Andy Carroll

[red g]

Newcastle have been burnt before when it comes to shelling out massive wages.

Over the past couple of years they've really brought down their overall wage costs.

If it is true that Carroll was on £12k a week up there and we're giving him about £75k, then that is a huge problem.

Even if Newcastle offer him £50k he'll be losing £25k a week compared to what he's on now - that's £1.3m a year. He's got what 3 years left on his contract with us? That's £4m he's giving up.

Carroll was on 25k a week and tripled wages when he came here.

[souliv]

Suso rejected the chance of a weeks holiday to join up with #LFC team straight away, Carroll on other hand, takes 2 week break

Wow that is dedication.

[kris90210]

I am extremely sure about this

If a player doesnt ask for a transfer he is entitled to compensation on the amount remaining on his contract

Sometimes this will be a pre-agreed amount but generally its based on a proportion of the wages remaining on a contract

Now obviously there might be a situation where a player might waive that (particularly if hes going to a big club on a massive increase of salary) but generally if they are stepping down in wages amount then the selling club will pay compensation

Going further back in time when we sold Emile Heskey we ended up paying 20 or 25% of his wages for the balance of his contract

And yes it does pay to be a journeyman

I think the Carroll sale (if it comes about) will cost us dearly, he clearly feels hes been treated badly and as such I expect him to haggle for as much as possible and equally I expect whoever he ends up at to manipulate us in regards to the fee

Mate, I've just spent the past hour trying to find out about this stuff and come up with absolutely nothing. How do you know this stuff? Would be really grateful if you could point me in the right direction

[Kenneth]

Mate, I've just spent the past hour trying to find out about this stuff and come up with absolutely nothing. How do you know this stuff? Would be really grateful if you could point me in the right direction

Don't want to sound cruel, but i think its pretty common knowledge. Its often referenced by the media coverage of transfers, ie whether a player will crack and put in a transfer request, or if he'll hold out for a payoff.

[baitman]

yes this is what i read yesterday can't remember where

i may have chucked that one in

bound to be bollocks, then

[malg]

Carroll isn't going to fit into our new style. That's obvious. So why anybody is disputing whether we should sell him is beyond me.

But we don't even know if this new style if play will work. And surely we won't just play one way,as soon as we are found out it will be countered quickly.

[kris90210]

Don't want to sound cruel, but it think its pretty common knowledge. Its often referenced by the media coverage of transfers, ie whether a player will crack and put in a transfer request, or if he'll hold out for a payoff.

no worries mate - not reading it as cruel! I don't think it is common knowledge mate. I literally can't find anything on it and I've been looking. Now maybe I'm just being a useless prick here and searching for the wrong thing.

Obviously a contract can have clauses that are triggered by a transfer request, but I don't think what Lec is saying is true across the board as far as football transfers are concerned.

[baitman]

Sell him then. He makes no difference. He is ineffectual. Neutral. A blank. A busted flush. A non-entity. A waste of space. A lamp post without a bulb. A jaffa. A blunt instrument. A ganglian.

i was wondering if you would be finish off by saying he was pinning for the fjords

[Daniel 7]

no worries mate - not reading it as cruel! I don't think it is common knowledge mate. I literally can't find anything on it and I've been looking. Now maybe I'm just being a useless prick here and searching for the wrong thing.

Obviously a contract can have clauses that are triggered by a transfer request, but I don't think what Lec is saying is true across the board as far as football transfers are concerned.

When Fowler joined Man City from Leeds a few years back, they had to agree to pay 30% of his wages for the duration of the original Leeds contract in order to make up the shortfall Man City wouldn't pay.

[el matador]

Lec is right. If we force a transfer on any player that player is entitled to have the difference of his contract paid up. If the player requests the transfer then the club doesnt have to pay anything.

Its going to cost us a fortune to get him off the books and it doesnt make much sense. The other way to look at it is that if hes not wanted he will be picking up his wages anyway if hes at the club for the length of his contract like bogarde.

If he has four years left on his contract at 4m per season its 16m hes due over his contract. so we sell him for 15 and then agree a 5m pay off. It still saves us 11m on wages to have him off the books so the net gain would be his fee and the saved wages.

Only numbers can make sense whereas in the real world it seems crazy. Thats why eveyone hates accountants.

Sorry lec. Ive only just seen your post at the top of the page where it says exactly what I just said. Sorry mate looks like ive just ripped off your post.

[RedReet]

When Liverpool signed Fowler, Leeds were still paying some of his wages whatever way they worked that deal.

[kris90210]

When Fowler joined Man City from Leeds a few years back, they had to agree to pay 30% of his wages for the duration of the original Leeds contract in order to make up the shortfall Man City wouldn't pay.

Yep, but that was a specific clause that was written into his contract. It's not like that for every player. We have no idea what's written into Carroll's contract, so I don't know how Lec can say we're going to have to pay him approx 30% of his unpaid wages, because from what I can tell that's not the norm. I can't find a single thing on anything like that and I've been all over the frigging net looking.

[kris90210]

Lec is right. If we force a transfer on any player that player is entitled to have the difference of his contract paid up. If the player requests the transfer then the club doesnt have to pay anything.

Its going to cost us a fortune to get him off the books and it doesnt make much sense. The other way to look at it is that if hes not wanted he will be picking up his wages anyway if hes at the club for the length of his contract like bogarde.

If he has four years left on his contract at 4m per season its 16m hes due over his contract. so we sell him for 15 and then agree a 5m pay off. It still saves us 11m on wages to have him off the books so the net gain would be his fee and the saved wages.

Only numbers can make sense whereas in the real world it seems crazy. Thats why eveyone hates accountants.

Sorry lec. Ive only just seen your post at the top of the page where it says exactly what I just said. Sorry mate looks like ive just ripped off your post.

But how can we 'force' him into a transfer? A transfer MUST be accepted by both the club and the player. We cannot force Carroll to move if he doesn't want to (short of buying out his contract and releasing him on a free).

[baitman]

for the very reason of andy carrolls wages and his dwindling re-sale value if he isnt going to get game time [as highlighted by EST's resident accounting team] we need to move him on sooner rather than later.

there is no point keeping him as a plan b, as this will mean re-jigging the team from progressive playing keep the ball, to bomb down the wings and blast it into a crowded penalty area, and with that, we'd keep losing possession.

[Tee]

If we sold him I would love it if we bought Llorente.

Front three:

-------------Suarez-----------------Llorente------------------Borini