Teasy

Both Sochaux and Maiga must be fucking gutted, they're now left in an impossible position.

So cringey listening to that. Him as our manager is something i just block out of my mind tbh. He's right IMO, Kinnear was an embarrassment, but he would have kept us up.

What a pair of fucking mongs

Safe to say he's a good player then

What the fuck is that about??

Is anywhere in town showing the match? Been to LYH and they can't get it on.

Did I say that? No I expected him to pay up the second time I met him at our friends party when I asked him for it. Instead he fucked off without saying owt. I'll get the fucker eventually Normally I wouldn't be bothered, but this is for Colo

They may have only been offered £30m originally, but at the end of the day they got that up to £50m. They were then free to spend that £50m on anything they wanted, Chelsea couldn't give a f*** what they spend it on they just wanted Torres. And why would Chelsea go from a £30m bid, to a £50m bid just because of Carroll? Are you saying if we'd rejected £35m and held on for say, £40m that Chelsea would have said, "Oh, go on then, there's £55m you little scamps". Ridiculous man. Chelsea were told they could only have their man if we got Carroll and it would have to be 15 million clear. I really don't know why that's so hard to understand. We wouldn't have sold Torres if the Carroll deal was off, it was far too late in the day. Right and how can't you figure out that even if that was the case it does not equal "Liverpool spent Chelsea's money not their own"? It doesn't matter how you structure the deal. Chelsea paid what they were prepared to pay for Torres, they would have paid that money no matter what Liverpool did with it. Liverpool were the ones who decided to buy Carroll for £35m with the Chelsea deal in place to cover it. No matter how any spins the deal they spent a ridiculous amount of money that they could have spent on anything they liked on Andy Carroll, yes? Liverpool spent 35 million on a player with money provided by Chelsea. Chelsea paid 50 million because Newcastle wanted 35 million for Carroll, Chelsea were told this and that there had to be a 15 million difference. The ball was in their court, not Liverpool's and not Newcastle's. They could have said no and all deals would have been off. What don't YOU understand about that? Whether Carroll was worth it remains to be seen. At the moment, definitely not, didn't like him before and I've seen nothing to change my mind. Not sure why you think I don't understand the structure of the deal, I get it, I got it months ago. My point is even IF it was structured that way that doesn't change the fact that Chelsea were prepared to give Liverpool around £50m for Torres. Again Chelsea wouldn't have given a toss what Liverpool wanted to do with it. Just because Liverpool chose the set the deal up that way does not mean its free fucking money.. For instance at any time Liverpool could have decided not to buy Carroll and Chelsea still would have given them the £50m. Just because Liverpool decided they couldn't sell without a replacement, that Carroll was the replacement and used the Torres deal to cover it does not make Carroll free.

I've met him twice in my life (first on a night out when he made the bet and then for 10 mins at a birthday party), he's only a friend of a friend and I don't even know where he lives. If he ever comes on a night out again I'll be after him like

They may have only been offered £30m originally, but at the end of the day they got that up to £50m. They were then free to spend that £50m on anything they wanted, Chelsea couldn't give a f*** what they spend it on they just wanted Torres. And why would Chelsea go from a £30m bid, to a £50m bid just because of Carroll? Are you saying if we'd rejected £35m and held on for say, £40m that Chelsea would have said, "Oh, go on then, there's £55m you little scamps". Ridiculous man. Chelsea were told they could only have their man if we got Carroll and it would have to be 15 million clear. I really don't know why that's so hard to understand. We wouldn't have sold Torres if the Carroll deal was off, it was far too late in the day. Ok and how can't you understand that even if that was the case it does not equal "Liverpool spent Chelsea's money not their own"? It doesn't matter how you structure the deal. Chelsea paid what they were prepared to pay for Torres, they would have paid that money no matter what Liverpool did with it. Liverpool were the ones who decided to buy Carroll for £35m with the Chelsea deal in place to cover it. They didn't have to do it that way. The fact that it was on the last day and Torres wanted to go helps explain why they did it, but it certainly does not mean they didn't spend anything on Carroll.

I had a bet that if Coloccini was still here in our first season back in the Premier League he'd be one of our best players. The prick I bet with, who shook my hand and told me he wasn't Premier League quality, still hasn't paid out. Was only £10 but still, what a cunt.

They may have only been offered £30m originally, but at the end of the day they got that up to £50m. They were then free to spend that £50m on anything they wanted, Chelsea couldn't give a fuck what they spend it on they just wanted Torres.

Suarez could have been the replacement, god knows he's done a hell of a lot more than Carroll. Or they could have spent £35m on any other player, they had £35m to spend, no matter how anyone wants to portray the deal, they spent the £35m at their disposal on Andy Carroll..

Wasn't Llambias quoted bragging that they only accepted after taking the whole fee in one whack, with interest the longer Liverpool delayed it? Wouldn't believe a word that c*** says tbh. Just seem to remember reading it was £30m and then another £5m for goals and appearances and the like, only reason I ask is that I was thinking that £5m may well not be forthcoming if that's the case. http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-Andy-Carroll-cost-a-highly-unusual-30million-up-front-plus-25-of-any-sell-on-fee-as-Newcastle-played-hardball-on-transfer-deadline-day-article700813.html Hmm. Wait? You even have a 25% sell-on fee? Utterly mental I'd be very interested to know the ins and outs of the clause.

Slowly but surely it's sinking in, you might also want to read what harry Redknapp said about the deal and our claims he was never for sale. I'm amazed that you believe that, I really am I'm not surprised that many on here refuse to believe what the people involved (and not like Redknapp) in the transfer say, the exact chronological order of the transfers backs up and is a patently simple concept. Thousands of years ago almost everyone believed in the man with a beard sitting on a cloud I suppose. Your belief isn't far off like.. Seriously common now. Liverpool will have known the kind of money Chelsea were prepared to pay (around 50m). They'd have asked Chelsea for that kind of fee no matter what they paid for Carroll. If not they're even crazier then simply spending £35m on Andy Carroll already makes them look. There's no way on earth Liverpool turn around to Chelsea and say "Ok I know you're prepared to pay up to £50m for Torres but we got Carroll for £20m so you can have Torres for only £35m". Also they didn't have to spend anything on Carroll at all, they could have taken £50m for Torres, bought Suarez and had over £30m to spend elsewhere in the squad. No matter how you look at it Liverpool wasted a massive amount of money.

Wasn't Llambias quoted bragging that they only accepted after taking the whole fee in one whack, with interest the longer Liverpool delayed it? Wouldn't believe a word that cunt says tbh. Just seem to remember reading it was £30m and then another £5m for goals and appearances and the like, only reason I ask is that I was thinking that £5m may well not be forthcoming if that's the case. http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-Andy-Carroll-cost-a-highly-unusual-30million-up-front-plus-25-of-any-sell-on-fee-as-Newcastle-played-hardball-on-transfer-deadline-day-article700813.html Hmm. Don't remember anything about appearances or goals. Just £30m up front, £5m later and some kind of 25% sell on fee AFAIR.

Slowly but surely it's sinking in, you might also want to read what harry Redknapp said about the deal and our claims he was never for sale. I'm amazed that you believe that, I really am

Total and utter cock head.

He'll generally get more space against those 2 teams, though. The looped ball took a big deflection too. Not trying to piss on his contribution, he's done OK. He'll get more space against the likes of Manure but he'll also get less time on the ball (due to the whole team having little possession). Also I don't think space is something he relishes. He's the kind of player who likes defenders to get close and commit themselves.

Yeah £120m is nowt man... to Man City

How is that the best chance when the keeper saves it without even trying if they don't dive out of the way, happened today and all the time. Putting it hard in the corner where the keeper has no chance of reaching is obviously the best chance. Yep the way Shola takes penalties is the best chance of scoring Hard into the corner bending away from the keeper (same way Shearer used to do it). The way Carroll tried to take it might be the best strategy if you're terrible at penalties though, even then he fucked it up by not hitting it high enough.

Maybe its a call for Adam to get some exercise so he can drop a few stone?

Just another reason to hate the classless fuckers.

He's going too be in no position to congratulate himself on his prediction if we do lose. He's said "Newcastle have done well but this is where it ends" for 4 of our last 5 games and been wrong every time.

No cigar. He said that last week, and the week before, and two weeks before that, and the week before that. Yeah you just keep saying it until you finally have to be right you worzel gummidge looking cunt.