Date: 4th February 2011 at 7:37pm
Written by:

It appears that the Torres and Carroll fees were never set by LFC specifically, but rather were always predicated on what Newcastle asked for Carroll.  There have been other reports suggesting we had reached an agreement for Carroll for much less only for Ashley to come in and up it.  It seems to me he must have become aware of our negotiations with Chelsea.

John Henry is quoted as saying we would have sold Torres for any price as long as it was £15 million more than Carroll commanded.

The other topic discussed was NESV’s vision for financing player moves.  Their plan is to do so with funds made directly by LFC.  Some people are claiming this is a player sales only message, but I would disagree. The Boston Red Sox posted league leading profits of $40 million dollars for the 2009 season and yet was as successful as anyone through 162 games, failing to win a championship only because they were defeated in the American playoff system which I think we can all agree is not the best way to determine a champion.

The owners ideas revolve around exactly what H&G’s did financially with one key difference : the lack of debt siphoning off the cash LFC earns itself.  I don’t have the figures in front of me but the one key thing our previous owners did was increase our revenues astronomically.  If the continuation of that means initial investment in the squad to win things and keep a global presence, our new owners will do so.  They are preparing us for the fair play regulations, which while devastating clubs like Chelsea and Man City that lack a global brand or history beyond the past few years will only enhance the prospects of a club such as ours that has built its reputation and fan base with performances on the pitch and trophies in the cabinet rather than 0’s in a checking account.

Our presence with fans in countries worldwide (I’m in America, Ron is in South Africa etc etc) will allow our potential revenue to far outpace those of teams like those previously mentioned.  These regulations will create a salary cap in effect, but one based upon your own success and history.  Ours puts us in pole position to build something wonderful and sustainable, a return to what this club is really all about.

John Henry discusses transfer fees


5 responses to “Torres/Carroll Fees and the Future of LFC Transfers – John Henry”

  1. Sir Cecil says:

    Henry is well known for his double talk in the USA. He makes Hicks etc seem like straight talkers.
    Does he expect even the most stupid of Liverpool supporters to believe he sets the price for Liverpool’s top player according to the whims of Newcastle?
    Does anyone here truly believe that if Newcastle had asked 20m less for Carroll, Liverpool would then have sold Torres to Chelsea for 20m less than they did? It’s so sad and laughable at the same time.
    All Liverpool followers should beware of Henry’s utterances because they smack of drivel. He is simply trying to find a way to defend the ludicrous price paid for Carroll.According to Henry, they did not set a price for either the player they were buying nor the player they were selling – according to this trickster, Newcastle decided everything. He insults his club’s fans with such rubbish talk. Either that, or he’s incompetent.
    If Liverpool fans think Torres has been less than straight with them, they’re going to find Henry is as straight as a roundabout. Wait and see, if you haven’t already realised it.

    • Varun says:

      John Henry is quoted as saying we would have sold Torres for any price “as long as” it was £15 million more than Carroll commanded.

      Dont you understand english dude?? Its as long as chelsea paid £15M more.. If Carroll would have been £20M,torres’s price would have always been in the 50’s M..

      • Devindar says:

        I’m afraid Sir Cecil is right. Read Henry’s quote:

        “Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [to Newcastle for Carroll], 40 and 25 or 50 and 35. It was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost. They [Newcastle] made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way.”

        He is admitting he would have sold Torres for £35m.

  2. Blindside says:

    It has the appearance of being a “buying from selling only” regime. The purchases in January had a nett cost of £1.5M only due to the largesse of the Torres sale. It would not have cost anything, indeed, it would have been a profit window save for the fact that the £35M purchase of Carroll was a panic buy emergency cover.
    Now I am all in favour of the idea of paying one’s way with profits as a sound business acumen but the comments made ny Henry today leave me with a deal of doubt about his reading of the way forward. Teams like Manchester Utd and Arsenal have greater revenue because they have greater ground capacity. We cannot compete with say the 72000 capacity of Old Trafford and over a season lose tens of millions of pounds revenue due to this.
    It was to attempt to rectify this that a new stadium was envisaged and indeed was supposedly enshrined in the “bill of sale”. The plans for even a new stadium were only in the region of 60000 but at least a move from the present 42000 of Anfield. Our inability to fulfill requests for seasonal ticket at present means that there are 30000 applications TOO MANY so a capacity of even 60 thousand would hold no problems.
    Today Mr Henry states that it probable that Anfield will be “re-furbished” rather than a new stadium built. It is known that physically Anfield could only be extended by a further 10 thousand or so. All this to yet remain near to the 50000-seat mark. He claims that the Kop is such a lifeforce for the team. Indeed this is so but the Kop is the human element contained therein and not a matter of bricks and cement. The vibrancy of the Kop will transfer to a new stadium as soon as the doors are opened. The Kop is people NOT a stand at one end of the ground.
    I say this even though during the 1950 era I attended St Margaret’s Anfield (Essemay)High School just a little way
    down Anfield road. I know exactly what the Kop is and have done ever since Billy Liddell ran up and down in front of it!
    If we are to progress we must make use of a fantastic world-wide fan base and the larger revenue a bigger and better stadium would bring. Not to do so and one of the biggest mistakes in the history of LFC will lie at the door of NESV.
    Forgive my length……

  3. Sir Cecil says:

    I agree absolutely with Blindside. Henry is quick to play up his business successes (of course), but also does a good job of hiding his sporting failures from UK fans who know little of him – in the USA his long list of abortive ventures is well known. He is hated by as many former fans as ex-owners H&G. A parallel might be Ken Bates – Leeds fans are happy enough with him (as Boston fans are with Henry), but that doesn’t make Bates a great guy for Liverpool or Man Utd or Arsenal.
    Henry will say anything to achieve his PERSONAL ends and he is a master at hoodwinking fans to keep them onside. At the moment, he is enjoying a honeymoon period and the fans will say he’s made the right decision whether he builds a new ground or doesn’t. The fans desperately WANT to believe in this man and his organization, but mark my words – he’s more dangerous to Liverpool’s future than H&G could ever be.