Big Andy
- Thread starter Dreambeliever
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Think reason mentioned here and elsewhere is that AC refused to have the 'move will be permi' option in the deal. Hence the change.
Having said that, would we be surprised if our famous LFC 'negotiation super skills' came to the fore and were responsible for the new deal? If only Parry was still here.
All managers make stupid transfers, Rafa made some awful ones toward the end. Many of our most wasteful transfers were caused by basically trying to buy players on layaway. I loathe Hodgson, but purchases like Joe Cole were motivated entirely by awful short term thinking due to our parlous financing, and their reverberations are still being felt.
The purchases of Carroll and Downing in particular were absurdly wasteful, and that was obvious to many at the time. They were precisely the sort of thing that a director of football is meant to prevent from happening, i.e. money burning a hole in the pocket leading toward the risky purchase of unsuitable players when there is no value in the market.
Our dealings in general this summer seem to have been a lot better, though I'm quite worried about the fact that we don't seem to have bought a lot of goals, and it is only early days. It's unfortunate that we didn't make similarly good decisions when we had some money to throw around.
The purchases of Carroll and Downing in particular were absurdly wasteful, and that was obvious to many at the time. They were precisely the sort of thing that a director of football is meant to prevent from happening, i.e. money burning a hole in the pocket leading toward the risky purchase of unsuitable players when there is no value in the market.
Our dealings in general this summer seem to have been a lot better, though I'm quite worried about the fact that we don't seem to have bought a lot of goals, and it is only early days. It's unfortunate that we didn't make similarly good decisions when we had some money to throw around.
Yep - we played hardball and managed to get them to reduce their offer.
Our transfer negotiators are awesome.
Buy Andy - thanks for all the memories....
..... To be honest the horse tripping over the ball is still his finest moment.
It's a bit pointless to think about this transfer too much. Either he would perform OK from time to time in a team that isn't designed for him, and thus we wouldn't extract anywhere near what we spent for him, or we sell him at a massive loss now. One of those things was always going to happen, sooner or later. He'd never have performed really well, he'd never have got a lot of games, he'd probably have justifiably got really annoyed/discouraged. The fact that he moped around for a large part of last year, when he was given some games, doesn't speak to his being able to force his way into the plans of a manager whose style is anathema to Andy Carroll.
Neither result is that good. It's just one of many many failures that we just need to forget about as a club, hopefully learn from, and just start making one good decision after another, put some wins together, and all those other cliches.
It was clearly the previous management teams silliness for signing the guy and not just him either but if we were so completely definitively set on getting him of the wage bill then we should have sold him for the best offer, in fact i'd go as far as to say its the first occasion that ive ever heard of a team accepting the weaker offer from the same fucking club.
Dozy in the extreme.
Dozy in the extreme.
Yes.
I think I read somewhere that it could have to do with Carroll refusing to move to West Ham on a permanent basis, so we had to just settle with a 3-way option which he could refuse to accept at the end of the loan.
So this means we don't have 17 million to spend as we would have if the original offer from West Ham (loan and force buy unless they get relegated) was feasible. Which in turn means we can't make anymore signings except loans. Therefore Dempsey and Walcott will not happen, but Sturridge on loan is possible.
We've saved 4M in wages on Carroll, plus we got 1.5M for him, and I'd say we'll sell Adam and Spearing - so all that togethor will fund Dempsey and someone on loan I'd say.
Dempsey is not going to play for free, is he? His wages will not be much lower than Carroll's, if at all. Therefore, all we have is the 1.5 million loan fee. At least that's how I understand it.
We'll get 7M for Adam and Spearing is my guess. That covers it.
People need to realise that Carroll could not be forced to sign permanently for WHU if he didnt want to. Of course nobody here knows the full facts, but the commonly held belief was that if he was moving his choice was back to Newcastle.
They didnt offer the money we wanted so I can only assume that this was the best deal we could get to move him off the payroll.
They didnt offer the money we wanted so I can only assume that this was the best deal we could get to move him off the payroll.
I'm not going to respond in the middle of the fucking night, am I - so what's the point? It's like being heckled by Count Dracula!
We aren't selling Jay, it's a loan. Can't imagine it will be a noticeable loan fee.
Ahem !
So Rodgers only refuses to loan him to Newcastle, but for West Ham or anyone else it's no problem? I'm not the one being a dick in that case.
EPL rules state a loanee cannot play against the loaning club
WHU must have let us do the medical
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
