The transfer miscalculation that saw Liverpool lose Marc Guehi to Man City | OneFootball

Nothing, it seemed, became Marc Guehi quite like his leaving. On the last day of August, he scored a stunning goal against Aston Villa. This, it seemed, was his parting gift to Crystal Palace. He was off to Liverpool.

Except he wasn’t. Four and a half months on, some 27 appearances later, with a different destination and a fee that is £15m less, his departure has caused ructions at Palace and may bring regret at Liverpool. Oliver Glasner’s evident unhappiness at the loss of his captain threatens to bring his reign to a premature end.

It was a sign that Palace’s glorious 2025 is giving way to a more uncertain 2026. A transfer triangle can at least offer a reminder of historic feats. Palace have won two major trophies in their history. Guehi lifted both, in the same summer, after Wembley triumphs over Manchester City and Liverpool. They became his two principal suitors; his destination was almost Anfield at the start of September, until Palace pulled the plug on the move. Now it is the Etihad Stadium instead.

The Guehi deal that wasn’t, at the start of September, did not stop many anointing Liverpool as the winners of the transfer window. It was overshadowed by the £125m capture of Alexander Isak, in any case. Even before then, Guehi shaped up as the anti-Isak, the man who did not go on strike to force a move. His reward came with a presumably lucrative mid-season move, after playing well. There was another way.

And, ultimately, another outcome for Liverpool. The initial noises from Anfield, after that £35m deal broke down, were that Guehi remained of interest but that a January purchase was unlikely. Liverpool did not bid when City got their man for £20m.

open image in gallery

Marc Guehi eventually made the move to the other end of the East Lancs Road, rather than Liverpool (Manchester City FC)

But the perception at Anfield is that only one club could afford that deal: in short, that, by entering the last few months of his time at Palace, Guehi was entitled to ask for the kind of salary and signing-on fee a free transfer could command, but when City were also paying for the transfer as well.

Yet it is worth pondering whether there was not just one miscalculation but several, by a Liverpool hierarchy of Richard Hughes and Michael Edwards with a reputation for transfer-market expertise. By leaving the Guehi deal to the last day of the summer window, it meant they had no recourse when it broke down. It also created a situation where it was too late for Palace to get a replacement that suited Glasner.

open image in gallery

Guehi played a starring role as Palace won the FA Cup last season (PA Archive)

Perhaps Liverpool underestimated how much they required Guehi. They were undeniably unfortunate that Giovanni Leoni’s seemingly encouraging debut instead resulted in a season-ending cruciate ligament injury. Yet the sense last season was that Arne Slot was not Joe Gomez’s greatest admirer, and it is no secret Liverpool’s longest-serving player is injury-prone.

A consequence this season has been that Ibrahima Konate has been ever present in the Premier League, even though his errors have been too frequent – Slot commented that he was too much on the scene of the crime – and his performances mixed.

Maybe Liverpool had operated on the principle they could wait until next summer and get a free run at Guehi; he was, after all, willing to join them. Yet that was to overlook his appeal to others. Maybe Liverpool were counting on bringing in £35m from Aston Villa for Harvey Elliott, which no longer looks likely. But now the sense is that Liverpool spent £450m in the summer and still left gaps in their squad: with Konate out of contract at the end of the season, the defence is in a state of flux.

That said, there were always questions over where Guehi would have fitted in at Anfield. Like Virgil van Dijk, he is a right-footed, left-sided centre-back.

open image in gallery

There were questions over how Virgil van Dijk and Marc Guehi could have played together at Liverpool (Getty)

Meanwhile, there is a logical spot at City, even if it involves a reshuffle. There had been the sense that Ruben Dias and Josko Gvardiol were a centre-back partnership for the foreseeable future; now, each is injured, but when fit, the Croatian could revert to left-back. That could in turn suggest that while Nico O’Reilly has been a revelation as an unconventional left-back and has signed a contract to 2030, City may not see him as the long-term option there. It certainly seems to bode badly for John Stones, out of contract in the summer, with Pep Guardiola suggesting his future will be determined by his fitness.

And yet City’s view is that Guehi is not a short-termist signing, not a reaction to two injuries. They have liked the England international for years. They see it as simply bringing forward their summer business by a few months. It is nevertheless a second Liverpool target to join them; Antoine Semenyo was also liked by both Chelsea and Manchester United, yet City have proof of pulling power.

And of finances. A new-look team is taking shape, at considerable speed and considerable cost. City have made 13 signings in little over a year, at a combined price of around £430m, with a net spend of around £370m. They could point to sizeable transfer-market profits in 2024 and some savvy sales and sell-on clauses as a source of funding; their critics may not be convinced.

City could argue that a £20m fee, like the prices paid for Rayan Cherki and Gianluigi Donnarumma, looks cheap. They might feel that it is doubly so if there is a knock-on cost to Liverpool. In getting the defender they wanted, they may have ripped up their rivals’ plan.