Mulumbu - gossip...

[Europe_93 50]

I live in South Wales and a friend of mine works for Bristol City, the word is they are looking to add Mulumbu. He''s not particularly high up in the club, but would mix with the players and that was the conversation they were having yesterday.

Apparently it is Marseille and Bristol City that are currently in the frame. I''ve heard the Marseille link before, but that wouldn''t be common knowledge in Bristol, so that just gave what he said a little more weight.

Just thought I''d share, ....

[Tetteys Jig 851]

Is he definitely going? I thought he might have been but then he was used at the weekend. I know we''ve got a lot of midfielders but only Tettey is an experienced defensive option.

[DDD In The Fine City 1]

They don''t want to sell to a championship rival, we should tell them the same

[tricky974 63]

Could be used as a make weight for kodjia.

[Horse Renoir 1]

Seems to have really slow feet these days. Takes him longer than any other player, even Tettey or Bennett to get the ball under control and pass it. Was once a good player, but his legs are going

look to me like a simple case of a player declining with age. He doesn''t look overweight or unfit, just old....older than he should be at 31. He''s not the player we thought we were buying, he would be good backup but if we can get any kind of fee I''d be happy, like I said good back up, but I''d prefer to see Thompson or Godfrey as our 4th choice

[Horse Renoir 1]

* 29 actually...wow, didn''t realise he was that young. Well, that injury last year might have completely crocked him then because he shouldn''t be declining yet!

[Mr Apples 1,407]

Sell, sell, sell.

Apples

[SeattleCanary 0]

What''s his worth though? Maybe a mill or two? Offer him and probably 8m and maybe we could prize Kodjia away...

[Move Klose 303]

I would put money on him not joining Bristol City.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

I think he needs keeping, and can offer plenty this season.

Tettey will not manged 46 games. Mulumbu is the ideal replacement. He needs a decent run before being judged, I think he''d suprise a few.

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

[quote user="SeattleCanary"]What''s his worth though? Maybe a mill or two? Offer him and probably 8m and maybe we could prize Kodjia away...[/quote]Considering we signed him on a free, he''s reportedly our highest wage earner, and he''s done the square root of f**k all since he joined us, we''d be lucky to get any kind of fee for him.

[king canary 8,763]

@FTW

Yeah- if we can get him off the wage budget it will be a success. We''ve got a few players here who are reportedly on pretty sizeable wages yet playing backup roles that we really need to shift.

[Mr Apples 1,407]

If he stays I''m sure he''d could do a job at this level, but if there''s an opportunity to offload him we should take it.

Apples

[Making Plans 957]

He has shown absolutely nothing since he''s been here & that''s probably why Pulis couldn''t wait to ship him out of WBA.That should have told us something but we still went ahead and, not for the first time in the last 3 or 4 years, we bought a dud

[Hairy Canary 760]

His wages are certainly an issue but so is the fact that Tetty is our only holding midfield player and we can''t expect him to play 46 games without injury or suspension. If we had kept hold of O''Neil then it would be straight forward.

[king canary 8,763]

@hairy

I suppose it then comes back to how highly do we rate Thompson? Or do we think we could bring in someone else to provide backup/competition for Tettey who won''t be the wage drain Mulumbu is right now.

[Move Klose 303]

When/if he leaves we will probably receive a grand total of nothing. Was a free, has 12 months left on contract, what had he done to warrant a fee.

[Crafty Canary 547]

I really don''t see him going to Ashton Gate. The Velodrome, Marseille seems much more attractive.

[93vintage 16]

A daft transfer to begin with, and more money flushed down the toilet. When we next get promoted we need to ensure that we''re not relying on mercenaries who see a transfer to Norwich as some kind of paid holiday.

[Making Plans 957]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]His wages are certainly an issue but so is the fact that Tetty is our only holding midfield player and we can''t expect him to play 46 games without injury or suspension. If we had kept hold of O''Neil then it would be straight forward.[/quote]Is that really a good enough reason to hold on to someone who is barely better than useless and costing us a fortune?I don''t think so.

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

[quote user="93vintage"]A daft transfer to begin with, and more money flushed down the toilet. When we next get promoted we need to ensure that we''re not relying on mercenaries who see a transfer to Norwich as some kind of paid holiday.[/quote]And you knew he was a ''mercenary'' before he signed, did you? And you''re absolutely sure he''s a ''mercenary'' now? You should have told the club not to sign him – an experienced Premier League midfielder on a free transfer – if you knew that he was only coming here for a ''paid holiday''.

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="Feedthewolf"][quote user="93vintage"]A daft transfer to begin with, and more money flushed down the toilet. When we next get promoted we need to ensure that we''re not relying on mercenaries who see a transfer to Norwich as some kind of paid holiday.[/quote]And you knew he was a ''mercenary'' before he signed, did you? And you''re absolutely sure he''s a ''mercenary'' now? You should have told the club not to sign him – an experienced Premier League midfielder on a free transfer – if you knew that he was only coming here for a ''paid holiday''.[/quote]I doubt the club would have pulled the plug on his transfer after having a fan contact them.I think you''ve said yourself about signing younger, less heralded players, and I''d have prefered us to have signed someone like this last time we were relegated. One less of those old centre backs signed by Adams, one more defensive midfielder in his mid-20s to shadow Tettey.We might have looked strong a year ago with Tettey, Mulumbu and O''Neil, but we''re now looking a bit light in this position. I think the club needs to start thinking 2 or 3 seasons ahead instead of 1.

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

[quote user="93vintage"][quote user="Feedthewolf"][quote user="93vintage"]A daft transfer to begin with, and more money flushed down the toilet. When we next get promoted we need to ensure that we''re not relying on mercenaries who see a transfer to Norwich as some kind of paid holiday.[/quote]And you knew he was a ''mercenary'' before he signed, did you? And you''re absolutely sure he''s a ''mercenary'' now? You should have told the club not to sign him – an experienced Premier League midfielder on a free transfer – if you knew that he was only coming here for a ''paid holiday''.[/quote]I doubt the club would have pulled the plug on his transfer after having a fan contact them.I think you''ve said yourself about signing younger, less heralded players, and I''d have prefered us to have signed someone like this last time we were relegated. One less of those old centre backs signed by Adams, one more defensive midfielder in his mid-20s to shadow Tettey.We might have looked strong a year ago with Tettey, Mulumbu and O''Neil, but we''re now looking a bit light in this position. I think the club needs to start thinking 2 or 3 seasons ahead instead of 1.[/quote]I do hear what you''re saying, but it''s a tough balance. If we sign younger, unheralded players and go down, people will say we were crying out for experience. If we sign experienced players, people will say we need younger and hungrier players who can grow with the club.At the time, signing an experienced Premier League defensive midfielder around the prime of his career (28 years old) on a free transfer seemed a good move to me – whether it''s injury, attitude or a combination of the two we can''t be sure, but it''s clear that it hasn''t worked out.Totally agree that we should look to sign a younger player to provide backup for, and learn from, Tettey – unless AN really rates Thompson and sees him as that player. It''s clear that last season on loan has worked wonders for the Murphy boys, maybe it''ll be the same for Thompson?

[Nuff Said 5,973]

Easily fixed then. We need to start signing young and hungry players with years of experience in both the Premier League and the Championship for free with low wages. You''d think this was simple enough - club''s clearly in crisis.

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

[quote user="Nuff Said"]Easily fixed then. We need to start signing young and hungry players with years of experience in both the Premier League and the Championship for free with low wages. You''d think this was simple enough - club''s clearly in crisis.[/quote]Freebies = no ambition = little old Norwich [;)]

[andyc24_uk 79]

This is pure conjecture, no secret ITK source anywhere, but if Mulumbu is on his way out, that makes the other link to Gunnarsson far more sensible, I''d have thought? Maybe Mulumbu''s going and Gunnarson will come in with Thompson going to Charlton on loan for the season to replace him? Would make sense for everybody really, Charlton are short of cash and we want a better and cheaper backup for Tettey and probably want to give Thompson a full season at a half decent club (and we clearly already have a channel of communication with their management since Rudd is there now)...

[andyc24_uk 79]

Oh Balls, ignore the above post - I was getting my Icelanders mixed up, thinking about Gudmundsson at Charlton not Gunnarson.

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="Feedthewolf"][quote user="93vintage"][quote user="Feedthewolf"][quote user="93vintage"]A daft transfer to begin with, and more money flushed down the toilet. When we next get promoted we need to ensure that we''re not relying on mercenaries who see a transfer to Norwich as some kind of paid holiday.[/quote]And you knew he was a ''mercenary'' before he signed, did you? And you''re absolutely sure he''s a ''mercenary'' now? You should have told the club not to sign him – an experienced Premier League midfielder on a free transfer – if you knew that he was only coming here for a ''paid holiday''.[/quote]I doubt the club would have pulled the plug on his transfer after having a fan contact them.I think you''ve said yourself about signing younger, less heralded players, and I''d have prefered us to have signed someone like this last time we were relegated. One less of those old centre backs signed by Adams, one more defensive midfielder in his mid-20s to shadow Tettey.We might have looked strong a year ago with Tettey, Mulumbu and O''Neil, but we''re now looking a bit light in this position. I think the club needs to start thinking 2 or 3 seasons ahead instead of 1.[/quote]I do hear what you''re saying, but it''s a tough balance. If we sign younger, unheralded players and go down, people will say we were crying out for experience. If we sign experienced players, people will say we need younger and hungrier players who can grow with the club.At the time, signing an experienced Premier League defensive midfielder around the prime of his career (28 years old) on a free transfer seemed a good move to me – whether it''s injury, attitude or a combination of the two we can''t be sure, but it''s clear that it hasn''t worked out.Totally agree that we should look to sign a younger player to provide backup for, and learn from, Tettey – unless AN really rates Thompson and sees him as that player. It''s clear that last season on loan has worked wonders for the Murphy boys, maybe it''ll be the same for Thompson?[/quote]I think there''s a bit of a gap between the younger signings and the older ones. Most of the younger ones were signed between the ages of 18-21, and we needed more who were in the 22-25 age bracket, players with experience who could go straight into the first team squad.Instead of buying a 28 year old upon promotion we could have bought a 24 year old the year before and played them in a promotion campaign and in the PL. If we went up next year then we''d have a 27 year old who''d perhaps be less of a risk than someone like Mulumbu.We''ve got caught in a vicious circle whereby we need to buy a 28 year old because we haven''t wanted to risk buying a 24 year old.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Sell him.

I was delighted when we signed him as I had really rated him whilst at WBA but he has done little for our Club and has had more than long enough to make his mark.

If we get £1m for him we might just recoup our expenditure.

On his day he was worth a lot more.

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

[quote user="93vintage"]I think there''s a bit of a gap between the younger signings and the older ones. Most of the younger ones were signed between the ages of 18-21, and we needed more who were in the 22-25 age bracket, players with experience who could go straight into the first team squad.Instead of buying a 28 year old upon promotion we could have bought a 24 year old the year before and played them in a promotion campaign and in the PL. If we went up next year then we''d have a 27 year old who''d perhaps be less of a risk than someone like Mulumbu.We''ve got caught in a vicious circle whereby we need to buy a 28 year old because we haven''t wanted to risk buying a 24 year old.[/quote]I think you''re right in this instance, but if a player is available on a free who isn''t absolutely ideal, you will be more inclined to make that compromise so you can spend the money in other areas. As it turned out, we weren''t able to spend that extra money until January, which cost us very dear.Overall the squad needs a balance of youth and experience, but you can''t always get the exact player you want of the exact age you want. I still see the logic in signing him at the time we did, and it''s only with the benefit of hindsight that we''re able to agree that we need a younger replacement – had Mulumbu been a big hit, and we had him and Tettey both firing on all cylinders, Thompson might be a more suitable understudy. As it is, he''s probably not quite ready for that role as yet... although let''s see what happens, football is full of surprises...