Toblerone, you are probably laughing from a position of ignorance.
That you say City's owners don't care adds weight to that.
The following is fact. You can look it up yourself in order to confirm it.
City have a long term plan in place. That plan is to see the club become self-sufficient within 10 years (commencing from 2008). The FFP proposals have accelerated City's spending, the reasons why being obvious.
Losing money in the first few years of their ownership was always going to happen. What has also happened is that the revenue of the club has more than doubled during the same period. No other club has posted such a revenue increase over the same period of time. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that that growth will level out as time progresses. But then what is also a fact is that the spending of the club will also level out. Hand in hand. Are you following so far?
Your comment that City's owners don't care makes absolutely no sense, even in the context of what you yourself write next. So you claim that City's owners don't care because they have chosen City merely to advertise their other interests? Well then even in that context they do care. Even you can't be so blind not to see the contradiction you've posted here.
City have a long term plan in place. That plan is to see the club become self-sufficient within 10 years (commencing from 2008). The FFP proposals have accelerated City's spending, the reasons why being obvious.
------------
RipleysCat, to be fair mate Chelsea said they'd be self sufficient by 2009, and they are nowhere near being in a position where Roman isn't funding them . I'd take what Man City say with a pinch of salt for now.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Henry said. "Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [to Newcastle for Carroll], 40 and 25 or 50 and 35. It was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost. They [Newcastle] made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way."
Its not rocket science lads.
Had Newcastle sold Carroll for 10 million, how much do you think Liverpool would have received in cash.
15 million.
But Newcastle sold Carroll for 35million and guess what... liverpool still received 15 million cash.
Effectivley, a swap plus 15 million in cash for the club.
Looking at both players records, could we say that Torres' goals have meant he's been 15 million pounds better than Carroll... Not at all.
The wages themselves probably saved us a few million over the course of a contract.
The chap who used to always pop up on ssn said that Newcastle got a jackpot and Liverpool got a new player + 15 million.
Pay attention to the part of the quote where it says "it was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost"
So many of the points on here have been wasted, notably the bluenose who thinks that having someone agree with him for once is something to shout about.
I have provided cast iron proof that Newcastle dictated the price.
The question is, did we pick the wrong player.... Yes
John Henry, if you're reading this, it seems your word isn't good enough.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Had Newcastle sold Carroll for 10 million, how much do you think Liverpool would have received in cash.
15 million.
...................
So, why din't you just agree to sell Torres to Chelsea for 25 million and then pay Newcastle 10 million for Carroll.
That way you would have still made 15 million and would than have some chance of off loading Carroll if he turned out to be kak.
And Carroll would not have had such a ridiculous price tag over his head.
Newcastle knew you were getting 50 mill for Torres, and bumped up the figure for Carroll because thay knew you were desperate.
Yes, in hindsight Liverpool should have considered the price tag
But ultimately we weren't in control.
The more Chelsea wanted Torres, the higher the Carroll fee was.
So regardless of Carrolls fee, Liverpool would have still got extra 15 million
Newcastle got loads
And Chelsea kept putting their hands into their pockets
RipleysCat, to be fair mate Chelsea said they'd be self sufficient by 2009
-----------------
And that Chelsea failed do so is no indication that City will either.
People, understandably, draw a comparison between City and Chelsea. But they are not the same club, not run under the same circumstances, and not by the same owner. If Chelsea fail, that doesn't mean that City will. If Chelsea succeeded in becoming self-sufficient by 2009, do you really believe anyone would have been less critical towards City?
Thanks for your advice, but I won't take what City say with a pinch of salt. Simply because I have no reason to. For one very simple fact. Everything they said in 2008 has turned out to be true in 2012. Or in other words, every other aspect, every other plan they have for the club has come to fruition. I have absolutely no reason to believe that that won't continue.
comment by Metro- (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes, in hindsight Liverpool should have considered the price tag
But ultimately we weren't in control.
.............
You just said you were. You said this was an understanding between Newcasle and your owner.
The more Chelsea wanted Torres, the higher the Carroll fee was.
...........
You said it was agreed that you would make 15 million. Chelsea would have happily paid 25 million for Torres.
The wages themselves probably saved us a few million over the course of a contract.
---------------------------
How much in merchandise? Torres - one of the biggest sellers in terms of name on the back of the shirt in the world. Carroll?
Metro: "Had Newcastle sold Carroll for 10 million, how much do you think Liverpool would have received in cash.
15 million."
So Torres is only worth £25m then? Or if Newcastle sold Carroll for £1, Torres is only worth £15m and one £1?
Under what parameters do Liverpool value their players? It's ridiculous what you are proposing. Players are assets. Assets have a value. That is basic business sense. To compare one asset that you have with one that you want in the way that Liverpool did makes absolutely no business sense. Liverpool knew what Torres was worth - his contract, his merchandise, his worth to the team, etc etc etc. They could only speculate what Carroll would be worth (hence why every single transfer, every single transaction has a value of its own.
Let's get one thing straight here. The ONLY concern for Liverpool was breaking even. No more no less. Torres - one of the best players at the club, a player who was adored by fans - was sold, for a fee £15m more for a player who was a kid, who had less than a season of Premier League starts under his name, one England cap, was INJURED, had an attitude problem, and is in all probability a name that, as an asset, is not even heard of outside of this country.
Liverpool fkced up on this. But hey, as long as they had £15m in their pockets, that's all that matters right?
It actually beggars belief that you're still pushing this, Metro.
Nobody is really disputing that we wanted Carroll plus 15 - we're just pointing out how utterly ludicrous that course of action became once Carroll's price tag approached the neighbourhood of 20m.
I will ask you again to consider the following hypothetical scenario:
-Liverpool rate Reina at 20m and would look at signing Lukasz Fabianski, who they rate at 3m, as a replacement if Reina was to leave.
-A late bid comes in for Reina from Barcelona, and Liverpool tell Barcelona about their interest in Fabianski, saying that they want to end up with 17m plus Fabianski, telling Barcelona to deal with Arsenal and see what they want.
-Arsenal take advantage of Barcelona's desperation and begin driving up the price, leading to a situation where Barcelona are going to pay Liverpool 40m for Reina, with Liverpool simultaneously signing Fabianski for 23m.
Are you honestly telling me that you wouldn't bat an eyelid at this? You'd happily pay a ludicrous sum like that for a player like Fabianski simply because Barcelona are paying a similarly ludicrous sum for Reina?
You wouldn't rather Liverpool forget about Fabianski and concentrate on wringing as much money from Barcelona as possible, now that they'd shown their hand?
Toblerone, you are probably laughing from a position of ignorance.
That you say City's owners don't care adds weight to that.
------------------------------------------------------
No, I was laughing from a position of superior intellect. So save the patronising nonsense for the school kids pal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The following is fact. You can look it up yourself in order to confirm it.
City have a long term plan in place. That plan is to see the club become self-sufficient within 10 years (commencing from 2008). The FFP proposals have accelerated City's spending, the reasons why being obvious.
Losing money in the first few years of their ownership was always going to happen. What has also happened is that the revenue of the club has more than doubled during the same period. No other club has posted such a revenue increase over the same period of time. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that that growth will level out as time progresses. But then what is also a fact is that the spending of the club will also level out. Hand in hand. Are you following so far?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Their plans to create self sufficiency is a goal that has is very noble I'm sure & as you say driven by the new UEFA rules regarding loss making clubs. So what? Where did I take issue with that goal?
I said they weren't interested in a return on their investment, cash is not their driver never has been.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment that City's owners don't care makes absolutely no sense, even in the context of what you yourself write next. So you claim that City's owners don't care because they have chosen City merely to advertise their other interests? Well then even in that context they do care. Even you can't be so blind not to see the contradiction you've posted here.
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not a contradiction at all, your 'point' is confused.
Their investment in the club & the huges losses generated is small beer compared to the hours of television coverage, newspaper & internet column inches etc etc ad infinitum that they've got off the back of it. It's a price that they were prepared to pay. Are you denying that promoting their oil state was their aim & trying to suggest that they're merely altruistic benefactors?
Next...........
No, I was laughing from a position of superior intellect. So save the patronising nonsense for the school kids pal.
-------------------
Interesting. Nothing more patronising than someone who feels that an emoticon does the work for them I suppose.
Toblerone: "I said they weren't interested in a return on their investment, cash is not their driver never has been."
I and say you are wrong to say that. How can they possibly NOT be interested in making a return on their investment? Is that how people who become ridiculously rich operate? If it is, how on earth did they become ridiculously rich in the first place?
The "contradiction" lies in you separating the owner's own vested interests. They have value in that, but not in this - that's effectively what you're saying. I'm not for one moment denying that their interest in one of their, well, interests is offset by another of their, well, interests. On the contrary - I'm saying that they will care about ALL their interests because they ALL have a positive affect upon each other.
It is entirely feasible that they would be prepared to take a loss on one if it meant that that would result in a profit for another. But to say that that means they don't care about the one that makes a loss is ridiculous.
But then, when it comes to City, the fact that they have invested so much, and overseen a revenue increase (which is fact) suggests that not only do they care, but they see it in and of itself as a way for them to make money. And the time frame they've imposed, well the very least anyone else (looking in from the outside) should do is wait and see whether or not it comes to fruition. That would be 2018. And not when an insignificant individual on a message board deems it so.
And that Chelsea failed do so is no indication that City will either.
-----------------------
I didn't say it was, but given you've recently broken the record for losses in British football, are you so sure that they wil meet their targets.
The Chelsea plan was to be self sufficent by 2009, and they are still a long way off. Maybe your target of 10 years is more achievable. But if it isn't I'm sure that the Sheikh may have other half brothers who can give him a £400m sponsorship deal or other sponsorship deals from companies that are owned by the UAE government which surprise surpirse the Sheikh is Deputy Prime Minister.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
how on earth did they become ridiculously rich in the first place?
--------------------
I will take a little guess at the fact they have lots and lots of oil and gas and being a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi.
He's hardly a self made billionaire
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I didn't say it was, but given you've recently broken the record for losses in British football, are you so sure that they wil meet their targets.
-------------------
Not 100% sure, no. But I won't judge the failure or success of one company/business/club on what another company/business/club has done.
If City's losses are higher - that's just a sign of the times. Roman comes into Chelsea today, spends what he did today (allowing for "football" inflation), how would that compare then?
Just to be clear - I don't regard being self-sufficient as the brother of an owner ploughing money in in order to counter any losses. I regard it in its purest sense.
And I agree, in principle, with the FFP. What I don't agree with however is the limitation of any owner being able to invest what he can afford into the club that he owns. The FFP will result in investment being stifled. And in any business environment that is never a good thing.
FatJanMolby: "I will take a little guess at the fact they have lots and lots of oil and gas and being a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi.
He's hardly a self made billionaire"
Circumstance plays its part. But what you say is far too simplistic. It isn't enough to say these people were lucky. There's an acumen at work here, a business one at that. I don't have millions sitting in my pocket. Do you? Does anyone else here? It is no coincidence. These people did not just "get lucky". And even if we subscribe that idea, they got a hell of a lot richer in the time that it took us to question it than we will ever learn in our lifetimes. These people operate on a completely different level to the likes of you and I. As such, we are in no position to truly understand the circumstances in which they operate. I am humble enough to admit that.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sir Thomas
Yes it did. Wasn't exactly the point that I was hoping people would cling to, but you're right when we bring it down to its most base level.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Look it is what it is
-----------------
Indeed.
Whenever someone makes that point, I often wonder why they felt the need to spell it out in the first place.
That's not a dig Sir Thomas. Just an observation.
Chelsea would have happily paid 25 million for Torres.
......
Of course they would
But it was up to newcastle
How many times does this need to be said ?
Liverpool probably valued Carroll at 15 million due to the fact that he was having a great start to the season, and because he is English. At the time, people were calling him Englands next number 9.
Add 15 million cash to that you've got 30 million. Liverpool at the time probably thought it was a great deal but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
But lets not have people saying Liverpools valuation of Carroll was 35 million... It wasn't
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
STUPID 'NET SPEND' ARGUMENT
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 4/4/12
Toblerone, you are probably laughing from a position of ignorance.
That you say City's owners don't care adds weight to that.
The following is fact. You can look it up yourself in order to confirm it.
City have a long term plan in place. That plan is to see the club become self-sufficient within 10 years (commencing from 2008). The FFP proposals have accelerated City's spending, the reasons why being obvious.
Losing money in the first few years of their ownership was always going to happen. What has also happened is that the revenue of the club has more than doubled during the same period. No other club has posted such a revenue increase over the same period of time. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that that growth will level out as time progresses. But then what is also a fact is that the spending of the club will also level out. Hand in hand. Are you following so far?
Your comment that City's owners don't care makes absolutely no sense, even in the context of what you yourself write next. So you claim that City's owners don't care because they have chosen City merely to advertise their other interests? Well then even in that context they do care. Even you can't be so blind not to see the contradiction you've posted here.
posted on 4/4/12
City have a long term plan in place. That plan is to see the club become self-sufficient within 10 years (commencing from 2008). The FFP proposals have accelerated City's spending, the reasons why being obvious.
------------
RipleysCat, to be fair mate Chelsea said they'd be self sufficient by 2009, and they are nowhere near being in a position where Roman isn't funding them . I'd take what Man City say with a pinch of salt for now.
posted on 4/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/4/12
Henry said. "Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [to Newcastle for Carroll], 40 and 25 or 50 and 35. It was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost. They [Newcastle] made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way."
Its not rocket science lads.
Had Newcastle sold Carroll for 10 million, how much do you think Liverpool would have received in cash.
15 million.
But Newcastle sold Carroll for 35million and guess what... liverpool still received 15 million cash.
Effectivley, a swap plus 15 million in cash for the club.
Looking at both players records, could we say that Torres' goals have meant he's been 15 million pounds better than Carroll... Not at all.
The wages themselves probably saved us a few million over the course of a contract.
The chap who used to always pop up on ssn said that Newcastle got a jackpot and Liverpool got a new player + 15 million.
Pay attention to the part of the quote where it says "it was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost"
So many of the points on here have been wasted, notably the bluenose who thinks that having someone agree with him for once is something to shout about.
I have provided cast iron proof that Newcastle dictated the price.
The question is, did we pick the wrong player.... Yes
John Henry, if you're reading this, it seems your word isn't good enough.
posted on 4/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/4/12
Had Newcastle sold Carroll for 10 million, how much do you think Liverpool would have received in cash.
15 million.
...................
So, why din't you just agree to sell Torres to Chelsea for 25 million and then pay Newcastle 10 million for Carroll.
That way you would have still made 15 million and would than have some chance of off loading Carroll if he turned out to be kak.
And Carroll would not have had such a ridiculous price tag over his head.
Newcastle knew you were getting 50 mill for Torres, and bumped up the figure for Carroll because thay knew you were desperate.
posted on 4/4/12
Yes, in hindsight Liverpool should have considered the price tag
But ultimately we weren't in control.
The more Chelsea wanted Torres, the higher the Carroll fee was.
So regardless of Carrolls fee, Liverpool would have still got extra 15 million
Newcastle got loads
And Chelsea kept putting their hands into their pockets
posted on 4/4/12
RipleysCat, to be fair mate Chelsea said they'd be self sufficient by 2009
-----------------
And that Chelsea failed do so is no indication that City will either.
People, understandably, draw a comparison between City and Chelsea. But they are not the same club, not run under the same circumstances, and not by the same owner. If Chelsea fail, that doesn't mean that City will. If Chelsea succeeded in becoming self-sufficient by 2009, do you really believe anyone would have been less critical towards City?
Thanks for your advice, but I won't take what City say with a pinch of salt. Simply because I have no reason to. For one very simple fact. Everything they said in 2008 has turned out to be true in 2012. Or in other words, every other aspect, every other plan they have for the club has come to fruition. I have absolutely no reason to believe that that won't continue.
posted on 4/4/12
comment by Metro- (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes, in hindsight Liverpool should have considered the price tag
But ultimately we weren't in control.
.............
You just said you were. You said this was an understanding between Newcasle and your owner.
posted on 4/4/12
The more Chelsea wanted Torres, the higher the Carroll fee was.
...........
You said it was agreed that you would make 15 million. Chelsea would have happily paid 25 million for Torres.
posted on 4/4/12
The wages themselves probably saved us a few million over the course of a contract.
---------------------------
How much in merchandise? Torres - one of the biggest sellers in terms of name on the back of the shirt in the world. Carroll?
Metro: "Had Newcastle sold Carroll for 10 million, how much do you think Liverpool would have received in cash.
15 million."
So Torres is only worth £25m then? Or if Newcastle sold Carroll for £1, Torres is only worth £15m and one £1?
Under what parameters do Liverpool value their players? It's ridiculous what you are proposing. Players are assets. Assets have a value. That is basic business sense. To compare one asset that you have with one that you want in the way that Liverpool did makes absolutely no business sense. Liverpool knew what Torres was worth - his contract, his merchandise, his worth to the team, etc etc etc. They could only speculate what Carroll would be worth (hence why every single transfer, every single transaction has a value of its own.
Let's get one thing straight here. The ONLY concern for Liverpool was breaking even. No more no less. Torres - one of the best players at the club, a player who was adored by fans - was sold, for a fee £15m more for a player who was a kid, who had less than a season of Premier League starts under his name, one England cap, was INJURED, had an attitude problem, and is in all probability a name that, as an asset, is not even heard of outside of this country.
Liverpool fkced up on this. But hey, as long as they had £15m in their pockets, that's all that matters right?
posted on 4/4/12
It actually beggars belief that you're still pushing this, Metro.
Nobody is really disputing that we wanted Carroll plus 15 - we're just pointing out how utterly ludicrous that course of action became once Carroll's price tag approached the neighbourhood of 20m.
I will ask you again to consider the following hypothetical scenario:
-Liverpool rate Reina at 20m and would look at signing Lukasz Fabianski, who they rate at 3m, as a replacement if Reina was to leave.
-A late bid comes in for Reina from Barcelona, and Liverpool tell Barcelona about their interest in Fabianski, saying that they want to end up with 17m plus Fabianski, telling Barcelona to deal with Arsenal and see what they want.
-Arsenal take advantage of Barcelona's desperation and begin driving up the price, leading to a situation where Barcelona are going to pay Liverpool 40m for Reina, with Liverpool simultaneously signing Fabianski for 23m.
Are you honestly telling me that you wouldn't bat an eyelid at this? You'd happily pay a ludicrous sum like that for a player like Fabianski simply because Barcelona are paying a similarly ludicrous sum for Reina?
You wouldn't rather Liverpool forget about Fabianski and concentrate on wringing as much money from Barcelona as possible, now that they'd shown their hand?
posted on 4/4/12
Toblerone, you are probably laughing from a position of ignorance.
That you say City's owners don't care adds weight to that.
------------------------------------------------------
No, I was laughing from a position of superior intellect. So save the patronising nonsense for the school kids pal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The following is fact. You can look it up yourself in order to confirm it.
City have a long term plan in place. That plan is to see the club become self-sufficient within 10 years (commencing from 2008). The FFP proposals have accelerated City's spending, the reasons why being obvious.
Losing money in the first few years of their ownership was always going to happen. What has also happened is that the revenue of the club has more than doubled during the same period. No other club has posted such a revenue increase over the same period of time. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that that growth will level out as time progresses. But then what is also a fact is that the spending of the club will also level out. Hand in hand. Are you following so far?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Their plans to create self sufficiency is a goal that has is very noble I'm sure & as you say driven by the new UEFA rules regarding loss making clubs. So what? Where did I take issue with that goal?
I said they weren't interested in a return on their investment, cash is not their driver never has been.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment that City's owners don't care makes absolutely no sense, even in the context of what you yourself write next. So you claim that City's owners don't care because they have chosen City merely to advertise their other interests? Well then even in that context they do care. Even you can't be so blind not to see the contradiction you've posted here.
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not a contradiction at all, your 'point' is confused.
Their investment in the club & the huges losses generated is small beer compared to the hours of television coverage, newspaper & internet column inches etc etc ad infinitum that they've got off the back of it. It's a price that they were prepared to pay. Are you denying that promoting their oil state was their aim & trying to suggest that they're merely altruistic benefactors?
Next...........
posted on 4/4/12
No, I was laughing from a position of superior intellect. So save the patronising nonsense for the school kids pal.
-------------------
Interesting. Nothing more patronising than someone who feels that an emoticon does the work for them I suppose.
Toblerone: "I said they weren't interested in a return on their investment, cash is not their driver never has been."
I and say you are wrong to say that. How can they possibly NOT be interested in making a return on their investment? Is that how people who become ridiculously rich operate? If it is, how on earth did they become ridiculously rich in the first place?
The "contradiction" lies in you separating the owner's own vested interests. They have value in that, but not in this - that's effectively what you're saying. I'm not for one moment denying that their interest in one of their, well, interests is offset by another of their, well, interests. On the contrary - I'm saying that they will care about ALL their interests because they ALL have a positive affect upon each other.
It is entirely feasible that they would be prepared to take a loss on one if it meant that that would result in a profit for another. But to say that that means they don't care about the one that makes a loss is ridiculous.
But then, when it comes to City, the fact that they have invested so much, and overseen a revenue increase (which is fact) suggests that not only do they care, but they see it in and of itself as a way for them to make money. And the time frame they've imposed, well the very least anyone else (looking in from the outside) should do is wait and see whether or not it comes to fruition. That would be 2018. And not when an insignificant individual on a message board deems it so.
posted on 4/4/12
And that Chelsea failed do so is no indication that City will either.
-----------------------
I didn't say it was, but given you've recently broken the record for losses in British football, are you so sure that they wil meet their targets.
The Chelsea plan was to be self sufficent by 2009, and they are still a long way off. Maybe your target of 10 years is more achievable. But if it isn't I'm sure that the Sheikh may have other half brothers who can give him a £400m sponsorship deal or other sponsorship deals from companies that are owned by the UAE government which surprise surpirse the Sheikh is Deputy Prime Minister.
posted on 4/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/4/12
how on earth did they become ridiculously rich in the first place?
--------------------
I will take a little guess at the fact they have lots and lots of oil and gas and being a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi.
He's hardly a self made billionaire
posted on 4/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/4/12
I didn't say it was, but given you've recently broken the record for losses in British football, are you so sure that they wil meet their targets.
-------------------
Not 100% sure, no. But I won't judge the failure or success of one company/business/club on what another company/business/club has done.
If City's losses are higher - that's just a sign of the times. Roman comes into Chelsea today, spends what he did today (allowing for "football" inflation), how would that compare then?
Just to be clear - I don't regard being self-sufficient as the brother of an owner ploughing money in in order to counter any losses. I regard it in its purest sense.
And I agree, in principle, with the FFP. What I don't agree with however is the limitation of any owner being able to invest what he can afford into the club that he owns. The FFP will result in investment being stifled. And in any business environment that is never a good thing.
FatJanMolby: "I will take a little guess at the fact they have lots and lots of oil and gas and being a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi.
He's hardly a self made billionaire"
Circumstance plays its part. But what you say is far too simplistic. It isn't enough to say these people were lucky. There's an acumen at work here, a business one at that. I don't have millions sitting in my pocket. Do you? Does anyone else here? It is no coincidence. These people did not just "get lucky". And even if we subscribe that idea, they got a hell of a lot richer in the time that it took us to question it than we will ever learn in our lifetimes. These people operate on a completely different level to the likes of you and I. As such, we are in no position to truly understand the circumstances in which they operate. I am humble enough to admit that.
posted on 4/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/4/12
Sir Thomas
Yes it did. Wasn't exactly the point that I was hoping people would cling to, but you're right when we bring it down to its most base level.
posted on 4/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/4/12
Look it is what it is
-----------------
Indeed.
Whenever someone makes that point, I often wonder why they felt the need to spell it out in the first place.
That's not a dig Sir Thomas. Just an observation.
posted on 4/4/12
Chelsea would have happily paid 25 million for Torres.
......
Of course they would
But it was up to newcastle
How many times does this need to be said ?
Liverpool probably valued Carroll at 15 million due to the fact that he was having a great start to the season, and because he is English. At the time, people were calling him Englands next number 9.
Add 15 million cash to that you've got 30 million. Liverpool at the time probably thought it was a great deal but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
But lets not have people saying Liverpools valuation of Carroll was 35 million... It wasn't
posted on 4/4/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7