Mr. Snrub Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Really hurt seeing him score for Liverpool and hearing their fans chant his name. He should be ours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie 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. Eh, how's that like? If it's too good to turn down, surely it's also too much to pay? If you offered Liverpool their money back, they'd fucking turn it down quick enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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. Eh, how's that like? If it's too good to turn down, surely it's also too much to pay? If you offered Liverpool their money back, they'd fucking turn it down quick enough. But we're two different clubs in two different situations. We have an owner who wants to run the club self-sufficiently, and they had just received £50m for Torres. (I would never argue for a player sale if we were just hoarding the money in Ashley's mega-vault) 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. You must know that makes no sense. Eh, how's that like? If it's too good to turn down, surely it's also too much to pay? If you offered Liverpool their money back, they'd f***ing turn it down quick enough. But we're two different clubs in two different situations. We have an owner who wants to run the club self-sufficiently, and they had just received £50m for Torres. Nail on head. Transfer wouldn't have happened if they'd not just received that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie 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. Eh, how's that like? If it's too good to turn down, surely it's also too much to pay? If you offered Liverpool their money back, they'd fucking turn it down quick enough. But we're two different clubs in two different situations. We have an owner who wants to run the club self-sufficiently, and they had just received £50m for Torres. So it's not too much to turn down at all - it's too much to turn down if you have no ambition. That's a pretty big difference imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie 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. You must know that makes no sense. Eh, how's that like? If it's too good to turn down, surely it's also too much to pay? If you offered Liverpool their money back, they'd f***ing turn it down quick enough. But we're two different clubs in two different situations. We have an owner who wants to run the club self-sufficiently, and they had just received £50m for Torres. Nail on head. Transfer wouldn't have happened if they'd not just received that. Nail on head. What is your point exactly? How is that a defence of the sale? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 My point is if they'd not just received £50m for Torres they'd not have offered £35m for Carroll and he'd still be ours. The Liverpool owner has said the intention was to offer £15m less than what they received for Torres before selling him. If Torres was going to Chelsea for say £35m, there's no chance we'd have accepted £20m for Carroll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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. Eh, how's that like? If it's too good to turn down, surely it's also too much to pay? If you offered Liverpool their money back, they'd fucking turn it down quick enough. But we're two different clubs in two different situations. We have an owner who wants to run the club self-sufficiently, and they had just received £50m for Torres. So it's not too much to turn down at all - it's too much to turn down if you have no ambition. That's a pretty big difference imo. Well I try to discuss things based on the reality of the situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Just saw his goals last night. FML Why did you leave Andy?? WHYYYYYY? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 My point is if they'd not just received £50m for Torres they'd not have offered £35m for Carroll and he'd still be ours. The Liverpool owner has said the intention was to offer £15m less than what they received for Torres before selling him. If Torres was going to Chelsea for say £35m, there's no chance we'd have accepted £20m for Carroll. I'm thoroughly confused. They could have offered the full 50, I'd still have told them to fuck off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Thank God you're not chairman then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 My point is if they'd not just received £50m for Torres they'd not have offered £35m for Carroll and he'd still be ours. The Liverpool owner has said the intention was to offer £15m less than what they received for Torres before selling him. If Torres was going to Chelsea for say £35m, there's no chance we'd have accepted £20m for Carroll. I'm thoroughly confused. They could have offered the full 50, I'd still have told them to f*** off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 My point is if they'd not just received £50m for Torres they'd not have offered £35m for Carroll and he'd still be ours. The Liverpool owner has said the intention was to offer £15m less than what they received for Torres before selling him. If Torres was going to Chelsea for say £35m, there's no chance we'd have accepted £20m for Carroll. I'm thoroughly confused. They could have offered the full 50, I'd still have told them to fuck off. Agreed, if you're arguing based on not selling at any price then it doesn't make a difference. Some people just don't think that that's either realistic or possible given our current situation. Personally, I would have rejected the bids, but I can still understand why the actual owner wouldn't in the actual real world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Thank God you're not chairman then. He's living in a fantasy world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Thank God you're not chairman then. He's living in a fantasy world. Living in a fantasy world for wanting Newcastle to keep a good player. This place gets more ridiculous every day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Thank God you're not chairman then. He's living in a fantasy world. What's so fantastic about the idea of hanging on to one of the better strikers in the world?? If we're so desperate for cost-cutting, maybe the attention should be at Alan fucking Smith and Ryan Taylor's wages - that's 80k or whatever for two players who have never performed for us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Wullie, no snipe intended: can you not understand at all why the owner of NUFC at this point in time would decide that £35m would be too good to turn down, or do you just not care about the financial aspect either way? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 The indication is that Liverpool are more ambitious, when in reality they haven't actually spent any money (Carroll + Suarez = Torres). I maintain, wait until the summer and we'll see how much ambition their new owner really has. They sold one of the better strikers in the world and used that money to buy two forwards of equal merit. There's nothing yet to suggest we can't do the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 It's pretty easy to sit here and say "i'd tell them to fuck off", but £35 million to the chairman of a football club is ridiculous money, we can only hope all of the money is put into the club and non taken out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 No doubt you'll translate that as being pro-Ashley. Hall couldn't reject £7m for Cole, Shepherd couldn't reject £13m for Woodgate, Ashley couldn't reject £35m for Carroll. It's the way of the world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Thank God you're not chairman then. He's living in a fantasy world. What's so fantastic about the idea of hanging on to one of the better strikers in the world?? If we're so desperate for cost-cutting, maybe the attention should be at Alan fucking Smith and Ryan Taylor's wages - that's 80k or whatever for two players who have never performed for us. I'm pretty sure neither of those will be getting big new contracts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Thank God you're not chairman then. He's living in a fantasy world. What's so fantastic about the idea of hanging on to one of the better strikers in the world?? If we're so desperate for cost-cutting, maybe the attention should be at Alan f***ing Smith and Ryan Taylor's wages - that's 80k or whatever for two players who have never performed for us. £35m let's us sign a good striker and better players than Smith & Taylor. Chances are if we'd not sold Carroll in January we'd not have been spending big this summer, and those two you mentioned would get a lot more game time in the squad with Carroll and no cash, than a new striker and a few more signings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Wullie, no snipe intended: can you not understand at all why the owner of NUFC at this point in time would decide that £35m would be too good to turn down, or do you just not care about the financial aspect either way? I'm a football supporter. I don't get any pleasure or interest whatsoever out of someone else's bank account. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Thank God you're not chairman then. He's living in a fantasy world. What's so fantastic about the idea of hanging on to one of the better strikers in the world?? If we're so desperate for cost-cutting, maybe the attention should be at Alan f***ing Smith and Ryan Taylor's wages - that's 80k or whatever for two players who have never performed for us. I'm guessing it's not as easy as just going "Can we slash your wages guys?" "Weyaye Mike, we'll play for nowt us man TOON TOON!!!", no-body wants to buy them, they don't want to leave, they don't want to take a pay cut, we cannot terminate there contracts withough paying them a load of compo etc etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 No doubt you'll translate that as being pro-Ashley. Hall couldn't reject £7m for Cole, Shepherd couldn't reject £13m for Woodgate, Ashley couldn't reject £35m for Carroll. It's the way of the world. Hall would have rejected the Cole bid if KK had wanted him to. Woodgate was and is finished and Shepherd knew it. Pair of ridiculous comparisons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts