Andy Carroll

[Camble]

Newcastle want former striker Andy Carroll, 23, on loan for the rest of the season from Liverpool with a view to a permanent £12m deal, but Reds boss Brendan Rodgers is reluctant to accept such an offer.
Full story: Guardian

I hate this bollocks about "view to buy".

What would the clause be? If he scored more than 10/15 goals they have to buy him for £12m? Where his value will have improved so they're getting him for a bargain (forget about us paying £35m).

If he doesn't quite reach his target but still has a good season, they'll still have the upper hand because Carroll will want to stay and Newcastle will say "well we said £12m if he scores x amount", so could potentially offer us even less.

Or he could have a mare, then get shipped back to us at the end of the season, one year older, with no better understanding of how to fit into our team.

Aqua part 2 if we go for anything like this...

[Bender]

Total LFC @TheTotalLFC
Rodgers "Newcastle got £35million for Andy Carroll last year. To even consider wanting to take him on loan is a liberty." #LFC

54m Total LFC @TheTotalLFC
BR “Absolutely no chance – and certainly [not] Newcastle."

56m Total LFC @TheTotalLFC
Rodgers on Nufc stance over Carroll : “There is no way they (Newcastle) will do a number on us.” #LFC

[tsb]

That last tweet is missing the word "again" off the end

[Neil Young]

Suarez maintains he thought he'd be playing with torres when he signed?Where's Angie Channing when needed?

Now you mention it, I think you're right and Suarez has said that. But the Suarez in/Torres out thing was called by some detested journalist well in advance, I remember it clearly. He was lambasted for it of course (not that I object to that, even if he was right for once).

Who's Angie Channing?

[Le Chef]

Total LFC @TheTotalLFC
Rodgers "Newcastle got £35million for Andy Carroll last year. To even consider wanting to take him on loan is a liberty." #LFC

54m Total LFC @TheTotalLFC
BR “Absolutely no chance – and certainly [not] Newcastle."

56m Total LFC @TheTotalLFC
Rodgers on Nufc stance over Carroll : “There is no way they (Newcastle) will do a number on us.” #LFC

Nice to see him responding to Pardew

[Vermilion]

I don't think for one moment that the club were surprised by Torres forcing a move. I don't know if he submitted a formal transfer request but if he did then I'm sure it was forced on him by the club, to cut down on their contractual obligations to him.

Anyway, whether or not there was a transfer request is a peripheral detail. It was widely believed on here that Torres would be leaving. It was also widely reported in the media and some journalists said in advance that Suarez coming would mean Torres leaving.

At best, the club lost a game of brinkmanship - at worst, they were shafted. My view though is that, if Comolli isn't the only one responsible for the cock-up, then the junior partner in the blame game has to be Dalglish. I don't think the board were in a position to overrule at the time.

So the owners could keep making appointments that cost us dear, and be blameless ?

[Neil Young]

No. Just because I don't hold them responsible once, it doesn't mean that applies in future. Rodgers is clearly their appointment. If he fails [to be defined] then clearly they made a mistake.

Comolli was clearly a mistake, and not just with benefit of hindsight. But the specifics of the Carroll deal, I think that's down to Comolli and maybe Dalglish.

Do you want the board - acknowledged to know little about football, for which they are castigated by some - to decide which players to buy and how much to pay? Because that's what you're suggesting, if you hold them responsible for the club paying £35m for Carroll.

[Pablo]

From the Telegraph's NE reporter:

Luke Edwards @LukeEdwardsTele
I'm anticipating a cash up front offer of £12m from #nufc in next 48 hours for Andy Carroll to #lfc. No loan, just a permanent deal.

Why? What is the point? Rodgers made it abundantly clear that we won't be ripped off by them on this one. Are they just trying to piss us off and unsettle the player? That's about £8m short of what we will likely accept for him.

[Tee]

Nice to hear Rodgers telling Newcastle where to go with their paltry offers. Cheeky *******s.

However if they offered £12m up front I am sure we can get them to go to £15m at which point it would probably be acceptable.

Shame really, I would like AC to stay because he is young and so far has not looked that far out of place when he has got his chance in this new set up. I think he could do a job for us, but Rodgers has other ideas so thats the end of that!

[Muddled]

It's all very odd ... I don't even think Carroll would fit in to the Newcastle team at the moment. He thrived off the delivery from Barton and Nolan; Newcastle are now a little more intricate and a little more patient - I think it's Newcastle ****-stirring.

[Vermilion]

No. Just because I don't hold them responsible once, it doesn't mean that applies in future. Rodgers is clearly their appointment. If he fails [to be defined] then clearly they made a mistake.

Comolli was clearly a mistake, and not just with benefit of hindsight. But the specifics of the Carroll deal, I think that's down to Comolli and maybe Dalglish.

Do you want the board - acknowledged to know little about football, for which they are castigated by some - to decide which players to buy and how much to pay? Because that's what you're suggesting, if you hold them responsible for the club paying £35m for Carroll.

No i'm not, i'm suggesting they employ people that get it right, that's meant to be what they're good at, running a business, employing competent people, and not because the fans tell them so either, they have to be above all that.

I just see the blame for what's gone on so far as being a little more equally shared by all at the club that make those decisions is all, obviously the board and owner can't be sacked after every bad appointment, and it's the appointments themselves that have to go, but to totally omit them from any blame at all, imo is wrong.

[Neil Young]

I realise you're not actually saying that - what I meant was I see that as the logical consequence of your analysis. I think it's fair to blame the board for the appointment of Comolli. By sacking him, they themselves admitted they made a mistake and rectified it reasonably quickly...although not quickly enough of course.

But if you're saying they're partly responsible for the Carroll deal because they hired Comolli and Dalglish then you're effectively holding them responsible for everything that happens at the club. In that case, the only way they can avoid a bad decision being made by one of their appointees is to overrule.

I'm simply drawing a distinction between their responsibilities and those of their employees.

More broadly, I don't mind them making mistakes from time to time - it's inevitable, especially early on, as they learn more about how to go about things. What counts for me is how quickly they correct them and whether they repeat them. I think the signs so far on both counts are promising enough, although the situation is inevitably less than perfect.

[red g]

I realise you're not actually saying that - what I meant was I see that as the logical consequence of your analysis. I think it's fair to blame the board for the appointment of Comolli. By sacking him, they themselves admitted they made a mistake and rectified it reasonably quickly...although not quickly enough of course.

But if you're saying they're partly responsible for the Carroll deal because they hired Comolli and Dalglish then you're effectively holding them responsible for everything that happens at the club. In that case, the only way they can avoid a bad decision being made by one of their appointees is to overrule.

I'm simply drawing a distinction between their responsibilities and those of their employees.

More broadly, I don't mind them making mistakes from time to time - it's inevitable, especially early on, as they learn more about how to go about things. What counts for me is how quickly they correct them and whether they repeat them. I think the signs so far on both counts are promising enough, although the situation is inevitably less than perfect.

[Mostar]

It's all very odd ... I don't even think Carroll would fit in to the Newcastle team at the moment. He thrived off the delivery from Barton and Nolan; Newcastle are now a little more intricate and a little more patient - I think it's Newcastle ****-stirring.

Interesting you said that coz I was thinking the same.

Both Ba and Cisse are much more complete and mobile strikers and unless Pardew is looking to sell one of them I don't see the point of signing Andy at all.

[doogle]

Interesting you said that coz I was thinking the same.

Both Ba and Cisse are much more complete and mobile strikers and unless Pardew is looking to sell one of them I don't see the point of signing Andy at all.

Are the African cup of nations on this season? If so he would lose both of them I suspect