Football

Which one is going to be worth more in 5 years time? Carroll

Not a cat in hells chance.

Which one has won pretty much every major competition including the world cup?

Carroll might win everything 'next season'.

Not a cat in hells chance.

Retired David Villa > Andy Carroll in his 'prime years'

Which one is going to be worth more in 5 years time? Carroll

sniggers

Carroll might win everything 'next season'.

Ha!

Villa might command a good rate in after dinner speeches, so it's still touch and go if you ask me.

Which one has won pretty much every major competition including the world cup?

Again, that's irrelevant, I don't think anyone is disputing that Villa has a much better record. But Fenway are all about buying for the future, and in 5 years time, at the age of 35 Villa will be worth fuck all. Carroll will probably be worth at least £15M, so even if he's shit they can make some money back.

From that rationale, why are Liverpool even bothering with Carra and Gerrard?
Both are in a far worse postion than Villa right now. even two solid seasons from Villa is better than what those two are offering to the club right now.

They're both worthless, and command large salaries.

Again, that's irrelevant, I don't think anyone is disputing that Villa has a much better record. But Fenway are all about buying for the future, and in 5 years time, at the age of 35 Villa will be worth fuck all. Carroll will probably be worth at least £15M, so even if he's shit they can make some money back.

Fenway are not about buying for the future, although that fits perfectly with Liverpool's latent attitudes if they were, but instead have a policy of buying young players with a view that they'll recoup the transfer fee paid at a later date, if not make more money, rather than spend large amounts on transfers for established players who then have no resale value.

From that rationale, why are Liverpool even bothering with Carra and Gerrard?
Both are in a far worse postion than Villa right now. even two solid seasons from Villa is better than what those two are offering to the club right now.

They're both worthless, and command large salaries.

They didn't cost us anything, Villa will cost a lot. Once you have them it's a completely different situation.

Fenway are not about buying for the future, although that fits perfectly with Liverpool's latent attitudes if they were, but instead have a policy of buying young players with a view that they'll recoup the transfer fee paid at a later date, if not make more money, rather than spend large amounts on transfers for established players who then have no resale value.

That's the same thing.

This is what surprises me, he's not a Fenway type signing.

but there's the caveat of fill a hole at cost if required

shrugs while not raising to the obvious Carroll baiting

The whole Villa thing comes from the rumour mongers in the Valencian press, apparently him and Messi are not getting on as well as was previously suggested.
Any striker that scores 240 goals in 400 games is top notch.

Carroll will be worth £5m max in three years time. Championship player at best.
#FACT

Oh FFS! Not again! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Surely a drink served in that wonderful cup slips down a lot easier.

The whole Villa thing comes from the rumour mongers in the Valencian press, apparently him and Messi are not getting on as well as was previously suggested.
Any striker that scores 240 goals in 400 games is top notch.

Carroll will be worth £5m max in three years time. Championship player at best.
#FACT

It reminds me of when The Sun conect every Spurs player with ManU at some point.

That's the same thing.

No, it's not. Buying for the future means buying very young players, aged 20 or less, who've yet to establish themselves as first team players at their current clubs and training them. The Fenway policy is to buy more established young players for more money but who are less of a gamble as they've already made the first team at other clubs.

No, it's not. Buying for the future means buying very young players, aged 20 or less, who've yet to establish themselves as first team players at their current clubs and training them. The Fenway policy is to buy more established young players for more money but who are less of a gamble as they've already made the first team at other clubs.

semantics.

I meant the latter when I said it. Obviously they are also buying very young players.

damo- what is Stoke's record for playing on a wet wednesday in Stoke?

FFS UTFS. I answered that question already. ON HERE.
MASSIVE FUCKING CHEVRONS.

(there haven't been that many matches in midweek, they've won them all)

damo- what is Stoke's record for playing on a wet wednesday in Stoke?

Liverpool beat them 2-0 recently it was wet and a wednesday

in your face stato

That was the magic of the cup.

That changes everything.

Barnet is not in London.

FACT.
http://www.barnet.gov.uk/ please define London BB

Liverpool beat them 2-0 recently it was wet and a wednesday

in your face stato

Stoke 1 - 2 Liverpool
26 Oct 2011
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15363354.stm

Plastic.

Stoke 1 - 2 Liverpool
26 Oct 2011
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15363354.stm

Plastic.

ha oh yeah I forgot they took the lead, thanks for checking though.. point still stands

Liverpool beat them 2-0 recently it was wet and a wednesday

in your face stato

I hadn't updated my db.

Stoke 1 - 2 Liverpool
26 Oct 2011
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15363354.stm

Plastic.

I believe it's "oooooooooooooooffff"

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/ please define London BB

Barnet is not in London. It is in that distant, far-off & remote county known as Hertfordshire, and ruled by the evil Cyclops Brian Coleman.

that better??