Discussion in 'Rumour Mill - Transfer Talk' started by Kopstar, Aug 26, 2016.
Yes they are. They wouldnt even be in the Premier League without their huge investment
Some German media today:
Liverpool are ready to pay € 29 m if he moves in January as Coutinho, Firmino, Sturridge are injured and Mane is in Africa in January.
Wonder if the American owners would have a soft spot to dish out money for an American 'potential' superstar which could be a huge selling point of the club in the states
It would likely be a consideration for them, but shouldn't be the main point of the decision. The player needs to be good enough to make an impact and help the team first and foremost. Selling more shirts in American may certainly change the amount they are willing to pay.
As an American, who will be ordering a Liverpool Pulisic jersey the moment the lad does something remotely good for the club, my judgements and opinions on this potential transfer should clearly not be considered reliable or trustworthy, however.
I only have 1 jersey of ownership, a Gerrard Liverpool jersey, but it will be 2 if Pulisic joins Liverpool.
The talent, potential and being American are what makes Pulisic such an enticing target for FSG.
The only way I see LFC going in with enough cash in an offer is if we make serious coin off a Coutinho departure to Spain.
I don't want to spend that kind of cash on Pulisic. That's just my opinion. If we can land Sadio Mane for 34M, it seems to be out of wack to spend 25M on Pulisic. I think 15M is a much more reasonable fee for a player who is still as raw as he is.
Why? We could spend more right now without selling anyone than we'd get for Coutinho.
Whether we would or not will be purely about value.
I don't think we would spend the amount necessary on him unless we lost Coutinho. Then we'd have a good net spend. But more importantly I think we would only do it in such a case IF we lost our perceived biggest star and needed to make a splash with a replacement. And Pulisic would fit the position, have marketability, is young and has done it to a certain level of success at a big enough club
Ah, ok - I thought your original point was about funding/affordability.
Would he be comparable to Coutinho though? Would he replace his role in the side? I was of the impression that he was more of a wide player rather than a creative no.10?
He is still working on finding/developing his best position yet, as he's played on the left and in behind the strikers for club/country. I think the key would be how he is coached and the players around him to get him to where he would need to be. I don't see it as an immediate fill-in, but I don't see the move of either happening immediately either
Currently I think Pulisic is much more a wide player. The US did start him in a #10 role against Costa Rica, but I don't think he's ever played there for Dortmund. (That fact may not be entirely unrelated to Klinsman's firing). On the other hand, Coutinho theoretically is playing a wide forward position for us so there is some overlap in positions and skills. As much as I'd enjoy seeing Pulisic brought in, I'd saying thinking of him as a replacement for Coutinho would be a huge mistake.
I'd agree. While he might (highly unlikely) be brought in IF Coutinho were to leave, and even if he were to play a similar position, I wouldn't see him as a direct replacement.
I don't think buying Pulisic has anything to do with Coutinho being sold,Klopp is still building his squad,if he can get him in now as cover for losing Mane for the ACON,then he'll get atleast half a season under his belt this year,to set him up for next season.
Klopp has said he's short on wingers,and with the likely sale/release of upto 8-10 players in the squad between january and next summer,getting Pulisic in now would be a great bit of business,also with the possibility of European football and more games next year,we need more attackers for the squad,especially if we get in the same position now,where we've lost Coutinho,Firminio,ings,Lallana and Sturridge all at the same time.
Signing Pulisic would be great from a marketing standpoint. The first big name american footballer to star in Europe?
Economically it makes a lot of sense.
But he would also fill a need as a potential star winger to step in while Mane is out, and potentially round into the 1st team a bit early.
The question is will Dortmund be willing to deal even for £25m?
And for those saying 25 sounds a lot, we sold Sterling for 49, Anthony Martial was bought for 36, Memphis Depay was bought for 25, Leroy Sane was bought for 37, we bought Markovic for 20, and we sold Ibe on for 15 even though he's not considered to be close to Pulisic or Sterling's talent level. Just gives you an idea. Transfer fees are relative to the talent of the player sought. And the prices are inflated to reflect current big television money being injected into the clubs.
Loving the reports that the owners are willing to spend more to get him. They want an American in the team, and Pulisic also has other other attributes which they desire: talented, marketable and admired by Klopp.
I won't be surprised if we make a crazy bid in January and get the lad, because his value will only get crazier in the summer.
Also, I don't agree with people who say that we can't afford to splurge big. The Club has the money, the TV deal has helped and Fenway have shown from time to time that they don't mind splashing the money.
I'll chime in.
I would actually be fine if we bought Pulisic for $30M this winter if we could get him from Dortmund but on that... a few points:
He's American and I'd love to have an American do something good for this club. I think the owners share this dream, and while they won't go crazy to buy him like Abramovich did for Shevchenko... but I wouldn't rule out them spending an extra 2-3M for him as an investment. Anyone who thinks he could be bought for less than $20 is dreaming. His value has gone up so far this season, and I suspect it will continue to rise.
Pulisic isn't a finished product (I hope) and is definitely not ready to lead/carry a club at his age (he just turned 18 in Sept) so we shouldn't expect him to carry this one. Dortmund (not Klinnsman - thank goodness) have done well developing him. What he could do is to offer the hope of a similar player to Mane (in style) and possibly employ both of them at the same time. Pulisic is better at 18 than Sterling was at 18... I have no qualms stating that... and has the possibility to get better.
If he were signed and became a useful squad player and occasional starter, I'd buy a shirt with his name on it. If he were to become a starter and help this club to the title, I might even buy all 3 jerseys.
Not to mention we are coming off the back of a summer net spend of £0.51m
Might as well leave the m off the end
In my opinion his style is more close to Coutinho's and not to Mane's style as Pulisic plays a little bit deeper. He isn't a 100% attacking player. I would say he is an attacking midfielder like Götze. But maybe his style can change. For example in the CL game in Madrid he played very similar to Mane.
Well, Coutinho is used 2 ways (primarily) here at Liverpool.
1. As a CAM (Central attacking mid)
2. As a left outside midfielder who advances along the sideline and cuts in to make plays
Of these 2 roles, Pulisic is much more of #2... and outside mid who advances with speed (more speed than Coutinho) and cuts in or makes crosses. He does not (at this stage of his career) play as a CAM ... though I wouldn't rule it out in the future.
But role #2... is essentially what Mane does on the right sideline... which is why I like him more to Mane at this stage, but I will agree that there are many similarities to one of Coutinho's roles
Dortmund wont be selling until he turns down their new contract offer at least
If Dortmund do sell, it will only be to us, as they would prefer Pulisic to carry on his footballing education under Klopp.
The thais didnt come in, rename and rebrand everything to suit them and create a club. The invested in a club. Surely..surely you can grasp the difference between leicester and redbull.
Once you grasp that, you'll get what DF means about plastic.
Really? Read up on redbull. They are nowhere near the same. He is talking abou RB creating a club over another club that existed and changing everything about it to be redbull. He isnt talking about ppl coming in and investing in clubs and maintaining tradition.
City and Chelsea owners didn't do that too, he did call them plastic. He also called Bayern plastic. Hence why his definition of plastic needs to be clarify.
Hence why I asked the definition. Drew the example of Leicester, whom without those money from the Thai group they aren't going to be in the Premier League at all, so what separates them from City and Chelsea? Whole point of me questioning someone who has been in here posting stuff which contradict one over the other. See my point now?
I thought the comparison was about leicester vs Redbull?
Didnt he say somethimg like leicester isnt a plastic club like rb?
Separate names with a comma.