Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 But Liverpool wouldn't have sold Torres if they didn't have a replacement in place. 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.. Suarez deal was already done he was looking forward to playing with Torres. It was the last day of the window, it had to be someone here in the Uk and a club that were willing to sell. If you'd stuck an extra 70% on any strikers transfer value that day you'd have got them. Really? Not too sure about that so late in the day for a replacement. No good having a big fee if it's too late to replace your star player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 But Liverpool wouldn't have sold Torres if they didn't have a replacement in place. 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.. Suarez deal was already done he was looking forward to playing with Torres. It was the last day of the window, it had to be someone here in the Uk and a club that were willing to sell. If you'd stuck an extra 70% on any strikers transfer value that day you'd have got them. Really? Not too sure about that so late in the day for a replacement. No good having a big fee if it's too late to replace your star player. Money talks. Like it did with us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 It was written in to the Torres sale that £35m of the transfer fee must be spent on Carroll. From the timeline of deadline day they bought Carroll before selling Torres, so that's not quite as daft as it appears. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. so, if we had said 50mill liverpool would have agreed providing they got 65mill for torres ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. so, if we had said 50mill liverpool would have agreed providing they got 65mill for torres ? Probably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. so, if we had said 50mill liverpool would have agreed providing they got 65mill for torres ? Probably. aye righto. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 But Liverpool wouldn't have sold Torres if they didn't have a replacement in place. 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.. Suarez deal was already done he was looking forward to playing with Torres. It was the last day of the window, it had to be someone here in the Uk and a club that were willing to sell. If you'd stuck an extra 70% on any strikers transfer value that day you'd have got them. Really? Not too sure about that so late in the day for a replacement. No good having a big fee if it's too late to replace your star player. Money talks. Like it did with us. It never has for LFC, that wasn't the first time Chelsea had been in with a bid for Torres. I can't remember an instance where Liverpool have sold a player just for the money, and not had a replacement deal on. There have been players who wanted to leave and have been sold if the price was right, but not so late in the day and not to our detriment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I doubt you've ever received an offer either where it was so far over what he was worth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I feel this argument's progressed a great deal and we're just moments away from a conclusion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I doubt you've ever received an offer either where it was so far over what he was worth. It would appear that way now, but if he'd have gone to Chelsea and shown what he did for Liverpool in his first two seasons 50 million would have been paltry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. if chelsea were prepared to pay whatever it beats me why you didn't say "we want 60mill" and still give us 35mill or were chelsea only interested if the differential was 15mill ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 This Phil Babb guy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. if chelsea were prepared to pay whatever it beats me why you didn't say "we want 60mill" and still give us 35mill or were chelsea only interested if the differential was 15mill ? Chelsea's first offer was 28 million, it was rejected because Liverpool wanted to keep him, then Torres put in a transfer request. That was when the haggling started between Chelsea, Liverpool and Newcastle. Chelsea's second offer was 35 million, whether they'd have gone over 50 is anyones guess, but they certainly didn't expect to have to go as high as 50, anymore than Liverpool expected to go to 35 million for Carroll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Man, this guy is the archetypal Liverpool fan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 One was an owner with more money than sense, the other was one trying to make a statement to his fans. both fees were mental, we're the biggest winners given we got the upgrade for £35m less 6 months later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 One was an owner with more money than sense, the other was one trying to make a statement to his fans. both fees were mental, we're the biggest winners given we got the upgrade for £35m less 6 months later. At last something we agree on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. if chelsea were prepared to pay whatever it beats me why you didn't say "we want 60mill" and still give us 35mill or were chelsea only interested if the differential was 15mill ? Chelsea's first offer was 28 million, it was rejected because Liverpool wanted to keep him, then Torres put in a transfer request. That was when the haggling started between Chelsea, Liverpool and Newcastle. Chelsea's second offer was 35 million, whether they'd have gone over 50 is anyones guess, but they certainly didn't expect to have to go as high as 50, anymore than Liverpool expected to go to 35 million for Carroll. so, liverpool were prepared way over the odds on carroll because they were getting money off torres ? at any point do you think they may have said "fuck, theese dudes will give us muchos bucks for fernando, why don't we go get (insert name of stellar forward who'd be more worth the cash)........" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. if chelsea were prepared to pay whatever it beats me why you didn't say "we want 60mill" and still give us 35mill or were chelsea only interested if the differential was 15mill ? Chelsea's first offer was 28 million, it was rejected because Liverpool wanted to keep him, then Torres put in a transfer request. That was when the haggling started between Chelsea, Liverpool and Newcastle. Chelsea's second offer was 35 million, whether they'd have gone over 50 is anyones guess, but they certainly didn't expect to have to go as high as 50, anymore than Liverpool expected to go to 35 million for Carroll. so, liverpool were prepared way over the odds on carroll because they were getting money off torres ? at any point do you think they may have said "f***, theese dudes will give us muchos bucks for fernando, why don't we go get (insert name of stellar forward who'd be more worth the cash)........" Too late in the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 then why not hang onto the cash until the summer when the market where its less insane? face facts it was an insane decision to sign carroll and liverpool threw away 35m which could have been much better spent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? 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. if chelsea were prepared to pay whatever it beats me why you didn't say "we want 60mill" and still give us 35mill or were chelsea only interested if the differential was 15mill ? Chelsea's first offer was 28 million, it was rejected because Liverpool wanted to keep him, then Torres put in a transfer request. That was when the haggling started between Chelsea, Liverpool and Newcastle. Chelsea's second offer was 35 million, whether they'd have gone over 50 is anyones guess, but they certainly didn't expect to have to go as high as 50, anymore than Liverpool expected to go to 35 million for Carroll. so, liverpool were prepared way over the odds on carroll because they were getting money off torres ? at any point do you think they may have said "f***, theese dudes will give us muchos bucks for fernando, why don't we go get (insert name of stellar forward who'd be more worth the cash)........" Too late in the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 then why not hang onto the cash until the summer when the market where its less insane? face facts it was an insane decision to sign carroll and liverpool threw away 35m which could have been much better spent We didn't have enough strikers. The owners would have been seen as the new Hicks and Gillet if they would have hung on to the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts