We did pay 16 million pounds for millner! Ireland was an accademy player so cost us nothing so we paid 16 million pounds for him.

Check your facts!

And sorry but Anderson is garbage, how much did you pay for him?

Are you honestly saying he's better than Milner?

Anderson is better than Milner. He has suffered injuries but is miles better.

Milner is just garbage, complete garbage and he didn't cost 16m

Go on then how much cash did city pay for him or is this one of them you believe what you read in the papers when it's about someone else's player.

Anderson is garbage Milner isn't!

I ask again how much was Anderson!

25 million ouch for a fat injury prone donkey.

Give me 16 million pound Milner any day.

comment by Metro_ (U6770)

Liverpool did not once say that they will pay 35 million for Carroll.

Liverpool said to Chelsea "go and sign Carroll and give us 15 million on top if that in cash"

John Henry himself said this
--------------------------------

Thanks for that Metro - very interesting. First time I have seen that.

comment by Cityblueloz we don't need a singing section,! (U6305)
posted 42 minutes ago
25 million ouch for a fat injury prone donkey.
-------------------------------

Wasn't it £18m?

As for his ability - he is better than Milner. However, Milner has been the better signing due to Anderson's injuries. Don't forget that the Brazilian was one of the hottest young talents in football when we signed him. Unfortunately SAF saw fit to try and instil a more defensive approach to him and it seems to have impacted on his attacking game.

comment by Metro_ (U6770)

Liverpool did not once say that they will pay 35 million for Carroll.

Liverpool said to Chelsea "go and sign Carroll and give us 15 million on top if that in cash"

John Henry himself said this
--------------------------------

Thanks for that Metro - very interesting. First time I have seen that.

--------------

no problem

It just shows that on that final day of the window, the real negotiations were between Newcastle and Chelsea.

Liverpool stood to make 15 million regardless of what Newcastle asked for Carroll - it was Chelsea who were having to up the offer because they were desperate to land Torres

"The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry said, explaining that Liverpool wanted Carroll, plus £15m, to replace Torres. Together with the £6m sale of Ryan Babel to Hoffenheim, that effectively financed Liverpool's £22.8m signing of Luis Suárez, meaning the club bought two strikers but net, spent almost nothing. "The negotiation for us was simply the difference in prices paid by Chelsea and to Newcastle," Henry said. "Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/feb/04/john-w-henry-interview-liverpool

---------------

Liverpool have been heavily criticised but those who know how the deal really occured can see that Liverpool actually conducted decent business.

You have to remember, getting 50 million for a player who hadn't performed for the best part of 18 months including a dire world cup was fantastic

Liverpool did not once say that they will pay 35 million for Carroll.

Liverpool said to Chelsea "go and sign Carroll and give us 15 million on top if that in cash"
------------------------------------------------------------

If you believe that, you'd believe him if he said the moon was made of cheese.

As that's the most pathetic excuse for over paying for a player that I've ever heard.

As if he'd allow the Torres fee to be "irrelevant", utter tosh

Getting 50Mill for Torres was genius. Spending 35Mill on AC was not. Putting it in the bank with a promise to spend it in the summer would have made far more sense.

>>Getting 50Mill for Torres was genius. Spending 35Mill on AC was not.

We didn't get 50 for Torres and we didn't spend 35 on Carroll. We were an uninvolved 3rd Party in the process.

See Metro's post.

comment by redconn > (U5676)
------

Toblerone Boots is clueless mate

he'd argue black is white

>>he'd argue black is white

just don't tweet that on Rio's account

Getting 50Mill for Torres was genius. Spending 35Mill on AC was not. Putting it in the bank with a promise to spend it in the summer would have made far more sense.
------------------

I agree, but if you believe what Henry said, Carroll's fee was always dependent on what we negotiated for Torres. It was the panic buying that was crazy but given that none of us were privy to the negotiations and how the three clubs sorted out the arrangements, what Henry said makes sense. If it was a three way deal the price for Carroll was always going to be inflated - the more we gt for Torres, the more Newcastle wanted for Carroll.

If it did work out like that then there wouldn't have been an option to just sell Torres and keep hold of the money until the summer.

metro - you sad donk, you don't even realise that you contradicted yourself in your tragic defence of the Carroll fee.

As you said;

"You have to remember, getting 50 million for a player who hadn't performed for the best part of 18 months including a dire world cup was fantastic "

After having said that the fee for Torres was somehow irrelevant as you'd just asked for £15M plus Carroll "sort the figures yourself lads"

Absolute nonsense

"

I have serious concerns about FSG's business acumen if their response to receiving a grossly inflated fee for one player is to pay an even more grossly inflated fee for another.

Signing AC wasn't a mistake. Signing Carroll for 35Million was a huge mistake. A mistake that apparently the owners admit to. So why did Comolli lose his job?

After having said that the fee for Torres was somehow irrelevant as you'd just asked for £15M plus Carroll "sort the figures yourself lads"
------------

You have to remember, getting 50 million for a player who hadn't performed for the best part of 18 months including a dire world cup was fantastic

--------------------

That doesn't change the fact that Liverpool sold Torres for 50 million does it.

What we're saying is that It is irrelevant only when criticising the Carroll fee.

Keep up

you really do cling onto any little tidbit in the hope that you can grab some scant consolation.

JB, there may have been some sort of 3 way gentleman's agreemtn in place but FSG should never have allowed themselves to be bound to an agreement that made them look so bad.

>>I have serious concerns about FSG's business acumen if their response to receiving a grossly inflated fee for one player is to pay an even more grossly inflated fee for another.

I'd be concerned if that had happened.

It didn't so why worry about it?

That doesn't change the fact that Liverpool sold Torres for 50 million does it.
--------------------------------------------------------------

According to you it was nothing at all to do with LFC, Chelsea & the Toon sorted out the fee, so how is it of any relevance you ?

As all you lot supposedly wanted was Carroll plus £15M so the fees for both players didn't matter apparently

& yet you still want to proclaim that £50M was a great piece of business???

You're that thick you can't see the contradiction.

By the way, the Yanks covering of that awful deal, was pathetic. Is he seriously expecting anyone (aside from you obviously ) that the cash that Chelsea were to pay HIS business was irrelevant? So if Newcastle had of said £50M or nothing for Carroll & Chelsea were then prepared to have paid £65M for Torres, that he'd have sanctioned it without question? Absolute shight.

Redconn, My understanding is that we got a grossly inflated fee for Torres (50Mill) and paid an even more grossly inflated fee (35Mill) for AC.

Can you explain which of these didn't actually happen?

JB, there may have been some sort of 3 way gentleman's agreemtn in place but FSG should never have allowed themselves to be bound to an agreement that made them look so bad.
---------------
You're right. I think they're learning as they go. It was their first big foray into the transfer market and they surely must have had someone advising them. Had Carroll performed well last season we wouldn't be having this discussion but hindsight is always 20/20!

FSB (U11355)

We received an inflated fee for Torres because of the inflated fee of Carroll.

We didn't buy Carroll at an inflated fee just because we received an inflated fee for Torres.

There is a subtle yet important differance.

both happened

But you were saying Chelsea gave us 50 mil then we sat around saying "what to do.....what to do..oooh. I know lets go bid 35 mil for Carroll"

Which didn't happen at all.

We told Chelsea and Newcastle that we don't give a monkeys what prices you come up with, the only deal that we will accept is if we end up with Carroll and 15 mil. Otherwise we just keep Torres and you cna both p(ss off.

That is what happened.

Whatever spin you try to put on it it was a horrendous bit of business.

If I sold a ferrari for twice what it was worth I wouldn't feel justified in paying 3 times over the odds for a ford fiesta.

The owners c0cked up big time and I hope they've learnt from their mistakes.