Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Monty13

  1. 1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

    No. But The club obviously did. Personally I had no idea how he'd turn out (though as always I hoped for the best).


    Not sure there are many 29 year olds Ron whos value is likely to go up.

    Naismith was a gamble that didn’t payoff, it wasn’t an investment.

    Wolfy on the other hand was both and we got it wrong.

    But in the PL you are gambling with higher stakes, but the returns are potentially that much higher too.



  2. Krul

    Aarons Zimmermann Hanley Byram

    Tettey Vrancic

    Buendía Duda Cantwell


    I know we beat Burnley but only Vrancic really proved he deserves another start in the prem for me from those not currently regulars.

    I suspect McClean gets the nod though.



  3. It’s very hard to argue that the team as a whole has improved. We have been unlucky with injuries and decisions, yes we have also played well at times and got nothing, however the results speak for themselves.

    There are however a few individuals that have really kicked on, shown their PL quality or even surprised with their performances.

    Id say Pukki, Buendia, Cantwell and Aarons have all kicked on, I’d also say Tettey has also surprised and is playing well at this level, Krul as well, although still guilty of the occasional poor decision. Of our additions Byram certainly looks comfortable at this level and I’d a good improvement for the squad.

    For me the jury’s out on the rest as to whether they’ve improved this year and made the step up.


  4. 4 hours ago, ricardo said:

    It's pretty clear that the management don't fancy him, else he would be playing.

    Ricardo’s, spot on. Also we aren’t buying him at the end of the year if we do stay up, suspect the only reason he’s not returned to his club is our lack of CB cover.

  5. VAR made the right decisions today.

    It still sucks **** and is ruining football.

    Edit: Also even though the decisions were right chalk another decision in the against column for us with Godfrey’s red. 

    • Like 1

  6. Complaining that people have negative comments after a win is as bad as this board being relentless negative after a loss. We are here to discuss football right? If we had thumped them 5-0 I’d understand it.

    Happy with the three points, Duda looks class and great to have Pukki back. Shame to lose Godfrey but it was a bad challenge and deserved it.

    Objectively as good as we were in the first half we dropped off in the second though. We also failed to score the critical second goal and it lead to a nervy end, especially down to 10 men.

    We’ve given ourselves a chance, feeling cautiously optimistic we will at least challenge for that 17th place.


    • Like 1

  7. 2 hours ago, lake district canary said:


    I'm of the old school who prefers to rely on the evidence of their eyes. :classic_cool:

    You’re eyes are biased, they see what they want to see a lot of the time. I’m not saying gut feeling and perception aren’t relevant but stats provide the evidence for those feelings, or not and change the perceptions.

  8. 4 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

    I don't particularly believe in stats as they are often misleading - and goals is not much help if we aren't getting results. I really like Todd as a player and he has great potential, but in our situation we need results.  Hernandez is different in style from Todd - he is direct and effective where Todd is more of a link player - and it does seem that for a place in the team they are vying with each other for that place. At this stage - imo - we need to be direct.

    Hernandez may be direct but he has been pretty ineffective this year.

    You may not believe in stats but they show that Cantwell is one of our best and one of the most likely to provide the result we need.

  9. I’m really surprised that a number of people want to bench our second highest scorer and most creative player after Buendia.

    Yes Cantwell can frustrate at times but he scores goals, we are a team that desperately needs goals so benching him makes no sense to me. Plus he was one of the few players who I personally thought didn’t go missing against United.

    • Like 4

  10. Would be an amazing signing to try and rescue this year, big upgrade on what we have.

    Other than in Pukki our central spine of the team is where we have been lacking this year. 

    We've already brought in Duda to try and solve the No10 issue, an upgrade in the midfield pair like this and we are almost there IMO. 

    Just a shame Klose isn’t closer to a comeback.

    If we can pull this off I see Leitner the logical sacrifice.

  11. 9 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

    I would argue that in a way we did do this - but just not for this season. We brought in Daniel Adshead, Reece McAleer and Aidan Fitzpatrick for our academy teams all at fees reported to be in the region of £300,000 plus various performance related add ons etc. We bought in one or two others such as the goalkeeper Archie Mair for no fee. The hope is that they will be looking for their PL opportunity some time in the next few years.

    Young talent looking for a PL opportunity that has a realistic chance of making a difference this season is going to cost serious money - Che Adams who joined Southampton for a fee of £15 million and on a 5 year contract (see Parma's point about onerous player contracts if we are a Championship club) is a case in point. Given that we made a loss of £38 million last season - and that we had incurred large future commitments by giving out the long term contracts to the players who got us up - maybe they just couldn't find suitable young talent at a price we could afford. 

    I’m equally happy with those young signings, it’s great to see the club building for the future and trying to grab the next Maddison, Godfrey or Aarons. But as you point out none are for this season.

    Che Adams is a striker, a proven one at that if not at PL level, they always command the highest fees.

    I do feel we should have been prepared to spend some “serious” money given the circumstances we now find ourselves with PL money and Parachutes. We didn’t need to go Villa crazy, nothing even close to it, 10-25 mil of sensible investment max. One or two players in the 5-10 mil bracket that could have made a difference. 

    If you use Adams as an example he’s exactly the type we should have been after as if we are relegated he is proven in that league and tying him to a long contract wouldn’t be anywhere near as risky as our previous failures. Those signings either tear up the PL and double or more in value or at least remain quality second tier assets.

    We didn’t buy any players in the model for now and failed to really add anything to really upgrade the journeyman who are accompanying our young talent bar an injured striker and our one gem in Byram.

  12. 1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

    Monty, your view is entirely reasonable - and I suspect fairly common - though I would suggest that Norwich’s determination to ‘do different’ mitigated against the seemingly equitable  ‘middle ground’ option that you endorse. 

    Personally I feel it underplays the unknowns that were inherent to our decision-making in advance of the season. 

    The ‘Maddisons’ of this world do not have to come to Norwich. We can afford to ‘over-pay’ for them as we can afford headline fees above the going rate for players that won’t demand high wages and liabilities. Contingency bonuses, loyalty and success payments are only payable upon success (when you can afford them) - unlike the millstone in reverse when you have the liabilities and are facing losses.

    The ‘Maddisons’ of this world want to play however. They are increasingly rejecting lucrative contracts to get a distant squad number at a name club (bravo), in favour of ‘curating’ a career by carefully managing the best level they can reach whilst still being likely to play every week. 

    To this effect we must offer a playing pathway to the ‘Maddisons’. Given that that is the model, it is not enough to talk about it, we must deliver it and - crucially - be seen to deliver it on a bright stage (the EDP is not enough)..

    This context provided the answer to your point: pre-season it was not in our interests to stall or block the pathways for up-and-coming assets such as Aarons, Lewis, Buendia, Godfrey, Cantwell et al. Other players were also expected to be central: Pukki, Leitner (yes), Hernandez, Klose, Vrancic even.

    Norwich cannot attract better players to come and not start however much they pay them (which they don’t). 

    Norwich must be careful with money so must buy better than they have or - in effect - not at all. Hence loans for Amadou, Fahrmann, Roberts (all of which looked sensible). 

    Players that are obviously better (pre-season) than what we had - or who would definitely be better than the level our players might reach - would be too expensive for us and would likely prefer elsewhere in any case, or could not be afforded upon relegation. 

    The ‘Maddisons’ of this world are however thrilled by what we have done. Players of course only really think about themselves and their own careers. We have created fabulous PR for the model by not taking the ‘middle way’ and backing our young players (a back three with a 19, 20 and 21 year old is unheard of) - and furthermore sticking to it - is brave and hugely appreciated by ‘Maddisons’ (and many football clubs who are not brave enough to do it, though would love to self-identify that way). 

    Regardless of sporting outcome, financially our key assets: Pukki, Buendia, Godfrey, Aarons, Lewis (and now Cantwell) have increased massively in value. This is success by any club’s measure and it feeds into the pathways that the Maddisons dream of (unlike us it is not finishing a career with Norwich City and helping us win the European Cup). We are a great stepping stone to initial higher level playing action, (some) more money and then the chance of a big move. This is our present and future, with the model designed to grow in increments. Perhaps we will see a Stadium legacy (which for me would be a cute rabbit out of the hat, justify most things and likely please all).

    So it was no accident and it still isn’t. Whether by design or necessity we have stuck to our model. Whether it has failed or not in sporting terms depends on your starting point, what constitutes success and how long a timeframe you judge it over. It also depends on what you view to be the fundamental responsibilities of business owners. 

    We have played - and continue to play - the cards that we are holding. We are playing them to a hard plan (that seeing beyond the Premier will not be popular is well understood by all those in power). 
    Given the parameters we have. I am not sure we can do much else. Far from ‘little old Norwich’ it is quite strategically ruthless in many ways. 


    Thank you for your interesting and insightful response Parma. 

    I still don’t think my views are antithetical to the model, I’m glad we have achieved a reputation as a club that trusts in youth and that we have showcased and increased the value of our biggest talent.

    I still feel however that if that is the model, surely the squad as a whole needs to be invested in to that basis? If you want young talent to come to you their first team opportunities can’t be limited and we also can’t put out a eleven of that nature.

    So we surely need to also buy experienced quality players for our youngsters to learn from and to provide guidance and leadership on the pitch as well. We surely also need a strong squad of players to replace them if it really isn’t working or they are injured.

    The signings made in the summer to me were fine, there just wasn’t enough of them (the fact they have largely failed is benefit of hindsight). Roberts I find baffling, why bring in young largely unproven talent on loan? How does that fit the model?

    The rest make sense as backups and/or potential squad improvements. However there was no player brought in that fits the model? Why not use the opportunity to bring in any number of young talent looking for their PL opportunity, especially with the reputation we had cultivated? Only one or two were expected, but none materialised.

    Finally on the squad strength and depth this was clearly a choice that backfired, a lack of fifth CB given the injury records of recent seasons was a gamble that didn’t pay off. As has proved only an injury prone Drmic as the only reasonable quality backup to Pukki.

    If we had brought in Rhodes (or another experienced backup), another CB and one or two exciting prospects that could have competed for starting births in midfield I think both our summer business would have been largely unquestioned and personally we likely would be better off. None of that seems incompatible with the model and it’s why I feel dissatisfaction personally. That’s the middle ground I propose and I actually think it’s more of a case of slightly to the right of what we tried than a big change.


    • Like 1

  13. 5 minutes ago, HertsCanary93 said:

    December was a really painful month.

    Arguably the best football I have ever seen us play in the premier league (I'm a young-un) - but really poor results due to our inability to convert chances and out away agmes.

    Pukki has been superb this season, but has been poor since the Leicester game (probably due to carrying an injury). This is where the huge frustration from our lack of depth comes from. I will cheer any player wearing Norwich colours, but I knew deep down that Dennis Srbeny was not going to come on and score the chances Pukki was missing.

    Agree with this, for me this was the most frustrating thing, we were outplaying teams but lacked the options to kill them off.

    We are really lacking the Rhodes like figure to throw on from last year. I truly believe now he would have been a good acquisition in the summer considering what we ended up with, but we penny pinched and lost the chance to pick up a decent 3rd choice, who wanted to be here, for already relatively cheap.

    • Like 1

  14. 21 minutes ago, HertsCanary93 said:

    We're an attacking team that doesn't score enough goals.

    If the plan was to play a free flowing attacking game, where we sacrifice solidity at the back for attacking movement - you have to score more than 1 goal a game on average. Especially when you give a goal away from set-pieces every other game.

    This is the crux for me, far too many chances spurned.

    It’s between this and our lack of CB cover which will be the main reason we go down in my eyes.

    We have played some top quality football at times this season, particularly over the last month or so (barring Saturday) but we can’t score the goals to close out games.

    Even world class defences are under pressure trying to hold onto 1 goal leads for majority of games.


  15. 2 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

    TJ, many on this board forget that things are binary: you either do sign players in January or you don’t.

    If you’re struggling and you don’t you will be heavily criticised, if you do you have to take on huge liabilities (a £5m player is actually a £15m or £20m player: £5m + £50k p/w x 4 years + bonuses+clauses).

    The transfer fee - often the number reported or referred to - is often fairly irrelevant and easily payable in the Premier. It is the wage and package liabilities that are onerous and destructive in the Championship where a £5m-£10m loss per annum is ‘normal’ .

    Thus a quality player on loan with something to prove is an excellent piece of business. Farhmann and Amadou are logical versions of this model. 

    Unlike many other clubs - with the ownership and operational model they have - Norwich must focus on keeping their ongoing monthly outgoings low. This poses a problem because actually - upon promotion - capex could easily be spent. It is the contingency of ‘what if’ and the subsequent post-Premier pcm outgoings obligation that is the handbrake. 

    De-facto then we need to keep the money to pay the losses lost-relegation. Asking whether one inherently causes the other is a reasonable question. 

    In this context Duda is an excellent signing, in both a sporting and operational sense.


    Parma what you’ve said makes absolute sense, especially in the case of Duda and our current predicament.

    However surely taking into account our business as a whole this summer we could have afforded more long term liability?

    No one wanted another RVW or Naismith, but surely there is a middle ground between shelling out for 50K a week players for 4 years and loans? We brought in both Byram and Drmic for next to nothing so if the fee is largely irrelevant as you say, we weren’t averse to signing players? 

    Having given new long contracts out to nearly the whole of our talent we certainly weren’t averse to accruing long term liability’s either.

    I think all you’ve done for me is highlight that the nature of our business this window is largely going to be driven by the failure of the last.

    • Like 1

  16. 3 minutes ago, Indy said:

    Was only having a bit of fun! Of course not, we couldn’t afford him in the championship and as you say definitely wants to be playing higher standard.

    Fair enough. The unfortunate irony is we could probably afford him still.

  17. 58 minutes ago, Indy said:

    I sort of get this, but consider Huckerby, if Duda comes here, enjoys his spell falls for the club and wants to stay, sure a deal could be done in the summer.

    Thats if he’s as good as we hope, I think he’ll be a step above what we have at that number 10 position.

    No way Duda signs to be playing Championship football so the only way that happens is if we stay up.

    • Like 1