Topic: Dejan Lovren

[sms1986]

You're all mad.

.100k a week is around about expect for even squad players these days, plenty of examples of it in many clubs up and down the division.

.Even if it is too high, its what? 20k too high? Is that really such a difference maker that its worth crying about? No.

.Sakho is on around £100k a week, will be leaving, Lovren is just taking his place as a squad option except he'll actually be around cos he's not a twat.

.We'll sign another another CB anyway this summer, so clearly theres no need to worry about Lovren nailing down a spot in the first team if you think he's shite, there'll be competition.

.What's the alternative? Let him leave and sign 2 CBs this summer and have to shell out a 100k a week wage as well as a transfer fee on top of it for someone who might not even be an improvement?

Just calm down and admit its because you dont like the lad rather than dressing it up as not making both financial and footballing sense.

Stop letting reason spoil the moaning and whinging!

[6BigCups]

Huge wages for someone who should be our third choice centre back.

[Titi Camara]

I don't see the big deal.

£100k a week

[Coolie High]

No other club in the world will give Lovren £100k a week, so he would've happily accepted an extension on the same wages. Why pay £30k extra for no fucking reason? Or do you think some other club would be willing to pay Lovren £100k per week?

Agree with majority of Cpt Reina post but yes no top club will offer him that, he would have to take a step down to a mid table club to get those wages, which is more befitting of his standard to be honest, he's a good mid table player.

[GeorgiaRed]

If we're signing Van Dijk or someone else to be a starter, then Lovren who has improved a lot under Klopp is a much better option as 3rd choice than Klavan or Gomez etc. I still remember what a joke he looked in his first season and how he looked better overnight when Jurgen came in.

Also its not an extra 100k on the wage budget, its an extra 30-40k. Addition and subtraction guys!

The club shouldn't report any of this until just before the new season begins and All the deals are done. I look at this like trying to wrap Christmas presents in front of the kids and having  them comment on who got what and agonizing how poor theirs is. Instead of having them appreciate all of the 🎁 on Christmas Day as part of the whole. It's going to be a very long spring and summer. 

[AaronSingh25]

Whose Lovren's agent?

The dude is a genius.

[Cpt_Reina]

No other club in the world will give Lovren £100k a week, so he would've happily accepted an extension on the same wages. Why pay £30k extra for no fucking reason? Or do you think some other club would be willing to pay Lovren £100k per week?

Who cares?

Who else would pay Lingard £100k, who else would pay Walcott £120k, who else would pay Otamendi 120k.

This isnt some sort of unique situation we find ourselves in, all clubs do it.

Sometimes a player might be paid more than he's worth in the market because its actually cheaper and more prudent to do that then it is to sell him or lose him for nothing and then have to replace him.

[Eeyore]

Whose Lovren's agent?

The dude is a genius.

Nikky Vuksan.

[Johnny B. Goode]

What's the alternative? Let him leave and sign 2 CBs this summer and have to shell out a 100k a week wage as well as a transfer fee on top of it for someone who might not even be an improvement?

Yes. That's what ambitious clubs do, they constantly try to improve and for that they take risks.

Someone on here (it might have been you, I don't know) once said that there was nothing more PL era Liverpool than not thinking we can improve on our average players, and that Lovren is an example of someone who'll stick around longer than he should. Well, well, well...

I don't even think he's a good choice for the bench. Why? Because you just know he will start a lot more than a normal squad player would. He's sitting on high wages, has a fair few games under his belt and a certain standing in the squad. He's also 28 and has an inflated sense of ego. I mean, he's the guy who tried to score from 40 yards in the dying minutes of a Wembley semi-final that we were losing. He thinks he is that good. He'll exert a pull that most third-choices wouldn't.

At this point I'd rather have Klavan as a third-choice CB (though I'd rather we did indeed sign 2 new ones), because he came on the cheap and never expected to start.

It was the same thing with Mignolet, who had a far, far bigger leeway than Karius ever did (even though Loris deserved it more due to being younger and new to the league). We gave up on our new keeper too soon because we had an experienced and familiar keeper on high wages on the bench. And the crucial problem is that (for me, at least) Mignolet and Lovren will not get any better. We've seen enough of them and they're not good enough. Yet we will see a lot more of them than we should.

Now, I'm not advocating having poor squad options just so our new signings keep starting. I actually think we can have better options than Lovren on the bench that won't have the pull he has, that are younger and cheaper. By having senior players on the bench we will just never get rid of them - they will keep playing a lot of games when we could have been trying different and younger options that might actually a future as starters.

Keeping Lovren is far easier, I'll give you that. But it might be decisions like this that mean we're not advancing as fast as we should have been.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

Flabbergasted.

[RedRaj]

Who cares?

Who else would pay Lingard £100k, who else would pay Walcott £120k, who else would pay Otamendi 120k.

This isnt some sort of unique situation we find ourselves in, all clubs do it.

Sometimes a player might be paid more than he's worth in the market because its actually cheaper and more prudent to do that then it is to sell him or lose him for nothing and then have to replace him.

Who cares? I care for one. We (fans) pay for this. A contract extension befitting of a premier as opposed to a middling defender is important and worrying news for a club with top table aspirations.  I don't so much care about other clubs' mistakes. Especially so if FSG's business model is a lean squad with developing players at modest wages with the hope of them turning into club greats.

[sms1986]

Flabbergasted.

Who is a better player, Lovren or Lingard?

[JustDan]

Congrats Lovren

Hope he enjoys many years of success with us.

[Lycan]

I pray to God he plays a blinder these next four games. Otherwise there will be plenty for people to moan about.

[Johnnyboy1973]

Who is a better player, Lovren or Lingard?

.

This is akin to deciding from which side to take a bite from a shit sandwich.

[sms1986]

I pray to God he plays a blinder these next four games. Otherwise there will be plenty for people to moan about.

They'll find something to moan about, they usually do.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Who cares?

Who else would pay Lingard £100k, who else would pay Walcott £120k, who else would pay Otamendi 120k.

This isnt some sort of unique situation we find ourselves in, all clubs do it.

Sometimes a player might be paid more than he's worth in the market because its actually cheaper and more prudent to do that then it is to sell him or lose him for nothing and then have to replace him.

Clearly £95k p/w or whatever it actually is, is on the steep side in isolation, but this pretty much nails it.

Let's say he was on £75k p/w beforehand and now he's on £95k p/w, that's only costing us roughly an extra £1m per year. At most £1.5m if the jump is £70k to £100k.

Every big club needs three quality centre halves in order to compete. Selling Lovren would have meant needing to sign two this summer rather than one, which would be a monumental risk given that there's absolutely no guarantee the incoming player will be any better than Lovren, particularly if we can't offer Champions League football this summer.

I mean, I see people championing Michael Keane. He looks a decent defender but is he quicker than Lovren? No. Does he have much experience of playing in a high line? No. Is he better in the air? Debatable, they're both very good. It would take time for a player like that to adapt to playing for a big club.

At the end of the day until Sunday's calamity we were unbeaten starting with Lovren and Matip in the league this season, conceding fewer than a goal per game. You can't write Sunday off but equally that record beforehand shouldn't be written off either. We just need to make sure we sign the right defender this summer to assist them.

[sms1986]

.

This is akin to deciding from which side to take a bite from a shit sandwich.

Both of them are now on the same wage, did United fans moan when Lingard signed his current contract?

[SwordInYourGut]

Who cares?

Who else would pay Lingard £100k, who else would pay Walcott £120k, who else would pay Otamendi 120k.

This isnt some sort of unique situation we find ourselves in, all clubs do it.

Sometimes a player might be paid more than he's worth in the market because its actually cheaper and more prudent to do that then it is to sell him or lose him for nothing and then have to replace him.

But why will we lose him if nobody is willing to pay more?

[sms1986]

But why will we lose him if nobody is willing to pay more?

How do you know that nobody is willing to pay more for him?

[cdav]

Your all mad whinging about this, its the sensible decision to extend his contract.

All season pretty much everyone has been saying we need to keep the core of the team together and build on it, yet as soon as we extend a deal people say he isn't good enough and we should sell him, trying to scapegoat who would have signed this off and if he was an important player we wouldn't be looking to bring another in. They are, yet again, trying to shoehorn their own ideas about the ownership, the structure of decision making and the management into a criticism of this decision.

We have two good centre backs now tied to the club for the next few years, the most important next step is to improve on them in the summer.

[Cpt_Reina]

But why will we lose him if nobody is willing to pay more?

Prove nobody would?

Plenty of average players out there earning around 100k a week.

[Chris~]

But why will we lose him if nobody is willing to pay more?

Someone would, or close to it. West ham apparentley gave fonte over  £70k a week for 2-3 years at 33.  Palace are willing to offer zaha over 100k a week. Clubs in this country have a lot of money to give players.

[rafathegaffa83]

But why will we lose him if nobody is willing to pay more?

Didn't he only have two years left on his deal after this season? So, if we weren't going to extend it, I'd assume we'd likely have to sell him this summer, if not run the risk of losing him for a smaller fee.  Additionally, it's a case of tying down a player the manager wants to keep.

[Johnnyboy1973]

Both of them are now on the same wage, did United fans moan when Lingard signed his current contract?

I don't know. I do know some us on here took the piss out of them for it.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

At this point I'd rather have Klavan as a third-choice CB (though I'd rather we did indeed sign 2 new ones), because he came on the cheap and never expected to start.

That's absolutely ridiculous logic. Would you rather keep Kevin Stewart than Emre Can as our second choice defensive midfielder too, because he expects to play fewer games?

You moan we're not advancing as fast as we should be. I would say the main reason for that is that, consistently under FSG's ownership, we haven't had a squad which can cope with even a few absentees, let alone 5-6. This is because they've consistently demanded our manager sells his squad players before replacing them, which removes reliability and experience every summer. (See: Kuyt and Maxi in 2012, Downing and Carroll in 2013, Allen and Benteke last summer, etc. None of these players were good enough to start every week for us, and indeed I'm not arguing none should have been sold, but all could have provided certain attributes when required at certain points the following season but instead were sold to balance the books.)

I mean we had four teenagers on the bench for a crucial game on Sunday ffs. I'm not having it that it doesn't affect our players, particularly at this stage of the season when mental and physical fatigue becomes more prevalent with each passing game.

If the plan is to tie the likes of Lovren, Can and Origi down as important squad players so that situation never arises again (barring a genuine injury crisis) then I can't see how it's anything to complain about. It's something to praise FSG for, in fact, because it shows signs they're finally learning what it takes.

[El Lobo]

If he is an important first team member then why are we reportedly looking to bring in Van Dijk for £50m.

Are we?

Excellent, again I think you've just shown how ambitious these guys are. £50 million on a new CB is phenomenally ambitious, fair play Henry.

[Jake]

Flabbergasted.

To be flabbergasted is to be greatly surprised.

The sad thing is, I'm not surprised.

More money to mid table standard for to lead us to a 5th-9th place position next season.

[Chakan]

Yay?

[Cpt_Reina]

The fume is clearly not a money thing, or a value thing, or any of that bollocks.

People just dont like Lovren, for whatever reason. He hasn't done enough decorating around L4 on Snapchat or doesnt have enough catchphrases or whatever to make people forgive his mistakes in the same ways people will do for other players. He's got baggage and a stigma attached to him.

People are so annoyed at it because its Lovren and they dont like him, never have, never will, and can't move beyond that.

Lovren is fine. He has a lot of good games, some howlers. Worth keeping around but not worth building around.

[Johnny B. Goode]

That's absolutely ridiculous logic. Would you rather keep Kevin Stewart than Emre Can as our second choice defensive midfielder too, because he expects to play fewer games?

No, pretty sure I explained my logic. The crucial point here is that I don't even think Lovren is that superior to Klavan, so in my eyes if we're going to keep a below average CB I'd rather keep the cheaper and less important option. As I said, I'm sure Lovren will be playing a lot more than a third-choice Klavan would.

Your equivalence does not hold because Can is actually someone with a future here as a starter and is far superior to Lovren in their respective positions. A better comparison would be Stewart/Lucas, and though I like the Brazilian a young English midfielder would make more sense as an option. Thing is Stewart completely failed to make a name for himself here.

[killer-heels]

I dont think he is good enough. Couldnt care less what he earns.

[rafathegaffa83]

The fume is clearly not a money thing, or a value thing, or any of that bollocks.

People just dont like Lovren, for whatever reason. He hasn't done enough decorating around L4 on Snapchat or doesnt have enough catchphrases or whatever to make people forgive his mistakes in the same ways people will do for other players. He's got baggage and a stigma attached to him.

People are so annoyed at it because its Lovren and they dont like him, never have, never will, and can't move beyond that.

Lovren is fine. He has a lot of good games, some howlers. Worth keeping around but not worth building around.

Well put. Although for some people it clearly is a money thing.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

The crucial point here is that I don't even think Lovren is that superior to Klavan

Well I'm afraid I can't take your opinion seriously in that case.

[Jake]

People just dont like Lovren, for whatever reason. He hasn't done enough decorating around L4 on Snapchat or doesnt have enough catchphrases or whatever to make people forgive his mistakes in the same ways people will do for other players. He's got baggage and a stigma attached to him.

How about all the individual mistakes which have directly cost us many points, vs the lack of games where he has played well enough to be the difference which has got us points.

To imply people don't want him to be at the club because he doesn't post on snapchat is a bit patronising.

[sms1986]

The fume is clearly not a money thing, or a value thing, or any of that bollocks.

People just dont like Lovren, for whatever reason. He hasn't done enough decorating around L4 on Snapchat or doesnt have enough catchphrases or whatever to make people forgive his mistakes in the same ways people will do for other players. He's got baggage and a stigma attached to him.

People are so annoyed at it because its Lovren and they dont like him, never have, never will, and can't move beyond that.

Lovren is fine. He has a lot of good games, some howlers. Worth keeping around but not worth building around.

Very much this, plus I suspect some are just moaning for the sake of moaning.

[Chakan]

Very much this, plus I suspect some are just moaning for the sake of moaning.

Or some just don't think he's good enough?

[sms1986]

How about all the individual mistakes which have directly cost us many points, vs the lack of games where he has played well enough to be the difference which has got us points.

To imply people don't want him to be at the club because he doesn't post on snapchat is a bit patronising.

Has he made more mistakes than most of our other players?

[Johnny B. Goode]

How about all the individual mistakes which have directly cost us many points, vs the lack of games where he has played well enough to be the difference which has got us points.

To imply people don't want him to be at the club because he doesn't post on snapchat is a bit patronising.

Yeah. As if after watching him for 3 years his critics don't like him because of snapchat.

[Funky_Gibbons]

How about all the individual mistakes which have directly cost us many points, vs the lack of games where he has played well enough to be the difference which has got us points.

To imply people don't want him to be at the club because he doesn't post on snapchat is a bit patronising.

Hmmmm, yet you defend Sakho all the time..............