Page 3 of 3
Re: Liverpool has changed. Torres to City.
Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:11 amby Buffalo Soldier
IanBishopsHaircut wrote:BadKompany wrote:IanBishopsHaircut wrote:Torres is 24 years old and could be a real asset in the future
27 in March.
Dzeko or fernando llorente for me
Is he?
Don't know where I pulled 24 from..however my point still stands
He's still 24?
Re: Liverpool has changed. Torres to City.
Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:14 amby Esky
IanBishopsHaircut wrote:BadKompany wrote:IanBishopsHaircut wrote:Torres is 24 years old and could be a real asset in the future
27 in March.
Dzeko or fernando llorente for me
Is he?
Don't know where I pulled 24 from..however my point still stands
Dzeko's 24.
Re: Liverpool has changed. Torres to City.
Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:32 amby Blue Since 76
Wouldn't want to put all our eggs in the torres basket, but assuming we're after two strikers, he would be good as one of them. We've seen with Silva and Yaya that it can take 3 months to get used to PL. We can't really afford that, whereas torres would be straight in. My only concern would be giving liverpool the cash. I'd have preferred it when there was a chance it would be pocketed by a couple of yanks
Re: Liverpool has changed. Torres to City.
Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:33 amby Beeks
Esky wrote:IanBishopsHaircut wrote:BadKompany wrote:IanBishopsHaircut wrote:Torres is 24 years old and could be a real asset in the future
27 in March.
Dzeko or fernando llorente for me
Is he?
Don't know where I pulled 24 from..however my point still stands
Dzeko's 24.
That's where I got confused..fucking hell I feel like John68..bedtime methinks
Re: Liverpool has changed. Torres to City.
Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:10 amby Ted Hughes
'Hodgson had pledged on Tuesday to play his one fit star name, Fernando Torres, but had a last-minute change of heart after being persuaded otherwise by his medical staff.'
Hmm. If that's truthfully down to him still being an injury risk & not because of protercting him for an impending transfer, it's just not worth the gamble of us paying fortunes for him. He's had since August to recover ffs.
Re: Liverpool has changed. Torres to City.
Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:01 amby john@staustell
There are several factors here.
Firstly I think the financial situation at the Dippers is more dire than they let on. They need cash either to 'rebuild' or to give NE-whatever some sort of dividend etc. So I dont think it would take the cash of 2 years ago to get him. £30-35M should do it.
Secondly they have clearly overplayed him, and he never was allowed to recover in the last 18 months. Used correctly he will be sensational for us.
Thirdly everyone seems to be talking Torres or Dzeko (or Tevez). Surely if Torres in Jan is possible (and it seems to be) then it would be in addition to the emotional one? And if EMO leaves in the summer then make it Torres and Dzeko.
We are all agreed I think that Adebayor, Jo and Santa Cruz are not where we want to go.
So instead of Tevez, Jo, Ade and RSC why not make it Tevez, Torres and Dzeko (and Jo!)? Or does anyone think you win the PL and Champions League with one striker?