Quote:
Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf
ya Chelsea obviously overpaid for Torres, but Torres is worth a lot more than 15m more than Carroll as well
Torres is in a bad run of form but its not as though he is over the hill, Rooney was terrible for about 9 months (by his standards) but lately has been great
class is permanent form is temporary
|
Chelsea overpaid for Torres, but Torres is worth more than Carroll, but Chelsea paid more....ya lost me.
I dont consider Carroll to be in the same class as Torres, he was, and may one day again be among the best strikers in the world. But his run of poor form has been going a long time. He had a dreadful World Cup, and he wasnt much better since. Many people thought that was because he was sulking because he didnt want to be at Liverpool, or that he was injured. Well, hes fit and not at Liverpool and still playing poorly for both club and country.
Overall, was Andy Carroll worth £35M? I say no, and Torres isnt worth £50M either. But the fact of the matter is that in an economy of scale thats just the way it works, and the fact that it was at the window deadline just exacerbated the issue.
At the end of the day, fair play rules aside I tend to disregard Carroll's transfer cost entirely. John Henry said it best, he didnt care one bit about the transfer record for a British player, he had zero concern. The fact of the matter was that Torres wanted out, Chelsea made an offer, the club saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone; unload an unhappy player and get paid handsomely to do it.
Then the club understood (unlike Newcastle) that they needed someone to replace him, Andy Carroll was the one Dalglish wanted and Henry said that he had the Torres money to go out and do it.
Thats why he said, 'Liverpool didnt pay anything for Andy Carroll, Chelsea paid £35M.'
Obviously in the scope of the financial fair play rules that will be considered differently as well as in the perspective of future transfer fees. But thats the same as balking that Darren Bent was worth £18M.