wacko

I agree with this when it comes to that 4-3-3 formation, but we won't always be able to stick to that and having Carroll can see us go back to 4-4-2 if others are injured/suspended. Cisse and BA won't be available all season and with ACN and Europe we need to be able to play a few types of formations and first XI's which Carroll can give us a good option for. The strange thing is that my first XI and formation preference would be with Carroll on the bench if we got him, which I suppose leads me to think it's a waste of money to spend nearly £20m on a player to be not first choice if everyone is fit. And I can't believe Ashley would sanction that. My biggest worry about all this is how much input Pardew has. It's all well and good saying that the more good players the better, but you have to be realistic about who's going to be playing almost every week. I think that's the entire point around we have been linked with big money moves for a striker. I don't think there's going to be a set eleven going forward with lots of rotation, it would explain why we want a quality striker and not just a mere back up so when we do decide to rotate the squad the drop off in quality is very small if not at all. It explains our train of thought in the CB chase too, we want someone of similar quality to S.Taylor so we can rotate and we don't lose much quality if at all. In the long run it wouldn't surprise me to see us have a CB, CM and CF with a lot of quality but wont be guaranteed a starting place. As most club's around us do. How many successful teams voluntarily rotate their key players in key positions? All of them at some point. It's impossible to compete in the league, cups and Europe as well if you don't. Look at how Arsenal have blown up in recent seasons because they didn't have any depth in their squad, so their team was shagged out.

This is it. If there are so many better, cheaper alternatives available then why wouldn't we go for them instead? Are people seriously suggesting that we've suddenly decided to throw away all our principles and blow a load of money (that might mean we can't do business in other positions) on someone who we aren't sure is good enough? If we're saying 'trust the scouts/board' then why not trust them on this? People expecting NUFC to carry on with their brilliant dealings in the transfer market. Says a lot that getting £20m for a two-year loan doesn't measure up.

I hear Michael Owen is available on a free.

Surely, but I find it hard to believe that your scouts don't have half a dozen better ideas who to spend £15m on. Name them. Every one of them. Now. But, I'm not one of your scouts!

Surely, but I find it hard to believe that your scouts don't have half a dozen better ideas who to spend £15m on.

I'm sure he does. I was just pointing out that he can't be forced to leave. 'I'm gutted to be leaving my home town club, i was told to go. I didn't want to leave that's why I signed a 5 year deal. I was pushed out of the door.' They always say that, don't they? Never thought about it like that, but it is quite similar Except that Carroll isn't already past it. Maybe.

I'm sure he does. I was just pointing out that he can't be forced to leave.

He doesn't have to demand anything, he can just say "no". A club can't sell a player if he doesn't want to leave. If none of the offers interest him, Carroll can just stay at LFC counting the cash till his contract is up, provided he behaves professionally, like Winston Bogarde did at Chelsea.

How do we know this? Not having a go and I have just based my post on an assumption. Just wondered where the 25% profit came from? That's what I've mostly read, and it makes far more sense than 25% of any sell-on fee. Obviously, Liverpool got taken to the cleaners in this deal, but it's hard to imagine us agreeing to 25% of any transfer fee. Then again, from the word go, we passed on the fee to Chelsea (nobody knows, but I reckon that when Ashley pulled £35m out of his arse, we called up Chelsea and asked for £20m more for Torres. They agreed, we agreed). With that thinking (i.e. someone else is paying), it's possible they agreed to anything If they were daft enough to pay 35 mill then they were probably daft enough to agree to 25% on the fee rather than profit. That's the question, isn't it? You could see any tit agreeing to 25% of any profit, knowing that any profit would be a very unexpected bonus, but agreeing to 25% of any transfer fee, knowing you're paying well over the odds to begin with? That would take abnormal stupidity or desperation … How do we know this? Not having a go and I have just based my post on an assumption. Just wondered where the 25% profit came from? That's what I've mostly read, and it makes far more sense than 25% of any sell-on fee. Obviously, Liverpool got taken to the cleaners in this deal, but it's hard to imagine us agreeing to 25% of any transfer fee. Then again, from the word go, we passed on the fee to Chelsea (nobody knows, but I reckon that when Ashley pulled £35m out of his arse, we called up Chelsea and asked for £20m more for Torres. They agreed, we agreed). With that thinking (i.e. someone else is paying), it's possible they agreed to anything I thought it was 15 million 35 for Carroll 50 for Torres? Wut??? I imagine we were prepared to sell Torres for £30m (he wanted to leave) and pay £15–20m for Carroll. Ashley asked for £35m, and instead of bothering to bargain, we just called Abramovich and said, "£20m more today, or you'll have to wait till summer" (Chelsea wanted him for the CL, remember).

How do we know this? Not having a go and I have just based my post on an assumption. Just wondered where the 25% profit came from? That's what I've mostly read, and it makes far more sense than 25% of any sell-on fee. Obviously, Liverpool got taken to the cleaners in this deal, but it's hard to imagine us agreeing to 25% of any transfer fee. Then again, from the word go, we passed on the fee to Chelsea (nobody knows, but I reckon that when Ashley pulled £35m out of his arse, we called up Chelsea and asked for £20m more for Torres. They agreed, we agreed). With that thinking (i.e. someone else is paying), it's possible they agreed to anything

25% of any profit. So nothing.

Tbf, it was down to injury reasons. Bellamy couldn't really play week in, week out due to his troublesome knee. He'd have started every game if his body had been up to it.

That's not true, he was good for Roma last season. Played his way into the Italy squad. Just seems like a convenient rumour based off them spending a year together at Swansea. I don't see Liverpool spending big on him, and I don't see Roma selling cheap. edit: didn't even spend a year. Spent like 3-4 months. So let me get this straight, we buy the remaining 50% of a player to own him outright just to sell him less then a month later? If he signs for the bin dippers this summer I'll wash my face with my own jizz Your own jizz, you say …

That's so depressing. Absolutely exceptional bit of business on your part.

That's not true, he was good for Roma last season. Played his way into the Italy squad. Just seems like a convenient rumour based off them spending a year together at Swansea. I don't see Liverpool spending big on him, and I don't see Roma selling cheap. edit: didn't even spend a year. Spent like 3-4 months. So let me get this straight, we buy the remaining 50% of a player to own him outright just to sell him less then a month later? If he signs for the bin dippers this summer I'll wash my face with my own jizz On Merseyside now, i nominate wormy or hanz to watch this video I must be slipping.

What's the alternative? Lose £25m on him in two seasons, plus piss a few more million in wages away on him, too? Wages that we could be spending on another player. I'd hold onto him for another season, as he was playing much better towards the end of last season, but if the manager doesn't want him, best to bite the bullet, suck up the huge loss and get shot now.

Haha! You only get a cut of any profit we make selling him on, you know. I can't be the only one who suspects we might even end up making a small loss on the Carroll deal …

Wut?

AFAIK, Berlusconi dropped his name, but that's it.

I believe it's called the Mighty Red If it doesn't have an inflatable tail and rollerblades, I will be very disappointed.

Oops.

English people. I must admit, the Germans' arrogance about their footy team irritates me (they were going on about the "Italy game" as a given before they'd even played Greece), but their lads almost always back it up (they battered Greece, and indeed played Italy). Most English appear to believe their team is 10x better than it is, and the whole thing is a circus. England invariably enters a tournament with a distinctly average side that may be quicker and stronger than most others, but is usually markedly less skillful than the top sides. And typically with a shit manager to boot. By and large, getting out of the group and then flying home is about their level. Even this time around, when we went in with a mediocre, injury-hit squad and a new and very mediocre manager, this lack of expectation was somehow twisted into a strength: this time, the side won't be crushed under the weight of expectation! (the press exclaim, piling on the expectations.)

Most complete midfielder of his generation.... was a cracking player but was unlucky as f*ck I lost count of how many Semi's and final's he lost. He was good. My most abiding memories of him will be him missing the goal from about 5 yards in the 1-5 game against England in Munich and him being driven to perplexed rage by Momo Sissoko and having to be subbed in his first game in England Oh alright then. Him putting Germany into the World Cup final in 2002 when he was suspended. Good job.

Honestly man, what the f*** are these c***s on? TBF, you could read that as an honest appraisal of how shite Liverpool are. That was my first thought, too Gerrard is an immense player, though. No two ways about it.