Juggy

Think that''s a bit of an exaggeration, he is definitely right up there with ''legend'' status, but it is silly talk to say that he is by far and away the best ever. Players like Keelan and Kenny Foggo were the heroes of their day, shouldn''t discount players like that just because they aren''t widely remembered by us youngsters. Then you have Ron Davies who was considered the best in the game by some of his generations top managers, have you seen the impact that he had? While you can claim that Holt has achieved more with Norwich than Huckerby, there is no way that you can compare them in terms of technical ability, Huckerby was the most under rated English player of his generation. Ian Crook was one of the most under rated of the generation prior. As much as he tarnished his reputation in 2009, Bryan Gunn is an icon in the game and was one of the top keepers in the old First division. Then you have the problem with the line "nobody has had such an effect on our history". If you need to identify individuals for our rise over the past four years then you need to include Lambert, Hoolahan, and McNally. If we stay up again this season then we will have a lot to thank Hughton for also.

Actually was thinking about Palace, got the numbers mixed up. Still, £2m to Palace even worse. Can''t see Dave Whelan spending £4m on a 32 year old, can you? They seldom spent that sort of money on 25 year olds in the Premier League.

An agents job is to earn himself and the player as much money as he can. I really can''t see anybody beating Holt''s current two year deal, can you?

Well perhaps he enjoys the money but not the exercise.

Alright heard ya the first time! Although I doubt it would quite that easy if a player has had a fee paid for him and a signing on fee.

I can see RVW being here for two seasons. At that point he will be desperate to go to a Liverpool or an Arsenal, and we will want to get the best price for him while he still has time on his deal.

Who said anything about the final whistle or the second half?

We need a fourth striker even if Holt stays, so Hughton would in fact need to find two strikers. I''d argue that rather than spending our entire transfer budget on three new strikers, we should save some for other areas of the team, like a centre midfielder, and a left back, and a centre back, maybe a left winger, and the third goalkeeper that we will likely sign. RVW, Becchio, Holt + One Other. There is absolutely no need for Holt to leave.

Even if McNally and Hughton decided that the time is right for Holt to leave this club, I would rather it be for £400k to Melbourne Victory than £4m to a team hoping to finish 17th next season.

Well I''m confident Purple Canary that Hughton''s judgement will be that Holt remains an important member of our squad.

I wish Morty, his wife is a hottie and he supposedly has a manhood almost as large as his bank balance.

Even if Holt became a bit part player next season, scored 4 or 5 off the bench, and then got allowed to leave for £0 next summer to Carlisle or Australia, turning down £4m would have been worth it.... That''s 4 or 5 goals closer to another £60m next summer. It is short-termist to think about £4m now when the goal has to be £60m next summer. What''s the bigger risk? Leaving the team short of the goals necessary to secure £60m next summer, or risking £4m on Grant Holt?

And the problem with your argument PurpleCanary is that it is nothing but hypothetical. It''s like saying "the problem with not signing a top class goalkeeper is that if Ruddy gets injured in September it will be too late to buy one". We have Holt, Becchio, Van Wolfswinkel, and room for one other. Four strikers is enough, full stop, I just don''t see how a player can go from scoring three goals in three PL games to completely incapable of playing football in a few months... just not realistic. The bloke is 32 not 36. I wouldn''t even rule out the possibility of him being here until his contract expires in 2015, why not? Kevin Davies made his England debut at 33, age didn''t exactly prove a barrier to Kevin Phillips either, and Iwan Roberts was useful for a couple of seasons at 33/34. I doubt Holt is costing us any more money than any other 32 year old of his ability, not like the lad is going to be on £50k a week is it. Debt free, £60m in Sky money, a Dutch International on the books, the biggest transfer budget in our history, we don''t need to be taking big risks by flogging our only proven Premier League striker to a relegation rival for a few million quid.

"He could have at least given us a whole season after we got relegated instead of jumping ship at the first opportunity?, I''ll always respect someone like Robert Green more for at least doing that." The same Robert Green who stuck his fingers up at the Riverend in his final game and was then mysteriously ''injured'' and never seen in a Norwich shirt again?

Last summer his tweets were often about nights out, stag parties, and drinking copious amounts of beer. This summer his tweets are of family holidays and six mile runs. That bodes well. I think he''s up for this season, and as long as Hughton feels that he is up for it then I''d like him here.

I think that selling Holt this summer would be one year too early. Nobody is a "must sell" at £4m for us now. He''s a captain, still capable of winning a game for us, and we didn''t win a single game that Grant Holt didn''t start last season. His ability and influence is understated by many Norwich fans. His ''problems'' last season were overstated by many Norwich fans. Not that the problems didn''t exist, he had a difficult year, but I think that keeping hold of him would be a gamble worth taking for the sake of £4m quid.

"I believe most of us are in agreement that if we need to strengthen the midfield it''s with a midfielder who can score" I''m more interested in a midfielder who can pass. Huddlestone can, but he isn''t the answer, for the same reason that Fox isn''t the answr.

Funny how people remember history in different ways. Ashton arrived in January 2005, almost kept us up, and then pledged his allegience to Norwich in the summer and said that he''d help us back up. Despite losing numerous first teamers who jumped the sinking ship at the earliest opportunity (e.g. Damien Francis), Ashton and Huckerby both believed that we had enough at the club to come back up at first attempt (read Ashton interview by Hucks). When it became apparent that we didn''t have enough both Ashton and the club agreed that it would be mutually beneficial if he went to West Ham, where he could get Premier League football and the club could make a significant amount of profit to help out with our operating costs. Norwich bought Earnshaw, who did a perfectly good job in scoring goals, and Ashton justified his transfer fee at West Ham. All of this bitterness seems to have developed at a later date, it us unjustified and in some cases completely false. As for not coming to Carrow Road, Ashton has been very public about the fact that he was mentally scarred by football and couldn''t face going or watching it on TV for some time. He''d just had his career ended, why would he want to turn up at Carrow Road to watch players that he''d played against or alongside still doing what he used to love? Ashton was not at Norwich long enough to be considered a ''legend'', but he was here long enough for us all to know that he had that something special and he should be at least fondly remembered. It is perfectly possible that if Ashton was still playing he''d be a Norwich striker now. If a 29 year old Ashton with 20 England caps was currently at West Ham then you would all be creating threads saying how we should spend £12m on him as Holt replacement and the new Norwich number 9.... have no doubt about that.

I don''t think he is a terrible player, has already shown that he can score goals in the Championship. I think his problem is hunger and desire, or rather his lack of it.

Forum politics not my thing, we all just want what is best for the club at the end of the day - I think. Cheers.

Their fans leveled exactly the same accusations at him as ours did "lazy", "disinterested", "slow", "can''t be bothered". Have to wonder whether the man has just fallen out of love with football, perhaps a return to Millwall will give him a new lease of life. He has been talking publicly about becoming a greyhound trainer and already lives on a farm, I just sense that he wants out of football. He has all his life to train greyhounds though and only a few years to cement a lower league football legacy, so I hope he pulls his finger out of his backside and scores a few goals. Met him several times and quite liked him, wish him well, but a frustrating footballer.

Tils, fair enough. It is true that I don''t enjoy gossip or hearsay, and made that clear enough, but at the same time I believe you when you say that you have a trusted source and so I''m certainly not accusing you of lying or intentional stirring. I''m just going to cross my fingers and hope that it is positive news for the club. Losing either one of McNally or Foulger would not be good news.

"Your tone has softened somewhat since for first post, NewBoy. From that can we assume that you have indeed talked with Foulger Junior and have some info yourself?" I softened my tone because I didn''t want to create an argument, seen a few of those on here and wish not to involve myself in any.

Indeed Hog, I thought them deeply inappropriate, in bad taste, and potentially damaging. Of course, they are only libelous if untrue and that remains to be seen/heard. Tils is obviously putting a lot of faith in his source and that makes me lean towards believing what is written, but it takes a brave man to put yourself in the firing line over something which could just as likely prove incorrect as correct. Each to their own, but I considered it to be in bad taste. If Foulger and McNally have not fallen out, then this is a vicious rumour to start, and we could hear it for months. Rumours like this tend to stick around for the long term (e.g. Morison + Tierney.... Francis + McKenzie..... Ashton & Shackell). Those examples are precisely why I don''t like seeing things like this made public, whether true or not.

Thanks Morty, will get that sorted.