The prospect of a free agent being brought in has not been excluded
from Liverpool's thinking, though a return for Owen would be dependent
on the club receiving a highly incentivised pay-as-you-play proposal
which would limit their exposure if fitness problems rendered him unable
to play.
Liverpool, who as of yesterday afternoon had not had
contact from Owen, would be unlikely to match the imaginative £10,000 to
£15,000-a-week deal Manchester United struck with the 32-year-old.
Though Owen is looking for a club commutable from his North Wales home
and still holds Liverpool in huge affection, the £30,000-a-week,
two-year offer from Stoke City looks far more likely.
Rodgers'
conclusions on Owen were reached as Liverpool's prinicipal owner, John W
Henry, yesterday took the highly unusual step of publishing an open
letter, defending the transfer-market activity which saw the manager
denied Fulham's Clint Dempsey as the replacement he had expected when
sending Andy Carroll out on loan to West Ham United. Henry admitted
there had been mistakes during Fenway Sports Group's "difficult" two
years of ownership, accepting they have overspent on inflated transfer
fees and unrealistic wages. "[This] will not happen overnight. It has
been a difficult first two years of ownership," Henry said.
The
spending splurge of the Kenny Dalglish era – when the £50m received for
Fernando Torres provided a reason for paying a premium price for Carroll
– prompted an opposite reaction last Friday when Fulham were asking £7m
for Dempsey. Henry did not reveal in his letter who in the Liverpool
hierarchy decided that such a price was too high for a player who scored
23 goals last season, though he did hint at FSG's aversion to signing
older players. "Our ambitions do not lie in cementing a mid-table place
with expensive, short-term quick fixes that will only contribute for a
couple of years," he said.
A series of events contributed to the
Dempsey deal not going ahead. Jordan Henderson, offered as makeweight in
that deal, had decided by last Thursday that he did not want to move to
Craven Cottage. Liverpool also now accept that Fulham's deep sense of
grievance about the events of a messy summer, where the Dempsey deal was
concerned, proved significant, leading the London club to quote
Liverpool a higher price than for others. Irked by the knowledge that
Aston Villa had been asked for considerably less – £4m-£5m – Liverpool
rejected Fulham's price on a point of principle. In retrospect, a
headline posted in error on FSG's own website while the club were on
tour in the United States in July – "Liverpool gear up for North
American Tour as Clint Dempsey joins club" – has proved calamitous.
Henry's
letter was unable to absolve the owners or the club of the disastrous
decision not to attach a caveat to discussions with West Ham, which
would have prevented Carroll leaving Anfield if no replacement for him
came in last week. Neither did it identify the advisers who convinced
FSG to go against Rodgers' wishes on buying Dempsey outlay – when it was
FSG who were persuaded by Rodgers, for better or worse, that the
Northern Irishman should possess the powers they had wanted to invest in
a director of football.
But the statement did bear out the sense
of FSG as owners with an enlightened financial philosophy to "buy
prudently and cleverly and never again waste resources on inflated
transfer fees and unrealistic wages". The letter provided the latest of
many Henry communications about the club's determination to adhere to
Uefa's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regime.
It is as yet unclear
where Liverpool stand with FFP compliance as the 2011-12 and 2012-13
accounts will be used. Aggregate losses of €45m (£35.8m) will be
permitted in those two financial years, as the regime is eased in.
The
owners are willing to accept a mid-table position for Liverpool this
season, as the price for adhering to their philosophy. This will be a
long, bumpy road to recovery but, despite supporters' expectations, it
is the only one.
Henry's letter
"I am as
disappointed as anyone connected with the club that we were unable to
add further to our strike force in this summer transfer window, but that
was not through any lack of desire or effort on the part of all of
those involved."
"The transfer policy was not about cutting costs.
It was – and will be in the future – about getting maximum value for
what is spent so that we can build quality and depth."
"Spending
is not merely about buying talent. Our ambitions do not lie in cementing
a mid-table place with expensive, quick fixes."
sumber: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/liverpool-reject-michael-owen-as-john-henry-admits-errors-during-anfield-ownership-8102806.html
{ 0 comments... read them below or add one }
Post a Comment