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 ! 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. I don't think he would mind having to stay with us. Have a feeling he isn't that happy with how things worked out. Maybe I'm just being sentimental, but at least believing when Carroll says his sad to be leaving, will help me sleep at night. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGSC Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Andy Carroll is a disgusting human being. wtf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree 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. Interesting that is. According to a few on here thats completely ridiculous Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnonel 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. Interesting that is. According to a few on here thats completely ridiculous Carrol is allowed to ask for more. MA is allowed to say no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob 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 like. 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. If £40k is a very good wage to make him stay then surely £40k more is a very good wage to make him want to leave?! (Assuming the figures quoted are correct) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG 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. f***ing 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 f***ing pittance here for christ sake. Whether it was him, his agent or Ashley and Llambias it was all done out of f***ing greed, not for footballing reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree 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. Interesting that is. According to a few on here thats completely ridiculous Carrol is allowed to ask for more. MA is allowed to say no. You obviously don't get the point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoU 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. Interesting that is. According to a few on here thats completely ridiculous Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 The thing is, there's no such thing as the market value of a footballer, so there's no reason NUFC should always up a players wages to what he would have earned elsewhere. They have to manage the finances of the club in the best interests of everyone, based on their strategy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Andy Carroll is a disgusting human being. wtf Never noticed before, how his face makes me gag. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 The thing is, there's no such thing as the market value of a footballer, so there's no reason NUFC should always up a players wages to what he would have earned elsewhere. They have to manage the finances of the club in the best interests of everyone, based on their strategy. 30-40 k however you see it - is raisable for one of our best player. Didn't we take Ireland on a 40 k loan deal just now? Fucks sake.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz 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. Interesting that is. According to a few on here thats completely ridiculous Carrol is allowed to ask for more. MA is allowed to say no. Exactly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGSC Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 The thing is, there's no such thing as the market value of a footballer, so there's no reason NUFC should always up a players wages to what he would have earned elsewhere. They have to manage the finances of the club in the best interests of everyone, based on their strategy. 30-40 k however you see it - is raisable for one of our best player. Ok, but why must it be on Carrolls terms and when he wants it? I'm sure the club would reassess the situation at seasons end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 The thing is, there's no such thing as the market value of a footballer, so there's no reason NUFC should always up a players wages to what he would have earned elsewhere. They have to manage the finances of the club in the best interests of everyone, based on their strategy. 30-40 k however you see it - is raisable for one of our best player. Didn't we take Ireland on a 40 k loan deal just now? f***s sake.. Fuck me! he can hardly buy a loaf of bread with that money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 The thing is, there's no such thing as the market value of a footballer, so there's no reason NUFC should always up a players wages to what he would have earned elsewhere. They have to manage the finances of the club in the best interests of everyone, based on their strategy. 30-40 k however you see it - is raisable for one of our best player. After 6 good months though, some players have peaks like these in their career and then they fall flat on their face. 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 like. 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. If £40k is a very good wage to make him stay then surely £40k more is a very good wage to make him want to leave?! (Assuming the figures quoted are correct) To make him stay at his boyhood club, his hometown city, yes. To make him leave for a club arguably as fucked up as we are, no. £40k a week he was earning? At the club of his dreams. FORTY THOUSAND POUNDS A WEEK. Short career or not, that's a fucking gigantic sum of money, and surely he was doing his absolute dream job too? If his motivation to leave us was for more money at Liverpool rather than 10 years wearing the #9 for us, well fuck him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanSkÃrare Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'm not sure exactly why, but I'm not that pissed off with Carroll. It seems Ashley and Llambias got the ball rolling on this one and eventually led him to leave the club. I don't think he deserves all the shit that is thrown at him, even though it's questionable when a player who supposedly had such affection for the club couldn't wait four months for a new contract. Hope we bring him back someday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 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. Wait it's not the end of the conspiracy theory yet! Fat Mike had a clause in the deal that prohibited Liverpool from playing Carroll in the next few weeks and where Dalglish had to go on record saying that Carroll is indeed injured so that Ashley would not be accused of orchestrating the whole deal including the injury part Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz 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. Interesting that is. According to a few on here thats completely ridiculous Carrol is allowed to ask for more. MA is allowed to say no. You obviously don't get the point. What exactly is the point here? That because Liverpool made a ludicrous bid Mike Ashley should instantly rush to treble AC's wages. Thats a f***ing daft point tbf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 The thing is, there's no such thing as the market value of a footballer, so there's no reason NUFC should always up a players wages to what he would have earned elsewhere. They have to manage the finances of the club in the best interests of everyone, based on their strategy. The other thing is we are not in Europe like Liverpool or Spurs so we don't have the resources to pay daft wages at this time. It's a shame Carroll couldn't wait and be part of the team that got us back into Europe rather than run to Anfield for the money. But understandable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Hope we bring him back someday. Agree Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 You would think some of our fans would know better about putting players on stupid wages after the financial mess it put us in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Hope we bring him back someday. Agree Why? He's run off to join a rival for a massive pay rise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 You would think some of our fans would know better about putting players on stupid wages after the financial mess it put us in. They couldn't care less. Not their money. 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. Standard procedure under a regime that had no control over its spending. As I said before, it's fair enough for Carroll to use this rival offer to attempt to get a pay rise from NUFC (I've done that myself at work). But Ashley is well within his rights to tell him to bugger off. Sooo both parties were right to act the way they did?! As far as I'm concerned, the ettquette of wanting to be compensated slightly for potential loss of earnings wasn't exclusive to Newcastle United c/o Shepherd, to suggest otherwise is madness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts