Zlatan Ibrahimovic

[A_G]

When Suarez got the PFA's lawyers to look at his contract and the clause they came to the conclusion that it was just a good will clause and nothing more. It's not that we didn't choose to take it to court, there was nothing we could do in court.
.

Julien Laurens seemed to think differently, that the club bottled it rather than there being no case:
http://www.sport-english.com/en/new...te-sign-luis-suarez-for-40000001-2013-4140112

 

[GDeep™]

I'm guessing every club from Manchester to Melbourne have been in touch with Zlatan to see what's up, so wouldn't read too much into Cross saying we've made contact.

 

[GDeep™]

Howcome the titanic crew never saw the iceberg?

 

[burnsjed]

When Suarez got the PFA's lawyers to look at his contract and the clause they came to the conclusion that it was just a good will clause and nothing more. It's not that we didn't choose to take it to court, there was nothing we could do in court.

It was quite well publicised. If you Google PFA Suarez contract or something it should come up. The Liverpool owner is obviously going to make himself sound like a big man, he was giving a speech when he made those claims.

And this is the problem.
People will believe whatever story supports their argument.
It happens all the time. I am not having a go at you personally, but we see it all the time on here.
Someone has a view, they can be given endless amounts of evidence to disprove that, they will find one piece that supports their view, and bingo.
So in this instance, the agent that informed Arsenal of the release clause is wrong. The Owner who admits it was there is just trying 'to make himself sound like a big man'.
We have Taylor saying that it is not iron cast and advising the two teams to sort it out, and there you go.
I honestly couldn't care less, but I have the feeling that you could be shown the contract and claim it has since been falsified.
It doesn't support the argument that 'if we had tried harder, offered x amount more we could have got him', even though in that interview he clearly says they weren't going to sell him.
Again, I know, he was just trying to be big, make the Liverpool fan base love him.
Doesn't really matter as he would have buggered off anyway when he realized how ****e we were.

 

[Kingslayer]

Howcome the titanic crew never saw the iceberg?

Because it wasn't clear whether seeing the iceberg meant merely informing the captain of its presence or whether it was actually a release clause to change direction.

Or some such ****.

 

[burnsjed]

Back to Zlatan

I'm guessing every club from Manchester to Melbourne have been in touch with Zlatan to see what's up, so wouldn't read too much into Cross saying we've made contact.

Given this, the salary he will want, basically constituting a normal transfer fee and salary, and he will be 35 at the start of October, would we not be better off signing Lukaku, who though not as good as Zlatan in his pomp, and lets face it probably never will be, can at least offer us something over the next 5 seasons?
Given the lack of quality in the striker position, and we are not signing PEA, if we don't get Lukaku this summer we aren't getting him ever are we. What alternatives are there?
Personally, I would rather get Lukaku, and be sorted for the foreseeable future, sell Giroud, and go into next season with Dat guy and Lukaku.

 

[burnsjed]

Because it wasn't clear whether seeing the iceberg meant merely informing the captain of its presence or whether it was actually a release clause to change direction.

Or some such ****.

If only there were forums back then about icebergs.

 

[4R5Emaniac]

But since its a free transfer for a year or two would give us a chance when a real gem is found from the youth to be introduced or even identify outside and we could focus on other areas of the squad. The wages or his age would be nothing compared to the overall impact signing Zlatan could be. A proper world star and legendary footballer with a maverick personality who would make Arsenal be looked at differently by our own players, fans, media, opposition players, fans and more.

 

[celestis]

Yeah, people talk about if we could have been more respectful to Liverpool when we bid for Suarez, but the biggest issue is about how serious release clauses are valued in England.

In other countries, if you match the release clause then that's it. You get the player. That's the point of the clause. Bayern matched Dortmund's release clause for Gotze, and signed him before the Champions League final between each team. There was nothing Dortmund could do, Bayern had matched the release clause.

This is why teams are now giving players release clauses in the hundred millions because it is impossible to match.

When we matched Suarez's release clause Liverpool were just amazed and furious that we had found out about it. Having a player of Suarez's level at a release clause of only 40 million is just insane. Teams will be more than happy to pay that amount.

After we matched Suarez's release clause amount, Fenway Sports, which owns Liverpool, basically came out and said that they were going to act like the release clause never existed. They wouldn't let Suarez negotiate with us, and they were willing to drag out the sage until the end of the transfer window and find any way to prevent him from coming here. They called everyone's bluff and dared the regulators to force them to comply to the contract they signed. No one called their bluff.

Basically, Liverpool made a mistake in letting Suarez have such a low release clause, and they hoped that no one in the EPL would find out about it. We did, and now they want to make it out that we were disrespectful or the bad guys.

Overall, they really had no idea what they were doing and it almost cost them watching their best player leave for another EPL team. If this was Germany or Spain and we met his release clause by one cent, he would be our player.

This is a ****ing great post that cut's through all the smoke and mirrors and get's to the actual issue. Liverpool knew they ****ed up and all the talk of disrespect etc was just smoke to distract from the point they had a real possibility they would have to let Suarez go for 40 mill. John Henry said as much in his interview.

 

[celestis]

To be fair, I did say 'anymore'.

I have no doubt he was once capable of it. I think he's gone soft in his old age and it's reflected in our team's performances when it matters and general attitude, in my opinion.

Well maybe , testosterone is a perishable hormone

 

[say yes]

Thought the whole thing with Suarez was that there was a clause but the wording was loose so it didn't have enough legal power?

 

[truth_hurts]

Are we signing Suarez and Zlatan? SOZ

Suarez/Sanchez, Özil, Zlatan

-----------------------Özil----------------------------------
-----Sanchez---------Zlatan---------Suarez-------------

 

[Bananacoffee]

This is a ****ing great post that cut's through all the smoke and mirrors and get's to the actual issue. Liverpool knew they ****ed up and all the talk of disrespect etc was just smoke to distract from the point they had a real possibility they would have to let Suarez go for 40 mill. John Henry said as much in his interview.

It also proves how ignorant a lot of Arsenal fans are, and how they will jump at every opportunity to take a cheap shot at Wenger.

Back on track, do we want Zlatan at 600k a week?
I say yes, his quality is second to none, but I worry about the effect he will have on our squad chemistry. Let's face it, most of the players in our squad are weak and have no backbone, can they cope with Zlatan?

 

[Hinderz]

Gazidis ****ed up offering 40million and a pound. Even if he had his facts straight about the clause, he created a PR issue where one didn't need to exist. Another 500k or 1 million and it would have put pressure on Liverpool and they would have been the bad guys if they went against their word to the player. Instead we made ourselves look like mugs and Liverpool fans expected them to come out swinging, and in the end we didn't get the player and ended up with egg on our face.

 

[Kingslayer]

Gazidis ****ed up offering 40million and a pound.

That pound was going to come out of my own pocket, I'll have you know.

Bloody ingrates.

Anyway, Zlatan.

With DiMarzio saying we're very interested in Morata and the news from yesterday that Real are definitely buying him back, I'd say Morata's our number one striker target.

Wenger's 'not on Zlatan's case at the moment' statement from a couple of weeks back seems to indicate that Zlatan will be further down our list.

 

[Rosso]

If it's true about wanting 300k after tax I doubt any of the English clubs will move for him.

 

[say yes]

Can't see us signing Zlatan.

Doesn't matter how good he is - his age, ego, wages, and the fact he's rejected Wenger before make this a very unlikely signing.

 

[Trilly]

And this is the problem.
People will believe whatever story supports their argument.
It happens all the time. I am not having a go at you personally, but we see it all the time on here.
Someone has a view, they can be given endless amounts of evidence to disprove that, they will find one piece that supports their view, and bingo.
So in this instance, the agent that informed Arsenal of the release clause is wrong. The Owner who admits it was there is just trying 'to make himself sound like a big man'.
We have Taylor saying that it is not iron cast and advising the two teams to sort it out, and there you go.
I honestly couldn't care less, but I have the feeling that you could be shown the contract and claim it has since been falsified.
It doesn't support the argument that 'if we had tried harder, offered x amount more we could have got him', even though in that interview he clearly says they weren't going to sell him.
Again, I know, he was just trying to be big, make the Liverpool fan base love him.
Doesn't really matter as he would have buggered off anyway when he realized how ****e we were.

So you're claiming I'm being purposefully ignorant in order to further an argument that I'm not even making? You claim you're not having a go but you kind of are.

I'm not ignoring the facts in front of me. I'm simply skipping all the biased hear-say and providing evidence straight from the horses mouth. How am I ignoring all evidence by choosing to go the most reliable source of information on the matter, the head of the players union whose lawyers were actively trying to help Suarez leave? I think that's just trying to get to the bottom of it yet you accuse me of ignorance because it goes against your argument?

Here have a look if you don't believe me, quotes are there too.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-transfer-news-pfa-chief-2137102

 

[Trilly]

Thought the whole thing with Suarez was that there was a clause but the wording was loose so it didn't have enough legal power?

Careful, people don't like facts around here.

 

[burnsjed]

So you're claiming I'm being purposefully ignorant in order to further an argument that I'm not even making? You claim you're not having a go but you kind of are.

I appreciate it kind of did go that way, buy it wasn't anything personal.
You also talk about providing evidence from the horses mouth, yet chose to ignore what Henry said, that in itself is contradictory.

What I was trying to get across in my post, is that people here rewrite history, cherry pick what they want to hear, and use that to support their argument.

I have no idea what your opinion is on this imaginary offer of x amount of money and they would have bitten our hand off, there's absolutely nothing to support that suggestion, but it gets thrown around like a truth.

There are plenty of examples of us leaving ourselves short in every window without posters making fictious claims.
I think we can both agree that this has run its course, this thread has been hijacked, it really doesn't matter or will change what actually happened. You have your opinion and I disagree, but not let's pretend there is indisputable evidence, and suggest people don't like facts eh.