i bow to your debating skills.....and the john o'shea comparison, just genius...tell me WHY downing and young are not in the same price bracket, then tell me the EXACT prices (and sources) the deals went through at to justify your arguments and who we could buy for that role at the same price with appropriate justification (i gave you the justification for the price, least you can do is the same to back your opinion, not just say look at transfers going on around the globe)
Well, firstly, I haven't said we got done because of the Young transfer. But as a comparison it does show that we are paying more for an inferior player. I am pretty sure 90% of people would take Young for 16.5 than Downing for 20.
And frankly, I don't put them in the same bracket - Young is distinctly better IMO. Scores at a rate double to Downing whilst providing more or less the same amount of assists , and is a year younger. Both though, are overrated and overpaid for - Young just slightly less so.
as for priorites, again that is opinion, so fine, you do not think he should be a priority.....do not use price to argue this point because you do not know the price and your opinion is your opinion, not fact, dalglish and comolli have a different opinion, and that is their driver....the price is within the expected market price, whether you like the player is a different matter
But the price is a reflection of the manager's priority. If Torres goes to Chelsea for 50m then for Ancelotti or whoever to claim that he isn't a priority it is disingenuous.
Similarly, for Liverpool a wide-man has been needed for years now. We got one, and we paid dearly for one. I'm inclined to think Kenny thinks he is a priority. In fact, if he didn't and we spent 20m on him I'd be even more worried about how badly we are negotiating these fees.
the issue i have generally about prices being used as a stick to beat transfers with, but very rarely is there any proper review of the price paid based on what is happening in the market and with the buyer and the seller....and we know nothing about either the budget we have or the policy developed in terms of transfers....and then don't even talk to me about using resale values as a basis for valuing a transfer.......
With respect to our budget and what we are planning, you are totally right. We have to wait until the end of the transfer window to properly gauge what is going on and get an idea of what Kenny wants.
Having said that, I don't think you need intimiate knowledge or graphs to show why some of our transfer dealings since FSG have been very, very expensive - bordering on wasteful.
