Andy Carroll, what does he do?

[neopulian]

Cheers.

 

So we could in theory end up with almost twenty million back, not bad.

 

No, The best we can get out of this deal is the transfer fee West Ham is paying (15.5 mils isn't it?), at worst it's that amount - 2 mils. If somehow all the add-on clauses can be exercised, that 2 mils will only cover the 2 mil pay-out we have to give to shit Andy because he didn't ask for a transfer.

[Sweeney287]

I am still shocked that WHU have agreed to his terms. 100k per week is just rediculous, especially for a club of their size.

 

If they go down, they will not be able to sell him on as no other club will be daft enough to equal his salary.

 

Anyway, 80k of our wage bill and 15 million to put towards signing Mker..Mike the Armenian chap.

[The Guest]

Andy Carroll is far away from being the worst buy we have made money wise and certainly ability wise.

 

He's up there with being one of the worst pieces of business in any type of business ever, never mind football.

 

35 million fucking pound for Andy Carroll. Just let that sit there for a minute. Imagine Rafa had spent that money on him. What would you be saying then?

 

You could maybe say that Stewart Downing comes close at 20m providing 0 assists and 0 goals in 36 league appearances in his first season but then again he was signed by Kenny as well so let's rule that out of your one track mind.

 

If you said he isn't our worst buy ever money wise I would think you were slightly stupid but to say he is far away from being it is downright criminal/section-able. I see you didn't suggest any other signings as there quite clearly aren't any.

[PaulMcC]

I wouldn't be surprised if we're paying some of his wages.

[jsims]

Rumours are its 16 million + 3 million add ons (bbc gossip column)

 

Plus we got a 2 million loan fee for him last year?

 

In the end we "possibly" lost 14 million in total.....thats a fucking miracle if true

[Whelan]

I wouldn't be surprised if we're paying some of his wages.

 

Yeah sure!

 

Give him a pay rise AND we will continue to pay his wages.

[cuppatea]

He's certainly the worst transfer in the club's history, money wise, and quite possibly the sport as a whole. Never has a player been signed for so much with so little justification. Comolli should have been sacked on the spot when he suggested we pay £35m for the lad and if Kenny backed the deal he at the very least should have had his input on transfers greatly restricted.

[Major Tom]

I wouldn't be surprised if we're paying some of his wages.

 

How would that even work?

 

You've taken your pessimism too far this time, Paul.

[Baltar]

Maybe the worst signing in football history when we paid £35M for him. Not a bad player and on his day he can be an unplayable monster as we saw a few times but was never going to fit in BR's system and is far better off at Fat Sam's team.

[Code]

Bought for £35M, loaned out when he started to come good and had helped the team reach two finals, scoring the winner against our neighbours and rivals in the semi final and scoring two goals to get us back in the game in the final only to be robbed by the ref.

 

Then sold for £17,5M after we have got a £2M loan fee for him the year before.

 

Thats a "loss" of £15,5M and it could have been less had it not been down to the ineptitude of our manger, we also just paid his wages for 1,5 season.

 

Then take a step back and compare it with players like Alberto Aquilani, then you'll start to understand what a really pigshite signing looks like.

[Major Tom]

Thats a "loss" of £15,5M and it could have been less had it not been down to the ineptitude of our manger, we also just paid his wages for 1,5 season.

 

That "loss" could have been zero had it not been for the ineptitude of the people that decided to buy him. Let alone pay 35 fucking million big ones for him.

[Code]

That "loss" could have been zero had it not been for the ineptitude of the people that decided to buy him. Let alone pay 35 fucking million big ones for him.

 

There are no doubt we paid around £10M too much for him, it does not make him the worst signing at this club though, far away from it.

[J-V]

That "loss" could have been zero had it not been for the ineptitude of the people that decided to buy him. Let alone pay 35 fucking million big ones for him.

Correct, it's all Rodgers fault though.

[Gym Beglin]

Six year deal as well.

 

Sweet mother of Zeus.

 

Anyway, the Liverpool number 9 shirt is now free of the stench of scampi flavour Nik-Naks, and we have laid down a marker for the season ahead. We're not accepting unprofessional scruffs at this club any longer.

[ngogswilly]

Then take a step back and compare it with players like Alberto Aquilani, then you'll start to understand what a really pigshite signing looks like.

 

Code, no harm mate but that line right there just shows up exactly where you come from in 97% of your arguments.

 

There always nearly agenda driven and biased in some way.

 

And this is coming from someone on the site who honestly genuinely doesn't hate you the way half the people on here seem to.

[Guest San Don]

Good luck, Andy. I dont harbour any hard feelings towards you. It just didnt work out and the current manager didnt even give you the opportunity to show if you could fit in with his plans.

 

At the end of the day, we could get a fee of near £20m with the add ons and loan fee etc. The club was just wreckless in keep upping the bid when newcastle kept saying no. At least we didnt give them the pleasure of the ultimate piss take by allowing them to re sign him for the 10m they tried to offer.

[jsims]

There are no doubt we paid around £10M too much for him, it does not make him the worst signing at this club though, far away from it.

 

Aquilani is the worst bit of business by a mile

 

18 million and he was shit and he was injured and he never plays games and he never played in england

[Code]

Code, no harm mate but that line right there just shows up exactly where you come from in 97% of your arguments.

 

There always nearly agenda driven and biased in some way.

 

And this is coming from someone on the site who honestly genuinely doesn't hate you the way half the people on here seem to.

 

We lost far more money on Aquilani than Carroll, Aquilani also contributed far less.

 

These are facts, why not bring them to the table?

[Wezza]

I'm looking at it that we have now got £30m for Torres, and putting to the back of my mind Carroll was ever involved.

[ngogswilly]

We lost far more money on Aquilani than Carroll, Aquilani also contributed far less.

 

These are facts, why not bring them to the table?

 

Well I'll be honest I look at this way. We spent 35 million on Carroll and recouped what is it 15+2. So we lost 35-17 = 18, so we lost 18 million on him am I right?

 

I'm sure people will find a way to doctor the figures anyway they want but Aqulaini didn't even cost 18 million sterling, again am I correct??? And we recouped at least a few million on him between the final fee and loan fees.

 

These are the facts....I Think

[Trumo]

He looked like such a threat in the six months before we signed him. I can understand the arguments regarding potential and so on, but in order to justify the massive outlay, we needed more of a guarantee that Carroll was going to do the business, and six months of top-flight experience goes nowhere near to suggesting that that may be the case.

 

It's easy to say in hindsight, but we really should have left well alone when Newcastle were demanding upwards of £10m. I know Comolli and Kenny felt that they'd rather take the risk than miss out on him the following summer, but if they had waited, we may well have seen Carroll's Newcastle form plateau into something akin to Carlton Cole's career and the club would probably have decided to steer clear anyway. If we didn't have Carroll in the squad, I personally don't think we would have moved for Downing either.

 

Anyway, what's done is done, and hopefully it acts as a learning curve for the club and the owners.

[jamespp]

If Carroll had been signed in the Souness era in 1992 he would of cost £19.9m according to this

Historic inflation calculator: how the value of money has changed since 1900 | This is Money

puts Paul Stewart for 2.3m in perspective, who would of cost 4m in 2011

[Bobby Hundreds]

The carrol deal was born of panic. The new owners probably did not want to be seen as walking straight in and selling our star player given the suspicion and anger created by the last owners. He's gone it was a bad deal for us no matter what way you want to spin it. Hopefully well do better in the future.

[RedinSweden]

Rumours are its 16 million + 3 million add ons (bbc gossip column)

 

Plus we got a 2 million loan fee for him last year?

 

In the end we "possibly" lost 14 million in total.....thats a fucking miracle if true

 

That would actually be covered roughly by the natural depreciation of an asset

[Babb'sBurstNad]

If Carroll had been signed in the Souness era in 1992 he would of cost £19.9m according to this

Historic inflation calculator: how the value of money has changed since 1900 | This is Money

puts Paul Stewart for 2.3m in perspective, who would of cost 4m in 2011

 

Sorry, but those figures are way off. The calculator only takes economic inflation into account. The ballooning of transfer fees and just about everything in football money terms has far outstripped that rate.

 

Fair play to Carroll, at least when he knew his time on the pitch would be limited he went for the move, rather than sitting on his contract and pushing for yearly loans.