Toonpack Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 I suppose it's all different now because he has 35m is it? Well my supposition is that we'll end the window once again lacking the reinforcements we clearly need in key areas and I base this on Mike Ashley's history in the transfer market since he took over the club. It is significantly different now, not because of the £35Mill particularly (although it helps). BUT in the previous windows the club was on its arse financially, now it most certainly is not. So we'll reinvest IF he intends to try and push on or we won't if he just wants to tread water and recoup some of his loans. Either way, his true intentions will be seen this summer. Which way will he go, I don't know, I hope it's the former. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Dalglish and the Liverpool board did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Dalglish and the Liverpool board did. Only because they got £50m for Torres. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 If they play Gerrard next season in a Joey Barton role, Carroll will easily get 20 goals , barring injuries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 If they play Gerrard next season in a Joey Barton role, Carroll will easily get 20 goals , barring injuries. I hope they do. As Gerrard will no doubt spit his dummy out, like he did when Benitez played him there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Dalglish and the Liverpool board did. Only because they got £50m for Torres. Still deemed it worthy of spending £35m on it on a striker who'd only had one half season performing well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maze Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Dalglish and the Liverpool board did. Only because they got £50m for Torres. Still deemed it worthy of spending £35m on it on a striker who'd only had one half season performing well. They are actually debating that on the l'pool-forum-link on the prev. page. Thats why I said it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Dancer Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 To be honest, I'm glad we sold him when we did. If we had held on till the summer we wouldnt have got near £35million, and in hindsight his injury was a lot worse than everyone thought, so we wouldn't have had him available much regardless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Dalglish and the Liverpool board did. Only because they got £50m for Torres. Still deemed it worthy of spending £35m on it on a striker who'd only had one half season performing well. The Liverpool owners craic was the Torres deal had to be £15m more than what we were asking for Carroll (meaning they could buy Carroll and Suarez for £0 investment). It wasn't Liverpool that paid the £35m it was Chelsea, via Torres. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Dalglish and the Liverpool board did. Only because they got £50m for Torres. Still deemed it worthy of spending £35m on it on a striker who'd only had one half season performing well. The Liverpool owners craic was the Torres deal had to be £15m more than what we were asking for Carroll (meaning they could buy Carroll and Suarez for £0 investment). It wasn't Liverpool that paid the £35m it was Chelsea, via Torres. so the money didn't come from chelsea really, but abramovich, in fact not even from him but from the banks and investments that he's made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Dalglish and the Liverpool board did. Only because they got £50m for Torres. Still deemed it worthy of spending £35m on it on a striker who'd only had one half season performing well. The Liverpool owners craic was the Torres deal had to be £15m more than what we were asking for Carroll (meaning they could buy Carroll and Suarez for £0 investment). It wasn't Liverpool that paid the £35m it was Chelsea, via Torres. How do you work that? They paid 26.5m for Suarez. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Babel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Dalglish and the Liverpool board did. Only because they got £50m for Torres. Still deemed it worthy of spending £35m on it on a striker who'd only had one half season performing well. The Liverpool owners craic was the Torres deal had to be £15m more than what we were asking for Carroll (meaning they could buy Carroll and Suarez for £0 investment). It wasn't Liverpool that paid the £35m it was Chelsea, via Torres. How do you work that? They paid 26.5m for Suarez. It was £22.8m they paid for Suarez, plus they got money for Ryan Babel, so they pretty much broke even Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Dalglish and the Liverpool board did. Only because they got £50m for Torres. Still deemed it worthy of spending £35m on it on a striker who'd only had one half season performing well. The Liverpool owners craic was the Torres deal had to be £15m more than what we were asking for Carroll (meaning they could buy Carroll and Suarez for £0 investment). It wasn't Liverpool that paid the £35m it was Chelsea, via Torres. How do you work that? They paid 26.5m for Suarez. If you chuck in the £6m they got for Ryan Babel it comes out just about even...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 What those three said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Christ aye forgot about him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Oh quite a few on this very thread said that he was worth more than 35M because he is one of the best strikers in the world....bunch of clowns! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Dalglish and the Liverpool board did. Only because they got £50m for Torres. Still deemed it worthy of spending £35m on it on a striker who'd only had one half season performing well. The Liverpool owners craic was the Torres deal had to be £15m more than what we were asking for Carroll (meaning they could buy Carroll and Suarez for £0 investment). It wasn't Liverpool that paid the £35m it was Chelsea, via Torres. So what you are saying is that we refused to even discuss a transfer unless it was for something insane like £35m (fair play to Ashley for that then), the bin dippers then wen't to Chelsea and Chelsea said, aye, no bother, we'll just go up to £50m then, gave Liverpool the dosh, who then despite not valuing Carroll anywhere near £35m said to us, here you go, go nuts. Brilliant! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Dancer Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 I bet this big greasy bastard is back within 4 years. Can see him failing there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuv Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 I bet this big greasy b****** is back within 4 years. Can see him failing there. This, but probably around 5 or 6 years after leaving Liverpool to go to Blackburn or some s*** like that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Dancer Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 I bet this big greasy b****** is back within 4 years. Can see him failing there. This, but probably around 5 or 6 years after leaving Liverpool to go to Blackburn or some s*** like that And we'll get a nice 25% of whatever team he goes to next pays for him. Win-Win Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Or a 25% discount or whatever when we buy him back for £15m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Or a 25% discount or whatever when we buy him back for £15m. Long live Hooky street. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 He's good, but imo certainly not £35-mill-good. And I think we will see that next season. I don't think anyone really classes him as worth £35m, the fee was just a result of the crazy Torres transfer. Dalglish and the Liverpool board did. Only because they got £50m for Torres. Still deemed it worthy of spending £35m on it on a striker who'd only had one half season performing well. The Liverpool owners craic was the Torres deal had to be £15m more than what we were asking for Carroll (meaning they could buy Carroll and Suarez for £0 investment). It wasn't Liverpool that paid the £35m it was Chelsea, via Torres. So what you are saying is that we refused to even discuss a transfer unless it was for something insane like £35m (fair play to Ashley for that then), the bin dippers then wen't to Chelsea and Chelsea said, aye, no bother, we'll just go up to £50m then, gave Liverpool the dosh, who then despite not valuing Carroll anywhere near £35m said to us, here you go, go nuts. Brilliant! Aye, pretty much. Liverpool owner John W Henry has claimed the club did not care what they had to pay for striker Andy Carroll, as long as they emerged with £15million in cash left over after the sale of Fernando Torres to Chelsea. Liverpool have come in for criticism after lavishing £35million on Newcastle to bring the unproven Carroll to Anfield but Henry said the size of the fee was not a concern as it was always factored in to negotiations with Chelsea. "The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry told The Guardian. "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." http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/04022011/63/henry-explains-carroll-fee.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Why were they so set on there being a difference of £15m though? Why not 20, or 25, or 10? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts