I can't believe some of you lot have swallowed that total nonsense.

When in the history of football, has one club done the negotiating for a player that will join a different club?

The came out with that bullshine after the football World was astonished at the £35M fee for Carroll.

Chelsea would have paid £50M for Torres irrespective of what LFC were going to do with the cash, as that's what they paid! Therefore the Yanks story is absolute rot, as they negotiated the fee with Newcastle, as that's how it works! To try & maintain it was anything other than over paying is an insult to the intelligence..................

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.

You really don't understand this do you?

Were we at any point contractually obliged to part with the 35Mill for AC? Did the owners back themselves into a conrner to such an extent that they could not simply take the cash off Chelsea and simply bank it?

>>Whatever spin you try to put on it

You've lost me

what spin

It's incredibly simple.

It was a swap deal for an out of form Torres who put in a transfer request at the death of the transfer window for Andy Carroll + 15 mil.

It doesn't matter if it was 15 for Torres and carroll on a free or a 100 for Torres and 85 for Carroll. That's irrelevant. Or a billion for Torres and 985 million for Carrroll.

Nett is the same. And that is all that matters.

I get it Cobnob. Not sure that you do though. What contractual obligations were we under?

What if it was a 3 way deal and the only way to offload Torres?

Had it not happened ie we didn't buy Carroll, and we kept Torres and let's say he performed for us the way he performed for Chelsea - what do you think would be his asking price this window?

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

precisely

but the general concensus is that 35 million was bad business for Carroll (pay attention to the thread).

Torres' fee of 50 million should be considered good business because of his performances over previous 18 months - but that's only in relation to Carrolls fee.

The contradiction only serves a purpose when you approach it from your deluded angle but not when we're discussing it from the general concensus of the Carroll fee.

You're showing schoolboy logic now Boots

re-read and come back with an apology you dope

In conclusion - I could have said 20, 30 or 40 million but the 50 represents good business in relation to the Carroll fee of 35










































wait for it...
























now he gets it

Were we at any point contractually obliged to part with the 35Mill for AC?

No, but do you really think the fans would have been happy fo them to sell Torres for £50m and them bank it and not buy anyone to replace him when we clearly didn't have a decent enough strike force anyway?

They would have been crucified, Kenny wanted Carroll, Comolli brokerd the deal, both have moved on, so must we.

JB, but where is the logic in tying ourselves to a fixed price differential in this way. Other than the fact that it negates the need to negotiate it achieves nothing. If these apparently hard nosed US businessmen have taken this lazy option without foreseeing the consequences I am seriously underwhelmed

You don't get it FSB, you are suggesting we got a load of cash from the sale of Torres and then went and spent it on Carroll.

Completely incorrect, the price of Torres was determined by the price of Carroll, the owners wanted £5m profit thats what they got.

15

>>without foreseeing the consequences

what consequences?

Cobnob, personally I would have been more than happy if they'd banked the money and given assurances that it would be spent in the summer.

Short on strikers? He was injured anyway so it didn't make that much difference.

FSB it was a one-off case, I doubt we'll see anything like it again. Carroll hasn't fulfilled his price tag but had he of done we might think that it wasn't a bad deal. His under-performance is what makes the deal so much worse.

Its not lazy either, at the time we didn't want to sell Torres, but he wanted to go and would have run his contract down, they said if you want him you will have to pay a great deal for him, you seem to be suggesting that people who got us £50m (the biggest in our history) are lazy foolish business men.

>>without foreseeing the consequences

what consequences?


The consequence that we paid hugely over the odds on a player. Placing a millstone round the neck of the lad who knew (as did everyone else) that he could never live up to the expectations heaped on him.

When we bought him he was out injured for a couple of weeks, he suffered futher injuries but origionally he wasn't meant to be out for long.

>>The consequence that we paid hugely over the odds on a player.

But we didn't, Chelsea did as per the agreement.

>>Placing a millstone round the neck

in hindsight, fair dos.

you seem to be suggesting that people who got us £50m (the biggest in our history) are lazy foolish business men.
-------------------------------------
I don't deny that that was a good bit of business (I referred to it earlier as genius).

However, giving the vast majority to another party for a player who was worth nowhere near the amount paid did not exactly place their business credentials in a good light whether they were contractually obliged to or not

looks like we all 'get it' but completely disagree on whether it matters or not.

For me, it was good business, bad for banter.

Like I said previously before bitter boots interrupted me,

Liverpool replaced one striker with another and got 15 million in cash. Given Torres' form prior to move, getting 50 million or in other words (+15 million)

That was how the powers that be at Liverpool wanted it to happen and it did.

Looking at the form of both players after their moves, I think its hard to say who of the two disappointed but atleast we made an extra 15 million out of it.

It doesn't matter if it was 15 for Torres and carroll on a free or a 100 for Torres and 85 for Carroll. That's irrelevant. Or a billion for Torres and 985 million for Carrroll.
---------------------------------------------



So, if Chelsea had said we'll give you £100M for Torres, you think your board would have sanctioned £85M of it going to Newcastle for Carroll????

The facts are simple, Chelsea offered you mega money for an out of form Torres, you then spunked £35M of it on a player who was the 'flavour of the month".

There was never an obligation for you to spend any of the £50M that Chelsea agreed to pay for the player & even less to hand over £35M of it, to Newcastle. For your board to spin the over payment in that manner is taking the p1ss imo & it's beyond belief that some of you have lapped it up.

Hilarious stuff

So, if Chelsea had said we'll give you £100M for Torres, you think your board would have sanctioned £85M of it going to Newcastle for Carroll????
----------

that's all well and good but Chelsea didn't offer 100 million

They were perfectly happy to pay 50 though and that's what happened.

So I tie you in knots and your next move is to make something up

Carroll may be in the books at £35 but your stupidity is priceless

I never made anything up you plank, it was redconn who said that, I was merely replying.

You tie yourself in knots you thick top hat.