AliGupter Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 To be honest we fucking loved Carroll back then and as gutted as i was to see him leave 35m just seemed way way too much than what he's worth, i think the feeling was that we were all upset at the same time we all knew that it was an offer just too good to refuse. Please don't group us all together. I couldn't wait for him to leave and I was celebrating for weeks after the January transfer window. Worst signing of all time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I liked having him in the team, but I never 'loved' him. There were too many stories doing the rounds for my liking, such as the broken hand craic. He's just a wanker, in the same mould as Joey Barton, he won't learn, and when he does, it'll be too late. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 To be honest we fucking loved Carroll back then and as gutted as i was to see him leave 35m just seemed way way too much than what he's worth, i think the feeling was that we were all upset at the same time we all knew that it was an offer just too good to refuse. Please don't group us all together. I couldn't wait for him to leave and I was celebrating for weeks after the January transfer window. Worst signing of all time. 35m! I was laughing, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 It's never nice selling your better players (I should know), but as an outsider, 35m for Andy Carroll is the most ridiculous transfer deal ever, and I think you got by far the better end of that deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 In retrospect, it is a great deal, but at the time he seemed like a world beater. He was young, seemed atheltic, strong and showed passion. Well worth a decent transfer fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 In retrospect it is a great deal, but at the time he seemed like a world beater. He was young, seemed atheltic, strong and showed passion. Well worth a decent transfer fee. got to admit, i thought we'd keep him as he looked like becoming an england player, then sell him when he became a regular for a possible 25mill. to be offered 10mill more than that when really unproven was too much to say no to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 In retrospect, it is a great deal, but at the time he seemed like a world beater. He was young, seemed atheltic, strong and showed passion. Well worth a decent transfer fee. Maybe looking back but thinking about it, Andy Carroll worth as much as Aguero? More than David Silva? Andy Carroll? Seems ridiculous now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Some focking salesman Ashley like. No wonder he had the helicopter revving up and waiting to go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Yeah I agree, but the fact he has flopped and we've improved makes it much easier to swallow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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 fucking hope not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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 fucking hope not. Absolutely no chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Sums it up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Indeed. Especially when you can't really find a positive out of the sale, even a year later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eric Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. of course they were bothered, if they could sell torres for 50mill and get carroll for 25mill then they'd have more cash for other players, towards a new ground, owners pocket or whatever. to think anyone would willingly pay 10mill (for example) over the odds regardless of other transactions is quite simply barking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. common knowledge because the Liverpool board, with their own agenda said so? Reet you are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eric Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. of course they were bothered, if they could sell torres for 50mill and get carroll for 25mill then they'd have more cash for other players, towards a new ground, owners pocket or whatever. to think anyone would willingly pay 10mill (for example) over the odds regardless of other transactions is quite simply barking. Go and read the words of the Liverpool owner then, you clearly know better than him and I can't be bothered to educate you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. of course they were bothered, if they could sell torres for 50mill and get carroll for 25mill then they'd have more cash for other players, towards a new ground, owners pocket or whatever. to think anyone would willingly pay 10mill (for example) over the odds regardless of other transactions is quite simply barking. Go and read the words of the Liverpool owner then, you clearly know better than him and I can't be bothered to educate you. in liverpools position i would have said exactly the same thing as it doesn't make it look as crazy a purchase that it looked even as it was happening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 and the explanation still makes no sense to me just attempts at justifying the most ludicrous transfer ever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eric Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eric Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts