However, the reported terms are somewhat worrying. We're paying £100,000 a week and offering a six year contract to a player who is rather injury prone, which is £46 million over six years. That's a huge commitment to a trophy signing for a club that is still heavily in debt.
Carroll looked to have a great attitude last season, but we are also gambling on his desire and hunger remaining for those six seasons. If it all goes well and we win a trophy he'll look a bargain, if it goes wrong for whatever reason, perhaps because of injury, distractions or Allardyce leaving, we may find ourselves with yet another player on a long-term contract and huge wages that the club can't shift (see Dyer, Llungberg, Upson, McCarthy, etc). Surely a three or four year contract would have been more prudent?
Still, it's a big show of commitment from Gold and Sullivan and I'll be excited to have Big Andy at the club.
5 comments:
Not 100,000 a week, but 80,000.
The contract had to be long to warrant such a fee. That makes him more valuable on the transfer market down the road regardless of how he performs. Lets say it was a three year deal as you suggest. He plays well in years one and two. Other teams want him now. Why pay a lot when they can just wait until he is out of contract? Right when we are supposed to move to the OS?
The length of the deal is more ofan insurance policy in my opinion.
80k a week sounds better than £100k a week. The long contract works in our favour if he performs and other teams want to sign him, I agree USA Dave. Though I'm just worried if it all goes wrong and we're stuck with a player we can't shift because no one will match his wages. Not unknown at West Ham!
Though I do think AC looked really committed last season so as long as we can keep him disciplined and refuelling properly I'm hopeful he will see us into the OS because he is a great target man.
Lets hope there is no stupid buy-out-clause in the contract...
It must be a done deal - they're using him to advertise the new kit
Post a Comment