Liverpool Transfer Rumors: Reds Decision to Invest in Daniel Agger Will Pay off
Agger is "desperately close" to re-signing with the Reds this summer, according to The Mirror's Alan Nixon: "Daniel Agger is ready to sign a lucrative new deal with Liverpool and snub Manchester City - despite his red card shocker," Nixon writes.
The deal being discussed would likely pay Agger around £80,000 per week, per Nixon's report.
Money wisely spent.
The Danish footballer is only 27 and is one of the top players on Liverpool's squad.
Agger was sent off in the 58th minute in Liverpool's English Premier League opener against West Bromwich on Saturday, which the Reds lost 3-0. With Agger off the pitch, Liverpool let in two additional goals and looked lost defensively, making silly fouls and conceding goals far too easily.
Is Daniel Agger worth £80,000 a week?
There is simply no denying Agger's worth as a star for the Reds, the team he has played for since 2006. He anchors their defense and sets the tone with his play—sometimes too much, like this past weekend.
Agger made 34 appearances for Liverpool during 2011-12 in all competitions and suffered more fouls than he committed—the sign of an intelligent and talented defender.
There is no way that Liverpool could let Agger get away from Anfield. He brings too much skill and ability to the most important side of the field for the club.
Only Manchester United and Manchester City allowed fewer goals in the Premier League last season than Liverpool, who allowed just 40 in 38 matches. Considering that the Reds have already allowed three goals through one match this season, the decision to retain Agger is that much wiser.
The rumored price is the right one for Agger's services. He will provide Liverpool with a dependable presence at the back this coming season and potentially beyond that.
Follow Bleacher Report Featured Columnist Patrick Clarke on Twitter For More English Premier League Reaction and Analysis.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?