Optimistic Nut Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 To be fair other players aren't going to find a bigger club or salary than Man Utd or City so obviously they're not going to want to leave man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Oh right why did they put transfer requests in then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Because Tevez would have went to Real Madrid probably and got into their side, while Rooney would have got a move to a similar club, or went to City/Chelsea who would have given him the pay he wanted. Man Utd could afford to give him those wages, but you won't get the rest whinging because for most of them Man Utd is as good as it'll get for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Because Tevez would have went to Real Madrid probably and got into their side, while Rooney would have got a move to a similar club, or went to City/Chelsea who would have given him the pay he wanted. Man Utd could afford to give him those wages, but you won't get the rest whinging because for most of them Man Utd is as good as it'll get for them. How many of our players could do better than playing for us? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Oh right why did they put transfer requests in then? more money, money that man utd seemingly can afford and man city wouldn't had they not been backed by arabs. we aren't in a position to run up 70% of turnover going on wages anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 No idea, how many of them will have ridiculously high bids made for them and have their wages bettered? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 You'd have to be a fucking nut to be far and away Man City's best striker (Tevez) and not demand a pay rise, let's be honest. He has at times dragged the team to results this season (and last season too), and when you consider they've made Gareth Barry the ~20th best paid player in world football, you'd have to be barking not to hold them to ransom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 No idea, how many of them will have ridiculously high bids made for them and have their wages bettered? The argument against giving Carroll a new deal was that others would see it as a signal to go cap in hand for a new deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 No idea, how many of them will have ridiculously high bids made for them and have their wages bettered? The argument against giving Carroll a new deal was that others would see it as a signal to go cap in hand for a new deal. And we'd have absolutely no right to refuse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 If we're rejecting a £35m offer, he's by far our biggest asset and surely he would feel should be the biggest earner? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 If we're rejecting a £35m offer, he's by far our biggest asset and surely he would feel should be the biggest earner? Don't talk sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 We probably have reserve players we could sell for more than Alan Smith or Ryan Taylor, does that mean we should be giving them higher wages? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 We probably have reserve players we could sell for more than Alan Smith or Ryan Taylor, does that mean we should be giving them higher wages? Would you rather have sold Carroll or paid him the wages of a player commanding his asking price? Or c), which everyone seems to ignore, neither? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 This is bullshit. At the end of the day, it boils down to whether or not you agree with what the club percieved to be acceptable wages for Carroll and Tiote. If Tiote was on under £10k a week before the new deal, then I agree with them that he is worth a pay rise and contract extension. If Carroll was on ~£35k a week before January 31st, having only been on that increased wage for four months, then it again depends whether you agree that he was worth whatever he was asking for, rumoured to be nearly double that. I for one don't think he was worth that wage considering he demanded it and even brushed off the club's suggestion a new deal would be thrashed out about four months down the line. Put it this way - the club offered to give him a new deal about 8 months into a 66 month contract, and he thought they were being unreasonable. Considering they managed to get £35m for him then I don't particularly disagree with the club one bit on this one. I really find it pathetic how people are saying we should have just given Carroll his mega-money. What's to say another four months down the line he'd not be after another pay rise (and hefty signing on fee/agent fee)? It's a dynamic that could go on forever. Anyone who's seen Mark from Peep Show paying that chav to get his Blackberry back will know the scenario - the party with the power (in this case Carroll) can basically take the piss if the other party (the club) adopts a soft-line approach. EDIT: The criticisms about us not levering a deal for Sturridge/Ngog, or getting someone else in who isn't Kuqi etc, as we held all the cards in the Carroll/Torres deals, I completely accept btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 This is bullshit. At the end of the day, it boils down to whether or not you agree with what the club percieved to be acceptable wages for Carroll and Tiote. If Tiote was on under £10k a week before the new deal, then I agree with them that he is worth a pay rise and contract extension. If Carroll was on ~£35k a week before January 31st, having only been on that increased wage for four months, then it again depends whether you agree that he was worth whatever he was asking for, rumoured to be nearly double that. I for one don't think he was worth that wage considering he demanded it and even brushed off the club's suggestion a new deal would be thrashed out about four months down the line. Put it this way - the club offered to give him a new deal about 8 months into a 66 month contract, and he thought they were being unreasonable. Considering they managed to get £35m for him then I don't particularly disagree with the club one bit on this one. I really find it pathetic how people are saying we should have just given Carroll his mega-money. What's to say another four months down the line he'd not be after another pay rise (and hefty signing on fee/agent fee)? It's a dynamic that could go on forever. Anyone who's seen Mark from Peep Show paying that chav to get his Blackberry back will know the scenario - the party with the power (in this case Carroll) can basically take the p*ss if the other party (the club) adopts a soft-line approach. EDIT: The criticisms about us not levering a deal for Sturridge/Ngog, or getting someone else in who isn't Kuqi etc, as we held all the cards in the Carroll/Torres deals, I completely accept btw. How is not giving one player a new contract because he's just signed one any different to giving another one a contract within the same time frame? The money that Carroll was asking for wasn't given as the issue, him having just signed a contract was and both situations are the same. "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. "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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 It's different because Carroll demanded a new contract or he was off, to our knowledge Tiote did not do that. Also, Tiote was absolutely 100% not on a wage that befitted his squad status. Carroll's wage was debatably about what he should have been on. Yes, he had a brilliant start to the season and an England cap, but it's still very early days in his Premier League career. The offer to renegotiate at the end of the season tops it off, too. It's a perfectly reasonable compromise and Carroll rejected it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 It's different because Carroll demanded a new contract or he was off, to our knowledge Tiote did not do that. Also, Tiote was absolutely 100% not on a wage that befitted his squad status. Carroll's wage was debatably about what he should have been on. Yes, he had a brilliant start to the season and an England cap, but it's still very early days in his Premier League career. The offer to renegotiate at the end of the season tops it off, too. It's a perfectly reasonable compromise and Carroll rejected it. We didn't have to sell him regardless of what he wanted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 It's different because Carroll demanded a new contract or he was off, to our knowledge Tiote did not do that. Also, Tiote was absolutely 100% not on a wage that befitted his squad status. Carroll's wage was debatably about what he should have been on. Yes, he had a brilliant start to the season and an England cap, but it's still very early days in his Premier League career. The offer to renegotiate at the end of the season tops it off, too. It's a perfectly reasonable compromise and Carroll rejected it. We didn't have to sell him regardless of what he wanted. He handed in a transfer request and I think £35m was a good price. I have no problems with that. I agree with the misgivings that we clearly didn't bother getting anyone of sufficient calibre in to replace him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElDiablo Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 50 cent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mantis Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Is this still the Pardew thread? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 50 cent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 It's different because Carroll demanded a new contract or he was off, to our knowledge Tiote did not do that. Also, Tiote was absolutely 100% not on a wage that befitted his squad status. Carroll's wage was debatably about what he should have been on. Yes, he had a brilliant start to the season and an England cap, but it's still very early days in his Premier League career. The offer to renegotiate at the end of the season tops it off, too. It's a perfectly reasonable compromise and Carroll rejected it. I don't see any difference in the two situations other than money which wasn't used as a reason for not giving him a new contract. Carroll only asked for a new contract because he was being offered something which dwarfed the one he was on, I doubt any player in his situation would have handled it any differently. The club decided that they couldn't give him a new contract so soon after signing the previous one, they had no problem doing the same for somebody else who could have also been given a better contract in the summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 He handed in a transfer request and I think £35m was a good price. I have no problems with that. I agree with the misgivings that we clearly didn't bother getting anyone of sufficient calibre in to replace him. The £35 million is only a good price if it improves us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 It's different because Carroll demanded a new contract or he was off, to our knowledge Tiote did not do that. Also, Tiote was absolutely 100% not on a wage that befitted his squad status. Carroll's wage was debatably about what he should have been on. Yes, he had a brilliant start to the season and an England cap, but it's still very early days in his Premier League career. The offer to renegotiate at the end of the season tops it off, too. It's a perfectly reasonable compromise and Carroll rejected it. We didn't have to sell him regardless of what he wanted. Why? If we'd kept him and he'd put in that request in the summer we'd have got maybe 20-25m. There's no guarantee his form would continue or that he'd even put the effort in. We took the deal because it was an astronomical fee. If this was like £15m I'd be on your side, but it's £35m for a player who is far from established. Put it in perspective, Zlatan will cost Milan 24 million. I'd argue just as much as Ashley was pushing Carroll was jumping otherwise he'd have been happy to wait and renegotiate, it was only 6 months away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 To encourage your best player to submit a transfer request, whoever told him to, looks pretty bad. It certainly doesn't look like we put up much of a fight to keep him and the contract situation could have been discussed and a compromise reached (small basic rise + increased bonuses or whatever). We obviously don't know the true events of the end of Jan but something doesn't ring true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts