Juggy

But then who knows, perhaps he would become our Michu. 

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"][quote user="TheNewBoy"][quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"] Quag is less an out and out striker and is also a creator, something the team was missing last season. The names mentioned are more strikers with a potential - Hughton clearly thinks that Quag can bring his specific set of skills to the team and for a period of time that make him a worthwhile investment.   That coincides with my view,  as a player he is technically far superior to the proposed names and those currently at our club.   And the rumoured wages are only marginally ahead of what Holts rumoured wages were. Would I rather spend £8-£10m on a current borderline england international or borderline italian international?      [/quote] Well I wouldn''t mind Jermaine Defoe, Daniel Sturridge or Andy Carroll. Sorry lost me there! [/quote] All three would cost more than Quag and Quag would bring more to the table to ncfc. [/quote]That wasn''t the question though, you asked whether I''d rather spend £8m-£10m on a borderline england international or a borderline italian international. Chelsea are said to be about to sign 29 year old Daneile De Rossi for £11m. If that is the going rate for a world class defensive midfielder, probably one of the top three best defensive midfielders in the world, then £8.5m is too much for a 30 year old who is a squad player for both club and country.Sunderland have just purchased EMANUELE Giaccherini, an Italian international midfielder, who plays for Juventus, and has just turned 28.... for £6.5m. People are talking as if we should expect to pay £8.5m just because he is an Italian international, but it doesn''t really look like the going rate to me, just feels like we are paying over the odds. Especially as the rumour is that 10m euros is our initial bid and it has been rejected.

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]Quag is less an out and out striker and is also a creator, something the team was missing last season. The names mentioned are more strikers with a potential - Hughton clearly thinks that Quag can bring his specific set of skills to the team and for a period of time that make him a worthwhile investment.   That coincides with my view,  as a player he is technically far superior to the proposed names and those currently at our club.   And the rumoured wages are only marginally ahead of what Holts rumoured wages were. Would I rather spend £8-£10m on a current borderline england international or borderline italian international?      [/quote]Well I wouldn''t mind Jermaine Defoe, Daniel Sturridge or Andy Carroll. Sorry lost me there!

[quote user="mrdi"]Point taken re. longevity, etc. It''s all about calculated risks. Quagliarella (if he joined) could be amazing for one season, then underwhelming for the following two. He could be a massive flop. He could be a revelation. Unless we sign him, we simply won''t know. Going with the same theory, RvW could also be a massive risk. Who''s to say he won''t be a huge flop? What if (heaven forbid) he gets crocked in his first match and never plays for us again? What about Redmond, what if he comes with promise and turns out to be the next Mark Rivers? What if he doesn''t come good for another 3 years? The fact is, we''re aiming for quality. Be it players who have established a pedigree (like Quag), or who have huge promise (Redmond) or who are just out-right exciting (RvW). That''s great. From where we''ve been recently, it''s amazing. I''m sure the necessary due dilligence and financial risk etc is well and truely rung out by McNally and co long before we even make a bid. Personally, I''m quite enjoying this part of the ride.[/quote]Well as soon as Quagliarella signs, what is done is done, and I''m sure everybody will just be excited to see him pull on the shirt. I don''t know enough about him to get excited really, although don''t doubt his pedigree. It would make a refreshing change to signing a Becchio or Kane at the last minute that is for sure. 

[quote user="Alan_Grey"]The 2.5 million per year is in EUROS and equates to a little over £40k p/w. I wouldn''t have had to repeat myself if this was with all the other long pages of discussion about a man''s age.[/quote]A salary of £40k per week would result in employers national insurance liability of £285,977.95 per year. That''s an extra £5500 per week, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. 

[quote user="lincoln canary"]How old is robin van persie?[/quote]Van Persie joined Man Utd a week after his 29th birthday. Quagliarella is 31 in January. Grant Holt was only 32 in April. Holt was told that he was too old for a three year contract when he had just turned 31. It seems bizarre to me that the club would spend so much on somebody who is almost 31. But who knows. And the fee may not be so high, but probably is, Italy isn''t renowned for being cheap. 

Jelle Vossen, another one we could be chasing. 

[quote user="lincoln canary"]How old is robin van persie?[/quote]29. How many times has Fabio Quagliarella scored 30 goals in a season? 

[quote user="mrdi"]Seriously, his age is irrelevant. The most important thing about Quagliarella is his quality. THAT is what the mooted £8.5m is for, not the ''re-sale value'' that so many people seem to be so infactuated with. Personally, I want to see top quality players at Norwich. And a balance. We have plenty of young''n''hungry in the team already.[/quote]The issue with his age is not the resale value as such, but the longevity. The resale value does play a part because that adds significantly to the cost of the player. If we sign him on a three year deal and can''t get a fee for him at the end then his true cost would be £8.5m + £2.5m + £2.5m + £2.5m.That equates to £5.3m per year, which is a hefty chunk of the Sky money if it doesn''t go to plan. But ignore the money, the worry about his age is that he may not be as effective in two years as he is now. If Grant Holt was as good now as he was at 30 then he would still be at the club. He isn''t though, and that is the worry. 

[quote user="vlad666"]The trouble with English players, as not many play abroad, is they tend to burn out at 30ish due to playing in the premier league all their life. [/quote]I think it has a lot more to do with their tendency to slam down twelve pints, snort a few lines and munch a doner kebab every saturday. Italian players are much more likely to enjoy a couple of glasses of red wine and a pasta dish at their local restaurant. 

[quote user="Indy"]There are a heck of a lot of people on here who rate this guy, some trying to compare him with Zola, Baggio and such like, when in reality he has only 20 odd appearances for Italy over a period where they dipped in quality. [/quote]Don''t think you can judge a player solely on their number of International caps (either positively or negatively). Darren Huckerby had no England caps, neither did Ian Crook, neither did Darren Eadie. Di Canio never played a single game for Italy and yet he was a really special player. That was political, as he is controversial with his beliefs, but he was still a top class player.On the other hand you have some pretty terrible players who win caps, especially with England. I seem to remember Francis Jeffers getting an England cap, Richard Wright got a couple too, Michael Ricketts and Dave Nugent were hardly world beaters.When Steve Guppy finishes his career with and England cap, but Huckerby and Eadie don''t, then you know that it is a poor measure of a players ability. But I still think £8.5m is a lot to spend on any 30 year old. Prepared to be proved wrong of course, he may turn out to be the next City legend and could smash Grant Holt''s scoring record. 

[quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]I was very unhappy about a large fee for a 30 year old when £7m or so was mooted. If it is true that a £8.5m bid has been turned down then lets all move on there is far better value out there, this is what we paid for RVW for goodness sake. Our financial position is much better but still we need to be sensible. Bent is going for about £5m and is a year younger. I still would like to see us looking for a player in his mid 20s with a good record but capable of improving. As others have said we are no longer a selling club. I don''t agree with this all clubs are selling clubs if the price is right, look at Spurs with Modric and probably Bale in due course. I would still like to see us het Hooper[/quote]Well we will have no idea of the actual fee, because it will probably be undisclosed, but I agree with that in principle we should be looking at players aged say 23 to 27 unless the price is right.Aston Villa have actually signed an extremely good young striker, bit envious of that signing (Helenius). 

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]Dries Mertens is a Belgian[/quote]Well Belgium was part of Holland until 1830 so close enough. 

[quote user="im spartacus"]to be fair top italian players seem to be able to perform well into there 30s paulo maldini being the most famous example but at last years euros i think there striker was 33 and having the best form of his career his name escapes me , but he was an international late comer.[/quote]Just looking at their Euro 2012 squad and can''t see any strikers of that description. Antonio Di Natale was 34, now 35, and still a prolific striker.... but he''d been playing for Italy for a decade.Di Natale has 112 goals in the last four seasons. That actually is the best form of his career, so guess you are talking about him, he peaked at around 31 and is still at his peak now.Di Canio was another who was class well into his thirties, was 31 when he joined West Ham and 35 when he left, and then played for Lazio until 38.Maybe you are onto something, perhaps it is the olive oil. 

[quote user="Johnny Stump"]You couldn''t add this to the existing thread?[/quote]I read the first few pages and couldn''t see discussion about the 10m fee, twenty one pages is rather a lot to skim through. Our time on this earth is finite. 

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="TheNewBoy"][quote user="TheNewBoy"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"] It''s not just the internet streams.  There are those satellite boxes where you apparently pay about £140 - £150 for the box, initial set up and first year then pay about £50 - £60 a YEAR after that and you get every Sky channel available.  They are run by crims from a server somewhere and as you can imagine, Sky aren''t too happy about it. [/quote] I was under the impression that what you actually get is a subscription to Greek cable, which the high court ruled as completely legal as Greece is an EU country and the EU is a single market.[/quote] Or something like that anyway... [/quote] No, these ones are nothing to do with Greece.  You get ALL of the UK Sky channels possible, movies, sport, HD, naughty, etc. [/quote]Sounds a bit dodgy then. A lot of pubs were buying satellite boxes from some European country which had all the Premier League games for next to nothing, but that was found to be legal. Think it was Greece, it was somewhere like that. 

I know that we need to take newspaper numbers with a big pinch of salt, but if the figure of 10m euros is to be believed, is it really sensible to be spending that much money on a thirty year old? Many on here consider Holt to have declined by 32, and he is a player who has never relied on pace. Whilst we could potentially get three excellent years of football out of a thirty year old, there isn''t going to be much of a resale value.A simple Fabio Quagliarella v Gary Hooper argument would likely see Quagliarella win every time, but not so sure about a Hooper £5m Vs Quagliarella £8.5m argument.Just feels a little off to see figures like that quoted when we paid a similar sum for a 24 year old Dutch International. I know prices for strikers are inflated but Wilfriend Bony at £12m looks like a great deal in comparison.Of course, we may not be paying anything like £8.5m for the man, but I''d certainly hope that we are not if there is any question of us doing so. Similar prices have been rumoured or confiremd paid this summer for some hot younger talents.Ricky Van Wolswinkel is one of course, others include Dries Mertens (£8m) and Jeremain Lens (£7.5m). Both also Dutch.A player that I''d love to see at Carrow Road is Carlos Vela the former Arsenal man. He transferred for £4m last summer, has had a good season but suspect double money would be enough to get him. I''d be excited about seeing Quagliarella whatever happens, just seems like a lot of money for a thirty year old no matter who you are. 

[quote user="mastoola"][quote user="TheNewBoy"]The meeting would be in Milan for the same reason why Norwich signed Van Wolfswinkel in London.  Good restaurants, luxury hotels, and a generally nicer place to conduct business.  Plus if you are asking somebody to fly to Italy, it would probably be polite to drive the short distance to meet them - he would have flown to Milan most likely.  [/quote] and a major airport? [/quote]Well yeah, there is that, but Turin also has an airport. 

[quote user="City1st"]dearie lord meit''s hard to believe that this is not one of the better windups and this is all some glorious spoof of a complete idiotbut no, the eality is that he is as dim as the posts would have you believe. "We take 2000 fans to away games typically. 20000 season ticket holders remain at home"Yes, and unable to watch the majority of the away games legally because they are PLAYED AT 3PM on a Saturday after noon. The games that are not, have been moved to so as to be .................................broadcast live. So it matters little what package is sold,  those games cannot be legally broadcast to UK consumers.Otherwise it would be pointless trying to explain the obvious flaws in your ridiculous old tosh about selling individual club deals so I shan''t bother - but I will suggest you to get your head out of Murdoch''s backside long enough to tell us how much he lost on buying Myspace.And also suggest you go back to being Tom Cavendish with his crackpot plans to have students growing peppercorns at the show ground whilst teaching City players at Norwich airport - with no cost to anyone and a huge profit for the university and the council ... ............... and a new stadium built on a flyover above the Northern ring road which would therefore cost nothing and provide an excellent ride and ride system to the ground.[/quote]A 3pm blackout which doesn''t exist in Germany, a nation which has the best domestic attendances of any country in the world and five of the ten best supported clubs in Europe. A 3pm blackout which the EU commission found had absolutely no positive effect on attendances. An ancient outdated law which serves no purpose anymore. A dinosaur, just like you lot who can''t see how the internet has completely changed the marketplace. No idea what the rest of your mundane twaddle was supposed to mean, read it twice and didn''t understand a word. 

[quote user="Monty13"]"If PL (or Sky/BT/Whoever was given the rights) was to show high quality streams and charge people they would make a hefty profit plus additional advertising revenue. Some people are always going to want something for nothing, but I''ll warrant theres a large market for those who want quality and are prepared to pay.[/quote]Definitely. Streams are very low quality and unreliable. Enough people would pay a reasonable cost to watch a high quality alternative and thankfully Sky are beginning to wake up and evolve. 

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="TheNewBoy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="TheNewBoy"]The only games that I wish to watch are Norwich away games, about 19 a year, minus one or two that I actually end up going to. Why not charge me a a small sum each time I wish to watch one of those games, instead of asking me to subscribe to a service which will show me only a handful of those games and otherwise only offer me games featuring teams that I have no interest in watching.[/quote] Why should a commercial company do that? Which bit of capitalism do you not understand? [/quote]Why would a commercial company sell me something for £100 which I currently get for £0? I don''t know PurpleCanary, you tell me.  Pay-per-view works just fine for boxing. [/quote]   Er, because as I understand it you are not entirely happy with the service you get for £0, otherwise you wouldn''t be willing to pay for something better. But then what you want is some company to provide you with a custom-made service that fits just your desires and potentially no-one else''s and for a small amount of money. That  is where you are failing to grasp one of the essentials of capitalism. The more bespoke and individual the service the higher the cost. [/quote]I knew that you were going to mention the cost. Where your argument falls down there is that I already watch every one of these games, they are already being filmed by cameras, and the majority are being broadcast in another country by a channel owned by News Corporation. They are already paying for the production, which I am taking for £0. There need not be additional cost. I don''t require commentary. I would watch half time adverts.. The demand is there, believe you me. A professional quality broadcast with no pop up ads, no crashing or freezing or lag, plenty of people would pay for that. We take 2000 fans to away games typically. 20000 season ticket holders remain at home. Where this would work even better is with commercial licenses. If pubs in Norwich could purchase a ''Norwich package'', and pubs in Liverpool could purchase a ''Liverpool package'', and pubs in Newcastle could purchase a ''Newcastle package'', then perhaps Sky would start selling into that lucrative market again. And if Sky think that this is such a bad idea, then why are they beginning to trial this very system? http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/sky-make-premier-league-matches-available-on-payperview-8475243.htmlDoesn''t Rupert Murdoch understand capitalism? Like me? 

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="TheNewBoy"]The only games that I wish to watch are Norwich away games, about 19 a year, minus one or two that I actually end up going to. Why not charge me a a small sum each time I wish to watch one of those games, instead of asking me to subscribe to a service which will show me only a handful of those games and otherwise only offer me games featuring teams that I have no interest in watching.[/quote] Why should a commercial company do that? Which bit of capitalism do you not understand? [/quote]Why would a commercial company sell me something for £100 which I currently get for £0? I don''t know PurpleCanary, you tell me.  Pay-per-view works just fine for boxing. 

[quote user="pilksfanclub"]They are getting richer at a much quicker rate than we are. [/quote]How does that work then? Stoke and Fulham are ''getting richer'' how? [quote] We are struggling to keep our head above the water at the moment. [/quote]What the hell are you talking about? Are you on the wrong forum? This is the year 2013, and this is a Norwich City forum. Did you mean to go here? http://www.twtd.co.uk/

100% yes. Especially as it is rumoured that Lambert wants him to replace Benteke.10 million euros for a 30 year old is just silly money and I don''t see why we don''t turn elsewhere. 

The meeting would be in Milan for the same reason why Norwich signed Van Wolfswinkel in London. Good restaurants, luxury hotels, and a generally nicer place to conduct business. Plus if you are asking somebody to fly to Italy, it would probably be polite to drive the short distance to meet them - he would have flown to Milan most likely.