AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 If it's such a fantastic sum to have in the bank rather than a player of the same worth, why the fuck did Liverpool buy him? Why do clubs pay that money for anyone if it's always better to have the money. He's worth every penny imo. You must know that makes no sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Please explain to me what's so funny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Please explain to me what's so funny. The idea that I'm 'endorsing' that opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 We have £35m to buy a striker in a market where a young lad who's played half a season in the prem is worth £35m and Fernando Torres is worth £50m. Could we attract a player of Carroll's potential, who would accept wages in within our structure as Carroll was apparently willing to? Although it is a massively over inflated price due to him being English, the fact we were apparently 'reluctant' to sell and because it was a last minute buy in the window, with us knowing full well they would have a large sum of money in the bank following the Torres deal. I think we'll struggle to get anyone as good as him, but we should be able to get a more than able striker and another decent player for the money. What I have a problem with, is that we will only spend that £35m (allegedly going to cover wages and fees as well), yet we needed to spend around £20m this summer regardless of who we sold. Now it's looking like Jose will follow suit and leave so we will need another left back in as well. Not overly optimistic about the summer I must say. I'm fairly open minded, but it looks as if those predicting that we're going to become a selling club and MA just wants to asset strip us might actually be right? Who knows, we'll find out by September I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 We have £35m to buy a striker in a market where a young lad who's played half a season in the prem is worth £35m and Fernando Torres is worth £50m. Could we attract a player of Carroll's potential, who would accept wages in within our structure as Carroll was apparently willing to? Although it is a massively over inflated price due to him being English, the fact we were apparently 'reluctant' to sell and because it was a last minute buy in the window, with us knowing full well they would have a large sum of money in the bank following the Torres deal. I think we'll struggle to get anyone as good as him, but we should be able to get a more than able striker and another decent player for the money. What I have a problem with, is that we will only spend that £35m (allegedly going to cover wages and fees as well), yet we needed to spend around £20m this summer regardless of who we sold. Now it's looking like Jose will follow suit and leave so we will need another left back in as well. Not overly optimistic about the summer I must say. I'm fairly open minded, but it looks as if those predicting that we're going to become a selling club and MA just wants to asset strip us might actually be right? Who knows, we'll find out by September I suppose. Nooooooo.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Please explain to me what's so funny. The idea that I'm 'endorsing' that opinion. £35m was a mental amount of money, and still is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 If it's such a fantastic sum to have in the bank rather than a player of the same worth, why the f*** did Liverpool buy him? Why do clubs pay that money for anyone if it's always better to have the money. He's worth every penny imo. If Torres had only went to Chelsea for £35m, Carroll would still be a Newcastle player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Please explain to me what's so funny. The idea that I'm 'endorsing' that opinion. £35m was a mental amount of money, and still is. And where does it say there that I'd rather have money than good players? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 You do endorse the belief that £35 million was too good to turn down though ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 You do endorse the belief that £35 million was too good to turn down though ... Which is different to If it's such a fantastic sum to have in the bank rather than a player of the same worth, why the f*** did Liverpool buy him? Why do clubs pay that money for anyone if it's always better to have the money. He's worth every penny imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Surely it's only a mental amount of money if he's not worth that? For me, he is so there's no way it was 'too good to turn down' when we've now got to find someone as good as him who is willing to accept peanuts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 He's not worth it. Suarez was cheaper and is a better player. I'dve taken a swap for Suarez tbh. If Ajax had decided they want Andy Carroll ofc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Fucking hell accept peanuts? Some people man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Surely it's only a mental amount of money if he's not worth that? For me, he is so there's no way it was 'too good to turn down' when we've now got to find someone as good as him who is willing to accept peanuts. But that's to ignore that decisions about player sales aren't purely based on the effect on the squad... the club's finances also have to be considered. I wish we could just ignore money, never sell a good player and go around buying whoever we want. But we can't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 No way in the world Carroll will get less goals than Suarez and he is also phenomenal at bringing others into play. As the perfect Premier League striker, Carroll is it imo, or at least will be two years down the line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Relative peanuts obviously. A new signing of Carroll's calibre, you're looking at 80k a week minimum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 No way in the world Carroll will get less goals than Suarez and he is also phenomenal at bringing others into play. As the perfect Premier League striker, Carroll is it imo, or at least will be two years down the line. Yep, sadly there's no doubt in my mind that he'll be amazing for Liverpool, especially if they sort their midfield out a bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 its only too good to turn down if you prefer money in the bank to quality on the pitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanSkÃrare Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 There are loads of strikers his size that doesn't have his movement, determination or hunger. There is some sort of rare urgency about him, and add that super left foot and his no-nonsense mentality - surely there won't be many strikers like him around in the coming 10 years. A rare player that I think will certainly be worth every penny for them. Like Wullie just said, the perfect Premier League striker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Or you prefer 35m being spent on making the team stronger in many areas rather than putting all our eggs in one greasy charver basket. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 its only too good to turn down if you prefer money in the bank to quality on the pitch Precisely. Andy Carroll is probably going to be one of the best strikers in the world. Let's say we spend £25 million on two strikers (which probably won't happen) who's to say they will be as good as he is/could be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Relative peanuts obviously. A new signing of Carroll's calibre, you're looking at 80k a week minimum. And we might give it to him. Just like we'd have given it to Carroll if he'd waited four months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Or you prefer 35m being spent on making the team stronger in many areas rather than putting all our eggs in one greasy charver basket. thats bollocks though, we wouldnt be putting all our eggs in one basket by not selling a player. there should have been money available to strengthen the squad without the 35m we got for carroll, you and i both know we wont spend more than that though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 its only too good to turn down if you prefer money in the bank to quality on the pitch Precisely. Andy Carroll is probably going to be one of the best strikers in the world. Let's say we spend £25 million on two strikers (which probably won't happen) who's to say they will be as good as he is/could be? Who's to say they won't be? Fact is, we don't know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 its only too good to turn down if you prefer money in the bank to quality on the pitch Precisely. Andy Carroll is probably going to be one of the best strikers in the world. Let's say we spend £25 million on two strikers (which probably won't happen) who's to say they will be as good as he is/could be? So AC will blatantly be one of the best strikers in the world, but "who's to say" if the replacements will have as much potential. "Who's to say" that AC will become the world's best striker?? People are so very blinded with AC. He's not proven by any means, he's just as unproven as any potential replacement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts