http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/355926/We-still-don-t-need-you-Andy-Carroll Anyone seen this? Yes it's the rainbow press so take it with a grain of salt but these sound bites just keep coming don't they? Another day, another Brendan Rodgers quote slaughtering his own players via the print media. So I ask myself, what has Brendan Rodgers exactly achieved in the game? I don't know if this is a new style of management, emulating SAF, and trying to out-do SAF in terms of straight talk but I don't feel comments like the above or what has been said about Joe Cole are augmenting team morale. Hate to say it, but your new manager seems to be a total twerp. See ya at the game tomorra.
That's a recycled article, that came out at the time Borini got injured. Everyone was pushing him to talk about Andy, and all he said was that he wants Andy to get games. A lot of discussion has been about whether he really didn't want Andy or whether he wanted to teach the team not to hoof it to him. It doesn't make sense for him to come back in January, so that's what he said. Borini would get back to fitness, Suarez would be going strong, and we wouldn't be able to sign a new striker if we brought him back. He just wouldn't get games, might as well let him play at West Ham.
All managers have different opinions on how the game should be played. What I don't understand is why Brendans philosophy which he's entitled to have gets slammed by the media on a regular basis. Brendan wants to adopt a passing and moving style with technical players that can move about in attacking areas. Liverpools overall philosophy, since Bill Shankly arrived in 1959 has been based on ball retention and passing to the nearest red shirt. Its also about having the confidence to get it back. Other managers have different ideas. Sam Allardyce like Kenny Dalglish is a strong believer in having a traditional centre-forward playing a 4-4-2. This is the reason why Andy Carroll suits West Ham. Brendan was only ever looking after Andy Carrolls best interests. He wasn't going to get games at Liverpool on a regular basis, Brendan felt it was unfair to have a £35 million striker on the bench. It would be better for him if he could be a starter at a club managed by a manager who would suit his style of play.
We agree then that BR doesn't have it in for Andy? I still maintain that Andy Carroll has never been, isn't, and will never be a traditional hoofball CF. Last season really showed that he excelled in a passing ball retention system. When the team hoofed to him he was isolated and couldn't score, obviously. He can still succeed if BR teaches the rest of the team to treat him the same way they would Luis Suarez.
I disagree with this. The Suarez/ Carroll combination never ever worked. Suarez can play across the front-line, but for a duo to succeed the other striker must be one of two types, 1, a poacher who only understands one thing and one thing only and that is making the net bulge. That sort of player doesn't have to be creative, they can do nothing for long periods but when they get into the box they come alive. The other type is a player with pace that plays on the shoulder of the last defender. Again this player doesn't need to be creative and doesn't have to do anything for long periods except to keep defenders on their toes by stalking them and watching for mistakes. Andy Carroll is neither, and thats what he doesn't suit our style.
Well here is Carroll playing with his mate Nolan behind him, and still not scoring goals. He was only ever something at his hometown club, that magic is now broken. Would he even get it back if he went home again?
I reckon we should cut our losses and take the £17 million in cash from West Ham or Newcastle next summer. That means we would only lose a small amount. I also believe there is a clause in the initial Andy Carroll sale that suggests that if Andy Carroll returns to Newcastle, the 25% sell on fee is null and void.
Sell on clauses are only ever on profit made, so unless we sold him for £36mil then Newcastle won't get anything anyway. And if We manage to get that muc for him, Newcastle can have 100% of the profit for all I care!
Rodgers likes his strikers to be more than just strikers. Carroll doesnt fit this so much. I think Rodgers would happily have Carroll in his squad as a back up, plan B and alternative. But I think he 1) would feel bad having him on the bench, and 2) The owners have said he costs the club to much money to be on the bench and not in the major plans.
I thought the sell-on clauses were on what the club sold the player for i.e. Liverpool sell Carroll to West Ham for £17 million, Newcastle get £4.25 million. If you're correct, Newcastle do get nothing. Even if Liverpool managed to sell Carroll for £35.5 million, Newcastle would only be entitled to £125k.
They are normally only ever on profit made - you'd have to be an idiot to agree to a sell on clause if you don't make a proft. We brought him for £35mil, say we sell him for £15mil and then have to give 25% of that £15mil to Newcastle would be ridiculous. The thing with Carroll is, he did well for Newcastle and on his day can look a beast (Chelsea FA Cup final and the league game afterwards) but even playing for West Ham who are a team designed to play to his strengths, he hasn't scored of made any assits yet. What is the point in sending him away to play for a team that play completely different football to us, to then bring him back and make him adapt again. I'll eat my hat if Carroll is back and playing regularly for Liverpool come next season. If we can get anything close to £20mil for him (from anyone bar Newcastle) then take it and re-invest in a proven class forward.
I reckon I'd prefer Rodgers to just come out and say he doesn't want / rate Carroll. I respect that a lot more than the bollox we're getting
I'd say paying £35m was ridiculous. Having a 25% sell on clause on ANY future transfer fee is damn right in-****ing-sane
Newcastle wouldnt have agreed to that, sell him over 35 million and we get 25% of that profit, hahahah that was never going to happen ever there is a 25% sell on fee if Liverpool sell him, THATS IT.
Or an idiot. I can see Liverpool selling Andy Carroll to West Ham for anything between £17-£20 million. If we sold him for that amount, that would be £23 million return which only leaves a £12 million defecit. However we made a £15 million profit when we sold Torres, so that leaves us in the black to the tune of £3 million.,
