Guest Posted May 1, 2017 4th leading goalscorer in a team that''s scored huge amounts of goals this season. I think peoples'' judgement is clouded by his price tag and whether they think he''s good value for it, whereas really that''s quite irrelevant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
he 0 Posted May 2, 2017 Sell ASAP!Shocking move in the first place. To waste £8M on a average over the top player is one of the worst pieces of business ever in the clubs history. And a really poor tackle which lead to a sending off last game. Reckon he is the highest earner in the club. Need to sell him! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,352 Posted May 2, 2017 He''s definitely Marmite! There was a similar conversation on my Facebook. The last player I remember to split opinion so widely was Keith Bertschin.He''s manager of Solihul Moors now BTW [:)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GJP 79 Posted May 3, 2017 Looks like the club want rid of him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mason 47 1,351 Posted May 3, 2017 Hypothetically given the choice, if we had a £7mil offer on the table for both Naismith and Pritchard, which (if any) would you have us accept? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rogue Baboon 0 Posted May 3, 2017 @MasonIf we had a 7million offer on the table for Pritchard I would laugh in their face...Naismith won''t be given a free transfer, but I can see him offered about. Maybe to Sunderland, the promoted teams, or low end prem teams Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badger 2,389 Posted May 3, 2017 According to the EDP a free transfer may be on the cards.http://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/norwich-city/norwich-city-transfer-rumours-steven-naismith-could-be-given-a-free-transfer-as-canaries-look-to-continue-cull-1-5000276Who knows whether or not they have any inside information? If he is on the £50,000 reported, it is difficult to see how we could make a free transfer work. No championship side would take him on those wages and I can''t see him taking less. We may end up having to buy out his contract for 50%+ of its remaining value. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,455 Posted May 3, 2017 I think VW said something earlier that explains why so many don''t like him- when Naismith is bad he is really bad. Earlier this season there were games where he looked like he couldn''t even trap the ball. I think he''s a useful player, very intelligent and has the diligence to cover back. He hasn''t come close to making himself worth the money spent though and I''d imagine his wages are prohibitive. I think we could get another player to do the job he does for much less money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted May 3, 2017 50k!!!! Surely not?I always thought unless a player hands in a transfer request, he is entitled to have the remainder of his contract paid up anyway? I imagine we would need to get a fee to pay that off, might as well keep otherwise Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tricky974 61 Posted May 3, 2017 The wages championship players was on was released by the tabloids last year and it was reported that mulumbu was our top earner and Naismith was on 40,000 a week therefore over 4m for the remaining 2 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,455 Posted May 3, 2017 I''d imagine Mulumbu, Bassong, Jarvis and Naismith are amongst our highest paid players still here so won''t be a shock if we''re doing all we can to offload them all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rivvo 257 Posted May 3, 2017 The highest earners at the club 3 seasons ago were on £46k a week so I suspect that these guys will be on at least that?Didn''t someone post a wage slip of a player (Pritchard?) on twitter recently and that was over £90k a week gross or was that a wind up? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,455 Posted May 3, 2017 I''d be fairly confident in predicting none of our players are earning £90k a week. A month probably. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Feedthewolf 4,789 Posted May 3, 2017 [quote user="tricky974"]The wages championship players was on was released by the tabloids last year and it was reported that mulumbu was our top earner and Naismith was on 40,000 a week therefore over 4m for the remaining 2 years.[/quote]Don''t suppose anyone has a link to this? I''d be really interested to see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adycakes 4 Posted May 3, 2017 Here you go: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/511680/Revealed-How-much-each-Norwich-player-earns-weekHow accurate this is is anyone''s guess though! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted May 3, 2017 According to Football Manager 2016!? Have they really just lifted some stats off FM and made an article out of them?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thisisbabyish 0 Posted May 3, 2017 Worse signing than Ricky! Least he wasn''t on 50k a week playing in the chumpionship and we could at least loan him out!!We can''t even give Naismith away!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horse Renoir 1 Posted May 3, 2017 I can quite easily believe Naismith was on 50k in our PL season. I find it really hard to believe he''s still on that now. McNally before he left stated catagorically several times that every player has a relegation wage drop clause. It could be that to sign Naismith the clause was softened somewhat but I''d imagine he can''t be on any more than 40k, don''t know how that reporter has got his information or has just been told the wages they got when the first signed.For most of our players the drop is supposedly 40%, these figures being banded about in recent days suggests that might not have been the case, the club might have acted rather desperately in the past couple of years and Webber could be leaking this information to let fans know just how difficult the current situation is and preparing some fans for letting players go ''on the cheap'' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted May 3, 2017 Haha,The "source" for the Daily Star article is Football Manager 16 i.e. a computer game!!I wouldn''t be surprised if Naismith was on £50k while in the Prem and took a 20% cut upon relegation (the standard amount) to reduce him to £40k now.I reckon Norwich would let him go on a free if another club wanted him - they would then claim the fee is the amount of wages they are saving over the term of his contract - £4m. This isn''t particularly uncommon in transfers.Getting Norwich''s wage bill down is vital and will mean the last parachute payment can be spent on transfer fees and not paying players like Naismith, who is an above average Championship player on Premier League wages. Norwich will need to spend money more wisely if they want to build a squad sufficient to getting promotion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted May 3, 2017 The dilemma is quality players, or players capable of getting us out of the Championship.The Holts, Crofts, Foxs, Wards are what will be needed to achieve both. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sonyc 5,447 Posted May 3, 2017 Spot on Bethnal. Can well imagine Naismith was on 50k a year ago but lost 20% on relegation, like the whole team. Who knows. But given the cost of his wages for another two years! Crikey. I have changed my opinion and though he would be an old head in a younger team, I cannot see how a completely restructured team and that includes salaries, can have someone like SN in it. I would rather invest the money in a couple of decent defenders spotted abroad ( e.g. German leagues) that Webber knows about. He has stated he has a huge knowledge of many, many players.It has me wondering what the futures are for Wes and Martin, two very long term players. I would of course be gutted to see Wes leave but if that meant Pritchard was the fulcrum of a new team built around him (with Oliveira, a new keeper and CB forming a spine) it has to be the future. Unless Wes can be played like he is now. I suppose it depends on Maddison''s future. Neil was reckless in buying so many midfielders in my opinion and just not being able to accommodate them all. Unless someone thinks it was part of his long term plan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tumbleweed 106 Posted May 3, 2017 Is the issue with Naismith his wages or his contribution? Could he be persuaded to take a cut, with a promotion bonus in exchange perhaps? I worry that shipping out too much experience will be too dramatic and I like the hunger he has recently shown and did on arrival. Mind you I would rather have Dorrans than SN if I had to chose.As to Wes, surely destined now to be an impact sub? Pritchard and Madison have to be the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,455 Posted May 3, 2017 His wages would also explain why we seemed open to loaning him out earlier in the season - reckon we might look down that route too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,290 Posted May 3, 2017 I find myself torn on Naismith although still come down on the side of the fence that says offload him this summer if we can primarily because we are overloaded in that position and I would prefer to have Maddison snapping at the heels of Pritchard and Wes rather than finding his progress blocked again.Naismith has shown glimpses at times this season of being a decent championship player and in some games he links up well with the other midfielders but then in other games he can look unbelievably poor and can barely control the ball. he''s certainly not looked anything like a £7m footballer and has been a pretty disastrous signing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ec-p 89 Posted May 3, 2017 Will be peed off if we let him go now, despite wages, just as he is proving his worth, captain for next season imo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,290 Posted May 3, 2017 [quote user="Horse Renoir"]I can quite easily believe Naismith was on 50k in our PL season. I find it really hard to believe he''s still on that now. McNally before he left stated catagorically several times that every player has a relegation wage drop clause. It could be that to sign Naismith the clause was softened somewhat but I''d imagine he can''t be on any more than 40k, don''t know how that reporter has got his information or has just been told the wages they got when the first signed.For most of our players the drop is supposedly 40%, these figures being banded about in recent days suggests that might not have been the case, the club might have acted rather desperately in the past couple of years and Webber could be leaking this information to let fans know just how difficult the current situation is and preparing some fans for letting players go ''on the cheap''[/quote]My understanding is that the delay over Naismith signing was allegedly because he was not prepared to agree to a wage reduction on relegation clause and that out of desperation to sign him we may (also allegedly) have agreed to not have one in the end. If that is the case he probably is on £50K because he''s probably still on his prem wages. I cannot prove this, just what I have been told. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Carrow89 0 Posted May 3, 2017 [quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Haha,The "source" for the Daily Star article is Football Manager 16 i.e. a computer game!!I wouldn''t be surprised if Naismith was on £50k while in the Prem and took a 20% cut upon relegation (the standard amount) to reduce him to £40k now.I reckon Norwich would let him go on a free if another club wanted him - they would then claim the fee is the amount of wages they are saving over the term of his contract - £4m. This isn''t particularly uncommon in transfers.Getting Norwich''s wage bill down is vital and will mean the last parachute payment can be spent on transfer fees and not paying players like Naismith, who is an above average Championship player on Premier League wages. Norwich will need to spend money more wisely if they want to build a squad sufficient to getting promotion.[/quote]Yes, the new club simply buys out/takes on his contract, and it is referred to as his transfer fee. Pretty much what we would have down in the first place I should imagine. However the idea that he can simply leave without cost to us is a non starter. Another club will have to take on his contract of the greater part of it, and that realistically can only be a PL club or one of those with parachute payments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Birdseye 0 Posted May 3, 2017 The amount of money the Stowmarket 2 have wasted is criminalCan we really trust even with Webberin the mix they won''t continue with their disastrous acquisitions Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldyboy 0 Posted May 3, 2017 I believe I was ridiculed by Shakiri when I said his cost was around 12 million with wages! Well the story that he''s on 50k a week over a 4 yr contract would actually show his TOTAL cost to be around 17 million which is ludicrous to say the least, as Naismith certainly hasn''t been worth that amount of money! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites