But, for example, keeping Trent and winning the league (which he was absolutely vital for) more than recoups the £40m (?) we could have got for selling him the summer before… and we have seen how hard he has been to replace.
… whatever some fan may say, Trent was 100% integral to our title win, as shown by our struggles this season…
Likewise, konate two summers ago… and again last summer… if he had maintained form and we had won big trophies 🤷♂️ it would have been worth the reduced fee he would have commanded with one year left.
As Ian Graham said in his book - if you get everything right, there is still on average a 50% failure rate on transfers.
So the sustainable business model is different between say Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth, red bull and Liverpool..
Because we are not losing the players for free *if* they help you win trophies, or progress in CL etc and you recoup in bonuses.
The bitterness that we feel as fans doesn’t necessarily translate to the actual risk..
At Liverpools level.. the upside of letting a player run the contract down is the money you return from success..
.. and the additional risk is being tied to an absolutely massive contract and what that can do to your overall salary bill, ability to sign other players etc.
Now I genuinely don’t believe Trent leaving was about money; frankly he *was* massively undervalued by a lot of Liverpool fans, pundits, the UK press, England managers… but I don’t think for the second the LFC data nerds undervalued him.
I do believe he left for the change, the challenge, the lifestyle and to prove himself at another top club and get the respect he deserves.
Now konate… I do believe that’s due to money.. mainly because if the club wants to give konate a big deal, due to his injury record, to manage the risk.. the club may want a large amount of it performance/appearance based..
… and if you are a player with konates record you want bonuses not tied to appearance…
Szoboslai is a but different for me because despite his effort, I think Wirtz and grav have the ability to be better.. so there is potentially already cover in the team and is he first choice in anyone 1 position? 🤷♂️
I think that's a fair counterargument, and I agree with parts of it.
My issue isn't really that Liverpool kept Trent for the title-winning season. If you'd asked me in August 2024 whether I'd sacrifice a potential transfer fee for a Premier League title, I'd have bitten your hand off.
Where I struggle is that this now feels like a repeated pattern rather than a one-off calculated risk. If the club genuinely believed Trent and Konate were central to winning major honours, then keeping them made sense. But once it became clear neither situation was progressing contractually, I think Liverpool needed clearer decision points.
On Trent specifically, I agree his value to Liverpool was massively underestimated by sections of the fanbase. I also agree his move was probably about much more than money.
Konate feels different to me. His injury record, inconsistency and contract demands made the risk/reward calculation much harder. If Liverpool knew a year ago that a deal was unlikely, then I think protecting the asset had to be part of the conversation.
As for Szoboszlai, I agree he's a different case because Liverpool have more flexibility in those positions than they did at right back. But that's actually why I raised him. If the club reaches next summer with no extension agreed and only one year remaining, do they repeat the Trent/Konate approach, or do they act earlier?
That's the lesson I'm interested in. Not whether every player should be sold with two years left, but whether Liverpool need firmer trigger points when contract situations stop moving forward.
Ultimately, we're probably debating where the line is, rather than disagreeing on the principle.
I agree.. though maybe Repeat pattern is a strength not a weakness.
*if* the business case add’s up to keep players and let them run down rather then cash in when they are a reduced price..
Then repeating the pattern just shows the business case adds up and continues to add up.
It’s just backing your process.
The konate and Trent cases are the same just the outcome is different… and you can look at them retrospectively and say it was worth keeping Trent because we won and not konate because we didn’t.. but that is solely outcome bias.
Now you could have removed any of that potential risk or reward by forcing them out the door.
If each player is an investment… You can get value from signings in different way.
You can get performance value or transfer value. 🤷♂️ ideally both..
But we have also seen again and again that players take time to adapt to the league.and the squads with longevity tend to wind more..
So constantly selling and signing removes risks of losing players on a free but it doesn’t necessarily win you anything.
What Is one *more* year of an adapted, settled player with a known performance level worth vs the first year of a new player.
And absolute ideal world is you sell at peak and buy just before peak, and everyone adapts instantly.
But… the £40m we paid for konate is potentially £80m now. Let’s say it was bastoni (🤷♂️)
So if you lose £40m reduced fee by keeping konate , instead of having to buy an immediate plug&play replacement of peak bastoni at £80m/£90m+, can you buy a leoni for £30m and get one years development to get him up to speed… does that give you time to wait and get Jacquet at £60m, does it give you time for Quansah to grow and buy him back at £25m cost..
And would the combined saving + adaption time of those signings balance out vs the additional cost & adaption risk of a (planned) big money plug and play signing…
It’s all a bit moot because konate fell off a cliff and leoni did his ACL.. but that’s outcome not process
But if you go back to last summer and revisit the decision making process 🤷♂️
All I’m saying is as a fan wanting dynastic continuous success we may not agree with their decision making process.. but one thing that I’m 95% sure of with FSG&LFV is the fact there is a pattern here means it’s an informed choice to repeat that decision making process..
That's a fair way of looking at it and I suspect you're right that this is a deliberate strategy rather than a mistake they've stumbled into repeatedly.
Where we probably differ is on whether the process still makes sense once there are strong indications a player isn't going to renew.
I completely accept the performance value argument. If keeping the player materially increases your chances of winning major honours, that can outweigh the transfer fee.
My concern is whether Liverpool are getting enough of either. Trent delivered a title and I'd argue justified the gamble. Konate's final year is harder for me to view through the same lens.
Ultimately, none of us are in the room with the data, projections and financial modelling, so we're all making educated guesses. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the next big contract situation because that's when we'll find out whether this really is a strategy Liverpool intend to keep backing.
It’s not all that simple.
Yes, selling players can recoup cost.
But, for example, keeping Trent and winning the league (which he was absolutely vital for) more than recoups the £40m (?) we could have got for selling him the summer before… and we have seen how hard he has been to replace.
… whatever some fan may say, Trent was 100% integral to our title win, as shown by our struggles this season…
Likewise, konate two summers ago… and again last summer… if he had maintained form and we had won big trophies 🤷♂️ it would have been worth the reduced fee he would have commanded with one year left.
As Ian Graham said in his book - if you get everything right, there is still on average a 50% failure rate on transfers.
So the sustainable business model is different between say Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth, red bull and Liverpool..
Because we are not losing the players for free *if* they help you win trophies, or progress in CL etc and you recoup in bonuses.
The bitterness that we feel as fans doesn’t necessarily translate to the actual risk..
At Liverpools level.. the upside of letting a player run the contract down is the money you return from success..
.. and the additional risk is being tied to an absolutely massive contract and what that can do to your overall salary bill, ability to sign other players etc.
Now I genuinely don’t believe Trent leaving was about money; frankly he *was* massively undervalued by a lot of Liverpool fans, pundits, the UK press, England managers… but I don’t think for the second the LFC data nerds undervalued him.
I do believe he left for the change, the challenge, the lifestyle and to prove himself at another top club and get the respect he deserves.
Now konate… I do believe that’s due to money.. mainly because if the club wants to give konate a big deal, due to his injury record, to manage the risk.. the club may want a large amount of it performance/appearance based..
… and if you are a player with konates record you want bonuses not tied to appearance…
Szoboslai is a but different for me because despite his effort, I think Wirtz and grav have the ability to be better.. so there is potentially already cover in the team and is he first choice in anyone 1 position? 🤷♂️
I think that's a fair counterargument, and I agree with parts of it.
My issue isn't really that Liverpool kept Trent for the title-winning season. If you'd asked me in August 2024 whether I'd sacrifice a potential transfer fee for a Premier League title, I'd have bitten your hand off.
Where I struggle is that this now feels like a repeated pattern rather than a one-off calculated risk. If the club genuinely believed Trent and Konate were central to winning major honours, then keeping them made sense. But once it became clear neither situation was progressing contractually, I think Liverpool needed clearer decision points.
On Trent specifically, I agree his value to Liverpool was massively underestimated by sections of the fanbase. I also agree his move was probably about much more than money.
Konate feels different to me. His injury record, inconsistency and contract demands made the risk/reward calculation much harder. If Liverpool knew a year ago that a deal was unlikely, then I think protecting the asset had to be part of the conversation.
As for Szoboszlai, I agree he's a different case because Liverpool have more flexibility in those positions than they did at right back. But that's actually why I raised him. If the club reaches next summer with no extension agreed and only one year remaining, do they repeat the Trent/Konate approach, or do they act earlier?
That's the lesson I'm interested in. Not whether every player should be sold with two years left, but whether Liverpool need firmer trigger points when contract situations stop moving forward.
Ultimately, we're probably debating where the line is, rather than disagreeing on the principle.
I agree.. though maybe Repeat pattern is a strength not a weakness.
*if* the business case add’s up to keep players and let them run down rather then cash in when they are a reduced price..
Then repeating the pattern just shows the business case adds up and continues to add up.
It’s just backing your process.
The konate and Trent cases are the same just the outcome is different… and you can look at them retrospectively and say it was worth keeping Trent because we won and not konate because we didn’t.. but that is solely outcome bias.
Now you could have removed any of that potential risk or reward by forcing them out the door.
If each player is an investment… You can get value from signings in different way.
You can get performance value or transfer value. 🤷♂️ ideally both..
But we have also seen again and again that players take time to adapt to the league.and the squads with longevity tend to wind more..
So constantly selling and signing removes risks of losing players on a free but it doesn’t necessarily win you anything.
What Is one *more* year of an adapted, settled player with a known performance level worth vs the first year of a new player.
And absolute ideal world is you sell at peak and buy just before peak, and everyone adapts instantly.
But… the £40m we paid for konate is potentially £80m now. Let’s say it was bastoni (🤷♂️)
So if you lose £40m reduced fee by keeping konate , instead of having to buy an immediate plug&play replacement of peak bastoni at £80m/£90m+, can you buy a leoni for £30m and get one years development to get him up to speed… does that give you time to wait and get Jacquet at £60m, does it give you time for Quansah to grow and buy him back at £25m cost..
And would the combined saving + adaption time of those signings balance out vs the additional cost & adaption risk of a (planned) big money plug and play signing…
It’s all a bit moot because konate fell off a cliff and leoni did his ACL.. but that’s outcome not process
But if you go back to last summer and revisit the decision making process 🤷♂️
All I’m saying is as a fan wanting dynastic continuous success we may not agree with their decision making process.. but one thing that I’m 95% sure of with FSG&LFV is the fact there is a pattern here means it’s an informed choice to repeat that decision making process..
That's a fair way of looking at it and I suspect you're right that this is a deliberate strategy rather than a mistake they've stumbled into repeatedly.
Where we probably differ is on whether the process still makes sense once there are strong indications a player isn't going to renew.
I completely accept the performance value argument. If keeping the player materially increases your chances of winning major honours, that can outweigh the transfer fee.
My concern is whether Liverpool are getting enough of either. Trent delivered a title and I'd argue justified the gamble. Konate's final year is harder for me to view through the same lens.
Ultimately, none of us are in the room with the data, projections and financial modelling, so we're all making educated guesses. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the next big contract situation because that's when we'll find out whether this really is a strategy Liverpool intend to keep backing.
Appreciate the discussion. 👍
A Liverpool player bails on a free, Liverpool gazump Newcastle for one of their targets.
So far, so 2025-2026.