Liverpool FC

[George2Loose]

really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/9383615.stm

[kinboshi]

Just going from what some journalists who re 'in the know' on twitter were saying.  Maybe he will play.  If it was Anfield, I could see him possibly sitting it out, but no reason not to play it really.

[boldie]

Just going from what some journalists who re 'in the know' on twitter were saying.  Maybe he will play.  If it was Anfield, I could see him possibly sitting it out, but no reason not to play it really.

chelsea not playing him would be ridic unless it's part of the sale contract.

[TheChipPrince]

Just going from what some journalists who re 'in the know' on twitter were saying.  Maybe he will play.  If it was Anfield, I could see him possibly sitting it out, but no reason not to play it really.

chelsea not playing him would be ridic unless it's part of the sale contract.

FA said earlier not possible to put into his contract, would have to be a 'handshake' agreement not to play him.

[mondatoo]

Pardew said today that they expected Carroll to be out 4-5 more weeks.

[Josedinho]

Pardew said today that they expected Carroll to be out 4-5 nights a week.

FYP

[mondatoo]

If you want to bump into him just go to the local casino.

[mondatoo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9383908.stm

[kinboshi]

Pardew said today that they expected Carroll to be out 4-5 nights a week.

FYP

nh wp

[The Baron]

@ 35mill for Carrol. Ridic poor bit of business.

Quoted for future use.

How many goals does he have to score for you before it's a great bit of business?

It's panic buying at it's very worst.

Didn't say it was a great bit of business.  I just don't think it's "ridic poor bit of business" - and I guess time will tell.

I know if we hadn't signed him, we'd have taken a step backwards this transfer window. had time to have a proper look at the world wide market and would have been able to start looking at better summer signings which would have been cheaper rather than spend 35mill on a player who isn't even proven yet.

FYP,

If Man City had paid this much for Carrol everyone would have said "Well, it's City and they just spend crazy money". I don't see why that doesn't go for Liverpool.

We sold Torres for an inflated price, which meant we could buy Carroll at an inflated price.  I'm not saying Carroll is a £35M player, but what is his value to a rebuilding Liverpool?  Obviously Kenny and the owners thought he was worth that.

John Henry has said (and backed it up with his actions with the Red Sox) that you often have to 'overspend' on individuals to get the player you want.  I guess he believes that paying an inflated price is worth it, compared to the risk of not getting that player.

Like I said, our net spend this window was £1.8M.  Abramovich spent how much (and I think it's the most he's spent since Mourinho was at the club)?  Is spending £1.8M to ensure we don't move backwards a good bit of business?

1 week ago if you had listed the top 10 strikers in the world would he have been in it?

I think you have paid £15m too much for carroll. Your season is over - in my opinion you should have consoldated till summer. The only positive is that he now has 6 months to bed into the team (which you cannot overrate), but im not sure that £35m was good business.

Maybe it was £15M too much?  But like you say, getting him now along with Suarez, rather than waiting till the summer and then having to wait for the team to 'gel' again and we have another season effectively written off.  Not only that, but it sounds out Liverpool's intentions and we might be able to attract the players we want in the summer (hopefully).

Over 5 years, he'll cost Liverpool £13M less in wages (basic calculation - that doesn't include bonus calculations or other stuff - but I'm sure that would level itself out) than if we'd kept Torres.  It's probably fair to say a Top 10 striker would have commanded/demanded the same wages as Torres. So if Carroll can prove to be anywhere near as good as his potential, then the net cost is far lower.  In addition to that, there's his value in 5 year's time.  He'll be 27, Torres will be 31.  Torres will suffer from depreciation in that time, I'd like to think Carroll won't.

I'm not saying it's the bargain of the century, or that Liverpool didn't pay too much for him (based on cold market values in a vacuum).  I just don't think it's the terrible bit of business that many are saying it is.  Of course, I'd have loved to have kept Torres (if he'd wanted to stay) and buy Carroll as well.  But that was never to be, so I'm looking at the positives of the situation.  It's definitely better value than the £30M Chelsea paid for Shevchenko, or the £28M Man u paid for Veron in 2001 (which would be far more than £35M in relative terms).

According to soccernomics these transfers would be far higher now due to Chelsea/Man City/Real Madrid's continued spending.

Sheva would be circa £45m now.

[kinboshi]

Is that the same thing as the Transfer Price Index?

[The Baron]

Is that the same thing as the Transfer Price Index?

The same or very similar model.

[The Baron]

I've had a while to think about the price for Carroll and it's unbelievably bad. After 6 months in the top flight he's the 9th most expensive player of all time or something?

Strategy should have been to keep Torres for 6 months (Masch and Alonso did ok even though they wanted away) and bought Carroll for £18m ish in the summer. Then spent £18m on Hazard/Defour/Albiol/Garay etc

My only hope it when Commolli hads paid over the odds in the past he's generally been right but that's some free reign you're giving him.

[The Camel]

I've had a while to think about the price for Carroll and it's unbelievably bad. After 6 months in the top flight he's the 9th most expensive player of all time or something?

Strategy should have been to keep Torres for 6 months (Masch and Alonso did ok even though they wanted away) and bought Carroll for £18m ish in the summer. Then spent £18m on Hazard/Defour/Albiol/Garay etc

My only hope it when Commolli hads paid over the odds in the past he's generally been right but that's some free reign you're giving him.

I don't see the point of having Carroll without at least one, preferably two top class wingers.

[sweet potata!]

I've had a while to think about the price for Carroll and it's unbelievably bad. After 6 months in the top flight he's the 9th most expensive player of all time or something?

Strategy should have been to keep Torres for 6 months (Masch and Alonso did ok even though they wanted away) and bought Carroll for £18m ish in the summer. Then spent £18m on Hazard/Defour/Albiol/Garay etc

My only hope it when Commolli hads paid over the odds in the past he's generally been right but that's some free reign you're giving him.

I don't see the point of having Carroll without at least one, preferably two top class wingers.

We have Dirk Kuyt.