Adama - to Liverpool - £31.5 Million.

I'd be more interested if we had a 20% sell on clause. We would want him to go for as much as possible.

He's still very inconsistent. I watched him a couple of weeks ago and it was the usual 2-3 moments of genuine jaw dropping ability followed by some horrendous decision making and crossing. He's just so frustrating as he could be 'anything he wanted to be' if he had a final ball and scored more.

That said a move to Liverpool will continue his upward career. He's definitely not a replacement for Salah. Just a squad member and decent impact player.
 
truck said:
not sure he has regressed, more not progressed, only see highlightes on BBC but always look for him in Wolves games and far too often he "switches off" during play, being static not continuing runs in support when ball is away from him. Far too many occasions he literally stands still just ball watching.
Replacemnent for Salah....never in a million years
Click to expand...
Exactly what we saw at the Boro
 
You need to give Adama a free role effectively, and just let him do damage and not worry about him limiting damage. There's zero point in trying to coach him into being a dynamic player, able to switch roles from attacking/ defending instantly. He's not the best at decision making and it's a waste him using energy on something he's 5/10 at, when he could be saving that energy for doing something he's 15/10 at.

Wolves don't do this with Adama, as they cannot afford to play without such a rigid structure, and they don't even play a formation that suits Adama (half his games are wing back) and that's why they don't get the best out of him. Wolves are set up to get the best out of the team, at Adama's expense, that's fine though for Wolves as they probably do overachieve.

Adama would do much better at a team that is much stronger defensively and in midfield, so they can have higher forwards who can take more risks. This is why Liverpool are failing this year, their defence and midfield have got massively weaker, which is having a knock-on everywhere else. Just leave Adama to a basic 50% energy press, in the opposition half, and then just leave him rest until you get the ball, it's how you get the most/ best out of him.
 
jonny_greenings_sock said:
Think Big Shaq and Minamino will be moved on - and agree, if Liverpool were to lose a big player, I'd bet on Salah for some reason. Doesn't seem that happy and some rumblings in the media.
Click to expand...
The problem with replacing Salah with Adama is that they have a non prolific CF and bringing Adama in will drop the RW goals massively as he is also non-prolific. They would have to totally change their style of play with Adama instead of Salah
 
red_harrington said:
Project is the right word. With the right manager, Traore is unstoppable.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that. His pace is undeniable, and he can be dangerous, but I still think his all round game is on the weak side (compared with his level) if that makes sense. I also wonder if other teams seem to have learnt to play better against him too, or maybe he's just dipped in form a bit? Either way he doesn't seem to be having quite the same impact on games as he did a while back?
 
I think he has the ability to be a top player, but not the consistency.

I also wonder about him as a "project" at a top club. He turned 25 in January, so he's not a youngster by anyone's measure anymore. I've argued that a player's prime is now slightly older than it was 20 years ago, probably lasting until 30. I stand by it, but I think exceptions are goalkeepers and players whose main attribute is pace.
 
I think he'll thrive at Liverpool under Klopp, especially given the way the play; high intensity, fast counter-attacking style. It will suit his game perfectly.

Could be a great move for both parties.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
I think he'll thrive at Liverpool under Klopp, especially given the way the play; high intensity, fast counter-attacking style. It will suit his game perfectly.

Could be a great move for both parties.
Click to expand...

I don't really have Liverpool down as counter attackers.
Even this season, while they've been off form, they've had 63% possession.
That said, I don't think AT is a counter attacking player: he rarely takes the ball on the run, and when he does, likes to slow things down before exploding again.
I'm not sure he's one for the intensive pressing style of Liverpool though. He'd maybe last a half with all that muscle mass he carries.
 
I'm sure we don't have a sell on clause, but I don't think it's impossible. Wasn't there some wrangling at the time because the release clause was for the full amount up front and Wolves wanted to pay it in installments?

I don't think it's ever been made public what was agreed in the end. But hypothetically if we agreed to the installments, then they've not triggered the clause and we could presumably (theoretically) have had a sell on clause added as part of the agreement.
 
festa5 said:
I'm sure we don't have a sell on clause, but I don't think it's impossible. Wasn't there some wrangling at the time because the release clause was for the full amount up front and Wolves wanted to pay it in installments?

I don't think it's ever been made public what was agreed in the end. But hypothetically if we agreed to the installments, then they've not triggered the clause and we could presumably (theoretically) have had a sell on clause added as part of the agreement.
Click to expand...

It may have been possible to agree a sell on clause.

However, it would certainly mean accepting less in guaranteed cash. If Wolves only had to pay £17 million, they wouldn't agree to 17m plus a sell on clause. They might, however, go for £15million plus a sell on.

Same old question: if you want a sell on clause, how much are you prepared to knock off the upfront fee to get it?
 
Frozen Horse said:
It may have been possible to agree a sell on clause.

However, it would certainly mean accepting less in guaranteed cash. If Wolves only had to pay £17 million, they wouldn't agree to 17m plus a sell on clause. They might, however, go for £15million plus a sell on.

Same old question: if you want a sell on clause, how much are you prepared to knock off the upfront fee to get it?
Click to expand...

There's loads of factors. Agree it's not as straightforward as some think. My limited understanding is that paying in installments v paying up front is a big deal for clubs though. They might not have been able to afford him at all if we didn't agree to installments. In which case you might be able to add a sell on clause without lowering the fee?

All hypothetical anyway, I'm sure we don't have one. It'd have been mentioned surely.
 
Frozen Horse said:
It may have been possible to agree a sell on clause.

However, it would certainly mean accepting less in guaranteed cash. If Wolves only had to pay £17 million, they wouldn't agree to 17m plus a sell on clause. They might, however, go for £15million plus a sell on.

Same old question: if you want a sell on clause, how much are you prepared to knock off the upfront fee to get it?
Click to expand...
We wouldn't have to accept £15m and we could decide to only sell at £21 with a sell on clause with installments.
 
bear66 said:
We wouldn't have to accept £15m and we could decide to only sell at £21 with a sell on clause with installments.
Click to expand...

OK, I accept that we could negotiate in other ways, but we wanted cash up front too.

I don't think we were in a position to "we could decide to only sell at £21 with a sell on clause with installments", because Wolves were in a position to say "screw you, we'll just pay the £17 million, and there's nothing you can do to stop it". It would have to be a negotiation that had something in it for them too, and while they might have wanted instalments, they might not have been prepared to go that far to get them.
 
Last edited:
Frozen Horse said:
OK, I accept that we could negotiate in other ways, but we wanted cash up front too.

I don't think we were in a position to "we could decide to only sell at £21 with a sell on clause with installments", because Wolves were in a position to say "screw you, we'll just pay the £17 million, and there's nothing you can do to stop it". It would have to be a negotiation that was worth their while too.
Click to expand...
We didn't have to sell. I thought this only came about because of the sell on clause that Wolves couldn't meet as they didn't have £17m cash.
 
festa5 said:
I'm sure we don't have a sell on clause, but I don't think it's impossible. Wasn't there some wrangling at the time because the release clause was for the full amount up front and Wolves wanted to pay it in installments?

I don't think it's ever been made public what was agreed in the end. But hypothetically if we agreed to the installments, then they've not triggered the clause and we could presumably (theoretically) have had a sell on clause added as part of the agreement.
Click to expand...
Yes that's exactly the case. So we either got them to pay the full amount up front, or we got additional payments based on performance sell on etc, to allow them to pay in installments
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top