Liverpool Transfer News: Luis Suarez Stance Will Resonate for Years to Come
Maybe players aren't as powerful as we thought they were.
This summer has been full of clubs refusing to cave into their stars' demands. Robert Lewandowski is still at Borussia Dortmund, Wayne Rooney is still at Manchester United and Luis Suarez is still at Liverpool.
These are all great examples of clubs taking some power back and not letting their business be decided by agents and discontented players.
Brendan Rodgers essentially put to bed any chance of the Uruguayan striker leaving Anfield this summer, according to ESPN FC's Kevin Palmer:
There might have been a point (to selling Suarez) a few months ago where there was time to do it, but with 11 days to go it would be difficult to replace him.
I’m sure there will be plenty of activity in these last number of days. It is what it is and we will deal with it like we have during the summer. It’s very difficult at this time (for a Suarez bid to succeed). We are trying to get one or two more quality players in through the door, but selling Luis now is not an option.
The Reds were dead set on not selling their best player to a club that is one of their rivals and toughest competition for a Champions League place. If Suarez was going to go to Arsenal, the Gunners would have to pay way over the odds for the player. They weren't prepared to do so, and Suarez is still a Liverpool player
That's now the precedent for any club that wants to buy one of Liverpool's best players. The club is saying, "Sure, you can have player X. Just meet our valuation of the player or leave us alone. We're not going to accept a deal that's less than fair."
It follows the way the club sold Fernando Torres in 2011. Liverpool were happy to hold onto the Spanish striker even after he put in a transfer request. Then Chelsea offered £50 million, and it was a price too good to pass up. Losing Torres unquestionably hurt the club on the pitch. However, the sale recouped more than enough money for Liverpool to bring in an adequate replacement, although it was eventually spent on Andy Carroll.
American owners are often vilified because they purchase clubs largely with the intention of making money, rather than simply throwing hundreds of millions of pounds into the club, such as Roman Abramovich or Middle Eastern owners and losing money.
David Conn described Americans buying Premier League clubs as an "alarming trend" in an article on The Guardian's website.
It's true that some Americans have put their own personal finances before the success of the club they just purchased. Liverpool supporters are all too familiar with that problem after the reign of Tom Hicks and George Gillett. That issue isn't exclusive to Americans, though. There have been plenty of owners who haven't been afraid to run a club into the ground if it meant making more money.
If John Henry and Fenway Sports Group were concerned with money first and foremost, they would have sold Suarez to Arsenal and pocketed the transfer fee. Instead, he went to Twitter to make fun of the Gunners' attempt to buy the striker.
What do you think they're smoking over there at Emirates?— John W. Henry (@John_W_Henry) July 24, 2013
It sends the message that football comes first. Of course, the club still has a certain financial ceiling. The Reds aren't going to equal the spending of Chelsea or Manchester City anytime soon. That's more because the owners know how much that would hurt in the long term rather than signalling some sort of frugality.
Liverpool supporters have a lot of reasons to be happy right now. The Reds have picked up six points from their first two matches and have improved a lot in the span of a year. A challenge for a top-four spot isn't out of the question this season. It's quite a change from where Liverpool were during Kenny Dalglish's reign as manager.
With the way the club handled the Luis Suarez situation, supporters should feel confident in knowing Liverpool are in the right hands.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?