Fulham accepted Aston Villa's £7million bid for Clint Dempsey on Friday morning, but the player opted against a move to the West Midlands club in the hope of joining Brendan Rodgers' side.
However, the Cottagers failed to agree terms with the Anfield giants for the American, who has scored 50 goals for Fulham in 184 league appearances.
It is understood England international Jordan Henderson was offered as part of the deal to bring 29-year-old Dempsey to Merseyside, but negotiations broke down.
Rodgers left the club's Melwood training headquarters earlier in the evening, closely followed by managing director Ian Ayre, who had been working diligently behind the scenes trying to get deals done.
Liverpool were also interested in the possibility of signing Chelsea striker Daniel Sturridge, but the youngster was named on the bench in the club's Super Cup match against Atletico Madrid in Monaco.
Rodgers has already added names such as Joe Allen, Fabio Borini and Nuri Sahin to his ranks.
However, the Northern Irishman has also lost Andy Carroll on a season-long loan to West Ham, and Jay Spearing, also on a season-long loan to Bolton Wanderers, while Charlie Adam has joined Stoke City in a £4million deal.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11681/8038867?
So, to recap our deadline day:
OUT:
Charlie Adam to Stoke City for £4m - £5m
Jay Spearing to Bolton Wanderers - loan
IN:
None
jcallen29Sat 01/09/12 at 08:33 I'm not too concerned about the first 11 if suarez and borini can stay fit. But we have no real options on the bench when we need a goal or if somebody is having a bad game.
OlivavuSat 01/09/12 at 10:45 Brendan Rodgers was left reeling after Liverpool’s top target Clint Dempsey joined Spurs on deadline day. The Reds boss cleared the decks at Anfield by offloading EIGHT players in the transfer window to keep his side of the bargain as the club looked to slash a bloated wage bill. Yet after loaning Andy Carroll to West Ham, Rodgers revealed he did so only because he had been promised the board would provide a replacement. He wanted America hitman Dempsey, but that deal collapsed as Fulham revealed they had rejected an offer of JUST £3million for him. Even though Dempsey had expressed his desire to join the Reds, Liverpool’s refusal to match other offers for the player eventually left him with no choice but to make an 11th-hour dash to Tottenham’s training ground to sign for their new boss Andre Villas-Boas. A senior Craven Cottage official described Liverpool’s bid as “derisory” after Spurs – and Aston Villa earlier in the day – had agreed to an asking price of £5m, with a further £2m in add-ons. It leaves Rodgers with just TWO senior strikers, and so desperately short of numbers he is struggling to field a credible squad for Arsenal’s visit to Anfield on Sunday. While the Reds’ boss attempted to put a brave face on his lack of numbers at a press conference on Thursday, when he announced the departure of Carroll, there is little doubt he will be shocked and angered at the failure to land Dempsey. The former Swansea manager turned down the chance to take the helm at Spurs before agreeing to take the Anfield hot-seat, after being wooed by the promise of funds to rebuild the Merseyside club’s fortunes. The failure to land Dempsey will come as a massive slap in the face, as he had identified his goal-scoring ability as a key element in his plans. Liverpool also missed out on a deal for Chelsea striker Daniel Sturridge, after the player refused to go on loan. http://m.mirror.co.uk/article?id=1294058/So Sturridge rejected us. Great.
WestAussie-RedSat 01/09/12 at 16:17 Still not a crisis , it only becomes that if we are looking at relegation
NichoSat 01/09/12 at 16:32 I love the way the Daily Manc dress up a story about LFC to make it look like the club is in total disarray. We didn't value Dempsey as highly as Tottenham did. I'm glad we stuck to our guns over our valuation and didn't fall into the trap of panic buying. Sturridge, having been out on loan twice already didn't fancy a third one. He refused to go on loan - to anyone, not just LFC, so he didn't reject a move to Liverpool Per Se. The mirror, although nowhere near as bad as the Murdoch rag, is another paper that Reds fan should avoid.
OlivavuSat 01/09/12 at 16:35 I think he would have come on a permanent deal.
gerg1234Sat 01/09/12 at 17:47 I think he would have come on a permanent deal.
Bingo...from what I've read Sturridge was wanting to go here, but ONLY if it was a permanent deal. What bothers me is that FSG didn't hold their end of the bargain. If this becomes a major issue between FSG and BR then we're starting all over AGAIN next season. FSG better nut up IMO.
OlivavuSat 01/09/12 at 17:48 Brendan Rodgers, the Liverpool manager, spent transfer deadline day trying to convince his hierarchy of the need to secure the American international. Fenway Sports Group were unwilling to meet the price – understood to be £1 million above that quoted to other clubs – and now Rodgers faces the improbable task of leading Liverpool back into the Champions League with Luis Suárez as the only experienced striker at the club. As the clock ticked before the closure of the transfer window, it emerged that Rodgers was not just frantically negotiating with Dempsey’s club Fulham, but also his own board as he argued his case on the merits of signing the 29-year-old. Dempsey had earlier rejected the chance to join Aston Villa, desperate for Liverpool to re-open negotiations, before finally holding talks with Spurs. On another difficult day in the tumultuous recent history of the Merseyside club, it became apparent that one of the main stumbling blocks to a deal was FSG’s new, restrained transfer policy and determination to enforce more prudent financial management. Despite slashing the wage bill by millions, including offloading Carroll on the presumption it would free funds for a replacement, Rodgers was informed the fee for Dempsey was too high and that he could offer only up to £5 million. FSG were reluctant to spend significant money on a player in his late 20s entering the final year of his contract. They have stated previously they would rather invest in young talent than those who will have no sell on value at the end of their contracts, and they are still reeling from the millions wasted by the previous management regime. It seemed inconceivable as the deadline approached, having allowed Carroll to join West Ham on loan, that Rodgers would be left with only Suárez as a senior striker, but that is the hand he has now been dealt until January. Should Suárez suffer an injury in the next few months, Rodgers will have only Fabio Borini — signed predominantly as a wide man – as a realistic alternative. The transfer window has provided a thorough education for the latest Anfield incumbent on the financial reality gripping the club. He may feel it has little in common with the public pronouncements when he joined Liverpool. Chairman Tom Werner suggested last season that Liverpool could match the top clubs in Europe. “I would say we certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football,” he said on April 12. At Rodgers’s unveiling in June, a club statement went even further, suggesting the high spending of the previous management regime would not impact on the new coach’s transfer plans. It read: “The owners are always willing to provide funds where necessary to strengthen the squad. “There will be no requirement to sell players this summer in order to fund new purchases.” These claims do not seem to tally with Rodgers’s failure to get the green light to sign Dempsey, particularly given the number of senior players who have left since he was appointed, many of whom he was helpless to prevent departing. Numerous high-earning players have departed since the end of last season, including Dirk Kuyt, Craig Bellamy, Alberto Aquilani, Andy Carroll and Maxi Rodriguez. Fabio Aurelio, Charlie Adam and Jay Spearing have also been moved on, equating to a conservative estimate of £20 million slashed in wages, and yet Rodgers still found himself pleading in vain for the funds to force through the Dempsey deal. Liverpool also held talks with Chelsea for the loan signing of Daniel Sturridge, but the England international wanted to make the transfer permanent. Rodgers possessed neither the funds nor the inclination to bid £15 million for his services and Sturridge was a substitute in Chelsea’s Super Cup defeat in Monaco. The early part of the day at Anfield was spent offloading players. Adam moved to Stoke for £4 million, Spearing headed to Bolton for a season’s loan and youngsters Danny Wilson and Nathan Eccleston headed to Blackpool on loan. Dani Pacheco moved to Real Valladolid. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9513723/Brendan-Rodgers-in-despair-as-Liverpools-owners-refuse-to-sanction-a-7-million-deal-for-Clint-Dempsey.htmlIf we couldn't go to £7m for Dempsey, then there's no way we could afford Sturridge.
gerg1234Sat 01/09/12 at 17:53 I don't think the issue was all about the money. I don't think we could afford Sturridge either, but I think youth in the case of Sturridge would have made it easier to sell to the board. Especially if we did a loan to buy deal. Everything I have read lately makes me a little worried about the future of our club in terms of the financial stability of FSG.
OlivavuSat 01/09/12 at 18:13 I didn't think they were ever going to heap cash into the club mate. They are waiting to take advantage of the FFP rules. But I am not sure that they understand how those rules can be bent - just look at City's Etihad 'partnership'.
KK73Sun 02/09/12 at 01:34 Listen, I'm no expert but there is just too much bullshit in the air. First of all I don't think we offered 3m for Dempsey. We were interested in him for long periods. It just seems obvious that we aggravated Fulham and they didn't want to do business with us on a level business field. We were probably offering around what Villa and then Spurs were offering. They are just throwing mud at us, they feel hard done by our dealings. Fair enough. But I won't believe that we were interested and weren't going to bid 5m for him. As long as we stand our ground if anything else we need to let clubs know that we aren't going to give in on stupid demands and negotiate hard. Hope that this transfer window has given at least that message for the upcoming windows.
WestAussie-RedMon 03/09/12 at 06:40 The only problem with sending a message of being hard bargainers instead of soft touch is that we could miss out on a lot of players in the future because we value them less than the home club. It does appear though some clubs will just not deal with us at all .
KK73Tue 04/09/12 at 04:10 Spurs have done well with Levy being hard in negotiations, and so have Arsenal though their policy is different and that they have had Champions league to offer. But there will always be players available. And players will always want to play for us.
| 
