Tut tut. Bit of revisionism there pal, expect better from you!

Wickham and Marveaux ring a bell?

The money doesn't have to be recuperated from a future sale. If Downing helps Liverpool to get in the Champions league twice in the next 5 seasons his fee will have been recuperated. Would Man U get their £18m back if they sold Michael Carrick tomorrow, or would they think the success they have had as a team during his spell has balanced the fee, which many thought was too much. If Man U spend £35m on Sneijder and replaced Carrick (as an example), would that money be recuperated in a future sale or would Man U deem it a price worth paying if they went on to win the League twice in the next 4 seasons?



I'll think you'll find Dalglish has wanted and tried to sign Downing in January. Did it ever cross your mind he wanted both?

Nonsense, not as if he's the only addition to the squad.

If Liverpool had the same squad as last season (excluding any departures), with the only arrival being Downing, and they made the CL then you could say he helped them make it there - combined with the continued improvement Dalglish has got from the current squad. But, even if they do get there twice in five years, surely this money potentially earned will be used to gloss over the fact they have also overpaid for Carroll and Henderson.

Considering 2 good years in the Champions league could be worth £50m + without taking match ticket and merchandise sales into account, I don't think it is. Liverpool earned over £23m the last time they were in it (2009/10) and they didn't get past the quarter finals.

OK, so we didn't overpay for two players, although it's arguable that we probably should have overpaid for Wickham, considering he's a) A striker; b) very young with huge potential; and c) his fee was actually quite small in comparison to Henderson's, Carroll's and Downing's.

We may make money in other ways, but I always believe every club that spends a big sum, unless they don't need future re-sale money, should always have three/four years ahead of them in mind. I feel that paying £20m for a player - whose value will only decrease - isn't the best piece of business to be making. Although he's contributed to them winning trophies, I don't think United's signing of Berbatov was that great a move, and I don't think they'll get much change from him if they go on to sell him. However, their signing of Hernandez is the complete opposite: cheaper, less risk involved and his price has probably trebled in one season. I understand that United having an established squad means they can go out and not put expectations on a player like Hernandez, but I'd personally rather see us go out and take risks on young players, instead of overpaying on a player who is decent, purely because of the reward factor. With Downing, we know we aren't getting a world class player, we know we aren't getting a player with CL experience and we know that his price tag is only going to decline, so the overpaying factor, for me, is frustrating.

As for wanting both, well, the impression I got (depends on what you believe) was we asked for Young, got told no, tried as hard as we could to change their mind, but they still said no. I never heard too much speculation on Downing in January, but if there was concrete interest, I'd willingly accept we wanted both. Still, for the sake of the debate, I think Young's a better player than Downing. Just has more to his game and asks more of the defence.

Andy has a point though you surely have to take into account all the signings that help you get back in the Champions League, if you do of course, (which hopefully you won't

) so Suarez, Carroll, Henderson and Downing plus anyone else he decides to flash the cash on before the end of August, lot of money to recoup

Balanced by rinsing Chelsea out of £50mil for a player who didn't look half as good as any of those players mentioned last season.

That takes a chunk out of it but they still spent more on Carroll and Suarez before they spent this summer so even in January it was more spent than came in.

I'm certain I read somewhere that the money from Babel as well meant they made a profit in Jan. That was great business if so.

I forgot about him mate, think he went for around £6m so him plus Torres probably balances out their January transfers.

It did. People say Liverpool paid too much for Carroll, and there isn't any doubting that they did, but if it's true what they said straight after the transfer in that they said to Chelsea, you can have Torres for whatever Newcastle want for Carroll + £15mil.

If you'd been offered Carroll + £15mil for Torres in January, that looks like a cracking deal in that respect.

It does because Torres wanted out so they had to sell him and they moved quick to bring a replacement in. There's not doubting on form Torres is a much much better player but Carroll has time and has already proved in the Prem he does have the potential to be a very good striker.