Indy_Bones

http://fotbalzive.ct24.cz/video.asp?video_id=1033&page=15&streamType=WH http://fotbalzive.ct24.cz/video.asp?page=4&video_id=33 http://fotbalzive.ct24.cz/video.asp?video_id=783&page=30&streamType=WH http://fotbalzive.ct24.cz/video.asp?video_id=764&page=32&streamType=WH http://fotbalzive.ct24.cz/video.asp?video_id=471&page=45&streamType=WH http://fotbalzive.ct24.cz/video.asp?page=4&video_id=33

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Indy_Bones, so who would have been your ideal partner for Earnshaw at the time then-Henderson, Jarvis or Mcviegh? On the right wing we had the options of Henderson, Mcviegh and Hughes. Thats two strikers or a defender. These boards were full of moans about it at the time and it was only rectified when we bought Croft in the following pre-season. And we DID have to play Charlton in centre mid.to cover for injuries. Please tell me what options Worthington overlooked. Who was cover for Drury until we signed Lappin? Who was cover for the centre-backs?[/quote] In all honesty I''d have played Thorne if he could have kept his fitness as his partnership with Earnie at Cardiff was excellent, but in lieu of that, I''d have given Jarvo a fair shot, and if he didn''t come up with the goods, then play McVeigh and Earnie. Hendo may also have done a job but we never really got to see him play upfront.Regarding the right wing, the three choices you list WERE all options (more McVeigh and Hughes than Hendo), and I''m sorry but Hughes can''t be classed as a defender. He was bought from Reading where he played in either central mid or right wing, we played him in central mid or right wing, and it''s only since Jan of this year he''s realistically been played as a defender and I will never be convinced that this is his position.We DIDN''T HAVE to play Charlton in midfield, that was Worthy''s choice, we could have tried one of the younger players, or even played McVeigh in the middle to use his creativity and pace, another option would have been to alter our formation - much like he did to play Earnie as a lone front man...there were alternatives.We also had a choice at centre half of Doc, Flem, Shacks or Charlton, and if we went with say Flem & Doc, then either Shacks or Charlton could have covered Drury, particularly as Charlton regularly played left back for Bolton.Don''t get me wrong, I''m not saying that these were brilliant options, however they were equally as valid as playing Earnie as a lone striker which is clearly not his role and never will be.[quote]Why did Drury come out and describe the squad as "ridiculously small"? Why did Charlton accuse the club of lacking ambition when he left?[/quote]I do agree that we DID need a bigger squad, however many of the poor results can be attributed to Worthy''s tactical and team selections which were often found lacking. McVeigh was often dropped for no good reason, and we may as well have not had a reserve/youth team as they were given virtually no playing time and played out of position when they were - particularly Hendo.As for Charlton''s comments, I personally found it somewhat laughable that a very average player could come out and so strongly criticise the club when his own performances were often below standard - where was his ''ambition'' on the pitch?[quote]If we continue in the current vein it will be more Thorne`s, Jarrett`s, Colin`s, Brown`s, Hughes`Fotheringham`s and Croft`s, and where have that lot got us?[/quote]So why is it you feel that Leicester bringing in these quality of players is a good thing, but if we do it, it''s not? I don''t want a great big squad full of players like Jarrett, Hughes etc, as if we do then get injuries to our first XI players, these are the people coming in to replace them - that really fills me with confidence...I''d much rather have a solid squad of 18-22 quality players, than a 34+ man squad of "no-marks", "has-beens" or "never were''s". Yes, if we got a big spate of injuries and suspensions we would have a problem, but then we could look at using the younger players coming through or taking someone on loan rather than having lower standard players simply cluttering up the changing room drawing a decent wage for doing it.

[quote user="Shack Attack"]I was being a little bit mischievous with the mention of Ramadan. However, Indy Bones has just described it as part of Safri''s ''baggage'' so it seems that for some people it is a contributory factor as to whether we should keep him. I''m amazed how many times it gets mentioned in relation to Safri although I would suggest that this is more likely down to people''s ignorance as to what it actually entails rather than anything more sinister.[/quote]Shack,Footballers normally have a very well controlled diet and fitness programme, so anything which can interfere with this process is often likely to have an adverse effect. If Lee Croft was caught stuffing pies down before games etc, I''m pretty damn sure that the manager as well as the fans would be on his back about this, but it''s ok for someone else to mess with their diet and fitness, and we just look the other way?It''s obviously not the be all and end all of why we would sell Safri, but it is one of a number of factors that have to be considered. If a player told you that for a month he''d not be 100% due to fasting, and that he''d also then miss another month playing in a cup for his country, and then another 2-3 months through injuries/suspensions, you''d have to question if the play you were receiving from them in the remaining time of the season was worth the financial outlay.For £500k I''d tell other clubs where to stick their offer, for an extra million and possibly more...sold!

Great news, the more competition, the more chance we have of getting even better money for him.£3 million anyone!

[quote user="Shack Attack"]But.....a decent proportion of fans want to get rid of him. Am I missing something?[/quote] Very possibly. Stats can show all sorts of things aside from the obvious. A prime example of this is Earnie, if you''d never ever seen the guy play and simply saw his goalscoring record, you''d think he was one of the best strikers in the modern game, but watching him play you see a very different picture. His team play was often poor and he was a very one-dimensional player which meant the team had to adapt round him to get the best he could offer which actually weakened us a whole.No player is indespensible to a team and it''s over reliance on players that often causes problems for teams. For years we''ve relied on Hucks to save our skins, and now we''re suggesting that without Safri we wont be able to create anything at all. The reason Safri has been missed is because we''ve not had a suitable/similar replacement to call upon when Safri was out, we do now have this in Brellier. I do think Safri is a good player, however the money being suggested is a good sum for a player of his age and related ''baggage'', such as his fatigue after international duty/ramadan, and also his missing weeks for the African Nations Cup will have an impact, not to mention his niggling injury problems.

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Good point. Everyone remember having to play Henderson at right wing for a large part of a season? Charlton playing centre mid.? Hughes at left-back? A 38 year-old switched from defense to attack and back again to cover injuries, regardless as to where he had been performing best? Earnshaw having to play upfront on his own because we had no other strikers when Ashton left? Our first 11 has been play-off material for two seasons, but we have almost never had it out-which should suprise no-one on this tough, physical league. You will not get anywhere near the play-offs sending out an unbalanced,patched-up team each week.[/quote] That''s not precisely true though is it? There were often other options, however the manager chose not to use them. Earnie didn''t have to play upfront on his own, we could have played a number of strikers with him, but instead the choice was made to play him as a lone front man. Charlton didn''t need to play centre mid, nor did we have to play Hendo on the wing. These were all conscious decisions by the manager that often get blamed on the squad situation.Whilst having a decent sized squad is important, what''s the point in having a 40 man squad to choose from, if pretty much all the players outside the normal first XI aren''t any good? I''d much rather we continued in the current vein and keep signing good players for the right price, instead of simply signing every free transfer we can get our hands on just to get ''bums on benches''.

For the prices being touted about of £1 million and over, I''d say it''s the right time to sell.However, if we are going to sell, we have to get in a suitable replacement, if only for the times when Brellier, Etuhu, etc are missing through injuries and suspension. Potentially Rossi or Spillane could fill in, but to me they both need more playing time before being truly ready to step up.A possible option could be to bring in someone like Bob Malcolm from Derby. Another player like Safri/Brellier in a defensive role, very strong, very determined, but with a good touch and a definite eye for a pass. He''s only played 12 games for Derby since signing last season after being released by Rangers, and I don''t feel he''s likely to be anywhere near their first choice in the prem. Chances are we could pick him up for about £350-500k, hardly big money for the benefit to the squad. Also both Grant and Duffy are likely to know about him and what he can offer.Thoughts?

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"]Indeed but they didn''t pass the ball along the back four with no purpose.[/quote]The whole purpose of playing the ball along the back four is to keep possession and get the opposition to shift around more to cover this.Arsenal play like this, as do Barcelona, and I hardly think either of them can be classed as ''lacking purpose''.Simple rule, if the opposition don''t have the ball, it''s virtually impossible for them to win, so at worst by keeping possession you nearly guarantee a draw, but by also maintaining the possession, you also control the attacking flow.I''d love to see us playing like Arsenal, and despite having nowhere near the individual quality that they do, I do feel that we have the players able to play in this manner. Let''s face it, you don''t see Senderos playing inch perfect through balls so Shackells and Doherty''s distribution shouldn''t be as much of an issue. Both Drury and particularly Otsemobor will play as attacking full backs just like Eboue and Clichy. Brellier or Etuhu could play the Gilberto role, and Fozzy, Chadwick or even Croft can play the creative role that Fabregas does. Hucks/Lappin on the left, Croft/Chadwick on the right and a whole host of attacking options gives us everything we need, with the added benefit that because we have players who can actually head a ball in the area (unlike Henry), we have a greater range of attacking options, with crosses and corners being good chances.Don''t get me wrong, I''m not saying we''ll ever be as good as Arsenal, or that our players directly compare to their quality, however their style of play could really suit our current squad, and being fair, if we tried it, it could hardly be worse than how we''ve played in recent seasons.

The cogent points here should be - Who have we signed, and will those signings make the necessary improvements we need?The price of the players we have signed and the amount of money left available is in some ways is irrelevant if we get in the right players.Would you care if we had a guaranteed £3 million left in reserve if we''d just gone out and signed Ronaldinho, Kaka and Puyol on Bosman''s? I wouldn''t as I''d know that we''d just added some top class players to the squad and didn''t NEED to spend the remaining budget.It would appear that to some fans, a transfer budget does the equivalent of ''burning a hole in your pocket'' and unless we spend every last penny of it (and possibly borrow more from your mates), we''re unambitious and prudent.Leicester have so far signed at least 8 players for the same or less outlay than we have made on 5-6, so I guess Mandaric is just a cheapskate with no ambition? That can''t be right as I thought these multi-million pound foreign investors were the be all, and end all when it comes to club ownership???Grant has said he wasn''t in for Eastwood, Sharp wanted to go back to Sheffield and Varney wanted to go to Charlton and get a stupidly high wage packet. Quite how someone can defend paying £2 million and over £20k a week for a League 1 striker (That''s the old Division 3 you know...) and then criticise the signing of one of their teammates on a free transfer is beyond me.We have done very well so far in the market and got some genuinely good players for very little money, Brellier and Marshall in particular are excellent acquisitions. Cureton IS a proven goalscorer and if you check his career stats, he averages a goal every 2.7 games, which if he played the full season would give us at least 17 goals, and last season he performed better then this. The only real unproven player we''ve gone in for is Strihavka, he did perform well for his club this year, he is a tall target man who could play alongside either Cureton, Martin or Hucks, and he isn''t costing silly money. We''ll all have to withhold judgement but from what we''ve seen, he could be a fantastic addition.So there you have it, proven players (in general) who will improve what was a very weak squad, and we still could potentially spend any remaining budget in the coming weeks. Really can''t see what there is to complain about?

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Is a superb character in my favourite fantasy novel (after Lord of the Rings of course) he appears in all the 9 books saga of ''The Sword of Truth'' serious by Terry Goodkind.[/quote]Excellent series Wiz, although the last couple of books have been somewhat disappointing and haven''t lived up to the earlier quality.But onto the question itself.As most can probably guess, it''s a parody on "Indiana Jones", which normally gets shortened down to "Indy Jones", but as he''s an Archaelogist, I put Bones instead of Jones, hence "Indy Bones".Been using this for about 7 years now (since discovering Counter-Strike) and it''s my usual online gamertag as well.

Smudger,Any chance you can elucidate on that opinion? What is particular is putting you off the guy?With all due respect to Boothroyd, some of his signings this season were diabolical, bear in mind that he turned down Strihavka and Saganowski and signed Hoskins and Kabba instead and you have to question his judgement there. Particularly as he''s looking to offload Kabba already!Strihavka''s record this season was very good, and although the Czech league is not the Premiership, you still need to be decent to get that sort of tally. Being fair, how how many target men do you know, who aside from heading ability, also have good ball control and finishing, that have played internationally (admittedly at U19 level) and will cost less than £1 million?He could be a great signing and for a price of £1 million Euro''s (approx £700k), is hardly a bank breaker.

Ok, so we had the top scoring midfielder in the league last season in Huckerby (admittedly this was likely due to some time spent upfront), and being fair, I see no reason why Huckerby can''t maintain his record, he''s hardly gone slow and crap overnight.Chadwick for us has the best scoring record in the league with 1 in 1 games...but joking aside, he''s a very competent winger who can play upfront as well, and if he stays injury free could easily hit 6-10 goals this term.Etuhu really started to improve towards the end of last season, and as has been pointed out, if he''s not having to worry about trying to cover the defence as well as support attacks he could be more of a threat, just like Francis was. Add in the fact that he was also in the top 10 midfield goalscorers last season and I have to question why you feel we don''t have goalscorers from midfield...

Wiz,I can''t stand Doherty, but despite this I''m unconvinced by Davenport. Like I say, if he''s cheap then fair enough, but if we''re talking over £750k  for him, I feel the money could be better spent. Would rather see us spend £1.5 million on  Michael Gravgaard  from FC Copenhagen than on Davenport, as we get guaranteed quality and experience then.

Unless it was on a free or a highly cut priced deal, then no.Has to be questioned why he''s struggled to hold down a first team place since leaving Coventry, particularly when looking at some of the players picked ahead of him at times.Potentially decent, but may have been ruined by 3 years of rubbish.

We''ve also now got Brellier in and it appears that more signings may also be on the horizon.So much for comments such as "We''ll sign no-one this transfer window/summer - wait and see"...Things getting better almost daily!

Obviously someone else aside from me thinks Colin is a decent player.Don''t know why he has been berated for not flying up the wing when the fact is that he''s a defender.If the move goes through I wish him the best as he may be at a club that appreciates someone who does the role they are meant to instead of being upstaged by the likes of Andy Hughes.Not Mr Grants finest hour.

[quote user="ricardo"]If Cureton is a perfect replacement for Earnie then you have to ask yourself why Derby didn''t go for Cureton (the cheaper option) The plain truth is that Earnie (25) is a proven goal scorer at all levels and an obvious bargain at £3.5 million. While Jamie Cureton (31) has played most of his carreer at a level below the Championship. If we paid a reported £800,000 for him why are so many people disappointed with this deal? Derby have invested their money in somebody that will give them a nice return when he moves on, while Jamies next step will be either retirement or Kings Lynn. Not hard to see who got the crap end of this deal is it?[/quote] Ricardo, you also have to look at the position of each of the clubs. At this level, I would say that there isn''t much between Earnie and Cureton. Whereas Cureton is truly unproven in the premiership, so as a club in the premier with money to spend, do you sign the guy with the proven record for 3.5 million, or the guy who could perform but it''s a gamble for £750k? Not a tough choice for them. As for why people are disappointed with the deal, I couldn''t speak for others, but the main issue seems to be regarding the release clause price. Most didn''t mind Earnie leaving, but wanted £5 million or more for him. So in essence, it wasn''t Earnie the player they minded losing, it was Earnie the Cash Cow... Derby have invested their money in a player likely to give them a fair return, but as for us, we''ve invested in a player who was the top scorer in our league last season, and is pretty much guaranteed to give his all to help us succeed. His next step may well be retirement or non-league obscurity, but if he helps us get promotion in the process does it matter?Personally, I don''t think either of us got the crap end of the deal, as I think both clubs got a good deal. Derby got the player they wanted, and we got a replacement for the player sold, along with the finances to allow us to strengthen other parts of the squad that need it.Basically, Earnie''s move has paid for Cureton, Marshall, and Strihavka (if he signs), and still leaves us approx £1 million in change, how is this the crap end of the deal?

[quote user="Cluck "]You really are stunningly naive aren''t you? At least three players you''d never heard of until we signed them...and what little you do know of them now gleaned from the internet. Cureton is 31 and no replacement for Earnshaw....and Marshall is keeper who couldn''t get a game up North. Remind me to sell you some of the crap from my house move...as I''m sure you''d take it if I wrote "rubbish" on it. Lame in the extreme........[/quote]Why is Cureton no replacement for Earnshaw? Let''s take a pure goalscoring perspective: Cureton - 45 games for Col U, 25 goals = Avg of a goal every 1.8 gamesEarnie - 47 games for us, 27 goals = Avg of a goal every 1.74 gamesWow! What a difference there...Cureton is a team player, Earnie is a one-man team...Aside from the obvious age difference, Cureton is a very respectable replacement, and the added funds from the transfers will enable Grant to make overall team improvements.As for the Marshall comment, yes, it''s clearly dead easy to get regular first team football in front of an International keeper who''s drawn interest from some of the largest clubs in the world such as A.C.Milan. What''s Marshall playing at? I guess you think Cudicini is also a pile of crap for being unable to displace Petr Cech from the Chelsea side?As for making comments about players that have never been heard of, why do you presume that your ignorance is held by all other posters on the boards? It really is about time that you started to realise that the rest of us are truly not the bunch of ignorant, braindead, incompetents that you regularly suggest we are, purely on the grounds that we disagree with your viewpoint. Perhaps if you put something well structured and justified together in your responses, you''d get more people to listen to your views, but instead you prefer to label everyone who disagrees as "Sheep", and simply dismiss their opinions as "Lame" or "Naive". Hardly convincing retorts are they?

I have to disagree about Dion being our only target man, as Chris Brown is very much this style of player.In fact, this was the exact reason that Grant purchased him in the first place, to play as a target man to provide the knock downs and link-up play with Earnie etc.There''s also the strong rumour that Strihavka is on his way, who is also a target man. Renton also has the height to play the role if maybe not the physical stature as yet.So in theory, we could shortly have 4 strikers who can be target men, although until Strihavka signs and Renton builds some muscle, we''ve got a confirmed two - Dublin and Brown.

Wow,What a day yesterday was for the club. We''ve sold our main financial asset for the same as we paid for him, and brought in a 31 year old former player, and you know what, I couldn''t be happier about it!Now before this starts an incredulous backlash, please allow me to explain my viewpoint on this.Let''s start with Earnie, a great goalscorer without a doubt, but what can''t be avoided when discussing him is the fact that his style of play has dictated the way the whole team has needed to play. We''ve had to utilise tactics that accomodate his nature, and on a number of occasions this has cost us dearly. If we''re being frank about it, there''s no point having a player in your team who will normally guarantee you 20 goals a season if it costs you the overall team dynamic which leads to losing games. If earnie scored a goal in every single game he played for us, but we lost every game 2-1, what possible benefit have those goals made to the team overall???His link-up play at times was very poor, his lack of height made crossing virtually worthless, and because the team was so focused around him, some teams could find it quite straightforward to neutralise our overall attacking threat as it was so predictable.As for the furore regarding the release clause, the main arguing point doesn''t seem to be the fact that he had one, but more the value that was placed on it. The facts of the clause were that if we failed to get promotion in the first 18 months of his contract, Earnie could speak to any premiership club who offered £3.5 million. So, the basic viewpoint of Earnie is clearly "I feel I am a premiership quality player, however, I will come to the Championship and attempt to help you get back to the premier but only on the grounds that if it''s not happening, I get the option to offer my ability to a team in that league if they are interested, and there''s no point putting a stupid price in there as this could majorly limit my options, should the situation come to arise".So there was the choice, sign a proven goalscorer to try to give us that push towards the top flight knowing that he could leave for the same price we paid, or tell him to stick it and either rely on what we had, or look for a quick replacement of similar quality to Earnie (hardly massively in abundance at the time). I guess it''s purely down to personal opinion as to whether or not you think we made the right choice.The other question however that does need to be asked is why if Earnie is such a top class guaranteed goalscorer has no truly big Premiership club made a move for him? Almost all of them could easily have afforded the 3.5 million we paid for him, so where was the huge clamour from potential suitors for his signature? It''s the same position now, a load of top clubs are looking for new strikers, so why is it only Derby that have come in for him?When Earnie did get injured, the front pairing of Huckerby and Martin looked like one of the best we''ve seen at the club in ages. They linked together superbly, Lappin and Drury were swinging crosses in with confidence, and at times the opposition defence really didn''t know what to do to stop them. If we also compare the period without Earnie to the period with him, from a pure goalscoring perspective, there''s hardly anything in it.Moving on, and in relation to my last point, where has the belief and hope regarding Chris Martin suddenly vanished to? He went from zero to hero for us with some excellent displays which prompted interest from the likes of Man Utd, and the message boards to be full of posters demanding that we get ''The new Chris Sutton'' on a full time contract immediately. This was duly done by the board, and yet now he seems to be a bit of a forgotten man again. He is potentially a superb strike partner for pretty much any player in the league, and he''s only going to be better in the company of players like Dublin and now Cureton.Speaking of Cureton, I think this is a great move by the club and will clearly bring in someone who desperately wants to play for us again, and in a small way, prove that the ability he showed for us all those years ago is not only still there, but has matured with him. Do I see him as a suitable replacement for Earnshaw - very possibly, if you compare their goalscoring for the last 18 months, there''s not a massive gap with them, and although Earnie''s record is superior.Being totally honest, I wouldn''t have any issue at all if we don''t sign another striker. We''ve got Cureton, Martin, Brown, Jarvis, Dublin, Renton and Hucks who can all play upfront, Chadwick can even play there as well. How is that not enough options? Two target men in the form of Dublin and Brown, Natural goalscorers in Martin and Cureton, all round play in Jarvis and Chadwick, Hucks with blistering pace and skill and Renton as a developing youth player. Everything is there to form succesful strike partnerships, and what''s better is that it''s a true mix of younger developing players combined with experienced professionals, we gain both ways.But hang on a minute, have I just said I don''t really think we need another striker? YES! and there''s a damn good reason for this.Looking at the team overall, it was the failures defensively (combined with their frequent lack of support from midfield) that cost us the games, not a lack of goals. We were only 6 goals scored behind Derby, but the difference there was that they didn''t concede 71 goals!Why are we looking to spend £2-3 million plus on a new striker, when we are clearly crying out for a solid central defender to partner Shackell, and we really need a creative midfielder to replace Safri. If we are going to spend £2 million on a striker and also further similar amounts on a centre half and midfielder - fair enough, but if not, then we have to concentrate on the key weaknesses.Grant has already brought in Gilks and Otsemobor to freshen up the back five, giving us a highly rated keeper who has attracted premiership interest, and a former England U21 defender with bags of pace and strength who is likely to be the ideal attacking full back that Grant was looking for.What''s more, the transfer window is nowhere near closed, and knee-jerk reactions at this stage will serve absolutely no useful purpose. Arsenal have sold Henry, do you think that their fans are in uproar that the best player to grace the premiership ever was not only allowed to leave for less than Spurs have paid for Darren Bent, but that Wenger hasn''t already signed his replacement?  Of course not. They''re waiting to see who Wenger will bring in as a replacement. They have the envious position of already having a top class side so they can purely concentrate on replacing - player for player. We however don''t have this luxury, due to the weaknesses across the side.In my mind, yesterdays actions could represent some of the most invigorating this club has had in ages. It really does feel like Grant is forming his own side as against doing the best he could with the squad he inherited. We''ve now got far more options in the attacking third due to the fact that we''re not being forced to cater to Earnshaw''s style of play. The likes of Lappin, Croft and Chadwick can start swinging crosses in happily knowing that we have a good chance of winning the ball as we''re not aiming for the short guy in the middle.All I want to see now is the arrival of Marshall along with a good strong centre half and a creative, energetic midfielder. We get them in and as far as I''m concerned any squad additions after this are just the icing on the cake. If as the board are suggesting that Grant has around £5 million to spend, this is easily enough to get those three players with spare change left over to look at bosmans/free transfers etc.And now I''m going to pull out my riot shield and wait for the backlash...

Cluck,I think you''ve totally misread his response.The statement is that if Grant does not get good backing from the board, he as O''Neill did before him, could look to move elsewhere.This does not state that the poster believes that Grant is superior to O''Neill, in fact no mention of O''Neill''s managerial ability is even mentioned, and certainly not in comparison to Grant''s.And, being fair, Grant has done far more to impress me as a manager for us, than O''Neill did. At least Grant hasn''t thrown a hissy fit over not having endless millions to spend and then stormed off to sulk in a corner. Amazing how well managers can do when they''re giving big money to spend, how about we give Grant the same luzury and see how he truly compares?

[quote user="mbncfc"]Chris Porter, Craig Beattie and Derek Riordan would top all of those for me. Or an audacious bid for Kenwyne Jones at Southampton.[/quote] Must just be me, but I really don''t see what all the fuss is about with any of them aside from Riordan.Beattie has managed 18 starts and a total of 50 games since 2003, no I know Celtic is a competitive team to hold a first team place, but that''s not exactly a great record for a truly ''promising'' young player. There are also questions over his overal injury proneness and fitness.Chris Porter is a fairly average stiker who''s been decent at his current level, but is hardly the ''big'' player we''re all looking for. You also have to question why when Dundee could have signed him on a free transfer, they didn''t. The answer according to Dundee was that they came in for him, and he was interested in a move, but then when the truly big names in football like Plymouth and Stoke showed interest he pretty much fobbed Dundee off.As for Kenwyne Jones! The guy is awful, I saw him a couple of times for Sheff Wed and he was dire, and he''s hardly set the world alight at Southampton, average a goal roughly every 4 games. The most audacious thing about the bid would be that some club would be mad enough to do it!Riordan is a good shout, but he''s been an apparent ongoing target since before November last year, and I thought it was time we looked at possible alternatives as we seem no closer to signing Riordan than we were back then, in fact, our chances appear to have dropped slightly.

[quote user="1st Wizard"]And this woman thinks she owns this magnificent club of ours, well I''ve got news for her, she doesn''t, our superb  fans do. She''s just a custodian of it, and she''s making us a national laughing stock, and destroying the clubs fine football reputation, because her catering empire comes first!.[/quote]Sorry Wiz, but that''s just a ridiculous statement.Whilst in a very generic sense fans do ''own'' a club, the reality is that the club IS owned by Smith. She is the majority shareholder and therefore by proxy is the owner of the club.Without the finances she and her husband have put into the club, we''d have potentially gone bust following the Chase debacle. As for destroying out fine football reputation, in real terms, we don''t particularly have a fine reputation, aside from being seen over the years as a club with a good attitude, that for a couple of seasons played some great football. There''s no major trophies in our history, no European cups, no back to back top flight league wins, so how is our current performance in reality, particularly any worse than normal - taken over the full course of the clubs history?If as you say the club IS owned by the fans, then I presume you can advise who is representing us in this respect, and you can then also advise exactly how much each of us - as owners, needs to contribute into the club to get the players in that we clearly need?I''d also like to know how I am a part owner of this club but have never been consulted even once on the running of the club or potential transfers, can you advise who I need to speak to about this? Perhaps we should speak to Malcolm Glazer @ Man Utd, to see how they collate the finances and views from their prjoected 75 million fans (or should I say owners?) worldwide. I presume they all pay £1 per season thus immediately giving the club - that they as fans own, £75 million per year as a transfer budget? Is it really that simple? Do we just need to generate 10 million or so fans for the club over the world, thus giving us a very healthy income and budget each season?

We do appear to have lost out on Sharp, and although rumours are abound that we''ve now increased our offer for Eastwood, this also is not a guaranteed signing. If we are looking for a new striker or two, on top of some of the suggestions already made such as Cureton and Boyd, we''d could do far worse than look at the below options: Ray Jones - QPR have already turned down an offer of over £200k from Colchester for the 18 year old, but signs are that a bid of just over £700k would net the young striker. Massive potential, very strong in the air with the ability to make great runs and also passes a ball about well. Not lacking in pace either. Carlton Cole: Strong, fast, determined - what''s not to like? Is certainly not going to be used much by West Ham and would be unlikely to cost the earth. I''d suggest that an offer of approx £1 million would secure his services, and with the right club and opportunity he has the potential to regain the form he showed before his ill-fated moves to Wolves and West Ham. Eddie Johnson - Somewhat ''hit and miss'' young American striker currently playing for Kansas City. Has frightening pace, is very strong in the air and on the ground, and has displayed some ''natural'' goalscoring ability. Again, could potentially be obtained for around the £1 million mark (or possibly less), and could set the league alight (or crash and burn horribly). Vincent Pericard - Difficult to know how it''s gone so wrong for the former Juventus hotshot. 2 years of injury problems at Pompey certainly didn''t help, and being stuck in a very average Stoke side also wasn''t great. However, he''s still only 24, and possesses all the natural attributes a good striker should have. If we could get him to re-find his form and get his confidence back, he could be the most fearsome striker in the league. Add in the fact that he''s also likely to be very cheap to sign... Thoughts?

Quote from the official site:"But despite adding Gilks to his playing staff, Grant said he was still chasing the signature of Celtic ''keeper David Marshall. "That''s something we want," he said. "We have made an offer to Celtic and he is very keen to come to Norwich City. But how we value him and how Celtic value him seems to be different." Sounds to me like Gilks is being brought in to compete with Marshall for the no1 shirt, with Lewis as third choice and Gally on his way elsewhere. (Unless Grant loans Lewis back out, and keeps Gally as third choice). Regardless of whether or not we do get Marshall, the fact that Grant hasn''t avoided the necessity that we needed a new keeper one way or another is reassuring. Roll on with the transfers.