Chelsea Thread

Still disagree, seems your basing it on recent form were he has been rubbish (not just passing but most parts of his game) When on form he's capable of passing it simple and even adding bits of magic like this

YouTube - Fernando Torres magic assist

About Strikers better than him? not many David Villa and potentially Rooney but other than that he's as good as they come.
 
YoungGun_UK said:
About Strikers better than him? not many David Villa and potentially Rooney but other than that he's as good as they come.
Click to expand...
to be honest mate, i could mention about 8 or 9 strikers who are (without a doubt) better than torres. it's not just villa. eto'o is pretty much undebeatably a better striker than fernando (under every possible point of view), and the same goes for drogba and ibrahimovic... both just belong to a different class than torres. then there's milito, forlan, higuain, pato.
and mind u, i'm not basing my judgement just on torres recent form.... i'm considering his entire carreer here. coz if i had to consider only his recent form (btw, it's more than 1 year now.... i'd say that's a little more than "recent"), than there would be about 30, 40 strikers much better than torres out there.

fernando torres has been absolutely awesome for about 2 seasons. but that's it, 2 seasons (3 seasons, if u feel generous). amauri has been absolutely amazing for 2 seasons, yet i don't think anyone would label him a top class forward today. adriano played like a footballing God for even more time than torres (3 full seasons). dzeko, rossi, pazzini and borriello have been absolutely stunning in the last 2 years... they were truly top class in the last 2 seasons...... but the truth is they aren't (yet).... because there's no such thing as "being world class for 2 years". u either are world class o you're not.
consistancy is not an exterior aspect... it's one of the most important factors to define a player.... u say "when he's on form he's among the best"..... yeah sure, but that means nothing, as the same thing could be said about pretty much every player on the planet. when aquilani is on form, he's a monster of a player...... but how often is he on form?
the most average player can look like a world class player when on form..... and very good players (like, say, torres or miccoli) can look like legends in the making when on form.... but u don't judge a player on his form (good or bad form).

the truth is u guys got a little carried away with torres. it took u only 1 (great) season to label him as one of the greatest forwards on the planet. but judging a player on 1, 2 seasons is just wrong.
what's the difference between pazzini and drogba? well pazzini has been absolutely amazing for the last 2 and a half season...... while drogba has been doing the same things for the last 5 years. and that's why drogba is a world class player while pazzini still isn't.
cavani this season is simply tearing defensive lines apart. but this is just 1 season and no one in italy would ever define cavani as a world class forward after a single season, no matter how great it was... exactly as no one would define pazzini as a world class forward, even though he's been world class-esque for about the same time torres was.... because 2 seasons and a half are not enough to define a player.

i'm not saying torres isn't a great player (denying that would be ridiculous). but there's a huge difference between saying "he's a great player" and saying "he's world class", as being world class implies being among the very best players in the world in your role.... and, for most of his carreer (he's been a pro for about 10 years now), fernando hasn't been among the best in the world.
if he will get back to that golden moment he had in liverpool in his first 2 seasons, and keep playing consistantly on that level for at least 2 more years, then the situation will be different. but right now he's just a great forward (like dozens of great forwards all over europe) who's been on fire for a little more than 2 seasons.

i gotta be honest i'll never understand how chelsea thought it was a good idea to buy him. torres wouldn't have been a good signing for chelsea at 24 millions, nevermind 50.... but that's just how i see it of course. :))
 
Last edited:
ooooo. A back heel. Wow. Seems your basing it on tricky wickys ;)
Based on goals per game ratio then can't knock him. Overall technical ability (on a consistent basis) he ain't the best imo. He will do good things now and then but he needs the ball in front of him to play to his strengths. Nothing wrong with that though. There's all different types of players out there.

To be honest though, I really am not that sorry to see him go. Even if he is an amazing success! He thought he was better than the club. Noone is better than the club so glad he fucked off as his attitude was shit and has been for over a year. Stop sulking and pull your finger out your ass. Better players than him don't sulk about the pitch!

YoungGun_UK said:
Still disagree, seems your basing it on recent form were he has been rubbish (not just passing but most parts of his game) When on form he's capable of passing it simple and even adding bits of magic like this

YouTube - Fernando Torres magic assist

About Strikers better than him? not many David Villa and potentially Rooney but other than that he's as good as they come.
Click to expand...
 
Yep Eto'o was an obvious miss from me, but Drogba hasn't been that great, he's got 2 "great" seasons but other than that he's been been the same as Torres, in terms of consistency Villa and Eto'o are the two I would say are clearly better and Zlatan (if your willing let his CL record go) but other than that Torres is "consistent" as the rest.
 
he did amazing first seasons becouse he was new and opostie defenders didn´t knew him that days...that is why he scored so many goals.. i still think he is top striker but the likes of Eto, Villa, Ibrahimovic and maybe few othere are better, technically and better CF overall..
 
YoungGun_UK said:
Yep Eto'o was an obvious miss from me, but Drogba hasn't been that great, he's got 2 "great" seasons but other than that he's been been the same as Torres, in terms of consistency Villa and Eto'o are the two I would say are clearly better and Zlatan (if your willing let his CL record go) but other than that Torres is "consistent" as the rest.
Click to expand...

To be fair all of those players (Eto'o, Drogba, Diego Alberto Milito, Ibrahimovic, even D.Villa) are 29 years old or more. Age is a massive factor in market worth of players. I don't think there would be any re-sale value in any of those players. Also some of them such as Drogba and Eto'o have African Nation Cup Commitments which take them out of the picture for anything upto a month every 2 years, it might sound minor but this was basically the reason why Spurs got rid of Kanouté - he was out of the squad every second January. Additionally Ibrahimovic has tempramental issues, the same could perhaps be said of Drogba too (e.g. banned from the CL after 08 final and 09 semi final) and I think Ibrahimovic's lack of pace means he wouldnt be considered by any top level Premier League club. Pace is a massive part of the Premier League in terms of attacking play, even in Spain (where sheer pace is less of an issue) Ibrahimovic found himself a little exposed and was shipped out of Barca.

When you take into account his age, you can see why they shelled out so much money for him. Also player signings are now dictated by potential marketing revenues too, so perhaps Chelsea were prepared to pay well over the odds when Torres was clearly going to shift more shirts in the club shop than say Amauri or Diego Alberto Milito.

I would say that Tevez is a better forward than Torres though. I know they play slightly different roles Torres being a finsher and Tevez being a grafter, but if I was a club owner with money to burn I'd sign Tevez as his work rate, finishing (dribbling, heading, either foot) and tracking back is top drawer, I think there's only about 2 months between Torres and Tevez in terms of age.
 
i gotta disagree edmundo. at 50 millions, torres has absolutely no re-sale value at all as there's no way they'll sell him for that amount of cash (let alone for more than 50 millions). plus the market laws are a lot more abstract than they might seem and younger doesn't necessarily mean more expensive. dzeko is younger than torres and has a brighter future ahead of him, yet he costed almost half of what torres did. the only point i agree with is the marketing one. torres will sell tons of shirts.... but which player could sell enough shirts to compensate for a 50 millions pricetag? not to mention his wage. nah, i'm afraid this is just bad business, under every point of view... at least imo.
edmundo said:
Ibrahimovic has tempramental issues, the same could perhaps be said of Drogba too (e.g. banned from the CL after 08 final and 09 semi final) and I think Ibrahimovic's lack of pace means he wouldnt be considered by any top level Premier League club. Pace is a massive part of the Premier League in terms of attacking play, even in Spain (where sheer pace is less of an issue) Ibrahimovic found himself a little exposed and was shipped out of Barca.
Click to expand...
mate, u follow serie a. therefore u must know that this "premiership has higher pace " dogma is a ridiculous clichèe constantly repeated by people who don't realise that the pace of the game is dictated by the movement of the ball and not by the movement of the players. besides ibra is not slower than drogba, who fitted into the league pretty well. and despite being a jerk of the highest order, he's never caused any problems in his teams and always acted professionally (and this is said by a guy who absolutely can't stand ibra ;) ).
younggun said:
Yep Eto'o was an obvious miss from me, but Drogba hasn't been that great, he's got 2 "great" seasons but other than that he's been been the same as Torres, in terms of consistency Villa and Eto'o are the two I would say are clearly better and Zlatan (if your willing let his CL record go) but other than that Torres is "consistent" as the rest.
Click to expand...
i disagree about drogba mate. if u just look at the goals, yeah, drogba has been a top class scorer only in 2 seasons..... but there's so much more in drogba's game than goals. drogba can actually shift an entire defensive line 10 meters back in their own midfield just with his presence on the pitch (while fernando can't do that). drogba has been arguably chelsea's main attacking threat ever since his second season in chelsea... and also before moving to chelsea (some might say his season in marseille was his best ever).

and the same could be said about all the other players i mentioned, as each of them as many more weapons in their arsenals than torres.
ibrahimovic's build allows him to hold the ball like drogba and his technique passing vision allow him to be as effective as an assistman as he is as a striker (while the same can't be said about torres).
and btw the whole point that he doesn' score in CL is a myth. he scored plenty of goals in CL. infact he's scored a lot more than fernando torres himself (ever since he joined liverpool fernando scored 8 goals in champions league, while, in the very same period ibra scored 14 goals... almost twice as much).
higuain's off the ball movement makes him even more of a threat when he doesn't have the ball (the gaps he creates in the defensive lines with his movements make him the favourite partner for every offensive player).

torres doesn't help his offensive partners as much as higuain, he can't hold the ball like drogba or ibra, he doesn't have the passing vision of ibra, neither the unreal speed of pato... he can't play with his back to the box, like higuain, ibra and drogba.
torres' only asset are the goals he scores. he's not much of an assistman and doesn't help his team that much (actually if anything he's the one who needs help from his teammates).
he's pretty one-dimensional when compared to world class strikers.

but again, i'm not saying he's bad. he's a great forward, no doubt about it... but imo he's still not a top class forward (wich doesn't mean he won't ever be, of course). :))
and on top of that, at 50 millions £, he's a terrible signing.
just think of that, this jannuary man city, bought dzeko for the equivalent of 32 millions euros, inter bought pazzini for 18 millions euros, while torres costed 59 millions euros (the equivalent of 50 millions £).
so torres costed about 3 times more than pazzini and about twice as much as dzeko..... and who do u think will score more goals for his team in the next 2 or 3 years??? which of em will be more of a factor for his team??? u don't need to be able to see the future to realise that pazzini and dzeko will do much better than torres will. of course i might be wrong (u can quote me on that), but i would bet anything that pazzini and dzeko will prove themselves as more effective players for their teams than torres. i am absolutely sure of that.
 
I think the point is, Torres has shown flashes of real magic at times. And if he was ever able to do that on a more consistant basis, we'd have a totally different debate on our hands.

But obvious those are all ifs and buts.
 
The thing is, if Chelsea were to sell him on in 2 years time (Jan 2013) Torres would be 28 years old. Assuming his form was pretty constant from now to 2013 then they could re-coup maybe 30% of the fee - it wouldnt be shocking to see a 28 year old Torres sold for £18-22m.

I agree that £50m is too much for a single player (no matter how good) but if the level of transfer fees currently being paid in the UK is maintained then it's possible that Chelsea could recoup a substantial part of that if they were to sell. Youth places a premium on a transfer fee and Torres and Carroll are proof of that. Additionally they have had to over pay as signing a player who is already established in the Premier League (and fairly often this means an Englishman too) inflates the transfer cost. For instance Spurs paid £8m for Van Der Vaart, Valencia cost almost double that, Milner was £12m in 2008 and £28m last summer.

I do follow Serie A, and I think pace in attack is a factor (or difference) between Italy and England. In my opinion English teams tend to get their defenders to press up the pitch a lot more, leaving a lot of space in behind them. There is a big element of tactical naivety (that is probably too strong a word) in the way English teams defend. You would hardly ever see a genuine 3-5-2 (or similar) in a modern Premier League team. Or if a team deployed that system it would just be the result of them thinking "I've 3 really good center backs (or defensive midfielders) and have to play them all". The notions of having dynamic defensives shapes are an anathema. You would never see a sweeper (e.g. Jurgen Kohler, Matthaus, Sammer) playing in the premier league. Which such an emphasis on attack and such high defending pace in attack is a massive factor. Look at players like Wright Phillips, Walcott, Bale and even Chaimberlain; all of these players are possesed with a huge amount of pace.
 
Liverpool played 3-5-2 against Chelsea but I do see your point ;)) But theirs absolutely NO WAY Chelsea would get half of the money back, I predict that once these FFP rules come in we'll see the market calm down and prices becoming more "normal" and one of the reason we've held of spending.
 
Well to me it was more like a 5-4-1 with the 4 a lopsided diamond. Kelly and Johnson were full backs and ahead of them was Maxi Rodrigues (wide) with Mireles playing of Kuyt who was a lone striker.

They almost certainly wont sell him until he is well past 30, but if they did sell him in two years (barring a catastrophic injury / loss of form) I think he would be able to command a transfer fee of around £20m
 
edmundo said:
I do follow Serie A, and I think pace in attack is a factor (or difference) between Italy and England. In my opinion English teams tend to get their defenders to press up the pitch a lot more, leaving a lot of space in behind them.
Click to expand...
exactly. but u see, that's where the difference lies. pressing not pace. english football displays a more intense pressing than the italian (wich has some good and some bad consequences)..... but pressing has nothing to do with the pace of a game. like i said, the pace of a game depends on the movement of the ball..... while pressing only effects the movement of the players.
the italian game has several different tempos, as the players change their approach (and the intensity of their pressing) according to the flow of the match.... but even when the players slow down the tempo, the pace of the game remains the same, as - obviously - the ball is still moving at the very same speed from one player to another.
the english game has ony 1 tempo, as all the players tend to apply the highest pressing they can for as long as their legs and lungs can. so u get the perception that the game has a higher pace, coz u see 20 guys running like madmen (wich is something u don't see in an italian game). but it's just a perception, an illusion.... because even in the english game the ball still moves at the very same speed it does in the italian game (wich is quite obvious).
confusing pace with pressing is a very common mistake. and it's not like the english are the only ones who make this mistake... italians aswell do it. and not just fans, but also "experts" and pundits make that mistake. whenever u hear someone mistaking pressing for pace, there's a very quick way to set him straight. ask him to define "pace of the game". if he's smart, he'll soon realise he got it wrong. :))
edmundo said:
They almost certainly wont sell him until he is well past 30, but if they did sell him in two years (barring a catastrophic injury / loss of form) I think he would be able to command a transfer fee of around £20m
Click to expand...
and that's exactly why this is very bad business. u sign a 26 yo player, and u already know that if u were to sell him when he reaches his prime (at 28 yo) u wouldn't even get half of what u spent. no matter how u put it, this is bad business.

in a healthy market the pricetag of a player follows a very simple curve. it grows till the player reaches 28, then it begins to drop. this curve follows the phisical growth of the player (not the technical growth, as that is unpredictable... as far as we know 3 years from now pastore might not be much better from a technical point of view... but his build will definitely grow, along with his muscular power, his stamina and his tactical awareness). at 28 years old u have a complete player; not some raw, unpolished talent anymore, but the "finished product". from a phisical point of view he won't ever be better than he is... and from a technical\tactical point of view, well, if he's not fullfilled his entire potential yet, chances are he will never do.
now this is a universal law. there might be some exceptions, but that's how things usually work.
so spending 50 millions for a 26 years old torres is a bad decision. because u''re paying "actual world class money" only to sign a great player (but not world class), who hasn't even much time left to actually reach that "world class level" and justify his pricetag.

when u buy a youngster (or anyway, a player younger than 28), u're making a bet on the potential of a player. but in order for that to actually be a bet (and not just a dumb move), u have to invest on the player less than what u think his value might become, when he reaches his peak (at about 28 years old).
that's the whole point of buying potential talent instead of actual talent. u can't be sure if the player will become top class, but that's ok since u also spent less than what u would have spent to buy a world class player.
take milan for instance. they spent 20 millions euros for pato. now 20 millions euros is a ridiculous ammount of money for a kid which such little experience.... but the point is, galliani thought the kid was going to be worth twice as much in just a couple of years, so he decided to invest on him. and that makes perfect sense.
but if u intend to splash 50 millions euros, then u should look for an already made top class player, not for a 26 years old player, who is actually great but not top class.

and then there's another factor to take into account. buying a player from a contender is usually a good move, as u weaken your rival. but overpaying makes it a bad move, because u're giving the contender a chance to swap their player with a better one. now that wasn't the case this time because, lucky u, liverpool managed to splash about the 90% of those money on a single player... who isn't even an already made top class product, but a potential top class youngster... who is not even that young (22 years old), and who has less than a season as a starter in a top league under his belt (wich obviously makes even the torres signing look like brilliant business :P ).
but then again u can't get credit for liverpool's stupidity. paying 50 millions pounds for fernando torres is still a wrong move as it gave an amazing chance to a contender to rebuild their team (u just got lucky they didn't put that money to good use).

anyway the only thing that really matters is fernando and how good he will do for chelsea, i guess. so from a neutral point of view, it would be great if he could actually justify this pricetag with years of great performances (wich is what i truly wish him and chelsea). afterall, like runedge said, it was great to watch fernando playing till a couple of years ago.
btw how come no chelsea fan joined this conversation? it would be interesting to hear what they think of this transfer. where are u Prof? :))
 
Last edited:
It was 60% Ben :P

I would have to add to your argument that wages are an equally important factor when considering the business side of a signing.

Carrol has a 80k contract for 5 years = 80*52*5=20.8mil + 35mil(signing fee) - 20mil(resale value at 27 if unsuccesfull / ends up decent striker) = 35.8mil
Torres has a 175k for 5 years = 45.5mil + 50mil - 10mil (resale value at 31) = 75.5mil

So for Chelsea, Torres is a 75.5mil investment and he has to earn that back by...making the difference in the league and CL. I think CL winners make 30mil for a season, say he has a 20% value in that and the league (both money directly and merchandise, etc) means he might earn them 6mil a season for 5 seasons (if he performs at the very top level for the 5 years). So more then 30mil across his contract is unlikely. So that's a 45mil right-off.

For Liverpool a straight swap means a projected 40mil difference. So it's 40mil more money for the club but with a gamble that Carrol will become a minimum of 20mil player.


Maybe a more fair calculation is keeping Torres with more wages and lower resale value (from a Liverpool perspective);

Carrol has a 80k contract for 5 years + signing - resale = 80*52*5=20.8mil + 35mil - 20mil(resale value at 27 if unsuccesfull / ends up decent striker (he is English after all)) = 35.8mil
Torres with 175k contract for another 5 years = 175*52*5= 45.5mil - 10mil resale value (age 31) = 35.5mil

Financially it's now pretty close, but that is without merchandise. I have no idea what the value of that is. 10mil. more for Torres? So Carrol now costs Liverpool a net 10mil or 2mil per year more then Torres. Ofcourse it's not a straight sway, as the club bought Suarez aswell, but if you do think of it as a straight swap Liverpool are paying 2mil per year to gamble that Carrol will do enough and improve the team as a hungry youngster compared to a sulking player who wants to leave but has a 30-50% (dependent on fitness( 1 in 2 goals ratio + injuries)) rate of guarenteeing goals / value.

Financially the Carrol deal isn't especially bad imo (when compared), the premium is for potential and him reaching a 30% level of value during his contract. Whether that will happen is another matter, but then it's the same for Torres. We all thought he started playing again after Kenny's return, but it could have been because he wanted to go that he went up a gear or 3. He might have gone back to his sulking self?

Liverpool's owners made probably the most important comment, Newcastle's asking price directly influenced how much Chelsea had to pay. The club didn't mind spending ridiculous fees as long as the net outlay remained low.
 
Last edited:
tiktiktiktik said:
It was 60% Ben :P
Click to expand...
:D
your wage point is a good one mate, but u can't make calculations assuming that carrol will become a top class forward AND will remain on this wage, as it's gonna be either one or the other. either carrol won't become a top class striker, in wich case he may aswell remain on this current wage....... or he will become a top class striker, in wich case his agent is gonna ask for a renegotiation of the deal well before the expire date on his contract, and his wage will get much closer to torres one. and, since the guy is already 22 (it's not like we're really talking about a proper youngster), if your hopes and expectations will be met, that renegotiation will most likely take place in 2 seasons (tops).
so, even if the wage is indeed a factor, it's not such a huge factor as your calculations imply ;)

but the main point is not even this one. what makes the carrol deal an awful one (from a financial point of view), is the undenyable fact that u already payed top class money for a guy who isn't top class yet. and i wouldn't even call this a "gamble". because a gamble, by definition, implies a chance to make a profit out of a deal.
let's imagine u would have bought carrol for 17 millions pounds. that would still be an overpriced valutation of carrol, as we're still talking about a 22 years old player with very little top league experience (even for a 22yo player)..... but then u might say "yes, but i want my young cf to be british and i believe this guy might be worth 35 millions in a few years". then ok, such deal would make perfect sense; u're overpaying your "product", but u expect that product to be worth even more than what your paying in a few years. that is a gamble
but this case is different. what u're paying now is already enough to get an actual top class player. sure an actual top class player would demand a higher wage than carrol..... but like i said before, as soon as carrol will establish himself as a better cf (assuming he will) , he will ask for a renegotiation. on the other side getting a top class player would mean facing a very smaller risk in terms of investment (u don't need to develop the player, u don't need to hope he becomes great, u just have to hope he will deliver accordingly to his actual skill).
bottom line there's no chance this is going to turn out as a profitable deal, even in the best possible scenario... even if carrol would turn out to be a top class striker... as u're already paying "top class striker worthy money". so since there's no expectation of a possible profit, this simply ceases to be a gamble and become... well, plain stupid.

from every point of view both theese deals (the torres one and the carrol one) are absolutely insane.
chelsea is paying for torres a lot more than what other clubs payed to get even better players (like inter with eto'o or milan with ibra or barça with villa).
and liverpool spent a fortune for a 22 years old player (like i said, not that young) with only 23 appearances as a starter in premier league. that's less than a season of experience in a top league... for a guy who is already 22.... and u payed the equivalent of 41 millions euros for this guy!!!

and talking about "net spending" is really nothing but a lame excuse. the fact that u got a ridiculously high ammount of money for torres doesn't make it less stupid to waste such a crazy ammount of money on a single player. it still remain a shame to burn all that cash on an unproven player, while u could have spent those money so much better.
i mean, it's not like liverpool doesn't have serious issues to address: u have desperate need of 2 good sidebacks (or at least one, assuming u consider glen johnson a good sideback), u could use some proper wingers and your midfield cries out for quality (the best passer in your centre midfield is meireles and that really says it all).
those money would have been enough to provide for all those needs (with a proper team director who knows what kind of players there are out there and for wich sum u can get em). napoli spent the equivalent of 14 millions pounds for cavani, inter spent the equivalent of 15 millions pounds for pazzini, dzeko was signed for 27 millions.... all young players, all with more experience than carroll, all players with not only better actual quality than carroll, but arguably also better potential than carroll aswell.

u might say, yeah, but carrol is english and needs no adaptations... but is this worth 20 million pounds more? besides this guy, despite being english, doesn't really give u more guarrantees than a foreigner, as (like i said) he has less than a season as a starter in premier league under his belt, so we might well say carroll too is not "premier league proven".

benzema is most likely gonna be on the market this summer for a lot less than what u spent for carrol... and the same goes for llorente and pavlyuchenko and god knows how many other players.

there are plenty of relatively unknown players with "liverpool worthy quality" out there that would be available for less than half of what u spent on carroll and suarez.
just to make a practical example, there are 2 sidebacks in palermo (a leftback and a rightback) wich are among the very best in europe... both are much better than johnson offensively and biblically better than johnson defensively.... the kind of players that could change the shape of a top club just by themselves, and they could both be available for less than what u spent for suarez (nevermind those 35 millions u spent on carroll).... i obviously thank God that no one has come to our door yet to make an offer for them, but still that gives u a measure of what u could have done with those money.
pastore, who is arguably the hottest prospect on the planet right now, is going to leave this summer for pretty much the same money u spent on suarez (i'd say that really puts things in the right perspective).
and that just to stick to my own club. i could spend an entire day mentioning better prospects than carrol, in the most different roles, who have already have more experience, more quality and better potential than carroll..... and who would cost about half of what carroll costed.

anyway i really don't wanna sound a dick here. it's just that i'm amazed at the sheer incompetence both liverpool and chelsea showed this jannuary (and i would say the same if my club would have done what chelsea and liverpool did)... but then again this is just my personal opinion. and i sincerely hope that torres will hit the ground running from now on and that carroll will become the next toni... trust me i'm 100% sincere on that :))
 
Last edited:
Good points Ben. I agree with that.
I also agree with drekkard: Chelsea need players like Xabi Alonso and Fabregas.
On top of that Chelsea don't need a striker (immediately) because IMO Drogba (obviously, lathough he has health problems) and Anelka (massive underrated player IMO) are doing well. Things are going wrong behind them...it seems Lampard (who i rate enormously, IMO much better than Gerrard) is having a bad season, or is it the beginning of the end?

To me there is no discussion about the best forward of the world: Samuel Eto'o. He scores lots of goals and also scores lots of important goals. Last year he also proved that he can deliver as a team player. This year (at the beginning of the season) he was massive for Inter...almost a team by himself.

Villa has style and is fantastic but has yet to deliver like Eto'o.

And the best striker ever? Well of course that is impossible to say. Most would say Marco Van Basten (from a stylish point of view). To me without doubt: Gerd Muller, the most natural goal scorer i ever saw (even better than Pipo and Eto'o).
 
@ Ben,

I don't think anyone will dispute Carrol being overpriced. He definitly is, and really can only forfill his price. It's unlikely he will become even more expensive. Also the price is very much down to a last minute buy, Newcastle not having time for a replacement and also knowing that Liverpool had the money because Torres was also sold for a huge amount. I would expect about 15mil down to that alone.

However I think my point still stands that though his signing is a risk, financially the risk is reasonably limited. If he only does ok he won't have huge wage increases but will still have a high value (15-20mil) when being sold as he is young and English (especially with the new homegrown quota). If he does well then the wage issue isn't one as he is forfilling his pricetag and nobody will care. Then if/when he does get sold he will retain his value.

I also don't think a like-for-like comparison is fair, the timing really drove the prices up for both parties. With the FFP rules coming in actually spending the 50mil in the summer might not even be easy if you want to balance the books.

Can't actually remember the point being discussed anymore...but Chelsea have spent a huge amount on a player that is unlikely to balance the books, Liverpool have spent a huge amount on potential but will find it easier to balance the books.
 
TikTikTikTikTik said:
I also don't think a like-for-like comparison is fair, the timing really drove the prices up for both parties.
Click to expand...

yeah that sure had a huge impact on the negotiation.... and actually that's the thing that surprises me the most. i mean i can understand why liverpool accepted the offer. late or not 50 millions are a huge ammount of cash, and if u reject this bid, u obviously can't be sure u'll get another 50 millions offer this summer (although some might say, what's the point in rushing the whole thing to get a dozen millions more, if then u just hand over all that cash to newcastle to buy a newbie), but why on earth chelsea waited till the very last day to make their own offer. i mean this last day deal damaged them as much as it damaged liverpool. and i can't imagine it was because abramovich actually thought of buying torres on the very last day (if that's the case, the man is a nutcase).

i don't know. it all sounds quite wrong and stupid to me.
u also have to realise tik, that being a "small time club" fan, i tend to see things from a different perspective, so it kinda irritates me to see theese incompetent millionaires burning dozens of millions when with a proper scouting network and a proper director of football they could build even better squads with less than half the money.
i see chelsea buying torres for 59 millions euros, liverpool buying carroll for 41 millions euros and suarez for 26, and i can't help thinking that with that kinda money my "small time club" could build a champions league contender team.

oh well, let's just hope torres will get back to his best form and carrol will become a liverpool's nr. 9 jersey worthy player. seeing liverpool struggling like it did in the last 2 seasons is quite sad from a neutral point of view.
 
I guess its easy for me to sit here and come up with suggestions without the real pressures of managing a club but the way I see it, Liverpool arent really gonna make a significant climb in the league just because they signed Suarez and Carroll. Liverpool's real challenge starts next season where Dalglish will have a fresh start. So looking back on it, maybe it would have been better to hold onto the money from Torres and spent it in the summer to prepare for the 11/12 season. There wouldnt have been any panic decisions and money would have been spent wiser.
We saw first hand how well Liverpool contained Chelsea without any new players on the field.
 
lo zio said:
i don't know. it all sounds quite wrong and stupid to me.
u also have to realise tik, that being a "small time club" fan, i tend to see things from a different perspective, so it kinda irritates me to see theese incompetent millionaires burning dozens of millions when with a proper scouting network and a proper director of football they could build even better squads with less than half the money.
i see chelsea buying torres for 59 millions euros, liverpool buying carroll for 41 millions euros and suarez for 26, and i can't help thinking that with that kinda money my "small time club" could build a champions league contender team.
That is the most important thing in all this debate.
The difference between the big clubs and the small clubs is unbelievably and unfairly big. I know most people here couldn't care less, but in the end this is bad for football.
Let me explain myself with an example (well two).

Adnan Januzaj.

Who the fuck is Adnan Januzaj.

Januzaj is a young Belgian player from Albanian descend. He lives in Brussels and started to play football for FC Brussels (second division relegation fodder and my favourite team). He is a left footed playmaker who was spotted by Anderlecht and bought when he was 11 years old. It turns out that Anderlecht's scouts had a good eye because it quickly become clear that he has the talent of Kompany and Lukaku. Anderlecht was able to hold on to these players until they are/were approximately 20 (well Lukaku should stay at Anderlecht until that age).
Januzaj last saturday became sixteen years old. Anderlecht of course knew that and is negotiating for months with his parents. Other clubs show interest too: Lille, Aston Villa, Manchester City (of course), Inter and Juventus. Top Anderlecht scout Kindermans was pretty sure that despite all that the kid will stay in Anderlecht. Until Man United came with an offer Januzaj's parents can't refuse (and this is not about Man Utd, it could have been any other club): a signing fee of 200.000 euro, a house for him and his family (which tey will own!) in Manchester and a monthly salary of 12.000 euro. And all this for an absolutely unproven player.

A player raised and bred by a small club that used to be among the top clubs in Belgium but that was unfortunate to be in the same city as Anderlecht and that is now a satellite club of that same Anderlecht. But compared to all these big foreign clubs Anderlecht are small fish. This is disastrous for football. In the years to come the CL will be won by 3 or 4 clubs...always the same clubs. This is nice if you support those clubs, but this is not good for football. The example of Januzaj shows that all the talent in Europe (the world?) is drained to roughly the big 14 clubs (and Manchester City).

But it goes even further. I know about a player who will turn 8 at the end of this month. He is playing his third season and suddenly turns out to be very, very good. A couple of months ago two first division clubs who are less than 10 km away from his home approached his parents. They decided that the litle guy is too young and that he will continue to play with his neigbourhood club where his friends play.

And then something happens. His team is invited to play a tournament in Holland. With hindsight one can wonder why such a litle team is invited for a big tournament in Holland. The team wins the tournament against "big" teams like Ajax, Dortmund, Lille, Feyenoord, AZ and PSV. The litle kid is player of the tournament and all hell breaks loose. His parents are approached by some big clubs (Ajax, Lille, Anderlecht, PSV). They want to "buy" him. The club where he played suddenly suspects money because he started to play there and has supposedly "learned" him to play football although he was trained and coached by people without any know how. The club starts to push the parents of the 7 year old kid. His parents are contacted by shadowy people with foreign sounding names who claim to be "agents" and want to "help"... The parents have to ask for a private telephone number and new mobile numbers. They ask a new e-mail adress.

Is this normal? The seven year old kid looks like he's 5, he is very litle and almost underweight because he has various food allergies. He plays his football now on small pitches which suit him well because he has big technical abilities, but he is by far the least physical player of the team (the reason why the first season he was by far the weak link of the team)...will he ever be good enough on big pitches? Will he still like playing football when he is 14 years old? The clubs don't care..they gamble. Ajax wanted to give a salary to his father who was his coach, but who never got any formation for coaching. Ajax wanted to provide a free house in Almere, for the family...Ajax proposes a school for him and his sisters. As much as i like Ajax...but this is madness.

Is there a happy end? I don't know. For now maybe, because the 7 year old kid is blissfully unaware of all this. Could you imagine him being 14 years old? He would not be ignorant. What does all this attention do with a 14 year old? It is frightening.

Oh, and i'm 100% sure of this story.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
@ Rune,

Yeah I partly agree. But at the same time Suarez was bought to compliment Torres, with him gone there isn't much else to lead the attack. Kuyt's done great in the two matches, but he doesn't have the quality to kill off a match with one chance. That leaves Meireles and Gerrard, with maybe Suarez pitching in, to win matches. That's very light.

Then you have the FFP rules coming in aswell, meaning spending any of the 50mil will actually have a negative effect on the club.

Another consideration is what message the club wants to send out, now everyone knows they will overspend ;) . And that the club has stopped it's downward spiral and are seriously investing in the squad, hopefully meaning a positive end to this horrible season. Which should make signing new players in the summer easier.

@ Gerd,

It will only get worse with the FFP rules. Investment in youth is excempt from the finances so clubs can spend whatever they want, meaning they can build their own schools, academies and buy every kid they want and take the gamble that the kid will turn out to be either a good player for the club, or have developed enough to sell them for a decent fee. But the ratio of kids actually getting there will mean a huge amount of kids' being "ruined".
 
Last edited:
Yes, we only see the 0,0001% (or even less) who succeed. For every successfull player there are 100.000 failures.
I would like to read a book about the stories of those "failures". What happened to the next wonder kid? You could write a beautiful book about the life of Nii Lamptey for example...
 
tiktiktiktik said:
It will only get worse with the FFP rules. Investment in youth is excempt from the finances so clubs can spend whatever they want, meaning they can build their own schools, academies and buy every kid they want and take the gamble that the kid will turn out to be either a good player for the club, or have developed enough to sell them for a decent fee. But the ratio of kids actually getting there will mean a huge amount of kids' being "ruined".
Click to expand...
that's actually a very goiod point, i've never thought of that.
tiktikktiktik said:
Another consideration is what message the club wants to send out, now everyone knows they will overspend . And that the club has stopped it's downward spiral
Click to expand...
i don't know mate.... liverpool made it very clear that they're not afraid to overspend (that's for sure :P ), but that doesn't sound such a good message to me.
buying great players and not being afraid to spend... that would be a good message, as it would prove u have resources and u're not afraid to use em.
buying high potential youngsters with small cash... that would be another good message, as it would prove u know what u're doing... that u have a good scouting network and a top notch director of football.

but what u did here is buying a 22 years old player with less top league experience than many 20 or 21 years old players and pay for him as if he was an already made world class player...... and not just any world class player either (u can get world class strikers for a lot less than that as milan proved with ibra or inter proved with eto'o).

i gotta be honest mate, i don't think that's a very good message to send. sure it proves u're willing to spend..... but it also proves u're quite clueless in your spending. "hey i got a lot of money and god help me if i know what to do with it, but one thing is for sure: i want everyone know that i'm for real....:ROCK: YEAHHH"
it's almost like those rappers who make millions with an album and go straight to the first armani boutique to get themselves a nice suit. and then, since they still feel a little too "inconspicuously dressed" they decide it's a good idea to get themselves some "bling bling". "hey look at me i got an armani suit! i'm classy! and since money means absolutely nothing to me, i decided to get myself this awesome 24 carats golden chain. it weighs 70 oz. and it's killing my neck, but hey, now everyone will now i'm a "big player" who's not afraid to spend some cash :COOL: ".

i think gerrard and every other liverpool player doesn't really care about hom much u (over)pay the players, but about the actual quality of the players u bring in and the silverware-winning chances they can provide.

actually speaking of messages, i can read another subtext in this deal, another message sent to the players... and it's not a good one.
the torres situation showed liverpool players that they can treat the club like a bitch and just ask for a transfer at any time, coz the club will just "roll with the punches".
i mean, i know clubs theese days have very little leverage, but come on! the most valuable player of the clubs asks for a move on the very last day oif the market, and u just let him go?
yesterday u pointed out how the timing of the torres deal inflated the pricetag of carroll, and how this was a last minute emergency-panic-transfer, wich is true. but then again, it's not like someone forced u to accept the offer.

the exact same thing that happened to liverpool this jannuary, happened to fiorentina just a few years ago. on the last day of jannuary's market, inter made a huge offer to fiorentina for toni. it would have been a big step up for toni's carreer (bigger club, champions league football, bigger paycheck) so he immediately handed the transfer request.
it was a huge offer (can't remember how much), but della valle (fiorentina's owner) realised it didn't matter how huge that offer was, because he would have been forced to burn half of that cash by overpaying any possible replacement for toni (because that's what happens with last minute deals). so he refused the offer. he said toni to come to his house and spoke frankly to him.
"listen luca, i'm not going to sell u today, and there's no changing my mind. it would be impossible to find a replacement as good as u in 1 day and even a much worse player than u would cost me an awful lot of money, as everyone would try and rip me off because of my urge to buy. so let's make a deal, u give me 6 more months of your life in firenze. in theese 6 months i'll look for a replacement without any hurry and this summer i promise i'll let u go".
toni tried to persuade him to let him go right away, by telling him that no club would have made such a huge offer to fiorentina for him in the summer, but della valle told him "yeah, u're probably right, but then again, if i accept this offer right now, i'm gonna burn half of that cash anyway, because this is the last day of the transfer window...so i might aswell accept a lower offer this summer and spend it more wisely".

and that's exactly what happened. in the summer bayern bought toni from fiorentina and della valle signed gilardino..... (for only 14 millions euros).
 
Last edited:
That is exactly the way Luciano D' Onofrio acts at Standard Liège.
This guy (former?) president of Adidas has terrbly good contacts (maybe even too good) and searches a good team for his players at the appropriate time...this sent out a message to other players. He did this for Fellaini (Everton), Dante (Monchengladbach), Jovanovic (Liverpool) and other players. In fact there is only one players who refused to listen: Dieumerci Mbokani could go to AS Monaco last summer. D'Onofrio told him that this was a bad club for him...Mbokani ignored his advice and he is now playing for Wolfsburg...turned out that D'Ononfrio was right once again (whic is an even stronger message to the other players).
 
@ Ben,

Yeah those messages are poor aswell, however the owners are using their success template from the US and using it for Liverpool. All based on stats and financial risk/income. Somewhat like Arsenal's way of working with regard to youth and selling players at their prime for a lot of money. The other part of the message was that whatever comes in to the club from transfers get's directly used to strengthen the team, a very nice change from the previous owners. The message is as much for the club itself as external parties.

Speaking about the Toni situation, it very much depends on how the player will perform and his mentality. Most of us thought Torres getting back to his level was because Kenny took over (beginning of Jan). But it could well have been that he wanted out and decided he would play better. The club had no guarentee he would continue to perform at his level and knew that everyone else knew that Torres had a deal to leave the club in the summer if no CL football was present. So his value would be lower with worse performances and also lower as everyone would know he could leave. If Carrol had continued his form he would have gone from a 15mil player to 20-25mil player. So I would say that that would have been the bigger risk then overspending as it was relative to what Torres was costing (who was very likely to leave in teh summer anyway). Liverpool's season is a right-off anyway, so getting two young attackers in and having them get used to the system and league (in Suarez' case) for 6 months with "no pressure" is a sound footballing decision.

Getting 50mil for a player who you're not sure will perform for you is good business imo. Spending it on Carrol and Suarez remains to be seen whether it works out. I do think it will turn out a positive action with the team playing a different system and having more attacking options. But it's always a risk, but in the situation (in my response to RuneEdge) I think it was a decent choice. The actual transfer fee is only a small issue overal.

However speaking of messages, how about players publicly stating they want to leave because of family or the club not going anywhere, lacking ambition.....to then stay after signing a ridiculously high contract?! That's what happend with City and Utd (Tevez / Rooney) meaning the message sent out is that if you are important enough you can hold the club to ransom and it will cave. Liverpool's message has been that no-one is bigger then the club and if enough is paid you can piss off.

I know I'd rather Liverpool's message then Utd's or City's at this point in time.
 
Last edited:
Carroll's price tag is probably overflated (who really nows yet) but so is Torres'!!! 50m?! Chelsea paid over the odds for him so bit hypocritical saying about Liverpool doing the same thing... and Chelsea have paid over the odds a few more times than Liverpool have lately. But again, Torres could end up being value for money too. Who knows at this present time how either transfer will pan out?

Anyway, who cares anymore? I'm glad Torres went. Petulant child. Thanks for your good times (a while back now mind) but good riddance. I wish him good luck but I don't wish him any success whatsoever. I would literally piss myself if things start taking a turn for the worse at Chavski and Liverpool start a bit of a revival over the next few years though.
 
yeah tik, all your points make perfect sense, and i can certainly understand it must have been refreshing for the fans to see that the club was willing to invest everything they got from torres (although in a debeatable way), especially considering what you've gone through with the previous owners.
besides this is just the beginning of Henry's era and there's no telling how far the new ownership will bring liverpool. afterall abramovich himself has done a lot of pretty dumb moves through the years, yet he certainly managed to bring success to chelsea... so it's definitely too early to judge henry only because of the torres\carrol affaire.

anyway it's pretty clear liverpool fans are perfectly satisfied with how this deal went through... but how about chelsea fans? i mean this is the chelsea thread afterall.... where are chelsea fans?? :SS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom