Liverpool FC: Selling Fernando Torres Was the Deal of the Century
But in a statement on their official Web site, The Reds ridiculed the bid.
“Chelsea have made a bid for Fernando which has been turned down,” a Liverpool spokesman said, according to The Times. “The player is not for sale.”
But conflicting reports suggested that the Liverpool boardroom were very interested in the bid, reportedly telling the London-based club to come back with a significantly improved bid by that very Saturday.
Then, in the late hours of Jan. 28, Liverpool's official website came out with an updated statement, revealing that Torres had handed in a transfer request but it had been rejected. At this point, Liverpool fans knew they were going to lose the player who they had loved since day one, all the way back in July of 2007.
Finally, on the last day of the transfer window, Torres agreed terms with Chelsea after the Reds accepted a £50 million bid. Despite the weeping of Liverpool fans, it turned out to be a stroke of genius. For a lot of reasons.
First and foremost, the money. In his final season at Anfield, Torres looked lethargic and uninspired, totally out of the game and unable to help Liverpool go forward and score. His first touch was atrocious and his shooting even worse—El Niño didn't even look good enough to play for the reserves.
Yet, Chelsea came along and decided to pay £50 million for the Spaniard, and Liverpool jumped at the opportunity.
And they will never regret it. But Chelsea definitely have, as Torres hasn't scored in 900 minutes of football.
That's what £50 million buys you, apparently.
Secondly, Liverpool have got rid of a player who thought he was bigger than the club.
As Kenny Dalglish pointed out, no player is bigger than Liverpool FC, yet Torres thought he was and subsequently handed in a transfer request. No player should be at the club against their will—they have to want it and wear the jersey with pride.
With all that said, I can only say one thing:
Liverpool will never, ever regret selling Fernando Torres.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?