|
Title: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: News Monkey on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 08:00:31 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?'
CHAIRMAN Andrew Fitton believes the final days of the January transfer window creates a freak marketplace in English football, but admits that ended up working in Town’s favour. http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/news/headlines/8828899._Is_Carroll_20_times_better_than_Austin__/?ref=rss Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: suttonred on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 08:39:10 Doing the rough maths , that's 1.75 Million for Austin then.
Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: Arriba on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 09:23:32 the fee paid for carroll was utter lunacy.
he is a risk signing for sure,and at that price an expensive one Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: mrverve on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 09:27:14 Carroll isn't even worth half of the £35m Liverpool spent on him.
David Villa cost £33m in June. Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: Nemo on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 09:29:53 I saw this on another site, very clever:
Quote I scored 24 goals helping my side win promotion back to the Premier League aged just 22. In my first season in the top flight I had 15 goals by the end of Jan. Including a goal against the reigning champions, away at Arsenal and in a home win vs Liverpool. My form earned me an England call-up and debut in a friendly.... Am a I £35m striker? No. I am Michael Ricketts, February 2002. Note to Liverpool fan's don't be too shocked if Carroll goes the same way! Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: tans on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 09:44:24 I saw this on another site, very clever: I saw it on sickipedia Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: Don Rogers Shop on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 10:10:57 the fee paid for carroll was utter lunacy. Thing is liverpool won't look at it like that. They have got 50m for Torres and paid 55m for suarez and carroll. They have just done some great business in my opinionhe is a risk signing for sure,and at that price an expensive one Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: london_red on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 10:13:28 Thing is liverpool won't look at it like that. They have got 50m for Torres and paid 55m for suarez and carroll. They have just done some great business in my opinion Agreed. They've overpaid for Carroll but they could afford to because of the silly money they got for Torres. They've improved their attacking options overall IMO for a net outlay of 5m. Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: suttonred on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 10:15:11 By the by, still utter madness from all concerned.
Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: tans on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 10:16:14 Sky Sports News.
Andy Carroll after record £35 million signing for a British Football player: "I want to be treated like everyone else at Liverpool" Well, as a coked up girlfriend beater out on bail I don't think you'll struggle. Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: suttonred on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 10:20:41 And he'll be able to make use of his burned out car now. That'll fit right in round there.
Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: pauld on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 10:28:35 Agreed. They've overpaid for Carroll but they could afford to because of the silly money they got for Torres. They've improved their attacking options overall IMO for a net outlay of 5m. Quite. It's ridiculous money, but it's Chelsea's money, not Liverpool's. Chelsea have overpaid for Carroll, Liverpool have replaced one effectively non-playing striker with a proven quality player and a decent prospect (who may or may not work out)Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: london_red on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 10:33:58 On the subject, its a bit nerdy and I'm not sure I agree with how he's done all his projections but found this very interesting on relative value of these transfers.
http://betoftheweek.net/2011/02/85-million-questions/ (http://betoftheweek.net/2011/02/85-million-questions/) Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: jonny72 on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 10:46:36 Quite. It's ridiculous money, but it's Chelsea's money, not Liverpool's. Chelsea have overpaid for Carroll, Liverpool have replaced one effectively non-playing striker with a proven quality player and a decent prospect (who may or may not work out) They said something similar on MotD last night. Torres has been playing crap for a while now, replacing him with Carroll and Suarez at a net cost of £5m is good business for Liverpool. Chelsea paying £50m for Torres is totally crazy though. Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: pauld on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 10:50:30 They said something similar on MotD last night. In which case, I withdraw my comment unreservedly :)Title: Re: Adver News: 'Is Carroll 20 times better than Austin?' Post by: A Gent Orange on Thursday, February 3, 2011, 11:01:53 For what Liverpool spent they probably could have got the entire Uruguay front line - Forlan, Suarez and best of all, Cavani of Napoli.
But hey, I'm sure it will all work put in the end. |