Football 2010-2011

[Steve P]

It's nothing peculiar to just Liverpool. I don't know how it was received in Spain, but* I've got no doubt if things were reversed and Skippy's Utd career with the same success had been at Real and then Utd had bought him for £80M, that would be lauded as a great buy (rather than the great sell many Utd fans choose to view it as). From one angle it would be of course, but it looks less good if you think that Utd could have (just about) had another Rooney, another Berba, and another Rio all for the same money.

(* chosen only for these reasons:- 1. there's no transfer of a young player similar to Carroll's that I can think of, and 2. Skippy's is the only other really silly money transfer that comes to mind)

[ampersand]

I think he is the sort of player that has to be in a fully functioning team in order to play at his best, and Liverpool haven't been doing that for a long while.

In other news, I think the tricky trees are going to get promotion this season.

[b26354]

Has there really been anyone that’s come from the Dutch league apart from Ruud Van N whos continued as a quality goal scorer?

I don’t include Bergkamp because calling him a “goalscorer” is an offense to him. He was on a different planet.

[tylerdurden]

Been a lot of bollocks spouted in this thread. Essentially what we've paid for is potential, and that could go either way, could turn out to be a massive success or a massive failure. I don't know how people can call it a shit purchase when he hasn't even kicked a ball for us. Can you put a price on a goal? Or on winning a game? Who knows what Carroll will end up doing, or how many he'll end up scoring. It's a massive gamble, it must be said. But I trust Kenny Dalglish and Damien Comolli's judgement over the judgement of a few random fans of other teams.

As someone has mentioned, Carroll seems like a player who thrives on crosses and good service from the middle of the park, which is why I think getting Charlie Adam would've been the cherry on top. Never mind though eh. Some typical Utd. bias in this thread as well, keep it together lads, off to see us turn over Stoke.

[eFestivals]

The difference IMO would be that Ronaldo had already performed at the highest level, in one of the toughest leagues to play his style, year after year. They'd bought a guaranteed goal scorer and game changer, so this risk was minimal and the potential to push them on was huge. Carroll isn't in the same mould at all. I'm sure he'll score goals, but what i'm not so sure about is how adaptable his game is. To get the best out of him Liverpool are probably going to have to change formation and bring in additional players to provide decent service. It's a big gamble with potential to go badly wrong, in a way that Ronaldo wasn't. Plus will the Liverpool fans be happy to see their team based around a big target man for the next 5 years?

I don't disagree with anything you've said there, but I think you've missed the point I was getting at.

I was merely pointing out that much as it could be said that Liverpool have paid something like double the price for Carroll than might have been expected in more normal circumstances (cos the selling club didn't want to sell), something similar can be said about Skippy's transfer to Real.

And while Skippy is excellent, there's (sort-of*) players that would do a similar job at half the price. And the same is true with Carroll (without the 'sort-of').

(* 'sort of' cos there's not so many that are like the best player in the world)

Both only cost what they did because the buying club were desperate for that particular player. Real wanted Skippy cos he's the best, and while it's different with Liverpool cos Carroll isn't the best, I'm guessing he's been identified as the best to fit with Liverpool's plan for going forwards. And they both cost silly money because the selling club didn't really want to sell.

How good a deal a person considers each of those deals depends where you're stood in relation to it. If you're a Real fan, you've bought the best in the world so of course he's worth the price, while a Utd fan on the other end of the same deal might think that amount would be stupid to turn down (10 new Hernadez's!). It's not so different with Carroll to Liverpool with all the same things, just that it's a deal at a different level, cos Liverpool right now are operating at a different level.

What I'm saying is that on those levels it's no less stupidly over-priced than skippy was, but for the buyer it's still a good deal that they're happy with.

The happiness in Liverpool only gets to remain tho if Carroll lives up to expectations. While that was true too with Skippy, he was less of risk as he was proven ... but so is Carroll 'proven' until (if he does) he gets proven as wrong.

[Steve P]

Red Nev retires My link

Utterly despised him throughout his career, but can't dany how well he did for United over the years. Legend of the club. This sudden announcement though does make me a bit worried that the rumours of him taking over from Andy Gray might be true

[pink_triangle]

Neville had a great career for someone of his talent. It seems fergie is the only one of the top managers who can take players of the standard of the neville brothers, o shea, fletcher etc and make them fit in well with the big stars. I think if neville had started off at a side like blackburn, everton, , man city etc he could easily have ended up with a paul konchesky, luke young type career. He really should have gone a year earlier. There is a big pro liverpool bias in the english media, i wonder if that will count against liverpools number 1 enemy.

[pehaw]

When did 409 become 402?

Thought my eyes were going down the Swanee for a while there.

[worm]

I don't know how people can call it a shit purchase when he hasn't even kicked a ball for us.

[TheGayTent]

Christ there's a lot of shot on here...

What a fantastic night...won't get home til between 3 and 4... Do I care? Do I bollocks....COYI!

[ampersand]

Been a lot of bollocks spouted in this thread. Essentially what we've paid for is potential, and that could go either way, could turn out to be a massive success or a massive failure. I don't know how people can call it a shit purchase when he hasn't even kicked a ball for us. Can you put a price on a goal? Or on winning a game? Who knows what Carroll will end up doing, or how many he'll end up scoring. It's a massive gamble, it must be said. But I trust Kenny Dalglish and Damien Comolli's judgement over the judgement of a few random fans of other teams.

As someone has mentioned, Carroll seems like a player who thrives on crosses and good service from the middle of the park, which is why I think getting Charlie Adam would've been the cherry on top. Never mind though eh. Some typical Utd. bias in this thread as well, keep it together lads, off to see us turn over Stoke.

[ralph250]

And while Skippy is excellent, there's (sort-of*) players that would do a similar job at half the price.

[loscfestivals]

I think you need to look at the net spend bit, I'm sure that is what Liverpool were looking at.

They've paid £60M for two young talented strikers who are only going to get better. Both have a resale value and Carroll comes with the added bonus of being one of the 8 required home grown players. They got £60M for a flop who after a fair few years has done very little and never looked like doing so and another player who has done nothing for 18 months except whingle and moan and look disinterested.

I actually think getting £50M for Torres is a good deal for Liverpool considering he had been on the whole crap for them for as long a period as he had been good. If they did genuinely only find out about it 3 days ago when he requested to move ( I suspect they moved for Suarez because they knew Torres wanted to go but were only prepared to let him go once a replacement had been sorted) then they did well to get so much for a player who wanted to go and left them in the lurch.

Carroll and Suarez for Torres and Babel is effectively the deal, ignore the individual fees and I think at worst it is a fair swap all things considered.

[ralph250]

oh and Neil, regards FFP.

For the first few years pretty much (the two-year period before 2013-14 and the three-year period before 2014-15), clubs can deduct the wages of players whose deal was signed prior to June 1 2010, so Chelsea will be able to deduct the wages of everyone bar Ramires, Luiz and Torres pretty much; ie. their £79m trading loss last year doesn't look so bad when deducting, say £100m off that.

Can't write off transfer fees though even those before June 2010. Clubs amortise, so Torres £50m on 5 year contract will be £10m expenditure on the books per year (until signs new contract/sold).

Know Man Utd can deduct the £35m goodwill amortisation per year aswell.

Basically looks like no-one has anything to really worry about for 3 years or so.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/02/01/revealed-why-chelsea-dont-fear-uefas-ffp-rules-wages-dont-count-for-first-two-years-010205/' rel="external nofollow">

Why Chelsea don't fear uefas ffp rules.

Edited February 3, 2011 by ralph250

[ralph250]

I think you need to look at the net spend bit, I'm sure that is what Liverpool were looking at.

They've paid £60M for two young talented strikers who are only going to get better. Both have a resale value and Carroll comes with the added bonus of being one of the 8 required home grown players. They got £60M for a flop who after a fair few years has done very little and never looked like doing so and another player who has done nothing for 18 months except whingle and moan and look disinterested.

I actually think getting £50M for Torres is a good deal for Liverpool considering he had been on the whole crap for them for as long a period as he had been good. If they did genuinely only find out about it 3 days ago when he requested to move ( I suspect they moved for Suarez because they knew Torres wanted to go but were only prepared to let him go once a replacement had been sorted) then they did well to get so much for a player who wanted to go and left them in the lurch.

Carroll and Suarez for Torres and Babel is effectively the deal, ignore the individual fees and I think at worst it is a fair swap all things considered.

[worm]

Crap is perhaps a bit harsh. His goal per ratio was still brilliant last couple of seasons, but overall 18 prem goals last year and 14 prem goals the year before, for who was the primary goal source. Where most service was delivered. Quite feasible Carroll and Suarez better that as a duo, assuming they stay fit throughmost most of the seasons (future).

[ralph250]

But the way they're going right now it looks like they might stay unbeaten. While it won't have been done with the same style and dominance as Arsenal managed, in many ways it'd be more impressive because of that, with them having played so poorly at times in that dodgy spell.

Edited February 3, 2011 by ralph250

[ralph250]

Yeah, but Suarez and someone worth 35 million would no doubt be even better.

[ralph250]

Red Nev retires My link

Utterly despised him throughout his career, but can't dany how well he did for United over the years. Legend of the club. This sudden announcement though does make me a bit worried that the rumours of him taking over from Andy Gray might be true

[Benj]

Carroll and Suarez for Torres and Babel is effectively the deal, ignore the individual fees and I think at worst it is a fair swap all things considered.

[eFestivals]

Not really.

I wasn't making a strict comparison, I thought I'd made that very clear.

Real haven't got a player in Skippy that's worth two £40M players. Liverpool haven't got a player in Carroll that's worth two £17.5M players.

But for both teams, paying as much as they have for those players, they still felt they were deals worth doing (no less than the sellers felt those players were worth selling at those prices). Those players are worth the amount each paid to each of those clubs (which is clear by the fact they paid out those amounts).

The reasoning behind each silly price purchase is different, but at the end of the day not hugely different. The major difference between them is where each club is operating - Real at the top level, and Liverpool a lower one.

[eFestivals]

Gary Neville, I think you're a c**t. And you come across as very stupidly arrogant when you say "it's knowing when that time is and for me that time is now". No Gary, the time was at least 2 years ago you moron.

But you've been one hell of a player, no doubt about it.

[eFestivals]

oh and Neil, regards FFP.

For the first few years pretty much (the two-year period before 2013-14 and the three-year period before 2014-15), clubs can deduct the wages of players whose deal was signed prior to June 1 2010, so Chelsea will be able to deduct the wages of everyone bar Ramires, Luiz and Torres pretty much; ie. their £79m trading loss last year doesn't look so bad when deducting, say £100m off that.

Can't write off transfer fees though even those before June 2010. Clubs amortise, so Torres £50m on 5 year contract will be £10m expenditure on the books per year (until signs new contract/sold).

Know Man Utd can deduct the £35m goodwill amortisation per year aswell.

Basically looks like no-one has anything to really worry about for 3 years or so.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/02/01/revealed-why-chelsea-dont-fear-uefas-ffp-rules-wages-dont-count-for-first-two-years-010205/' rel="external nofollow">

Why Chelsea don't fear uefas ffp rules.

Cheers for that Ralph.

Tho I read something on the UEFA website when hunting around on this which had UEFA saying that transfers done in the window just gone won't be outside of the FFP rules, as the clubs know the rules are coming in - essentially saying that clubs aren't going to be permitted to work the new rules to their own advantage. It'll be interesting to see what happens with that.

Personally I think the rules are a bad idea. It pretty much guarantees the positions of the clubs in the top 4 forever, as other clubs won't be allow to spend shit loads to bring themselves up to the same level and then displace them (which is exactly how all of the current top four got to be in that top 4).

PS: I'm guessing that the Glazers recent buying back of the PIK's is a scam to take debts off the club and onto the owners, to Utd's benefit towards these rules.

Edited February 3, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

So one Ugly goes, and on the same day we get the new ugly - ugly Betty Suarez.

I can see exactly why Dalglish bought Betty. Without having even trained with the other players yet, he's got the old Liverpool 'pass and move' routine down to a T.

And even before he took to the field last night you could see that coming into Liverpool's play. I can't remember seeing Stoke as dominated over a whole match as they were last night, Liverpool just need some more firepower in front of goal. Overall last night Liverpool were very good.

I'm less sure about how they'll do at the back when they're facing a team with decent firepower of their own, particularly with the rather strange selections for position that was done last night, as well as the unusual formation. But Dalglish has clearly spotted something about those players and how they're best used, so perhaps I'll be surprised on Sunday.

And seeing the club has Betty, they also need a Carroll Mavis. It'll be interesting when Mavis gets his first kicks in a few weeks.

[ampersand]

I wasn't making a strict comparison, I thought I'd made that very clear.

Real haven't got a player in Skippy that's worth two £40M players.