Wullie Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. Based on what? After he came back from Bolton, he spent another season and a half as a bit part player at Chelsea. We should have laid down £15-20m that summer and got him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiGeordie Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Where do we get linked with Moussa Sow? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Yeah he should've been starting since that season at Bolton. Looked great for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chopey Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. Based on what? After he came back from Bolton, he spent another season and a half as a bit part player at Chelsea. We should have laid down £15-20m that summer and got him. That's what I think we should do now with Lukaku offer £20 million, never happen tho Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. Based on what? After he came back from Bolton, he spent another season and a half as a bit part player at Chelsea. We should have laid down £15-20m that summer and got him. They were always going to give him 2-3 years to develop (see Lukaku). If Chelsea were willing to sell then someone would have bought him back then anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. Based on what? After he came back from Bolton, he spent another season and a half as a bit part player at Chelsea. We should have laid down £15-20m that summer and got him. They were always going to give him 2-3 years to develop (see Lukaku). If Chelsea were willing to sell then someone would have bought him back then anyway. They were always going to give him time to develop before selling him for about half what he's actually worth? Seems a strange policy to have decided on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. Based on what? After he came back from Bolton, he spent another season and a half as a bit part player at Chelsea. We should have laid down £15-20m that summer and got him. They were always going to give him 2-3 years to develop (see Lukaku). If Chelsea were willing to sell then someone would have bought him back then anyway. Chelsea were willing to sell, but they were quoting a price of £20m iirc. If someone had put down a serious bid they would have sold IMO. He was out of our wage bracket in any case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. Based on what? After he came back from Bolton, he spent another season and a half as a bit part player at Chelsea. We should have laid down £15-20m that summer and got him. They were always going to give him 2-3 years to develop (see Lukaku). If Chelsea were willing to sell then someone would have bought him back then anyway. They were always going to give him time to develop before selling him for about half what he's actually worth? Seems a strange policy to have decided on. They've had about 2-3 managers in that time and also signed a few centre-forwards too. If Chelsea were going to let him go back then, someone would have bought him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Well according to Pardew we can't replace Cabaye before he's sold so it sounds like their is nothing in the coffers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Well according to Pardew we can't replace Cabaye before he's sold so it sounds like their is nothing in the coffers There never was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Well according to Pardew we can't replace Cabaye before he's sold so it sounds like their is nothing in the coffers No. we dont need a replacement untill Cabaye has gone. thats all he means Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Yeah, we're not going to sign a Cabaye-like midfielder if he's still here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Well according to Pardew we can't replace Cabaye before he's sold so it sounds like their is nothing in the coffers Or maybe it means we don't want to spend x amount on a player to replace Cabaye unless we're sure he needs to be replaced.. EDIT: Beaten to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Well either way tomorrow we will see. If we don't get anyone in it'll be down to the club being cheap imo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsley Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. Based on what? After he came back from Bolton, he spent another season and a half as a bit part player at Chelsea. We should have laid down £15-20m that summer and got him. Sturridge was on obscene wages at Chelsea though. Absolutely no chance we'd pay close to what he's now on at Liverpool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 You'd have thought as well that if Chelsea were willing to sell him back then, Liverpool would have taken something like £30m plus Sturridge for Torres. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. Based on what? After he came back from Bolton, he spent another season and a half as a bit part player at Chelsea. We should have laid down £15-20m that summer and got him. Sturridge was on obscene wages at Chelsea though. Absolutely no chance we'd pay close to what he's now on at Liverpool. I agree but that's because we're run by a detestable penny pinching cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. That would have depended on how much Chelsea wanted Torres. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Except Sturridge didn't play for Liverpool at the time. We claimed that we knew Chelsea were after Torres and that's who Liverpool were looking to replace with Carroll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. That would have depended on how much Chelsea wanted Torres. You'd think the fact they spent £50m on him suggests they were a tad keen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 You'd have thought as well that if Chelsea were willing to sell him back then, Liverpool would have taken something like £30m plus Sturridge for Torres. Chelsea wanted Torres enough to pay £50 million, I think if Liverpool had wanted him included in the deal then he would have been. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. That would have depended on how much Chelsea wanted Torres. You'd think the fact they spent £50m on him suggests they were a tad keen. Exactly my point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I don't think they would have. Think it was always their intention to loan him out to give him game time then bring him into the squad when he came back, which they did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No way was Sturridge a realistic option after Carroll like. As a loan, yes but we'd not have been able to buy him at that stage. Based on what? After he came back from Bolton, he spent another season and a half as a bit part player at Chelsea. We should have laid down £15-20m that summer and got him. Sturridge was on obscene wages at Chelsea though. Absolutely no chance we'd pay close to what he's now on at Liverpool. I agree but that's because we're run by a detestable penny pinching c***. In this case wages are a relatively valid concern though; if you give a 22 year old with half a decent season in the PL the highest wages in the squad, that's going to upset the entire apple cart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I don't think they would have. Think it was always their intention to loan him out to give him game time then bring him into the squad when he came back, which they did. We'll never know but I doubt they would have tried to hold on to a player they valued at £12million and lost a player they valued at £50 million. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts