If you can name me a player in the current Liverpool squad, signed more than 10 years ago as a proof that this is the ethos of the club, I'll be mightily impressed.
** Summer Transfer Window 2011/12 Season Rumours/Signings **
- Thread starter Tummy
- Start date
- Status
If you can name me a player in the current Liverpool squad, signed more than 10 years ago as a proof that this is the ethos of the club, I'll be mightily impressed.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
Can I ask a question about Chelsea? How come once they bought Torres, Drogba is now all of a sudden obsolete, he's being treated in the media as if he's some has-been who doesn't have what it takes anymore. He's still a cracking player and can bully even the best defences, great at set pieces too, I don't see what Torres offers that Drogba doesn't.
Of course you paid it, you received £50m, you spent £35m.
It was there, to keep, to wait until the Summer when an authentic £35m striker became available.
Mike Ashley must still be laughing to this day....
As has been explained before, the club specifically wanted Carroll. Whether we could have got him cheaper in the summer is quite possible but I suspect he wouldn't have been a great deal cheaper and the potential saving would have needed to be balanced out against being without a centre forward for 6 months and the advantage of giving Carroll an extra 6 months to settle in.
If Newcastle had wanted 10m for Carroll, Chelsea would have got Torres for closer to 35m.
What ever the outcome we wanted £15mill banked as extra.
As above.
Its not like we said to Chelsea "Okay, 50mill hes yours!" then went to Newcastle and said "Oh, 35mill? done!"
the prices were linked. Had Chelsea not offered enough then we wouldnt of sold Torres, simple as.
We never had our current owners 10 years ago? what a daft thing to say.
You've clearly missed the point.
Whether a player stays at the club for 10 years or is sold after 2 years, it makes no difference to the way you'd value a player when you're buying them.
In Henderson, we've bought a player that potentially is capable of playing for 10+ seasons at a decent level. If in 3 years time he decides he wants to leave or we want to sell him, he'll only be 24 years old which would mean he's still got a good 7 years left in him and as such, would still command a decent transfer fee.
Downing on the other hand will be 30 in 3 years time and will only have a couple of seasons left in him and will command next to nothing in terms of a transfer fee; maybe you could get ~£5m for him, which would mean that 3 seasons has cost you £10m if you manage to buy him for £15m now.
No they wouldn't have. £15m + Carroll may have been our minimum cut off point but there's not a chance in hell that we were letting Torres go for £35m when Chelsea came knocking.
I doubt anyone on here can answer why, at least not unless they are actually employed by Liverpool FC and in the know.
Well done Sherlock, to the extent they made him the 7th most expensive footballer in History.
Irrespective of the inflated fee for Torres, to pay that for Carroll was remarkable, and clearly not in their "plan" as they commenced their bidding significantly below it.
Maybe so, but thats the 'official word' from the owners, so who am i to question it?
We wanted a 'crouch' type striker (but one with talent and / or potential!) the other target we were interested in was Llorente, but he made it perfectly clear he has no intent of leaving Atl Bilbao in the near future, and would then prefer to stay in spain anyway.
Doesn't leave many to chose from does it? .. maybe Gomez, maybe.. but German's (as in league, not nationality) dont tend to come and hit the ground running in the PL.. see a certain City player.
Last edited:
It wasn't a case of at any cost. We specifically wanted him and were willing to go as high as £15m less than what we got for Torres.
Had he cost more than that then I assume we'd have looked else where. I'm not convinced that waiting until the summer would have got him much cheaper either. Newcastle already had offers of ~£25m from Spurs and they knew full well we had £50m from Torres' sale sitting in the bank account. Would they have let him go for less than £30m? I doubt it.
As above, once we decided he was our main target, we had to decide whether it was worth paying a small premium to sign him now over the summer or go without a striker for 5 months and given him less time to settle into the side.
Agreed - I personally feel though that Torres would always of gone for £50m, irrespective of whether Liverpool were going to be mad enough to bid anything more then £10m for the Ian Ormondroyd of the Campsites....
Why?
My my, you are a bitter little villa fan this morning aren't you?
ha-ha! not at all!
"Alex McLeish's Claret and Blue Army".......
Ask Kenny? its a formula he's always used in management. One talented bigger lad and a tricky smaller lad.
Unless your only aiming to lump it long, you need the bigger lad to be talented with his feet, so that rules out pretty much everyone but Carroll (on his PL displays anyway) and Llorente.
ha-ha! not at all!
"Alex McLeish's Claret and Blue Army".......
Haha yeah, i get it
live in Birmingham myself so get it in the ear every day about what you guys want to do to Mr Randy should you end up face to face.Thanks Watson.
Considering you can't grasp why young players command greater fees than ageing players, is it worth explaining that fees paid today can't really be compared to fees 5 years ago (for example) when clubs generated half as much money, meaning he's not really the 7th most expensive player in history?
Go back to the January transfer thread and you'll see I was as staggered as anybody that we paid £35m for Carroll. I'm simply explaining why the club done it, not that I agreed with it.
Was Carroll worth £35m? No but Newcastle knew we wanted him and knew we had a lot of money to spend so that's what it took to get him.
edit: If we're in a situation where we can afford it, would have we been better off refusing to pay and getting our 2nd choice? I'm glad we're now in a position where we can afford to get our first choice targets.
Last edited:
It's quite clear that your "first choice" targets aren't those at the top of the tree - worrying....
- Status