What do you want me to base it on ? Other people's opnion ? The debate was on whether Newcastle held Liverpool to ransom, I stated they did ( and some of your own fans agreed ) so where does the telling the future come into it ?
A fair point, but then how many transfers have the man in charge of the money actually saying the fee was dependent on another deal? 'Net spend' has therefore been made relevant, rather than me looking to justify the Carroll fee. This is unique to one deal, it's not like i'm knocking £7million off for Babel or something. Whether you believe John Henry or not, do you not think Carroll plus £15million for a wantaway Torres in January was a good valuation? Your opinion of him regaining his form is purely opinion and i think at the time the valuation was right. I don't know many people who are happy when they are 'held to ransom', and we were clearly very much prepared to do the deal we did, therefore not being held to ransom.
How do you know that Torres will be the brilliant player he used to be next season and that Carroll wont prove hes worth £35m next season?. Thats where "telling the future" comes into it.
But then there lies the difference. If you look at the transfer as a net then the deal isn't too bad. My point is Newcastle overcharged Liverpool, regardless of the Chelsea fee. As the deal was done late thats the way it goes. Your owner wasn't about to come out and say ' We got a good deal for Torres but Newcastle have had a pants down' of course he is going to state the 15 million plus Carroll was good business, which it probably was in the long term. I wasn't debating the net spend I was saying Newcastle made you pay a higher fee than you should have for that indvidual player, again only my opinion as people keep pointing out but I'm not going to argue something that isn't my opnion am I.
I don't know. That why it's an opinion and not a fact. Do you need to tell the future to have an opinion ? I'm not going to try and explain to you the difference between stating something as an opinion and stating something as a fact
Reasons for the price. English int Age lenght of contract Their main striker Jan window Torres sale and FSG No transfer request
Fact,Chelsea paid £50m for Torres(£35m of which went to pay for Carroll). Opinion/fortune telling,Carroll is'nt worth £35m and Torres will return to his best form due to his rest.
Again it has nothing to do with fortune telling it's an opinion based on a variety of things. Opinion yes fortune telling no.
Well state why you think Carroll wont justify his fee during his tenure at LFC? Its just that a Premier League manager with a lifetime of experience thinks he will as opposed to your goodself.
You are predicting the future, hence the term fortune telling. Also your isolation of the Carroll deal is no different from us considering the Torres deal. Think we're going in circles here. Nice arguing though!
And he's entitled to his opinion as I am mine. Carroll may be good good for you I don't think he is worth 35 million obviously you do. Do you want us all the sit around and have the same opinion as you and Kenny ? Maybe we could all have a happy clappy session as well and discuss how Kenny is god ?
Agreed re the arguing. Makes a change from the name calling bollox. Re future telling and having an opinion on something that could happen in the future are two different things. For example if I asked you if you think Carroll is going to be a good buy you can have an opinion without being a fortune teller. No ?
No need for the rant Eric,Whats your view on the fees paid by utd for there 3 latest signings? It seems you have a view on all things Liverpool FC but nothing on utd.
The fact that justified Liverpools signing of Andy Carroll is that Andy Carroll wanted to play for the club whereas Torres didn't.Liverpool got £50 million off Chelsea for a moody misfiring striker that was causing more dressing room unrest than Paul Ince in the 1990s. Kenny knows what he's got in Andy Carroll.He's attempting to ensure that he acquires the players that gets the best out of Andy Carroll.Kenny was mocked in 1992 when he signed a non prolific Geordie from Southampton who was the same age,same build and just as a big a handful as Andy Carroll.How did that turn out?.....Now tell me what his name is.Its easy to say now,that its completely different.But was it different 19 years ago?That said person has said that Andy Carroll reminds him alot of himself.For those that can't guess and I'm refering to Man United fans here,his initials are Alan Shearer.
I have view on United but don't let that bother you. Maybe I should bring United up more on your forum then watch posters cry about me hijacking there post. I don't bring United into it unless one of your lot does, therefore : It depends on the actual fees as most aren't disclosed. Am I allowed an opinion or will I be called a fortune teller again ? Young - if 20 million then we have over paid as he was in the last year of his contract. Jones - I think it's a good deal if he can fulfill his potential but I think he is at the best club to do just that. De Gea - I haven't seen alot of him and it's a risk for such a young keeper but then on the other hand it could be the best business SAF has done as if he's good he could be No 1 for the next 15 years.
You appear to be very angry Eric,You used the word "potential",Thats exactly what KK saw in Carroll and bought him on that premise with Chelsea's £35m.
Think the term 'fortune telling' has become a little bogged down mate. Don't mean it as an insult, but surely you can see Torres coming good is only in the future, and by saying you think he will you are predicting. That is you are predicting the future/fortune telling, but at the same time yes that is an opinion. The two aren't mutually exclusive, the point i think people were getting at is that whether Torres is a good buy on the facts cannot include whether he will do well next season. Nice summary of Utd's transfers, think that's a balanced view.
