Other Teams Transfers & Rumours...

[villa4europe]

so carroll is only worth £35m because torres is worth £50m?

neither of them are worth half of that, IMO you cant say carroll is value for money purely because they got more for torres and had it to spend, they could and did buy a better player for less

[Shoody]

An unhappy player who could barely score for love nor money replaced for £1m for one player who seems to have really lifted the place and seen the team rocket up the table + a second, young english player, who adds another dimension to their play, has the potential to be a top target man and player, who has scored more prem goals than both Torres and Dzeko put together since January.

I dont really think of it in terms of how much they were because its irrelevant to Liverpool. 2 good/potentially great Prem players cost them £1m and a player who is injury prone, unhappy, a drag on the other players and most importantly - not performing.

For Chelsea on the other hand - its shit business, clearly.

And for Newcastle it was great business.. depends what kind of quality they can attract with the alleged £45m they have to spend in the summer when they keep selling any decent player they get. (factoring in the alleged £15m for Enrique)

[villa4europe]

put it another way then, if utd buy young for £25m and we go out and get jarvis for £17.5m, which is the same margins as carroll/torres would you be happy and expect jarvis to live up to that price tag?

we'll have sold an important 1st teamer who is off form for a huge sum and bought a younger player who also has plenty of potential and a good 1st season under his belt and broke into the england team and like you mentioned the yanks would show plenty of faith and commitment from randy

personally id be gutted and find it laughable

[dbsboots]

The fact of the matter is it was deadline day in January. They either had to spend massively and allow themselves to be ripped off, and write the season off, or open the cheque book and give it a shot.

[ryanvilla_1994]

Carroll is a class act IMO, 35 million looks a rip off now but Liverpool will be laughing in a few years

[Shoody]

put it another way then, if utd buy young for £25m and we go out and get jarvis for £17.5m, which is the same margins as carroll/torres would you be happy and expect jarvis to live up to that price tag?

we'll have sold an important 1st teamer who is off form for a huge sum and bought a younger player who also has plenty of potential and a good 1st season under his belt and broke into the england team and like you mentioned the yanks would show plenty of faith and commitment from randy

personally id be gutted and find it laughable

Not quite the same though. If we signed somebody who was regarded as a great left winger in an abroad league + a young up and comer who is english (which is what has happened at Liverpool, Suarez was considered superb in Holland and Andy considered to be one of the great prospects of the country).

So, say A Good Left Winger from abroad (say Guardado) and Alex Oxlade Chamberlain for £1m more than we sold Young for. And we then surged up the table as a result of it, yes i would be ecstatic.

[The_Rev]

so carroll is only worth £35m because torres is worth £50m?

Yes. It's how the economy of football works. If everybody knows you have a shit ton of money to spend, the price of what you want goes up. If you only have a few hours to seal a deal, the price goes up. If the player you want to sign is happy to stay at the selling club, the price goes up.

neither of them are worth half of that, IMO you cant say carroll is value for money purely because they got more for torres and had it to spend, they could and did buy a better player for less

That is all subjective though isnt it? Maybe Liverpool wanted Carroll? Maybe they wanted a physical presence up front, Carroll has that and he can play a bit too. They almost certainly could have got a player for less than they paid for Carroll, but he wouldnt have scored twice tonight. Will Carroll be a better player for Liverpool next year if his summer isnt disrupted by a transfer saga? If he has had six months to get to know his new team mates and his managers tactics?

Maybe you wouldnt have paid the money but if you cant see why Liverpool did then you are rather short sighted.

[villa4europe]

i can see exactly why liverpool or anyone else would want him he's a good player, doesnt make him value for money though, not yet anyway, get 10 years out and a ton of goals out of him then yes, but if he fails and they come to sell him near the end of his contract

[BOF]

You don't have to be someone else's definition of value for money. You just have to be banging in the goals week in week out and propelling your side up the league. You then leave the internet message boards to discuss at length the completely irrelevant point of whether you were worth the money your club decided to pay for you. Is Carroll worth £35m? No. Is he a great signing and will he be an asset to Liverpool for years to come? Yes. So I'm not sure what anyone's trying to prove. It'll sure be tiring every time he scores a brace or a hat-trick that has given Liverpool another 3pts to come in here and see people lol'ing that he's not worth £35m. Hollow victory much?

[VillaAlex]

You don't have to be someone else's definition of value for money. You just have to be banging in the goals week in week out and propelling your side up the league. You then leave the internet message boards to discuss at length the completely irrelevant point of whether you were worth the money your club decided to pay for you. Is Carroll worth £35m? No. Is he a great signing and will he be an asset to Liverpool for years to come? Yes. So I'm not sure what anyone's trying to prove. It'll sure be tiring every time he scores a brace or a hat-trick that has given Liverpool another 3pts to come in here and see people lol'ing that he's not worth £35m. Hollow victory much?

The discussion is football is a business and Carroll was not value for money. A lot of clubs in England fail to understand the concept of this when a lot of teams abroad do it with such success.

Udinese in Italy are a prime example. This all stems from my point that £30mish is too much and I don't think anyone can disagree. He could prove to be that player but it is very high risk, and there are many players out there that can do a better job than Carroll. I understand the point they had to pay more as Newcastle knew they had money but we're talking about a player who has had one and a half seasons in the Premiership and before last night half of his goal tally came against us in one game. If he flops his sell on value will have significantly decreased, and even if he does well if they were to ever sell him they'd only get close to what they paid for him.

There are so many world class players out there that cost less then Andy Carroll. I look at Spurs as an English team who have the right approach, they signed Modric for a huge fee but there was always the potential of gaining of profit if they were to ever sell him. I'm sure now they'd be looking at about 30m. They also had Berbatov who they signed at a realistic price and made an fortune from him.

The game has evolved a lot now and I don't think players should be signed on what they can do on the pitch now, they also have to have good financial value. There are exceptions where there is a player which a team desperately needs such as Bent for us but it doesn't happen very often.

[BOF]

He's not worth £35m but he might be worth £25m. So they over-spent by £10m in order to get their man at exactly the point they needed him. That's not such a big rip-off, especially if you factor in that it was the January window and not the summer one. Man Citeh have made a habit of worse than that recently. People need to stop getting hung up on his cost and realise they've made a top signing who is going to be hugely valuable to them ON the pitch. If, in the next year or 2, he is the difference between getting CL and not getting CL then that £10m immediately vanishes. Then who's laughing.

[villa4europe]

thats the thing though BOF, i dont see how he's worth £25m, thats the same as we paid for Bent who has for more experience and goals, if they wanted potential they could have gone out and got alexis sanchez or neymar who ahve more potential IMO if they wanted a big bloke they could have gone for the higher rated lukaku

they got ripped off purely because he's english and young and must be the worlds next best thing because the red tops say so

[ED]

He's not worth £35m but he might be worth £25m. So they over-spent by £10m in order to get their man at exactly the point they needed him. That's not such a big rip-off, especially if you factor in that it was the January window and not the summer one. Man Citeh have made a habit of worse than that recently. People need to stop getting hung up on his cost and realise they've made a top signing who is going to be hugely valuable to them ON the pitch. If, in the next year or 2, he is the difference between getting CL and not getting CL then that £10m immediately vanishes. Then who's laughing.

I agree, in bizzarro world.

A completely ludicrous signing and he will have that price tag over his head (and not ever live up to it) for the rest of his career

[dudevillaisnice]

Spanish media ensure Manchester United have signed Atlético's goalkeeper David De Gea for €20m.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Great signing if so, looks a great keeper for his age.

[Zatman]

made a few blunders in last few months but had good game sunday night. He does look a prospect but a risk for United signing a keeper that doesnt speak english. Stekelenburg would have been better option for moment

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

made a few blunders in last few months but had good game sunday night. He does look a prospect but a risk for United signing a keeper that doesnt speak english. Stekelenburg would have been better option for moment

Yeah that could be true but I think he's one of those upcoming players that if United didn't sign him now, he'd go to a huge club and then any chance of signing him will have gone for the future, where as take the risk now and they have potentially one of the best goalkeepers in world football for the rest of his career.

[Mr_Dogg]

Spanish media ensure Manchester United have signed Atlético's goalkeeper David De Gea for €20m.

If true, about as big a gamble as you can make in the transfer market.

A young, unproven, foreign, expensive goalkeeper.

But then I've never seen him play...

[legov]

You don't have to be someone else's definition of value for money. You just have to be banging in the goals week in week out and propelling your side up the league. You then leave the internet message boards to discuss at length the completely irrelevant point of whether you were worth the money your club decided to pay for you. Is Carroll worth £35m? No. Is he a great signing and will he be an asset to Liverpool for years to come? Yes. So I'm not sure what anyone's trying to prove. It'll sure be tiring every time he scores a brace or a hat-trick that has given Liverpool another 3pts to come in here and see people lol'ing that he's not worth £35m. Hollow victory much?

The discussion is football is a business and Carroll was not value for money. A lot of clubs in England fail to understand the concept of this when a lot of teams abroad do it with such success.

Udinese in Italy are a prime example. This all stems from my point that £30mish is too much and I don't think anyone can disagree. He could prove to be that player but it is very high risk, and there are many players out there that can do a better job than Carroll. I understand the point they had to pay more as Newcastle knew they had money but we're talking about a player who has had one and a half seasons in the Premiership and before last night half of his goal tally came against us in one game. If he flops his sell on value will have significantly decreased, and even if he does well if they were to ever sell him they'd only get close to what they paid for him.

There are so many world class players out there that cost less then Andy Carroll. I look at Spurs as an English team who have the right approach, they signed Modric for a huge fee but there was always the potential of gaining of profit if they were to ever sell him. I'm sure now they'd be looking at about 30m. They also had Berbatov who they signed at a realistic price and made an fortune from him.

The game has evolved a lot now and I don't think players should be signed on what they can do on the pitch now, they also have to have good financial value. There are exceptions where there is a player which a team desperately needs such as Bent for us but it doesn't happen very often.

There's always risk involved when you buy new players - look at Shevchenko, prime of his career and surely considered one of the best strikers in the world when he moved to Chelsea but flopped in the end. Ditto for Modric and Berbatov - who's to say at the time of purchase that they wouldn't be flops? In which case Spurs would incur losses if they tried to sell both of them. Of course both players didn't turn out to be such but surely the same benefit of the doubt has to be given to Carroll? Especially considering he's only 21 or 22 so should he have so much as a decent season his value would still be pretty high.

Whether a player has "good financial value" is highly subjective, and this applies to EVERY single player - doesn't matter if he's Modric, Berbatov, Shevchenko or Carroll.

[VillaAlex]

There's always risk involved when you buy new players - look at Shevchenko, prime of his career and surely considered one of the best strikers in the world when he moved to Chelsea but flopped in the end. Ditto for Modric and Berbatov - who's to say at the time of purchase that they wouldn't be flops? In which case Spurs would incur losses if they tried to sell both of them. Of course both players didn't turn out to be such but surely the same benefit of the doubt has to be given to Carroll? Especially considering he's only 21 or 22 so should he have so much as a decent season his value would still be pretty high.

Whether a player has "good financial value" is highly subjective, and this applies to EVERY single player - doesn't matter if he's Modric, Berbatov, Shevchenko or Carroll.

That's my point though, Modric and Berbatov were sold far cheaper which means a smalll risk and their prices reflected their abilities at the time, well Berbatov in particular.

Carroll even if he does well will never been sold for more then then that value and will probably never be worth that. This makes it even more high risk as the price doesn't come close to reflecting his current ability and they're paying for potential.