Interpolic Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The West Ham charm offensive will be led by the manager, Sam Allardyce Offensive, yes, charming, no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 So what's the point with that clause then? Just like he would ever be sold for more than £35m. Its pointless, and I see no reason why Mike and Dekka even bothered to include it. I firmly believe they were taking the piss, having a bit of fun at Liverpool's expense. I honestly wouldn't be able to maintain a straight face whilst talking to them about the possible existence of a universe in which Carroll was worth *more than* £35m. Top stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 "We'll hoof it up to you big lad, get some knock downs for Big Kev." Charm offensive over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Newcastle consider improved bid for Liverpool striker Carroll as ... Shields Gazette - 7 minutes ago NEWCASTLE United were today weighing up an increased offer for Andy Carroll ... Liverpool – who paid United £35m for the striker in January last year – want Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The 25% sell on clause applies to any profit over 35 million MohammedLFCFan @MohammedLFCFan @TonyBarretTimes Hey Tony , Mirror report that #NUFC had a 25 per cent sell-on clause from AC sale , any idea if this true or not ? 3h Tony Barrett @TonyBarretTimes @MohammedLFCFan Yes but it only applies if there's a profit, ie Carroll is sold for over £35m which is never going to happen. I don't believe that myself. If someone from NUFC or LFC come out and confirm it then okay, but as has been said, there's no point in even including a sell of fee for any profit. I'd be very surprised. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I'd be very surprised if Liverpool on the other hand would have agreed to a deal including a 25% of any future transfer fee clause after already parting with a massive 35 million. That woud mean they would only ever make a profit on Carroll if they managed to sell him for upwards of 46,6 million. But then, I also fail to see why they would loan him out for the season for 2 million without a guaranteed sale at the end of it (when they're writing off nearly four times that much on the player's value during the same period). Rodgers must really not rate him at all.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I'd be very surprised if Liverpool on the other hand would have agreed to a deal including a 25% of any future transfer fee clause after already parting with a massive 35 million. That woud mean they would only ever make a profit on Carroll if they managed to sell him for upwards of 46,6 million. But then, I also fail to see why they would loan him out for the season for 2 million without a guaranteed sale at the end of it (when they're writing off nearly four times that much on the player's value during the same period). Rodgers must really not rate him at all.. When LFC bought Andy Carroll it was never about selling him or making a profit, they genuinely thought they bought a player who'd go on to retire there, this is why the clause is so believable for me, i've never doubted it, they are that up themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Archie Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I'd be very surprised if Liverpool on the other hand would have agreed to a deal including a 25% of any future transfer fee clause after already parting with a massive 35 million. That woud mean they would only ever make a profit on Carroll if they managed to sell him for upwards of 46,6 million. But then, I also fail to see why they would loan him out for the season for 2 million without a guaranteed sale at the end of it (when they're writing off nearly four times that much on the player's value during the same period). Rodgers must really not rate him at all.. When LFC bought Andy Carroll it was never about selling him or making a profit, they genuinely thought they bought a player who'd go on to retire there, this is why the clause is so believable for me, i've never doubted it, they are that up themselves. spot on, they saw him as torrent replacement and their #9 for the next 10 years. Any sell-on fee would be of purely academic interest. This all spectacularily went to shit, but at the time its perfectly believeable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUFC_Chris Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I just can't see Liverpool selling or even loaning him to us. I'd think they'd rather he went to West Ham but the player won't leave if he doesn't agree it, which appears to be the issue. I can see him staying at Liverpool & fighting for his place, probably then available for a lesser fee in January. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I'd be very surprised if Liverpool on the other hand would have agreed to a deal including a 25% of any future transfer fee clause after already parting with a massive 35 million. That woud mean they would only ever make a profit on Carroll if they managed to sell him for upwards of 46,6 million. But then, I also fail to see why they would loan him out for the season for 2 million without a guaranteed sale at the end of it (when they're writing off nearly four times that much on the player's value during the same period). Rodgers must really not rate him at all.. When LFC bought Andy Carroll it was never about selling him or making a profit, they genuinely thought they bought a player who'd go on to retire there, this is why the clause is so believable for me, i've never doubted it, they are that up themselves. spot on, they saw him as torrent replacement and their #9 for the next 10 years. Any sell-on fee would be of purely academic interest. This all spectacularily went to s***, but at the time its perfectly believeable. You're entitled to believe whatever you want. I just don't think Liverpool wouldn't have given a clause that was likely to cost them millions down the line more than a second thought. The fact it's only ever been reported by one source and not mentioned by Dekka who was desperate to paint this transfer in the best light possible makes me very skeptical about its existence (as a flat out 25% of next transfer fee, not profit based). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 BBC Radio 1 was reporting he has joined West Ham already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I just hope West Ham can secure a deal soon. If they don't, we will be linked until deadline day and we could end up with nothing. Wouldn't be the first time we've done that. If West Ham signed him tomorrow we would have ample time to switch to other targets and no excuse for ending the window short on strikers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I would hope we were looking at other targets simultaneously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 BBC Radio 1 was reporting he has joined West Ham already. fingers crossed it's true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 No, Carroll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast Mags Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 No, Carroll. Good Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 We've just signed Good and already I want us to sell him. It's gonna be 6 years of this 'Good' shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toon25 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Just having a browse through a West 'Am forum,. Interestingly most of them seem to think that £17m is too much and that the money could be far better spent elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 We've just signed Good and already I want us to sell him. It's gonna be 6 years of this 'Good' shit. Not exactly, after this week he probably won't be mentioned for about another 3 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 We've just signed Good and already I want us to sell him. It's gonna be 6 years of this 'Good' shit. Hopefully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Mirror reckons West Ham are offering him a pay rise to go there. £100k. Also: http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8497/87600715.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Dat photoshop, fuck me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Dat photoshop, fuck me. Did you see the RVP one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritchie Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Dat photoshop, fuck me. Did you see the RVP one? http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1151244.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Robin+Van+Persie+Slider :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts