Earlier this summer, Andy Carroll was released by Newcastle United.

He left the club quietly, with no official statement confirming his departure.

It was the start of a woeful transfer window for the Magpies, where Mike Ashley was more concerned with begging for transparency over the failed Saudi takeover. People in glass houses, Mike…

Steve Bruce eventually confirmed Carroll’s departure, admitting that the forward needed more games.

(Photo by Serena Taylor/Newcastle United via Getty Images)

That’s true, but Newcastle also needed a replacement. Sadly, we did not sign a first-team striker. And I don’t think the teenage Santiago Munoz is ready to play a part like his namesake in ‘Goal!’.

Bruce’s squad is worse than it was last season with Carroll not being replaced, and the local lad apparently didn’t even want to leave.

According to the Chronicle, the 32-year-old was keen to stay at Newcastle and give them an extra option in attack.

Newcastle United v Leicester City - Premier League
(Photo by Michael Regan/Getty Images)

Were Newcastle right to release Andy Carroll?

At the time, releasing Carroll was the right thing to do.


While his return was nostalgic, it didn’t entirely go to plan. In two seasons, Carroll scored just once.

We were right to get him off the pay roll, with the hope that the money could be invested elsewhere. But that hasn’t happened.

With that in mind, we might as well have given the big striker another contract. He would have at least given us something different up front.

(Photo by Serena Taylor/Newcastle United via Getty Images)

His presence unsettles defenders, even if he isn’t as fit as he once was.

With all due respect to Carroll, it says a lot about the state of Newcastle right now that we think releasing an ageing striker with just one goal was a bad idea.

But that’s where we are right now – and it’s bound to get worse.

Have something to tell us about this article?