Metro, just a thought but did you get torres for free? No. Therefore you could say you swapped torres for carroll and paid a fee million on top
..........
But that's not the transaction being discussed.
Your point would only be valid if we knew how much we eventually sold Carroll for
The worst deal has to be from a club point of view and there is no mistaking that Chelsea got it horribky wrong.
Like I said earlier, Liverpool didnt even have the 35 million, it effectively went from Chelsea to Newcastle and Chelsea then sent us 15 million.
The wums are not liking this fact.
Of course, you could always say we sold a goalless striker for £50m, replacing him with another goalless striker for £35m. Thats £15m & we are no better or worse off
......
This is the point i have made. They refuse to see it because it looks painful on Chelsea.
Of course, you could always say we sold a goalless striker for £50m, replacing him with another goalless striker for £35m. Thats £15m & we are no better or worse off
===
I hear a lot of Liverpool fans saying this. Not trying to WUM, but if you kept that 35M, you'd have been 50M better off.
Considering you didn't even make European football (understandable given the position you were in when you bought him), you would definitely have been better off looking for someone in the summer. You did have Suarez when you sold Torres didn't you?
Just my opinion.
Thoughts are that torres has peaked and will never be worth 50m again.
But will Carroll ever be worth 50m? Time will tell.
Will Caroll ever be worth 50 million? You have got to be joking. At the moment, on the pitch, torres is way better than caroll.
So far, both disasters.
if you kept that 35M, you'd have been 50M better off.
___________________________________________
In a simple world, yes, however there is a little thing called tax; or in this case a rather large thing.
£50m would of certainly been classed as contributing towards our operating profit and we would of been taxed heavily on it. At around 45% our NOPAT would have been around £27.5m!!
3mustget, people don't think / know about the wider implications, well done
Does this profit take into account the money spent on downing and Henderson? The whole picture please, not a convenient snap shot.
Both players have struggled to make any impact in their respective roles .....but bragging rights must go to Chelsea via merchandising .........Torres is a worldwide marketable asset which I understand has already reached the 100mil mark ............You don’t see many shirts with “Carroll” on the back do ya !!!
Ok, so you would've lost around 22.5M through tax (assuming you are correct as my Business knowledge is not great), which leaves about 12.5M (from the 35M you spent on Carroll). I think you can get a better striker than Carroll for 12.5 million?
Newcastle are the winners here....
"I think you can get a better striker than Carroll for 12.5 million?"
-----
Newcastle did. Demba Ba.
wum man went to mow
This article doesn't concern other players. The OP relates to Torres, Carroll and the transfer fees. I was attempting to stay on topic...
Though now you mention it; spending money doesn't equal profit. The players you mention were bought in a different transfer window, and subsequently a different tax year. They have no bearing on the operating profit of the previous year.
RobinVanPerMertaelen...
The point is Torres was our only CF and left on transfer deadline day, we needed to buy a replacement there and then. Newcastle are a selling club, the player full of promise; won PFA Championship POTY, received high praise from peers and other managers, shown over more than a season he can score in the English game and fitted in with an ethos/model of player we were looking towards. We were forced into buying a replacement and everything pointed towards Carroll, its just Newcastle held all the aces and were able to charge that for him. This is completely different to worth.
I am trying to explain the fee, not defend it. Everything in life is not transparant.
Newcastle are the winners here....
___________________________________________
Yes, they certainly are; however it could have quite easily gone pear shaped. They sell their prize asset & leave themselves with only reserve CFs. They don't have time/don't want to replace him. This could quite easily seen them drop into the relegation zone, particularly as most of their goals came from Carroll. As it turns out Newcastle pulled of a great bit of business - he who dares Rodney, he who dares...
Without a shadow of a doubt, Torres is the bigger flop. He was a world class striker at Liverpool and he's done nothing at Chelsea so far. He had proven it at the highest levels, Worlds cups, European Championships, Champsions League and yet he is half the play he was at Liverpool and he has completely bottled it at Chelsea.
Carroll was bought for his potential. He is still only 23 years old and there are years for him to come good.
Torres will never get back to where he was because he's lost that bit of pace which made him so good, and most importantly he doesn't like it at Chelsea. He knows he made a mistake going there. Plastic club, plastic fans and teammates like Terry and Cole. Makes you shudder. He'll jump at the chance to move this summer when a Spanish team comes calling.
Torres will never get back to where he was because he's lost that bit of pace which made him so good, and most importantly he doesn't like it at Chelsea. He knows he made a mistake going there. Plastic club, plastic fans and teammates like Terry and Cole. Makes you shudder. He'll jump at the chance to move this summer when a Spanish team comes calling.
Suarez
Suarez
-------------
Maybe he will go to Spain., but we'll make a profit on him. I doubt you'll make much back on Torres. Good thing that Roman has such deep pockets.
You'll need a EL standard player
All these things made Carroll the man Kenny wanted; potential, proven, performing and passionate. The snagging point? We need him; he isn't simply a desire for the club, he is a necessity
--------------------------
3mustgetbeers, we didn't need him though. We weren't going to get CL, we were playing for 5th at best, and we had already signed Suarez who in a few weeks was already a cult hero.
We should have banked the money, took our time, finished 6th or 7th and bought the right player in the summer.
We got it all wrong whichever way you look at it.
righteous1
I partially agree, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I think we still needed a striker, we just got the wrong one. Had the money been spent on someone £13m better than Suarez we'd have been onto a winner.
3mustgetbeers, we didn't need him though. We weren't going to get CL, we were playing for 5th at best, and we had already signed Suarez who in a few weeks was already a cult hero.
We should have banked the money, took our time, finished 6th or 7th and bought the right player in the summer.
We got it all wrong whichever way you look at it.
-----------------------
If we'd banked the money what if we'd still gone for Carroll in the summer? What would your argument be then? Do you really think that we bought Carroll on a whim, that it was a panic buy without having scouted him. Of course not.
He is 23years old. He has the ability and potential to be a good striker. Lets just get behind him.
What is it with this instant success that people crave?? He's been here a year, moved from his home town, the club that he supports and he's under a massive amount of pressure coming to Liverpool at the price he did. I expect the media and fans of other clubs to pick on the price tag, but we should be a bit more sensible. He didn't ask Liverpool to pay £35m for him. That was the deal between the club. I think he knows he's not a £35m player.
Come on do me a favour. Its not about instant success and you know it.
Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't be giving Carroll tons of abuse if he played for Man United and flopped as badly as he has?
Berbatov was labelled Berbaflop, but he still scored 14 goals in his first season.
I have not mentioned Carroll's price tag. Buying him full stop was an error. I had watched him live against Championship defences before we signed him. He just isn't good enough and is never going to be, unless we suddenly completely change our style of play from pass and move to direct football.
People go on about his age as if he is 18. 23 is not young for a striker. A keeper maybe, or a centre mid, but top strikers in 99/100 cases are already top strikers at 23.
The only player I can think of who wasn't was Drogba, but unlike Carroll he had raw pace.
I don't want Carroll to fail, but just because I am a Liverpool fan I am not going to pretend he is good enough, pat him on the head and tell him its all going to be alright.
It isn't, he was a terrible signing and, he will leave for a tiny fraction of the sum paid, whether its now, in a year, in two years, having made little impact.
The only way that will change is if we start playing direct football, which I doubt any Liverpool fan wants.
I had watched him live against Championship defences before we signed him. He just isn't good enough and is never going to be,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did he win PFA POTY for the season he spent there?
Because it was the Championship
Just because you are good at that level does not suddenly mean you should be playing for a top 4 club, or even a top 6 one, who wants to play pass and move football.
He had a good spell at the start of the Prem season, so what? So did Amir Zaki once, so did Mido once, so did Michael Ricketts once.
Grant Holt was in the team of the year last year, having scored more goals than Carroll did in 2009/2010, should we sign him as well?
What about Danny Graham? Team of the year in the Championship last year, scored a few for Swansea this year?
I am afraid they are the kind of players who are a similar level to Carroll, in fact, Holt is a better player.
I wish it wasn't true, I really do, but it is, and I am not going to lie to myself just because I wish Carroll was brilliant.
tbf, henry at 34 years old and lacking match fitness and practice, scored against a championship team
sorry.
Sign in if you want to comment
Carroll v Torres
Page 3 of 4
posted on 15/1/12
Metro, just a thought but did you get torres for free? No. Therefore you could say you swapped torres for carroll and paid a fee million on top
..........
But that's not the transaction being discussed.
Your point would only be valid if we knew how much we eventually sold Carroll for
The worst deal has to be from a club point of view and there is no mistaking that Chelsea got it horribky wrong.
Like I said earlier, Liverpool didnt even have the 35 million, it effectively went from Chelsea to Newcastle and Chelsea then sent us 15 million.
The wums are not liking this fact.
posted on 15/1/12
Of course, you could always say we sold a goalless striker for £50m, replacing him with another goalless striker for £35m. Thats £15m & we are no better or worse off
......
This is the point i have made. They refuse to see it because it looks painful on Chelsea.
posted on 15/1/12
Of course, you could always say we sold a goalless striker for £50m, replacing him with another goalless striker for £35m. Thats £15m & we are no better or worse off
===
I hear a lot of Liverpool fans saying this. Not trying to WUM, but if you kept that 35M, you'd have been 50M better off.
Considering you didn't even make European football (understandable given the position you were in when you bought him), you would definitely have been better off looking for someone in the summer. You did have Suarez when you sold Torres didn't you?
Just my opinion.
posted on 15/1/12
Thoughts are that torres has peaked and will never be worth 50m again.
But will Carroll ever be worth 50m? Time will tell.
posted on 15/1/12
Will Caroll ever be worth 50 million? You have got to be joking. At the moment, on the pitch, torres is way better than caroll.
So far, both disasters.
posted on 15/1/12
if you kept that 35M, you'd have been 50M better off.
___________________________________________
In a simple world, yes, however there is a little thing called tax; or in this case a rather large thing.
£50m would of certainly been classed as contributing towards our operating profit and we would of been taxed heavily on it. At around 45% our NOPAT would have been around £27.5m!!
posted on 15/1/12
3mustget, people don't think / know about the wider implications, well done
posted on 15/1/12
Does this profit take into account the money spent on downing and Henderson? The whole picture please, not a convenient snap shot.
posted on 15/1/12
Both players have struggled to make any impact in their respective roles .....but bragging rights must go to Chelsea via merchandising .........Torres is a worldwide marketable asset which I understand has already reached the 100mil mark ............You don’t see many shirts with “Carroll” on the back do ya !!!
posted on 15/1/12
Ok, so you would've lost around 22.5M through tax (assuming you are correct as my Business knowledge is not great), which leaves about 12.5M (from the 35M you spent on Carroll). I think you can get a better striker than Carroll for 12.5 million?
posted on 15/1/12
Newcastle are the winners here....
posted on 15/1/12
"I think you can get a better striker than Carroll for 12.5 million?"
-----
Newcastle did. Demba Ba.
posted on 15/1/12
wum man went to mow
This article doesn't concern other players. The OP relates to Torres, Carroll and the transfer fees. I was attempting to stay on topic...
Though now you mention it; spending money doesn't equal profit. The players you mention were bought in a different transfer window, and subsequently a different tax year. They have no bearing on the operating profit of the previous year.
RobinVanPerMertaelen...
The point is Torres was our only CF and left on transfer deadline day, we needed to buy a replacement there and then. Newcastle are a selling club, the player full of promise; won PFA Championship POTY, received high praise from peers and other managers, shown over more than a season he can score in the English game and fitted in with an ethos/model of player we were looking towards. We were forced into buying a replacement and everything pointed towards Carroll, its just Newcastle held all the aces and were able to charge that for him. This is completely different to worth.
I am trying to explain the fee, not defend it. Everything in life is not transparant.
posted on 15/1/12
Newcastle are the winners here....
___________________________________________
Yes, they certainly are; however it could have quite easily gone pear shaped. They sell their prize asset & leave themselves with only reserve CFs. They don't have time/don't want to replace him. This could quite easily seen them drop into the relegation zone, particularly as most of their goals came from Carroll. As it turns out Newcastle pulled of a great bit of business - he who dares Rodney, he who dares...
posted on 15/1/12
Without a shadow of a doubt, Torres is the bigger flop. He was a world class striker at Liverpool and he's done nothing at Chelsea so far. He had proven it at the highest levels, Worlds cups, European Championships, Champsions League and yet he is half the play he was at Liverpool and he has completely bottled it at Chelsea.
Carroll was bought for his potential. He is still only 23 years old and there are years for him to come good.
Torres will never get back to where he was because he's lost that bit of pace which made him so good, and most importantly he doesn't like it at Chelsea. He knows he made a mistake going there. Plastic club, plastic fans and teammates like Terry and Cole. Makes you shudder. He'll jump at the chance to move this summer when a Spanish team comes calling.
posted on 15/1/12
Torres will never get back to where he was because he's lost that bit of pace which made him so good, and most importantly he doesn't like it at Chelsea. He knows he made a mistake going there. Plastic club, plastic fans and teammates like Terry and Cole. Makes you shudder. He'll jump at the chance to move this summer when a Spanish team comes calling.
Suarez
posted on 15/1/12
Suarez
-------------
Maybe he will go to Spain., but we'll make a profit on him. I doubt you'll make much back on Torres. Good thing that Roman has such deep pockets.
posted on 15/1/12
You'll need a EL standard player
posted on 15/1/12
All these things made Carroll the man Kenny wanted; potential, proven, performing and passionate. The snagging point? We need him; he isn't simply a desire for the club, he is a necessity
--------------------------
3mustgetbeers, we didn't need him though. We weren't going to get CL, we were playing for 5th at best, and we had already signed Suarez who in a few weeks was already a cult hero.
We should have banked the money, took our time, finished 6th or 7th and bought the right player in the summer.
We got it all wrong whichever way you look at it.
posted on 15/1/12
righteous1
I partially agree, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I think we still needed a striker, we just got the wrong one. Had the money been spent on someone £13m better than Suarez we'd have been onto a winner.
posted on 15/1/12
3mustgetbeers, we didn't need him though. We weren't going to get CL, we were playing for 5th at best, and we had already signed Suarez who in a few weeks was already a cult hero.
We should have banked the money, took our time, finished 6th or 7th and bought the right player in the summer.
We got it all wrong whichever way you look at it.
-----------------------
If we'd banked the money what if we'd still gone for Carroll in the summer? What would your argument be then? Do you really think that we bought Carroll on a whim, that it was a panic buy without having scouted him. Of course not.
He is 23years old. He has the ability and potential to be a good striker. Lets just get behind him.
What is it with this instant success that people crave?? He's been here a year, moved from his home town, the club that he supports and he's under a massive amount of pressure coming to Liverpool at the price he did. I expect the media and fans of other clubs to pick on the price tag, but we should be a bit more sensible. He didn't ask Liverpool to pay £35m for him. That was the deal between the club. I think he knows he's not a £35m player.
posted on 15/1/12
Come on do me a favour. Its not about instant success and you know it.
Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't be giving Carroll tons of abuse if he played for Man United and flopped as badly as he has?
Berbatov was labelled Berbaflop, but he still scored 14 goals in his first season.
I have not mentioned Carroll's price tag. Buying him full stop was an error. I had watched him live against Championship defences before we signed him. He just isn't good enough and is never going to be, unless we suddenly completely change our style of play from pass and move to direct football.
People go on about his age as if he is 18. 23 is not young for a striker. A keeper maybe, or a centre mid, but top strikers in 99/100 cases are already top strikers at 23.
The only player I can think of who wasn't was Drogba, but unlike Carroll he had raw pace.
I don't want Carroll to fail, but just because I am a Liverpool fan I am not going to pretend he is good enough, pat him on the head and tell him its all going to be alright.
It isn't, he was a terrible signing and, he will leave for a tiny fraction of the sum paid, whether its now, in a year, in two years, having made little impact.
The only way that will change is if we start playing direct football, which I doubt any Liverpool fan wants.
posted on 15/1/12
I had watched him live against Championship defences before we signed him. He just isn't good enough and is never going to be,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did he win PFA POTY for the season he spent there?
posted on 15/1/12
Because it was the Championship
Just because you are good at that level does not suddenly mean you should be playing for a top 4 club, or even a top 6 one, who wants to play pass and move football.
He had a good spell at the start of the Prem season, so what? So did Amir Zaki once, so did Mido once, so did Michael Ricketts once.
Grant Holt was in the team of the year last year, having scored more goals than Carroll did in 2009/2010, should we sign him as well?
What about Danny Graham? Team of the year in the Championship last year, scored a few for Swansea this year?
I am afraid they are the kind of players who are a similar level to Carroll, in fact, Holt is a better player.
I wish it wasn't true, I really do, but it is, and I am not going to lie to myself just because I wish Carroll was brilliant.
posted on 15/1/12
tbf, henry at 34 years old and lacking match fitness and practice, scored against a championship team
sorry.
Page 3 of 4