Far better than West Ham and I'm sure a more attractive option for Andy. Thought? Would prefer to keep him.
I would be concerned that we were making you guys stronger than ourselves... Edit: if that is not the case already...
It would be great buisness for Newcastle, I don't want to see him go to be honest but Rodgers decisions have to respected and if Carroll doesnt fit into his plans then theres no point in keeping him. Harsh on big Andy IMO especially after him finding form at the end of last season and the Euros.
The fact that Aqua man and Joe Cole might be part of Rodgers plans, says to me that you're going to be playing quick, technical football. Carroll is a great striker, but obviously not part of Brendans plans.
Think I'm in the minority not too pleased with this, it's not like we need him I rate Cisse and Ba better especially for our fluid system, and I'd rather see him go somewhere else so we get the 25% sell on clause
If there is a sell-on clause then I hope you do see the 25%, means we got more than the £35m we paid for him. A 25% sell-on clause would only apply to any profit we made...
If it was a 25% of profit clause then you would, but I don't think Mr Ashley would of been daft enough to think you'd make a profit, it'd most likely be a 25% of sale clause
As I said on another thread, it is irrelevant because Andy's not going anywhere... Edit: I agree with you that Ba and Cisse are better options for the way you guys play. With Rodgers coming in, I guess that is why there are question marks over Andy at the minute too.
I really don't see why we should get rid of him. Even if he "Doesn't fit into Brendan Rogers' plans" I don't see why we can't keep him. Rogers didn't spend 35m on him so why should he care about benching him? Carroll has said that he wants to fight for his Liverpool place. Ibrahimovic was hardly a Barcelona legend but he wasn't a flop either and gave them a different option.
Of course, you are right to say Rodgers didn't pay the £35m for him so why should he care about benching him, but you could equally say that about a £500k player too. The difference is no one would be battering an eye lid then, the majority of people would just accept it The only reason it is such a story (and that's exactly what it is) is because it is £35m Andy Carroll...
Really hope this doesn't happen. How pathetic would it look to buy him for £35mil from Newcastle, play him when hes performing badly, then as soon as he starts to find some form, loan him back to Newcastle and sell him for half the price we payed. This at the same time as he starts to hit his peak and become the player a lot of people think he could become. Only way I'd let him for back to Newcastle would be if they paid £25mil+ straight away. P.s just listening to sky sports news and Bobby Moncur (not sure who he is?) has just stated that Newcastle as a bigger club than Liverpool? Because they finished above us in the league when we had our worse season for 60years? Oh dear....
If this does happen then it would be insane on our part. Why loan a player who could help a team that have the potential to finish above us? A loan move to Carroll is daft enough but a loan to a club in the same league and to a club that a rival for position is ridiculous. We should sell and use the money for new players, something I dont think we should do. Or Carroll should stay and be given the chance to prove that he does fit with a different style of football.
