I know first hand,that the medical staff said NO to signing him,but was over ruled by Sullivan and Allardyce.Whiskyman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:03 amWe'll have to agree to differ. But I will answer your question. At least my interpretation of why we signed the lump, even though he had still suffered injury absences during his "try before you buy" period. Still, as the man said, there's always at least one sucker.terrya1965 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:32 pm
So if Carroll was so terrible,why did West Ham sign him after his year loan here?I remember the fans willing him to sign.
He scored 1 in 4 goals,but he offered a lot more besides,which is better than Haller.
I agree,he wasn't value for money considering the wages we paid out,but he offered a lot more than Haller has.
As you say there were a lot of silly bastards singing "we want you to stay" who, btw, hope are now hanging their heads in shame. Because as I think we all realise the dwarf wants to be loved. So he obliged. And Allardyce was manager at the time so having a fucking beanpole, who was good in the air, was par for that particular course.
I will offer you a little bet. Haller will achieve more in his career than Carroll did. A very low bar I'll grant you.
Funnily enough the thing that sticks in my mind most about the useless Geordie cunt was the stupid penalty he conceded at Leicester when we were 2-1 up with not long left. Probably the last chance we had of squeaking into the top 4 that season.
I will agree with you that we didn't get value for money and the medical staff were right.