Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 516

Thread: Why did we pay 35m for Andy Carroll?

  1. #1 Default Why did we pay 35m for Andy Carroll? 
    AlessoAfrojackAvicii is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,048
    First of all. This is not a thread designed to slate Andy Carroll, I'm happy with his performances of late and I've been disappointed(yes) that he's been benched the last few games.

    Just a few points I'd like to make.

    Carroll had only scored 11 goals for Newcastle when we signed him, hardly prolific. In fact, every season there is a player from a lower team that goes on a goal scoring streak.
    He wasn't top scorer in the Championship the season before.
    He was injured when we bought him(Aquilani all over again), and people are still using the 'he's not fully fit' excuse.
    We'd just been given 50m for Torres, Newcastle knew this so they boosted the price up. Why didn't we say no? He wasn't worth 35m, probably never will be. I'd say he was worth 15m at the time.

    So considering we'd just bought Suarez for 22m, why did we agree to pay 35m for Carroll?

    Like I said, I'm starting to like Carroll. But he's still not worth the money we paid, and I love hearing the excuses people come up with to justify it.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #2  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,653
    the market , we got stung , done , fleeced , robbed , staged , set up , marked etc etc etc ... just for laughs ? who knows
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #3  
    welshypool is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    15,388
    ahhh, nice change of topic, how refreshing
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #4  
    AlessoAfrojackAvicii is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,048
    Quote Originally Posted by welshypool View Post
    ahhh, nice change of topic, how refreshing
    If you don't have anything useful to add to the topic, go make yourself a milkshake.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #5  
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,304
    Quote Originally Posted by GoinOnMern View Post
    First of all. This is not a thread designed to slate Andy Carroll, I'm happy with his performances of late and I've been disappointed(yes) that he's been benched the last few games.

    Just a few points I'd like to make.

    Carroll had only scored 11 goals for Newcastle when we signed him, hardly prolific. In fact, every season there is a player from a lower team that goes on a goal scoring streak.
    He wasn't top scorer in the Championship the season before.
    He was injured when we bought him(Aquilani all over again), and people are still using the 'he's not fully fit' excuse.
    We'd just been given 50m for Torres, Newcastle knew this so they boosted the price up. Why didn't we say no? He wasn't worth 35m, probably never will be. I'd say he was worth 15m at the time.

    So considering we'd just bought Suarez for 22m, why did we agree to pay 35m for Carroll?

    Like I said, I'm starting to like Carroll. But he's still not worth the money we paid, and I love hearing the excuses people come up with to justify it.
    What you really should ask first is "why did Chelsea pay 50m for Torres?". These two questions are closely linked.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #6  
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    821
    We paid it..............end of!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #7  
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,828
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #8  
    AlessoAfrojackAvicii is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,048
    Quote Originally Posted by 370 View Post
    What you really should ask is "why did Chelsea pay 50m for Torres?". These two questions are closely linked.
    Please tell me you aren't comparing Torres to Carroll before they moved clubs Torres wasn't worth 50m, but I'd of paid 50m for him before 35m for Carroll.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #9  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigcliff View Post
    slap that little donkey cliff , slap it , slap it hard
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #10  
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    85
    Ill tell you i would rather have torres over caroll an day of the week,35mil for a player who can only head the ball and hes not tht great at heading is an absolute disgrace
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #11  
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,010
    Quote Originally Posted by 370 View Post
    What you really should ask first is "why did Chelsea pay 50m for Torres?". These two questions are closely linked.
    Because he was one of the best strikers in the world.. Simple really, hasn't worked out, but he still has quality

    Why pay that money for Carroll when he wasn't even the best striker in the championship!

    The two are not linked in the slightest. One players shown quality over the years, the other for 6 months. Guess we lucky we didn't sign Zaki when he had a great 6 months
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #12  
    welshypool is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    15,388
    Quote Originally Posted by GoinOnMern View Post
    If you don't have anything useful to add to the topic, go make yourself a milkshake.
    will be a lot of people making milkshakes but just to annoy you I will hang around now and then adding nothing of any note as this topic is dead...dead....dead...covered so many times....dead.....dead......dead....

    I might start a new one, why do certain posters relentlessly post the same topics over and over, is it self importance (on a forum)...is it the need to be noticed (on a forum) should they just try a new topic?

    So many questions
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #13  
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    14,664
    You cant justify it.

    We paid 35m for a 5m striker ( i say 5m because he's no better than Ngog).
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #14  
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,031
    WOW!!! These Andy Carroll posts are getting soooooo BORING.
    As for Andy over Torres, i'll take Andy all day thanks, now..... next subject!!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #15  
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,304
    Quote Originally Posted by GoinOnMern View Post
    Please tell me you aren't comparing Torres to Carroll before they moved clubs Torres wasn't worth 50m, but I'd of paid 50m for him before 35m for Carroll.
    When Chelsea captured Torres on the last days of the window, LFC set conditions about replacement.
    They had to pay 50 for Torres because we had to pay 35 for Andy (Andy's price + 15m).
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #16  
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,620
    Because Kenny said he was our number 1 summer target. he had just broke into the England team and scored, he was looking like a world beater for Newcastle single handily destroying us and Arsenal, and he was only 20.

    Newcastle wanted 35m for him Spurs said no we said yes. simple
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #17  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    179
    We had lost Torres and we needed a new striker. We signed Suarez and were in for Carroll, who on paper, is an ideal partner. Newcastle knew we wanted him and desperately needed him (having lost Torres). Therefore the value went up. When the demand goes up, the "supplier" (Newcastle) can increase the price by a considerable amount.

    Bad decision for us to sign Carroll though, and an even worse decision by Torres to leave.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #18  
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,260
    Comparing Torres and Carroll is like comparing **** to crap.

    Both have been awful this season. We play better with Carroll because it allows Suarez to drop deep.

    But we definitely need a new striker this summer
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #19  
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    5,424
    Maybe due to Torres' exploits while a Liverpool FC player in the Premiership and Europe... it's not like 'that' goal he scored against Blackburn was a shared figment of all of our imaginations... not to mention the 33 he put away in his first full season, most of which he created and scored almost single-handed (the majority of the rest of his goals were of course created by Gerrard).

    There cannot be any shame in Chelsea spending 50m on Torres, that price was correct in view of his unquestionable talent. Yes he's had a bad year at Chelsea but most Chelsea supporters are fully behind him because in spite of what we or the Manure loving press like to believe, he still is a top draw player and one nearly every single honest Liverpool FC fan would have playing next to Suarez in a heartbeat.

    Carroll in the other hand is dogxxxx, Cisse showed him what is expected of a true striker, he looked like the real deal NOT Carroll.

    The big flop is the single most telling reason why Kenny and Comolli should really be sacked. The spanners were even close to signing Connor Wickham too! I'm sure they'd be after Kevin Davis if he lost the little scoring ability he still possesses!

    Kenny Out!!!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #20  
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,683
    Quote Originally Posted by 370 View Post
    What you really should ask first is "why did Chelsea pay 50m for Torres?". These two questions are closely linked.
    Don't see it being at all linked. Chelsea owner could easily afford to pay a Billion for a player and not lose too much sleep. Someone at Anfield had a sudden rush of blood to the head and decided that an immediate response was needed (when it wasn't at all as Carroll was injured when signed).

    I never understood the "Liverpool HAD to pay 35 million for Carroll because it was linked to the Torres deal. Utter rubbish. Liverpool should have slapped the 50 mil price tag on Torres and banked the money until the summer. This is not hindsight it was obvious at the time.

    There was NO RUSH and NO NEED to buy an injured player in Jan 11, let alone the horrendous amount paid for him. Still make me utterly sick to remember that debacle.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #21  
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,773
    All these sad ****'s who have nothing to say should stay away, does an online post annoy you that much that you have to enter just to tell them, if so get outside, have a walk, get a grip.

    The OP has asked a question, using actual points, unlike the usual threads that resemble transfer talk.

    Good points, that bring whoever is involved in our transfers into serious question, you cannot panick with 35 million, at the time our season was as good as gone anyway, we panicked and have suffered because of this.

    Why we spent 35 million cannot be answered by anyone but the persons that made the decision, they need to be seriously questioned based on the points you outlined above.

    A bold statement, and not a fact as I cannot travel, but Andy's capabilities will never equate to a player worthy of his price tag.

    In all honesty I feel sorry for him more than anyone.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #22  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Archieuk View Post
    As for Andy over Torres, i'll take Andy all day thanks

    Tu estas loco ?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #23  
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,683
    Quote Originally Posted by 370 View Post
    when chelsea captured torres on the last days of the window, lfc set conditions about replacement.
    They had to pay 50 for torres because we had to pay 35 for andy (andy's price + 15m).
    there was no "had to" about it. Who was holding the gun??
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #24  
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDiggerBarnes View Post
    Comparing Torres and Carroll is like comparing **** to crap.

    Both have been awful this season. We play better with Carroll because it allows Suarez to drop deep.

    But we definitely need a new striker this summer
    You can easily say that now we are a year down the line.

    Torres once looked like a player worthy of a huge price tag, he was out of form with injuries, but under Kenny he was still putting the ball in the net.

    Carrol has NEVER looked like a player worthy of a price tag near his. When he was in form 20m maximum, and I'd still have been dissapointed at paying that.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #25  
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,620
    Quote Originally Posted by la9li View Post
    there was no "had to" about it. Who was holding the gun??
    if you want something, and that something costs x amount then you HAVE to pay it.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #26  
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,304
    Quote Originally Posted by la9li View Post
    there was no "had to" about it. Who was holding the gun??
    Newcastle...
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #27  
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    13,648
    Got mugged. Panic. Stupid decision. Set the club back a season, sorry but it's true.

    Pains me to say that. I like the lad as a member of the squad but if he was so good, Kenny would start him every game just like he has to start Suarez every game.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #28  
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    14,664
    Quote Originally Posted by la9li View Post
    there was no "had to" about it. Who was holding the gun??
    Exactly. When they said the figure they wanted we should have laughed and walk away, Not go yes ok we will pay you whatever you want.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #29  
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,683
    Quote Originally Posted by 370 View Post
    Newcastle...
    Again. There was no "HAD TO". Liverpool didn't HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. Liverpool had control: Do we buy an injured player for a vastly overinflated price now or not??

    The clear answer is "NOT".

    There was no "HAD TO". Because simply Carroll was not needed at the time. He couldn't ******* even play!!!!
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #30  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Archieuk View Post
    WOW!!! These Andy Carroll posts are getting soooooo BORING.
    As for Andy over Torres, i'll take Andy all day thanks, now..... next subject!!
    You serious
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •