West Ham agree fee in region of £15m with Liverpool for Andy Carroll

[madras]

And just to compound things, you'd make sure Chelsea confirm the same thing 

 

I'm not surprised people find it easier to believe a ridiculous conspiracy theory than a perfectly logical explanation everyone seems to agree actually happened and the mechanics of the deal fit 

 

Money grabber Carroll, saint Mike and Dekka got us £35m quid for a bore hole 

didn't carroll put in a transfer request because we wouldn't give him a rise.

 

had we asked for 50mill do you still think it would've gone through ?

[jdckelly]

whats ridiculous about the notion that Liverpools scouting is just stupid and they got ripped off due to their stupidity

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Either way they sanctioned an insane signing. The fact they were bringing money in at the same time doesn't make it that much better IMO.

 

If they thought the difference between the two sales was £15m and they got it, why is it mental? Chelsea are the club that got stung, not Liverpool. They managed to get Suarez out of the whole scenario and he's as good as the two combined, even if he is a detestable creature.

 

 

I don't see it like that really, I think the link between the two transfer was more like "we managed to get a big fee for our player, so therefore we can stretch to the massive fee Mike Ashley is asking for for Carroll".

 

I agree the two deals were linked, but it doesn't make it any better. They could have equally spent the Torres money on someone they actually needed.

 

[Guest Eric]

And just to compound things, you'd make sure Chelsea confirm the same thing 

 

I'm not surprised people find it easier to believe a ridiculous conspiracy theory than a perfectly logical explanation everyone seems to agree actually happened and the mechanics of the deal fit 

 

Money grabber Carroll, saint Mike and Dekka got us £35m quid for a bore hole 

didn't carroll put in a transfer request because we wouldn't give him a rise.

 

had we asked for 50mill do you still think it would've gone through ?

 

No he didn't, he asked for a payrise to reflect the value they placed on him and knew how much Liverpool would pay him as they allowed him to speak to them, he was a pawn in all of this, not the instigator, but you clearly want to believe their lies, even though you know it's lies and they've admit to lying to us.

 

As long as Chelsea were prepared to pay £65m, why not, it's exactly the same deal to them.

[Guest Eric]

Either way they sanctioned an insane signing. The fact they were bringing money in at the same time doesn't make it that much better IMO.

 

If they thought the difference between the two sales was £15m and they got it, why is it mental? Chelsea are the club that got stung, not Liverpool. They managed to get Suarez out of the whole scenario and he's as good as the two combined, even if he is a detestable creature.

 

 

I don't see it like that really, I think the link between the two transfer was more like "we managed to get a big fee for our player, so therefore we can stretch to the massive fee Mike Ashley is asking for for Carroll".

 

I agree the two deals were linked, but it doesn't make it any better. They could have equally spent the Torres money on someone they actually needed.

 

 

So contrary to all the reports from the people involved, including the players? Ok, but you do have a reputation of being the NO apologist so I'll say goodbye to this thread.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

FFS man, grow up.

 

My point is that however they generated the money, using £35m of it to acquire Andy Carrol was a waste of money, and we got a good deal out of it. That's it, I don't see what I'm supposed to be an apologist for.

[AliGupter]

 

He was a hell of a player for us - that's still the man we lost. When he can't quite recreate that for Lollerpool is funny but it's still very sad we lost one of the bright parts of our recent years.

 

Fact is, we showed during the 2nd half of last season and the first half (almost) of this, that we are a better team without him. People can hang on to the Geordie No. 9 however much they like, he's simply not a very good footballer and was hugely flattered in the first half of last season.

[Zero]

You really better say goodbye to this thread becoz I think you are a scousers.

[madras]

And just to compound things, you'd make sure Chelsea confirm the same thing 

 

I'm not surprised people find it easier to believe a ridiculous conspiracy theory than a perfectly logical explanation everyone seems to agree actually happened and the mechanics of the deal fit 

 

Money grabber Carroll, saint Mike and Dekka got us £35m quid for a bore hole 

didn't carroll put in a transfer request because we wouldn't give him a rise.

 

had we asked for 50mill do you still think it would've gone through ?

 

No he didn't, he asked for a payrise to reflect the value they placed on him and knew how much Liverpool would pay him as they allowed him to speak to them, he was a pawn in all of this, not the instigator, but you clearly want to believe their lies, even though you know it's lies and they've admit to lying to us.

 

As long as Chelsea were prepared to pay £65m, why not, it's exactly the same deal to them.

so a) was yes  and b) was depending on what the clubs valued the players at. liverpool put the 15mill difference in there so it was dependent on what chelsea valued torres at. if chelsea had agreed 60mil for torres would we have turned down 35mill ? do you really think liverpool would have said "we got 60 for torres so we'll have to agree to 45 for carroll.

 

it's what we all down in our minds, like on here saying he isn't worth more than villa or whoever, liverpool didn't want to pay within a certain amount of what they rated carroll at.

[gbandit]

Either way they sanctioned an insane signing. The fact they were bringing money in at the same time doesn't make it that much better IMO.

 

If they thought the difference between the two sales was £15m and they got it, why is it mental? Chelsea are the club that got stung, not Liverpool. They managed to get Suarez out of the whole scenario and he's as good as the two combined, even if he is a detestable creature.

 

This is just plain crap logic Eric. The Suarez line is a completely different argument, there was no way of telling he'd be as good as he is. How can you say Liverpool didn't get stung when they could have forced Chelsea's hand to pay the £50m fee without Carroll being involved. It was their choice what they made Chelsea pay up. This left them with whatever they wanted to outlay on a player purchase. So let's say, £35m of that purchase was always going to go on a player(s). Well, they've spent it, that money no longer exists for them. What they got instead was a player on high wages who has been really shocking for them. They can't spend that money in the next window, so either way you look at it, financial fair play, money in the bank, they got done man. Look at the wider scope of it.

 

You may want to say that theoretically, there was no way of telling Carroll would be this bad but then you'd have to make the point, he'd only really had half a season first team football in the PL. Terrible decision from Liverpool.

 

I say all this and Carroll was my favourite NUFC player from the championship season up until his departure. Even with all the shit flying round about him in the papers, he was an incredibly exciting player, the way he drove us on and dictated games for us. He'll never be like that for Liverpool

[ponsaelius]

Funny when Carroll was scoring goals for us last season I kept fantasing about how good he would be if he had a quality forward buzzing around him/making space and how he'd probably score even more goals. Then you look at him now and how much of a disfunctional partnership him and Suarez are, bizarre.

[Penn]

The fee was mental always, I don't think many people doubted that. To pay £35m for a young lad with very few PL games and a suspect off-field record was basically insane. I'm still amazed that someone in Liverpool sanctioned it.

 

 

They weren't bothered what it cost as it got passed on to Chelsea, if they'd paid £5m Torres would have cost Chelsea £20m, or if Carrol was £50m, Torres would have cost Chelsea £65m, it's only been common knowledge for almost a year.

 

This is complete nonsense man. If Ashley had accepted £20million for Carroll, then by this logic they would have sold Torres for £35million, even though Chelsea were prepared to part with £50million, thus screwing themselves out of £15million for absolutely no logical reason.

 

It's a nonsense excuse designed to justify a ridiculous transfer fee. I thought only Liverpool fans would be thick enough to swallow it.

[Sifu]

 

He was a hell of a player for us - that's still the man we lost. When he can't quite recreate that for Lollerpool is funny but it's still very sad we lost one of the bright parts of our recent years.

Hell be back I reckon, maybe on loan in Jan.

 

I f***ing hope not.

 

Absolutely no chance.

 

Aye, not sure where he would fit in given our current system. I'd probably take him back but he'll need to be content for a place on the bench like.

[Village Idiot]

Somebody in this forum (can't remember who), said at the time of the sale that he'd flop and NUFC would buy him back for single figures in a couple years' time. Given how things are going for him, he may be right.

 

Incidentally, I do think he's a much better player than he's showing right now (although probably not as good as people fantasized after that first half of last season). It strikes me as one of those players that need things to go their way in order to perform, but there's still a good striker in there.

[brummie]

The fee was mental always, I don't think many people doubted that. To pay £35m for a young lad with very few PL games and a suspect off-field record was basically insane. I'm still amazed that someone in Liverpool sanctioned it.

 

 

They weren't bothered what it cost as it got passed on to Chelsea, if they'd paid £5m Torres would have cost Chelsea £20m, or if Carrol was £50m, Torres would have cost Chelsea £65m, it's only been common knowledge for almost a year.

 

This is complete nonsense man. If Ashley had accepted £20million for Carroll, then by this logic they would have sold Torres for £35million, even though Chelsea were prepared to part with £50million, thus screwing themselves out of £15million for absolutely no logical reason.

 

It's a nonsense excuse designed to justify a ridiculous transfer fee. I thought only Liverpool fans would be thick enough to swallow it.

 

Indeed it is.

 

Regardless of what Chelsea paid for Torres, at some point Liverpool were faced with this conundrum:

 

"keep this 35 million pounds, or give it to Newcastle for Carroll"

 

I was a bit worried when their new owners came in that they'd start to get things right. That lasted right up until they spent 75m on Andy Carroll, Stewart Downing and Jordan Henderson.

 

mind bogglingly stupid waste of money.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Oh aye, he's still a good player for sure. He's just gone from his home town club to being the star signing at Liverpool, the pressure must be immense and it hasn't worked out for him straight away. It's a big challenge for the lad.

[Village Idiot]

The fee was mental always, I don't think many people doubted that. To pay £35m for a young lad with very few PL games and a suspect off-field record was basically insane. I'm still amazed that someone in Liverpool sanctioned it.

 

 

They weren't bothered what it cost as it got passed on to Chelsea, if they'd paid £5m Torres would have cost Chelsea £20m, or if Carrol was £50m, Torres would have cost Chelsea £65m, it's only been common knowledge for almost a year.

 

This is complete nonsense man. If Ashley had accepted £20million for Carroll, then by this logic they would have sold Torres for £35million, even though Chelsea were prepared to part with £50million, thus screwing themselves out of £15million for absolutely no logical reason.

 

It's a nonsense excuse designed to justify a ridiculous transfer fee. I thought only Liverpool fans would be thick enough to swallow it.

 

Indeed it is.

 

Regardless of what Chelsea paid for Torres, at some point Liverpool were faced with this conundrum:

 

"keep this 35 million pounds, or give it to Newcastle for Carroll"

 

I was a bit worried when their new owners came in that they'd start to get things right. That lasted right up until they spent 75m on Andy Carroll, Stewart Downing and Jordan Henderson.

 

mind bogglingly stupid waste of money.

 

As a fun comparison Silva, Mata and Villa were adquired for a grand total of 85m pounds by their new clubs.

[Guest PhilB]

The buying of Carroll is as Eric has stated, the Liverpool board have said it often enough.  They also wanted to show the fans that they meant what they said and weren't bullshitters.  It was the last day of the window and so they went for Carroll who it seems was available for a price, even though the window was nearly closed.

 

John Henry said after the transfer

 

"The negotiation for us was simply the difference in prices paid by Chelsea and to Newcastle. Those prices could have been £35million [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20million [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.''

 

 

 

 

[Superior Acuña]

The buying of Carroll is as Eric has stated, the Liverpool board have said it often enough.  They also wanted to show the fans that they meant what they said and weren't bullshitters.  It was the last day of the window and so they went for Carroll who it seems was available for a price, even though the window was nearly closed.

 

John Henry said after the transfer

 

"The negotiation for us was simply the difference in prices paid by Chelsea and to Newcastle. Those prices could have been £35million [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20million [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.''

 

 

 

 

 

Don't think people are disputing those events. But they don't make spending £35mil on AC wise. Regardless of process, they used £35mil in their possession on AC.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Don't think people are disputing those events. But they don't make spending £35mil on AC wise. Regardless of process, they used £35mil in their possession on AC.

 

Exactly, I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

[Gallowgate Toon]

Really don't see how anyone can claim he was forced out, it's an illogical argument. What exactly could they have done if he'd said 'no'?

[NEEJ]

Really don't see how anyone can claim he was forced out, it's an illogical argument. What exactly could they have done if he'd said 'no, i'm not going'?

But they tied him up and bundled him into the back of a helicopter and stuff didn't they.

[Guest Heneage]

Somebody in this forum (can't remember who), said at the time of the sale that he'd flop and NUFC would buy him back for single figures in a couple years' time. Given how things are going for him, he may be right.

 

Incidentally, I do think he's a much better player than he's showing right now (although probably not as good as people fantasized after that first half of last season). It strikes me as one of those players that need things to go their way in order to perform, but there's still a good striker in there.

His problem is he's missing that spark he had with us. He was never a world beater but his fight and determination made him a better player and often covered up his technical shortcomings. The fact the crowd here were rather unanimously behind him also helped. I think we were a bit more allowing of his mistakes because we appreciated what he brought. Liverpool fans have no real connection to him he could have been bought from anywhere, and with such an inflated fee they want results now.

 

Unless there is a dramatic turnaround I fully expect him to be sold for a lesser fee in a few years time. I doubt it would be us unless it is below £10m.

[Dave]

The Carroll and Torres deals went through in that order, and within an hour of each other on deadline day. Seems to back up Liverpool's claim that they were only able to buy Carroll because they knew the money (and more) was coming in from Chelsea. They did things the sensible way, unlike us.

[Guest Heneage]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.