Liverpool Doesn't Have To Worry About Javier Mascherano Sale
Liverpool undoubtedly find themselves in a predicament this season while trying to convince world-class stars like Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard that the club has a future, while clearly suffering against Manchester City.
Since the Reds' defeat at the hands of City last week, many have jumped to rule-out Liverpool's return to the top of the Premier League. Looking at the stable quality at Arsenal, Chelsea, and Manchester United, and seeing the mammoth spending of City, the pessimistic voices' concerns appear to be valid.
Yet after a dismal seventh place finish for Liverpool last term, this season can only be seen as a transitional phase. With the sale of Javier Mascherano, it is clear that Liverpool are not ready yet to go back to their ambitious days.
But forget about challenging for the title for this season, Liverpool is going in the right direction. After their fall from the top of the Premier League last season—and their serious ownership and financial problems—Liverpool cannot keep all their best players no matter how much they fight for it.
Selling Mascherano does not mean they will only be going downhill. The sale of the Argentine star has seen the Anfield club make a decent profit from which they have already snapped up a replacement for Mascherano in the shape of Porto's Raul Meireles.
Paul Konchesky, on the other hand, is set to end Liverpool's left-back problem if he completes his awaited move from Fulham.
With Christian Poulsen and Meireles now in the Liverpool midfield, the club no longer has to have a headache every time a midfielder is sidelined with an injury.
It is clear that the next step could very well be signing a striker. With Carlton Cole among the names linked with Liverpool, you just feel that cashing in on Mascherano was the best thing to do.
After all, Roy Hodgson wouldn't want a player he sees as "selfish" to be part of his squad, neither do the great Liverpool fans want to see a player wearing the Reds shirt by force.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?