chicken

IMHO one of AN''s biggest errors last season was saying that Brady is a better left back than Olsson, he''s not. All round Olsson is better, but Brady is far better going forward. Brady cost us everal goals at left back and we looked far more solid when Olsson started at left back.

Doubt we''ll sign Jesus - Man City have only just signed him!

Seems somewhat short of facts such as saying we have funds having sold Redmond and only signed Canos . . . . . Pritchard?

Just to throw a little fuel to the fire, Naismith wasn''t "poor" last season, he was inconsistant. There is quite a difference. He showed glimpses of his ability but he wasn''t properly fit IMHO. He was fantastic against Liverpool - one of the outstanding performers. That said, there are few players that were not inconsistant in the latter stages of the season, so do you attribute that to individual players or the collective?

To be honest, the pinkun article is confusing: "Norwich City midfielder Vadis Ofoe has completed his move to Champions League hopefuls Legia Warsaw for an undisclosed fee." Is the first line. The second line is: "Ofoe has signed a two-year deal after terminating his contract with the Canaries." One suggests a fee was received, the other does not. In a way I am disappointed that we never saw what he had to offer in those flashes of class on a more consistent basis. He never really had that much of an extended run due to injuries. He needs regular starting action to get that and unfortunately he was past the point of getting it here. Shame as I say but I think the right thing for both parties to see him move on. He gets a shot at Champions League football with the Polish top tier champions, in a league which is seen to be weaker in general than the Championship. Hopefully he''ll get regular games there and be able to relaunch his career.

Can''t remember where but I saw one report suggesting that Brighton were going to pay £2.5million up front with more add ons taking it up to around £8million. You never can tell with these things though. I''m also a bit dubious about this story, I''m guessing he was traveling from North London, but then how far around on the M25 was he? Could have already been heading towards Norwich . . . . .

Norwich board sensationally sack themselves Ed Balls last man standing at game of ''sack''-tag Canary fans protest lasts for three steps Angry arm-chair warriors responsible for 93.7% increase in early onset arm-chair deaths.

Ignore that bit then . . . . . :D

This is more a case of looking at how the squad is shapinng up as some people seem are unsure what it is looking like: GK: Ruddy, McGovern, Jones (Rudd out on loan) Full Backs: Pinto, Whitaker, Olsson, Toffolo(20). CB: Klose, Bennett, Martin, Bassong, Turner. CM: Howson, Tettey, Dorrans, Mulumbu, Thompson(21), McGrandles(20). AM: Hoolahan, Maddison(19), Pritchard, Andreu, Voo. Wing: Jarvis, Jo Murphy(21), Ja Murphy(21), Canos(19), Brady Str: Jerome, Lafferty, Naismith, Morris(20). I have put in the ages of players 21 and under so you can get an idea of who counts towards the squad of 25. At the moment I count 24 players over 21. Those most heavily linked with moves away at the moment would appear to be Olsson, Mulumbu and Voo. I also wonder if Turner and Andreu will be here come the end of the month. Two of those are midfielders which may explain bringing in Pritchard. Especially seeing as we no longer have O''Neil either. Will be interesting to see how things work out but I would say that if we are going to bring in more defenders centrally, we''d need to lose one or more. Might need cover for Olsson if he goes. We can probably afford to lose Andreu, Voo and Mulumbu without being concerned for replacements, with Pritchard here and the other players already to hand. Striker situation is interesting - At least one player in, and possibly see Morris out on loan again along with Lafferty possibly moving on. So still a lot left to be decided yet.

I was a scout for a football club once. I used have multiple characters I could pretend to be. I was really good at it. I found a secret training base in Asia, hidden under a dormant volcano. I was so good in fact that only the best wanted to hire me. It all went tits up when I had used my cover to tap up players and managers wives and girlfriends, wags to the common man. I tried management after that. Took me a while to come out of character but now I manage Crystal Palace. The names Pardew, Alan Pardew.

[quote user="SeattleCanary"]Agree with unique. After the Brady saga last summer we do look an effing shambles though. We do the ground work just to be pipped in the 11th hour. If we are serious about him, we should stop messing about. Same old story with us. Embarrassment.[/quote] SSN isn''t 100% reliable, it''s Murdoch owned so what do you expect? The figures I have seen elsewhere all tend to suggest that we offered £11million rising to £12+million with add ons, which is what we were discussing with Fulham. Villa came in with £12million plus add ons to £15million. Now call me fickle but I would imagine that Fulham dragged their heels because Villa were waiting upon the sale of other players - which appear to have gone through now. If so, it''s more a case of Fulham playing silly buggers.

Ok, so lets look at this logically - or at least try to. The out and out strikers we have at the club (that I can see) are: 1) Jerome 2) Lafferty 3) RVW 4) Morris So we have four strikers that are more fashioned in the mould of the center forward based on strength and height more than outright pace although Jerome is no slouch. McCormack has played wide in the past but I still think his position is more as one of two up front or just off the target man. Now, there is an argument to be had that he is similar to the likes of Naismith/Hoolahan (maybe Maddison?). We then also have to assume that AN wants to go on with one up front for the majority of games or at least perhaps a 4-4-1-1. Again, I suspect that things will become clearer as pre-season progresses but for me, we have only one striker out of four that has a recent record of scoring goals at the level we are in. That isn''t enough to ensure success. We need two or three. We''ll also need a big squad. For starters, Wes is 34, and I am as big a fan as any, but he''ll most likely not be able to play all of the games this season. We also know the likes of Jerome and Tettey often can''t play too many in short succession either. So for me it''s logical for the club to be looking at players that offer something different but also with a degree of pedigree behind them too, that can be relied upon for consistency.

£300k is not good money at all. The Murphy''s have both proven themselves as goal-scoring and assisting wide players. Plus I very much doubt we''ll be selling either of them until we know we have the other wide players nailed down. Reality is right now we have: Canos, Murphy''s (2) and Brady along with Jarvis who is out injured again. So, should Brady be sold, we could be looking at having three fit wide players. Naismith can play there too, along with Hoolahan, but it''s not either''s preferred or most effective position.

[quote user="Yellowbeagle"][quote user="Chemical Bro"]This thread makes me chuckle I suppose if true AN is going to blow our current transfer budget on Mccormack then suddenly realise he can''t play him in his system. I''m sure he''s more than aware of where and how Mccormack can play. Give the bloke some credit please[/quote] Time will tell but he wouldn''t be the first manager to sign players that didn''t fit and his record in the transfer market has been patchy in the extreme IMO.[/quote] Patchy in the extreme? So who''s he signed so far? - Dorrans, Mulumbu, Andreu, Klose, Mbokani, Jarvis, Klose, Brady, McGovern, Naismith, Pinto, plus Maddison, McGrandles and one or two other youngsters I couldn''t quite remember off the top of my head. The only one of those players that could be considered to be a flop so far, is Mulumbu. Jarvis looked good and played well prior to his injury, definitely gave the squad another wide option. Andreau was signed for the Champs, we got promoted . . . .

Obious issues here, as with players, we are lead to believe the best footballing tallent is foreign. We therefore tend to end up with more players from abroad and more managerrs from abroad. How many managers in the premier league are getting consistent results and have a decent track record as well as being English or British even? I think if you look at that you have to concede that Bruce, Pardew and Allardice are essentially the main three, plus possibly Rednap . . . . For me, of those, Pardew and Rednap are more than accustomed to ''buying'' the success they have had so far. Bruce and Allardice both have a track record of getting the very best out of the players at their disposal, making their sides hard to beat when needed. The reality that needs to be accepted, and should have been done years ago, is that England are not a ''top'' side in the rankings anymore, so need to play a way that will gain results rather than turning up with the media circus and everything else putting the manager under pressure to play this sort of free flowing attacking football. We''re not good enought to. So for me Allardice and Bruce are a good fit for where the national set up currently is. Where the best money needs to be spent is bringing in successful coaches from abroad to show the English accadamies how and why they have been able to breed success from their younger age groups. It will stop all of this rubbish we see about footballers needing to be mainly 6''2" and able to run through walls and smash people off the park . . . . .

Ok so I find some of this a bit odd. Hooper Vs McCormack for starters is a bit odd. McCormack is more capable of playing different positions across the tradional attacking roles. Despite that his record is far superior to Hoopers. I really don''t get the love in for Hooper. People bang on about him being a natural finisher - that''s fine. But he''s not much else and he doesn''t score that many for a ''natural'' finisher either. Chris Martin is a better all round player for me than Hooper and our manager at the time decided he''d rather go for Hooper, who had more game time in his time here than RVW and really achieved not a great deal more.

[quote user="king canary"]@ICF I do understand that- but I don''t remember this all action Bennett some people are describing before the injury either. I always thought he was a decent but not great player for us. He had his moments (the goal against Spurs springs to mind) but I never felt he was more than average. For me I also found it frustrating how much stick infinitely more talented players in similar positions used to get (Snodgrass, Redmond, Pilkington) but our fans would always go on about how much they loved Bennett. Obviously not his fault but it still used to bug me.[/quote] I don''t remember Pilkington getting slated much to be honest. In fact I seem to remember a lot of people being a bit gutted when he was sold on. Snodgrass was an obvious one though. He doesn''t have bags of pace and was a bit of a ''hogger''. In some games he''d take the momentum out of our own attack. Now, some lay the blame at the feet of Hughton who appeared to like inverted wingers. That''s also probably a fair observation. Either way, he was never as positive in his play as say Redmond, Pilkington or Bennett who all to various degrees, liked to go at defenders a lot more. In fact, one of people''s crticisms of Redmond was that he could do that but often seemed too reluctant to do so. Snodgrass isn''t that type of player at all it would seem. I suggested at the time that he may be better off more central as it is where he seemed to want to be half the time. Bennett was well liked because of his attitude and his drive to take the ball forward and attack defenders. He may not be as good as Redmond or Pilkington but he was consistent and you knew that he was going to do his best to be a pita to the full back he was up against. As others have said, the injury seemed to be a real blow to him.

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]He''s pretty much the same age as Holt was when we signed him and strikers often mature later and have their best years in the late 20s/early 30s[/quote] McCormack will be 30 on the 18th August. Holt was 32 when he left us 3 years ago. He was with us for four years and was 28 when we signed him. £13mil on a 28 year old means you could expect 3-4 years return on that. The same amount on a 30 year old . . . . . Look, I get that we need goals, and when you look at the amounts of money already paid in this league for the likes of Rhodes etc, it may well take a wedge to get one. However, I also agree with some of the concerns that that amount of money is a big gamble. Cureton''s game was never about pace either. At least certainly not when we resigned him after being one of the leagues top scorers. That didn''t work out so well either.

This is quite a complex situation if you ask me. My gut response was that this means Rudd is going. Purely because he stands to be the one most narked off. I''m pretty sure he''s made it clear in various interviews that he want''s first team footy and wants to be playing more regularly. On evidence he has the ability to give this level a shot. But if McGovern has come in to be number one ahead of him, or number two ahead of him, then surely he''s going to be frustrated by that? Ruddy going would be a huge loss for us. Honestly I care very little for people who suggest that he is rubbish. They clearly do not see how he organises his back four well. Something I felt Rudd lacked last season. I am pretty confident that had Ruddy been in goal Vs Liverpool we may not have lost that game. It''s a tough call. If there is a time for Rudd to be given a chance this may well be it. But do we really want two relatively untried keepers at this level to rely upon for a strong promotion push? Now that''s not to say that either or both will be brilliant and do the job for us. And I hope they do, should Ruddy be leaving. But I think in reality there is just as much chance that Rudd will be leaving as Ruddy. Anybodies guess is good at the moment. But the sooner it is sorted out the better IMHO.

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Sir Arthur South was the chairman when we won the Milk Cup chicken.[/quote] Yup . . . . some may have tried to argue that Chase had some influence in that don''t you worry.

It wasn''t chase that was successful, it was he managers we had at the time. As for most successful, what did we win? Milk Cup can''t really be attributed to him can it? And when you look at the majority of our signings back then. Relatively little known players, of whom our management teams often got the best out of. Bowen, Crook etc - all reserve team players that came to us and were turned into stars. I think Newman was our most expensive outlay back then, and that was on the back of selling other players who were sold for much much more.

If it''s for the rumoured £10-12million then they are welcome to him. For a player that will be 30 as the season kicks off (18.08) I think it''d be too much, personally. At £6-8million - maybe. Add to that the fact that he plays in roughly the same position as Naismith and Hoolahan as well. Again - not sure he is a player that we are even interested in.

''Arry Rednap eh? Sorry but I always take his points of view when it comes to the England job and set up with a large pinch of salt. It''s been quite some time since he managed a team where he couldn''t turn to the check book to sort problems. And look where that put some of his prior clubs. Also, when I was living in London, I heard it from a reliable source that the reason England wouldn''t touch him, or Venables again, was because their were ''issues'' away from the public eye that they were not willing to risk in terms of PR for England set up etc. Now this was prior to Harry having been outed for having a bank account in his deceased dogs name . . . . so it may have been that, but I''m not so sure. I think he''s quite bitter about England after his spell at Spurs and he felt he had proven he was the best English manager for a couple of their lofty positions. Again, I think we have seen a better manager take Spurs further this season. Now this is where I think Bruce and Allardice are better managers. People may not like Big Sam''s tactics but you cannot deny that he has often had next to no money to spend and has had to squeeze every drop of potential out of the players at his disposal. That can largely be said of Bruce who had to sign players and manage them well whilst at Wigan with the full knowledge that many were putting themselves in the shop window for more lucrative moves. I think them both being proven player motivators is why they have continuously been linked with the England job. Of the two, Bruce has instilled a better playing style on his teams overall and seems more tactically flexible. I suspect they may look further afield though. Klinsman is a good shout - may not want to leave the USA job though. It really needs to be someone who is prepared to shake up the game a bit though - they need to look at why the grass root level of football isn''t providing as many quality youngsters to the top teams anymore. It doesn''t matter who the England manager is if only 30% of the premier league players qualify to play for England. Especially when you consider how many of that 30% tend to be players from the promoted sides.

Townsend is a Winger, Gayle is a sriker - not a like for like replacement. Gayle was expensive. Some silly prices being thrown around for players in rumours and having been paid out already. I know there are some that will say - yes but it''s worth it for the £100million. But it''s their fee plus wages. I''m still to find the reason for the hype around Gayle. He''s barely got a look in at Palace and they were distinctly average last season after a solid start. In a way he reminds me a bit of the sort of record that Steve Morrison and Pilkington came with. Ultimately, they were not good enough.

Ben Godfrey? I think it''s too early to tell yet. If we are bringing in young players aged 14/15 the chances are it wouldn''t be announced.