Liverpool F.c.

[Abrak]

I'll take those 3 Points that i bolded & underlined above & raise you whatever you want as they are the most contradicting points you've made so far which, if true, simply make no sense at all in regards to a potentially successful Plan for LFC..

Full time Manager

1) It is a very important decision so you should take your time and get it right

2) JHenry and Co know next to nothing about football so they obviously wouldnt feel they were in a position to judge who should be the full time manager

3) Iy would be irresponsible of them to offer the job to anyone as they did not have a management team in place to support the manager

4) They clearly were not prepared to back him with capital because they had no infrastructure to see it was properly spent

5) And quite frankly they could have chosen a full time manager and trusted him to spend their money for him but they did not wish the entire fan base to think that they were complete idiots and irresponsible

Arsenal and Man Utd superior fundamentals

1) Basically your fundamentals are driven by your revenue base which decides how much you have to spend.

2) Both Arsenal and Man Utd have large stadiums with 100m match day revenues compared to 40m for Liverpool

3) Man Utds other revenues are miles ahead so to a lesser extent are Arsenals

4) Both have very good squads particularly Arsenal with bags of potential

5) Liverpool have a stadium to do something to which add very little revenue and a squad that needs a lot of spending

I am was suggesting that common sense tells you it is a bad gamble to assume you can return on a fairly permanent basis in the top 4. If Arsenal and ManU have a 100m revenue advantage on you. And Chelsea and Man City owners are infinitely wealthy. Etc... Essentially you have sound reasons for not trying to compete against them because you are virtually guaranteed to lose. If Jhenry thought it was a bad gamble he wouldnt take it on. So he clearly as a plan where he believes the odds are he will win.

[MSingh]

I'll take those 3 Points that i bolded & underlined above & raise you whatever you want as they are the most contradicting points you've made so far which, if true, simply make no sense at all in regards to a potentially successful Plan for LFC..

Full time Manager

1) It is a very important decision so you should take your time and get it right

2) JHenry and Co know next to nothing about football so they obviously wouldnt feel they were in a position to judge who should be the full time manager

3) Iy would be irresponsible of them to offer the job to anyone as they did not have a management team in place to support the manager

4) They clearly were not prepared to back him with capital because they had no infrastructure to see it was properly spent

5) And quite frankly they could have chosen a full time manager and trusted him to spend their money for him but they did not wish the entire fan base to think that they were complete idiots and irresponsible

Arsenal and Man Utd superior fundamentals

1) Basically your fundamentals are driven by your revenue base which decides how much you have to spend.

2) Both Arsenal and Man Utd have large stadiums with 100m match day revenues compared to 40m for Liverpool

3) Man Utds other revenues are miles ahead so to a lesser extent are Arsenals

4) Both have very good squads particularly Arsenal with bags of potential

5) Liverpool have a stadium to do something to which add very little revenue and a squad that needs a lot of spending

I am was suggesting that common sense tells you it is a bad gamble to assume you can return on a fairly permanent basis in the top 4. If Arsenal and ManU have a 100m revenue advantage on you. And Chelsea and Man City owners are infinitely wealthy. Etc... Essentially you have sound reasons for not trying to compete against them because you are virtually guaranteed to lose. If Jhenry thought it was a bad gamble he wouldnt take it on. So he clearly as a plan where he believes the odds are he will win.

They've just allowed him to SPEND 60m GBP, how on Earth is that not backing him ??????????

They didn't have to buy anyone, they could have brang in Suarez or Carroll only for example & waited until they were ready to appoint a Full Time Manager after they've took that time you talk about, & got it right, then given him the rest of the Torres $$ PLUS their $$ they are allegedly gonna pump in..

Anyway, i actually meant that you said appointing a Full Time Manager was one of the last decisions they'd make, then you used Manchester United & Arsenal as an example of good fundamentals, the 2 Teams that have the longest serving Managers in probably the World let alone the League which would surely suggest that appointing a new Manager should be priority number 1 if they want the Club to get back to past glories anytime soon no ??

& you can't tell me that by the Summer they will have all of a sudden " know Football " enough to make that decision themselves anyway. .

You can also talk about revenue until you're blue in the face, fact is Arse have only had the top end revenue available to them for the past 4 Years yet they have been a MUCH more successful Club than you have been over the past 20 Years & that's because of continuity in their Management Team & a good Youth Set Up, they would have spent much less of what Chelsea, Man United, City or even you have spent in that time..

What other of Arsenal's revenue's, excluding the Stadium like you said, are miles in front of Liverpool then ??

Merchandise ?? = No way in the World

Global Popularity/Fanbase ?? = No way in the World

[smokie36]

£8m. That's all folks.

[Devil]

Guardian Link

John W Henry: Newcastle made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way

Liverpool's owner questions Chelsea's commitment to financial fair-play rules and explains his desire to self-generate funds

On the day Fernando Torres was unveiled as a Chelsea player, Liverpool's American owner, John Henry, has criticised Chelsea for their extravagant transfer window spending, questioning Chelsea's commitment of Roman Abramovich's club to Uefa's financial fair-play rules. In an interview granted exclusively to the Guardian, Henry suggested Chelsea may be planning to "evade" the rules and called on the governing body to ensure they are strictly followed by all clubs. The fair-play rules, which require clubs to spend only the income they make and not rely on subsidies from owners, come into effect from next season to 2014.

"I was surprised Monday morning to receive an offer [from Chelsea for Fernando Torres] in that amount [£50m] at the same time they were announcing such large losses [£71m for 2009-10]," Henry said. "The big question is just how effective the financial fair-play rules are going to be. Perhaps some clubs support the concept in order to limit the spending of other clubs, while implementing activities specifically designed to evade the rules they publicly support. We can only hope that Uefa has the ability and determination to enforce what they have proposed."

Chelsea have insisted since signing Torres and David Luiz that they firmly intend to comply with financial fair play and that the £71m outlay was within overall progress towards cutting costs.

Henry, setting out his thoughts on Liverpool's direction almost four months since his Fenway Sports Group bought the club by paying off the £200m debts Tom Hicks's and George Gillett's "leveraged" takeover had loaded on to Liverpool, said he is committed to the club living within its income. "We've always spent money we've generated rather than deficit-spending and that will be the case in Liverpool," he said, referring to the group's ownership of the Boston Red Sox baseball team. "It's up to us to generate enough revenue to be successful over the long term. We have not and will not deviate from that."

That commitment to sound financial management was followed, not breached, Henry asserted, in the £35m Liverpool paid Newcastle United for Andy Carroll, a fee that astonished English football. Henry said the £35m made financial sense because Liverpool were only paying to Newcastle what they were to receive from Chelsea by selling Torres, whom they allowed to leave because he had become too evidently unhappy at Anfield.

"The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry said, explaining that Liverpool wanted Carroll, plus £15m, to replace Torres. Together with the £6m sale of Ryan Babel to Hoffenheim, that effectively financed Liverpool's £22.8m signing of Luis Suárez, meaning the club bought two strikers but net, spent almost nothing. "The negotiation for us was simply the difference in prices paid by Chelsea and to Newcastle," Henry said. "Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [to Newcastle for Carroll], 40 and 25 or 50 and 35. It was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost. They [Newcastle] made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way."

Saying Kenny Dalglish has "exceeded our expectations" as the club's caretaker manager, Henry explained that Liverpool retain ambitions to qualify for European competition this season, so insisted they had to sign a replacement striker, preferably Carroll, if Torres was to go. "We weren't going to write off Champions League and Europa League for the sake of someone's happiness," Henry said of Torres. "The striker position had to be filled, by someone who made sense for the long term. With about 24 hours remaining, the possibility of Andy, who was No1 on our list of possibilities for the summer, emerged."

Henry explained how Carroll, even at £35m, fits into FSG's philosophy, which famously learns from the strategy honed by Billy Beane, the general manager at baseball's Oakland Rangers. As described in the book Moneyball, by Michael Lewis, players are assessed from performance statistics, not solely by scouts rating how good they look. Henry, however, said this did not mean they were not prepared to spend big fees on the right players, as the group has done when turning the Red Sox into a World Series-winning baseball team again.

"The Moneyball approach is about poor decision-making in baseball, based on anecdotal evidence [about players' qualities] as opposed to hard, statistical evidence. If the Red Sox are a Moneyball team it has to be noted that we are second in spending over the last decade within Major League Baseball. We have been successful through spending and through securing and developing young players."

That, he said, will be Liverpool's two-pronged approach to rebuilding the squad, which will be financed only out of its income; he and his fellow investors in Fenway will not be pouring cash in. "We intend to get younger, deeper and play positive football. Adding two top players [Carroll and Suárez] who have just turned 22 and 24 is a good first step."

Henry lavished praise on Dalglish, although he declined to say whether Dalglish is likely to be offered the job permanently. "We didn't know Kenny well prior to him coming aboard as manager," Henry said. "But he has exceeded our expectations on all fronts. It would be inappropriate to comment publicly on what happens beyond the end of this season."

FSG is, Henry confirmed, studying the possibility of expanding Anfield rather than building the long-mooted new stadium on Stanley Park, a plan which he criticised. "It's not a coincidence that the last two ownership groups could not get a new stadium built," he argued pointedly. "What they proposed or hoped for just didn't make any economic sense or they would have been built. A lot of time and effort is being put into study and creatively looking at all options."

With his first, extraordinary, transfer window done, in which Liverpool managed to part with English football's most astonishing fee ever while spending nothing overall, Henry argued the new American owners' strategy, to refashion Liverpool as a major club, is on course. "Our goal in Liverpool is to create the kind of stability that the Red Sox enjoy," he said. "We are committed to building for the long term."

[Devil]

Guardian Link

"The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry said, explaining that Liverpool wanted Carroll, plus £15m, to replace Torres. Together with the £6m sale of Ryan Babel to Hoffenheim, that effectively financed Liverpool's £22.8m signing of Luis Suárez, meaning the club bought two strikers but net, spent almost nothing. "The negotiation for us was simply the difference in prices paid by Chelsea and to Newcastle," Henry said. "Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [to Newcastle for Carroll], 40 and 25 or 50 and 35. It was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost. They [Newcastle] made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way."

Henry lavished praise on Dalglish, although he declined to say whether Dalglish is likely to be offered the job permanently. "We didn't know Kenny well prior to him coming aboard as manager," Henry said. "But he has exceeded our expectations on all fronts. It would be inappropriate to comment publicly on what happens beyond the end of this season."

Henry lavished praise on Dalglish, although he declined to say whether Dalglish is likely to be offered the job permanently. "We didn't know Kenny well prior to him coming aboard as manager," Henry said. "But he has exceeded our expectations on all fronts. It would be inappropriate to comment publicly on what happens beyond the end of this season."

"The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry said, explaining that Liverpool wanted Carroll, plus £15m, to replace Torres.

Henry explained how Carroll, even at £35m, fits into FSG's philosophy,

1. Very real signs Kenny will be handed a full time role at the end of the season.

2. Interesting logic on the fee paid for Carroll

Good interview that.

[MSingh]

I have no doubt in my mind that if Torres was CL Cup Tied they wouldn't have bought him in that window..

I have no doubt in my mind that Abramovic & Chels are going for the CL big time this Year, in London..

I have no doubt in my mind Abramovich is getting bored with his Toy & doesn't give a monkey about them rules coming in 2012.13 as Chelsea will simply not be able to abide by them..

I have no doubt in my mind that when that happend, i'll laugh my t*ts off..

[Abrak]

They've just allowed him to SPEND 60m GBP, how on Earth is that not backing him ??????????

They didn't have to buy anyone, they could have brang in Suarez or Carroll only for example & waited until they were ready to appoint a Full Time Manager after they've took that time you talk about, & got it right, then given him the rest of the Torres $$ PLUS their $$ they are allegedly gonna pump in..

Anyway, i actually meant that you said appointing a Full Time Manager was one of the last decisions they'd make, then you used Manchester United & Arsenal as an example of good fundamentals, the 2 Teams that have the longest serving Managers in probably the World let alone the League which would surely suggest that appointing a new Manager should be priority number 1 if they want the Club to get back to past glories anytime soon no ??

& you can't tell me that by the Summer they will have all of a sudden " know Football " enough to make that decision themselves anyway. .

You can also talk about revenue until you're blue in the face, fact is Arse have only had the top end revenue available to them for the past 4 Years yet they have been a MUCH more successful Club than you have been over the past 20 Years & that's because of continuity in their Management Team & a good Youth Set Up, they would have spent much less of what Chelsea, Man United, City or even you have spent in that time..

What other of Arsenal's revenue's, excluding the Stadium like you said, are miles in front of Liverpool then ??

Merchandise ?? = No way in the World

Global Popularity/Fanbase ?? = No way in the World

We all agree with your point about the the permanent Manager.

But given that you want to him to be there 10 years you dont spend two weeks in appointing him. I dont even consider Mourinho a permanent manager. And Liverpol fans if your remember never considered someone who wanted to be appointed England manager in 2012 a permanent manager. The habit of Newcastle appoint permanent managers 5 minutes after they have sacked the previous one is exceedinglt strange. FSG doesnt have a CEO in place yet. They have a DOF. Obviously they would only wish to start an investment strategy in agreement with the new manager but you could argue they have not spent much or you could argue that they have already decided that Kenny is going to be the permanent appointment despite the fact that his age counts against him.

I am afraid from an objective analysis point of view revenue is a cold hard fact it is cash. And it is 50 to 70m of gate receipts that Arsenal and Man Utd can piss away against Liverpool every year in order to beat them. When you consider that say Arsenal has 220m of revenues and Everton has 80m they are actually not competing against each other in any meaningful sense whatsoever. As for the subjective pub chat - I would agree about the continual management which is actual an advantage for Liverpool who will put a structure in place, while god know what happens at ManU when SAF leaves while Arsenal might fair better.

'Youth set ups' are highly subjective and whether Arsenal even with 'best youth set up' actual 'adds value' is debatable unless you can show me some serious analysis on the subject because I suspect they spend quite a lot of money on it. But do you realize how expensive it is to play a 'youth' in the team who isnt quite good enough to give him experience to see if he will be a good member of the squad in a years time. And you may not realize that say Suarez is actually not going to cost Liverpool that much over the next 5 years and you are playing him in the team now on the basis that you hope he is going to be better in two years time. So 'Suso' I gather is the real thing but there are 'large costs', 'large hidden costs' and 'massive risk' in 'youth'. I dont know enough about the footballers myself to judge but I would not be surprised if we end up at Liverpool being very selective on the youth side.

[Abrak]

That Carroll Torres deal stuff is complete bullshit. 'The price of Torres was completely dependent on how much Newcastle wanted for Carroll. We wanted Carroll + 15m to replace Torres. If Newcastle wanted 20m, 35m for Torres. 25 - 40 etc. blah, blah, blah...'

Ok so its going to be some tough negotiating we know Liverpool's stance....

But lets remember the facts...

On the Friday, Torres and Chelsea jumped Liverpool with a bid or a couple of them, there was a buyout clause at 50m in the summer and Abromavich had waited until the last minute and was keen to do a deal. I dont know about you but I think that there was a deal to be done at 50m cash. (And I certainly dont recall thinking that Liverpool might sell him for 35m)

So if you were Newcastle and you understood Henry's tough negotiating stance you would say the price is 35m as you know the price of Torres is 50m.

So lets be clear here THE REALITY was 'that the price that Liverpool were willing to pay for Carroll was all the money left over from the Torres deal.' And it was the Torres price that set the Carroll price rather than the other way round.

[rixalex]

That Carroll Torres deal stuff is complete bullshit. 'The price of Torres was completely dependent on how much Newcastle wanted for Carroll. We wanted Carroll + 15m to replace Torres. If Newcastle wanted 20m, 35m for Torres. 25 - 40 etc. blah, blah, blah...'

Ok so its going to be some tough negotiating we know Liverpool's stance....

But lets remember the facts...

On the Friday, Torres and Chelsea jumped Liverpool with a bid or a couple of them, there was a buyout clause at 50m in the summer and Abromavich had waited until the last minute and was keen to do a deal. I dont know about you but I think that there was a deal to be done at 50m cash. (And I certainly dont recall thinking that Liverpool might sell him for 35m)

So if you were Newcastle and you understood Henry's tough negotiating stance you would say the price is 35m as you know the price of Torres is 50m.

So lets be clear here THE REALITY was 'that the price that Liverpool were willing to pay for Carroll was all the money left over from the Torres deal.' And it was the Torres price that set the Carroll price rather than the other way round.

Agreed.

What would you say is Carroll's true value then? Before the silly Bent deal, had you asked me, i would have said 10m at a push. After it, maybe 15m.

35m is just crazy money. Madness.

[BIGTOE3]

That Carroll Torres deal stuff is complete bullshit. 'The price of Torres was completely dependent on how much Newcastle wanted for Carroll. We wanted Carroll + 15m to replace Torres. If Newcastle wanted 20m, 35m for Torres. 25 - 40 etc. blah, blah, blah...'

Ok so its going to be some tough negotiating we know Liverpool's stance....

But lets remember the facts...

On the Friday, Torres and Chelsea jumped Liverpool with a bid or a couple of them, there was a buyout clause at 50m in the summer and Abromavich had waited until the last minute and was keen to do a deal. I dont know about you but I think that there was a deal to be done at 50m cash. (And I certainly dont recall thinking that Liverpool might sell him for 35m)

So if you were Newcastle and you understood Henry's tough negotiating stance you would say the price is 35m as you know the price of Torres is 50m.

So lets be clear here THE REALITY was 'that the price that Liverpool were willing to pay for Carroll was all the money left over from the Torres deal.' And it was the Torres price that set the Carroll price rather than the other way round.

Agreed.

What would you say is Carroll's true value then? Before the silly Bent deal, had you asked me, i would have said 10m at a push. After it, maybe 15m.

35m is just crazy money. Madness.

His Value on Barclays Fantasy team is 5.8m I know useless info just wanted to join in.

BT :jap:

BT

[MSingh]

Guardian Link

"The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry said, explaining that Liverpool wanted Carroll, plus £15m, to replace Torres. Together with the £6m sale of Ryan Babel to Hoffenheim, that effectively financed Liverpool's £22.8m signing of Luis Suárez, meaning the club bought two strikers but net, spent almost nothing. "The negotiation for us was simply the difference in prices paid by Chelsea and to Newcastle," Henry said. "Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [to Newcastle for Carroll], 40 and 25 or 50 and 35. It was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost. They [Newcastle] made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way."

Henry lavished praise on Dalglish, although he declined to say whether Dalglish is likely to be offered the job permanently. "We didn't know Kenny well prior to him coming aboard as manager," Henry said. "But he has exceeded our expectations on all fronts. It would be inappropriate to comment publicly on what happens beyond the end of this season."

Henry lavished praise on Dalglish, although he declined to say whether Dalglish is likely to be offered the job permanently. "We didn't know Kenny well prior to him coming aboard as manager," Henry said. "But he has exceeded our expectations on all fronts. It would be inappropriate to comment publicly on what happens beyond the end of this season."

"The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry said, explaining that Liverpool wanted Carroll, plus £15m, to replace Torres.

Henry explained how Carroll, even at £35m, fits into FSG's philosophy,

1. Very real signs Kenny will be handed a full time role at the end of the season.

2. Interesting logic on the fee paid for Carroll

Good interview that.

Points 1 & 2.

Where on Earth do you see that or are you just on a wind up ??

Where on Earth can you see any logic at all regards ot the explanation of the Carroll fee, honestly ??

I now believe, after the Post, that you are on a wind up as not even Alex Ferguson regarding Mna United or Wenger regarding Arsenal are as one eyed as you are, or are at least pretending to be..

& how can anyone exceed all expectations, given the fixtures you've had ??

If he would have exceeded all expectations, surely you would have won at Blackpool, would still be in the FA Cup & won the Merseyside derby ??

It's <deleted> lunacy of the highest order this...

[MSingh]

That Carroll Torres deal stuff is complete bullshit. 'The price of Torres was completely dependent on how much Newcastle wanted for Carroll. We wanted Carroll + 15m to replace Torres. If Newcastle wanted 20m, 35m for Torres. 25 - 40 etc. blah, blah, blah...'

Ok so its going to be some tough negotiating we know Liverpool's stance....

But lets remember the facts...

On the Friday, Torres and Chelsea jumped Liverpool with a bid or a couple of them, there was a buyout clause at 50m in the summer and Abromavich had waited until the last minute and was keen to do a deal. I dont know about you but I think that there was a deal to be done at 50m cash. (And I certainly dont recall thinking that Liverpool might sell him for 35m)

So if you were Newcastle and you understood Henry's tough negotiating stance you would say the price is 35m as you know the price of Torres is 50m.

So lets be clear here THE REALITY was 'that the price that Liverpool were willing to pay for Carroll was all the money left over from the Torres deal.' And it was the Torres price that set the Carroll price rather than the other way round.

Agreed.

What would you say is Carroll's true value then? Before the silly Bent deal, had you asked me, i would have said 10m at a push. After it, maybe 15m.

35m is just crazy money. Madness.

The last word that could be associated with the Carroll deal is " logic ", there is no fcukign logic at all in it whether Carroll is 21 or fcukign 12, it's still shockingly overpriced..

I like Andy Carroll, don't get me wrong, i think he could go on to become an England number 9 but there's hardly loads of competition is there for Christs sakes so even that don't say a lot, unless you could Jay Bothroyd..

I wonder who sanctioned it ??

Th enew Owners are saying all over the place they know nothing about Football, they've got a temporary Manager in charge who they feel it would be " inappropriate " to talk about him beyond this Season so who on Earth sanctioned paying 35m for an injured Andy Carroll ??

Absolute mental.

Edit : I used the word " logic " at the start of the Post as a different Poster seems to believe that's how Henry explained the deal, in an " interesting " way.

Edited February 5, 2011 by MSingh

[Abrak]

Agreed.

What would you say is Carroll's true value then? Before the silly Bent deal, had you asked me, i would have said 10m at a push. After it, maybe 15m.

35m is just crazy money. Madness.

I am not a football expert so I cant really value a player.

But compared to Suarez it falls short by having very little data in terms of experience and a lot of risk in terms of character. It does have intangible marketing/Brit benefits.

The basic argument that JHenry makes that Carroll at 22 and 15m is a very good trade for Torres at 27, I think is very fair. I know that JHenry is just most pleased to get rid of Torres at 50m especially as the Kop wouldnt want to sell him. Carroll at 22 at 20m is only 2m a year over the next 10 years of his career. By the way those people who think he is worth 10m are basically implying that he is not good enough to eventually make the Liverpool first team. Look when you are 22 you are so young it adds huge value in terms of potential and length of your career - to argue that he isnt proven is inevitable to a degree. You see his value as a pure gamble at 22 is at least 10m.

And look J Henry has Commolli to tell him what hes worth but he likes to gamble. And he clearly knows that everyone thinks he grossly overpaid and he is going to get a buzz when he shows them wrong. And when a footballer is 22 it is a good age to take gamble.

I will tell you why J Henry is very good at this game. All this money ball stuff I am sure doesnt really help you buy players cheap. I mean everybody seems to think Suarez is a good buy it is more surprising that Liverpool offered 13m for him. JHenry is a very famous commodity trader and the absolute fundamental key to all the value added is being totally disciplined in selling your players before their value declines. In particular you are guaranteed to lose money if you do not sell you most successful purchases. As all footballers have a terminal retirement value of zero. Footballers are just another commodity really. The loss of value in not selling Gerard is a disaster. And this is the opposite of footballing philosophy of players becoming legends but that was before they were worth so much.

So I genuinely believe that if he spent 300m on the team he could wheel and deal his way without spending vast additional amounts every year but there is in fact virtually no value in the team at all to begin with.

[Devil]

That Carroll Torres deal stuff is complete bullshit. 'The price of Torres was completely dependent on how much Newcastle wanted for Carroll. We wanted Carroll + 15m to replace Torres. If Newcastle wanted 20m, 35m for Torres. 25 - 40 etc. blah, blah, blah...'

Ok so its going to be some tough negotiating we know Liverpool's stance....

But lets remember the facts...

On the Friday, Torres and Chelsea jumped Liverpool with a bid or a couple of them, there was a buyout clause at 50m in the summer and Abromavich had waited until the last minute and was keen to do a deal. I dont know about you but I think that there was a deal to be done at 50m cash. (And I certainly dont recall thinking that Liverpool might sell him for 35m)

So if you were Newcastle and you understood Henry's tough negotiating stance you would say the price is 35m as you know the price of Torres is 50m.

So lets be clear here THE REALITY was 'that the price that Liverpool were willing to pay for Carroll was all the money left over from the Torres deal.' And it was the Torres price that set the Carroll price rather than the other way round.

Agreed.

What would you say is Carroll's true value then? Before the silly Bent deal, had you asked me, i would have said 10m at a push. After it, maybe 15m.

35m is just crazy money. Madness.

The last word that could be associated with the Carroll deal is " logic ", there is no fcukign logic at all in it whether Carroll is 21 or fcukign 12, it's still shockingly overpriced..

I like Andy Carroll, don't get me wrong, i think he could go on to become an England number 9 but there's hardly loads of competition is there for Christs sakes so even that don't say a lot, unless you could Jay Bothroyd..

I wonder who sanctioned it ??

Th enew Owners are saying all over the place they know nothing about Football, they've got a temporary Manager in charge who they feel it would be " inappropriate " to talk about him beyond this Season so who on Earth sanctioned paying 35m for an injured Andy Carroll ??

Absolute mental.

Edit : I used the word " logic " at the start of the Post as a different Poster seems to believe that's how Henry explained the deal, in an " interesting " way.

Don't let reading my post properly get in the way of you having your own agenda Singh - I read the Henry interview did you? I have read about Money Ball and a few other factors behind FSG so therefore I can understand his Logic!

- Henry's Logic - is just that I did not say I agreed but understand HIS logic now for buying Carroll at 35 M and for me its interesting to hear the LOGIC behind some one who has clearly been successful at owning a Sporting Franchise and a multimillionaire - unlike some posters...

Take this LOGIC into account !

“If there was a mission statement for the Red Sox of the future, it was this: be the Yankees, but smarter… Fill holes above market prices when necessary.”

Example - if Arsene Wenger had gone out and bought a up and coming talented Goalkeeper say at 40-50M they might of won a lot more!

In fact FSG have been very good at finding and buying young talent at undervalued prices at the Red Sox BUT know that this doesn't guarantee results you also need to supplement core parts with real talents. So paying 35 M for Carrol is not the big deal others are making it out to be they wanted money (approx 15M) towards their main target which is clear now it was Suarez! Who Kenny recognized after scouting him since coming back to Liverpool as a Main Scout 2 years ago. He knew this lad needs a partner - originally it was going to Torres but who better to replace Torres with than Carroll - a real young talent for that role as No.9!

Everyone in the game have been jumping up and down for the past year about him, Shearer and such and the hope he will be the answer to England' front man role we badly need filling.

Is 35 Mil expensive - yes it is but so is paying YaYa Toure 5 Mil a year in salary compared 80,000 k week for Carrol BIG DIFFERENCE THERE! Has anyone on here considered the other factors around the value of a player taking into account the whole picture age etc etc? So what is a player really worth? I think its very very subjective. What was Andy worth to Newcaslte for example or to now Liverpool when buying him? both have to find a middle point NO?, What will Carroll be worth in 3 years?

So that post was just for you Sigh I wonder if you still don't see any Logic in it

[MSingh]

Ok, I want you to at least have the decency to acknowledge the points I’m making here, which are not wrong, you may disagree with them but that’s only because you’re a Liverpool Supporter & extremely one eyed one at that.

1 ) I don’t have an agenda, I just can’t stand people who see Football & their Club through Rose Tinted Glasses of whichever colour the Team that they support are, it’s ridiculous.

2 ) I don’t believe you know enough about MLB to start comparing Apples with Apples but neither do I overall, what I do know however is that the Boston Red Sox bought a Guy in December & made him the most expensive Player in the League on around $142m USD Contract.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121006172.html

3 ) We all want Carroll to be the answer to England’s problem’s because if he isn’t we’ve got to look forward to Jay Bothroyd or Carlton Cole led Qualifying campaigns & I sure don’t want them..It’s sad to see that after a Transfer fee of 35m ( 1m more than David Villa by the way ) we are both only “ hoping “ that he will be the answer, don’t you think ?? For that $$ he SHOULD BE, no if’s or but’s.

4 ) Yaya Toure is a Champions League Winner, La Liga Winner & was a n integral part of a Barcelona Midfield for x amount of Years, Andy Carroll’s only full Season was in the Championship, that’s a ridiculous comparable Dev, ridiculous.

5 ) However you weigh it up it’s a ridiculous fee to pay & how you can’t see that, even with your Glasses is on, is beyond me..You paid 35m GBP for him THIS WEEK, you’d want to start seeing some value in that next week let along thinking what he “ might be worth “ in 3 Years time, but you can’t get that because he’s injured.

[Abrak]

The firm's management methods make mechanical, non-discretionary trading decisions in response to systematic determinations of reversals in each market's direction, with the explicit intention of precluding not only human emotion, but also any subjective evaluation of such things as the so-called fundamentals, to trigger each decision to be long or short each market, or not.

That is a quote about JHenry commodity trading firm's philosophy and he was immensely successful. Let me tell you that he really understands value and what isnt and expressly bets against 'football knowledge'. So when everyone says that he is 'insane' or he is 'massive overpriced' he actually knows that a) there is not enough data and he is to young and is full potential is as yet unknown that a realistic 'value' cannot be put on him in any case.

And Singh I guarantee you really do not know the first thing about value because I cannot see how 34m for David Villa can be anything other than insane. Because he is 29 and when he retires in 5 years his terminal value be the same as every other single footballer which is precisely zero. So you will have lost 34m. You have a 100% guarantee of losing all your money and a zero chance of making any.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Abrak

[Devil]

The firm's management methods make mechanical, non-discretionary trading decisions in response to systematic determinations of reversals in each market's direction, with the explicit intention of precluding not only human emotion, but also any subjective evaluation of such things as the so-called fundamentals, to trigger each decision to be long or short each market, or not.

That is a quote about JHenry commodity trading firm's philosophy and he was immensely successful. Let me tell you that he really understands value and what isnt and expressly bets against 'football knowledge'. So when everyone says that he is 'insane' or he is 'massive overpriced' he actually knows that a) there is not enough data and he is to young and is full potential is as yet unknown that a realistic 'value' cannot be put on him in any case.

And Singh I guarantee you really do not know the first thing about value because I cannot see how 34m for David Villa can be anything other than insane. Because he is 29 and when he retires in 5 years his terminal value be the same as every other single footballer which is precisely zero. So you will have lost 34m. You have a 100% guarantee of losing all your money and a zero chance of making any.

Good post!

[Devil]

Ok, I want you to at least have the decency to acknowledge the points I'm making here, which are not wrong, you may disagree with them but that's only because you're a Liverpool Supporter & extremely one eyed one at that.

1 ) I don't have an agenda, I just can't stand people who see Football & their Club through Rose Tinted Glasses of whichever colour the Team that they support are, it's ridiculous.

2 ) I don't believe you know enough about MLB to start comparing Apples with Apples but neither do I overall, what I do know however is that the Boston Red Sox bought a Guy in December & made him the most expensive Player in the League on around $142m USD Contract.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121006172.html

3 ) We all want Carroll to be the answer to England's problem's because if he isn't we've got to look forward to Jay Bothroyd or Carlton Cole led Qualifying campaigns & I sure don't want them..It's sad to see that after a Transfer fee of 35m ( 1m more than David Villa by the way ) we are both only " hoping " that he will be the answer, don't you think ?? For that $ he SHOULD BE, no if's or but's.

4 ) Yaya Toure is a Champions League Winner, La Liga Winner & was a n integral part of a Barcelona Midfield for x amount of Years, Andy Carroll's only full Season was in the Championship, that's a ridiculous comparable Dev, ridiculous.

5 ) However you weigh it up it's a ridiculous fee to pay & how you can't see that, even with your Glasses is on, is beyond me..You paid 35m GBP for him THIS WEEK, you'd want to start seeing some value in that next week let along thinking what he " might be worth " in 3 Years time, but you can't get that because he's injured.

Ok, I want you to at least have the decency to acknowledge the points I'm making here, which are not wrong, you may disagree with them but that's only because you're a Liverpool Supporter & extremely one eyed one at that.

1 ) I don't have an agenda, I just can't stand people who see Football & their Club through Rose Tinted Glasses of whichever colour the Team that they support are, it's ridiculous.

Now that was ridiculous right there...

2 ) I don't believe you know enough about MLB to start comparing Apples with Apples but neither do I overall, what I do know however is that the Boston Red Sox bought a Guy in December & made him the most expensive Player in the League on around $142m USD Contract.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121006172.html

Was there a point though! or were you trying to say compare Apples with Oranges

3 ) We all want Carroll to be the answer to England's problem's because if he isn't we've got to look forward to Jay Bothroyd or Carlton Cole led Qualifying campaigns & I sure don't want them..It's sad to see that after a Transfer fee of 35m ( 1m more than David Villa by the way ) we are both only " hoping " that he will be the answer, don't you think ?? For that $ he SHOULD BE, no if's or but's.

Now that's Ridicules to believe because the higher the cost of a player relates to guaranteeing the success of the player

4 ) Yaya Toure is a Champions League Winner, La Liga Winner & was a n integral part of a Barcelona Midfield for x amount of Years, Andy Carroll's only full Season was in the Championship, that's a ridiculous comparable Dev, ridiculous.

Ridiculous...Not really? when you compare the impact of Toure's 5m in wages a year over 5 years compared to Carrolls 80k a week over 5 years and his future resale value offset the initial 35 M fee...

5 ) However you weigh it up it's a ridiculous fee to pay & how you can't see that, even with your Glasses is on, is beyond me..You paid 35m GBP for him THIS WEEK, you'd want to start seeing some value in that next week let along thinking what he " might be worth " in 3 Years time, but you can't get that because he's injured.

There was me thinking we bought him for 5 years and not 1 week!

Your Anti Liverpool rhetoric is becoming very very boring!

[MSingh]

You're 2 bob, absolutely 2 bob..

Where's the W*nker emoticon gone that used to be on here ??

[MSingh]

The firm's management methods make mechanical, non-discretionary trading decisions in response to systematic determinations of reversals in each market's direction, with the explicit intention of precluding not only human emotion, but also any subjective evaluation of such things as the so-called fundamentals, to trigger each decision to be long or short each market, or not.

That is a quote about JHenry commodity trading firm's philosophy and he was immensely successful. Let me tell you that he really understands value and what isnt and expressly bets against 'football knowledge'. So when everyone says that he is 'insane' or he is 'massive overpriced' he actually knows that a) there is not enough data and he is to young and is full potential is as yet unknown that a realistic 'value' cannot be put on him in any case.

And Singh I guarantee you really do not know the first thing about value because I cannot see how 34m for David Villa can be anything other than insane. Because he is 29 and when he retires in 5 years his terminal value be the same as every other single footballer which is precisely zero. So you will have lost 34m. You have a 100% guarantee of losing all your money and a zero chance of making any.

Wow, just fcukign wow...

I'm lookign for a word to describe Liverpool Supporters nowadays, you two have taken Mushroomness to new, higher levels..

Sad really, but i highly doubt the 2 of you have got a drop of actual Scouse blood between you anyway so i know you don't speak for the hordes..

I'll answer your last paragraph abrak though, in one foul swoop.

In fact do i have to, do i really have to argue the point that David Villa is 10 times the Player Andy Carroll is or ever will be, do i really have to make the point to you people ???

Goodness gracious me, & i thought them Y*ds were bad but you 2 take the Biscuit..

Abrak i've got to ask, when you say that " a) there is not enough data ( what the <deleted> does that mean or are you refering to the fact " there isn't enough data " because the only full Season he's played was in The Championship ?? ) & he is too young & his potential is as yet unknown that a relaistic value can not be put on him in any case " why in God's name would he pay 35m GBP for him then ????????????????????????????????????

We've acknowledged his full potential is yet unknown ( same could be said of 99% of the Premiership ) & realistic value can't be put on him, yet you paid 35 fcukign Million fcukign Pounds for crying out loud, yet tweedle dee thought it was a good Post ?????????

You're sick, properly sick..

[Devil]

You're 2 bob, absolutely 2 bob..

Where's the W*nker emoticon gone that used to be on here ??

Was this it Singh

[smokie36]

We all want Carroll to be the answer to England's problem's

<deleted> deluded all of you.

[carmine]

Comelli's negotiating skill manged to bump the price up to 35m. Mike Ashley obviously gave him a very solid lesson in business negotiation.

Touched by the hand of Comolli.

BTW, please beat Chelsea tonight. It would also seem like Fernando should learn to keep his trap shut.

Edited February 6, 2011 by carmine

[Abrak]

I was speaking to my brother last night and he has just finished reading Moneyball. I havent read it but I think it is probably a great read for any Liverpool fan. It actually explains what happened in the Carroll and Torres deal in terms of FSG strategy. There is a whole book on the transfer market.

1. Younger players are under valued... older players are overvalued

2. You should always sell a player when you are offered well over his true value

3. As such you should have a replacement prepared so that you can buy him often aggressively so that you can sell

4. Buy players with mental problems because they are undervalued and shrinks work.

5. Centre forwards are the most grossly overvalued players in the league

The actual strategy doesnt sound that interesting or that productive. But the point a made earlier is that the real value added in trading is knowing when and having the discipline to sell. When, is typically when the club says the player is 'not for sale at any price' often when Man City has just approached them with a ludricrous offer or something. At a time when he is far too important to sell. That is why you go out and buy and instant replacement. But think how bad clubs are at selling their best players.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Abrak

[MSingh]

You're 2 bob, absolutely 2 bob..

Where's the W*nker emoticon gone that used to be on here ??

Was this it Singh

You leave my Mum out of this Dev...

[MSingh]

I was speaking to my brother last night and he has just finished reading Moneyball. I havent read it but I think it is probably a great read for any Liverpool fan. It actually explains what happened in the Carroll and Torres deal in terms of FSG strategy. There is a whole book on the transfer market.

1. Younger players are under valued... older players are overvalued

2. You should always sell a player when you are offered well over his true value

3. As such you should have a replacement prepared so that you can buy him often aggressively so that you can sell

4. Buy players with mental problems because they are undervalued and shrinks work.

5. Centre forwards are the most grossly overvalued players in the league

The actual strategy doesnt sound that interesting or that productive. But the point a made earlier is that the real value added in trading is knowing when and having the discipline to sell. When, is typically when the club says the player is 'not for sale at any price' often when Man City has just approached them with a ludricrous offer or something. At a time when he is far too important to sell. That is why you go out and buy and instant replacement. But think how bad clubs are at selling their best players.

Sounds like a great Book..

Does it explain how/why a Club should pay 35m for a Player who's only full Season he has played was in the Championship ??

Does it explain how that is a good strategical move ??

Does it explain how you can pay more than 12m GBP LESS for a Player who was just one of the best Players in the 2010 World Cup ??

Trying to justify Andy Carroll's Transfer Fee is nonsensical.

The thing that hasn't been mentioned yet which is more important than virtually EVERYTHING else is that although Carroll is a good Player, he's not even actually THAT good & in NO WAY should he command a 35m Transfer fee & i don't give a monkey's what that poxy Book says..

Spot the odd one out with the below Chaps, the Boy hasn't even played a full fcukign Season at the top level, i feel sorry for him to be honest, look at the names on this list..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_(association_football)#Highest_fees

Let's all " hope " that he answers the problems for England though, aye ??

[smokie36]

Let's all " hope " that he answers the problems for England though, aye ??

He's got no chance of getting picked for England until Crutchie retires....Bring on 'Arry....

You're still deluded I see....and here i thought it was just the Chang talking....

A few decent touches....flicks with the head....nothing much special....positional sense non existent although maybe there are better bars in liverpool.....

[Abrak]

Sounds like a great Book..

Does it explain how/why a Club should pay 35m for a Player who's only full Season he has played was in the Championship ??

Does it explain how that is a good strategical move ??

Does it explain how you can pay more than 12m GBP LESS for a Player who was just one of the best Players in the 2010 World Cup ??

Trying to justify Andy Carroll's Transfer Fee is nonsensical.

The thing that hasn't been mentioned yet which is more important than virtually EVERYTHING else is that although Carroll is a good Player, he's not even actually THAT good & in NO WAY should he command a 35m Transfer fee & i don't give a monkey's what that poxy Book says..

Spot the odd one out with the below Chaps, the Boy hasn't even played a full fcukign Season at the top level, i feel sorry for him to be honest, look at the names on this list..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_(association_football)#Highest_fees

Let's all " hope " that he answers the problems for England though, aye ??

Please accept that really the only thing they all have in common is that they were all grossly undervalued at the age of 22 apart from possibly Carroll.

But please stop it Singh because you argument is totally repetitive along the lines of Carroll is not worth as much as David Villa because David Villa is an infinitely better footballer than Carroll ever will be. And as everyone knows that David Villa is a better footballer it isnt worth repeating. And as the underlying argument is simply untrue in an objective value sense as opposed to your 'subjective belief' it simply is the whole point.

You see footballers do not cost 1m quid any more and it isnt all about what a good footballer they are now and whether they were in the championship last year. There are loads of guys who understand football and think that footballers are worth a lot because they are very good footballers but there are very few people who understand rational expectations, uncertainty, liquidity, volatility, time value, risk, opportunity cost.

Let me ask you a simple question? At what age in theory and on average do you believe the transfer value of a football player should peak? And at what rate should it decline?

[MSingh]

Sounds like a great Book..

Does it explain how/why a Club should pay 35m for a Player who's only full Season he has played was in the Championship ??

Does it explain how that is a good strategical move ??

Does it explain how you can pay more than 12m GBP LESS for a Player who was just one of the best Players in the 2010 World Cup ??

Trying to justify Andy Carroll's Transfer Fee is nonsensical.

The thing that hasn't been mentioned yet which is more important than virtually EVERYTHING else is that although Carroll is a good Player, he's not even actually THAT good & in NO WAY should he command a 35m Transfer fee & i don't give a monkey's what that poxy Book says..

Spot the odd one out with the below Chaps, the Boy hasn't even played a full fcukign Season at the top level, i feel sorry for him to be honest, look at the names on this list..

http://en.wikipedia....l)#Highest_fees

Let's all " hope " that he answers the problems for England though, aye ??

Please accept that really the only thing they all have in common is that they were all grossly undervalued at the age of 22 apart from possibly Carroll.

But please stop it Singh because you argument is totally repetitive along the lines of Carroll is not worth as much as David Villa because David Villa is an infinitely better footballer than Carroll ever will be. And as everyone knows that David Villa is a better footballer it isnt worth repeating. And as the underlying argument is simply untrue in an objective value sense as opposed to your 'subjective belief' it simply is the whole point.

You see footballers do not cost 1m quid any more and it isnt all about what a good footballer they are now and whether they were in the championship last year. There are loads of guys who understand football and think that footballers are worth a lot because they are very good footballers but there are very few people who understand rational expectations, uncertainty, liquidity, volatility, time value, risk, opportunity cost.

Let me ask you a simple question? At what age in theory and on average do you believe the transfer value of a football player should peak? And at what rate should it decline?

to the highlighted & underlined..

& to answer your question, what i think has absolutely no relevence to the point you're trying to make..

[StevieH]

I was speaking to my brother last night and he has just finished reading Moneyball. I havent read it but I think it is probably a great read for any Liverpool fan. It actually explains what happened in the Carroll and Torres deal in terms of FSG strategy. There is a whole book on the transfer market.

1. Younger players are under valued... older players are overvalued

2. You should always sell a player when you are offered well over his true value

3. As such you should have a replacement prepared so that you can buy him often aggressively so that you can sell

4. Buy players with mental problems because they are undervalued and shrinks work.

5. Centre forwards are the most grossly overvalued players in the league

The actual strategy doesnt sound that interesting or that productive. But the point a made earlier is that the real value added in trading is knowing when and having the discipline to sell. When, is typically when the club says the player is 'not for sale at any price' often when Man City has just approached them with a ludricrous offer or something. At a time when he is far too important to sell. That is why you go out and buy and instant replacement. But think how bad clubs are at selling their best players.

i've read moneyball recently and it is fascinating. if the theories which have worked at the red sox can be put into practice successfully in football it will be really interesting to watch.