Hughes: Cruz is better than Torres

[Nic83]

Torres is a far superior player and in will be proven in time. So my post was a statement of belief. Hence why i made the point of stating "IMO".

Who's the fraud pretending to be me?

He is indeed, but that is not in question. People are geting confused with the word value.

If a rich man buys a product for 5K and a poorer man buys the same product for the same price, it doesn't mean the richer man got a better deal.

[Angry Dan]

Depends how you quantify "value" really if you do so by what he brings the team as opposed to monetary cost Torres was far better value.

[Alan Key]

Yes you can. Torres is the better value if you can afford it. He will only get better. I wouldn't say the same of Cruz.

They could probably sell Cruz for around £9m in the summer, we could probably get around £40m for Torres. But whilst Cruz's potential fee will be a one time only deal, Torres value will likely increase as the seasons go by.

So for a club of our size, Torres was the best value for money.

Arguably the biggest pile of bollocks I've read since the last time I read one of AFII's post's.

[Reece]

Arguably the biggest pile of bollocks I've read since the last time I read one of my own posts.

[Nic83]

Depends how you quantify "value" really if you do so by what he brings the team as opposed to monetary cost Torres was far better value.

That makes no sense whatsoever

[Darkon]

Santa cruz goal value so far: 194.000 pound a goal

Torres goal value so far (at the reported 18 mill price): 620.000 pound a goal


Guess that is Hughes argument, which is fair enough... Torres still the far better striker!

[Skillz]

Depends how you quantify "value" really if you do so by what he brings the team as opposed to monetary cost Torres was far better value.

On cost alone Cruz wins. Everything else Torres wins and with any luck that will continue for many a year. As the years roll by, the difference in class will grow as fast as the difference in transfer fees appears to reduce.

Liverpool will be proven to have had the better value in time. IMO of course

[mchaggis]

He is indeed, but that is not in question. People are geting confused with the word value.

If a rich man buys a product for 5K and a poorer man buys the same product for the same price, it doesn't mean the richer man got a better deal.

No, but if LFC get lots of money from Torres shirts and if Torres scores a goal that brings us in the CL semis (and let's say Cruz wouldn't) then it's better value for us.

So you can't just say it's better value cause he scores more than 1/6 Torres goals.

(I'm not saying which deal is better, just telling you that you can't really tell with info we have, also quality here is different and more money does make the difference, that poor man - rich man situation is not the same here)

[Nic83]

Cruz has been one of the top strikers this year. For Torres to be better 'value' at 6 times the price, he has to have been more than 6 times the player and he hasn't. Simple.

[Nic83]

No, but if LFC get lots of money from Torres shirts and if Torres scores a goal that brings us in the CL semis (and let's say Cruz wouldn't) then it's better value for us.

So you can't just say it's better value cause he scores more than 1/6 Torres goals.

(I'm not saying which deal is better, just telling you that you can't really tell with info we have, also quality here is different and more money does make the difference, that poor man - rich man situation is not the same here)

That's a whole other argument. We are talking about what he does on the pitch and how much we had to pay for those services.

[Alan Key]

wow. what a tosser.:bird:

[Red_Polo]

He's totally right, Cruz was the better VALUE, you can't argue that. Silly thread.

All together now...

Ohhhhhhh yes you can!

You are Wrong IMO. Torres scores 3/2 times the goals cruz has yet Torres cost about 6/1 times the money. And he's playing in a far inferior team. Of course Cruz was the better value, they picked him up for virtually nothing and he's made their season. I always knew you had no sense. Actually I could be confusing you with another poster there

You are assuming there is a linear relationship between the merit of a player and his financial value, which clearly doesn't stack up. A player worth twice as much doesn't need to be more than twice as good to be worth it.

Yes you can. Torres is the better value if you can afford it.

...for a club of our size, Torres was the best value for money.

You speaketh sense

Presumably though, Nic83 is kicking himself that we signed Torres instead of Cruz

[Nic83]

Oh dear.

[Red_Polo]

Arguably the biggest pile of bollocks I've read since the last time I read one of AFII's post's.

Do you think we would have preferred to sign Cruz or Torres at their respective fees? That alone tells us what is better value for money.

[the rev leeroy brown]

ffs. looking at the original post, the "better value" appears to be talking about comparing goals scored compared to fee paid for each player. you could spend ****ing days comparing inches of grass covered on the pitch, minutes completed in a game, shirts sold in the shops, assists for other goals etc.......

going on goals scored, cruz was better value. going on merchandising, torres was better value. it depends on which angle you want to put on it. looking at the complete package (on and off the pitch) and not just goals, IMO torres is better value in the long term.