"Liverpool didn't have to sign Mo Salah and Mo Salah didn't have to sign for Liverpool. I mean, in the end, the deal that he signed would have been right for both parties. And I think if there came a time, and I know Liverpool aren't unique in this, but most of the reasoning behind signing players will be the numbers they're producing."
"So you could envisage a situation where Mo's numbers aren't what Liverpool need. And if there were a potential suitor somewhere else, then I'm sure with conversation, because Mo does have a say in it, that Liverpool would be willing to let him go. Under contract, I don't think I could see a situation where Mo's going to hang around just to get paid."
Despite a recent contract extension, Mohamed Salah could leave Liverpool before 2027 if his form declines and major offers arrive, particularly from Saudi Arabia. Salah has scored four goals in 11 Premier League matches, a marked decline from his usual 20+ goals per season since joining from Roma in 2017. Liverpool may prioritize pragmatic decisions based on player output and financial opportunities, engaging in open dialogue with the player before any transfer. Under contract, Salah would likely not remain solely to collect wages, and both parties would be expected to discuss future options if performance or suitors necessitate a move.
Read at www.caughtoffside.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]