16 Aug 2017 08:49:53
Ed's,

I wanted to ask what you thought of our seeming lack of secondary targets?

I know we signed Robertson and Salah who themselves weren't first choices, but with Keita and Van Dijk it seems there are few alternatives we are even considering?

On the one hand is it admirable that we are determined to land our key targets? On the other does it not look like a poor handling of the situation as there are surely alternatives that could be found with proper scouting?

I mean I've read how Monchi aims to have 10 targets for each position at all times, so that Sevilla (and now Roma) could replace players with much more ease.

Thanks,

{Ed002's Note - Klopp was confident that his tactics would land him all four. Two have not happened and two are still with their clubs. Perhaps he will continue to expect them both to join. Liverpool had identified other midfield players but they were set aside in favour of Keita. Aside from a youngster and a low bid for KK, Liverpool has not made efforts for another centre back at this time and, as I have explained, perhaps something can yet be done with van Dijk.}


1.) 16 Aug 2017
16 Aug 2017 09:29:52
Sorry probably me having a moment but who is OK?

{Ed002's Note - Kalidou Koulibaly.}


2.) 16 Aug 2017
16 Aug 2017 10:16:14
For a second I thought King Kenny was comung back.


3.) 16 Aug 2017
16 Aug 2017 10:59:07
Ed02, Van Dijk is what probably everyone would want. Easy to see why he's especially been singled out. He'd arguably be the most important signing in years as he'd address an area of major weakness and is tailor-made for Klopp's football.
I can also see a scenario where he becomes captain from the medium term.

That said, is it fair to say this transfer has been rather unlikely now, given the ealier events in the wimdow?
Even if Southampton were willing to deal with Liverpool, things will hinge on FSG. They'd have to backtrack and withdraw their apology.
And given the already muddied reputation of the club, I cannot see the owners doing that.

Am sure they'd know how crucial getting Van Dijk would be for Klopp, but they could see the reputational damaged to outweigh whatever success may be derived from Van Dijk's arrival.

The sad, very sad fact is that Liverpool probably could have done a deal by now for Van Dijk, but Klopp messed it up royally.
Whether the public apology and withdrawal of interest was the smart thing to do may be debatable.
What's not debatable is that, that apology has created a difficult situation for the club IF it stil wishes to sign the player.

Southampton may well be open to selling to us; Van Dijk could want the move; LFC could afford the fee, but would FSG backtrack? Should they backtrack? On principle, no they shouldn't. Stick to their position and avoid further muddying image of the club.

But they do that and there be a backlash from the "fans". Story will be that FSG didn't want to back Klopp and buy VVD. It will be the owners' fault if team fails this season. The hate and bile will go on and on.
And the real culprits, which IS Klopo and the other clowns at the club, would of gotten away scot free.
Klopp will now be the unfortunate victim.

So in your view Ed02, what would be the "best" way to resolve the Van Dijk issue, from the point of view of especially Liverpool and Southampton?
Should Saints sell him? Should they deal with LFC at all, or refuse, even if LFC possibly offers the most amount? Should Liverpool just move on from VVD? If Klopp makes his feelings known to FSG how critical he sees Van Dijk play purchase, should the owners back down and approve the transfer? Or should they stand firm on their apology and withdrawal of interest?

I'd really appreciate your views on this Ed02. Thanks.

{Ed002's Note - This has been covered over and over and over. Move on.}