Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12 - Mod Note 4153

ShamoBuc · 27-12-2011 11:48PM

Phoenix Park wrote: »

and you fcked up for 50 million, astonishingly poor business from Chelsea, spending 50 million on a 10-15million pound player at best (i'm note sure i'm even joking anymore)

Really? Torres was a 10-15 million pound player at best?
Don't think so.

K-9 · 27-12-2011 11:52PM

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

Please explain to me why this is. I know it has probably been discussed a million times on here and I've always tried to not bother with it, so maybe I'm a bit clueless on the situation in comparison to others.

It's the £68 Million from 2007 point can't see any sense in. For a club that was nearly in administration last year, its an incredibly unfair and stupid comparison to other top 6 teams.

We've lost Alonso, Masch and Torres and the one good signing under Hodgson. The club was asset stripped until about a year ago.

Dalglish started from a very low base and the team should be judged from then, not 2007.

Knex* · 27-12-2011 11:57PM

K-9 wrote: »

It's the £68 Million from 2007 point can't see any sense in. For a club that was nearly in administration last year, its an incredibly unfair and stupid comparison to other top 6 teams.

We've lost Alonso, Masch and Torres and the one good signing under Hodgson. The club was asset stripped until about a year ago.

Dalglish started from a very low base and the team should be judged from then, not 2007.

Exactly. For Christ sake we had Konchesky as our first choice left back and Poulsen was even managing game time.

Overall I'm happy with the progression of the team and I'm extremely interested in how the club handles their business this January transfer window.

ilovelamp2000 · 27-12-2011 11:58PM

K-9 wrote: »

It's the £68 Million from 2007 point can't see any sense in. For a club that was nearly in administration last year, its an incredibly unfair and stupid comparison to other top 6 teams.

We've lost Alonso, Masch and Torres and the one good signing under Hodgson. The club was asset stripped until about a year ago.

Dalglish started from a very low base and the team should be judged from then, not 2007.

In what sense was it asset stripped ?

willmunny1990 · 27-12-2011 11:59PM

Phoenix Park wrote: »

and you fcked up for 50 million, astonishingly poor business from Chelsea, spending 50 million on a 10-15million pound player at best (i'm note sure i'm even joking anymore)

Nonsense.

Its plainly obvious why we payed £50 million for Torres, he had previous ability and was known for being one of the best strikers in the world. He was a proven goal scorer in the PL.

cloptrop · 28-12-2011 12:00AM

why is bellamy not in the starting 11???
im not a liverpool supporter but think hes one of the best wingers in england, am i missing something ?
i only see the liverpool highlights

Knex* · 28-12-2011 12:07AM

cloptrop wrote: »

why is bellamy not in the starting 11???
im not a liverpool supporter but think hes one of the best wingers in england, am i missing something ?
i only see the liverpool highlights

His fitness, he can't play too many matches in quick succession. Think someone was saying it was an issue with his knees if I'm not mistaken.

Kess73 · 28-12-2011 12:08AM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Nonsense.

Its plainly obvious why we payed £50 million for Torres, he had previous ability and was known for being one of the best strikers in the world. He was a proven goal scorer in the PL.

If Carroll had continued his run of goalscoring in the Premiership after he made the move to Liverpool then people would not be looking at the manager for spending such a high fee on him, and he would not be getting called a 10m to 15m player.

Same applies to Torres. If he had continued his Liverpool rate of scoring after his 50m move to Chelsea then he would look like money well spent rather than looking like a sub 15m player like he has done for almost a year now.

As things stand right now Liverpool have not gotten value for the 35m they spent on Carroll (5 goals from 28 games), and Chelsea have gotten even worse value for the 50m they spent on Torres (5 goals from 37 games). Now this could change for both clubs in the future, but right now I think it is pretty retarded for either set of supporters to laugh at the other for the money spent last January.

tommyhaas · 28-12-2011 12:28AM

Kess73 wrote: »

As things stand right now Liverpool have not gotten value for the 35m they spent on Carroll (5 goals from 28 games), and Chelsea have gotten even worse value for the 50m they spent on Torres (5 goals from 37 games). Now this could change for both clubs in the future, but right now I think it is pretty retarded for either set of supporters to laugh at the other for the money spent last January.

I agree with what you're saying, however I do think its fair to say that Torres was at the time a better buy all things considered. Things obviously haven't worked out for him, but nobody could have seen that coming to such an extent. Certainly I'd be far happier to see a player of Torres's age and ability arriving at Anfield in January for £50m, then I would be to see a player of Carroll's age and ability arriving for £35m. There was a logic in the Torres signing that was non-existent in the Carroll signing.

In terms of a transfer strategy, if it turns out in the long term that Torres is a failure at Chelsea, would you question the recruitment policy that led to his signing? Perhaps to an extent, but on the face of it, he did seem a good signing albeit at a slightly inflated fee. He had a proven record in the PL and on the highest stage, he had demonstrated an ability to settle in a foreign country, and had long been a target of Chelsea's

With Carroll though, if you were to question the strategy implemented that led to him arriving you'd find numerous inherent flaws, from rash decision making to poor negotiating, to the inability to identify a player capable of fitting in with the intended system. His signing was a far poorer one IMO, despite neither working out. Financially Torres has been a bigger flop, but he represented less of a risk, and so I would still maintain that signing him was a better decision then signing Carroll. Relative to both clubs finances, you could also argue that Carroll cost Liverpool more then Torres cost Chelsea

Now obviously both have not worked out to date, but there was far more reason to sign Torres then Carroll, and Chelsea can at least take some consolation in the fact that they did balance the risk of the signing (which seemed low) against a high fee. Liverpool didn't

missingtime · 28-12-2011 12:29AM

I thought the money had to be spent due to the fifa spending regulations? So there was no way that we could just take Chelseas' money and sit on it.

mike65 · 28-12-2011 12:30AM

It could have been spent in the summer, having considered all the options.

K-9 · 28-12-2011 12:36AM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

In what sense was it asset stripped ?

I was being a bit dramatic.

I know you have to step in to defend H&G and attack Rafa. I'd thought we were past all that, silly me.

K-9 · 28-12-2011 12:39AM

I suppose we could have just stuck with N'Gog.

Kess73 · 28-12-2011 12:50AM

tommyhaas wrote: »

I agree with what you're saying, however I do think its fair to say that Torres was at the time a better buy all things considered. Things obviously haven't worked out for him, but nobody could have seen that coming to such an extent. Certainly I'd be far happier to see a player of Torres's age and ability arriving at Anfield in January for £50m, then I would be to see a player of Carroll's age and ability arriving for £35m. There was a logic in the Torres signing that was non-existent in the Carroll signing.

In terms of a transfer strategy, if it turns out in the long term that Torres is a failure at Chelsea, would you question the recruitment policy that led to his signing? Perhaps to an extent, but on the face of it, he did seem a good signing albeit at a slightly inflated fee. He had a proven record in the PL and on the highest stage, he had demonstrated an ability to settle in a foreign country, and had long been a target of Chelsea's

With Carroll though, if you were to question the strategy implemented that led to him arriving you'd find numerous inherent flaws, from rash decision making to poor negotiating, to the inability to identify a player capable of fitting in with the intended system. His signing was a far poorer one IMO, despite neither working out. Financially Torres has been a bigger flop, but he represented less of a risk, and so I would still maintain that signing him was a better decision then signing Carroll. Relative to both clubs finances, you could also argue that Carroll cost Liverpool more then Torres cost Chelsea

Now obviously both have not worked out to date, but there was far more reason to sign Torres then Carroll, and Chelsea can at least take some consolation in the fact that they did balance the risk of the signing (which seemed low) against a high fee. Liverpool didn't

I don't disagree with your post, but with regards to Torres/Carroll and the money spent on them, it is all with the benefit of hindsight at this point.

Neither has been value for money to date, and as such I think it is pretty thick for supporters of either club to have a pop at the other over potenially wasting money on either signing.

argosy2006 · 28-12-2011 12:53AM

Is there any young striker at the club that can step up to start a few games??
Been so long since we had a home grown striker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Knex* · 28-12-2011 12:59AM

argosy2006 wrote: »

Is there any young striker at the club that can step up to start a few games??
Been so long since we had a home grown striker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, not for another few years anyway. The closest reserve player to being able for 1st team action would probably be Eccelston but I don't think he will ever be Liverpool standard unfortunately, although I could be wrong.

Another few years until we will know if Adjoran and Morgan will cut it in the Premier League.

Also, Lol at the "rigger wuz ere" tag. Just noticed it now

Kess73 · 28-12-2011 01:01AM

argosy2006 wrote: »

Is there any young striker at the club that can step up to start a few games??
Been so long since we had a home grown striker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody on that front that I would think ready anyway. The only young player on our books that I would even fancy to do ok at senior level if he was thrown in there would be Nathan Eccleston.

argosy2006 · 28-12-2011 01:24AM

Kess73 wrote: »

Nobody on that front that I would think ready anyway. The only young player on our books that I would even fancy to do ok at senior level if he was thrown in there would be Nathan Eccleston.

Players surprise people when they are thrown in at deep end,
The unknown,

whatawaster · 28-12-2011 01:49AM

I think Ngoo is the best striker we have at Reserve level. Not sure he is a great goalscorer, though he has terrific control and dribbling ability, that you wouldn't really expect from someone his height. I'd liken him to Peter Crouch with pace.

whatawaster · 28-12-2011 02:13AM

Talk of replacing Carroll with Bent is making me very sad.

My problems with Bent aren't that he isn't a good player, because I think he is. But Villa would surely want to recoup what they paid for him, thus making him another over-priced British signing.

He is no better than Carroll in his general play (in fact I'd say he is worse), and his work-rate is nothing to write home about. He is selfish and will not create chances for others. He is 28 in a couple of months. He is a signing Hodgson would make.

The notion seems to be spreading that we just need someone to stand in the 6 yard box to finish off the bucketloads of chances we are creating. I really don't subscribe to that at all. Yes, we need someone clincal, but they also need to contribute to our overall play in a way that Bent is not capable of imo.

A huge number of our missed chances are self-created by Suarez, he really needs to provide some end product in the second half of the season.

I do think that our only chance of 4th rests with Gerrard being fit for the next 5 months and showing the form he has shown in glimpses in his little playing time under Kenny.

Adebayor in the summer if Spurs won't fork out for his wages? Attitude problems, yes, but he is a great player.

willmunny1990 · 28-12-2011 02:23AM

Kess73 wrote: »

I don't disagree with your post, but with regards to Torres/Carroll and the money spent on them, it is all with the benefit of hindsight at this point.

Neither has been value for money to date, and as such I think it is pretty thick for supporters of either club to have a pop at the other over potenially wasting money on either signing.

Neither signing proved their worth yet but you can understand the Torres price-tag, Andy's price tag and signing was baffling.

Torres has been a consistent high scorer in the PL who has proved he can do it, Andy had a rush of blood scoring 12 goals in 19 appearances in the PL. That's about all hes done and that goes no where to justifying a 35million price-tag.

Jesus Wept · 28-12-2011 04:59AM

He's not so consistent now.

mormank · 28-12-2011 11:10AM

noodler wrote: »

Christ I could barely disagree more.

I think you are really, really struggling to defend the decision to spend the money as it came in.

Tell you what, just as an experiment, lets see if Newcastle are forced to spend 30m on their next signing....since everybody knows they have money!

Whilst I agree with most of that I think its very obvious.

If you'd like me to elaborate on the original point then I will say that 100m should get you more than what we have..considering what we began with (Best keeper in the league, two good centre halfs (and Carra!), a good right back, Gerrard, Kuyt, Lucas etc etc).

Regarding your last point, I always find the "god all people ever do is bitch on the internet" point to be the last bastion of a scoundrel! - kind of like arguing a point with somebody and then (for whatever reason) trying to end it with "well god who cares anyway!".

What else would we be talking about in a Liverpool thread on a discussion forum?

Oh so Skrtel is good enough now? I honestly can't remember which side of the Skrtel camp you have been on in the past but sure it suits your argument here so let's put him in the good centre half pile. Agger himself is a rock obv but injury prone as we all know. We are all collectively waiting for his next long term injury. Touch Wood of course. Gerrard has been on the injury table for pretty much all of Kenny's reign so how you can include him in a positive pile again is beyond me and just suits your argument so you've thrown him in. Actualy I think he helps illustrate my point as we have been without him but whatever, you've taken him on your side for some reason. :rolleyes: Of course Lucas is out for the season but again you have used him as a positive. Another strange one. And lastly you have held up Kuyt as some other kind of example of the excellent players Kenny has at his disposal....:rolleyes: Wow, I don't think I even need to say a word. We were not as strong as you suggest when Kenny took over and started spending. Not to mention all the players that have left since he took over.

Oh I will say tho, I'm no scoundrel. Just a far more realistic fan than alot on here. Did you honestly write that last post with a straight face by the way? If you did you are a better man than me cos I couldn't have.

mormank · 28-12-2011 11:22AM

tommyhaas wrote: »

I agree with what you're saying, however I do think its fair to say that Torres was at the time a better buy all things considered. Things obviously haven't worked out for him, but nobody could have seen that coming to such an extent. Certainly I'd be far happier to see a player of Torres's age and ability arriving at Anfield in January for £50m, then I would be to see a player of Carroll's age and ability arriving for £35m. There was a logic in the Torres signing that was non-existent in the Carroll signing.

In terms of a transfer strategy, if it turns out in the long term that Torres is a failure at Chelsea, would you question the recruitment policy that led to his signing? Perhaps to an extent, but on the face of it, he did seem a good signing albeit at a slightly inflated fee. He had a proven record in the PL and on the highest stage, he had demonstrated an ability to settle in a foreign country, and had long been a target of Chelsea's

With Carroll though, if you were to question the strategy implemented that led to him arriving you'd find numerous inherent flaws, from rash decision making to poor negotiating, to the inability to identify a player capable of fitting in with the intended system. His signing was a far poorer one IMO, despite neither working out. Financially Torres has been a bigger flop, but he represented less of a risk, and so I would still maintain that signing him was a better decision then signing Carroll. Relative to both clubs finances, you could also argue that Carroll cost Liverpool more then Torres cost Chelsea

Now obviously both have not worked out to date, but there was far more reason to sign Torres then Carroll, and Chelsea can at least take some consolation in the fact that they did balance the risk of the signing (which seemed low) against a high fee. Liverpool didn't

I'm not so sure. Torres has been struggling with injuries, loss of form and hunger/drive for 18 months or so before he left for Chelsea. Andy Carroll had been banging them in and generally looking like a real handful, albeit for 6 months, just before his move to Liverpool. I believe what you are talking about is the pedigree of the players. Obviously Torres was at one point in his career regarded as the best striker in the world (If you take Messi and Ronaldo not to be strikers technically) but to say he represented less of a risk than Andy Carroll at the time of transfer isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.

Chucky the tree · 28-12-2011 11:22AM

His point about what we have seems to have gone right over your head if you think Lucas being injured discounts him from that list.

mormank · 28-12-2011 11:25AM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Nonsense.

Its plainly obvious why we payed £50 million for Torres, he had previous ability and was known for being one of the best strikers in the world. He was a proven goal scorer in the PL.

Ye bought Torres because ye're owner had pined over him for years and eventually got his man just like he did with Shevchenko. And like when Shevvie was bought there was very little actual thought put into how the player would thrive at Chelsea with the type of game they play etc...Sure Torres was the best at one stage of his career but like Shevvie it remains to be seen if he will ever be considered that with the blue jersey on. Ye can live in hope tho.

I am pie · 28-12-2011 11:26AM

The-Rigger wrote: »

He's not so consistent now.

Unfortunately he is. Consistently not good enough

mormank · 28-12-2011 11:31AM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

His point about what we have seems to have gone right over your head if you think Lucas being injured discounts him from that list.

Why? I would point to the Lucas injury as another reason why we need to be realistic about our results and potential league finish this season.

Chucky the tree · 28-12-2011 11:33AM

mormank wrote: »

Why? I would point to the Lucas injury as another reason why we need to be realistic about our results and potential league finish this season.

He said what we began with when we had £100m to spend, not what we have now. Lucas' injury now is of no relevance to his point.

mormank · 28-12-2011 11:40AM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

He said what we began with when we had £100m to spend, not what we have now. Lucas' injury now is of no relevance to his point.

Oh right ok. Well I suppose gerrard's injury troubles arent relevant either and ya your right we should get more for our 100mill regardless of anything that then happens thoughout the season! :rolleyes:

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12 - Mod Note 4153

Comments