Andy Carroll - Best Striker in the World

[RichC]

Everyone gets hung up on the Carroll fee but it's been made clear by the owners that we would never have paid 35m for Carroll if Chelsea hadn't paid 50m for Torres.

They valued Torres as being worth 15m more than Carroll and then it was up to Chelsea how much they wanted to buy Torres.

In my opinion it's Chelsea that was mad, I doubt we ever expected them to go as high as 50m. Mike Ashley probably couldn't believe his luck when we kept going back to him with a higher offer.

Fabregas went for 35m which is probably closer to what Torres was worth and then we'd have only gone as high as 20m for Carroll. Considering we paid a similar amount for Henderson and the January transfer market normally demands a premium that probably would have been about right.

From a psychological, moral, political and marketing point of view the new owners could not be seen to sell our best player and not spend the money in the first transfer window. It would have been suicidal.

You need to put everything in context, it's not fair on Carroll or Dalglish to say that we 'wasted' 35m on him. Chelsea spent the money, not us.

He's only 21, I accept he hasn't had the best of starts to his career but that doesn't mean he's not a great player. He needs to get fit and to mature before we see his full potential.

Not every buy is going to be an instant hit.

very good post.

[Cormack74]

very good post.

+1

[Parr_Zee]

[QUOTE=topscorer;2058891]Everyone gets hung up on the Carroll fee but it's been made clear by the owners that we would never have paid 35m for Carroll if Chelsea hadn't paid 50m for Torres.

They valued Torres as being worth 15m more than Carroll and then it was up to Chelsea how much they wanted to buy Torres.

In my opinion it's Chelsea that was mad, I doubt we ever expected them to go as high as 50m. Mike Ashley probably couldn't believe his luck when we kept going back to him with a higher offer.
[QUOTE]

Are you saying that we paid £35m for Carroll even though we could have got him for much cheaper? If Chelsea had offered £35m for Torres, we would have got Carroll for £20m? Or if Chelsea offered £70m for Torres, we would have bid £55m for Carroll?

Nonsense.

People are trying to make excuses for Carroll's poor form. The hard fact is that, from what we have seen so far, he is performing NOWHERE near the required standard (regardless of what we paid for him).

[The_weatherman]

[quote=Parr_Zee;2059011]

Everyone gets hung up on the Carroll fee but it's been made clear by the owners that we would never have paid 35m for Carroll if Chelsea hadn't paid 50m for Torres.

They valued Torres as being worth 15m more than Carroll and then it was up to Chelsea how much they wanted to buy Torres.

In my opinion it's Chelsea that was mad, I doubt we ever expected them to go as high as 50m. Mike Ashley probably couldn't believe his luck when we kept going back to him with a higher offer.QUOTE]

Are you saying that we paid £35m for Carroll even though we could have got him for much cheaper? If Chelsea had offered £35m for Torres, we would have got Carroll for £20m? Or if Chelsea offered £70m for Torres, we would have bid £55m for Carroll?

Nonsense.

People are trying to make excuses for Carroll's poor form. The hard fact is that, from what we have seen so far, he is performing NOWHERE near the required standard (regardless of what we paid for him).

Actually I remember JWH saying exctly that in an interview, Newcastle kept raising their price and in the end it was because of them we got 50 for Torres.

[Kenneth]

Very dubious logic indeed.

[The_weatherman]

Very dubious logic indeed.

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."

[Kenneth]

Yep, very dubious.

[Parr_Zee]

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."

Ok, fair enough!

Although it would have been a million times better to get £50m for Torres (Chelsea clearly happy to pay), and pay the more realistic £20m for Carroll.

[RedReet]

I suppose one way of looking at it is we replaced Torres with Carroll, Adam and Enrique with a few million to spare.

[ronanm]

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."

Not great logic at all JW!

[Neil Young]

Except if Newcastle knew we were getting a lot for Torres then that may well have influenced their selling price.

Of course I suppose we can't unequivocally rule out the possibility that we asked how much Newcastle wanted for Carroll, they said £20million and we said, "We're selling Torres to Chelsea for £50million, so would you mind accepting £35million instead?" It doesn't seem very likely to me though.

[Parr_Zee]

Except if Newcastle knew we were getting a lot for Torres then that may well have influenced their selling price.

Of course I suppose we can't unequivocally rule out the possibility that we asked how much Newcastle wanted for Carroll, they said £20million and we said, "We're selling Torres to Chelsea for £50million, so would you mind accepting £35million instead?" It doesn't seem very likely to me though.

But Newcastle would not have known how much we were getting for Torres. If it were me I would have enquired how much Newcastle wanted for Carroll. If they said anything near £35m, I would have told them to do one, and quickly look elsewhere. For that price we could have had our pick of most of the strikers in the world.

[Kenneth]

But Newcastle would not have known how much we were getting for Torres. If it were me I would have enquired how much Newcastle wanted for Carroll. If they said anything near £35m, I would have told them to do one, and quickly look elsewhere. For that price we could have had our pick of most of the strikers in the world.

Me too. Not that it would have been easy to poach someone in Jan. However, Carroll didn't really contribute to our recovery last year so we should have kept the cash in those circumstances.

Some people at the club obviously rated him very highly indeed. They might be right, but I'm not convinced.

[Exiled_red]

deleted

[Craig_H]

Are you saying that we paid £35m for Carroll even though we could have got him for much cheaper? If Chelsea had offered £35m for Torres, we would have got Carroll for £20m? Or if Chelsea offered £70m for Torres, we would have bid £55m for Carroll?

Nonsense.

I'm not going to criticise Carroll, but i agree with this completely - the idea that we were always going to pay £15m less for Carroll than we got for Torres, is laughable IMO.

We didnt go upto £35m because Chelsea paid £50m for Torres, we went to £35m because our previous bids of lower amounts were rejected. We eventually got to £35m and this was accepted. The fact that it was £15m lower than the Torres fee was mere coincidence.

As has been said, if we'd bid £28m and Newcastle had accepted it, we wouldnt have gone "Oh hang on, Torres has gone for £50m, so we're upping it to £35m."

Actually I remember JWH saying exctly that in an interview, Newcastle kept raising their price and in the end it was because of them we got 50 for Torres.

I dont believe that for a second, regardless of whether JWH said it or not. The idea that we had one phone in one hand with Chelsea on the other end, and another in the other hand with Newcastle there, going from one to the other, telling one to hold on while we spoke to the other - which is effectively what this suggests, is absurd