Having had a reliable goalscorer for the majority of the Rafa Benitez era, Liverpool have since suffered from a lack of goals- first, the decline in form of Fernando Torres followed by a disappointing campaign for Andy Carroll. And now, halfway through the 2012-13 season, Liverpool lie 8th in the table with one of the worst chance conversion rates in the country. Liverpool are almost 100% likely to sign a new attacker in January, and, for several years have been linked with a move for English centre forward Darren Bent. This is something I like to call 'lazy journalism' - finding a problem and manufacturing an illogical solution. Liverpool need goals; Darren Bent scores goals... voila, a report that might just about qualify as readable. Despite popular belief, it's unlikely that Liverpool will sign Darren Bent in the January transfer window...or ever. Read on to find out why...
5. Price
Having moved from Charlton to Tottenham for
£16 million, then Tottenham to Sunderland for another
£16 million, and Sunderland to Aston Villa for a fee believed to be
around £18 - £24 million, Darren Bent is unlikely to come cheap. Aston Villa will certainly be reluctant to cash in for anything that is not a considerable fraction of the price they payed for him. Since the big-buck spending of the second managerial era of Liverpool legend Kenny Dalglish, Liverpool's owners - the Fenway Sports Group - have been reluctant to splash out on more big money signings. Cast your mind back to August and the Clint Dempsey saga - Liverpool were favourites to sign the American forward, and it was rumoured that the player himself would favour a move to Liverpool. Despite this, Liverpool could only managerto cough up
a laughable maximum of £4million for the player and consequently missed out, with
Dempsey moving to Tottenham for a £6 million fee. If Liverpool were unable to spend £6 million on a player with argueably twice as much talent, why would they pay up to £10 million for Darren Bent?