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

amiable · 28-12-2011 03:11PM

cloptrop wrote: »

could you add the picture of rooney cursing because he scored in there ,, oh wait hang on he was charged
come off it theres no conspiracy against liverpool

I thought the poster mentioned consistency and not a conspiracy against Liverpool

Mr Alan · 28-12-2011 03:14PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

The line was drawn I reckon after Rooney getting banned for cursing at the camera at Upton Park last season.

That's not true at all, first off the West Ham incident was totally different.

Secondly, pretty sure both Rooney & Ashley Cole both gave abusive hand gestures after the West Ham incident & neither received a ban.

pistolpetes11 · 28-12-2011 03:16PM

It was ridiculous for Ronney and is ridiculous for Suarez getting the ban,

The amount of abuse you will hear coming from the stands at every game add to that the hand gestures also, and then a player who has being getting abused the whole game gets a ban for giving something back is quite simply stupid.

Will the the FA be pushing for barring orders for supporters throwing abuse at players, I highly doubt it because you would be playing games in half empty stadiums.

Kess73 · 28-12-2011 03:18PM

Dotsey wrote: »

When will the English FA charge the English FA for charging and handing out xenophobic and borderline racist charges and fines to foreign players while allowing English players to escape punishment for the same offences?

When the FA release a detailed report on the Suarez/Evra case we will have a better idea on whether they did the right or wrong thing based on what evidence they have. Until then it is hard to say how right or wrong they are.

But I do think that the likes of Gordon Taylor of the PFA should be ashamed of himself based on some of what he came out with about Suarez and Liverpool.

He gave a big interview about multicultural England, and then basically scoffed at the idea of cultural differences being used as any kind of excuse when a foreign player is in England. Which was a bit rich coming from the man who came out and defended the stance that Tevez took against Man City and said that City needed to take into account cultural differences when dealing with a foreign player like Tevez, as the player might not understand how things work in England. The same Tevez that has been with three English clubs in a row now.

citytillidie · 28-12-2011 03:21PM

Trilla wrote: »

I hope so too! To be fair you could google Liverpool players surrounding the referee especially Reina and make one of those images up. You could google most clubs and get lots of results, especially high profile premiership clubs... but I'm with you that there has to be more consistency with the charges dished out.

It was told on the match thread that a captin is allowed to chat to the ref, and for the past month with JC on the bench Reina has been captin

Hannibal · 28-12-2011 03:21PM

Kess73 wrote: »

When the FA release a detailed report on the Suarez/Evra case we will have a better idea on whether they did the right or wrong thing based on what evidence they have. Until then it is hard to say how right or wrong they are.

But I do think that the likes of Gordon Taylor of the PFA should be ashamed of himself based on some of what he came out with about Suarez and Liverpool.

He gave a big interview about multicultural England, and then basically scoffed at the idea of cultural differences being used as any kind of excuse when a foreign player is in England. Which was a bit rich coming from the man who came out and defended the stance that Tevez took against Man City and said that City needed to take into account cultural differences when dealing with a foreign player like Tevez, as the player might not understand how things work in England. The same Tevez that has been with three English clubs in a row now.

Gordon Taylor showed himself to be a hypocrite. He's like all union leaders when dealing with internal problems, he stands in the group where most offended members are.

Interesting in the last two games to see Di Santo and Formica having private conversations with Suarez which involved giggling and head shaking, which shows most South American players disagree with the punishment.

slingerz · 28-12-2011 03:22PM

Suarez will be broke with all the fines!

cloptrop · 28-12-2011 03:23PM

will they ever really publish this report , if so will it go into detail?
and if nobody seen him say it and nobody heard him say it , and nobody in the hearing has published anything yet , where is this negrito word coming from?
has anyone in a position to verify the wording or the context actually gone on record or has most of this story started from some internet poster pretending to be kenny dalgleishes mother??

Kess73 · 28-12-2011 03:23PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

That's not true at all, first off the West Ham incident was totally different.

Secondly, pretty sure both Rooney & Ashley Cole both gave abusive hand gestures after the West Ham incident & neither received a ban.

If the FA stay consistent in terms of bans/fines for players who give the finger on the pitch from this point onwards, then I will have no complaints about Suarez getting his one match ban plus fine.

Same goes for what the FA said after finding Suarez guilty of both abusive and racially charged comments. If the FA from that point onwards take action in the form of bans and fines against any players found 100% guilty of a racist comment or an abusive comment, then I will appluad them for being consistent in their actions.

If however the FA do not treat all similar cases in a consistant manner in the future then I hope they open a clusterfcuk of hassle onto themselves, and that past similar offences that were punished get used in proceedings against them.

Kess73 · 28-12-2011 03:26PM

cloptrop wrote: »

will they ever really publish this report , if so will it go into detail?
and if nobody seen him say it and nobody heard him say it , and nobody in the hearing has published anything yet , where is this negrito word coming from?has anyone in a position to verify the wording or the context actually gone on record or has most of this story started from some internet poster pretending to be kenny dalgleishes mother??

The negrito/negro side of things has pretty much come through the media and idiots just lkapped up the taboid stuff as truth.

Similar to how many came out and claimed the read "somewhere" that Suarez had admitted X and Y.

We will have to wait until a moth or two into the new year before we know anything solid though as that is when the FA are meant to be presented their report and evidence. Until then we are probably best served by putting the debate on evidence/word used on the back burner.

Crazy Horse 6 · 28-12-2011 03:28PM

Dotsey wrote: »

Gordon Taylor showed himself to be a hypocrite. He's like all union leaders when dealing with internal problems, he stands in the group where most offended members are.

Interesting in the last two games to see Di Santo and Formica having private conversations with Suarez which involved giggling and head shaking, which shows most South American players disagree with the punishment.

The FA are a laughing stock all over world for the bias they have shown regarding the Suarez matter.

Mr Alan · 28-12-2011 03:28PM

Let's not forget bringing charges against the club too Kess, for failing to control their players. That charge will need to be brought all the time too.

There's already been numerous similar incidents since the Fulham game & no charge has been brought.

You're kidding yourself if you think this is any sort of line in the sand, it's simply the FA picking an easy victim.

cloptrop · 28-12-2011 03:29PM

Kess73 wrote: »

The negrito/negro side of things has pretty much come through the media and idiots just lkapped up the taboid stuff as truth.

Similar to how many came out and claimed the read "somewhere" that Suarez had admitted X and Y.

We will have to wait until a moth or two into the new year before we know anything solid though as that is when the FA are meant to be presented their report and evidence. Until then we are probably best served by putting the debate on evidence/word used on the back burner.

yep the fact they havnt lodged appeal yet is kinda making me think , but it could be all manner of reasons for that
this is a funny side of it you should check it out itll make you laugh
http://newsthump.com/2011/12/21/liverpool-disappointed-as-fa-hand-andy-carroll-eight-match-run-in-liverpool-side/
or else highly offend you depending on how seriously you take yourself

Ferris_Bueller · 28-12-2011 03:30PM

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

I can't see why Hendo is being written off by so many. He's done well when he's played centrally. His passing is top notch, and he's got great confidence on the ball, and willing to try those cross-field and defense-splitting passes that we've been missing since Alonso. He's also got a great engine and has shown great ability to cover the full backs since he's played in his more central role. If we had a 21 year old of similar quality from the reserves (and we don't), there'd be a massive clamour for him to be in the team.

I think the reason he is being written off is because of the alternatives we (possibly) could have gotten for the same price. Agree with you that Henderson hasn't been terrible, nor being very good, and he does have potential, thought the same when he was at Sunderland. However the question is for me, will he ever be a £20m player at any point in his career? I think myself and a lot of other fans who seem to be arguing how poorly we have spent, think the £20m could have been spent better elsewhere. Guys like Cabaye and Parker went to non CL clubs and represented much better value for money, and although nobody was calling to sign them at the time, same could be said for Henderson.

mormank wrote: »

Of course I would want the same. I would love for us to have signed players that brought us to the next level. Fact is, we have no european football to attract players and we don't have the financial muscle in terms of wages on offer to compete either. Mata chose chelsea, young and Jones chose Utd. Nasri chose city. Sanchez chose Barca. I could go on. Where are all these players that we can attract to our club at the moment that will be as awesome as you want? I'm sorry but they don't exist....oh no wait, the occasional gem like Suarez will come but to expect this to be the rule and not the exception is crazy.

Abroad, players like Arda Turan, Jeremy Toulalan, Vidal, Elia, Pjanic have all been signed by clubs not in the CL, who again represented better value. Of course maybe all of these players could have been worse than Henderson/Downing, but if they were available at a lower cost, I think we should have opted for one or two ahead of Henderson or Downing. I would also argue that we do not have the financial clout, I know we have to sell quite a bit in order to purchase, but most clubs are in the same boat, and if we can afford to spend £35m on a "potentially" good striker, I think it could be said that we could have the financial muscle if we chose not to spend it on him.

At the end of the day everyone is going to have their own opinions on the matter, and it doesn't look like anyones is going to change, it's easy for us all to say in hindsight that Downing and Carroll have been poor signings and that Henderson hasn't been great, but when they were all signed at first there were question marks over there price tags.

Kess73 · 28-12-2011 03:30PM

Dotsey wrote: »

Gordon Taylor showed himself to be a hypocrite. He's like all union leaders when dealing with internal problems, he stands in the group where most offended members are.

Interesting in the last two games to see Di Santo and Formica having private conversations with Suarez which involved giggling and head shaking, which shows most South American players disagree with the punishment.

What was more interesting was how many media outlets across Europe reported on it, especially in terms of how they reported on what was claimed to have been said. The FA and English were pretty much reported as being insular and close minded to other cultures in a lot of the foreign media.

Fuhrer · 28-12-2011 03:32PM

Dotsey wrote: »

Interesting in the last two games to see Di Santo and Formica having private conversations with Suarez which involved giggling and head shaking, which shows most South American players disagree with the punishment.

That is exactly what it means!

Kess73 · 28-12-2011 03:32PM

cloptrop wrote: »

yep the fact they havnt lodged appeal yet is kinda making me think , but it could be all manner of reasons for that
this is a funny side of it you should check it out itll make you laugh
http://newsthump.com/2011/12/21/liverpool-disappointed-as-fa-hand-andy-carroll-eight-match-run-in-liverpool-side/
or else highly offend you depending on how seriously you take yourself

The club cannot formally lodge an appeal yet. That seems to be getting overlooked by many people. An appeal cannot be lodged until the FA formally release their report on their findings. So if the FA do not release that report until Febuary, as has been reported, then an appeal cannot be lodged until the 14 day period following that release, and if the ban is upheld (or no appeal is made after 14 days), it cannot be started until after that.

Kess73 · 28-12-2011 03:35PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

Let's not forget bringing charges against the club too Kess, for failing to control their players. That charge will need to be brought all the time too.

There's already been numerous similar incidents since the Fulham game & no charge has been brought.

You're kidding yourself if you think this is any sort of line in the sand, it's simply the FA picking an easy victim.

Based on past events in the game, I tend to agree with you in that the FA will simply not be consistent, but until they show that lack of consistency from this point onwards it is a mug's game to slam them on it as all that does is give critics more ammo.

Leiva · 28-12-2011 03:40PM

Where oh where do they get their fines from ?

£20,000 ???

PHB · 28-12-2011 03:42PM

Mod Note:

Lads, the racism thread being closed is not an excuse to talk about it here.

Fine if you're talking about the appeal and the timings etc, but I don't want to see any posts about the incident itself, it's impact on the FA or anything like that.

Phoenix Park · 28-12-2011 03:43PM

I'm no prude but some of the abuse coming from the terraces is getting worse and worse far as i can tell anyway. When did the wa nker gesture start up?. I first started going to games in the early 90's..i don't remember it then. Now when any player is even taking a throw in the fans behind are doing the gesture. Some will say no harm in it but i'm getting a bit sick of it (and if you had a young son bringing him to Anfield for the first time its not ideal- clearly every second word is fck or cnt in the stands and it always will be, but i don't remember the wan ker thing being as common place as it is now). I wonder if one day some player will snap and literally approach to nearest cop when taking a throw in or corner and rat some fan out on the spot in front of anyone who has made one gesture or another to him..maybe its already happened?. I see little difference between any player giving the crowd the finger and the obscene gestures/chants the players are subjected to.

What was it Matthew Simmons the Palace fan said to Eric Cantona a few years ago?. Oh yeah, "its an early bath for you, Frenchman!". You have to laugh.

Phoenix Park · 28-12-2011 03:45PM

PHB i have literally just read your post,apologies if that was off topic, although i don't want to put it in the Racism thread jungle!.

Hannibal · 28-12-2011 03:46PM

Kess73 wrote: »

What was more interesting was how many media outlets across Europe reported on it, especially in terms of how they reported on what was claimed to have been said. The FA and English were pretty much reported as being insular and close minded to other cultures in a lot of the foreign media.

Well politically the English mindset has always being closed to other cultures going back over centuries so it's no surprise that this has spread to their sporting organisations.

Latin players is a relatively new thing in England compared to other European leagues so their understanding of the Latin mindset is midguided.

tommyhaas · 28-12-2011 03:48PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

That's not true at all, first off the West Ham incident was totally different.

Secondly, pretty sure both Rooney & Ashley Cole both gave abusive hand gestures after the West Ham incident & neither received a ban.

The West Ham incident was different, but it certainly fell into the same category

I don't recall either the Rooney or Cole gestures, but were either as conclusive as the Suarez one? Is the Rooney gesture you're referring to the one where he claimed to be pointing at his eyes?

FWIW, I don't think either Rooney or Suarez should have been banned, but I also don't think Suarez's punishment was unfair in light of that handed to Rooney

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

The FA are a laughing stock all over world for the bias they have shown regarding the Suarez matter.

What bias? They may be a laughing stock for how they've handled the incident, or for failing to acknowledge the significance of South American culture in the incident, but claiming that the FA are biased against Liverpool is tin foil hat stuff

EDIT: Just seen mod not, apologies

ilovelamp2000 · 28-12-2011 03:53PM

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

Torres was a massive risk if you look at it properly. If you rely on the Premiership proven nonsense you can easily come to your conclusion but I'll show you why I disagree.

It's rare that players are the same all throughout their career, you need to estimate what sort of performance you're going to get out of them going forward before buying them. You need to take several things into account - past form is one of them. But it's by no means the only one. Paying money based on what somebody has done is a mugs game, you should pay for what you expect to get out of them. Relying on the conventional wisdom that players peak at 28 is also a mugs game.

I've said this before, but you also need to look at comparable players and see how their careers panned out - noting any differences between the players.

So Torres - burst on the scene at age 17, played and scored regularly in a top league right from the beginning. A consistent goalscorer.

Two obvious comparisons spring to mind. Owen and Fowler. By the time they reached 27 they were both shadows of what they used to be. Both of their peak years were behind them already.

So you look at Torres when we were selling him, a couple of months short of his 27th birthday. He's spent the last couple of seasons dealing with significant injuries, there's a long term concern over his knee. The chances are his best seasons are already behind him. He might have a few productive years left in him, he'll most likely never hit 20 in the league again, but he could easily hit 15 a few times.

I would definitely question the transfer policy at Chelsea that led to Torres being signed, if there was one. We all know Abramovich wanted him regardless of what it took, and much like the other proven striker he demanded the club get it's turning out swimmingly. Chelsea ignored all the warning signs, there were red flags everywhere - his worsening attitude, his diminishing workrate, his injury history. Anyone advocating that as a sound transfer policy is deluded IMO. Torres at best was going to turn out to be a waste of money, what's happening now is pretty much the worst case scenario. And not even I would have predicted it, even though I thought selling Torres for £50m was the best bit of business the club had done for years and a sure sign we had finally grown up as a club.

As for Andy Carroll - well he showed a glimpse of what he could do - we know he's capable of getting goals at Premiership level and we knew his best years were ahead of him. The big question mark was over his attitude, his work rate and his professionalism. That question mark is still there - and for me he was too big of a risk to spend 35m on with those issues hanging over him. That said we've got him now and there's still a chance he can turn things around. If he plays for us for the next ten years and hits double figures in the league each year then I think he'll have repaid his transfer fee. He doesn't need to be spectacular to do that. Torres will never repay his transfer fee, he's done.

It's too early to be definitive on Carroll, and although the signs aren't great at the moment - the main one being his inability to get any real game time - I can still see the signing panning out as being okay in the long run.

I can't say the same for Torres.

Leiva · 28-12-2011 04:04PM

Hindsights a great thing .
I know if the Torres sale and Carroll purchase fell through at the last minute I would have been delighted .

Nothing I have seen , or expect to see from Carroll has changed my opinion .

I truly believe that if Torres had stayed him and Suarez would have been an amazing partnership.

The only teams to benefit from that crazy transaction was every other club bar LFC and CFC looking for CL football.

Kess73 · 28-12-2011 04:05PM

Phoenix Park wrote: »

I'm no prude but some of the abuse coming from the terraces is getting worse and worse far as i can tell anyway. When did the wa nker gesture start up?. I first started going to games in the early 90's..i don't remember it then. Now when any player is even taking a throw in the fans behind are doing the gesture. Some will say no harm in it but i'm getting a bit sick of it (and if you had a young son bringing him to Anfield for the first time its not ideal- clearly every second word is fck or cnt in the stands and it always will be, but i don't remember the wan ker thing being as common place as it is now). I wonder if one day some player will snap and literally approach to nearest cop when taking a throw in or corner and rat some fan out on the spot in front of anyone who has made one gesture or another to him..maybe its already happened?. I see little difference between any player giving the crowd the finger and the obscene gestures/chants the players are subjected to.

What was it Matthew Simmons the Palace fan said to Eric Cantona a few years ago?. Oh yeah, "its an early bath for you, Frenchman!". You have to laugh.

He was convicted of assault earlier this year.

Would agree somewhat with the abuse from the stands. The language was always colourful, but in the last decade or two there is certainly an untouchable attitude amongst many supporters in terms of what they think they can say and not be called up on.

ilovelamp2000 · 28-12-2011 04:05PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Hindsights a great thing .
I know if the Torres sale and Carroll purchase fell through at the last minute I would have been delighted .

Nothing I have seen , or expect to see from Carroll has changed my opinion .

I truly believe that if Torres had stayed him and Suarez would have been an amazing partnership.

The only teams to benefit from that crazy transaction was every other club bar LFC and CFC looking for CL football.

I said it at the time too. It was so obvious

G.K. · 28-12-2011 04:08PM

Charging the club over Fulham is a joke, because Spearing was sent off for clearing the ball.

tommyhaas · 28-12-2011 04:50PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Torres was a massive risk if you look at it properly. If you rely on the Premiership proven nonsense you can easily come to your conclusion but I'll show you why I disagree.

It's rare that players are the same all throughout their career, you need to estimate what sort of performance you're going to get out of them going forward before buying them. You need to take several things into account - past form is one of them. But it's by no means the only one. Paying money based on what somebody has done is a mugs game, you should pay for what you expect to get out of them. Relying on the conventional wisdom that players peak at 28 is also a mugs game.

I've said this before, but you also need to look at comparable players and see how their careers panned out - noting any differences between the players.

So Torres - burst on the scene at age 17, played and scored regularly in a top league right from the beginning. A consistent goalscorer.

Two obvious comparisons spring to mind. Owen and Fowler. By the time they reached 27 they were both shadows of what they used to be. Both of their peak years were behind them already.

So you look at Torres when we were selling him, a couple of months short of his 27th birthday. He's spent the last couple of seasons dealing with significant injuries, there's a long term concern over his knee. The chances are his best seasons are already behind him. He might have a few productive years left in him, he'll most likely never hit 20 in the league again, but he could easily hit 15 a few times.

I would definitely question the transfer policy at Chelsea that led to Torres being signed, if there was one. We all know Abramovich wanted him regardless of what it took, and much like the other proven striker he demanded the club get it's turning out swimmingly. Chelsea ignored all the warning signs, there were red flags everywhere - his worsening attitude, his diminishing workrate, his injury history. Anyone advocating that as a sound transfer policy is deluded IMO. Torres at best was going to turn out to be a waste of money, what's happening now is pretty much the worst case scenario. And not even I would have predicted it, even though I thought selling Torres for £50m was the best bit of business the club had done for years and a sure sign we had finally grown up as a club.

As for Andy Carroll - well he showed a glimpse of what he could do - we know he's capable of getting goals at Premiership level and we knew his best years were ahead of him. The big question mark was over his attitude, his work rate and his professionalism. That question mark is still there - and for me he was too big of a risk to spend 35m on with those issues hanging over him. That said we've got him now and there's still a chance he can turn things around. If he plays for us for the next ten years and hits double figures in the league each year then I think he'll have repaid his transfer fee. He doesn't need to be spectacular to do that. Torres will never repay his transfer fee, he's done.

It's too early to be definitive on Carroll, and although the signs aren't great at the moment - the main one being his inability to get any real game time - I can still see the signing panning out as being okay in the long run.

I can't say the same for Torres.

I agree with you regarding the premiership proven point, the reason I alluded to it initially was that it could have been part of Chelsea's criteria, and also because it showed he could score at a high level

As you said, its pointless paying money for what a player has done, however it wasn't as if he was in the midst of a slump when he left. There were certainly signs that he was getting back to being the player he had been, and many, myself included felt part of the reason he hadn't hit his previous heights was down to not having a break, with competing in the World Cup, Euro's and Confederation's Cup the previous summers

Regarding his attitude, this was most likely attributed to his unhappiness at Liverpool, as oppose to a disinterest in football or loss of ambition

Of the red flags you mention, I think there's two that I agree are serious causes of concern; injuries, and comparable players. The injuries concern were I imagine mitigated somewhat with an extensive medical, however that's obviously mitigating against long term damage or likelihood of reoccurrence as oppose to the impact on him as a player. Regarding comparable players, while there are of course examples of strikers peaking at 25/26, there's also examples to the contrary which could be cited. I'm not dismissing your point by any means, infact I'd be inclined to agree in this case, but I can see reasoning for pursuing Torres regardless

The process which led to Chelsea signing Torres is obviously something we're not privy to. I agree the likelihood is that Abramovich simply wanted him on the same basis he wanted Shevchenko, but I still believe there was more reason to sign Torres then Carroll. I'm not claiming Chelsea's transfer strategy is beyond reproach, just that in this example I would see more flaws in Liverpool's

Regarding Carroll, there's the argument that you put forward that if he plays for Liverpool for 10 years without being spectacular, but managing 10-15 goals a season, he'll have repaid his fee. While I agree that on the face of it it would seem good value, I disagree on the basis that there was opportunity cost in signing Carroll

Its very unlikely he'll reach that this season, and on the basis of what I've seen so far, the teams style of play, in the Manager's unwillingness to play him, and with rumours surrounding him not settling in the area, I don't have too much confidence in ever achieving this

And even if he did turn out to be an average to good striker for the club over the next 10 years, I again don't believe he'd represent good value on the basis that another player could have been signed in his place, someone of similar age and greater pedigree capable of getting the goals necessary to get in the club into the top 4.

The inability to take chances is a major factor in the clubs current league position. Had an alternative been signed, I don't think its unreasonable to suggest the club would be in the top 4 right now, nor do I think its unreasonable to suggest that not making the top 4 could be in part attributed to the decision to sign Andy Carroll over an alternative

The cost of missing out on the CL again is massive, and the longer the club stay out, the further others will pull ahead. I would look at missing out again on the CL as being in part consequential of signing Carroll

I am yet to see a valid reason why Carroll was valued so highly. With Torres, I agree he was overvalued, but not to the extent Carroll was. As you've pointed out,there were red flags surrounding Torres, certain risks involved but Carroll's signing was IMO purely speculative, a gamble taken with out much research into the possibilities of the gamble paying off

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

Comments