Fekir Failure Good Business for Liverpool

AAxMmc9.jpeg

Liverpool's decision not to go back in for Nabil Fekir can be described as "microeconomic" policy - long term, structural reform designed to produce benefits over an extended period of time.

It seems that ever since FSG were burned by the colossal failure of the Andy Carroll deal, they have been determined not to be the laughing stock of the transfer market. And rightly so.

In the period following the Carroll debacle, Liverpool seemed to be taken advantage of time and time again in the transfer market. "They're Liverpool, they paid 35 million for Andy Carroll, they'll pay anything!" Teams all across Europe were excited to wait for 'desperate Liverpool' to crawl through the door and pay above the odds for players they craved to obtain on behalf of themselves and their supporters - both collectively haunted by the chase of elusive number nineteen.

It even seemed that Liverpool would go in for a player, offer an amount, be knocked back only to see the player go to another club for a lower price. There was a "Liverpool Dumba*s Premium" that loomed over our heads.

These days, Liverpool, through the help of Jurgen Klopp, aren't as desperate. They say in economics that the laws of Supply and Demand influence price, and the higher demand is, the more price gets stretched upwards.

These days, Liverpool aren't as demanding.

The Liverpool of old would have been scared by the prospect of missing out on Fekir, they would have paid an over-inflated figure because "Aulas said so", and would have given into the pressure of the selling team. Now? Liverpool are the ones doing the dictating. "You don't sell at our price? Fine, we'll go somewhere else."

"What abut 50 million? 40 million? 35!?" Ah, that's better. Now we'll return.

The fact that Liverpool aren't desperate for players helps them with this new strategy. Our squad is already so advanced that we no longer have 'inelastic demand', a term used to describe an entity's unwillingness to "shop elsewhere" causing them to "buy at any cost". We don't buy at any cost anymore - there's a ceiling, there's a limit. We can, and will, shop elsewhere if needed. 

We are now more willing to step away from deals, meaning the median price Liverpool pay for players, comparative to their value, is quite small.

As expensive as Alisson was, we weren't willing to pay 70 or 80 million pounds for him. Instead, the figure sat closer to 60 or 65. Mohammed Salah's 35 million seems a bargain right now, as does Sadio Mane's 34 million. Also - what would Manchester United now pay for our 75 million pound Virgil Van Dijk? Or City for that matter? Relative to value, it's safe to say Liverpool haven't been "screwed" in a very long time.

The completion of the Fekir deal under Aulas' pressure would have thrown a small spanner in the long term transfer strategy of Liverpool's transfer committee. Despite not valuing the deal at 60 million, paying those amounts anyway for a potentially crocked player would have given teams across the globe hope of one day, once again, haggling Liverpool upwards to pay "above the odds".

The failure of the Fekir deal shows we are savvy, we know what we want and for what price. Teams will now know if a player has a price, they better sell now or risk losing a potential buyer for their expensive asset.

Liverpool's 'desperation' is no longer a weak point in our transfer strategy. Conversely, it's our 'contentment' that is making it one of the strongest in the world.