Sky reporter appears uneasy revealing the truth behind Marc Guehi’s transfer — and it’s set to frustrate Liverpool supporters
A well-respected transfer insider has suggested that Marc Guehi would already be wearing a Liverpool shirt if the club hierarchy had truly pushed to sign him.
The Reds were close to landing the Crystal Palace skipper for around £35m near the end of last summer’s transfer window, only for the Eagles to pull the plug in the final hours of deadline day.
Fast-forward four and a half months, and the England international is now heading to Manchester City after Palace accepted a £20m bid from Pep Guardiola’s side. That outcome has left Liverpool fans fuming over how the club allowed the 25-year-old to slip through their fingers.
Palace puzzled by Liverpool’s laid-back approach
On Friday night, Sky Sports News reporter Kaveh Solhekol was asked whether Liverpool would view missing out on Guehi as a major regret — and his response is unlikely to ease frustrations among supporters.
Solhekol said:
“Honestly, I don’t think so. If Liverpool had really, really wanted him in the summer, they would have signed him.
“The consistent message we got from Crystal Palace was that Liverpool were quite casual about the situation. They spent heavily on attacking players and then, right at the end, made an approach for Marc Guehi that felt very much like a ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ bid.
“In fact, Palace officials actually went to Liverpool at the Community Shield and spoke directly to their counterparts, asking what was happening with Guehi, because they needed clarity on whether an offer was coming.”
Liverpool’s hesitation raises serious questions
If Palace truly had to prompt Liverpool into action weeks before an offer finally arrived, it paints an unflattering picture of how the deal was handled at Anfield.
Supporters are right to question why the club waited until deadline day to move for Guehi, when a £35m bid even shortly after the Community Shield could likely have been accepted — giving Palace enough time to line up a replacement.
Solhekol’s assertion that Liverpool would have secured the defender had they genuinely prioritised him is hard to dispute, and it exposes an uncomfortable reality that should leave sporting director Richard Hughes reflecting on what might have been.
Reports that Liverpool opted not to revisit the deal in January because they didn’t see it as a “market opportunity” have only intensified fan anger, particularly given ongoing concerns about centre-back depth and the number of goals conceded this season.
While Liverpool hesitated, Manchester City moved swiftly to address their own defensive injury issues — and reaped the rewards.
The episode does little to enhance the reputation of Liverpool’s decision-makers. However, with two weeks still left in the transfer window, there remains an opportunity to limit the damage by moving decisively for an alternative defensive target.
