Liverpool FC Forum

[Fowler_E7]

Ridiculous discussion. Expectations are largely based on the amount spent, and transfer fees and wages go a long way in determining the success of not only the side, but also the manager and his staff.

We cant just sit there and say forget about how much players cost because its not an issue for the owners because obviously at some level it is. The club for me is at a crucial stage of trying to get back to becoming competitive at the highest level and to a large extent we seem to be relying on new purchases to make that happen. How else could spending more than 100mill in 6months be justified ?

For me, when you spend big the extra pressure comes from the forgone cash that could have been better spent elsewhere if the player fails to make a significant impact. The difference between us getting a signing wrong and ManUtd or Chelsea getting a signing wrong is a big one imo. On the one hand, we are still in the process of building a starting 11 that is good enough to challenge for a top spot while they are merely trying to improve on the excellent sides they already have. That essentially means that we need to sign players who would improve us more than their new signings would them. On the other hand, we are not ManCity regardless of what many on the forum seem to be suggesting given the owners' statements. I expect the 100+ mill spending days to be over by the end of this transfer window. That only adds pressure on us getting our big money signings (Carroll, Henderson, Downing) right because in all likelihood we wont get another shot at spending that much money in one window.

, good post aCe, couldn't agree more.

Excellent post

[ConnO'var]

It does matter..... no matter how you slice the numbers on the Carroll deal and saying that we got 2 players for the price of one does not mean squat. Granted, Suarez was a wonderful deal but we paid 35 million for the big fella.... we may have the money but that's 35 million expectations on the shoulders of a player I do rate..... That 35 million quid is probably playing on the mind of Andy and he's struggling to live up to the expectations at the mo. It's not the fee itself that bothers me.... but I think Comoli would have better served the club if he had made the fee "undisclosed". That way, the  big man could have just gotten on with the job instead of worrying about living up to the price tag.

Not everyone has the reputation already earned to make the price immaterial.

This is the only time I really worry about the impact of the transfer fee.  If it weighs on the shoulders of the player we bought and hinders his performance than it obviously matters.  Otherwise, I'm more in line with the Good Yank: we've got new owners who are prepared to splash a little cash and not worry too much about a slavish sell before you buy scenario.  As such, I worry much less about the costs of players or the opportunity costs of going for player A rather than player B.

As for the supporters, I wish people could step back from the price tags a bit when evaluating a player's performance.  I got some stick for sticking up for big Andy last week (hi Bam ) but, recall that I was reacting to a post that said his performance was "not good enough for a 35 million pound striker."  Which to me is a ridiculous statement.  What's the sliding scale?  Scoring a goal is only good enough if the striker cost 20 million pounds or less?    It's this kind of thing that crops up too often in fan discussions IMO.

But Bob, surely certain price brackets (20mill+ or 30mill+) at least on paper should imply a certain caliber of player when it comes to transfer fees. How else would clubs come to a valuation of players to buy ? 
End of the day, if we pay 20mill for a player we expect the quality of the player (and hence his performances) to reflect that amount. The debate of potential quality is a different one, and one I assume many wouldnt want to get into it at this point. All I have to say about it is that imo we're not yet at a level that allows (or explains) us spending huge chunks of our budgets on players who are not yet the ready article.

On a different note, the fact that a club doesnt want to sell someone and as such came up with an overinflated valuation for them doesnt mean that the other side was 'forced' to pay that amount like some seem to be suggesting. It just means that the other club agrees with their valuation and as such decided to pay it.

aCe, of course you're right to a certain extent.... but there are other factors to take note of..... Taking 35 million pounds on it's own is a large amount of money but sometimes you need to take into account the whole package.

He is currently on a "reported" 70K per week deal. In 4 years, that would equate to 14.5 million quid making our total investment roughly 50 million quid or 12.5 million quid per annum.

If you look at some of the top strikers... for eg:
1) Chelsea: Torres. 50 million + 175K per week for 4 years = 21.5 million pa
2) Man Utd: Rooney. 25 million + 250K per week for 4 years = 19.25 million pa.... more if you consider the inflation from when they first signed him
3) Man City: Tevez. 47 million + 150K per week for 4 years = 19.55 million pa

Of course I'm not saying that Carroll is anywhere as good as the 3 players mentioned above... far from it.... but is he at least half as good? I would say so.... in which case, he's really not all that expensive as far as strikers go in the premiership top echelons....

If used appropriately, he could really shine. His game could be just what we need against the weaker teams as his physical presence upfront is what we've been missing for a while.... We needed a hulk to stop/counter the rough and tumble defenders that these clubs invariably have. For years now we've struggled against the lesser lights. He could be just the tonic we need. That 35 million price tag is blinding us and taking away too much focus from what he is bringing to the table.

It could be that he will flop and be crushed under the weight of the expectations.... I'm still not entirely convinced we got this right but lets wait and see... for the package price, I don't think that he's too overpriced and even if he was, that's hardly his fault.

Out of curiosity, who would you have bought for the 35 million and 70K per week budget during that transfer window period?

[RedAnt]

It does matter..... no matter how you slice the numbers on the Carroll deal and saying that we got 2 players for the price of one does not mean squat. Granted, Suarez was a wonderful deal but we paid 35 million for the big fella.... we may have the money but that's 35 million expectations on the shoulders of a player I do rate..... That 35 million quid is probably playing on the mind of Andy and he's struggling to live up to the expectations at the mo. It's not the fee itself that bothers me.... but I think Comoli would have better served the club if he had made the fee "undisclosed". That way, the  big man could have just gotten on with the job instead of worrying about living up to the price tag.

Not everyone has the reputation already earned to make the price immaterial.

This is the only time I really worry about the impact of the transfer fee.  If it weighs on the shoulders of the player we bought and hinders his performance than it obviously matters.  Otherwise, I'm more in line with the Good Yank: we've got new owners who are prepared to splash a little cash and not worry too much about a slavish sell before you buy scenario.  As such, I worry much less about the costs of players or the opportunity costs of going for player A rather than player B.

As for the supporters, I wish people could step back from the price tags a bit when evaluating a player's performance.  I got some stick for sticking up for big Andy last week (hi Bam ) but, recall that I was reacting to a post that said his performance was "not good enough for a 35 million pound striker."  Which to me is a ridiculous statement.  What's the sliding scale?  Scoring a goal is only good enough if the striker cost 20 million pounds or less?    It's this kind of thing that crops up too often in fan discussions IMO.

But Bob, surely certain price brackets (20mill+ or 30mill+) at least on paper should imply a certain caliber of player when it comes to transfer fees. How else would clubs come to a valuation of players to buy ? 
End of the day, if we pay 20mill for a player we expect the quality of the player (and hence his performances) to reflect that amount. The debate of potential quality is a different one, and one I assume many wouldnt want to get into it at this point. All I have to say about it is that imo we're not yet at a level that allows (or explains) us spending huge chunks of our budgets on players who are not yet the ready article.

On a different note, the fact that a club doesnt want to sell someone and as such came up with an overinflated valuation for them doesnt mean that the other side was 'forced' to pay that amount like some seem to be suggesting. It just means that the other club agrees with their valuation and as such decided to pay it.

aCe, of course you're right to a certain extent.... but there are other factors to take note of..... Taking 35 million pounds on it's own is a large amount of money but sometimes you need to take into account the whole package.

He is currently on a "reported" 70K per week deal. In 4 years, that would equate to 14.5 million quid making our total investment roughly 50 million quid or 12.5 million quid per annum.

If you look at some of the top strikers... for eg:
1) Chelsea: Torres. 50 million + 175K per week for 4 years = 21.5 million pa
2) Man Utd: Rooney. 25 million + 250K per week for 4 years = 19.25 million pa.... more if you consider the inflation from when they first signed him
3) Man City: Tevez. 47 million + 150K per week for 4 years = 19.55 million pa

Of course I'm not saying that Carroll is anywhere as good as the 3 players mentioned above... far from it.... but is he at least half as good? I would say so.... in which case, he's really not all that expensive as far as strikers go in the premiership top echelons....

If used appropriately, he could really shine. His game could be just what we need against the weaker teams as his physical presence upfront is what we've been missing for a while.... We needed a hulk to stop/counter the rough and tumble defenders that these clubs invariably have. For years now we've struggled against the lesser lights. He could be just the tonic we need. That 35 million price tag is blinding us and taking away too much focus from what he is bringing to the table.

It could be that he will flop and be crushed under the weight of the expectations.... I'm still not entirely convinced we got this right but lets wait and see... for the package price, I don't think that he's too overpriced and even if he was, that's hardly his fault.

Out of curiosity, who would you have bought for the 35 million and 70K per week budget during that transfer window period?

*thumbs up*

[metalhead]

It does matter..... no matter how you slice the numbers on the Carroll deal and saying that we got 2 players for the price of one does not mean squat. Granted, Suarez was a wonderful deal but we paid 35 million for the big fella.... we may have the money but that's 35 million expectations on the shoulders of a player I do rate..... That 35 million quid is probably playing on the mind of Andy and he's struggling to live up to the expectations at the mo. It's not the fee itself that bothers me.... but I think Comoli would have better served the club if he had made the fee "undisclosed". That way, the  big man could have just gotten on with the job instead of worrying about living up to the price tag.

Not everyone has the reputation already earned to make the price immaterial.

The fee was undisclosed as per the Liverpool statement when we signed the big man, its the media who come up with figures and numbers.

[metalhead]

i don't care. as long as we win.

Exactly

As long as we get the results on the pitch and the players who we sign are helping us getting us trophies none of the transfer fees matter

[aCe']

It does matter..... no matter how you slice the numbers on the Carroll deal and saying that we got 2 players for the price of one does not mean squat. Granted, Suarez was a wonderful deal but we paid 35 million for the big fella.... we may have the money but that's 35 million expectations on the shoulders of a player I do rate..... That 35 million quid is probably playing on the mind of Andy and he's struggling to live up to the expectations at the mo. It's not the fee itself that bothers me.... but I think Comoli would have better served the club if he had made the fee "undisclosed". That way, the  big man could have just gotten on with the job instead of worrying about living up to the price tag.

Not everyone has the reputation already earned to make the price immaterial.

This is the only time I really worry about the impact of the transfer fee.  If it weighs on the shoulders of the player we bought and hinders his performance than it obviously matters.  Otherwise, I'm more in line with the Good Yank: we've got new owners who are prepared to splash a little cash and not worry too much about a slavish sell before you buy scenario.  As such, I worry much less about the costs of players or the opportunity costs of going for player A rather than player B.

As for the supporters, I wish people could step back from the price tags a bit when evaluating a player's performance.  I got some stick for sticking up for big Andy last week (hi Bam ) but, recall that I was reacting to a post that said his performance was "not good enough for a 35 million pound striker."  Which to me is a ridiculous statement.  What's the sliding scale?  Scoring a goal is only good enough if the striker cost 20 million pounds or less?    It's this kind of thing that crops up too often in fan discussions IMO.

But Bob, surely certain price brackets (20mill+ or 30mill+) at least on paper should imply a certain caliber of player when it comes to transfer fees. How else would clubs come to a valuation of players to buy ? 
End of the day, if we pay 20mill for a player we expect the quality of the player (and hence his performances) to reflect that amount. The debate of potential quality is a different one, and one I assume many wouldnt want to get into it at this point. All I have to say about it is that imo we're not yet at a level that allows (or explains) us spending huge chunks of our budgets on players who are not yet the ready article.

On a different note, the fact that a club doesnt want to sell someone and as such came up with an overinflated valuation for them doesnt mean that the other side was 'forced' to pay that amount like some seem to be suggesting. It just means that the other club agrees with their valuation and as such decided to pay it.

aCe, of course you're right to a certain extent.... but there are other factors to take note of..... Taking 35 million pounds on it's own is a large amount of money but sometimes you need to take into account the whole package.

He is currently on a "reported" 70K per week deal. In 4 years, that would equate to 14.5 million quid making our total investment roughly 50 million quid or 12.5 million quid per annum.

If you look at some of the top strikers... for eg:
1) Chelsea: Torres. 50 million + 175K per week for 4 years = 21.5 million pa
2) Man Utd: Rooney. 25 million + 250K per week for 4 years = 19.25 million pa.... more if you consider the inflation from when they first signed him
3) Man City: Tevez. 47 million + 150K per week for 4 years = 19.55 million pa

Of course I'm not saying that Carroll is anywhere as good as the 3 players mentioned above... far from it.... but is he at least half as good? I would say so.... in which case, he's really not all that expensive as far as strikers go in the premiership top echelons....

If used appropriately, he could really shine. His game could be just what we need against the weaker teams as his physical presence upfront is what we've been missing for a while.... We needed a hulk to stop/counter the rough and tumble defenders that these clubs invariably have. For years now we've struggled against the lesser lights. He could be just the tonic we need. That 35 million price tag is blinding us and taking away too much focus from what he is bringing to the table.

It could be that he will flop and be crushed under the weight of the expectations.... I'm still not entirely convinced we got this right but lets wait and see... for the package price, I don't think that he's too overpriced and even if he was, that's hardly his fault.

Out of curiosity, who would you have bought for the 35 million and 70K per week budget during that transfer window period?

2 things Con. Firstly, I dont think it would be fair for me to look back in hindsight and tell you player X or player Y would have made a better buy simply because I would be speculating based on evidence. That said, it was as obvious back then as it is now that Carroll is no 35 mill signing at present. The point that not many seem to get is that the 35mill fee excludes only a very small fraction from the players we could have signed for that fee. As such, I think its ridiculous to even ask the question of 'what other options did we have?' because as far as I can tell, we had endless options to go for despite the limited time frame, given the amount of money we had available. If you still insist on names, heres a few for you: Falcao, Hulk, Mata, A.Sanchez, Pastore, Hazard, Cazorla.. etc

We could have even signed 2 very good players for that fee imo... Regardless, we signed Carroll and trust me I still dont think it was that bad a deal. He might very well turn into a top striker but we need to play to his strengths for that to happen. Unfortunately for us and Carroll, hes not yet good enough for us to build our style of play around his stengths, not when we have Suarez.

P.s, the 3 players you have up there are amongst the 10 best paid in the world... Little point even going through the whole wages thing...