Lazar Marković (RW) to ANYONE. PLEASE, SOMEONE FUCKING TAKE HIM

Status
Not open for further replies.

mattyhurst

TIA Regular
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
14,499
Markovic is a bit cack but effing and jeffing hell...

You seen some of the utter rubbish we've bought in the last 20 years.

Erik Meijer for starters....And Bernard Diomede not to mention the Bricklayer Vornin.
 

Sold Heskey

Freedom ain't free...
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
110
What about the perma crock from Roma Acquilani? Considering he cost us more than we received for the man he effectively replaced Xabi bloodly Alonso, was injured from the getgo and spent 3 of his 4 years on loan in Italy, he tops the lot for me. I mean Traore won the Champs League for us and cost us no more than a couple of mil. No comparison, IMO
Did he? Thought we got Aquilani for about 20 mill and sold Alonso for something like 30 mill...
 

schmee

Master of Ashla and Bogan.
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
2,741
Did he? Thought we got Aquilani for about 20 mill and sold Alonso for something like 30 mill...
Yes he cost a lot less (in terms of fees back then) than we got for Xabi. Also has to be noted that Roma owed us money from the Riise transfer which came off the fee (indeed rumour has it that G & H only allowed Aquilani and Johnson to be signed as both of their clubs owed us money still).
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
12,417
Yes he cost a lot less (in terms of fees back then) than we got for Xabi. Also has to be noted that Roma owed us money from the Riise transfer which came off the fee (indeed rumour has it that G & H only allowed Aquilani and Johnson to be signed as both of their clubs owed us money still).
Yeah always had a bit of a problem with that. Roma owed us money on Riise, who they bought for €5.5 million whilst we bought AA for €20 million a year or two later. Even if they owed every penny still we still spent €14.5 million which could have easily bought us an alternative elsewhere, he wasn't cheap for a player in that position back then. And talking of expensive for his position, Johnson cost £18.5 million, that was huge then for a full back. Apparently they still owed us £7 million for Crouch. Meaning we could have spent up to £11.5 million on an alternative, easily possible then. That's even thinking that we'd have never got any money back for Riise and Crouch any other way. We still spent at least about £26 million on the two depending on the exchange rate at the time. Even ignoring the money that was "written off" due to the owed money thats still a lot to have spent on a CM and RB back then. Especially with hindsight over how well those two didn't do. Think we have to admit LFC fucked up over that whole situation.
 

Zinedine Biscan

Spreading the word of St Igor
Moderator
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
24,146
Yeah always had a bit of a problem with that. Roma owed us money on Riise, who they bought for €5.5 million whilst we bought AA for €20 million a year or two later. Even if they owed every penny still we still spent €14.5 million which could have easily bought us an alternative elsewhere, he wasn't cheap for a player in that position back then. And talking of expensive for his position, Johnson cost £18.5 million, that was huge then for a full back. Apparently they still owed us £7 million for Crouch. Meaning we could have spent up to £11.5 million on an alternative, easily possible then. That's even thinking that we'd have never got any money back for Riise and Crouch any other way. We still spent at least about £26 million on the two depending on the exchange rate at the time. Even ignoring the money that was "written off" due to the owed money thats still a lot to have spent on a CM and RB back then. Especially with hindsight over how well those two didn't do. Think we have to admit LFC fucked up over that whole situation.
I think the hindsight part of that might be the problem. At the time it happened I didn't see many complaints about AA - in fact he was seen as one of the better Italian midfielders out there at the time (indeed, I know one guy who was thrilled we got him having seen him in Serie A), and was widely acknowledged that the only reason he was as cheap as that was his ankle injury, and without it would have cost more in the region of what Alonso did. I think the ankle is the major reason he didn't do better here, and in fact back then I didn't think he was as bad as now is popularly claimed, thought he looked very good on occasion, in fact.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
12,417
I think the hindsight part of that might be the problem. At the time it happened I didn't see many complaints about AA - in fact he was seen as one of the better Italian midfielders out there at the time (indeed, I know one guy who was thrilled we got him having seen him in Serie A), and was widely acknowledged that the only reason he was as cheap as that was his ankle injury, and without it would have cost more in the region of what Alonso did. I think the ankle is the major reason he didn't do better here, and in fact back then I didn't think he was as bad as now is popularly claimed, thought he looked very good on occasion, in fact.
In all fairness he was actually good when on the pitch. There was just a lot of shit going on back then and it led to us using a midfield base of Masch and Lucas with Gerrard in front too often. In games where we only had one DM in midfield instead of two and AA came in we played and got results at a level we could have been challenging the league. I still think he was a victim of the politics going on at the time. I also don't see why we didn't give him further chances in subsequent seasons. It's the narrative though that he was the only option and therefore the hand in hand justification for binning him off and not using him more. One of the most frustrating seasons ever to see us drop off so badly and play so chalk and cheese depending on the make up of our midfield.
 

seanyw

Hong Kong Reds
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
35
I also think that Aquilani was just a piece of unluckee business for us and for him. 20 mil was a fair price for him, being a regular XI for Italy and actually a top performer in Serie A at the time. And he was not bad when he's healthy and playing for us (unfortunately not too frequently that happened). To be fair injuries and our own mismanagement were more to blame for his failure in EPL.
 

Nikola

"Oh, history writer, don't close the pages yet!"
Admin
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
19,004
Markovic turned out the same as a wank.....when we were first link we were all hard and excited. Once he came, we were joyous. Now we're sat wiping up after ourselves wondering why we bothered. Good times!
Not sure about that, mate... Plenty of us doubted him, not just me (the only difference being that due to proximity and the rest of family supporting Partizan Belgrade, I had the chance to watch him from his debut). I hope some Russian club will sign him, players from Balkan usually do well there and they are not cash-strapped, too.
 

Sold Heskey

Freedom ain't free...
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
110
Markovic turned out the same as a wank.....when we were first link we were all hard and excited. Once he came, we were joyous. Now we're sat wiping up after ourselves wondering why we bothered. Good times!
Not true. I didn't even bother wiping...
 

Strictly Armchair

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
1,189
Lazar Markovic is in discussions with Fiorentina over a possible transfer. The Reds expect £16 million for the Serbian. (@MelissaReddy_)

I think it's a good move for us!
If we can get anything remotely close to what we paid for him that'd be great business as far as I'm concerned.
The only worry is that he'll fail the medical when they fail to find any backbone.

A big disappointment as I thought that in his first season he showed glimpses of what a good player he could become. However, he hasn't shown anything like enough desire in the short time he has been here under Klopp. Quite the opposite. When you're not even making much of a mark on a pre-season friendly against lower league opposition your time is probably up. Needs to find his way again elsewhere and we can cut our losses.
 

Adamlfc23

Banned Users
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
83
I remember seeing him play for us a couple of times when he first arrived and instantly thought he will never make it here, ten wondered what the scouts actually saw in him, and I still cannot answer that today, one of those signings we seemed to make quite often in the past that we end up stuck with because we cannot ship them out.
 

VictoryInSight

Tactical Genius... at least on Football Manager
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
338
Lazar Markovic is in discussions with Fiorentina over a possible transfer. The Reds expect £16 million for the Serbian. (@MelissaReddy_)

I think it's a good move for us!
Fiorentina have got the money to buy Markovic off permanently. They got 40 million euros for Federico Bernardeschi, who's also a right winger.

I rate him highly but he doesn't fit our team. Sad to see him go.
 

Samwise the Brave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2017
Messages
461
I remember seeing him play for us a couple of times when he first arrived and instantly thought he will never make it here, ten wondered what the scouts actually saw in him, and I still cannot answer that today, one of those signings we seemed to make quite often in the past that we end up stuck with because we cannot ship them out.
Says the same poster who can't understand why we aren't changing to our second/third choice options for VVD/Keita yet ;-)

In all seriousness this signing confused me as well at the time. I really wanted to like him, or see something in him, but I never did and I don't think many of us did either.

Hopefully this type of transfer is one we don't see so often; I don't mind getting relatively unknown players in but even at the time of signing Markovic he wasn't rated by many, and hadn't seemed particularly effective where he was.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
12,417
I think what we got with Markovic was one of our "bright young, relaitively under-the-radar, prospect signings. Same as Can, Grujic, Alberto, Illori. Unfortunately we had to pay a "established first team option" like Lallana, Sakho, Downing and the likes. For what he was we should have walked away at that price. It wouldn't be so bad if he'd come in on that kind of deal/price/expectation and not worked out.
 

Zinedine Biscan

Spreading the word of St Igor
Moderator
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
24,146
I think what we got with Markovic was one of our "bright young, relaitively under-the-radar, prospect signings. Same as Can, Grujic, Alberto, Illori. Unfortunately we had to pay a "established first team option" like Lallana, Sakho, Downing and the likes. For what he was we should have walked away at that price. It wouldn't be so bad if he'd come in on that kind of deal/price/expectation and not worked out.
Weren't Chelsea offered (or had the chance to sign) him for £12m, and turned it down, shortly before we swooped in?

Benfica must have thought all their Christmases had come at once.
 

Zinedine Biscan

Spreading the word of St Igor
Moderator
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
24,146
Think there is still a player in Lazar and if reports are true Italy would be a good destination for him.
With Lazar I suspect it will come down to mentality... is he strong enough to make it to the top, and determined to do what it takes to get there? It's possible he could 'do a Salah' and reinvent himself/realise his potential in Italy, but I think in comparison Mo is quite a driven person. He used the Chelsea disappointment to push himself further... with Lazar I'm not so sure.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,214
I was excited when we signed him - saw him in a Benfica CL game and he reminded me of a more skilled Raheem Sterling. The problem with Markovic is that Youtube problem, but even more dramatic - he has had whole games like that. His goal against PAOK in the EL was spectacular, as was his goal against Sporting that 13/14 season. It masked the fact that he had whole games of nothing. I don't actually fault the scouts, at his age of the time that sort of inconsistency comes with the territory, but for a range of reasons it never really got better.

In the end, I don't think he had the confidence he perhaps thought he did, and was one of the real victims of the petulant Rodgers versus the Committee spat at what is really a critical time in a player's development.

Anyway, la Viola might be a good fit for him.
 
Last edited:

Libero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
4,813
With Lazar I suspect it will come down to mentality... is he strong enough to make it to the top, and determined to do what it takes to get there? It's possible he could 'do a Salah' and reinvent himself/realise his potential in Italy, but I think in comparison Mo is quite a driven person. He used the Chelsea disappointment to push himself further... with Lazar I'm not so sure.
Probably not, I would not expect him to reach Salah's level but reach a decent level where he is playing consistently for a team and position that suits him.

He definitely has that relaxed attitude about himself, which is fine, maybe the Italian lifestyle would do him well.
 

Zinedine Biscan

Spreading the word of St Igor
Moderator
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
24,146
Remember something about someone saying Chelsea were sending him out on loan and didn't Benfica only receive half the money?
I don't really understand it, but the first few paras of this Guardian piece talk about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ol-improvement-chelsea-carling-cup-semi-final

From what I can tell they (Chelsea) didn't actually pay anything towards him beyond negotiating a future first-refusal clause for £12.5m if a team later came in for him, which we did and they then turned down.

I could be wrong. I suspect that had they already paid half the fee and we came in for him they'd have taken a chance on the other 50% and aim to flip him for a bit of a profit down the line (as they do) while denying us a player we wanted (as they do - Willian, Salah etc).
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
12,417
I don't really understand it, but the first few paras of this Guardian piece talk about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ol-improvement-chelsea-carling-cup-semi-final

From what I can tell they (Chelsea) didn't actually pay anything towards him beyond negotiating a future first-refusal clause for £12.5m if a team later came in for him, which we did and they then turned down.

I could be wrong. I suspect that had they already paid half the fee and we came in for him they'd have taken a chance on the other 50% and aim to flip him for a bit of a profit down the line (as they do) while denying us a player we wanted (as they do - Willian, Salah etc).
Did say complicated lol and they would still need him to agree to sign and I definitely remember our club putting out hints and suggestions that he'd refused them to sign for us.
 

OLDIE

TIA New Signing
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
2,234
Good luck in Italy lad, get the deal and have a good career. Not his fault Rodgers fucked it up for him
 
Status
Not open for further replies.