West Ham agree fee in region of £15m with Liverpool for Andy Carroll

[Dave]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.

 

On the pitch we've done better out of it so far, without doubt. But as I said before, until the massive fee we received is directly invested in the playing squad (and no, I don't believe it has been) then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

[ponsaelius]

The Carroll and Torres deals went through in that order, and within an hour of each other on deadline day. Seems to back up Liverpool's claim that they were only able to buy Carroll because they knew the money (and more) was coming in from Chelsea. They did things the sensible way, unlike us.

 

I know where you're coming from, but so far they both look like two of the biggest flops in football history - hardly 'sensible' 

[Dave]

The Carroll and Torres deals went through in that order, and within an hour of each other on deadline day. Seems to back up Liverpool's claim that they were only able to buy Carroll because they knew the money (and more) was coming in from Chelsea. They did things the sensible way, unlike us.

 

I know where you're coming from, but so far they both look like two of the biggest flops in football history - hardly 'sensible' 

 

At least Carroll was on form. Torres had been garbage for about a year.

[Guest]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.

 

On the pitch we've done better out of it so far, without doubt. But as I said before, until the massive fee we received is directly invested in the playing squad (and no, I don't believe it has been) then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

 

The way we're playing with Ba (and I doubt him & Carroll would have worked as a pairing), £10m would have been good value for Carroll looking at it now.

[ponsaelius]

The Carroll and Torres deals went through in that order, and within an hour of each other on deadline day. Seems to back up Liverpool's claim that they were only able to buy Carroll because they knew the money (and more) was coming in from Chelsea. They did things the sensible way, unlike us.

 

I know where you're coming from, but so far they both look like two of the biggest flops in football history - hardly 'sensible' 

 

At least Carroll was on form. Torres had been garbage for about a year.

 

Or you could argue that atleast Torres had been a world class striker in the past and proven it over a number of seasons in the CL, Euros and World Cup...

[Dave]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.

 

On the pitch we've done better out of it so far, without doubt. But as I said before, until the massive fee we received is directly invested in the playing squad (and no, I don't believe it has been) then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

 

The way we're playing with Ba (and I doubt him & Carroll would have worked as a pairing), £10m would have been good value for Carroll looking at it now.

 

I don't buy for a second this notion that we're playing so much slick carpet football these days that Carroll could not have fitted in. Whilst Ben Arfa has had some decent spells, by far our best football (even in defeat) has come with Best or Ameobi on the pitch. I know who I'd rather have. I also think it does our team a massive disservice to imply that we were effectively a clone of Stoke last season, playing long ball up to Carroll over and over. That wasn't the case at all.

[Sifu]

A simple solution (which has probably been mentioned before) to Carroll's problems is Liverpool signing Kevin Nolan.

[Guest]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.

 

On the pitch we've done better out of it so far, without doubt. But as I said before, until the massive fee we received is directly invested in the playing squad (and no, I don't believe it has been) then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

 

The way we're playing with Ba (and I doubt him & Carroll would have worked as a pairing), £10m would have been good value for Carroll looking at it now.

 

I don't buy for a second this notion that we're playing so much slick carpet football these days that Carroll could not have fitted in. Whilst Ben Arfa has had some decent spells, by far our best football (even in defeat) has come with Best or Ameobi on the pitch. I know who I'd rather have. I also think it does our team a massive disservice to imply that we were effectively a clone of Stoke last season, playing long ball up to Carroll over and over. That wasn't the case at all.

 

I just mean the fact Ba is a much better footballer than Carroll tbh.

[Guest Heneage]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.

 

On the pitch we've done better out of it so far, without doubt. But as I said before, until the massive fee we received is directly invested in the playing squad (and no, I don't believe it has been) then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

 

The way we're playing with Ba (and I doubt him & Carroll would have worked as a pairing), £10m would have been good value for Carroll looking at it now.

 

I don't buy for a second this notion that we're playing so much slick carpet football these days that Carroll could not have fitted in. Whilst Ben Arfa has had some decent spells, by far our best football (even in defeat) has come with Best or Ameobi on the pitch. I know who I'd rather have. I also think it does our team a massive disservice to suggest that we were effectively a clone of Stoke last season.

I don't think anyone has claimed were playing carpet football. We are though (at least in my opinion) a more evolved side than when we had Carroll. So often with Carroll we'd just lump it up to him and pray. I'm not sure if it is because of his height but there was this awkward kind of 'we might as well' philosophy.

[Dave]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.

 

On the pitch we've done better out of it so far, without doubt. But as I said before, until the massive fee we received is directly invested in the playing squad (and no, I don't believe it has been) then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

 

The way we're playing with Ba (and I doubt him & Carroll would have worked as a pairing), £10m would have been good value for Carroll looking at it now.

 

I don't buy for a second this notion that we're playing so much slick carpet football these days that Carroll could not have fitted in. Whilst Ben Arfa has had some decent spells, by far our best football (even in defeat) has come with Best or Ameobi on the pitch. I know who I'd rather have. I also think it does our team a massive disservice to imply that we were effectively a clone of Stoke last season, playing long ball up to Carroll over and over. That wasn't the case at all.

 

I just mean the fact Ba is a much better footballer than Carroll tbh.

 

I wouldn't disagree. As mentioned though, Ba has been playing and scoring in a more withdrawn role rather than the target man. Not sure why Carroll and Ba couldn't have worked well. It's not like we couldn't have afforded Ba without selling Carroll either, no matter what the pricks in charge would have us believe.

[Guest]

The goals Ba has scored though have very much been centre-forwards goals. Doubt he'd have been in those positions had Carroll been on the field. Goals we would have looked to get from Carroll last year, Ba has been getting this season, and goals like the first against Blackburn I don't think Carroll has in his locker.

[Dave]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.

 

On the pitch we've done better out of it so far, without doubt. But as I said before, until the massive fee we received is directly invested in the playing squad (and no, I don't believe it has been) then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

 

The way we're playing with Ba (and I doubt him & Carroll would have worked as a pairing), £10m would have been good value for Carroll looking at it now.

 

I don't buy for a second this notion that we're playing so much slick carpet football these days that Carroll could not have fitted in. Whilst Ben Arfa has had some decent spells, by far our best football (even in defeat) has come with Best or Ameobi on the pitch. I know who I'd rather have. I also think it does our team a massive disservice to suggest that we were effectively a clone of Stoke last season.

I don't think anyone has claimed were playing carpet football. We are though (at least in my opinion) a more evolved side than when we had Carroll. So often with Carroll we'd just lump it up to him and pray. I'm not sure if it is because of his height but there was this awkward kind of 'we might as well' philosophy.

 

That's down to the manager to influence IMO. If Pardew feels he couldn't have progressed the team to produce better brand of football with Carroll in the side then fair enough, but I disagree.

[Guest Heneage]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.

 

On the pitch we've done better out of it so far, without doubt. But as I said before, until the massive fee we received is directly invested in the playing squad (and no, I don't believe it has been) then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

 

The way we're playing with Ba (and I doubt him & Carroll would have worked as a pairing), £10m would have been good value for Carroll looking at it now.

 

I don't buy for a second this notion that we're playing so much slick carpet football these days that Carroll could not have fitted in. Whilst Ben Arfa has had some decent spells, by far our best football (even in defeat) has come with Best or Ameobi on the pitch. I know who I'd rather have. I also think it does our team a massive disservice to suggest that we were effectively a clone of Stoke last season.

I don't think anyone has claimed were playing carpet football. We are though (at least in my opinion) a more evolved side than when we had Carroll. So often with Carroll we'd just lump it up to him and pray. I'm not sure if it is because of his height but there was this awkward kind of 'we might as well' philosophy.

 

That's down to the manager to influence IMO. If Pardew feels he couldn't have progressed the team to produce better brand of football with Carroll in the side then fair enough, but I disagree.

Pardew only had him for about 2-3 games didn't he? I mean you're right the blame there falls with Hughton for not trying to evolve the side, but even then how he could have done that with Nolan around is a different discussion for another time.

 

I'm not saying I was happy with the sale of Carroll it was depressing to see him go purely because he was a local talent who looked really good. However from a business perspective I do see why we sold him, he's never going to be worth £35m.

[Dave]

The goals Ba has scored though have very much been centre-forwards goals. Doubt he'd have been in those positions had Carroll been on the field. Goals we would have looked to get from Carroll last year, Ba has been getting this season, and goals like the first against Blackburn I don't think Carroll has in his locker.

 

Why wouldn't he be in those positions?

 

Is it really beyond the realms of possibility that we'd have simply had TWO goalscoring threats on the pitch instead of one? From what I remember most on here went into January last year wanting a striker to partner Carroll and score a few goals of his own. What's the difference?

[Guest]

The goals Ba has scored though have very much been centre-forwards goals. Doubt he'd have been in those positions had Carroll been on the field. Goals we would have looked to get from Carroll last year, Ba has been getting this season, and goals like the first against Blackburn I don't think Carroll has in his locker.

 

Why wouldn't he be in those positions?

 

Is it really beyond the realms of possibility that we'd have simply had TWO goalscoring threats on the pitch instead of one? From what I remember most on here went into January last year wanting a striker to partner Carroll and score a few goals of his own. What's the difference?

 

I think most people wanted someone to play off Carroll. I know Ba has been playing a slightly more withdrawn role, but when it comes down to it I still think he's our main striker. Just my opinion but I don't think Ba & Carroll would have worked.

[Dave]

Not that optimistic then really.

[BottledDog]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.

 

On the pitch we've done better out of it so far, without doubt. But as I said before, until the massive fee we received is directly invested in the playing squad (and no, I don't believe it has been) then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

 

Taking away the sums involved, Chelsea got Torres, Liverpool got Carroll. We got Ba.

 

As you say, on the pitch we have ended up with the more productive striker.

 

Now bring the money back in. On those strikers, Chelsea spent £50m, Liverpool spent £35m, we spent £5m.

 

Again, we have ended up with currently not only the more productive striker but also by far and away the most cost effective.

 

Now bring in the additional money brought into each club, Chelsea, zero, Liverpool £15m, and Newcastle £30m.

 

Well, that looks great too. The irrelevant bit here though is actually where that money ends up seeing as Ashley can always put more in, or of course start to take money out of the club any time he chooses. Whether that money gets spent on other players as you are demanding, is earmarked for wages or running costs, pays off a chunk of our debts, or simply stops the club as an entity racking up further debt to Ashley, it doesn't matter. As long as we are better off, that is all that matters.

 

And again, as it stands, that appears to be the case.

[Dave]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.

 

On the pitch we've done better out of it so far, without doubt. But as I said before, until the massive fee we received is directly invested in the playing squad (and no, I don't believe it has been) then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

 

Taking away the sums involved, Chelsea got Torres, Liverpool got Carroll. We got Ba.

 

As you say, on the pitch we have ended up with the more productive striker.

 

Now bring the money back in. On those strikers, Chelsea spent £50m, Liverpool spent £35m, we spent £5m.

 

Again, we have ended up with currently not only the more productive striker but also by far and away the most cost effective.

 

Now bring in the additional money brought into each club, Chelsea, zero, Liverpool £15m, and Newcastle £35m.

 

Well, that looks great too. The irrelevant bit here though is actually where that money ends up seeing as Ashley can always put more in, or of course start to take money out of the club any time he chooses. Whether that money gets spent on other players as you are demanding, is earmarked for wages or running costs, pays off a chunk of our debts, or simply stops the club as an entity racking up further debt to Ashley, it doesn't matter. As long as we are better off, that is all that matters.

 

And again, as it stands, that appears to be the case.

 

We'd be a fuckload better off with a first team left back on the books right now. Or reasonable centre back cover. Or someone to score goals with Ba, like Pardew wanted. It's not about spending every penny we have (or don't have) on inflated transfer fees, it's about being the best we can be. I don't believe that is the case in this instance.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

At the end of the day, Liverpool spunked away 35m of their money, not Chelsea's money, on Andy Carroll. Bear in mind too that Torres cost them something like 20m plus as well by the way.

 

Regarding benefiting from the Carroll deal. Have we? We are a better team than we were with Carroll but we haven't benefitted from his sale because the money or most of it hasn't been reinvested. Ba and co are the result of contacts and scouting and not the result of selling Carroll or rather the money we got for him.

[Dr.Spaceman]

How do you lot know NUFC's finances inside out?

[Guest Eric]

The buying of Carroll is as Eric has stated, the Liverpool board have said it often enough.  They also wanted to show the fans that they meant what they said and weren't bullshitters.  It was the last day of the window and so they went for Carroll who it seems was available for a price, even though the window was nearly closed.

 

John Henry said after the transfer

 

"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.''

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently not, a conspiracy theory is far more believable.

[Guest]

But we rejected £20m, all the way up to £30m...is he saying that if we had accepted say £20m, then they'd have had just took £35m from Chelsea who had feck all to do with our transfer? Rubbish.

[BottledDog]

In the short term it seemed like we got shafted that day. Losing our best striker while the other two played switch around. I'd argue though in the long term we're really the ones laughing as Ba has scored more than the pair of them.

 

On the pitch we've done better out of it so far, without doubt. But as I said before, until the massive fee we received is directly invested in the playing squad (and no, I don't believe it has been) then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to me.

 

Taking away the sums involved, Chelsea got Torres, Liverpool got Carroll. We got Ba.

 

As you say, on the pitch we have ended up with the more productive striker.

 

Now bring the money back in. On those strikers, Chelsea spent £50m, Liverpool spent £30m, we spent £5m.

 

Again, we have ended up with currently not only the more productive striker but also by far and away the most cost effective.

 

Now bring in the additional money brought into each club, Chelsea, zero, Liverpool £15m, and Newcastle £35m.

 

Well, that looks great too. The irrelevant bit here though is actually where that money ends up seeing as Ashley can always put more in, or of course start to take money out of the club any time he chooses. Whether that money gets spent on other players as you are demanding, is earmarked for wages or running costs, pays off a chunk of our debts, or simply stops the club as an entity racking up further debt to Ashley, it doesn't matter. As long as we are better off, that is all that matters.

 

And again, as it stands, that appears to be the case.

 

We'd be a fuckload better off with a first team left back on the books right now. Or reasonable centre back cover. Or someone to score goals with Ba, like Pardew wanted. It's not about spending every penny we have (or don't have) on inflated transfer fees, it's about being the best we can be. I don't believe that is the case in this instance.

 

As it stands, post Carroll, I think we are a better squad (just) and have invested money beyond the first team as well pretty significantly. We'll just have to wait and see now where the rest of it has gone.

 

I do agree though, we needed more players and better players (as we always have, and always will of course ), and did feel the Carroll money should have seen us make a greater attempt to get them.

[Interpolic]

How much of the fee was up front btw?  Think I remember hearing at the time it was £30m up front and £5m add ons?

[Guest]

How much of the fee was up front btw?  Think I remember hearing at the time it was £30m up front and £5m add ons?

 

Wasn't Llambias quoted bragging that they only accepted after taking the whole fee in one whack, with interest the longer Liverpool delayed it?