Re: 85million pounds spent on two players.....

by El Chelsea Fuerte Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:42 am

baresi wrote:
english_jewel wrote:
baresi wrote:
english_jewel wrote:
RedOranje wrote:Actually... 50m spent, as we specifically asked for Carroll + 15m so the 35m that bought Carroll went from Chelsea to Newcastle.

Still means you spent 35m on Carroll...
Not really, they cant care less if you got him for 10 Euros or 100M, they got what they asked for/

Liverpool agreed to pay Newcastle 35m for Carroll from the money Chelsea were giving for Torres.

Even if we made a deal with them that we would pay for Carroll as a way to complete the 50m price tag, how does that not account to Liverpool paying 35m for Carroll? Sure they didn't directly pay for him, but they did pay for him nevertheless. Or would Liverpool have accepted a 15m for Torres?
My reply was based on what RedOrange said, I am not aware of how the entire deal went, but if Pool asked for Carroll+15m then I would stick with what I said, if they asked for 50m then I guess they got robbed for Carroll.

How can Liverpool ask Carroll+15m from us when Carroll never was our player??? :facepalm:

by baresi Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:45 am

english_jewel wrote:
baresi wrote:
english_jewel wrote:
baresi wrote:
english_jewel wrote:
RedOranje wrote:Actually... 50m spent, as we specifically asked for Carroll + 15m so the 35m that bought Carroll went from Chelsea to Newcastle.

Still means you spent 35m on Carroll...
Not really, they cant care less if you got him for 10 Euros or 100M, they got what they asked for/

Liverpool agreed to pay Newcastle 35m for Carroll from the money Chelsea were giving for Torres.

Even if we made a deal with them that we would pay for Carroll as a way to complete the 50m price tag, how does that not account to Liverpool paying 35m for Carroll? Sure they didn't directly pay for him, but they did pay for him nevertheless. Or would Liverpool have accepted a 15m for Torres?
My reply was based on what RedOrange said, I am not aware of how the entire deal went, but if Pool asked for Carroll+15m then I would stick with what I said, if they asked for 50m then I guess they got robbed for Carroll.

How can Liverpool ask Carroll+15m from us when Carroll never was our player???

Sh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1t thats why you ended paying them 35m.

by El Chelsea Fuerte Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:46 am

RedOranje wrote:
english_jewel wrote:
baresi wrote:
english_jewel wrote:
RedOranje wrote:Actually... 50m spent, as we specifically asked for Carroll + 15m so the 35m that bought Carroll went from Chelsea to Newcastle.

Still means you spent 35m on Carroll...
Not really, they cant care less if you got him for 10 Euros or 100M, they got what they asked for/

Liverpool agreed to pay Newcastle 35m for Carroll from the money Chelsea were giving for Torres.

Even if we made a deal with them that we would pay for Carroll as a way to complete the 50m price tag, how does that not account to Liverpool paying 35m for Carroll? Sure they didn't directly pay for him, but they did pay for him nevertheless. Otherwise Carroll would be our player. Or would Liverpool have accepted a 15m for Torres?
No, we told Chelsea we wanted 15m on top of whatever it cost to buy a replacement. The negotiations for Carroll were between Newcastle and Chelsea.

So it's our fault that Carroll came at 35m? And if we did pay for him then surely he was our player at some point?

Thirdly do you have a source?

by baresi Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:46 am

In all cases it doeas'nt add up to 85m mentioned. Does it?

by REWB Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:50 am

baresi wrote:In all cases it doeas'nt add up to 85m mentioned. Does it?

what do you mean? 35+50=85........

by baresi Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:50 am

Actually it adds u to 85m, but does it really cont as 85m???? Serious question.

by baresi Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:51 am

Never mind forget it

by REWB Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:56 am

think you've been smoking too much of grandpa smurf's pot there mate

by RedOranje Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:58 am

We told Chelsea we wanted 15m plus a replacement striker. We told them which striker we wanted. The negotiations were then between Chelsea and Newcastle for the fee. Liverpool did not negotiate both deals separately as expediency was of the utmost importance given the time left in the window. Liverpool were basically an intermediary that brought Chelsea and Newcastle together for discussions, but the actual fee for Carroll was agreed between Chelsea and Newcastle.

How is this so hard to understand?

by Raptorgunner Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:59 am

Torres will cost Chelsea around 80 million, by the end of contract. I really do feel as for Torres, he was one of my Fav players, the guy is almost done. I think he should go back to Spain. Very Happy

by El Chelsea Fuerte Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:04 am

RedOranje wrote:We told Chelsea we wanted 15m plus a replacement striker. We told them which striker we wanted. The negotiations were then between Chelsea and Newcastle for the fee. Liverpool did not negotiate both deals separately as expediency was of the utmost importance given the time left in the window. Liverpool were basically an intermediary that brought Chelsea and Newcastle together for discussions, but the actual fee for Carroll was agreed between Chelsea and Newcastle.

How is this so hard to understand?

It's pretty hard to believe when you refuse to give a reliable source. Stop making it look like it couldn't have been possible that Liverpool made a late bid for Carroll after Torres was practically gone, smarty pants.

by lenear1030 Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:06 am

im still laughing at how Anzhi bid 43m for Carroll at the transfer window deadline

by REWB Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:11 am

RedOranje wrote:We told Chelsea we wanted 15m plus a replacement striker. We told them which striker we wanted. The negotiations were then between Chelsea and Newcastle for the fee. Liverpool did not negotiate both deals separately as expediency was of the utmost importance given the time left in the window. Liverpool were basically an intermediary that brought Chelsea and Newcastle together for discussions, but the actual fee for Carroll was agreed between Chelsea and Newcastle.

How is this so hard to understand?

whats your point? it all adds up to 85million anyway

by RedOranje Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:12 am

english_jewel wrote:
RedOranje wrote:We told Chelsea we wanted 15m plus a replacement striker. We told them which striker we wanted. The negotiations were then between Chelsea and Newcastle for the fee. Liverpool did not negotiate both deals separately as expediency was of the utmost importance given the time left in the window. Liverpool were basically an intermediary that brought Chelsea and Newcastle together for discussions, but the actual fee for Carroll was agreed between Chelsea and Newcastle.

How is this so hard to understand?

It's pretty hard to believe when you refuse to give a reliable source.

Well, seeing as you never requested it, to suddenly imply I refused to give a source is basically slander.

From our owner, John Henry:

"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."

In other words, we only negotiated for the £15m, the rest was settled between Chelsea and Newcastle. Have a good night, lad.

by BeautifulGame Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:53 am

Well i prefer spending 35 mil on a players to the embarrassment of bringing Chelsea rejects on loan.

by BeautifulGame Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:17 am

Ganso wrote:both of them suck really bad,speciakky carrol....they wouldn't even make it to my brasileirao bench ffs.

Seeing the way Ganso play since Copa America neither would Ganso on any Premier league bench.

by The Messiah Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:24 am

Liverpool nearly almost signed Mario Gomez instead of Carroll but thank God for the board who blocked the transfer.

That crazy Van Gaal was willing to sell anyone including Schweinsteiger, Lucio and Van Bommel. Craziest man I ever know in football.

by El Chelsea Fuerte Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:31 am

RedOranje wrote:
english_jewel wrote:
RedOranje wrote:We told Chelsea we wanted 15m plus a replacement striker. We told them which striker we wanted. The negotiations were then between Chelsea and Newcastle for the fee. Liverpool did not negotiate both deals separately as expediency was of the utmost importance given the time left in the window. Liverpool were basically an intermediary that brought Chelsea and Newcastle together for discussions, but the actual fee for Carroll was agreed between Chelsea and Newcastle.

How is this so hard to understand?

It's pretty hard to believe when you refuse to give a reliable source.
Well, seeing as you never requested it, to suddenly imply I refused to give a source is basically slander.

From our owner, John Henry:
"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."

In other words, we only negotiated for the £15m, the rest was settled between Chelsea and Newcastle. Have a good night, lad.

I actually had asked for a source in the previous page. You might have missed it.

Henry's words above still don't really say anything in terms of Liverpool not spending to get Carroll. In reality, would Liverpool have ever accepted a bid of 15m for Torres? No, they were adamant on us paying his 50m release clause (which was activated because Liverpool finished outside the Top 4) and therefore they were only accepting that amount of money. Now whether they used 35m of that amount in buying Carroll, or whether we agreed to buy him for whatever price and pay 15m more to Liverpool does not matter because Liverpool already allowed a huge chunk of the Torres deal to go away in order to get who they wanted. Because they accepted to get less money from the Torres deal in order to get Carroll it counts as Liverpool having spent/sacrificed that amount of money to get Carroll. And anyhow, Liverpool would not have accepted us getting away without spending 50m because of Torres's release clause, so it was actually to the expense of Liverpool that Carroll went for 35m.

by RedOranje Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:43 am

No, we would not have accepted 15m for Torres as we didn't. We asked for a replacement striker. You're ignoring very obvious facts in this discussion and playing ignorant to make your case work. It's all rather tiring.

by Kick Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:48 am

This might be my knee jerking but I would be willing to sell Torres for 20m right now....he is still a fantastic player but my pateince has run out and he doesn't fit our system, hopefully Roman learns his lesson from this transfer.

by El Chelsea Fuerte Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:12 am

RedOranje wrote:No, we would not have accepted 15m for Torres as we didn't. We asked for a replacement striker. You're ignoring very obvious facts in this discussion and playing ignorant to make your case work. It's all rather tiring.

I get that now that you finally found a quote from someone reliable. I'm not ignoring it. Of course if you had provided a source earlier then things would have made a lot more sense and then we wouldn't have to go around in circles for two pages. Obviously I wasn't aware that this happened as it was not reported in places like the BBC, so stop assuming like I read all your owner has to say.

Tiring?

Of course, if you didn't want to get a headache entering into a discussion you could have very well ignored my comment about your post and spent your time on less tiring things. Obviously someone didn't have a good night.

by Guest Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:14 am

^^
Red has had a goodnight I can certify that. I just saw him on camera on skype, he is looking very sharp

by El Chelsea Fuerte Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:20 am

kick mars wrote:This might be my knee jerking but I would be willing to sell Torres for 20m right now....he is still a fantastic player but my pateince has run out and he doesn't fit our system, hopefully Roman learns his lesson from this transfer.

Sheva says hi Smile

by Kick Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:22 am

english_jewel wrote:
kick mars wrote:This might be my knee jerking but I would be willing to sell Torres for 20m right now....he is still a fantastic player but my pateince has run out and he doesn't fit our system, hopefully Roman learns his lesson from this transfer.

Sheva says hi

I would have thought Roman learned his lesson from Sheva but obivously not.

by El Chelsea Fuerte Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:24 am

kick mars wrote:
english_jewel wrote:
kick mars wrote:This might be my knee jerking but I would be willing to sell Torres for 20m right now....he is still a fantastic player but my pateince has run out and he doesn't fit our system, hopefully Roman learns his lesson from this transfer.

Sheva says hi

I would have thought Roman learned his lesson from Sheva but obivously not.

You do realize how many Sheva's/Torres's his wealth can buy right? bounce

FFP FTW

by Guest Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:25 am

@Kickmars.....I'd buy him for 20M right now, without thinking twice about it.

As much of a miserable, unfaithful c*nt he is, I still have a soft spot for him and found my face wet watching "Goodbye Fernando" videos on youtube at 4AM last night. We'll get him scoring again!

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com