Captain... Posted 25 January 2012 Posted 25 January 2012 True, but at the same time, Torres is a proven goalscorer and Spanish international (still 60 in 100 at PL level I think) who's going through a (very) bad run of form. Chelsea also have a lot more money to burn then most clubs. While in hindsight, the Chelsea transfer was clearly an awful idea, you can understand the reasoning behind it. But it doesn't mean Liverpool had to stupidly throw money away. Andy Carroll had half a season in the premiership, and a pretty good season in the championship. For £5m less, they could have bought David Silva. When you put it like that it is ridiculous. at the time though Liverpool needed a centre forward to replace Torres, and they needed him fast, Carroll was one of very few available and they paid well over the odds for him, they also knew that Torres was past his best he hadn't been playing well that season and was getting very sulky and disruptive.
Guest Col city fan Posted 25 January 2012 Posted 25 January 2012 I for one have only praise for the owners for realising when we did that throwing loads of cash at unwanted big money players is not the way forward and building a team under Pearson who knows what he is doing when it comings to scouting new up and coming players is a far better prospect to move foward. Not a dig at Sven because he did bring in a few excellent players but to me it seems like the club is doing everything 100% right at the moment and learning from its mistakes I agree....
Jace Posted 25 January 2012 Posted 25 January 2012 I agree.... You are worrying me Col first Seenitall and now me by the end of the season the whole forum will be agreeing with each other
jonlcfc1990 Posted 25 January 2012 Posted 25 January 2012 You are worrying me Col first Seenitall and now me by the end of the season the whole forum will be agreeing with each other Your right.
Guest Col city fan Posted 25 January 2012 Posted 25 January 2012 You are worrying me Col first Seenitall and now me by the end of the season the whole forum will be agreeing with each other Fooks sake! You really think that will happen! You're wrong... There, I'm dissin ya...
ajthefox Posted 25 January 2012 Posted 25 January 2012 Neither . Pearson just wants to recruit the RIGHT players . Thread should've ended after this, there's nothing more to explain.
ajthefox Posted 25 January 2012 Posted 25 January 2012 Torres at his best could warrant that 50 mil Chelsea spent, Carroll will never come close to the 35 Liverpool spent.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 25 January 2012 Posted 25 January 2012 i think we should just buy or loan any player we possibly can, so those that are missing sven will think he's still here
Guest ttfn Posted 25 January 2012 Posted 25 January 2012 When you put it like that it is ridiculous. at the time though Liverpool needed a centre forward to replace Torres, and they needed him fast, Carroll was one of very few available and they paid well over the odds for him, they also knew that Torres was past his best he hadn't been playing well that season and was getting very sulky and disruptive. Sorry, this just doesn't stack up. Carroll had a medium-term injury when Liverpool signed him. As for the Carroll + £15 million = Torres business, that's also utter guff. The £35 million spent on Carroll was independent of the £50 million received for Torres. Chelsea would have paid that anyway. Given that there's a premium for January transfers and Carroll was injured anyway for the next 2 months, signing Carroll at all at that time of year was madness. They didn't need a new striker (they had just signed Suarez) and Carroll's value would have been lower in the summer, with Liverpool less "desperate" (although, as I've said, they weren't desperate) to get him in quickly as they would have more time to negotiate the price down. Also, even if Liverpool did need another striker, had they not heard of the loan market? They signed a player they didnt need and couldn't use and paid an exorbitant premium for him. They also would have saved £2 million in wages if they'd waited until summer. It's so bizarre you can't help but wonder if something dodgy was going on.
flowwolf Posted 25 January 2012 Posted 25 January 2012 When you put it like that it is ridiculous. at the time though Liverpool needed a centre forward to replace Torres, and they needed him fast, Carroll was one of very few available and they paid well over the odds for him, they also knew that Torres was past his best he hadn't been playing well that season and was getting very sulky and disruptive. Yeah carroll is not past his best he can't be because he has never been at his best. one good season at Newcastle and he ends up being a bigger flop than my belly on a sunbed
Captain... Posted 25 January 2012 Posted 25 January 2012 Sorry, this just doesn't stack up. Carroll had a medium-term injury when Liverpool signed him. As for the Carroll + £15 million = Torres business, that's also utter guff. The £35 million spent on Carroll was independent of the £50 million received for Torres. Chelsea would have paid that anyway. Given that there's a premium for January transfers and Carroll was injured anyway for the next 2 months, signing Carroll at all at that time of year was madness. They didn't need a new striker (they had just signed Suarez) and Carroll's value would have been lower in the summer, with Liverpool less "desperate" (although, as I've said, they weren't desperate) to get him in quickly as they would have more time to negotiate the price down. Also, even if Liverpool did need another striker, had they not heard of the loan market? They signed a player they didnt need and couldn't use and paid an exorbitant premium for him. They also would have saved £2 million in wages if they'd waited until summer. It's so bizarre you can't help but wonder if something dodgy was going on. I was living with a die hard liverpool fan at the time, and spent many a beer discussing it, they were pursuing Carroll anyway, but were put off by the price tag, then Chelsea came in with a crazy bid for Torres that they couldn't turn off, especially as Torres pretty much put in a transfer request on deadline day. Liverpool would never have bought Carroll if it wasn't for selling Torres, and wouldn't have bought him if they had got so much money. It was also quite soon after Dalgleish was appointed and was seen as a gesture by the owners that they were backing him, despite selling Torres. At the time Carroll's injury was thought to be very minor at the time, a couple of weeks at most, it then developed into a more persistant injury and probably contributed to his poor form when he came back, he still scored before Torres did though. It was nothing dodgy, it was a bad buy, but it was only made possible because Chelsea paid an obscene amount of money Torres.
psychonaut Posted 26 January 2012 Posted 26 January 2012 Or praps it's just a case of they went home for their new year. And on arrival at the airport Top said to his dad whats that king power place dad? Son that's our business the family one that made it possible for you to buy LCFC. Or praps after spending all the money they have they just thought ohhhhhhh fvck it we are bored with LCFC now we'll just stay here and forget about it.
seenitall Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Fooks sake! You really think that will happen! You're wrong... There, I'm dissin ya... Won't happen - or will it?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.