Andy Carroll

[Liverpool]

why would he be miserable?

[elrichio86]

He was third choice at best, not suited for our style of play, and has poor productivity.Say again why we suddenly needed to keep him?

I'd rather those third-choice appearances went to Morgan / Ngoo / etc to help them build experience. Its much better for the long term future of our club.

[Liverpool]

you say hes third choice but we're essentially playing 3 up top, I know he'll be playing wingers up there but still, we'll be playing about 60 games this season? Injuries, suspension, form and fatigue would bring him plenty of games

[TheElephantMan]

He was surplus to requirements, but only if we had a better replacement. It was stupid to let him leave without bringing a better striker in. I hope his injury isn't too bad and that he has a great season at West Ham. Flabbergasted that we didn't buy a proven goalscorer during the transfer window.

[Frenchie]

why would he be miserable?

'coz he would have wanted to play and BR had him as plan Z

[Daniel 7]

I hope this thread doesn't turn into some kind of Andy Carroll mausoleum, bleating about how he could have been our Mario Gomez or Llorente.

Fact is, he scored 1 in 5, and was an average premier league striker. He will do well at some clubs - like Kevin Campbell or Dalian Atkinson. Its his job to score goals, doesn't mean he could have been our saviour.

He's better off without us. He was the *****r you pull after your tasty bird gives you the boot. It felt great when you first got in there, but looking back... owww.

[TheElephantMan]

Who said he could have been our saviour?! He was an option, nothing more. We now have less options than we had. Bellamy left and we brought in Borini. Carroll left and we haven't brought anyone in to replace him. I hoped we would replace him with someone better, but we haven't.

[Daniel 7]

You're missing my point. I never said he couldn't have been an option. There should have been another striker or goalscoring attacker brought in when he was allowed to leave on loan and FSG are culpable for leaving us short.

But Andy Carroll was never the answer.

[TheElephantMan]

You're missing my point. I never said he couldn't have been an option. There should have been another striker or goalscoring attacker brought in when he was allowed to leave on loan and FSG are culpable for leaving us short.

But Andy Carroll was never the answer.

Quite clearly you're missing my point. Oh well, **** it. We are weaker today than we were in the goalscoring department. Andy Carroll wasn't great, but he was definitely better than nobody.

[Daniel 7]

I never saw any point to miss tbh

[TheElephantMan]

I guarantee there was a point there and you missed it.

[Daniel 7]

Maybe I did. Maybe you did a bit too. Whatever. Xxxxx Luv you anyway.

[TheElephantMan]

Maybe I did. Maybe you did a bit too. Whatever. Xxxxx Luv you anyway.

Night night. x

[Nicey]

I must be the only person in the world who is glad he's gone. The 6 goals in 44 league games indicates he will hardly be missed and at least we don't have to pay his wages any more. And even if we sell him for £14m next summer, we would have recouped £19m as West Ham are covering his wages for this season. Good riddance - he was never good enough IMO

Its the absolute perfect solution to a big problem, he will increase in value and worse case senario we will have a better footballer on our hands in 12 mths time

[RedReet]

It's not just a nominal fee is it? It's his wages plus £1m and a miserable player in training subduing the squad. Better that he is not at Melwood, plus as luck would have it he's gone a tweaked his hammy.

We have many combinations available, we don't know the full story, BR's demeanure next time we see him with speak a thousand words..

N'goo to develop would be handy...

Ngoo.