[caladanbrood]

If I were Newcastle, I'd sell Carroll for £30million in a second, provided you could find a £20-25million replacement, because Carroll is on great form this season, but he's in no way worth that much money.

[Tapper]

 caladanbrood, on 31 January 2011 - 01:56 PM, said:

If I were Newcastle, I'd sell Carroll for £30million in a second, provided you could find a £20-25million replacement, because Carroll is on great form this season, but he's in no way worth that much money.

Would you want the replacement now, or in the summer? Because the time ticks for everyone.
That said, as Newcastle, you could, I dunno, go for some third choice benched striker of age 31-33 just to try and stay in the Premier League and get a good player to take the striker spot permanently when the summer period starts.

[champ]

1452: BBC Radio 5 live senior football reporter Ian Dennis has heard that Liverpool HAVE made a second offer for Newcastle striker Andy Carroll. £35m per chance?

Excuse me whilst I reel up my jaw off the floor...

[caladanbrood]

Various people now reporting that a £35million bid from Liverpool has been accepted by Newscastle. Making Andy Carroll the most expensive British player in history. Which is an interesting statistic. And virtually guarantees Torres will be off to Chelsea, I imagine.

[Tapper]

 caladanbrood, on 31 January 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

Various people now reporting that a £35million bid from Liverpool has been accepted by Newscastle. Making Andy Carroll the most expensive British player in history. Which is an interesting statistic. And virtually guarantees Torres will be off to Chelsea, I imagine.

Dunno, if I could choose, I'd keep Torres, and make a clause with Newcastle that you only get Carroll when Torres moves... if they keep El Nino AND get Carroll, that would be overkill. I doubt Newcastle would disagree.

Also, no M'Vila transfer to Liverpool according to the BBC (and no Eden Hazard move to Arsenal). We could have used him.
In the fist-pumpingly good transfernews: we got rid of Konchesky.
Time to reel Charlie Adam in, I say.

[champ]

 Tapper, on 31 January 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

 caladanbrood, on 31 January 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

Various people now reporting that a £35million bid from Liverpool has been accepted by Newscastle. Making Andy Carroll the most expensive British player in history. Which is an interesting statistic. And virtually guarantees Torres will be off to Chelsea, I imagine.

Dunno, if I could choose, I'd keep Torres, and make a clause with Newcastle that you only get Carroll when Torres moves... if they keep El Nino AND get Carroll, that would be overkill. I doubt Newcastle would disagree.

Also, no M'Vila transfer to Liverpool according to the BBC (and no Eden Hazard move to Arsenal). We could have used him.
In the fist-pumpingly good transfernews: we got rid of Konchesky.
Time to reel Charlie Adam in, I say.

I don't think any development will be made until they know Torres is 100% going!

Would you want Charlie Adam?

I haven't seen him play much so cannot really make a qualified judgement, he good enough for a top 6 team?

This post has been edited by champooon: 31 January 2011 - 04:18 PM

[polishgenius]

Apparently we (as in Manchester United) are now in the race for Adam. Blackpool have confirmed Andy Reid so it looks like they're expecting him to go.

[champ]

Latest from BBC re Adam

1638: Ah. I'm told there is no truth in the 'Charlie Adam to Man Utd' rumours. Apparently, Blackpool chairman Karl Oyston is refusing to answer calls from Liverpool about the Scotland midfielder... maybe that United story started when Kenny Dalglish phoned up pretending to be Sir Alex Ferguson instead?

[Satan]

The ManU rumours for Adam may just be a ploy by Blackpool to pump up the price.

Also, £35 mill for Carrol is just redonkulous, no matter what the day is.

[Tapper]

Seems the Guardian rumoured 70 million for Torres, and 18 million for Ashley Young to LFC. Also, bid for Carroll apparently was higher than 35 mill.

[Grumble]

 caladanbrood, on 31 January 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

Various people now reporting that a £35million bid from Liverpool has been accepted by Newscastle. Making Andy Carroll the most expensive British player in history. Which is an interesting statistic. And virtually guarantees Torres will be off to Chelsea, I imagine.

No shit Sherlock !!!!!

Carroll age 22 6'3'' Great in the air and a great left foot shot and Suarez age 24 5'11'' poacher, scores goals for fun.... I think we just got younger and better !

[Yellow]

Massive waste of money. What are Liverpool thinking with Carroll? That's more than they originally paid for Torres. Maybe they're planning on selling him for 70 million in a couple of years.

Of course, it wouldn't be too difficult to play better than Torres has recently, making me wonder why Chelsea want to pay that price for him. He's a great player though, so maybe Ancelotti can sort his head out.

[Macros]

35.
Andy Carroll is the second most exspensive player in pl histry, dear god

[Tapper]

 Macros, on 01 February 2011 - 08:33 AM, said:

35.
Andy Carroll is the second most exspensive player in pl histry, dear god

And we'll have to revise our playing style quite a bit to suit him, too. That alone is why I'd rather have had we bought another technical, agile forward... Suarez qualifies, in a way, though.

[caladanbrood]

So Carroll is injured, and Suarez has never been in the country before, let alone played in the premiership... N'gog starts against Chelsea? What are the odds for a Torres debut goal in the same match?

[polishgenius]

 Tapper, on 01 February 2011 - 09:02 AM, said:

And we'll have to revise our playing style quite a bit to suit him, too. That alone is why I'd rather have had we bought another technical, agile forward... Suarez qualifies, in a way, though.

To be fair I reckon Carroll is potentially a better partner to Suarez anyway. Not like miles better but their styles suit. You were going to have to go 4-4-2 either way.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Oh, wait til you see the decision for Everton's goal later, which was ruled onside.

Absolutely farcical.

[polishgenius]

As I understand the rules, Koscielny's touch on the ball made his offside position irrelevant.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Well, you're at odds with every other comment I've seen, I'll say that - even David Moyes said it was off!

Whether a player is active:

Quote

Interfering with play
Playing or touching the ball
Interfering with an opponent
Preventing the opponent from playing the ball by obstructing the player's sight or intentionally distracting the opponent
Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position
Playing the ball after the ball has rebounded off the goal, the goalkeeper, or any opponent

Now, unless you're absolutely retarded (and I'll grant you Arsenal defenders would generally qualify in that regard) you would not go for the ball in the way Koscielny did (a stretched, graceless lunge) unless you were distracted by Saha, assuming he was onside. Saha's movement would suggest he thought he was in with a shout of the pass reaching him, also. A defender cannot just leave it, hoping his and the linesman's judgement on every call tally up, and thus has to go for the ball if he thinks there's the slightest chance the attacker may be onside.

To me, it's mad to say he didn't gain an advantage from being in an offside position, and had he not been there Koscielny would have let it run back to the keeper. Active.

[polishgenius]

Yeah, I stand corrected- I was going by the rule change a while back which had people concerned about, for example, strikers standing offside from freekicks hoping for a deflection off the wall, but it looks like they've finessed that out.