Andy Carroll

[McDermotX]

It's the right word, you're well read, you know that. The seller's monopoly position is irrelevant to the point I was making. I could have said 'buyer's market' but it's not as accurate, in that it implies other potential buyers could benefit like Newcastle can, and that's clearly not true. I'll give people credit for knowing the word or being able to look it up if they want. And if they don't want, fine, that's up to them.

If we accept the rumours as true, when there was more than one buyer, we were offered £20m. Now it's £12m. How would you account for the drop?

8m differential was Big Fat Sam's take ?

[Gibbo]

I know theyre making us look bad but i would be ****ing delighted if I was a Newcastle fan, brilliant business by them.

Terrible by us. As usual.

[the rev leeroy brown]

I know theyre making us look bad but i would be ****ing delighted if I was a Newcastle fan, brilliant business by them.

Terrible by us. As usual.

couple newcastle mates of mine really arent bothered at all how this all pans out. they neither want him back or want him to stay with us. whatever happens they still look at it as having made a **** load of us with the original deal and 2 strong stikers at the club and if they get him back its another option off the bench whilst still having made a **** load off us

[Neil Young]

8m differential was Big Fat Sam's take ?

I hadn't thought of that.

[Fan65]

There's another scary option that could unfold for Carroll, if the team doesn't play alot better than last Saturday and start converting chances it's concievable that we could get turned over by City, The Arse & Manure at home and if we also don't get a result away to Sunderland he might just hang around to try and impress a new manager.

No way am I saying it's going to happen it's just that it's not beyond the realms of fantasy the way things are stacking up at the moment..

[dom9]

There's another scary option that could unfold for Carroll, if the team doesn't play alot better than last Saturday and start converting chances it's concievable that we could get turned over by City, The Arse & Manure at home and if we also don't get a result away to Sunderland he might just hang around to try and impress a new manager.

No way am I saying it's going to happen it's just that it's not beyond the realms of fantasy the way things are stacking up at the moment..

Ooh scary. :crumbs:

[James P]

It's the right word, you're well read, you know that. The seller's monopoly position is irrelevant to the point I was making. I could have said 'buyer's market' but it's not as accurate, in that it implies other potential buyers could benefit like Newcastle can, and that's clearly not true. I'll give people credit for knowing the word or being able to look it up if they want. And if they don't want, fine, that's up to them.

If we accept the rumours as true, when there was more than one buyer, we were offered £20m. Now it's £12m. How would you account for the drop?

I accept that it's the word that probably gives us the closest approximation to the scenario, but the reason for the drop here is simple - we are trying to sell the contract of a individual, who is unique, has free will and can therefore make irrational decisions that impact upon the transaction, rather than an object, whereby the monopsony argument would be far more accurate, particularly if that object was more freely available (thereby satisfying the 'many sellers' element).

Of course indulging in semantics about definitions is leading us away from the crux of the matter, which is that we paid massively over the odds for Carroll, and he's now causing us grief by refusing to move anywhere other than Newcastle, regardless of the fee involved. I don't particularly blame him, though - it's not his fault that we paid what we did, and that he no longer fits with our plans, and I can understand why he wants to go back to Newcastle.

[Neil Young]

Yep, I don't really blame him at all.

[dom9]

LFC overpaid massively for Carroll only in the context of Chelsea overpaying for Torres.

To me at least, we wanted £15m more for Torress than we were prepared to pay for Carroll. Whether that was £40m / 25m, £45m / £30m or £50m / £35m is semantics really, unless you're Newcastle.

[Neil Young]

I'm not sure how relevant that is really.

From what we know, the price for Torres was determined by the price for Carroll. If Chelsea's willingness to pay £50m were relevant, then it should be the other way around. But that would be mad.

Ideally the club should have paid the right price for Carroll and also squeezed Chelsea for as much cash as possible.

And the right price for Carroll, based on his ability, is clearly less than £35m, as I'm sure we'd all agree.

[James P]

LFC overpaid massively for Carroll only in the context of Chelsea overpaying for Torres.

To me at least, we wanted £15m more for Torress than we were prepared to pay for Carroll. Whether that was £40m / 25m, £45m / £30m or £50m / £35m is semantics really, unless you're Newcastle.

The problem is that when we got to £50m for Torres, we really should have been looking at better targets. If the deal had been £30m/£15m, then fine, that would be a decent price for Carroll. But we could have used £35m far better - not necessarily on a single striker, as we may not have been able to attract a Cavani / Aguero, but on two or three players.

Plus that view implies that we were inept enough to give Newcastle a blank cheque based on whatever we got for Torres, rather than agreeing a fee large enough to get the Carroll deal done regardless (£20m to £25m would surely have been enough?) and keep the extra profit ourselves. I can't imagine that any of us would buy a house, for example, where we'd guarantee to pay in proportion to whatever we sold ours for - that would be nuts.

Edit: damn you, Neil, for saying the same thing but a bit quicker.

[Baracus]

Can we agree that LFC no longer want AC

[g.red]

And the right price for Carroll, based on his ability, is clearly less than £35m, as I'm sure we'd all agree.

Agreed.

For £35m, we could have bought Dilva and his brother, with enough change left over to buy Muddled a copy of Razzle.

[dom9]

I'm not sure how relevant that is really.

From what we know, the price for Torres was determined by the price for Carroll. If Chelsea's willingness to pay £50m were relevant, then it should be the other way around. But that would be mad.

Ideally the club should have paid the right price for Carroll and also squeezed Chelsea for as much cash as possible.

And the right price for Carroll, based on his ability, is clearly less than £35m, as I'm sure we'd all agree.

I think it is relevant because the end of that transfer window was approaching and Torres wanted out. The club decided to sell (perhaps wrongly in hindsight) and an appropriate and realistic replacement had to be identified in a short space of time.

That target was Carroll, and Newcastle bumped up the price massively knowing that everyone around them was getting desperate. We simply passed on that massive premium to Chelsea.

Yes, of course we overpaid, but we were overcompensated for Torres at the same time, which negates that to an extent.

The problem is that when we got to £50m for Torres, we really should have been looking at better targets. If the deal had been £30m/£15m, then fine, that would be a decent price for Carroll. But we could have used £35m far better - not necessarily on a single striker, as we may not have been able to attract a Cavani / Aguero, but on two or three players.

Plus that view implies that we were inept enough to give Newcastle a blank cheque based on whatever we got for Torres, rather than agreeing a fee large enough to get the Carroll deal done regardless (£20m to £25m would surely have been enough?) and keep the extra profit ourselves. I can't imagine that any of us would buy a house, for example, where we'd guarantee to pay in proportion to whatever we sold ours for - that would be nuts.

Edit: damn you, Neil, for saying the same thing but a bit quicker.

Maybe we should have been looking at other / better targets, but this was days from the end of the transfer window. What choice was there, apart from to keep Torres?

And yes, that is what I am implying.

[red g]

The problem is that when we got to £50m for Torres, we really should have been looking at better targets. If the deal had been £30m/£15m, then fine, that would be a decent price for Carroll. But we could have used £35m far better - not necessarily on a single striker, as we may not have been able to attract a Cavani / Aguero, but on two or three players.

Plus that view implies that we were inept enough to give Newcastle a blank cheque based on whatever we got for Torres, rather than agreeing a fee large enough to get the Carroll deal done regardless (£20m to £25m would surely have been enough?) and keep the extra profit ourselves. I can't imagine that any of us would buy a house, for example, where we'd guarantee to pay in proportion to whatever we sold ours for - that would be nuts.

Edit: damn you, Neil, for saying the same thing but a bit quicker.

We are talking about Cock Piss Purslow here, He thought he was being clever by outbidding spurs who bid 27m for Caroll the week before, He did the same with Cole........I bet he was like a dog with 2 dicks when he pulled those deals off.

Peter Risdale mark 2