Liverpool Message Board
Whilst I am happy for Liverpool to be linked to good, promising, young players, what is worrying to me is that we seem to be paying a lot of money for these players.
Carroll = £35m
Henderson = £20m (it has not yet been confirmed whether N'gog will be used as part of this deal)
Any transfer is a risk, and I sincerely hope that both players go on to fulfil their massive potential at Liverpool, but I am concerned that we have invested over £50m in two players who, one or two years ago, we could have got for a quarter of the price. Comolli should be looking to buy players that are about to make that breakthrough; players who can still be bought at a reasonable price and haven't yet inflated to the crazy sums that are being paid. £20m for Jordan Henderson - he's a good, young player - but £20m?!
I would like to think that Comolli is still savvy enough to broker a deal....£7m for Gareth Bale looks like an absolute bargain now - i'm beginning to wonder whether this was a one-off.
Why are you talking about what we could get these players for two years ago? That's down to the scouting and the finance at the time which we know was a bag of sh*te. I don't care what they cost as long as they are of sufficient quality to enhance the team and it doesn't compromise our spending power in future. The point is, a statement is being made and we're getting really good players, so that's enough for me......we've had enough negativity these last few years so lighten up! Its all good!
- 1 Reply to Loki
loki - i am happy that we are being linked and are buying good decent young players - i've already said that.
you say you don't care what they cost as long as they are good for the team and doesn't compromise our spending power in the future - well, THAT is the point! by paying big money now, there is the risk that if these signings do not come off for us, we could be severely handicapped in future transfer markets. there is a difference paying big money for young promising players on one hand, and on the other, paying for established quality. example, paying £28m for Torres vs £35m for Carroll.
furthermore, if the scouting system is so great now, then i want to see them bringing in young players who will turn out to be the next jordan henderson or andy carroll - but not having to pay silly money for them.
I dont think Bale was a one off. how about Modric for £15m? Berbatov for £10.5? Your probably looking at £70m profit on those 3 alone! Incidently, Commolli also signed Clichy for Arsenal at the age of 16 for £500k, get in there Damo and do it again!
- 1 Reply to Hobsey
Modric had been an established Croatian international for 2 years before Comolli "signed" him....and everyone knew about Berbatov who was also linked with clubs before he joined Spurs. He can't take credit for discovering these players, but he can take credit for convincing his employers at the time to part with their cash, and, in the case of Berbatov, re-coup that a couple of years later with profit.
The fact that we are now paying £35m for Carroll and £20m for Henderson - 3 three caps between them - represents a greater risk than buying established international players.
Only time will tell if they are successful purchases - way too early to pass judgement now.
- 1 Reply to Gary S
I'm not sure I get your logic here. Are you saying if a player is not already in a top 4 side, or wanted by a top 4 club then he's only good enough for a mid table club?
If that is the case how do you explain all the players at Spurs who before last season were not a top 4 club, and for the most part not wanted by any of the then top 4. As they did get that CL spot, does that not throw water on your theory?
Besides, if memory serves me correct Spurs, who were a top 4 club in January, were also bidding for Carroll, and Man U were scouting Henderson.
Of course we could throw this on its head using your logic and ask about those players bought by some top 4 clubs that have turned out so bad that even relegation fighters would likely take them. Think Obertan or Bebe. What does that tell you about Man U's transfer policy?
The numbers are a little scary, but the question have we paid over the odds, or is this now the market rate? I think we need to let the dust settle a little on the Henderson deal as I've seen reports of any where between 16M and 20M plus N'Gog going the other way. Even if its the high depending on what you rate N'Gog at, its still the same or even less than United shelled out for Jones, who while he also looks like he's got bags of potential, has less first team experience than Henderson, is a defender (usually valued less than midfielders) and has not long come back from a serious injury. Not interested in a pointless debate of who got the better deal, but looking at the broad strokes we either both paid the market rate, or both got fleeced by a smaller club.
But your other point is interesting. Many have complained about spending so much on a player with so little experience and would prefer we go for established more senior players, but you seem to go the opposite way thinking we should go for even younger and less experienced players, but that would cost significantly less.
That in fact had been Rafa's strategy, and many on here will tell you it was a waste of money. Its how Leto, Gonzalez, Nemeth, El Zhar, and even David N'Gog came to the club. But did also have its successes with Lucas, Pacheco (assuming he will get into the first team next season) and Martin Kelly. Not a lot of money wasted on each player, but quite a bit of attrition to get just a couple first teamers.
End of the day it depends on how much money we have in our pocket, and how much risk we are willing to take. But I'd also caution that we are only at the very beginning of the silly season, and seen just one buy so far, so who is to know if this is the pattern for all our business this summer. Maybe we'll go for some older more established players, as well as youngsters on the cheap so we cover the basis on both strategy and spreading the risk.
- 1 Reply to dsteer_lfc_68
Given that both Carroll and Henderson could have been had one or two years ago for under £5m each speaks volumes. Why weren't these two players identified BEFORE they came onto the radar. Why are we paying, what is generally perceived to be silly money (Carroll was the 8th most expensive player EVER), for two players who hardly have any Premier League experience between them?
I think what I am trying to say is that yes, we need to sign these types of players, but the smart way forward is to get these players at the right time - i.e. before they explode onto the scene. Anyone can splash out £35m on Carroll and £20m on Henderson....it is signing of players like Bale (£7m), Ronaldo (£14m), Adebayor (£3m), and Kolo Toure (£150k) that you can look back on with hindsight and say that they were "good signings".
I thought the whole point of the new American owners was to inject a new philosophy into the way players were identified and then subsequently purchased. People are already talking about £8m - £10m for Connor Wickham and similar sorts of money for Alex Chamberlain, so if we are interested in these players, the time is NOW to buy them, not next year when their value could be two or three times more. Furthermore, I want to see a little more emphasis on building a team - therefore an emphasis on players that may not be spectacular or house-hold names, but can do a job and can do a job well. I know a little about Billy Beane and what he achieved with the Oakland A's (I'm not 100% convinced that you can apply the same thinking to football because the stats are not as easily recordable in football) but following that philosophy, we should not be paying that sort of money for Carroll or Henderson as it represents risky business.
That said, in five years time, if Henderson or Carroll turn out to be successful, then the opportunity is still their to make money from them as they will still only be in their mid-20s. I guess, if it is a risk that the owners are willing to take, then its up to them - its their money at the end of the day.