Liverpool FC Forum

by **redno7** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:48 pm

let the cu~t rot on the bench

by **Benny The Noon** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:57 pm

I can't really blame Carroll - the manager wants to get rid without giving him a chance. He signed a contract and wants to honour that contract and play for us - the club are at fault for the problems with Carroll.

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:04 pm

cardiff-red » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:45 pm wrote:if true this is an all time low, source: http://www.cheshire-today.co.uk/16563/l ... -transfer/

Liverpool FC’s Carroll could earn £14 million from transfer

Liverpool striker Andy Carroll could pocket the bulk of the £15 million transfer fee on offer if he signs for West Ham.
The player, who is expected to sign his new contract shortly at Upton Park shortly, has already seen his agents negotiate an uplift in his wages from a reported £80,000 a week to just short of £100,000 , but a much bigger pay day is in the offing.

The player still has just over three years left on a contract he signed just over two years ago and as he did not ask for a transfer is entitled to be paid up in full – if the figure of £80,000 is correct, and there is no cancellation clause then that amounts to an eye- watering £12.4 million.

In addition, his agents will ensure that he recieves a portion of the £15 million transfer fee. In practice this means at least 10 per cent. The two figures, if paid, would mean that virtually all the transfer funds Liverpool receive would be paid to the player.

Generally, the selling club and player come to agreement over the amount of money that will be paid to the player to cancel the contract – usually around a third of the sum due – but in the case of Carroll the club are entering new territory; it is virtually unheard of for a club to ditch a marque signing with such a long period outstanding on his contract.

If this is true then Rodgers must reevaluate his efforts to implement a squad that is 100% pure to his style.

I appreciate why Rodgers do not see a place for Carroll, based on our playing style since he took over. However is the absence of Carroll really worth taking a £15M hit? Even Rodgers will question the sanity of that, I cannot see FSG sanctioning that type of poor business activity. When the compensation being quoted results in the club breaking even, Carroll is worth far more to us as a bench option that the luxury of not having him around to disrupt the philosophy.

One point not discussed in the article is whether Carroll is intentionally playing hard ball with the club, he has made it very clear he would like to prove himself at Anfield again and in that sense he may be testing Rodgers resolve. By forcing the club to pay him full compensation he may be attempting to make his transfer away as unsavoury as possible, in an effort to stay.

by **crim cram** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:26 pm

This club has been a joke in the TM for sooooo long, it's tiring. This Carroll thing really is a disaster, but it's not the first, and it sures as hell won't be the last. The bloated fees and add ons speak of the naivety at the administrative levels of the club, and it's been that way through a series of owners. They need to get their $hit together.

by **jacdaniel** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:42 pm

I doubt Carroll would be stupid enough to make such demands known that we could potentially ruin his career and have him sit in the stands for 3 years.

Im fairly confident we'll come to an agreement with him that suits everybody to some degree.

by **redno7** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:21 pm

£4 million quid, there's ya train ticket now fek off darn sarff

by **Benny The Noon** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:56 pm

Again though its making judgements based on red top rags !

by **ethanr** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:33 pm

I have trouble believing that to be honest. No way we would just get rid like that...

I genuinely think he was trying to stop the move to West Ham and stay here, or head back to Newcastle. By asking for a wage increase he either ended the transfer, or gets paid a good amount to go there instead. I've never heard of players with a few years left on their contract continuing to get paid by the club because they were sold.

Sounds like somebody trying to make a story to me. Has anybody even heard of that website? I sure haven't.

by **ycsatbjywtbiastkamb** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:01 pm

ethanr » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:33 pm wrote:I have trouble believing that to be honest. No way we would just get rid like that...

I genuinely think he was trying to stop the move to West Ham and stay here, or head back to Newcastle. By asking for a wage increase he either ended the transfer, or gets paid a good amount to go there instead. I've never heard of players with a few years left on their contract continuing to get paid by the club because they were sold.

Sounds like somebody trying to make a story to me. Has anybody even heard of that website? I sure haven't.

yeah it sounds odd to me as well.
when players dont ask for a move that usually means that they are entitled to a percentage of the transfer fee but i`ve never heard that one about the players contract (in terms of future wages) being paid up in full.
if a club terminates a players contract they might have to pay his wages up but we are selling him to another club.

by **damjan193** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:29 pm

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:01 pm wrote:
ethanr » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:33 pm wrote:I have trouble believing that to be honest. No way we would just get rid like that...

I genuinely think he was trying to stop the move to West Ham and stay here, or head back to Newcastle. By asking for a wage increase he either ended the transfer, or gets paid a good amount to go there instead. I've never heard of players with a few years left on their contract continuing to get paid by the club because they were sold.

Sounds like somebody trying to make a story to me. Has anybody even heard of that website? I sure haven't.

yeah it sounds odd to me as well.
when players dont ask for a move that usually means that they are entitled to a percentage of the transfer fee but i`ve never heard that one about the players contract (in terms of future wages) being paid up in full.
if a club terminates a players contract they might have to pay his wages up but we are selling him to another club.

Didn't something similar happen when we sold Aquilani?

by **ycsatbjywtbiastkamb** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:42 pm

re aquilani i cant remember mate but i dont think you have to pay a player all the remaining wages left on his contract when you sell him.
if that was true what was the point of comoli reducing the squad to `save on wages`? if you have to pay all their wages anyway why sell them?
even now dont the club want to move reina on because he earns £110,000 a week?

by **damjan193** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:23 pm

I think you might have misunderstood. You don't pay a player his remaining wages if you sell him, that makes no sense. That only happens if the club and the player decide to terminate the contract without the player being sold. But if the player is sold, I think that it is possible his previous club to pay a certain percentage of his current wage despite the fact that he no longer has a contract with that club. This is not the norm, but I think it happens and I think we did it with Aqulani.

by **damjan193** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:41 pm

Actually, I am the one that has misunderstood. I was thinking about a totally different thing, sorry.

I agree with Ethan and yakka, that article is *****.

by **Reg** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:39 pm

Is he still here? What's wrong with him, can't he take the most subtle 12 month long hint in British football?

by **7_Kewell** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:55 am

Reg » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:39 pm wrote:Is he still here? What's wrong with him, can't he take the most subtle 12 month long hint in British football?

According to the ragtops, the deal will be signed off before the end of the week..

Liverpool FC Forum

Andy Carroll signs for West Ham

Who is online