Jump to content

Monty13

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    5,504

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Monty13

  1. Posted

    "There are only 38 games in a Premier League season and so each game is very important. Therefore there isn''t much point in waiting until January as we might be struggling by then and so a lot harder and more expensive to attract new players."

    I didn''t suggest we wait to do all our business in January, I suggested that the only players we definitely need are a LB and a Striker as it stands imo, but if there are others that can improve upon what we already have, we should get them now. I also suggested that, like last year, a large portion of our transfer kitty will be held in reserve till January again, at least a third I would have thought, to deal with any shortcomings that become obvious as the season progresses.

    That''s just being sensible, are you seriously suggesting we spank it all now so we get full value over the season and don''t buy anyone in January to cover injuries/obvious gaps in quality in the squad because we wont get full value over the season as they will only play half the games? Howson and Bennett were a waste of money then.

  2. Posted

    Unless any of us know what CH is thinking its quite hard to determine what we need at the back. Did he sign Whittaker as cover across the back or is he the replacement for Naughton? If so I don''t think you can say he is not good enough to replace him until we see him play. Is Martin seen as a CB now or is he the first choice RB? We definitely need a LB and I personally think Drury could have filled that role but you would suspect that he was only offered another year where as he has got 2 and a nice signing on bonus at Leeds, not bad at 33.

    Personally I feel we could do with the creative but strong defensive midfielder everyone''s talking about but unless someone knows how to get him for under 5 mil and on our wages, we may as well stick with what we have. Although another winger would be good, I don''t think its essential.

    I do agree we need another striker, I think both Moro and Holt will score goals and I would really like to see them play together but we do need someone else, Wilbs has gone and Jackson although he worked very hard and played well didn''t hit the form of the previous seasons end. I think Vaughan could be great if he stays fit but that''s a gamble on past record.

    Plug the hole at the left back berth and another good quality striking option. After that spend the money wherever he likes but importantly only if it improves on what we already have, otherwise what is the point? I also think he might see how the current squad does (Plus new summer additions) and save a fair whack to spend on where he feels its necessary in Jan. This is going to be a much tougher season and he may need to "give the lads a hand" come the half way point.

  4. Posted

    Wes played 33 times last season (only 8 from the bench) in a team that finished 12th. He scored 4 goals, got 7 assists and had a pass completion rate of 86%. Just so you know that number of assists puts him joint 14th in the league with players such as Pienaar, Van der Vaart and Ashley Young. He is a quality player, the stats don''t lie. I would make the presumption that he hasn''t got a new contract (like many others in the squad) because he''s 30, still has 2 years left and isn''t Grant Holt, or he just hasn''t signed one yet. To suggest he should be used sparingly from the bench belittles his contribution last year.

  5. Posted

    Surely it makes sense that our wages as a percentage of turnover in our first year in the Premiership was well below the 50% level. The board, while hopeful, was probably accepting the fact that we were odds on for relgation so wouldn''t want to stretch the wage budget. With another year of PL turnover to come surely we will now be creeping towards the %50 wage turnover level. Hence why players with already good contracts are getting new deals. While the debt payment will be a factor a doubt its the main reason for our wage structure. To be honest 17,000 a week for an unproven striker in the premiership was pretty good for Holt last year, now hes proved himself he wants more, fair enough and a 20-30K contract is what he probably deserves. I wouldn''t be surprised if that was what we were prepared to offer to Holt but only over 2 years (but one would have thought with a third year option). If grant thinks he can get better and by all accounts he can then of course personnally he wants to move. Talking about berbatovs value is a bit mute as he was given little chance to show his worth last year and Man U want rid as his wages are extortionate, hence why an almost non existent transfer fee. Grant costs us comparatively peanuts, we want him, so whoever is going to buy him needs to stump up.

  6. Posted

    [quote user="yoda"]I was really hoping Holt would be staying with us but i can''t see it happening . Holt was on 15,000 a week,has been offered double that on a 2 year deal which he has rejected . West ham have offered him 60,000 and for that reason i think he will be on his way i''m sorry to say .[/quote]

    Not unless west ham also stump up the cash we want for him . It''s all very well saying holt would get a better contract elsewhere, in which case he shouldn''t have signed a new contract last year, the club gambled and won, grant and his agent lost. Throwing their toys out of the pram doesnt mean norwich will cave and if grants still here at the end of the summer he will have to try and maintain his form to ever justify a bigger contract. I could see west hams interest waning before they meet anywhere near McNallys valuation. At which point Grants pretty much in limbo unless someone else comes in for him. I''m not sure why so many think the clubs position is bad and grant will be gone, we don''t want to sell and if he''s still here come august he will have to continue playing out of his skin or it''s career suicide, no big money move, no big contract, footballers are very often valued only by there last season.

  7. Posted

    Son ova gunn, I can see your point but the main difference between borrowing/not paying off debt to buy players/pay wages is that there is no guarantee of any financial return. If we went back into debt with a stadium there will be extra revenue coming in, whether that''s enough to cover the debt depends on how clever the finance department does their figures but just borrowing money for players or not paying off money because your spending it on players means your constantly running at a deficit and without someone rich to balence your books you head down the rangers/Portsmouth etc. route. In fact you end up the football equivalent of Greece. I am under the assumption from what''s been said, but someone will probably provide evidence to the contrary, that once the debt is paid that extra money we are currently paying off will become part if the player budget.

  8. Posted

    I rate Mark Hughes and think if anyone is going to get the vast selection of mercenaries at QPR playing then he has a chance. But Johnson is passed his prime and this looks like a very comfortable move for him, a nearby club and still on reportedly big wages. Its like Owen reportedly going to Stoke because its half an hour down the road from where he lives, good moves for the players, big bonuses for their agents, but are they really that bothered about performing for either of those clubs? Not to mention both have horrific injury records.

  9. Posted

    Personally starting to think the Holt situation is turning into a bit of a gamble, if we keep him and he fails to reproduce the form of last season, for whatever reason, we will all know in hindsight we should have sold him. If we sell him for the reported figure of 6 million and he bangs in two more seasons of 15 or more goals, than I will personally think we have been rather short changed. Then of course there''s the two better options, he stays and replicates that form for another season or two or we sell him and he scores single figures for someone else (not quite so hard to stomach). Either way I bet there will be some debate this time next year on whether the right decision was made. I still think we are basing our financial valuation on the fact Grant plays for Norwich though, if he had banged 15 Premiership goals in for Tottenham or Everton say, I bet their fans would be outraged at such a sum, even if Holt is 31. I know he was 3 years younger but Berbatov cost Man U 30 Million for the same goal tally at Tottenham, now there are obviously many reasons for that inflated price including he was in his prime for playing age. But when the club doesn''t want or have to sell we should get an overinflated price for Holt if someone really wants him.

  12. Posted

    nutty nigel "Does anybody know what sort of fees 29 year old footballers are transferred for? Is 6.5m likely? Or even 4.5m? I''ve got my doubts about this. 6.5m and a 3 year contract on Premiership money? I would have thought there''d be no chance of anything like that sort of fee."

    Stoke paid a reported 10 Million (Some estimates rising to 12 Million) for Crouch last summer when Crouch was roughly 6 Months younger than Holt is now. In his two full seasons at Tottenham according to a couple of stats sites he played 73 premier league games (31 as sub) and scored 12 goals. That''s a striker averaging a goal every 6 games at roughly the same age. Now I know people will say about his England Caps and he is therefore an international striker etc. but that is still a pretty poor recent Premiership record and they paid 10 million for him! 6.5 million for Holt when he wants out is possibly a good deal. If WH are the only bidders the figure I imagine will be lower than we would want, if he is more sought after in a bidding war that figure should go up. But if we don''t have to or want to sell him, the Crouch sale says to me we should be looking for a bit more. 8-10 when he wants out, I would say whoever wants him can definitely have him, 6.5 for me is good but not great, especially if more than one club is interested and as we have made it clear we don''t want or have to sell.

  13. Posted

    If this is a windup it is one of the most elaborately detailed ones with him now posting pics of Lille items and his username. So he''s either telling us what he thinks he knows or is extremely bored. Still doesn''t mean Garcia is going to be our next manager but its an interesting one right out of nowhere. Maybe exactly what Mcnally was hinting at.

  14. Posted

    One could argue having peaked in 2011 with the league and cup win Lille hit their height and barring champions league success not much he can really do to improve on that. Maintaining a challenge for the title in France with Champions League progression to most is still a great place to be, it would seem stupid for him to leave. But if he does want a new challenge maybe he will, don''t want to sound little ol norwich but with those credentials would he not be looking for something bigger? Plus I imagine his wages and prising him away would be at significant cost. Would be a really great shout though, although purely based on his record and apparent style of play, could be a disaster but you obviously never know. If we could attract such a person it would be a massive coup.

  16. Posted

    I would be very happy with Hughton, he is one of the best we can realistically get and its a good case you have argued for him. I don''t think it has to be him though and there are a few guys around him who could do a good job, including Malky. I don''t think we will appoint anyone just because they are friends of Delia, any decision on manager will have our epic Chief Execs hands all over it and hes the one person we really don''t want to piss off right now, so I imagine any managerial choice will have his backing whether Delia likes them or not.

  20. Posted

    Watching it it did very much look like a "your not going to Villa unless they give me the bank" statement on Holt to both him and Lambert. It was quite funny how much he went on about Holt then quite clearly stated Villa can''t have him as they can''t afford him. Also made me laugh at the way he wouldn''t acknowledge the other club with Lambert was Villa, even when the reporter did, kept saying "another club", he''s obviously pretty pissed about the way they have handled themselves.

  21. Posted

    1.5 million for 15 goal premiership striker??? Can we get 4 then please for next season, we will still have quite a lot spare for other players. Crouch is the same age as Holt (31) and cost Stoke 10 million (Some quoting rising to 12) less than a year ago. 5 million would still be a snip. Who the hell could we replace him with for that or less anyway? If we are going to only get 1.5 million for him, let him rot in the reserves rather than score 15 goals for a rival.

  22. Posted

    I personally think he is a good manger not getting the respect he deserves as a candidate simply because he is an ex player. Getting a pretty toothless Cardiff to a Cup final and into the playoffs is the sign of a good manager. He also doesn''t play hoof football, yet we do (check the stats sometime). Wouldn''t be my first choice, but if he comes, I will not be unhappy.

  23. Posted

    Its good article and explains what we all new in our hearts about Lambert, he had more ambition than Norwich could provide him with the opportunity to fulfil. I honestly thought he would stay one more season just because Liverpool weren''t interested and there seemed to be something rotten at Villa, but if HE sees it as the right stepping stone, then we all new he would take it. I have not heard anyone talk about the clubs transfer policy of hungry young players being a board set strategy before. I, like many i would have thought, presumed it was Lamberts. It will obv have a very big effect on the next manager imo as I doubt many of the bigger names would be happy not being able to shop at the top levels.

  24. Posted

    Great post bethnal, no one seems to be looking at Malky in a serious football light. Personally, I''m not sure he is the best appointment we could possibly make, but is certainly not a bad one based on the last two seasons. When Gunn was appointed there were many saying it was a good idea having someone associated and cares about the club in charge. Because that failed so spectacularly it now seems to be the main thing going against the guy with no account for how his team plays or what hes achieved.

  25. Posted

    So if Lambert is off, and his "disagreements" therefore don''t seem related to be a bust up with lambert/slash not being picked enough to get in the England squad. Unless anyone can think of anything else, the obvious thing is he thinks the club don''t pay him enough. So why dress it up differently? I suppose the other possibility is he is fallen out with another player/member of staff remaining at the club. Either way, shit timing again Grant, you''ve got plenty of summer left to engineer a move.
×
×
  • Create New...