KopTalk

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279
T
Under 23 Player
Under 23 Player
T Offline
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279
Appreciate it's probably a complex picture, but we can't avoid bringing up the transfer fees because

- the media and rival supporters use them to mock the fans and the club

- astronomic transfer fees will affect the player psychologically

- transfer fees affect the budget available for the next transfer

The club should know that the headline transfer fee is a powerful piece of information which can be damaging to the club if the transfer fails whether we like it or not.


'I was only in the game for the love of football - and I wanted to bring back happiness to the people of Liverpool.' Bill Shankly

'We should have made a signing or two in the last couple of transfer windows.' Vish
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163
Originally Posted By: thundyr
Originally Posted By: TheMightyLFC
It may not be Commolli's fault but it would be a flaw in the system.

I would've thought that for each transfer window they have a set budget. They'll also have an annual wage budget and maybe even a 3-4 year projection/budget of wages given the contracts in place.

Kenny surely has the final say on which players he wants. If Kenny also has the final say on what price to pay and what salary a player is worth then what's the point of Commolli other than a glorified chief scout and secretary to Kenny?

Basically, it seems the picture isn't clear and hence why the cock up in the prices we've paid.


I don't think that Kenny has any part of the decision-making process regarding wages for instance. That would definitely be Commolli's department.

Think of it this way. You have 80m budget. You need 5 players, you need to make sure you get all 5, and you want to do your best to make sure they all work because your squad has no real cover for these 5. That puts you on a hiding to nothing in the transfer market, because you can't really afford to gamble on foreign players that might not adapt to the English conditions and the English game (or who take 6 months to adapt - not every foreigner takes to the league the way Suarez and Torres did). You *will* end up paying too much for the targets you want because you will do your best to make sure no one else signs them first (or delays the deal by a few weeks that the player could have spent getting acquainted with your existing squad). Therefore our targets were players proven in the league, and we were prepared to pay over the odds for them just to make sure they got signed.

A lot of people are very negative regarding our transfer activity last year, but I'm much more relaxed about it because we were walking into a seller's market with big pockets and we weren't prepared to gamble (either on weaker or unjustifiable players, or on the chance of missing our first pick). That made us lame ducks. Everyone knows (or should know) that Torres would be sold for 15m more than whatever it was going to cost us to sign Carroll. We were spending Chelsea's money to buy him, though quite frankly someone should have heard alarm bells at breaking the transfer record for a guy who'd spent only 6 months in the EPL and was injured. It would also be nice if people remembered that Redknapp offered 28m for the player, and Mike Ashley knew he could squeeze another few million by rejecting our offer of 30m.

We could have signed no one (or a bunch of Rafa-esque gambles) and no one can say we would be better off without the benefit of hindsight. Suarez could have taken 4 months to adapt, in which case we would probably not have finished in the top 10 last season. It's a lot of ifs, buts and maybes, and I'd prefer if people stopped bringing up the transfer fees - they're not the whole picture.


It was going well until that bit of nonsense. WHY did Carroll have to cost the same as Torres, less £15m?!? There is no logic or business acumen to that whatsoever. FSG are well known for being good with money......your claim flies in the face of that and would show them up to be financial imbeciles.

T
thundyr
Unregistered
thundyr
Unregistered
T
I agree with these points. But we can avoid bringing them up in every thread on a relatively closed forum because all we do is make the pressure greater rather than accepting what has been done and trying to offer our support. Frankly Carroll has been accepted by fans of this club less than Hodgson was, and that's worse than pathetic because he had no control over any of that, nor does he pick the tactics that don't suit him.

T
thundyr
Unregistered
thundyr
Unregistered
T
Originally Posted By: CarheeX
It was going well until that bit of nonsense. WHY did Carroll have to cost the same as Torres, less £15m?!? There is no logic or business acumen to that whatsoever. FSG are well known for being good with money......your claim flies in the face of that and would show them up to be financial imbeciles.


Because that was what we needed to cover. We bought Suarez and sold Babel during that window as well.

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163
That doesn't even begin to answer why you think carroll's fee had to be Torres minus £15m....

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279
T
Under 23 Player
Under 23 Player
T Offline
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279
I quite like Carroll myself, and have always tried to defend him when watching games with others. My experience is that they've slated him not because they blame him for the £35 million spent on him, but because he can't seem to control the ball, keeps falling over and complaining (often justified to be fair), hardly scores, often misses and is sometimes just standing doing nothing in the wrong place when a ball comes into the box.

A lot of this may not be his fault - our gameplan may not suit his strengths and style. And we don't blame him for the £35 million either. That is clealy somebody else's strange decision.


'I was only in the game for the love of football - and I wanted to bring back happiness to the people of Liverpool.' Bill Shankly

'We should have made a signing or two in the last couple of transfer windows.' Vish
T
thundyr
Unregistered
thundyr
Unregistered
T
Originally Posted By: CarheeX
That doesn't even begin to answer why you think carroll's fee had to be Torres minus £15m....


22.5 - 7 = ?

When you're asking 50m, the extra 500k doesn't matter.

T
thundyr
Unregistered
thundyr
Unregistered
T
Originally Posted By: TheMightyLFC
I quite like Carroll myself, and have always tried to defend him when watching games with others. My experience is that they've slated him not because they blame him for the £35 million spent on him, but because he can't seem to control the ball, keeps falling over and complaining (often justified to be fair), hardly scores, often misses and is sometimes just standing doing nothing in the wrong place when a ball comes into the box.

A lot of this may not be his fault - our gameplan may not suit his strengths and style. And we don't blame him for the £35 million either. That is clealy somebody else's strange decision.



The first time I saw Carroll play I thought to myself, "That's a guy I want to see in red." He was a serious threat in the box, was an absolute beast of a player, and he gave everything. I was really happy we had an actual interest in him, and was glad we signed him even though he undoubtedly wasn't worth 35m (even when you add the 50% "homegrown tax").

He's just not been that player for Liverpool. He's not had that same presence in the box, hasn't been the guy who barges over 3 defenders on route to leaping for the ball - check out his goal for barcodes vs Arsenal. I think a lot of his struggles have to do with his injury last season, but he's showed glimpses of his former self this year, particularly I thought against Newcastle in the first 15 mins (though the dive was silly). What has annoyed me about him is his inability to stay on his feet - he never lay about the place at Newcastle. He got on with the job. We've not played to his strengths, but neither has he. He (and Suarez) would do a lot better to take the kick on the shins and keep the ball, because it sure isn't common that we win free kicks from long balls - in fact they tend to go against us.

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163
Originally Posted By: thundyr
Originally Posted By: CarheeX
That doesn't even begin to answer why you think carroll's fee had to be Torres minus £15m....


22.5 - 7 = ?

When you're asking 50m, the extra 500k doesn't matter.


Have you gone mad?! That's not how a business makes money!!

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,163
I'm not so much discussing the fee; my primary concern is that we have someone suggesting that our club owners are so financially naive that they would have paid 'any amount of money' for Carroll providing they had £15m change from the Torres pot. If true (which it can't be!?) I would be very concerned for our future.

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  KopTalk Team 

Link Copied to Clipboard
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Advertisements
Liverpool FC Discussion