Dave Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~2275463,00.html I look forward to the day we have as much ambition as Blackpool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Of course "iron man" Hughton would never have allowed Andy Carroll to hand in a transfer request or be sold to Liverpool for £35 million would he? He didn't allow him to hand in a transfer request, he told him to hand it in. "Derek [Llambias] asked me to hand in a transfer request, so I was pushed into a corner and had no choice." Pardew says he told him to put it in writing - not "please stay", not "here's why you shouldn't leave" but "fine, put it in writing". Is that what you want from a manager? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 No, I think he had a choice. I'm just countering the idea that it was Pardew who 'told him' to hand in a transfer request. Pardew told the BBC that it was him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 So Carroll's wrong and Pardew tells the truth? This is quite a change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 So Carroll's wrong and Pardew tells the truth? This is quite a change. No idea, I'm just quoting Pardew who had nothing at all to gain from lying on this matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TherealnorthernTOON Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 offcourse you have a choice, what nutmeg gives money to someone who forces you out? If he wanted bad things to happend to Ashley he never would have put in that transfer request. Its 3.5 mill wouldn't you take that in a snap if you could? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 So Carroll's wrong and Pardew tells the truth? This is quite a change. Or neither are lying? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Of course "iron man" Hughton would never have allowed Andy Carroll to hand in a transfer request or be sold to Liverpool for £35 million would he? He didn't allow him to hand in a transfer request, he told him to hand it in. "Derek [Llambias] asked me to hand in a transfer request, so I was pushed into a corner and had no choice." Pardew says he told him to put it in writing - not "please stay", not "here's why you shouldn't leave" but "fine, put it in writing". Is that what you want from a manager? in the interview with pardew where he says that it was in response to carroll saying that he wanted to talk to liverpool. i don't really think "please stay" would've worked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 And if we're quoting from BBC: "We didn't twist his arm to get on the helicopter. If he wanted to stay he could, but he's not here." "He had a five-year contract and we said we would renew it in the summer but he wanted it renewed straight away and that is when the power shifted." Not as though he just said "You're not getting a new contract, f*** off. I don't want you here." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 And if we're quoting from BBC: "We didn't twist his arm to get on the helicopter. If he wanted to stay he could, but he's not here." "He had a five-year contract and we said we would renew it in the summer but he wanted it renewed straight away and that is when the power shifted." Not as though he just said "You're not getting a new contract, f*** off. I don't want you here." What has that to do with Pardew telling him to hand in a transfer request? You've missed out "And it wasn't just about Andy Carroll [on Monday]. If we did a deal with him where does that leave everyone else at the club? If he scores another five goals does he get another contract? We gave Tiote an improved contract in roughly the same time frame as Carroll was after one, what's the difference? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 And if we're quoting from BBC: "We didn't twist his arm to get on the helicopter. If he wanted to stay he could, but he's not here." "He had a five-year contract and we said we would renew it in the summer but he wanted it renewed straight away and that is when the power shifted." Not as though he just said "You're not getting a new contract, f*** off. I don't want you here." What has that to do with Pardew telling him to hand in a transfer request? You've missed out "And it wasn't just about Andy Carroll [on Monday]. If we did a deal with him where does that leave everyone else at the club? If he scores another five goals does he get another contract? We gave Tiote an improved contract in roughly the same time frame as Carroll was after one, what's the difference? if the rumours are to be believed tiote has gone from shit pay to decent pay, carroll wanted to go from decent to top earner at the club, also one was an award, the other was a demand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Spot on madras. Although Tiote's contract could also be seen as a move to fend of potential suitors. Carroll should have waited until end of season. He'd only been playing playing PL-football for 4 months but still insisted to be the top earner, which is a ludicrous demand.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 What has that to do with Pardew telling him to hand in a transfer request? Never said it had anything to do with a transfer request. Wullie implied that Pardew didn't do anything to tell Carroll to stay, that says otherwise. You've missed out "And it wasn't just about Andy Carroll [on Monday]. If we did a deal with him where does that leave everyone else at the club? If he scores another five goals does he get another contract? We gave Tiote an improved contract in roughly the same time frame as Carroll was after one, what's the difference? Tiote didn't get a payrise three months prior to signing a new contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mantis Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 round and round and round. They have given him a rope, he's just taking his time figuring out what to do with it. Roll on Christmas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 if the rumours are to be believed tiote has gone from s*** pay to decent pay, carroll wanted to go from decent to top earner at the club, also one was an award, the other was a demand. One was to potentially keep a player who was our best forward at the club, the other probably wasn't to keep Tiote here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Tiote didn't get a payrise three months prior to signing a new contract. I think Tiote did get a pay rise when he signed his original contract only a few months earlier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Tiote didn't get a payrise three months prior to signing a new contract. I think Tiote did get a pay rise when he signed his original contract only a few months earlier. It still reads as one pay rise this season, the same as Carroll got. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1352505/Andy-Carroll-transfer-Newcastle-boss-Pardew-claims-hell-penny-reinvest.html "The one thing I said to Mike yesterday was, "Look, if this boy is going to go, this money has to be reinvested in the team, all of it", and he has assured me of that." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/12885666.stm "Mike Ashley has made that commitment that the money will go back into the club." Spot the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 It still reads as one pay rise this season, the same as Carroll got. It's still double standards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 It still reads as one pay rise this season, the same as Carroll got. It's still double standards. Not really. If Tiote comes to Llambias at the end of the season and demands a pay rise, he'll tell him to f*** off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Not really. If Tiote comes to Llambias at the end of the season and demands a pay rise, he'll tell him to f*** off. It's double standards, they'd both signed contracts with the club within months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Not really. If Tiote comes to Llambias at the end of the season and demands a pay rise, he'll tell him to f*** off. It's double standards, they'd both signed contracts with the club within months. Pay rise -> Pay rise Original contract -> Pay rise Not double standards to me, two different situations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Fair enough, I think Pardew is a massive leap backwards and will completely fuck us up next season, if he doesn't take us down this one. Who cares what the player wants? He was contracted to us, a brand new one. Fabregas wanted out of Arsenal. Who does he play for now? As for putting it in writing, Pardew even admits that he never even attempted to convince him to stay but just gave him the pen. The club were fucking desperate to get shot of Carroll. For me Pardew is a huge step backwards too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Pay rise -> Pay rise Original contract -> Pay rise Not double standards to me, two different situations. They were both within months of signing a contract, one was offered a new one the other wasn't. A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations. The concept implies that a single set of principles encompassing all situations (a "single standard") is the desirable ideal. Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/double-standard#ixzz1I1NoEsdt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 We obviously have a different interpretation then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts