Not exactly breaking news now I guess but it is still a shock that Robbie Fowler has moved back to Liverpool. With a bit more time over the weekend I'll try and post something a bit more in depth about Fowler's time at City but for now, here is how it will affect City, Liverpool and Fowler himself:
For City: As many on the message boards have pointed out, it leaves us woefully short up front unless the Samaras deal can go through at the eleventh hour. Ironic that a lot of the posts criticise the move, yet the majority opinion seemed to be to get rid of Fowler throughout his time at the club.
It does leave us worryingly short and the most disappointing aspect of the move is that there doesn't appear to have been a fee involved as although it is technically a loan move, we have basically given him away on a free.
However, did Stuart Pearce really have a choice? Technically yes as he is under contract until the end of the season but as Pearce said, could he really have stood in his way and denied him a move.
For Liverpool: They get another option up front until the end of the season, and should easily be able to absorb his wages (even if they are around the £35,000 a week he was supposedly on at City). Clearly, he is not the Robbie Fowler of his first spell at Anfield but he will bring a different option to the strikers they currently have and will be motivated to succeed.
For Robbie Fowler: A return home to the club he admittedly never wanted to leave in the first place. He will potentially play more games there than he would have done at City. Undoubtedly, he will also be motivated to earn a further contract from Liverpool. If not, I'm sure he will gladly hang up his boots at the end of the season having finished his career at Anfield.
For City: As many on the message boards have pointed out, it leaves us woefully short up front unless the Samaras deal can go through at the eleventh hour. Ironic that a lot of the posts criticise the move, yet the majority opinion seemed to be to get rid of Fowler throughout his time at the club.
It does leave us worryingly short and the most disappointing aspect of the move is that there doesn't appear to have been a fee involved as although it is technically a loan move, we have basically given him away on a free.
However, did Stuart Pearce really have a choice? Technically yes as he is under contract until the end of the season but as Pearce said, could he really have stood in his way and denied him a move.
For Liverpool: They get another option up front until the end of the season, and should easily be able to absorb his wages (even if they are around the £35,000 a week he was supposedly on at City). Clearly, he is not the Robbie Fowler of his first spell at Anfield but he will bring a different option to the strikers they currently have and will be motivated to succeed.
For Robbie Fowler: A return home to the club he admittedly never wanted to leave in the first place. He will potentially play more games there than he would have done at City. Undoubtedly, he will also be motivated to earn a further contract from Liverpool. If not, I'm sure he will gladly hang up his boots at the end of the season having finished his career at Anfield.