Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 A whole 12k, yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Pays Danny Guthrie for the year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eric Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Slowly but surely it's sinking in, you might also want to read what harry Redknapp said about the deal and our claims he was never for sale. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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? Wouldn't believe a word that cunt says tbh. Just seem to remember reading it was £30m and then another £5m for goals and appearances and the like, only reason I ask is that I was thinking that £5m may well not be forthcoming if that's the case. http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-Andy-Carroll-cost-a-highly-unusual-30million-up-front-plus-25-of-any-sell-on-fee-as-Newcastle-played-hardball-on-transfer-deadline-day-article700813.html Hmm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Slowly but surely it's sinking in, you might also want to read what harry Redknapp said about the deal and our claims he was never for sale. I'm amazed that you believe that, I really am Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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? Wouldn't believe a word that cunt says tbh. Just seem to remember reading it was £30m and then another £5m for goals and appearances and the like, only reason I ask is that I was thinking that £5m may well not be forthcoming if that's the case. http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-Andy-Carroll-cost-a-highly-unusual-30million-up-front-plus-25-of-any-sell-on-fee-as-Newcastle-played-hardball-on-transfer-deadline-day-article700813.html Hmm. Don't remember anything about appearances or goals. Just £30m up front, £5m later and some kind of 25% sell on fee AFAIR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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? Wouldn't believe a word that c*** says tbh. Just seem to remember reading it was £30m and then another £5m for goals and appearances and the like, only reason I ask is that I was thinking that £5m may well not be forthcoming if that's the case. http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-Andy-Carroll-cost-a-highly-unusual-30million-up-front-plus-25-of-any-sell-on-fee-as-Newcastle-played-hardball-on-transfer-deadline-day-article700813.html Hmm. Wait? You even have a 25% sell-on fee? Utterly mental Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eric Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Slowly but surely it's sinking in, you might also want to read what harry Redknapp said about the deal and our claims he was never for sale. I'm amazed that you believe that, I really am I'm not surprised that many on here refuse to believe what the people involved (and not like Redknapp) in the transfer say, the exact chronological order of the transfers backs up and is a patently simple concept. Thousands of years ago almost everyone believed in the man with a beard sitting on a cloud I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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? Wouldn't believe a word that c*** says tbh. Just seem to remember reading it was £30m and then another £5m for goals and appearances and the like, only reason I ask is that I was thinking that £5m may well not be forthcoming if that's the case. http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-Andy-Carroll-cost-a-highly-unusual-30million-up-front-plus-25-of-any-sell-on-fee-as-Newcastle-played-hardball-on-transfer-deadline-day-article700813.html Hmm. Wait? You even have a 25% sell-on fee? Utterly mental It's pretty funny if you like laughing at Liverpool like - they have to sell him for nearly £47m just to make their money back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 The hell are you on about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Slowly but surely it's sinking in, you might also want to read what harry Redknapp said about the deal and our claims he was never for sale. Forgetting the Carroll to Liverpool transfer...do you think Liverpool would have accepted £35m for Torres...and do you think Chelsea would have paid FIFTY million quid if they knew they would? Pile of steaming crap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steggy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Slowly but surely it's sinking in, you might also want to read what harry Redknapp said about the deal and our claims he was never for sale. Reliable lad is Ol' Arry Redknapp http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/3258/harryredknappmugging.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius 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. This is such a stupid way of thinking. They didn't spend Chelsea's money, they've spent their own. It was their £35 million generated by selling one of their most prized assets (a one they invested heavily in in the first place). It is mental because they've spent £35 million on a player who currently barely looks Premier League standard. That £35 million pissed up the wall will almost certainly be the difference between them getting into the CL or not. Honestly, what a crock of shit. I'd expect Liverpool fans to gobble this shite up but not anybody from a neutral standpoint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Slowly but surely it's sinking in, you might also want to read what harry Redknapp said about the deal and our claims he was never for sale. I'm amazed that you believe that, I really am I'm not surprised that many on here refuse to believe what the people involved (and not like Redknapp) in the transfer say, the exact chronological order of the transfers backs up and is a patently simple concept. Thousands of years ago almost everyone believed in the man with a beard sitting on a cloud I suppose. Your belief isn't far off like.. Seriously common now. Liverpool will have known the kind of money Chelsea were prepared to pay (around 50m). They'd have asked Chelsea for that kind of fee no matter what they paid for Carroll. If not they're even crazier then simply spending £35m on Andy Carroll already makes them look. There's no way on earth Liverpool turn around to Chelsea and say "Ok I know you're prepared to pay up to £50m for Torres but we got Carroll for £20m so you can have Torres for only £35m". Also they didn't have to spend anything on Carroll at all, they could have taken £50m for Torres, bought Suarez and had over £30m to spend elsewhere in the squad. No matter how you look at it Liverpool wasted a massive amount of money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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? Wouldn't believe a word that c*** says tbh. Just seem to remember reading it was £30m and then another £5m for goals and appearances and the like, only reason I ask is that I was thinking that £5m may well not be forthcoming if that's the case. http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-Andy-Carroll-cost-a-highly-unusual-30million-up-front-plus-25-of-any-sell-on-fee-as-Newcastle-played-hardball-on-transfer-deadline-day-article700813.html Hmm. Wait? You even have a 25% sell-on fee? Utterly mental I'd be very interested to know the ins and outs of the clause. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 All this seems to depend on Chelsea almost demanding that Liverpool sign Carroll. Chelsea had to pay £50m for him anyway, if they wanted him that badly and the Carroll deal had fallen through would they really have said 'No, deals off, we're only buying him if you sign the big geordie lad'? Liverpool could have got £50m out of them whatever happened, they decided to spend it on Carroll. Lol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 But Liverpool wouldn't have sold Torres if they didn't have a replacement in place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 But Liverpool wouldn't have sold Torres if they didn't have a replacement in place. There's not a cat in hell's chance Liverpool would have turned down £50m for Torres...Carroll or no Carroll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 But Liverpool wouldn't have sold Torres if they didn't have a replacement in place. Suarez could have been the replacement, god knows he's done a hell of a lot more than Carroll. Or they could have spent £35m on any other player, they had £35m to spend, no matter how anyone wants to portray the deal, they spent the £35m at their disposal on Andy Carroll.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 It was written in to the Torres sale that £35m of the transfer fee must be spent on Carroll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? They may have only been offered £30m originally, but at the end of the day they got that up to £50m. They were then free to spend that £50m on anything they wanted, Chelsea couldn't give a fuck what they spend it on they just wanted Torres. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They didn't get offered 50 million though, they were offered 30. The rest depended on the Carroll deal. Why would Liverpool leave themselves short of strikers on the last day of the window? And why would Chelsea go from a £30m bid, to a £50m bid just because of Carroll? Are you saying if we'd rejected £35m and held on for say, £40m that Chelsea would have said, "Oh, go on then, there's £55m you little scamps". Ridiculous man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PhilB Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 But Liverpool wouldn't have sold Torres if they didn't have a replacement in place. Suarez could have been the replacement, god knows he's done a hell of a lot more than Carroll. Or they could have spent £35m on any other player, they had £35m to spend, no matter how anyone wants to portray the deal, they spent the £35m at their disposal on Andy Carroll.. Suarez deal was already done he was looking forward to playing with Torres. It was the last day of the window, it had to be someone here in the Uk and a club that were willing to sell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 But Liverpool wouldn't have sold Torres if they didn't have a replacement in place. Suarez could have been the replacement, god knows he's done a hell of a lot more than Carroll. Or they could have spent £35m on any other player, they had £35m to spend, no matter how anyone wants to portray the deal, they spent the £35m at their disposal on Andy Carroll.. Suarez deal was already done he was looking forward to playing with Torres. It was the last day of the window, it had to be someone here in the Uk and a club that were willing to sell. If you'd stuck an extra 70% on any strikers transfer value that day you'd have got them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts