So, who would you have bought on the last day of transfer window? Tell me, really!
Chelsea & City have spent 2B. You understand? Whatever we've spent is nothing in comparison.
Get behind the team and Kenny or get in with the plastics. This LFC for Lord's sake!
I honestly think you've basically just sold players and replaced them with worse players at a higher price, Torres/Carroll aside, but even then he was still a massive waste of money.
nobody asked Arsenal fans opinion, you've won nothing and you never will. bye!
Another mature response from a Liverpool fan.
Carroll does appear to be a monumental waste of money I agree, but i still harbour hopes that Henderson will improve and believe there is much more to come from Downing, even if he was over-priced.
However, logic dictates that the net spend is the more logical figure to use rather than the gross one. One season is hardly fair when judging a players potential contribution. Some of the premier leagues greatest players hardly sparkled in their first year at a new club.
Truetored (U4149)
posted 8 minutes ago
So, who would you have bought on the last day of transfer window? Tell me, really!
...........
Why did we have to buy anyone, when we bought Carroll he didn't play for us straight away as he was injured for quite some time (can't remember exactly how long), then when he finally did start to play he didn't exactly light the pitch up with his performances (still hasn't), ultimately not making any real impact on the second half of our season. Therefore if we had just kept the £50 mill until the end of the season I'm pretty sure we could have found someone better for cheaper or even bought Carroll for cheaper if that is who we really wanted. I know a lot of people, me included, would have been annoyed that we sold Torres without getting a replacement, but i would rather have had that then waste the £35 mill as it seems we have thus far.
No matter which way you look at it £35 mill for Carroll is a hell of a lot of money and this deal should never have been allowed.
Very good article op. nice to see a decent Liverpool fans opinion on here. Saying this as a neutral.
As for true to red, so the janmolby is a plastic because of his opinion? If you dont back Kenny then you are a plastic?
And the insults against Arsenal, they have never won anything? Have you only been watching football for the last few years? Arsenal are a great club, and in the last 20 years have had a massive amount of success more than Liverpool.
Like i said, great article
Totally agree with the op....
Totally agree. True To Red - who should we have bought on the last day of the window ?
Answer: someone a hell of a lot better or no one at all. Carroll played about 8 games at the back end of last season and only really contributed against City at Anfield.
We should have kept that money till the summer and made a couple of mill in interest to add to it.
Finally, for those who said that the torres price was linked to the carroll price, then why didnt we just not buy carroll, but still sell torress for £50 million -what difference did it make to Chelsea!!?!?!?! It has been terrible from the club,andwhen I think what we could have done with that money,I think we would certainly not be in the positionwe are in now.
--
This.
To be fair, what I basically think we did was value Carroll at roughly 15m and Torres at roughly 30m, then told Chelsea that if Newcastle demanded more, then Chelsea would have to make up the difference, which sounds fair enough to me, even though that price for Carroll was still very steep.
However, once it became clear that Newcastle wanted so much for Carroll and, more importantly, that Chelsea wanted Torres that much, we should have pulled the plug on the Carroll deal and told Chelsea to stump up or get knotted.
The stance of "we want Carroll and 15m" had merit initially, but what was allowed to transpired was indefensible.
Finally, for those who said that the torres price was linked to the carroll price, then why didnt we just not buy carroll, but still sell torress for £50 million -what difference did it make to Chelsea!!?!?!?!
--------
I understand your point but Liverpool didn't offer 35 million.
Liverpool simply wanted a surplus of 15 million pounds - this is made clear by owner John Henry
According to John Henry, the negotiations were pretty between Newcastle and Chelsea. The fact that Newcastle asked for 35 million actually dictated the price we sold Torres
Livepool could have asked for someone better but we can't accuse them of the cost as we had little control over what Newcastle would ask from Chelsea
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/feb/04/john-w-henry-interview-liverpool
I understand your point but Liverpool didn't offer 35 million.
Liverpool simply wanted a surplus of 15 million pounds - this is made clear by ownerJohnHenry
---
Yes, but the more that Newcastle demanded, the worse the deal became for us.
15m is a decent profit to make if we were buying Carroll and selling Torres at realistic values - but when you sell Fernando Torres for 50m and chuck 35m of that at Andy Carroll, you are losing out.
Quite simply, there is no defence for paying that amount of money for Andy Carroll, and if the value of the transfers is increasing and the profit we stood to make wasn't increasing proportionally, then we were losing out.
So, who would you have bought on the last day of transfer window? Tell me, really!
- - - -
You didn't have to buy anybody. You had 48 hrs to do a deal and you rushed into a £35m deal for a player who was injured anyway. He barely played for the rest of the season, you would have been better loaning someone like Spurs did with Saha.
Metro.....give up on your lame "chelsea paid for Carroll" BS argument. Fact is chelsea were willing to pay £50m for Torres. Who LFC bought had nothing to do with it.
LFC could have bought no one and still insisted in getting £50m for Chelsea and Chelsea would pay it. CFC would not have said we'll only pay £50m if you buy Carroll for £35m. That was LFC's decision tpo take the £50m received from CFC and waste £35m on Carroll.
Quite simply, there is no defence for paying that amount of money for Andy Carroll
-------------
I agree, but we didn't.
Newcastle wanted 35 million and Chelsea had to pay it, meaning that Liverpool got 15 million cash
Hence the 50 million fee for Torres
It's rather quite simple
Liverpool will have said to Chelsea, go and buy us Carroll and we'll have 15 million cash.
Newcastle might have sold at 20 million meaning the Torres fee would have been 35 million.
This doesn't make any difference to Liverpool as they still stand to get 15 million cash from the deal
It was poor choice of striker
but not poor trasnfer fee as Newcastle set it and Chelsea paid it
Dr Seven Grater
That is pure guess work.
It's rather simple - why is this escaping people when I've even provided the link
Chelsea paid it
15m is a decent profit to make if we were buying Carroll and selling Torres at realistic values - but when you sell Fernando Torres for 50m and chuck 35m of that at Andy Carroll, you are losing out.
-----------
Regardless of Carroll fee, Liverpool would get extra 15 million cash
Why are people not getting this ?
"It was poor choice of striker...but not poor trasnfer [sic] fee...."
listen to yourself Metro....it's madness! Chelsea gave you £50m, LFC chose how to spend it. They wasted it. Phact!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
It's rather simple - why is this escaping people when I've even provided the link
===
Hmm lets see, it's either everyone else who's not getting it, or you who's not getting it
Who's your money on?
It's rather quite simple
----
It's really quite simple (the word rather in place of really doesn't make grammatical sense here)
You could have had a 20 goal a season striker in the form of Demba Ba and £50m
But instead you got a donkey and £15m
Metro- (U6770)
Liverpool had an asset (Fernando Torres) that Chelsea were willing to pay 50m for.
We huffed 35m of that at Newcastle for a striker worth a fraction of that.
It's rather embarrassing that you've swallowed the whole story about Chelsea paying for Carroll justification; there's no proportionality to it, and it was crazy for us to pay 35m for Carroll simply because Chelsea were willing to spend so much on Torres.
If Liverpool were to sell Pepe Reina, at a conservative estimate, I would expect us to demand 20million for him. I would value a goalkeeper like Fabianski at roughly 3 million, a gap of 17 million.
If, hypothetically, a club put in a crazy bid of 40 million for Pepe Reina and we were looking to replace him with Fabianski, does that mean that I should be happy to pay 23m for Fabianski, purely by dint of somebody paying ridiculous money for Reina?
I agree, but we didn't.
Newcastle wanted 35 million and Chelsea had to pay it, meaning that Liverpool got 15 million cash
Hence the 50 million fee for Torres
It's rather quite simple
Liverpool will have said to Chelsea, go and buy us Carroll and we'll have 15 million cash.
--
But whose banks account did the 50 million go into from Chelsea? So far as I know, it was liverpool's. As such, the 35 million which left our account was because we allowed that to happen. WE Paid for carrol, any other arrangement would be contrary to financial fair play rules I'm certin.
Sign in if you want to comment
STUPID 'NET SPEND' ARGUMENT
Page 1 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 4/4/12
So, who would you have bought on the last day of transfer window? Tell me, really!
Chelsea & City have spent 2B. You understand? Whatever we've spent is nothing in comparison.
Get behind the team and Kenny or get in with the plastics. This LFC for Lord's sake!
posted on 4/4/12
I honestly think you've basically just sold players and replaced them with worse players at a higher price, Torres/Carroll aside, but even then he was still a massive waste of money.
posted on 4/4/12
nobody asked Arsenal fans opinion, you've won nothing and you never will. bye!
posted on 4/4/12
Another mature response from a Liverpool fan.
posted on 4/4/12
Carroll does appear to be a monumental waste of money I agree, but i still harbour hopes that Henderson will improve and believe there is much more to come from Downing, even if he was over-priced.
However, logic dictates that the net spend is the more logical figure to use rather than the gross one. One season is hardly fair when judging a players potential contribution. Some of the premier leagues greatest players hardly sparkled in their first year at a new club.
posted on 4/4/12
Truetored (U4149)
posted 8 minutes ago
So, who would you have bought on the last day of transfer window? Tell me, really!
...........
Why did we have to buy anyone, when we bought Carroll he didn't play for us straight away as he was injured for quite some time (can't remember exactly how long), then when he finally did start to play he didn't exactly light the pitch up with his performances (still hasn't), ultimately not making any real impact on the second half of our season. Therefore if we had just kept the £50 mill until the end of the season I'm pretty sure we could have found someone better for cheaper or even bought Carroll for cheaper if that is who we really wanted. I know a lot of people, me included, would have been annoyed that we sold Torres without getting a replacement, but i would rather have had that then waste the £35 mill as it seems we have thus far.
No matter which way you look at it £35 mill for Carroll is a hell of a lot of money and this deal should never have been allowed.
posted on 4/4/12
Very good article op. nice to see a decent Liverpool fans opinion on here. Saying this as a neutral.
As for true to red, so the janmolby is a plastic because of his opinion? If you dont back Kenny then you are a plastic?
And the insults against Arsenal, they have never won anything? Have you only been watching football for the last few years? Arsenal are a great club, and in the last 20 years have had a massive amount of success more than Liverpool.
Like i said, great article
posted on 4/4/12
Totally agree with the op....
posted on 4/4/12
Totally agree. True To Red - who should we have bought on the last day of the window ?
Answer: someone a hell of a lot better or no one at all. Carroll played about 8 games at the back end of last season and only really contributed against City at Anfield.
We should have kept that money till the summer and made a couple of mill in interest to add to it.
posted on 4/4/12
Finally, for those who said that the torres price was linked to the carroll price, then why didnt we just not buy carroll, but still sell torress for £50 million -what difference did it make to Chelsea!!?!?!?! It has been terrible from the club,andwhen I think what we could have done with that money,I think we would certainly not be in the positionwe are in now.
--
This.
To be fair, what I basically think we did was value Carroll at roughly 15m and Torres at roughly 30m, then told Chelsea that if Newcastle demanded more, then Chelsea would have to make up the difference, which sounds fair enough to me, even though that price for Carroll was still very steep.
However, once it became clear that Newcastle wanted so much for Carroll and, more importantly, that Chelsea wanted Torres that much, we should have pulled the plug on the Carroll deal and told Chelsea to stump up or get knotted.
The stance of "we want Carroll and 15m" had merit initially, but what was allowed to transpired was indefensible.
posted on 4/4/12
Finally, for those who said that the torres price was linked to the carroll price, then why didnt we just not buy carroll, but still sell torress for £50 million -what difference did it make to Chelsea!!?!?!?!
--------
I understand your point but Liverpool didn't offer 35 million.
Liverpool simply wanted a surplus of 15 million pounds - this is made clear by owner John Henry
According to John Henry, the negotiations were pretty between Newcastle and Chelsea. The fact that Newcastle asked for 35 million actually dictated the price we sold Torres
Livepool could have asked for someone better but we can't accuse them of the cost as we had little control over what Newcastle would ask from Chelsea
posted on 4/4/12
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/feb/04/john-w-henry-interview-liverpool
posted on 4/4/12
I understand your point but Liverpool didn't offer 35 million.
Liverpool simply wanted a surplus of 15 million pounds - this is made clear by ownerJohnHenry
---
Yes, but the more that Newcastle demanded, the worse the deal became for us.
15m is a decent profit to make if we were buying Carroll and selling Torres at realistic values - but when you sell Fernando Torres for 50m and chuck 35m of that at Andy Carroll, you are losing out.
Quite simply, there is no defence for paying that amount of money for Andy Carroll, and if the value of the transfers is increasing and the profit we stood to make wasn't increasing proportionally, then we were losing out.
posted on 4/4/12
So, who would you have bought on the last day of transfer window? Tell me, really!
- - - -
You didn't have to buy anybody. You had 48 hrs to do a deal and you rushed into a £35m deal for a player who was injured anyway. He barely played for the rest of the season, you would have been better loaning someone like Spurs did with Saha.
Metro.....give up on your lame "chelsea paid for Carroll" BS argument. Fact is chelsea were willing to pay £50m for Torres. Who LFC bought had nothing to do with it.
LFC could have bought no one and still insisted in getting £50m for Chelsea and Chelsea would pay it. CFC would not have said we'll only pay £50m if you buy Carroll for £35m. That was LFC's decision tpo take the £50m received from CFC and waste £35m on Carroll.
posted on 4/4/12
Quite simply, there is no defence for paying that amount of money for Andy Carroll
-------------
I agree, but we didn't.
Newcastle wanted 35 million and Chelsea had to pay it, meaning that Liverpool got 15 million cash
Hence the 50 million fee for Torres
It's rather quite simple
Liverpool will have said to Chelsea, go and buy us Carroll and we'll have 15 million cash.
Newcastle might have sold at 20 million meaning the Torres fee would have been 35 million.
This doesn't make any difference to Liverpool as they still stand to get 15 million cash from the deal
It was poor choice of striker
but not poor trasnfer fee as Newcastle set it and Chelsea paid it
posted on 4/4/12
Dr Seven Grater
That is pure guess work.
posted on 4/4/12
It's rather simple - why is this escaping people when I've even provided the link
Chelsea paid it
posted on 4/4/12
15m is a decent profit to make if we were buying Carroll and selling Torres at realistic values - but when you sell Fernando Torres for 50m and chuck 35m of that at Andy Carroll, you are losing out.
-----------
Regardless of Carroll fee, Liverpool would get extra 15 million cash
Why are people not getting this ?
posted on 4/4/12
"It was poor choice of striker...but not poor trasnfer [sic] fee...."
listen to yourself Metro....it's madness! Chelsea gave you £50m, LFC chose how to spend it. They wasted it. Phact!
posted on 4/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/4/12
It's rather simple - why is this escaping people when I've even provided the link
===
Hmm lets see, it's either everyone else who's not getting it, or you who's not getting it
Who's your money on?
posted on 4/4/12
posted on 4/4/12
It's rather quite simple
----
It's really quite simple (the word rather in place of really doesn't make grammatical sense here)
You could have had a 20 goal a season striker in the form of Demba Ba and £50m
But instead you got a donkey and £15m
posted on 4/4/12
Metro- (U6770)
Liverpool had an asset (Fernando Torres) that Chelsea were willing to pay 50m for.
We huffed 35m of that at Newcastle for a striker worth a fraction of that.
It's rather embarrassing that you've swallowed the whole story about Chelsea paying for Carroll justification; there's no proportionality to it, and it was crazy for us to pay 35m for Carroll simply because Chelsea were willing to spend so much on Torres.
If Liverpool were to sell Pepe Reina, at a conservative estimate, I would expect us to demand 20million for him. I would value a goalkeeper like Fabianski at roughly 3 million, a gap of 17 million.
If, hypothetically, a club put in a crazy bid of 40 million for Pepe Reina and we were looking to replace him with Fabianski, does that mean that I should be happy to pay 23m for Fabianski, purely by dint of somebody paying ridiculous money for Reina?
posted on 4/4/12
I agree, but we didn't.
Newcastle wanted 35 million and Chelsea had to pay it, meaning that Liverpool got 15 million cash
Hence the 50 million fee for Torres
It's rather quite simple
Liverpool will have said to Chelsea, go and buy us Carroll and we'll have 15 million cash.
--
But whose banks account did the 50 million go into from Chelsea? So far as I know, it was liverpool's. As such, the 35 million which left our account was because we allowed that to happen. WE Paid for carrol, any other arrangement would be contrary to financial fair play rules I'm certin.
Page 1 of 7
6 | 7