JamDav

That if it was all about spending money, why didn't they buy two players that were worth £25 million, rather than overpaying for one?

The idea that they wanted to spend money is arguable, but at least carries logic.

The suggestion that the only way they could do that was to overpay for one player has no logic whatsoever.

I still do not get your points Jason.

What is your point about buying one player or two?

They had no need to overpay because of the FTP rulings, that's my point.

They overpaid because they wanted Torres and saw it as a way to get into the CL.

You're suggesting that the FTP rules were the reason why they were spending. If that were the case, it's irrelevant to who they chose to buy, and still was no reason for overpaying for Torres.

Have to disagree on this one.

Obviously I think the rules were a large reason the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool were paying fees they never had before, while even Spurs seemed to be bidding big for every striker in europe.

the basic argument is that liverpool were rushing to waste money before a deadline, as if that made sense.

The basic argument is that Liverpool (wrongly) thought Andy Carrol was a good player worth signing and paid over the odds for him due to the reasons given.

Jason Liverpool had little to play for that season. It would have made far more sense in normal circumstances to wait until the end of the season and replace Torres.

Everyone at the time said £35m was far too much for Carrol. Can you suggest any reason why they would not have just waited to the end of the season?

As for Chelsea being 5th in January last year. Thats not true they were fourth, three pints ahead pf Spurs with a better goal difference, while they were only three or four points of Man City and Arsenal.

They actually fell further behind once Torres was signed.

To suggest they paid £50m for an out of form Torres to rescue their season is just b0llocks.

to elaborate, they were panic buying in a reduced pool, because KKKenny isn't up with world football, and has somehow managed to let the black african revolution that's taken place pass him by.

JamDav

So, you're telling the Chelsea fan that he doesn't remember correctly, are you?

They were 3 points ahead of Spurs having only just overtaken them, they were having a poor season and it was reported as worth the money to keep them in the CL. There's also no logic to suggest that spending £50 million in the summer would have made a huge difference in the FTP rules - as we have seen with Man City.

Face it - you offered a mere suggestion having no idea about it. Now you've got the bit between your teeth and can't accept any fault in your point, so you're debating as if it's some kind of fact.

Liverpool could have signed Carroll on July 31st and he still wouldn't have counted towards FFP.

So long Jason.

I have tried to teach you the truth but it appears you have not listened.

So dodd getting his ass handed to him on a plate again.

Viva - what have I not understood about the FFP rules then?

As fair as I can see you are the one that doesnt have much clue about it.

I know fine that they are brought in gradually but the first seasons that the accounts are monitored is this year.

The fact is that all the top clubs have taken notice of this and spending last summer and the January just passed is down.

Viva I think you should write to all of europes top clubs to tell them to just ignore the FFP, clearly you know something they dont.

Well thats all well and good if they could have kept Torres but he wanted to go and put in a transfer request. There was little they could do to keep him.

You can quote all the different parts of the FFP rules you like, but the basic fact is that the spending of clubs will be decreasing because of it and that has already started.

Yes I do Viva.

Do you even understand that the new rules are seeing clubs taking more control over their spending since last summer?

Looking foolish in what way Jason?

All your points you have made are either wrong or do not make sense.

Another great haul for UKM, champion forumite.

Jason

1. You claim that Chelsea were in 5th place and signed Torres for so much money as they were scared of not making the CL.
Well they were in fourth when they signed him and not far behind Man City and Arsenal. Why would they spend £50m on a player that had been badly out of form for a year to turn around their season in four months?
They signed him as he was reportedly one of the players Abramovich always wanted to get his hands on and this was the last opportunity for him to sanction huge transfers from his own pocket.

2. You claim Liverpool panic bought Carrol
What was the panic? Their season was virtually over and they had little to play for. Why did they not wait until the summer to get more value for money?

You think the new FFP had not impact on this spending I think it clearly did.

JamDav

I'll correct you:

1.I told you that they were 5th at the start of January - they were. At the end of Jan, they were only 3 points ahead of 5th.

The Chelsea fan on this thread confirmed the fact that the transfer was seen as a boost to ensure that they qualified for the CL, and I distinctly remember it being reported as such.

I am sure the Chelsea fan knows more about his club than you do.

2. I agree that they shouldn't have panicked - but they clearly did panic, because they'd sold their best striker. No one at the club has suggested finance played a part, either.


I will now raise you this:

For instance, Fernando Torres’ £50m January switch from Liverpool to Chelsea would not show up as one lump sum in Chelsea’s 2010-11 accounts – instead it would be an annual amortisation of £9m (£50m fee divided by the 5.5 years of his contract). Add in an estimated salary of £8m and the total cost of Torres, as far as Uefa’s accountants are concerned, is £17m per year.

Kinda blows your theory out of the water, doesn't it?