Redmond rejects new Canaries deal

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Purple, I wouldn''t regard my view in any sense as ''apocalyptic, but simply a measured, realistic assessment of our ongoing predicament. Certainly, I could offer a less upbeat future scenario...[/quote]I don''t doubt that. In fact, as a student of your posts, I could probably write it for you...

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="93vintage"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="93vintage"][quote user="JF"]I''ve been told that the stories about the clubs finances are true so don''t expect the fee to be ploughed back into the team[/quote]1) It wouldn''t surprise me if this was true, and there might be something of a re-appraisal of the McNally & Bowkett years if both the team and finances underperform.I''m not worried about Redmond leaving given our situation. What worries me is the ''business as usual'' atmosphere. 2) There''s no inquest on where it''s all gone wrong, no re-evaluation, no sense of changing direction and no leadership.If we haven''t got rid of several players by the end of the month then we''ll be in big trouble.[/quote]1) It would not surprise me if this wasn''t true, and not just because the chairman has said it isn''t true.2) You know this how? The only public comments I have seen on the subject were from Neil, to the very opposite effect, that he would indeed be evaluating his own performance and - in what looked like a significant aside - the performance of others.[/quote]1/ I doubt we''d be in big financial trouble. But any degree of over-exuberance, of which there have been a few rumours, won''t help further down the line with the need to replace aging players and generally rebuild. Something will have to give somewhere, probably the transfer budget as opposed to eg going into debt. Selling Redmond might both mask and alleviate any financial hangover from last season.2/ I never claimed to know about what''s going on inside the boardroom, but at least publically nothing much seems to be being said or coming out via the usual channels (leaks, rumours etc). If there was a big re-evaluation, along the lines of sitting down and consulting with staff, then I''m sure we''d have heard about it by now. I doubt we''ll hear anything from the club about lessons learned over the previous four years resulting in a significant change of strategy.[/quote]Yes you did. You said there wasn''t any kind of inquest or re-evaluation going on. In fact Neil has said there is, at least as far as his view of the football side is concerned, and when Balls became chairman he said he was drawing up a 10-year plan for the club as a whole.[/quote]Read into what I wrote what you like, but I never mentioned the boardroom or claimed to know what went on inside it.I admit I''ve not heard about Balls'' 10 year plan, but I seem to remember a previous x year plan which didn''t amount to much. The latter was more like a holiday itinerary, ie where to go and what to do by whichever date, than anything of any substance.

[king canary 7,607]

@Highland

That isn''t really a realistic view though is it?

First of all you''re claim about selling our best striker is at best highly subjective.

Then you''re talking about selling our ''only attacking threat'' (as if Brady and Hoolahan have both left with nobody mentioning) for £10m, something that hasn''t happened yet and we have no idea of the fee.

You then say the answer to our defensive fragility and attacking ineptitude is a new contract for Whittaker, something that seems at best highly unlikely.

Finally you claim (based on nothing) that it looks like we''re going to have a worse summer than last year and remain in the Championship for a decade (or worse) despite having spent 4 of the last 5 seasons in the Premier League.

I don''t think everything as the club is great but there is bugger all ''realistic'' in that bunch of crap.

[treacletown07 3]

Redmond has a £20 million release clause so we could easily finance the deals for Kodjia and Hemed.

We could backfill Redmond with Murphys x2 plus Patrick Roberts.

Promo guaranteed.

Easy life.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"] when Balls became chairman he said he was drawing up a 10-year plan for the club as a whole.[/quote]

Ah! Mao Tse Balls and the Great Leap Forward.[Y]

[Herman 9,767]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Highland Canary"]Purple, I wouldn''t regard my view in any sense as ''apocalyptic, but simply a measured, realistic assessment of our ongoing predicament. Certainly, I could offer a less upbeat future scenario...[/quote]I don''t doubt that. In fact, as a student of your posts, I could probably write it for you...[/quote]What a terrible course. At least it''s free.

[Herman 9,767]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"] when Balls became chairman he said he was drawing up a 10-year plan for the club as a whole.[/quote]

Ah! Mao Tse Balls and the Great Leap Forward.[Y][/quote]Will fans start disappearing for ''re-education''?

[Herman 9,767]

[quote user="93vintage"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="93vintage"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="93vintage"][quote user="JF"]I''ve been told that the stories about the clubs finances are true so don''t expect the fee to be ploughed back into the team[/quote]1) It wouldn''t surprise me if this was true, and there might be something of a re-appraisal of the McNally & Bowkett years if both the team and finances underperform.I''m not worried about Redmond leaving given our situation. What worries me is the ''business as usual'' atmosphere. 2) There''s no inquest on where it''s all gone wrong, no re-evaluation, no sense of changing direction and no leadership.If we haven''t got rid of several players by the end of the month then we''ll be in big trouble.[/quote]1) It would not surprise me if this wasn''t true, and not just because the chairman has said it isn''t true.2) You know this how? The only public comments I have seen on the subject were from Neil, to the very opposite effect, that he would indeed be evaluating his own performance and - in what looked like a significant aside - the performance of others.[/quote]1/ I doubt we''d be in big financial trouble. But any degree of over-exuberance, of which there have been a few rumours, won''t help further down the line with the need to replace aging players and generally rebuild. Something will have to give somewhere, probably the transfer budget as opposed to eg going into debt. Selling Redmond might both mask and alleviate any financial hangover from last season.2/ I never claimed to know about what''s going on inside the boardroom, but at least publically nothing much seems to be being said or coming out via the usual channels (leaks, rumours etc). If there was a big re-evaluation, along the lines of sitting down and consulting with staff, then I''m sure we''d have heard about it by now. I doubt we''ll hear anything from the club about lessons learned over the previous four years resulting in a significant change of strategy.[/quote]Yes you did. You said there wasn''t any kind of inquest or re-evaluation going on. In fact Neil has said there is, at least as far as his view of the football side is concerned, and when Balls became chairman he said he was drawing up a 10-year plan for the club as a whole.[/quote]Read into what I wrote what you like, but I never mentioned the boardroom or claimed to know what went on inside it.I admit I''ve not heard about Balls'' 10 year plan, but I seem to remember a previous x year plan which didn''t amount to much. The latter was more like a holiday itinerary, ie where to go and what to do by whichever date, than anything of any substance.[/quote]Do you mean McNally''s seven year plan,the one that went rather better than had been planned??

[SwindonCanary 455]

Some sites are saying it''s already agreed with Stoke, I hope not, we need to keep him in the transfer window and see who''s willing to pay the most.

[king canary 7,607]

Surely we''d be better off selling him now if we''re happy with the price, thus giving us more time to reinvest the money.

[AJ 1,221]

As has sadly become the norm in football now, the player has too much control and if he doesn''t want to be here he''ll be gone by the end of the window. Whilst Stoke is a slightly strange destination for him, maybe our interest in Walters has something to do with it? I''m not sure anything is agreed just yet though as I believe Redmond posted pictures suggesting he''s on holiday somewhere after playing for England U21s. I would prefer to keep him certainly, but everything has a price and if the money is right it makes sense to reinvest if he wants to leave

[Yellowbeagle 0]

We need to realistic about the price, if we leave it to tribunal we might get a similar deal Liverpool had to pay for Danny Ings, which was 6.5 upfront, when you factor in the 15% going to Birmingham that would be pathetic "if" we were toget similar.

Do to want him to go but I can see why the club would be looking at anything offered above 10m. Then I guess the club needs to weigh up his attitude, replacement cost and his impact if he was made to stay and help us to promotion.

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="Herman "][quote user="93vintage"]I admit I''ve not heard about Balls'' 10 year plan, but I seem to remember a previous x year plan which didn''t amount to much. The latter was more like a holiday itinerary, ie where to go and what to do by whichever date, than anything of any substance.[/quote]Do you mean McNally''s seven year plan,the one that went rather better than had been planned??[/quote]The overall aim was always to become a regular Premier League side with the occasional relegation and short spells in the Championship. At the moment we''re on course to become a regular Championship side with the occasional promotion and short spells in the Premier League.The 7 year plan was a means to achieve the above aim, not an aim in itself, and hence things haven''t (yet) gone better than originally envisaged.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

A tribunal might actually get us more money than the Club, based upon the Hooper sale.

Seriously, if we end up with less than £10m into our transfer budget, after paying Birmingham their dues, then the Club will have done badly.

Considerations of holding the player to his contract are a few:-

If we do this we will likely be £3-4m worse off but will have had him on-board for a crucial season which could ultimately prove hugely financially beneficial for us.

How much did MBokani cost us for the season, with mixed results our reward?

How much did Bamford cost for nil returns?

Another factor would obviously be the player''s attitude if forced to remain, but the Club comes first and I would hope his play would not suffer. He would still be highly paid and we would do well to retain his Premier League wages.

Finally, and an unknown factor to us mere fans would be the factor surrounding the health of our finances and our need for this cash in hand. If it is needed to fund the buying of players then how do we know that it will be well spent given recent acquisitions? I refer mainly to Naismith, Mulumbu and Bamford here, but would not have to go too far back for a few other examples of wastage.

For the above reasons we need to hold out for as much as is possible. Rumours that a deal has been already arranged with Stoke astound me. That is unless their offer is very OTT, which I doubt it has been, especially as their original offer has been reported as £10m.

A difficult mix of decisions surrounding just one little player. No wonder McNally resigned.

[Curious Canary 0]

Given that we are now blessed with the presence of a world class economist who fully understands the laws of supply and demand we can all be assured that we get the best fee for Redders whatever it might be.

Although if the acting CEO holds sway, in could be more of a lottery.

One can hardly blame Redders for seeking pastures new.

Good young pro with the right attitude. Would like to see him do well wherever he goes.

[HertsCanary93 222]

Better to sell early if we get a good fee arranged. I''d like to see something over £15m but I''m doubtful we''ll get that much. Anything less than £10m and I''d be ok with keeping him until a tribunal fee.

If we can sell early, it should give us some time to reinvest the money. Imo we need a pretty big rebuild in some areas and some money in the bank will hopefully mean we don''t make the same mistakes as last summer.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

Agree, get him gone early and let''s invest quickly and not leave it till the last minute.

Not sure we''ll get anything like the £10-15m quoted, expect it will be 8 with other bonus payments like full England call ups etc.

The problem we have is that the prices ''quoted'' for players are seemingly just as much.

I don''t think right wing will be a problem area for us in the champs, we have Jarvis who will be a handful at that level plus the Murphy''s

[AmericanNorwichFan 0]

Stoke seem to be the front runner for him. Palace want Townsend, apparently there was a clause in his contract that let a Prem club buy him for a certain amount. I don''t know if anyone else was seriously interested in him.

[Katie Borkins 1]

If we make less on his sale than we made on the Lewis Grabban sale, something has gone very badly wrong.

Don''t forget we are due to pay 15% to Birmingham so 10m becomes 8.5m.

[Indy 3,300]

So if we sell for less than Grabban, you''re saying Ed Balls and co are not up to it then Bor?

[Katie Borkins 1]

No, I''m saying it would be disappointing if we got less than the Grabban money.

I am not saying "IF WE GET LESS THAN WE GOT FOR GRABBAN THEN OUR BOARD ARE A JOKE" because I''m not a reactionary knee-jerking c*ck.

Hope that clarifies things.

[Indy 3,300]

But that''s not what you said at all, you said something''s gone badly wrong, that implies you think the board would have done bad business, you never said you''d be unhappy, but I agree you certainly not a knee-jerking.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Indy"]But that''s not what you said at all, you said something''s gone badly wrong, that implies you think the board would have done bad business.[/quote]

That is your implication and not mine.

Yes if we clear less than £8.5m for Redmond then it will not be great business, but I would not write the board off based on one transaction; we don''t know what other options are out there and whether Redmond has said he will happily pick up a decent wage for another season and then leave on a free when out of contract.

Having got £8m for Grabban, I think the board deserve a little bit of confidence.

[Jimmy Bone - Superstar 2]

I think that Birmingham get 15% of any profit that we make on him not 15% of the fee?

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

"I think that Birmingham get 15% of any profit that we make on him not 15% of the fee?"

Good point. That''s potentially a big difference and would make sense.

[Indy 3,300]

Well that''s clarified that, still not what you said, but heck that''s fine Bor.

Yep McNally does indeed deserve the credit for goo fees for Johnson and Grabban, we shall see if the current set up can be as strong.

As for Redders can''t say I blame him for wanting to take that next step and 10 million would be a good return as he''s in his last season.

Just hope we don''t rely on Jarvis and Wes as our wide players next year.

[Van wink 2,994]

£8 million for Grabban, source Chopsy?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Vanwink"]£8 million for Grabban, source Chopsy?[/quote]https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jan/11/bournemouth-lewis-grabban-norwich

[Van wink 2,994]

😂 the most reliable of sources, left wing liberal press being highly regarded for financial exactitude.

[Curious Canary 0]

"Vanwink"]😂 the most reliable of sources, left wing liberal press being highly regarded for financial exactitude.

Good enough for Delia apparently.