|
Post by lloyd86 on Jun 19, 2013 6:51:16 GMT
How the hell is andy carroll worth a deal for that value!! Lol.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jun 19, 2013 7:01:39 GMT
I don't know, but I wish we could afford him!
|
|
|
Post by slother on Jun 19, 2013 7:09:53 GMT
What do you mean, £55m?
|
|
|
Post by huuuuuth on Jun 19, 2013 7:11:50 GMT
Apparently, the eventual fee could rise from £15 million to an unbelievable £55 million
|
|
|
Post by nottspotter on Jun 19, 2013 7:19:22 GMT
West Ham must sell!
|
|
|
Post by slother on Jun 19, 2013 7:34:34 GMT
Apparently, the eventual fee could rise from £15 million to an unbelievable £55 million B-| Depending on whether Big Andy develops a cure for cancer in his spare time?
|
|
|
Post by huuuuuth on Jun 19, 2013 7:36:22 GMT
Apparently, the eventual fee could rise from £15 million to an unbelievable £55 million Depending on whether Big Andy develops a cure for cancer in his spare time? Can't think of any other possible reason mate
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Jun 19, 2013 7:43:34 GMT
The only reason I can think of is that it gives Liverpool fans a reason to believe they'll recoup their outlay. £20m loss at the moment and very little contribution.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Jun 19, 2013 7:53:25 GMT
That's the cost of the contract including wages etc. Any deal would look ridiculous if you including every bonus etc.
West Ham will be top 10 next season.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jun 19, 2013 9:48:17 GMT
That's the cost of the contract including wages etc. Any deal would look ridiculous if you including every bonus etc. West Ham will be top 10 next season. Top 10 my arse!
|
|
|
Post by jimmygscfc1234 on Jun 19, 2013 9:53:08 GMT
Trousers, they weren't that far off this time around so you're hardly being Mystic Meg.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 19, 2013 10:05:28 GMT
Can't see them getting Top 10.
|
|
|
Post by smudger46 on Jun 19, 2013 10:12:57 GMT
100k a week soon adds the total on plus bonuses for goals an assists etc which probably wont be paid to often when he gets injured again
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 19, 2013 10:15:30 GMT
Even 200k per week over 3 years, plus 15m transfer fee doesn't come close to 55m. It's 46.2m.
That 55m figure is a load of bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2013 10:21:20 GMT
Home > LFC News > West Ham’s Carroll deal “could rise to £17.5m” West Ham’s Carroll deal “could rise to £17.5m” By This Is Anfield on June 18, 2013
UPDATE: Andy Carroll has completed his medical and agreed terms on his move to West Ham.
carroll_subCarroll, 24, spent last season on loan to the Hammers and the two clubs agreed a fee over his permanent transfer last month.
Hammers Chairman David Gold announced via his twitter on Tuesday evening:
The son of West Ham owner David Sullivan had earlier tweeted to say that the deal in place will see the London side pay an initial £15.5m, with an additional £2m in potential bonuses.
£55 million is absolute bollocks!! as has been said, you don't include weekly wages, endorsements, sponsorships, potential PR fees etc. when you say "Rising to..."....complete non-thread basically
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jun 19, 2013 10:37:32 GMT
I would say it is probable rather than merely likely West Ham will be top 10 this season.
An excellent manager and the look of an ambitious club going places.
|
|
|
Post by Ellan Vannin on Jun 19, 2013 10:38:59 GMT
I agree headline is rubbish.
However maybe that is how we should measure what clubs spend on players, the total cost of the package, transfer fee plus wages. Then we would get exactly how much each club spends on its playing staff.
There was on here the big debate about how much TP had spend, but then others would argue but our wages were lower than most. Why not combine the two and see exactly how much each club is spending?!
|
|
|
Post by kylelightbourne on Jun 19, 2013 10:44:32 GMT
I agree headline is rubbish. However maybe that is how we should measure what clubs spend on players, the total cost of the package, transfer fee plus wages. Then we would get exactly how much each club spends on its playing staff. There was on here the big debate about how much TP had spend, but then others would argue but our wages were lower than most. Why not combine the two and see exactly how much each club is spending?! Because you don't know if you'll have to pay out the additional fees, you don't know if the player will be given certain bonuses and the wage bit is only relevant if they fulfill the entire contract, which very often won't happen
|
|
|
Post by jonnybravo on Jun 19, 2013 10:46:22 GMT
Crazy Andy Carroll is a poor mans Peter crouch and we paid over the odds for crouchy
|
|
|
Post by jacksscfc on Jun 19, 2013 10:48:03 GMT
Andy Carrol was not worth the £35M transfer and £70,000 a week from Newcastle to Liverpool??? hes certainly not worth £15M and £100,000 a week now IMHO. Total waste of money.
|
|
|
Post by redditchpotter on Jun 19, 2013 10:56:13 GMT
However much it is.........it's too much
|
|
|
Post by Ellan Vannin on Jun 19, 2013 10:57:10 GMT
I agree headline is rubbish. However maybe that is how we should measure what clubs spend on players, the total cost of the package, transfer fee plus wages. Then we would get exactly how much each club spends on its playing staff. There was on here the big debate about how much TP had spend, but then others would argue but our wages were lower than most. Why not combine the two and see exactly how much each club is spending?! Because you don't know if you'll have to pay out the additional fees, you don't know if the player will be given certain bonuses and the wage bit is only relevant if they fulfill the entire contract, which very often won't happen I wouldn't include bonuses but to add together transfer fee and salary would be perfectly fine, because at that point that is the minimum they are legally obliged to pay over the course of the contract. Of course they might move on and never fulfil the full term of the contract, but at least you would get a lot better idea of what clubs are committing to their playing staff.
|
|
|
Post by chaydlestokie on Jun 19, 2013 10:58:41 GMT
Yea, £15 mill more like it. Outstanding piece of business by Liverpool by the way......
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 19, 2013 10:59:06 GMT
17.5m + 100k per week over 3 years = 33.1m cost to WH.
Shitbin.
|
|
|
Post by jamie75 on Jun 19, 2013 11:08:04 GMT
I agree headline is rubbish. However maybe that is how we should measure what clubs spend on players, the total cost of the package, transfer fee plus wages. Then we would get exactly how much each club spends on its playing staff. There was on here the big debate about how much TP had spend, but then others would argue but our wages were lower than most. Why not combine the two and see exactly how much each club is spending?! Totally agree. Always make me laugh when fans say why not sell such and such and buy three players. e.g. Sell Bale for £90m and buy 3 £30m players. Well a £30m player will want £150k a week as well so on a 5 year deal what was previously £80k a week for just Bale * 5 years = £20.8m becomes £117m in total. When the clubs don't reinvest the sale proceeds they are accused of lacking ambition.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 19, 2013 11:15:11 GMT
I agree headline is rubbish. However maybe that is how we should measure what clubs spend on players, the total cost of the package, transfer fee plus wages. Then we would get exactly how much each club spends on its playing staff. There was on here the big debate about how much TP had spend, but then others would argue but our wages were lower than most. Why not combine the two and see exactly how much each club is spending?! Totally agree. Always make me laugh when fans say why not sell such and such and buy three players. e.g. Sell Bale for £90m and buy 3 £30m players. Well a £30m player will want £150k a week as well so on a 5 year deal what was previously £80k a week for just Bale * 5 years = £20.8m becomes £117m in total. When the clubs don't reinvest the sale proceeds they are accused of lacking ambition. I agree with the logic to an extent, but Bale would demand from Spurs more than a 30m new player would get. So no longer the 80k per week and more than the 150k for the new player. So that reduces the difference. Aside from that, they could buy 3* 20m players and use the leftovers to fund the increased wage bill.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 19, 2013 11:21:02 GMT
Even if you go to the Sun article (yes, the fucking Sun), then by their inflated numbers it works out as 50.2m over 6 years for everything.
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Jun 19, 2013 13:02:44 GMT
Nothing like a bit of sensationalist brown stuff is there – and I agree it would be interesting to see the real cost of all signings (including the frees) laid bare in this way.
Apparently the deal is £15.5m on £80K pw for six years (a £5K raise over his Liverpool contract that still had three years to run) with add-ons totalling £2m based on appearances, goals, caps and European competition. Can’t see us realistically paying all of that. Approx total £40m over the duration of his contract.
We have however got (hopefully as it’s still not signed and I'm still half expecting the self proclaimed messiah of north-east football (Kinnear) to announce a last minute swoop) a 24-year-old English CF who’s had a year with us already, fit’s the managers footballing ethos, for the prime of his career and would expect some value back if he was sold.
If Carroll stays fit and get’s 15 goals next season the spend will be justified.
Picking up on the poor mans Peter Crouch post above – other than the fact they’re tall gangly strikers – they’re completely different. Crouch is technically better but subjected to Pulisball made to look poor - I’d expect Hughes to use him better.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jun 19, 2013 13:04:55 GMT
Nothing like a bit of sensationalist brown stuff is there – and I agree it would be interesting to see the real cost of all signings (including the frees) laid bare in this way. Apparently the deal is £15.5m on £80K pw for six years (a £5K raise over his Liverpool contract that still had three years to run) with add-ons totalling £2m based on appearances, goals, caps and European competition. Can’t see us realistically paying all of that. Approx total £40m over the duration of his contract. We have however got (hopefully as it’s still not signed and I'm still half expecting the self proclaimed messiah of north-east football (Kinnear) to announce a last minute swoop) a 24-year-old English CF who’s had a year with us already, fit’s the managers footballing ethos, for the prime of his career and would expect some value back if he was sold. If Carroll stays fit and get’s 15 goals next season the spend will be justified. Picking up on the poor mans Peter Crouch post above – other than the fact they’re tall gangly strikers – they’re completely different. Crouch is technically better but subjected to Pulisball made to look poor - I’d expect Hughes to use him better. I admire West Hams ambition but I just don't see Carroll as being worth even half that.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 19, 2013 13:06:07 GMT
I like Carroll, I like Carroll a lot actually, he's a decent player. But not 15 million's worth and 80k a week. Madness.
|
|