Topic: Torres - The Reasons for Leaving - by Sid Lowe

[actwithoutwords]

Brilliant article. Gives a fairly detailed picture of Torres' state of mind. While it appears to be Torres slanted, it still fairly clearly paints him as selfish, irrational and short sighted in this instance. Implying that FSG didn't mind Torres leaving seems wrong. But at the end of the day, the club came out of a situation where we've lost our best player remarkably well, and that's down to the owners handling of it. They defended the club's interests, which is their job. Their job is not to protect a player's reputation while he leaves the club. The last line is heartbreaking as well. We may not have turned out to be the club he expected, but he didn't turn out to be the person we thought either.

[koolkamal]

It's a well written piece by Sid.

Pretty simple really from our perspective. Torres betrayed us.

From Torres perspective, he went to Chelsea because he feels that's his best chance of winning trophies.

[Ambrosia]

I don't think that section was either ridiculous, or suggested manipulation. Back on Friday when people were asking why we had made the bid and the transfer request public (when Torres' request to 'negotiate' had already been made public - oh, by Sid Lowe and Guillem Ballague), I was of the opinion that that was certainly so that, if it did come to a head and the player moved, the club were ensuring that it was seen as his decision. It would also be logical to think that the owners and the management were aware that Torres certainly wasn't happy and that this course of events might have some merit; at the right price. But they not only made sure Torres was seen to make the decision, they did infact let him do so. The club didn't act cynically, but it did consider it's approach and ensure it could benefit from the situation.

I thought he was implying that Liverpool wanted that transfer to happen and that they actively made it happen. And then he goes on to talk about how Liverpool didn't try to "persuade" him enough to stay. Which is ridiculous because if Liverpool have a player who's been talking to to other clubs, has given that club the go ahead to put in an offer why on earth should Liverpool have "convinced him to stay, enthused him with their plans"?

Propaganda for the neutrals and Chelsea fans to fall for, making him out to be the victim and not the twat he's been portrayed this week, so that they can get back to buying his shirts and his soon to be unveiled book "Torres: My Chelsea Home".

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Brilliant article. Gives a fairly detailed picture of Torres' state of mind. While it appears to be Torres slanted, it still fairly clearly paints him as selfish, irrational and short sighted in this instance. Implying that FSG didn't mind Torres leaving seems wrong. But at the end of the day, the club came out of a situation where we've lost our best player remarkably well, and that's down to the owners handling of it. They defended the club's interests, which is their job. Their job is not to protect a player's reputation while he leaves the club. The last line is heartbreaking as well. We may not have turned out to be the club he expected, but he didn't turn out to be the person we thought either.

Good summary that mate.

[Notayesman]

I don't think that there was really any problem in Torres's underlying desire to leave. If we're being honest the club has been on a downward spiral for a couple of years, he is 27 and we almost certainly won't see CL football here for another season and a half, he's no longer a certainty in the Spanish team and may want to try and rectify that. I can understand those sentiments. However that article (and I generally like Lowe) is simply a defense of Torres and the stuff about Chelsea waiting for the Dzeko simply doesn't add up at all, likewise the bit about the money from his transfer being used to fund Suarez when that deal was well under way (unless someone can tell me otherwise), and while the club were probably not obliged to tell Torres of the bid they probably knew full fucking well that he knew it was coming and not telling him may have only complicated the matter further and it allowed them to control the situation to a degree as redmark suggests. If Torres wanted this move and he did, and probably with good reason, he was going to have to push for it himself.

Of course you could ask the question as to why Suarez wasn't tied up before the final day when the deal seemed to have been ready to go since the Friday as I remember?

[HelterSkelter]

If he was the person he has always held himself up to be, he would of given the new owners a chance. That is the only problem I have with his attitude, and I know he fucking knows it and it will always burn away at him deep inside regardless of any success either team has (which is in the lap of the gods atm). This lad knows exactly what he's done, where as people like Mcmanaman and Owen never really got it. Don't let all the shit fool us, his actions have shown him as a whore, and I think he will be the worse for it.

A little of topic but I was lauging at my bluenose mate at the time, but as the days have gone on it's become a bit sad. There is a house up in Woolton that has always been mistaken for Nandos house. Someone posted it on a webby, post transfer, and he had to clean gloss paint of the driveway doors about Judas c*nt etc, on  top of that he's had to turn tons of people away each day who came to show their disgust. Shirts are being chucked in at regular intervals, but the thing that saddens me is all the kids annuals/books that have started getting dumped over the last day . It hasn't hit me because my kids have took it well,  just how many youngsters hearts he's broken.  Hope he never has a decent nights sleep again, and the fucker knows why

[redmark]

I'm not sure why we're speculating on his mental state all of a sudden. It's not very nice.

But calling him a Judas c*nt is ok?

Through the sale process, I'd thought about various rationalisations Torres had for doing it, including the desire to win something along with the fear that he was no longer (physically) the player he once was. It was the Chelsea TV interview (basically, seeing the blank stare and the physical opposite of his "I'm very happy" statements) that made me think it had become rather more urgent and all-consuming for Torres. Stress, depression, etc. Having had experience of the affects of that sort of mental strain on people, it's certainly not something I'd speculate on lightly - but nor should it be some great taboo that shouldn't be discussed because of the stigma. I certainly see wondering if Torres is suffering some degree of stress or depression to be much less offensive than a lot of the comment on here about his decision.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Basically you can adopt two positions whenever someone does something you do not like.  You can either instantly demonise them or you can attempt to understand why they acted that way.  One is easy but ultimately gains you nothing.  The second takes considerably more effort but can actually be hugely beneficial in the long run - especially if you decide it is because they are a demon after all

[Chakan]

Basically you can adopt two positions whenever someone does something you do not like.  You can either instantly demonise them or you can attempt to understand why they acted that way.  One is easy but ultimately gains you nothing.  The second takes considerably more effort but can actually be hugely beneficial in the long run - especially if you decide it is because they are a demon after all

Or you can just shrug your shoulders and go "Meh"

[drpepe]

I don't think that there was really any problem in Torres's underlying desire to leave. If we're being honest the club has been on a downward spiral for a couple of years, he is 27 and we almost certainly won't see CL football here for another season and a half, he's no longer a certainty in the Spanish team and may want to try and rectify that. I can understand those sentiments. However that article (and I generally like Lowe) is simply a defense of Torres and the stuff about Chelsea waiting for the Dzeko simply doesn't add up at all, likewise the bit about the money from his transfer being used to fund Suarez when that deal was well under way (unless someone can tell me otherwise), and while the club were probably not obliged to tell Torres of the bid they probably knew full fucking well that he knew it was coming and not telling him may have only complicated the matter further and it allowed them to control the situation to a degree as redmark suggests. If Torres wanted this move and he did, and probably with good reason, he was going to have to push for it himself.

Of course you could ask the question as to why Suarez wasn't tied up before the final day when the deal seemed to have been ready to go since the Friday as I remember?

from memory the timeline:

we'd been negotiating to and fro , making various bids at around the 15m mark for suarez

the FT/chelsea thing explodes

we sew up the suarez deal by making a hugely increased bid with a 20m+ offer

seems like the club decided to use (some of) the torres money to finalise the suarez deal? who knows if we would have got suarez or missed out (as we have done so many times before) if the torres offer hadn't come and we'd continued to piss about with 15m offers,...?

[koolkamal]

The second takes considerably more effort but can actually be hugely beneficial in the long run - especially if you decide it is because they are a demon after all

Badoom tshhh

[Snail]

But calling him a Judas c*nt is ok?

Through the sale process, I'd thought about various rationalisations Torres had for doing it, including the desire to win something along with the fear that he was no longer (physically) the player he once was. It was the Chelsea TV interview (basically, seeing the blank stare and the physical opposite of his "I'm very happy" statements) that made me think it had become rather more urgent and all-consuming for Torres. Stress, depression, etc. Having had experience of the affects of that sort of mental strain on people, it's certainly not something I'd speculate on lightly - but nor should it be some great taboo that shouldn't be discussed because of the stigma. I certainly see wondering if Torres is suffering some degree of stress or depression to be much less offensive than a lot of the comment on here about his decision.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I definitely agree with you on the mindless petty insult front. I just feel a little uncomfortable asking questions about someone's mental state when I don't know them.

[Snail]

Or you can just shrug your shoulders and go "Meh"

This is my position.

[vivabobbygraham]

I take issue with his claim that Liverpool first made it public by turning down Chelsea's offer. Ballague was all over sky and twatter after being briefed by Torres' people. This is the PR fight back instigated by those same people who put his transfer in the ether namely Spanish journo friends in the employ of Torres' agents of which Lowe is one and Ballague another. Spin, spin, spin. He is right about one thing though; Torres did lose the PR battle and for this reason......he was a disloyal treacherous rat, badly advised by leeches looking to maximise Torres' earning potential one last time. Liverpool did turn Chelsea down flat at 28 poxy million plus Sturridge. It's an unbalanced article full of contradiction. Don't be fooled by it.

[Notayesman]

from memory the timeline:

we'd been negotiating to and fro , making various bids at around the 15m mark for suarez

the FT/chelsea thing explodes

we sew up the suarez deal by making a hugely increased bid with a 20m+ offer

seems like the club decided to use (some of) the torres money to finalise the suarez deal? who knows if we would have got suarez or missed out (as we have done so many times before) if the torres offer hadn't come and we'd continued to piss about with 15m offers,...?

Yeh that'd make sense. It would also justify his position to a degree as well though.

[alex.]

It's a very good and interesting read and leads me to Christian Purslow's chat with Torres in the Summer. What did he promise him?

Why not go last Summer when things were much worse, when we had terrible owners and a new uninspiring manager in place. I would have understood his decision more if he did it then.

Did Purslow promise him a Man City type owner?

[Ambrosia]

To be honest are people even arguing about his reasons for leaving? we all know Liverpool aren't in a position to provide him with the trophies he wanted so it's understandable he wanted to leave.

It's not understandable why he had to leave the way he did (in a completely twattish manner), and Lowe doesn't exactly do a great job of listing out why it had to be that way.

[redmark]

I thought he was implying that Liverpool wanted that transfer to happen and that they actively made it happen. And then he goes on to talk about how Liverpool didn't try to "persuade" him enough to stay. Which is ridiculous because if Liverpool have a player who's been talking to to other clubs, has given that club the go ahead to put in an offer why on earth should Liverpool have "convinced him to stay, enthused him with their plans"?

Propaganda for the neutrals and Chelsea fans to fall for, making him out to be the victim and not the twat he's been portrayed this week, so that they can get back to buying his shirts and his soon to be unveiled book "Torres: My Chelsea Home".

Remember the sequence of events reported, by Ballague etc; and I think Sid Lowe here glosses over a couple of stages.

- Chelsea made a bid
- Liverpool advised Torres of it: after rejecting it
- Torres asked Liverpool to negotiate with Chelsea
- Chelsea made a second bid
- Ballague/others began to report a Chelsea bid and Torres' request to negotiate
- Liverpool rejected it and publicised the rejection
- Torres hands in transfer request (privately)
- Liverpool reject transfer request (publicly)

Now, if a Telegraph journalist knew by Friday night (as they reported) that Bahia had met with Chelsea several days earlier, perhaps Liverpool also knew. Faced with repeated bids (reportedly at that time, £28m first, then £35m) and a desire by the player to negotiate - along with clear evidence that the player's heart hadn't been in it for quite a while on the pitch, let alone what we couldn't see in training or the dressing room...

Yes, I think in that situation Liverpool (FSG, Comolli, Dalglish) may have quickly come to the conclusion that if Torres continued pushing for the move, it would be in the club's interests to comply, at the right price. As soon as Liverpool made the (second?) bid public, the club was at least partly playing the situation to get the best deal it could if the process continued.

[neil4ad]

I'm not sure why people seem to think that this article is "damage control" for Torres. I don't think that Sid Lowe has an interest here -- and to me his article tells me that the situation isn't black and white, as much as many of those who are bitter about Torres leaving would like it to be.  I actually think that ironically, his departure has left us in a better position than we were with him here. The last line really does say it all.

[Notayesman]

I take issue with his claim that Liverpool first made it public by turning down Chelsea's offer. Ballague was all over sky and twatter after being briefed by Torres' people. This is the PR fight back instigated by those same people who put his transfer in the ether namely Spanish journo friends in the employ of Torres' agents of which Lowe is one and Ballague another. Spin, spin, spin. He is right about one thing though; Torres did lose the PR battle and for this reason......he was a disloyal treacherous rat, badly advised by leeches looking to maximise Torres' earning potential one last time. Liverpool did turn Chelsea down flat at 28 poxy million plus Sturridge. It's an unbalanced article full of contradiction. Don't be fooled by it.

How do you know he was briefed by Torres' people? How are they in his agents employ? They could just be journalists who got their hands on this rumour from reputable sources (as THOMMO is here for example) and they wouldn't be very good sports journalists if they didn't run with that. And just because we turned down the first deal means fuck all, that's what clubs do. It's what happened between us and Ajax.

[51cam]

It's a very good and interesting read and leads me to Christian Purslow's chat with Torres in the Summer. What did he promise him?

Why not go last Summer when things were much worse, when we had terrible owners and a new uninspiring manager in place. I would have understood his decision more if he did it then.

Did Purslow promise him a Man City type owner?

Though the same about moving in the Summer but from a good few pieces I've read, Purslow convinced him to stay as it was likely that one of the clubs star players leaving would damage the potential sale of the club.

[AirConGipsyRed]

Sorry, don't think it's a good article at all.

I am a bit sloshed, so will go into further detail tomorrow.

However, the devil is in the detail. If you can't get the basic details right, which by information, took me 1 minute on google to check, then don't expect me to believe much in the article.

Todays euro exchange rate is 1.1754

£50m = 58.77 m euros NOT 80 m Euros.

I dislike articles that make me to be a fool.

[redmark]

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I definitely agree with you on the mindless petty insult front. I just feel a little uncomfortable asking questions about someone's mental state when I don't know them.

Fair enough, I detest the sort of tabloid speculation on whether so-and-so is going mad, or whatever. I suppose this just feels more 'intimate' and we're used to discussing Liverpool players as if we do know them, or feel free to discuss their ability/lack of/intelligence/attitude pretty much permanently and critically.

[51cam]

I'm not sure why people seem to think that this article is "damage control" for Torres. I don't think that Sid Lowe has an interest here -- and to me his article tells me that the situation isn't black and white, as much as many of those who are bitter about Torres leaving would like it to be.  I actually think that ironically, his departure has left us in a better position than we were with him here. The last line really does say it all.

Of the same opinion!

[drpepe]

It's a very good and interesting read and leads me to Christian Purslow's chat with Torres in the Summer. What did he promise him?

Why not go last Summer when things were much worse, when we had terrible owners and a new uninspiring manager in place. I would have understood his decision more if he did it then.

Did Purslow promise him a Man City type owner?

he wasn;'t allowed to leave i guess (several ITKs have implied that torres, reina and  gerrard were all granted 'concessions' of one sort or another)

the club was sold for what? 300mill was it?

what would it have been worth without  1 or 2 of the big3 players? negative equity....

[drpepe]

Of the same opinion!

me too

[51cam]

Sorry, don't think it's a good article at all.

I am a bit sloshed, so will go into further detail tomorrow.

However, the devil is in the detail. If you can't get the basic details right, which by information, took me 1 minute on google to check, then don't expect me to believe much in the article.

Todays euro exchange rate is 1.1754

£50m = 58.77 m euros NOT 80 m Euros.

I dislike articles that make me to be a fool.

Hes converting to $ mate!But since your sloshed . . . I'll leave you off!

[RJH]

Of course you could ask the question as to why Suarez wasn't tied up before the final day when the deal seemed to have been ready to go since the Friday as I remember?

I think that was for PR purposes.
The club didn't want to see the signing of Suarez lost amongst all the speculation on Torres' likely departure.
Especially since they were also presumably already planning on bringing in another striker as well, and wanted to announce the two transfers on the same day for maximum effect. 

[soberphobia]

Good article but there is undoubtedly some poetic license regarding the signing of suarez. Torres says he wanted the club to show investment and when the new owners do at the first real opportunity He claims its because they are already resigned to selling him??? wtf. talk about damned if you do damned if you don't. He wanted to go. He went. Its over. Time to move on.

[Kingcarra21]

Where in the rules does it say that mate?  I thought that was the whole reason tapping up was "supposedly" outlawed. Officially a club has to ask the club that owns the players registration for permission to talk to that player.  Liverpool could have just said no. 

That doesn't mean that I agree with Lowe's thesis that LFC deliberately told him because they wanted to sell.  That's just a statement of the rules as I understand them.

Could be wrong, pretty sure I read somewhere that clubs have to inform players when another club bids for them. Think they are entitled to know of a bid is made, whether it's rejected or not.

[Stussy]

I take issue with his claim that Liverpool first made it public by turning down Chelsea's offer. Ballague was all over sky and twatter after being briefed by Torres' people. This is the PR fight back instigated by those same people who put his transfer in the ether namely Spanish journo friends in the employ of Torres' agents of which Lowe is one and Ballague another. Spin, spin, spin. He is right about one thing though; Torres did lose the PR battle and for this reason......he was a disloyal treacherous rat, badly advised by leeches looking to maximise Torres' earning potential one last time. Liverpool did turn Chelsea down flat at 28 poxy million plus Sturridge. It's an unbalanced article full of contradiction. Don't be fooled by it.

I wouldn't say that Lowe or any of these lot are in the 'employ' of the agents, but they are definitely friendly with them and they are trusted enough to be sourced.

Definitely an all out PR campaign going on, the agent giving an interview, the brother, the father, Mascherano talking on the phone to him then yapping, yadda yadda yadda.

El Rentboy only has to worry about his new club and their fans. Best way to win the PR battle for them is to score and kiss the badge on Sunday. Its not going to affect his marketability at all.

[HelterSkelter]

Oh forgot to mention in my last post that he (bluenose) was working in a house the Carrol got shown round today , and just to add to his height mystery, he is convinved that he is bigger than our 6ft 8inch mate. While me and the big lad (a red) think he's well wrong, for a bluenose to be saying that the lad is a giant he must be well over the 6ft 3 that the offy claims.

[Ambrosia]

Remember the sequence of events reported, by Ballague etc; and I think Sid Lowe here glosses over a couple of stages.
- Chelsea talk to Torres, get his go ahead
- Chelsea made a bid
- Liverpool advised Torres of it: after rejecting it
- Torres asked Liverpool to negotiate with Chelsea
- Chelsea made a second bid
- Ballague/others began to report a Chelsea bid and Torres' request to negotiate
- Liverpool rejected it and publicised the rejection
- Torres hands in transfer request (privately)
- Liverpool reject transfer request (publicly)

Now, if a Telegraph journalist knew by Friday night (as they reported) that Bahia had met with Chelsea several days earlier, perhaps Liverpool also knew. Faced with repeated bids (reportedly at that time, £28m first, then £35m) and a desire by the player to negotiate - along with clear evidence that the player's heart hadn't been in it for quite a while on the pitch, let alone what we couldn't see in training or the dressing room...

Yes, I think in that situation Liverpool (FSG, Comolli, Dalglish) may have quickly come to the conclusion that if Torres continued pushing for the move, it would be in the club's interests to comply, at the right price. As soon as Liverpool made the (second?) bid public, the club was at least partly playing the situation to get the best deal it could if the process continued.

You missed out one point.

Bottom line, is Torres initiated the deal. He wanted it to happen, which Liverpool accepted. They then of course proceeded to negotiate the best possible deal for Liverpool. Liverpool didn't have a choice in this whatever people say. Torres' is a marketing dream, and with FSG's plans to expand our global base, he would presumably be the face of it all. I don't for a moment believe they would have sold Torres to a rival at our very own expense, on and off the pitch. No, this deal is as black and white as it comes. Torres holds all the blame.

[Notayesman]

I think that was for PR purposes.
The club didn't want to see the signing of Suarez lost amongst all the speculation on Torres' likely departure.
Especially since they were also presumably already planning on bringing in another striker as well, and wanted to announce the two transfers on the same day for maximum effect. 

A tad risky though isn't it, I mean stalling over a deal like that. Not sure myself, doesn't really matter anyway I suppose.

[Stussy]

Basically you can adopt two positions whenever someone does something you do not like.  You can either instantly demonise them or you can attempt to understand why they acted that way.  One is easy but ultimately gains you nothing.  The second takes considerably more effort but can actually be hugely beneficial in the long run - especially if you decide it is because they are a demon after all

Its true. You can still demonise them after understanding why they acted as they did though.

[Notayesman]

You missed out one point.

Bottom line, is Torres initiated the deal. He wanted it to happen, which Liverpool accepted. They then of course proceeded to negotiate the best possible deal for Liverpool. Liverpool didn't have a choice in this whatever people say. Torres' is a marketing dream, and with FSG's plans to expand our global base, he would presumably be the face of it all. I don't for a moment believe they would have sold Torres to a rival at our very own expense, on and off the pitch. No, this deal is as black and white as it comes. Torres holds all the blame.

Well Chelsea initiated the deal, Torres just had to make a decision as did the club who could have quite easily held him under contract. Yes he'd have probably sulk for a while but even Van Hooijdonk eventually played for Forest again. Maybe FSG unlike G&H see the marketing dream in the form of future success rather that the odd marquee player here and there but little to back it up.

[redmark]

You missed out one point.

Bottom line, is Torres initiated the deal. He wanted it to happen, which Liverpool accepted. They then of course proceeded to negotiate the best possible deal for Liverpool. Liverpool didn't have a choice in this whatever people say. Torres' is a marketing dream, and with FSG's plans to expand our global base, he would presumably be the face of it all. I don't for a moment believe they would have sold Torres to a rival at our very own expense, on and off the pitch. No, this deal is as black and white as it comes. Torres holds all the blame.

Didn't miss it, I'd already said it in another post. But I don't think it's the core of the point I was responding to. Of course Torres wanted to leave. But once Liverpool knew that, I think - in part - that also suited the club and so we rightly got the best deal we could; and importantly, the club protected itself by making sure Torres demonstrably pushed for the move with the transfer request. And I think that's all Lowe is really saying, too.

[Notayesman]

And how is this any different to the Liverpool-Newcastle-Andy Carroll situation anyway? Except instead of Lowe/Balague doing the excusing it's a mate on the radion via text. Sorry but these double standards don't apply too well to the real world of football transfers.

[Notayesman]

Didn't miss it, I'd already said it in another post. But I don't think it's the core of the point I was responding to. Of course Torres wanted to leave. But once Liverpool knew that, I think - in part - that also suited the club and so we rightly got the best deal we could; and importantly, the club protected itself by making sure Torres demonstrably pushed for the move with the transfer request. And I think that's all Lowe is really saying, too.

Exactly.

[vivabobbygraham]

How do you know he was briefed by Torres' people? How are they in his agents employ? They could just be journalists who got their hands on this rumour from reputable sources (as THOMMO is here for example) and they wouldn't be very good sports journalists if they didn't run with that. And just because we turned down the first deal means fuck all, that's what clubs do. It's what happened between us and Ajax.

I agree turning down the first deal means 'fuck all'. My point was, among many other inconsistencies in the article, Lowe stated that Liverpool went public first by turning it down. They did not. Ballague broke the story and Lowe followed. If you want to call Torres' agents 'reputable sources' that's your perogative, but that's where the 'rumour' was coming from and there's fuck all you can say to convince me otherwise. I don't call that good journalism, I call that dancing to someone else's tune