One day there'll be a thread on here that doesn't descend into the same two people, who clearly don't like each other, swapping insults. It's getting beyond a joke now. Why not take it onto the Everton board as not much else ems to be happening on there then you can play out your little soap drama ad infinitum without the rest of us having to read the tripe!
JB - Filter it if you don't like it, you drama Queen, it's merely 'banter' old bean.
If what the Liverpool owners claim wasnt true, would Chelsea not have released some kind of statement saying so?
would Chelsea not have released some kind of statement saying so?
---------------------------------------------------------
Why? All that matters to them is that they agreed to pay £50M to LIVERPOOL FC for Torres, what they did with the money is irrelevant.
Arab Elvis (U7425)
posted 44 seconds ago
If what the Liverpool owners claim wasnt true, would Chelsea not have released some kind of statement saying so?
-----------------
would have thought so
If what the Liverpool owners claim wasnt true, would Chelsea not have released some kind of statement saying so?
------------------
I would have thought so too.
It would be extremely odd for them to make that up Elvis.
It would be a whopper of a lie in the first place and then two have both the senior owners repeat it in interviews would be suicidal.
comment by Toblerone Boots (U4965)
posted 2 minutes ago
would Chelsea not have released some kind of statement saying so?
---------------------------------------------------------
Why? All that matters to them is that they agreed to pay £50M to LIVERPOOL FC for Torres, what they did with the money is irrelevant.
-------------------------------
Because it makes them look a bit daft.
How odes it make Chelsea look daft?
They offered & then paid LFC £50M for Torres - the end.
How Liverpool have attempted to cover their massive over payment for Carroll is none of their business is it?
comment by Toblerone Boots (U4965)
posted 35 seconds ago
How odes it make Chelsea look daft?
They offered & then paid LFC £50M for Torres - the end.
How Liverpool have attempted to cover their massive over payment for Carroll is none of their business is it?
-------------------------------
LFC claiming that Chelsea paid 35m for Carroll makes them look daft if they didn't really do that. It isnt that hard to understand.
Because it makes them look a bit daft.
------------
Precisely.
Torres had a late transfer request rejected and two bids from Chelsea were turned down. It all gave credence to the owners statement about a 3 way deal.
LFC claiming that Chelsea paid 35m for Carroll makes them look daft if they didn't really do that. It isnt that hard to understand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
They're not claiming that, as that's not what happened.
Chelsea paid LFC £50M for Torres - the end.
What LFC have said is that the fee was irrelevant as they said they wanted Carroll plus £15M for Torres. Which everyone knows is blarny, as never in the history of football have 2 clubs set the price for a 3rd clubs player
The mere suggestion that it happened that way, is ludicrous, as in essence he's saying that he handed over control of the pricing of his major asset to two 3rd parties It's idiotic & a total sham of an excuse for over paying for AC. Newcastle had you over a barrel due to it being deadline day & you feeling the need to appease the fanbase with a replacement for the wantaway Torres.
In hindsight, they should have got a loan striker & banked the cash. As Carroll contributed next to nothing in the remainder of the season.
It all gave credence to the owners statement about a 3 way deal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
It gives credence to the reality i.e. that Newcastle had your trousers down.
LFC claiming that Chelsea paid 35m for Carroll makes them look daft if they didn't really do that. It isnt that hard to understand.
-------------------------------------
This makes no sense to me at all. Is anyone claiming that Chelsea paid 35Mill for Carroll? The suggestion is that Liverpool imposed a fixed price differential. Irrespective of who paid money to Newcastle, the price differential was set by FSG so in what sense can the Carroll fee reflect badly on Chelsea?
FSB - it wasn't about the fee reflecting badly on Chelsea as I understood it. It was more to do with Chelsea could have come out and denied the arragements if what Henry said was incorrect. Chelsea didn't deny it so in all probability what JH said was what actually happened.
>>price differential was set by FSG so in what sense can the Carroll fee reflect badly on Chelsea?
Newcastle forced a billionaire to overpay for his new toy and made themselves 'rich' in the process.
I don't think Roman really cares about money so it doesn't much matter.
Cheslea got what they wanted, FSG got what they wanted, and Newcastle got what they wanted.
Roman funded it all.
I think both Carroll and Torres are going to have big seasons this year but to date, only Newcastle got the good end of the deal.
Roman funded it all.
--------------
And Newcastle certainly came out best.
So to take this to it's ultimate conclusion, seeing as some of you reckon "Chelsea paid it" & that the fee "doesn't matter", I assume then, that if you sell him this window the fee received also won't matter then?
No that would be nuts Tobes
Unless we did another swap deal.
Straight cash deals you get every pence you can
JB, if I was Chelsea I would stay well out of it. There's no suggestion that they did anything wrong. They bought a player, end of. They have nothing to gain by trying to excuse or explain the behaviour of the club they bought the player off.
Redconn, I was impressed with AC towards the end of the season and I personally think he will be a real handful in a few years time. But I don't think he'll ever be a 35 Million pound player and the failure to live up to the ridiculous price tag will continue to weigh heavily on him for a while yet
No that would be nuts Tobes
Unless we did another swap deal.
Straight cash deals you get every pence you can
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whooooahhhhh hang on a minute there mate.
As you've been maintaining that the fee received for Torres & then paid for Carroll was irrelevant, due to the 'deal' being £15M plus Carroll.
Now you're saying that the fee you get back for him will be important, what will you benchmarking that fee against??????
I think he's over his price now FSB
And no he'll never be a 35 million pound player. Ever. But I don't give a monkeys because it's a fictional number for everything but banter fuel for Toblerone.
FSB - You're right, Chelsea didn't do anything wrong and I don't think there was any suggestion that they did unless I missed something! I have a picture in my head of Henry (or whoever does the actual negotiations) on 2 phones at once, one to Newcastle, one to Chelsea - going something like, how much, higher, no higher, how much, lower, ...... until the deal is done.
And no he'll never be a 35 million pound player. Ever. But I don't give a monkeys because it's a fictional number for everything but banter fuel for Toblerone.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"a fictional number"
I've heard it all now.
So when you sell him what are you going to benchmark his price against, given that the £35M was apparently a figment of someones imagination.
Sign in if you want to comment
Bebe or Carroll?
Page 4 of 4
posted on 16/7/12
One day there'll be a thread on here that doesn't descend into the same two people, who clearly don't like each other, swapping insults. It's getting beyond a joke now. Why not take it onto the Everton board as not much else ems to be happening on there then you can play out your little soap drama ad infinitum without the rest of us having to read the tripe!
posted on 16/7/12
*seems
posted on 16/7/12
JB - Filter it if you don't like it, you drama Queen, it's merely 'banter' old bean.
posted on 16/7/12
If what the Liverpool owners claim wasnt true, would Chelsea not have released some kind of statement saying so?
posted on 16/7/12
would Chelsea not have released some kind of statement saying so?
---------------------------------------------------------
Why? All that matters to them is that they agreed to pay £50M to LIVERPOOL FC for Torres, what they did with the money is irrelevant.
posted on 16/7/12
Arab Elvis (U7425)
posted 44 seconds ago
If what the Liverpool owners claim wasnt true, would Chelsea not have released some kind of statement saying so?
-----------------
would have thought so
posted on 16/7/12
If what the Liverpool owners claim wasnt true, would Chelsea not have released some kind of statement saying so?
------------------
I would have thought so too.
posted on 16/7/12
It would be extremely odd for them to make that up Elvis.
It would be a whopper of a lie in the first place and then two have both the senior owners repeat it in interviews would be suicidal.
posted on 16/7/12
comment by Toblerone Boots (U4965)
posted 2 minutes ago
would Chelsea not have released some kind of statement saying so?
---------------------------------------------------------
Why? All that matters to them is that they agreed to pay £50M to LIVERPOOL FC for Torres, what they did with the money is irrelevant.
-------------------------------
Because it makes them look a bit daft.
posted on 16/7/12
How odes it make Chelsea look daft?
They offered & then paid LFC £50M for Torres - the end.
How Liverpool have attempted to cover their massive over payment for Carroll is none of their business is it?
posted on 16/7/12
comment by Toblerone Boots (U4965)
posted 35 seconds ago
How odes it make Chelsea look daft?
They offered & then paid LFC £50M for Torres - the end.
How Liverpool have attempted to cover their massive over payment for Carroll is none of their business is it?
-------------------------------
LFC claiming that Chelsea paid 35m for Carroll makes them look daft if they didn't really do that. It isnt that hard to understand.
posted on 16/7/12
Because it makes them look a bit daft.
------------
Precisely.
Torres had a late transfer request rejected and two bids from Chelsea were turned down. It all gave credence to the owners statement about a 3 way deal.
posted on 16/7/12
LFC claiming that Chelsea paid 35m for Carroll makes them look daft if they didn't really do that. It isnt that hard to understand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
They're not claiming that, as that's not what happened.
Chelsea paid LFC £50M for Torres - the end.
What LFC have said is that the fee was irrelevant as they said they wanted Carroll plus £15M for Torres. Which everyone knows is blarny, as never in the history of football have 2 clubs set the price for a 3rd clubs player
The mere suggestion that it happened that way, is ludicrous, as in essence he's saying that he handed over control of the pricing of his major asset to two 3rd parties It's idiotic & a total sham of an excuse for over paying for AC. Newcastle had you over a barrel due to it being deadline day & you feeling the need to appease the fanbase with a replacement for the wantaway Torres.
In hindsight, they should have got a loan striker & banked the cash. As Carroll contributed next to nothing in the remainder of the season.
posted on 16/7/12
It all gave credence to the owners statement about a 3 way deal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
It gives credence to the reality i.e. that Newcastle had your trousers down.
posted on 16/7/12
LFC claiming that Chelsea paid 35m for Carroll makes them look daft if they didn't really do that. It isnt that hard to understand.
-------------------------------------
This makes no sense to me at all. Is anyone claiming that Chelsea paid 35Mill for Carroll? The suggestion is that Liverpool imposed a fixed price differential. Irrespective of who paid money to Newcastle, the price differential was set by FSG so in what sense can the Carroll fee reflect badly on Chelsea?
posted on 16/7/12
FSB - it wasn't about the fee reflecting badly on Chelsea as I understood it. It was more to do with Chelsea could have come out and denied the arragements if what Henry said was incorrect. Chelsea didn't deny it so in all probability what JH said was what actually happened.
posted on 16/7/12
>>price differential was set by FSG so in what sense can the Carroll fee reflect badly on Chelsea?
Newcastle forced a billionaire to overpay for his new toy and made themselves 'rich' in the process.
I don't think Roman really cares about money so it doesn't much matter.
Cheslea got what they wanted, FSG got what they wanted, and Newcastle got what they wanted.
Roman funded it all.
I think both Carroll and Torres are going to have big seasons this year but to date, only Newcastle got the good end of the deal.
posted on 16/7/12
Roman funded it all.
--------------
And Newcastle certainly came out best.
posted on 16/7/12
So to take this to it's ultimate conclusion, seeing as some of you reckon "Chelsea paid it" & that the fee "doesn't matter", I assume then, that if you sell him this window the fee received also won't matter then?
posted on 16/7/12
No that would be nuts Tobes
Unless we did another swap deal.
Straight cash deals you get every pence you can
posted on 16/7/12
JB, if I was Chelsea I would stay well out of it. There's no suggestion that they did anything wrong. They bought a player, end of. They have nothing to gain by trying to excuse or explain the behaviour of the club they bought the player off.
Redconn, I was impressed with AC towards the end of the season and I personally think he will be a real handful in a few years time. But I don't think he'll ever be a 35 Million pound player and the failure to live up to the ridiculous price tag will continue to weigh heavily on him for a while yet
posted on 16/7/12
No that would be nuts Tobes
Unless we did another swap deal.
Straight cash deals you get every pence you can
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whooooahhhhh hang on a minute there mate.
As you've been maintaining that the fee received for Torres & then paid for Carroll was irrelevant, due to the 'deal' being £15M plus Carroll.
Now you're saying that the fee you get back for him will be important, what will you benchmarking that fee against??????
posted on 16/7/12
I think he's over his price now FSB
And no he'll never be a 35 million pound player. Ever. But I don't give a monkeys because it's a fictional number for everything but banter fuel for Toblerone.
posted on 16/7/12
FSB - You're right, Chelsea didn't do anything wrong and I don't think there was any suggestion that they did unless I missed something! I have a picture in my head of Henry (or whoever does the actual negotiations) on 2 phones at once, one to Newcastle, one to Chelsea - going something like, how much, higher, no higher, how much, lower, ...... until the deal is done.
posted on 16/7/12
And no he'll never be a 35 million pound player. Ever. But I don't give a monkeys because it's a fictional number for everything but banter fuel for Toblerone.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"a fictional number"
I've heard it all now.
So when you sell him what are you going to benchmark his price against, given that the £35M was apparently a figment of someones imagination.
Page 4 of 4