Liverpool Rumours Member Posts

 

Use our rumours form to send us liverpool transfer rumours.


Paypal single or recurring donation

(single word yields best result)
 
If you have a question for Ed1, press the big button, but it is answered in a podcast in about 8 weeks time.
We've now created a mental health web site

waynechai's Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded

No Profile Picture uploaded

Team:


Where from:


Favourite player:


Best team moment:


Interests:


Timezone:




waynechai's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To waynechai's Posts

 

 

To waynechai's last 5 rumour replies

 

To waynechai's last 5 banter replies

 

waynechai has no Rumours Posts

 

 

waynechai has no Banter Posts

 

 

waynechai's rumour replies

 

Click To View This Thread

15 May 2020 04:04:40
Ed25 called it as it is. I like it!

waynechai

 

 

Click To View This Thread

06 Apr 2020 10:27:17
thanks Ed25, i guess with the way you put it, I sort of understanding the huge reactions.
Ed1, I don’t think it is a lack of moral. Lack of understanding is probably more to the point.

From where I am, my government is putting a lot of money (28B and more) to help companies and citizens.
As I am currently unemployed, money which go to companies do not come to me.
As for citizen per se, I own a couple of properties, and even though they are still under mortgaged, I am also not qualified for much of the aids.

Per guideline, Liverpool is doing nothing wrong. This is after all a Govt directive.
If indeed profitable companies should not have claim in the government, then maybe the government should have made the guideline stricter?

Having said that, if they do so, some companies who might be making a lot of money previously might be facing a consequent struggle as a result of covid 19.
Who and how to dispute that?
When you draw tighter guideline, you end up excluding people who need it, like myself personally.

So, having read the reaction from the eds, I guess Liverpool probably shouldn’t have done it, even it is not technically wrong.
I am not local, and is therefore very surprised at the reactions.
Probably FSG will be too.

They will probably not go back on the decision to put on furlough.
In all likeliness, I hope they can “donate” the money from government directly back to help the committee in supplement to whatever the government has put together and which is missing people who really need help.

waynechai

 

 

Click To View This Thread

28 Mar 2020 02:50:55
A question was asked in the earlier post, what’s the urgency of starting the next season in time or even as soon as possible as compared to trying to have this current season completed?
I read and read and there’s still no answer.

No matter how long it take, and as a result how long the delay is, what’s the implication of making the decision to have the season completed 1 way or another?

Look, we keep talking about next season.
God forbid it, what if this vivid 19 delay and grind everything to a stop as it is now till next March (2021)?
Or if we are able to start say next season some time and get hit by something again? We cancel everything again in preparation for the next next season?

We finish what we set out to do, and that appears the only logical decision which is why I applaud the decision to delay this season indefinitely.
It is not an issue if putting the health of people ahead of Football.
Simply, start whenever medical experts said it is ok to. But start to finish the season.

I read that there’s a solution for Leeds and west Brom?
Promote them? Fulham won’t challenge that?
And a solution for Leicester? Expand the champions league or whatever?
You raise a solution and there will be an objection.

I have yet to read any logical objection to the solution to postpone the league indefinitely.

waynechai

 

 

Click To View This Thread

03 Jan 2019 04:04:05
Technically wrong. Sturridge got us 1 point, Origi got us 2.

waynechai

 

 

Click To View This Thread

05 Jul 2018 12:26:42
Ed01,
Agreed totally.
However, every time there was a rumour that we are buying first 11 material, the default response from an ed is either “unless Salah is leaving” or “if Mane were to leave”.

waynechai

{Ed001's Note - no it isn't. Did anyone say anything of the kind when Fekir was close? You are mixing up your own ridiculous expectations with the truth. Some players would only be signed if Salah or Mane were to leave. Some would be bought to improve the team as it is.}


 

 

 

waynechai's banter replies

 

Click To View This Thread

06 Jun 2017 04:08:24
Good point.
In an ideal world, I would love to have 2 new full backs.
One in each flank.
It is a pity that Moreno doesn't work out, Clyne not the kinds of full back we need, and Milner has his shortcoming.
And TAA in my opinion is also not quite there yet.
I would probably sell Clyne and Moreno, with Milner and TAA as back up.

P. S. thought Moreno should have been more a chance against the lesser team, ahead of Milner, and see if that's what we need, that is speed, a bit more skill going forward and ability to go to the byline and cutback or crosses. Now we never know.

waynechai

 

 

Click To View This Thread

03 May 2017 06:23:46
When did ed001 called Clyne a weak link? I missed that, but it echoed my thoughts exactly. Even Milner outshone Clyne as a fullback, and that said a lot.

He see a lot fight balls going forward, but has done precious nothing with it, no taking it to the byline and cross, and in facet the less said about his crossing the better.
Had not seen him being a menace on the ball like a Johnson was.

I have seen many goals (and ed, your footage will help) where crosses come in from the left, or second ball falling into our right, that Clyne is not tracking an incoming attacker.

The one plus point about Clyne is his fitness though, as in he seldom get injured.

waynechai

{Ed001's Note - he is very quick and strong as well.}