26 Jan 2014 12:33:03
Top of the morning Ed02.

A question if you don't mind. When a transfer goes tits up as it has done recently (mentioning no names), Ayre seems to come in for a bit of stick/abuse. Some posters basically claim he is a poor negotiator and very slow in getting deals tied up. In your opinion, would this be a fair assessment? Or is he trying to do the best job he can under the financial constraints he is put under?

I remember a while back you mentioning Liverpool putting in bids way below the asking price therefore not even getting the other team to negotiate. Would they have been better of advised not to go for such players and save themselves from the embarrassment or is there always a chance, therefore worth a go so to speak?

Lastly, leading from the first 2 questions. If Chelsea had not have swooped for Salah would Liverpool have got their man for the price they offered (A third of the asking price?). I appreciate its a bit of a loaded question and I fully understand if you don't want to answer this bit.

{Ed002's Note - In my opinion the posters know nothing of the situation at all and as the new type of fan lives only in a blame culture, Mr Ayre becomes the target in such situations. These are the same people who want, Jones, Gerrard, Moses, Allen, Henderson, Johnson, Cissokho, Enrique, Sterling, Agger, Skrtel, Kirikou, Coates, etc., etc. out. There will be a process that decides what sort of money the club will be willing to pay for a player on a case-by-case basis. If an offer is only a third or so of what the selling club are looking for they would typically not be interested in any negotiations as it would be seen as futile. There will also be financial constraints that will need to be adhered to. Aside from interest from Newcastle there was also a bid made by another side for Salah - Liverpool would certainly not have gotten him for the amount they were offering. It was clear that they would have needed to go to Basel with a much improved offer.}