• Hey Guest!
    Enjoy the This Is Anfield Forums but want to remove the adverts? Now you can do so by clicking here.
    Thanks for your support!

Nabil Fekir (AM/ST) Lyon

What will Fekir be leaning on?

  • The Wall of Champions, pointing at the newly installed 6

  • A giant screen playing the leaked video from last year which we'll use for VAR

  • The railing at Melwood, looking forlornly at it cos he knackered his knee again

  • A bog standard table, with a bog standard pen, and a sheet of random paper

  • A furious Man City fan demanding to know why THEY aren't in the picture as champions

  • Big Virg, because fucking anyone can lean on him

  • An enormous pile of cash that Mick Edwards saved us

  • The crushed spirit of James Pearce

  • His mum, because he's not fucking coming


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
You cannot use a player you have committed to loaning for the season (I am sure there are caveats and exceptions). We may have the right to break his loan at Derby, but that is inserted into the deal to protect us from a Woodburn type situation. It would not allow him to then come back and play for the first team.
But I'm confused why Lampard thinks it can happen then? Surely he'd know and would have dismissed it out of hand if it wasn't possible?
 


redbj

hurry up, July 1st, let's get the show on the road
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
17,568
Wilson coming back from being on loan in January wouldn't help us as we'd have to loan him out again elsewhere. Things are going brilliantly for him at Derby so I wouldn't change it.
I take it there’s some kind of rule stopping you from recalling a player and playing him......


What’s the theory behind that?.....is it purely to stop us loaning out Salah to whoever citeh play after us then recalling him?

If that’s the case, surely it’s a very cumbersome way of trying to negate such a situation, and could easily be handled differently by way of first team games played etc etc etc....
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
But I'm confused why Lampard thinks it can happen then? Surely he'd know and would have dismissed it out of hand if it wasn't possible?
Us recalling Wilson *is* possible (providing we have a recall option). The fact that we'd only then be able to loan the lad again is irrelevant to Derby.

I take it there’s some kind of rule stopping you from recalling a player and playing him......


What’s the theory behind that?.....is it purely to stop us loaning out Salah to whoever citeh play after us then recalling him?

If that’s the case, surely it’s a very cumbersome way of trying to negate such a situation, and could easily be handled differently by way of first team games played etc etc etc....
I think it's to give greater stability to the player being loaned and the club taking them. Presumably the thinking is that it's more likely to assist the player's development and the parent club is likely to think more carefully about whether a loan is the right option and, if so, which club is the best fit.

Short term loans of the sort you describe with regards to Salah were already impossible. The previous minimum for senior players was between two transfer windows.
 

Five Times

TIA New Signing
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
42
I’d be surprised if Jurgen will bring anyone to go directly in to our starting 11 in this window. The team dynamic is well balanced and has that siege mentality feeling from the Benitez/Rodgers title challenges. The summer window will be massive in our long term plans especially if we actually...well you know I’m not saying
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
Us recalling Wilson *is* possible (providing we have a recall option). The fact that we'd only then be able to loan the lad again is irrelevant to Derby.



I think it's to give greater stability to the player being loaned and the club taking them. Presumably the thinking is that it's more likely to assist the player's development and the parent club is likely to think more carefully about whether a loan is the right option and, if so, which club is the best fit.

Short term loans of the sort you describe with regards to Salah were already impossible. The previous minimum for senior players was between two transfer windows.
It's 100% our decision if we want to call him back and it's be to play him if we decide to according to Klopp;

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/330211-jurgen-klopp-liverpool-transfers-harry-wilson
 



Walshy07

In Klopp we trust
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
1,649
As much as I like this lad I think this is dead in the water.
I don’t see anyone coming in Jan.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
Really not sure what the Wilson loan deal with Derby has to do with Nabil Fekir.
I tthink it started here

Chelsea are looking at replacing Hazard hence the interest in Fekir and Pulisic. Klopp wanted both in the past, made a bid on Pulisic, spoke publically how he rated him, made a huge offer on Fekir which went as far as him posing in club gear before the medical issues so we know Liverpool rate both.
In the meantime Shaquiri has blown his critics away arguably becoming 1st choice when most saw him as a squad player. Young Wilson has to figure in the mix and Ox is also a Klopp favourite. My point is that we are sorted for attacking midfield players next season and Lallana provides an option until the summer.
Maybe Klopp sees it differently and he might take the option of a quality upgrade but while City, UTD, Spurs and Arsenal might panic buy in January I think we keep our powder dry until June and then reassess the situation.
Injury to a key player might force a change however.
It's relevant to what options are available to Klopp in January. If he can't use Wilson it probably makes signing reinforcements (such as Fekir) more likely, don't you think?

Or do you think signings happen or not regardless of any context?
 

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
13,853
It's 100% our decision if we want to call him back and it's be to play him if we decide to according to Klopp;

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/330211-jurgen-klopp-liverpool-transfers-harry-wilson
Interesting. The PL Handbook says you need special approval to get a player registered if you bring them back early from a season long loan,but it doesnt say what the requirements are. Presumably we have determined we would get it in this case.
 

Iluvatar

Allez (x6)
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
7,786
I tthink it started here

It's relevant to what options are available to Klopp in January. If he can't use Wilson it probably makes signing reinforcements (such as Fekir) more likely, don't you think?

Or do you think signings happen or not regardless of any context?
I think Klopp only goes into the market for;

A) We get an injury to our front 3
B) A player we want in the summer is attainable (buy now comes in summer etc.)
 



Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
It's 100% our decision if we want to call him back and it's be to play him if we decide to according to Klopp;

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/330211-jurgen-klopp-liverpool-transfers-harry-wilson
Interesting. The PL Handbook says you need special approval to get a player registered if you bring them back early from a season long loan,but it doesnt say what the requirements are. Presumably we have determined we would get it in this case.
It's not just the PL Handbook that Limiescouse refers to (U.3 states that If a loan of a Player (whether by Temporary Transfer or otherwise) is cancelled by mutual consent, the Player shall not play for the Club to which he is returning unless the League has confirmed to that Club that the Player is eligible to play for it) but also the FA Handbook which states,

(6.6.3)

[...]

A Player on Long Term Loan may not be recalled, except for a goalkeeper or where the Player is to be transferred permanently by the Club (or club) holding his registered contract. A Player other than a goalkeeper so recalled cannot be permitted to play for the Club (or club) holding his registration after such recall until the end of the Playing Season. Players so recalled can only be replaced by a further Long Term Loan with permission from the Company. Long Term Loan Transfers will not count against the number of Short Term Loan Transfers.

These provisions, taken together, has generally been interpreted to mean that if you recall a player on a season long loan (such as Wilson) you cannot play him and can only loan him out again for the rest of that playing season. Now, as Limiescouse says, there could be exceptions to that granted by the Premier League board but I do not know what those might be other than the usual ones that apply with regards to emergency cover for an unforeseeable shortage of goalkeepers.

It's a fairly new set of restrictions though so it may be that the Clubs have already received indications from the Premier League that it is prepared to override the FA Standardised Rules in this regard but I would be somewhat surprised if that was the case.
 

OLDIE

TIA New Signing
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
2,234
He doesn't have to replace anyone. He will start enough games rotating with our other attackers.
I am not so sure to be honest.

I think it's possible that we will sign him (look at Klopp's record) but that doesn't mean that the player will start games in rotation, or at all.
I think if we do sign him, he will be confined to the bench - this season

Having said that I don't think we will sign him
 

Mascot88

Yours for £1m. Need to make room for Dean Saunders
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
21,695
I think it's possible that we will sign him (look at Klopp's record)
At this point Klopp’s record points to him not going in for players he has previously been interested in, more than it does making another move.

On one hand you have Van Dijk. On the other you have Chilwell, Brandt, Draxler, Pulisic, Zielinski and quite a few others I can’t recall of the top of my head.
 



Ron Swanson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
319
Jurgen has showed he introduces new players into the team when he feels they are ready (with the exception of Alisson), Robbo,Keita,Fabinho where introduced in parts till Jurgen felt they were fully ready and it has shown to be a success look at Robbo who at this moment is the one of the best LB in Europe. Fabinho has shown to be the missing CDM we haven't had since Masch and we all know it's only a matter of time before Naby shows the league what we all know what he is made of as we have already seen glimpses. If we get him can only see Jurgen doing the same with Fekir and introduce him sparingly until he is ready.
 

SithBaare

From Doubters to Believers
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
1,973
In a recent interview, Jurgen said something has to change “significantly” for us to buy in this window. the media, of course, generally interpreted that as Jurgen is open to buying. Sure he is, but the ise of “significant” makes me think it’s more unlikely than likely.
Could also mean that the right player has to be available for Liverpool to buy.
 

John inge Blomhaug

New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2017
Messages
3
I dont understand why we need another 'up there', we got double and even triple backups. We received criticism earlier in the season that we didnt score as much as the previous season, look at december. 18 scored and two conceded. Insane numbers. We can be softened with an injury or two, but Fekir doesnt come to mind as a player you keep on the bench, waiting for his shot.
 

JibJab

Mo Mane Mo' Problems
Joined
May 24, 2016
Messages
817
Has there been a single reliable rumor linking us with Fekir since the transfer talks broke down last summer?
 



Speckydodge

TIA Squad Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
2,605
What has changed with the status of Fekir's knee that encourages some on here to think we should go back in for him?
Not the status of his knee, the status of his value.
Only 18 months on his contract, this time next year he could sign for someone for free, he's refusing to sign the new contract. All this makes Aulas desperate to sell as he's a pure business man and it would kill him to not get a fee for such a talented player. So for 50m our club may have said that knee wasn't worth the risk but at 25m or 30m they might just think the risk was worth it.
 

Koon

Very bad englando. I'm so sorry.
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
407
Not the status of his knee, the status of his value.
Only 18 months on his contract, this time next year he could sign for someone for free, he's refusing to sign the new contract. All this makes Aulas desperate to sell as he's a pure business man and it would kill him to not get a fee for such a talented player. So for 50m our club may have said that knee wasn't worth the risk but at 25m or 30m they might just think the risk was worth it.
I really think you are being very optimistic about this. Pulisic had 18 months left and... £58m.

The real issue with Fékir is not money, it's something clinical. There's nothing pointing towards an interest from Liverpool, it's just fans wanting to have him. Money was never a problem in the first place.

It not saying I don't think he is great, I just don't believe we have any interest anymore because it doesn't make sense trying someone with a knee problem when you have money and all the rest of the world to look for another player.

I can give you a perfect player who's as good as Fékir in the french league: Thauvin. He is more trustworthy when it comes to his knee and he would probably cost the same. Could play in the right wing, AM, maybe even as a striker, who knows. He is an amazing player producing the same as Fékir in a worse team.

If we think a little bit more, there are many players as good as Fékir (maybe even better ones) that would cost the same but with no dodge knee.
 

Mascot88

Yours for £1m. Need to make room for Dean Saunders
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
21,695
I really think you are being very optimistic about this. Pulisic had 18 months left and... £58m.

The real issue with Fékir is not money, it's something clinical. There's nothing pointing towards an interest from Liverpool, it's just fans wanting to have him. Money was never a problem in the first place.

It not saying I don't think he is great, I just don't believe we have any interest anymore because it doesn't make sense trying someone with a knee problem when you have money and all the rest of the world to look for another player.

I can give you a perfect player who's as good as Fékir in the french league: Thauvin. He is more trustworthy when it comes to his knee and he would probably cost the same. Could play in the right wing, AM, maybe even as a striker, who knows. He is an amazing player producing the same as Fékir in a worse team.

If we think a little bit more, there are many players as good as Fékir (maybe even better ones) that would cost the same but with no dodge knee.
Whenever a player fails a medical, the issue is always going to be the increased cost of insuring the player. A known medical condition could lower the price, but it would raise the insurance cost.
 
C

Caradoc

Guest
Klopp identified Fekir for a specific role ...... of that I have no doubt. My impression was that he felt that Fekir could perform a similar role to Bobby but do it a bit differently, providing him with both depth and options.

What makes Bobby so valuable apart from what he actually does is that there aren’t that many players who can do what he does for us to the same level.

At the right price, I think we could still be interested. One of the things a player like Fekir needs with an injury like his is rest between matches and from matches. We could provide him with that. But it doesn’t matter what I think. Klopp and Edwards make those decisions.
 



C

Caradoc

Guest
Whenever a player fails a medical, the issue is always going to be the increased cost of insuring the player. A known medical condition could lower the price, but it would raise the insurance cost.


But did Fekir fail the medical?

What I would like to know is how Liverpool will have been affected by the injuries to Ings, Gomez and Ox in terms of insuring these players following their respective knee injuries.

Also, are we talking about a lump sum to pay off a player’s remaining contract or cover for a player’s salary and costs during recovery and/or over the remainder of his contract?

I found the attached which gives sime information about player insurance payments in the EPL during 2016/17 ......

https://www.jltspecialty.com/media-centre/press-release/2017/june/injury-costs-for-premier-league-clubs


  • Manchester City paid out on average £611,204 for each injury incurred – the highest in the Premier League

  • Sunderland sustained 58 injuries, with at least three players unavailable for every match day of the 2016/17 season

  • Younger players are the most injury prone with the under 21s and 21-25s suffering from the most severe injuries with 45 days and 43 days out respectively

JLT Specialty (JLT), the specialist insurance broker and risk consultant, has calculated that Premier League clubs paid out £177 million to injured players during the 2016/17 season, an increase of 12% on last year. With 20 Premier League clubs taking part in 524 official matches, JLT found that there were 713 injuries incurred in total over the course of the season.

Despite having one of the lowest total number of injury counts (30) throughout the season, Manchester City incurred the highest cost £18.3 million paying out over £0.5 million more to their injured players than any other club. In contrast, AFC Bournemouth sustained 37 injuries, which cost the club £3.2 million. This meant that the average injury cost to Bournemouth was nearly £520,000 lower than Manchester City, who paid out £611,204 on average for each player injured.

One reason for the notable difference is that City players command higher salaries than most other clubs, which inflates the cost of injuries. This effect may have been exacerbated by some old-fashioned bad luck. The club saw a number of its biggest players injured at various stages of the season, including Sergio Agüero, Raheem Sterling, Leroy Sané, Bacary Sagna, Gabriel Jesus – not to mention club captain Vincent Kompany, who missed 255 days.

Sunderland suffered an unusually high streak of injuries during the season, more so than any other club with 58 injuries. This, combined with the highest average number of players unavailable for a given match, arguably contributed to the Club’s poor season, which ultimately led to their relegation.

While several factors impact team performance, JLT’s report found a very strong correlation between final table position and number of unavailable players across the season. The average number of unavailable players each match day for the Premier League champions, Chelsea, was 1.66, whereas Sunderland was 7.37. Sunderland had at least three players unavailable for every match day of the season, with this number reaching more than 10 at times.


Fig. 1. Injury cost by team*

The callowness of youth


Contrary to expectation, JLT’s study reveals that younger players are the most prone to severe injuries. And not just this season. Analysis of all injuries since 2011 shows that it’s the under 21s and 21-25s who suffer the most severe injuries, with an average of 45 days and 43 days out per season respectively.

This is due to a combination of factors. Younger players tend to be less experienced, and often more fearless, so are liable to play more recklessly. What’s more, the youngest players are sometimes still physically developing as they begin competing at the highest level. This makes them more susceptible to injury under the intense physical demands of being a professional footballer.


In a dangerous position

In terms of the frequency of injuries, defenders picked up more injuries when compared to any other position; with a defender having a 6.3% chance of getting injured in a match, closely followed by forwards who stand a 5.6% chance.
*All figures cited sourced from Sporting Intelligence (see methodology for further details)


Interestingly, goalkeepers are suffering much more severe injuries. Their average injury lasts some 46 days, which is 10 days longer than other position. There are several possible reasons for this. Firstly, with an average age of 31, goalkeepers are older than their outfield counterparts. Age influences speed of recovery. Secondly, their position demands a high degree of collisions and explosive physical exertion such as challenging in the air for crosses and corners, resulting in falls from heights, dives to make saves, and throwing themselves at onrushing opponents.


Sidelined with back and knee injuries

The most severe injuries during the season were injuries to the knee and back. On average, each of these injuries left a player out of action for 70 and 44 days respectively. Not only were knee injuries the most severe, taking double the length of time the average hamstring injury took to recover, but they were also the costliest, equating to almost £50m over the season. The most common injury last season was the hamstring, accounting for 18% of the 713 injuries.
 

Flobs

FADA
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
9,091
If Fekir comes in he’ll want to start. Whose he replacing?
I am sure Robertson, fabinho and others wanted to start when they came but Klopp is the man who decided how it played out. No worries there.
However as it stands I would say an immediate replacement for Kieta.
 

Walshy07

In Klopp we trust
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
1,649
I think this one is dead as a dodo.
Its not happening - not this season anyway.
 



Status
Not open for further replies.