or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 14 comments are related to an article called:

Daniel Agger's case revisited

Page 1 of 1

posted on 9/8/12

If selling Agger improves the club in Rodger's opinion, then what is all the fuss about?

posted on 9/8/12

If we refused 25m and then he got injured again that would hurt.

posted on 9/8/12

comment by Patient Pool Fan (U13505) posted 5 minutes ago
If selling Agger improves the club in Rodger's opinion, then what is all the fuss about?

----------------

I think it's a case of we could accept £100m but we would still not be able to buy a defender of teh same quality.

Left footed, ball playing centre backs who can actually defend are exceptionally rare.

posted on 9/8/12

Diego Godin is a left footed central defender that can play. Younger too.

posted on 9/8/12

I honestly think we could find a good replacement. He has been injured for us throughout his career, and we still have had the best defensive records when he missed whole seasons.

Papadopoulos, Musacchio , Kjaer, Godin and Granqvist could all replace him in my opinion.

...and we have Coates, Kelly, Wilson, Wisdom...

posted on 9/8/12

I'd take £23m and Adam Johnson but it's not wise to sell your best players when you've just come 8th and he is certainly one of our best players.

posted on 9/8/12

Let's take a look to the 'improves the club' argument. BR has quoted Agger is top class. Why he'd accept to lose him? The only thing I can think is cash. So have to concede the rumours about the 'first sell, then buy' policy from our owners and the worst, the highly unsettling feeling that everyone's dispensable.

posted on 9/8/12

(U11943)

It means nothing of the sort. Do you honestly think that we've put on the transfer list or something. We have not gone up to city and said "do you want to buy agger."

They came to us. Nothing to do with a sell to buy which is not the case anyway.

comment by Bobby (U4765)

posted on 9/8/12

Why he'd accept to lose him?
-----
They'll have set a price on him where they know they can improve the team with that money, in that case it is sell to buy as he'd have to be replaced, but it doesn't necessarily mean we have to sell to buy in the general sense.

posted on 9/8/12

Why he'd accept to lose him?
-----
They'll have set a price on him where they know they can improve the team with that money, in that case it is sell to buy as he'd have to be replaced, but it doesn't necessarily mean we have to sell to buy in the general sense.
---
The reason why top clubs don't sell their top rated players unless they want out:
I think is so difficult to assemble a football team (needs time, smartness, work, luck to say a few) that you don't even think to take a succesful piece apart (Agger-Skrtel pair) especially when you have a lot to do in other parts and Agger himself so perfectly fits your footy plan.

comment by Bobby (U4765)

posted on 9/8/12

especially when you have a lot to do in other parts and Agger himself so perfectly fits your footy plan.
---------
Well he fits into half the footy plan.

posted on 9/8/12

#DontSellAgger..........is gaining momentum on twitter.

posted on 9/8/12

i cant believe we would actually sell him.... there is no guarantee that what we buy to replace him would be a success!! ...see Torres and Carroll

comment by blav23 (U3068)

posted on 9/8/12

I cant believe hes actually gonna consider selling Agger i rather he sell skrtel than agger to be honest. The way things are looking is that were probally gonna finish round about the same place but we shall see i make a proper assessment at the end of the transfer window.

Page 1 of 1

Sign in if you want to comment