madras Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 No idea why, but i'd sooner trust Pardew than Carroll But how much does Pardew actually know. This board have a knack for doing things behind peoples backs. well he reckons it was he that told carroll to put it in writing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I was out all day yesterday so couldn't properly follow what happened in full. Would it be correct to say that a 30m bid came in, was rejected, then a 35m bid came in, Carroll said I want a new contract (with presumably higher wages), Cashley and Lambias said no, so Carroll puts in a transfer request to make it easier for the transfer to be made? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Dalglish: "Andy Carroll has a bit of a knock and is probably a few wks away from playing, but the signing wasn't made to cover a few wks" http://www.bootcampking.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/NoShitSherlock.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 What actually happened: Liverpool: "£30m for Andy Carroll? We'd like this to be dealt with ASAP as we need cover so we can sell Torres for a ridiculous amount of money." Newcastle: "Hm... that's not a terrible bid, but I'm afraid we'll have to reject it. Sorry." Liverpool: "Okay, okay, £35m plus add ons." Newcastle: "Very tempting. Tell you what, give us an hour or so." Andy Carroll is called into the room. Newcastle: "So, Liverpool are offering a huge amount of money for you and we'd like to accept it. How do you feel about this?" Andy: "Really? They'll offer me more money! I'd love to stay at NUFC and wear the number 9 for many years but only if you can match Liverpool's wages." Newcastle: "lol no" Andy: "Please?" Newcastle: "You've only just signed a contract, we can't renegotiate now. We said we'd look at it in the summer and that stands." Andy: "I'd like to speak to my agent." Andy leaves to talk to his agent. Agent: "Liverpool are in for you? My god! I'll be rich!" Andy: "So I should take it?" Agent: "We'll hand in a transfer request right now!" Andy receives another text from Steve Wraith. He tells him what the fans want to hear - bad press for the 'cockney mafia' - largely to save face so he doesn't go down in history as the most traitorous number 9 we have ever had. They enter the board room again. Andy: "After speaking with my agent, I've decided I can't possibly live off £40,000 a week and have therefore decided to hand in a transfer request." Newcastle: "Suits us, righto." Cue Mike, Derek and Alan popping Dom Perignon and Cristal and smoking Cuban's. Summary: Everybody is in the wrong and while we got a good amount of money for it, we should never have let him go. Likewise should Andy have simply refused terms with Liverpool; he remains to be the most traitorous number 9 we've ever had and the board strongly hint at a huge lack of ambition once again. Such is the soap opera of Newcastle United Football Club. just about spot on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoU Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I was out all day yesterday so couldn't properly follow what happened in full. Would it be correct to say that a 30m bid came in, was rejected, then a 35m bid came in, Carroll said I want a new contract (with presumably higher wages), Cashley and Lambias said no, so Carroll puts in a transfer request to make it easier for the transfer to be made? As far as I understand, they were discussing a new contract before the bids came in. What happened after the 35m bid came in is then up to discussion, Carroll says they withdrew from contract talks and that Derek asked him to hand in a transfer request. Pards and Derek says Andy is an illoyal liar! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I was out all day yesterday so couldn't properly follow what happened in full. Would it be correct to say that a 30m bid came in, was rejected, then a 35m bid came in, Carroll said I want a new contract (with presumably higher wages), Cashley and Lambias said no, so Carroll puts in a transfer request to make it easier for the transfer to be made? As far as I understand, they were discussing a new contract before the bids came in. What happened after the 35m bid came in is then up to discussion, Carroll says they withdrew from contract talks and that Derek asked him to hand in a transfer request. Pards and Derek says Andy is an illoyal liar! They didn't withdraw, they said they would wait until the summer. Which is spot on with they did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MrSundlofer Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGSC Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. What sort of example does that set? Give in to player demands or watch them walk out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoU Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I was out all day yesterday so couldn't properly follow what happened in full. Would it be correct to say that a 30m bid came in, was rejected, then a 35m bid came in, Carroll said I want a new contract (with presumably higher wages), Cashley and Lambias said no, so Carroll puts in a transfer request to make it easier for the transfer to be made? As far as I understand, they were discussing a new contract before the bids came in. What happened after the 35m bid came in is then up to discussion, Carroll says they withdrew from contract talks and that Derek asked him to hand in a transfer request. Pards and Derek says Andy is an illoyal liar! They didn't withdraw, they said they would wait until the summer. Which is spot on with they did. If they already were discussing a new contract, then saying to wait 'till summer is a signal of intent imo. But the real question is really if Derek asked him to hand in the transfer request as Carroll states (if you can trust the quotes). I still continue to hold Derek and Carroll's agent responsible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Dalglish: "Andy Carroll has a bit of a knock and is probably a few wks away from playing, but the signing wasn't made to cover a few wks" http://www.bootcampking.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/NoShitSherlock.jpg I suppose it does at least put paid to the conspiracy theory, hinted at by True Faith and others, about Carroll not really being injured and simply being kept fresh for a high value sale on 31st January. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. So was Carroll bigger than club then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MrSundlofer Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. What sort of example does that set? Give in to player demands or watch them walk out. This things happen all the time in football. If they regard him as invaluable to the team: offer him a better contract and reject offer from Liverpool. Bye the way, good post Thump 1892. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoU Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. What sort of example does that set? Give in to player demands or watch them walk out. Player demands!? He could have just rejected the bid from Liverpool. Also it doesn't seem unusual or unreasonable to me that young players get renegotiate their contracts quite often, when they make a name for themselves. Like going from being a championship striker to a top premiership striker and England international ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MrSundlofer Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. So was Carroll bigger than club then? No, but he was one of our most valuable players? We could just have rejected the offer and sell him in the summer (and I think that was the plan.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Remember reading in SBR's book that it was standard procedure to "adjust" a players wages if a bid is rejected from another club to compensate for what the player might have earned at the new club - looks like another case of Ashley and co not understanding football! Having said that if you look at the names that Carroll is alongside in the highest transfers fees list you can empathise with the club a little bit; +£35m is a huge number, if only the equation was as simple as this, i'd rather have £35m invested in the squad with no Carroll than having the current squad with Carroll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. So was Carroll bigger than club then? And if they had given in to Carroll it is tantamount to giving every player in the squad an invitation to rush in and demand to renegotiate their contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoU Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. So was Carroll bigger than club then? Of course not, just a damn important player for the clubs future and the fans. Is it unreasonable that his contract reflects that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I was out all day yesterday so couldn't properly follow what happened in full. Would it be correct to say that a 30m bid came in, was rejected, then a 35m bid came in, Carroll said I want a new contract (with presumably higher wages), Cashley and Lambias said no, so Carroll puts in a transfer request to make it easier for the transfer to be made? As far as I understand, they were discussing a new contract before the bids came in. What happened after the 35m bid came in is then up to discussion, Carroll says they withdrew from contract talks and that Derek asked him to hand in a transfer request. Pards and Derek says Andy is an illoyal liar! Why would they negotiate a new deal a few months after agreeing a massive one? It would appear that they offered to renegotiate in the summer after the pressure of the bids, but that wasn't good enough for Carroll/his agent so he jumped ship (and as Thumps script illustrates, the main parties probably all felt ok with that). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Carroll was happy to negotiate a new contract in October. It's not our fault or his that teams from the Champions League/Europe can come and dangle a double your pay offer in front of his nose. We aren't in a position to do that yet, solet's just take the money and rebuild. Andy Carroll is gone and now just another scouse cunt. End of story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thump 1892 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. So was Carroll bigger than club then? No, but he was one of our most valuable players? We could just have rejected the offer and sell him in the summer (and I think that was the plan.) We wouldn't have done that. This is the last window without the Financial Fair Play rules so we wouldn't have got anywhere near that for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoU Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. So was Carroll bigger than club then? And if they had given in to Carroll it is tantamount to giving every player in the squad an invitation to rush in and demand to renegotiate their contract. Just for the young players that establish themselves as key players for the team and a top player in the division. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. What sort of example does that set? Give in to player demands or watch them walk out. Player demands!? He could have just rejected the bid from Liverpool. Also it doesn't seem unusual or unreasonable to me that young players get renegotiate their contracts quite often, when they make a name for themselves. Like going from being a championship striker to a top premiership striker and England international ! You could argue that it's not unreasonable for the club to ask him to complete his first full season in top flight, and see how he gets on, before renegotiating in the summer, either. Seems AC didn't want to wait. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. Fucking sick to death of people saying things like this. He was earning a very good wage, and would have earned at least that for the next 5 1/2 years, playing for his boyhood club, wearing the 'famous' number 9 shirt that he dreamt about wearing, playing in front of 50,000 adoring fans every home game. For a geordie lad, that surely has to be worth more than a bigger pay packet somewhere else. He wasn't earning a fucking pittance here for christ sake. Whether it was him, his agent or Ashley and Llambias it was all done out of fucking greed, not for footballing reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. So was Carroll bigger than club then? Of course not, just a damn important player for the clubs future and the fans. Is it unreasonable that his contract reflects that. He could've waited untill the summer, he just signed a new contract ffs no need to be so greedy. as far as i'm concerned and this is coming from a guy whos been behind Carroll since he was in the reserves and never doubted his abillites, he can fuck off, he won't be as good with them as he was with us and hopefully he'll regret moving there. we'll manage without him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoU Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll. He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here. So was Carroll bigger than club then? No, but he was one of our most valuable players? We could just have rejected the offer and sell him in the summer (and I think that was the plan.) We wouldn't have done that. This is the last window without the Financial Fair Play rules so we wouldn't have got anywhere near that for him. And then we wouldn't have sold him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts