Jarvis returns

[king canary 7,580]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

It's quite simple West Ham signed Matt for 10.75m and sold him to us for 2.5m. quite clearly we gambled. 

However Sporting signed RVW for e5m and sold him to us for e10m. Quite clearly we were had...

While you're here I refer you to my previous post about Peter the Pointer's signings. Was wondering why that absolute crock of didn't make your list...

These are certainly words.

[nutty nigel 7,510]

We can only wonder why someone who was nowhere near our worst signing gets so much stick on here...

[king canary 7,580]

4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

We can only wonder why someone who was nowhere near our worst signing gets so much stick on here...

Sigh.

I fear we've entered another thread where you deliberately miss the point.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I didn't realise Jarvis still had a store in town. And they are still letting you take things back after all these years?

[nutty nigel 7,510]

13 minutes ago, king canary said:

Sigh.

I fear we've entered another thread where you deliberately miss the point.

The point appears to keep changing. I was replying to your VFM claims and before that I was replying to Tilly's top ten bad signings claims. Tell me the new excuse and I'll reply to that...

[TIL 1010 4,722]

4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

It's quite simple West Ham signed Matt for 10.75m and sold him to us for 2.5m. quite clearly we gambled. 

However Sporting signed RVW for e5m and sold him to us for e10m. Quite clearly we were had...

While you're here I refer you to my previous post about Peter the Pointer's signings. Was wondering why that absolute crock of didn't make your list...

I expect you were tearing your hair out when Peter Grant was appointed and never agreed with his appointment and must have been expressing concern about the signings he made but then again maybe not at the time. Hindsight is an exact science so Doomcaster once told me.

[nutty nigel 7,510]

11 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I expect you were tearing your hair out when Peter Grant was appointed and never agreed with his appointment and must have been expressing concern about the signings he made but then again maybe not at the time. Hindsight is an exact science so Doomcaster once told me.

Oh alright then. We won't name it after Kidgel. How about The Beast Police Room...

[Duncan Edwards 2,223]

51 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Oh alright then. We won't name it after Kidgel. How about The Beast Police Room...

 “Can you just read the highlighted section please?”

 

”No”

 

”These are the ground regulations. Can you please read the highlighted section?”

 

”No, I can’t read”

 

”Would you like me to read it to you?”

 

”No”

 

”I’ll read it to you anyway...”

 

Ah....PC Watts. The Beast. Sorely missed....

[lake district canary 4,531]

It's a bit cruel to say Jarvis was one of the "worst" ever signings. It was a gamble on his fitness, but that is all and we got him at a fair price. It could have worked out - and it is not the first time we have bought players cheaper because of their possible infirmity - PIlkington, James Vaughan to name two.    

As ZLF said, he was one of the most unlucky signings - and it could be he will have a good two or three years as a result of the work done at Norwich to get him fit.  You might say that will be to another club's benefit and that he has cost us a lot in the process, but that is life.  As a club we rarely spend big money on players and often rely on older players, freebies, players from lower leagues, signings like the injury prone players I mentioned etc - and it has worked out on many occasions. 

Sometimes things don't work out and that is life, you learn and you move on - Jarvis has had an unlucky time of it and labelling him alongside some of the footballers people have suggested as being the worst footballers in terms of ability is unfair. 

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by lake district canary

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

How about The Beast Police Room...

I visited it on 26 December 1969.

[king canary 7,580]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

It's a bit cruel to say Jarvis was one of the "worst" ever signings. It was a gamble on his fitness, but that is all and we got him at a fair price. It could have worked out - and it is not the first time we have bought players cheaper because of their possible infirmity - PIlkington, James Vaughan to name two.    

As ZLF said, he was one of the most unlucky signings - and it could be he will have a good two or three years as a result of the work done at Norwich to get him fit.  You might say that will be to another club's benefit and that he has cost us a lot in the process, but that is life.  As a club we rarely spend big money on players and often rely on older players, freebies, players from lower leagues, signings like the injury prone players I mentioned etc - and it has worked out on many occasions. 

Sometimes things don't work out and that is life, you learn and you move on - Jarvis has had an unlucky time of it and labelling him alongside some of the footballers people have suggested as being the worst footballers in terms of ability is unfair. 

 

It's only cruel if your blaming him.

'Jarvis has been a terrible signing' and 'Jarvis was unlucky with injuries' are not mutually exclusive.

As NN seems to be missing above, you can criticise the signing without criticising the player. The blame lies squarely with AN and DM.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

I thought McNally had God like status still with a lot of posters. Maybe it was just because he popped in The Nelson for a drink after a few games or because he reversed his decision to distance fans groups late in his reign.

[king canary 7,580]

1 minute ago, TIL 1010 said:

I thought McNally had God like status still with a lot of posters. Maybe it was just because he popped in The Nelson for a drink after a few games or because he reversed his decision to distance fans groups late in his reign.

Not with me- I think he was pretty good for us but made quite a few errors in his final year or so with the club.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Not with me- I think he was pretty good for us but made quite a few errors in his final year or so with the club.

I could not agree more kc.

[nutty nigel 7,510]

I'm not missing anything. With the list of ten worst signings ever we are now led to believe, Jarvis and only Jarvis is there as McNally in disguise. Are the others there because of the decision to buy them? What about that dross Peter Grant signed who miraculously don't make the list even with ten years hindsight? 

If the issue is that he was injured then the blame would surely lie with McNally unless of course he passed the medical which surely he would have had to pass. My hunch would be the transfer was agreed between the clubs before the loan began. But I can't know that just like others can't know this was Neil's fault or McNallys fault.

Just depends who your go to blame bloke is....

[lake district canary 4,531]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

It's only cruel if your blaming him.

'Jarvis has been a terrible signing' and 'Jarvis was unlucky with injuries' are not mutually exclusive.

As NN seems to be missing above, you can criticise the signing without criticising the player. The blame lies squarely with AN and DM.

There is no blame.  Why does anyone have to be" blamed"?  Injuries happen, some players are more prone than others - some are just unlucky with injuries.

If Jarvis had been super fit and had been playing loads of games for West Ham, he would not have cost 2.5m and we wouldn't have been able to afford him.  The fact is he was a terrific player for West Ham until his injury problems and having got fit again deserved a chance with a new club and he could have been a shrewd buy for us.  That he was injured again is part of football - it happens. 

No blame due - there is no issue, it is just unfortunate he got injured again - it happens.  

[king canary 7,580]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

I'm not missing anything. With the list of ten worst signings ever we are now led to believe, Jarvis and only Jarvis is there as McNally in disguise. Are the others there because of the decision to buy them? What about that dross Peter Grant signed who miraculously don't make the list even with ten years hindsight? 

If the issue is that he was injured then the blame would surely lie with McNally unless of course he passed the medical which surely he would have had to pass. My hunch would be the transfer was agreed between the clubs before the loan began. But I can't know that just like others can't know this was Neil's fault or McNallys fault.

Just depends who your go to blame bloke is....

Yes you are missing the point NN as much as you say you're not.

Let me be as clear as possible...

1) Worst signing is not the same as worst player. The worst player I think I've seen play for us is possibly Simon Whaley. He isn't the worst signing though (although he might make a top 10 list).

2) The context of a signing matters. RvW for instance is far from the worst striker we've ever signed. Yet the fact he was our record signing, the fact he was hyped as being our key goalscorer (remember feed the wolf) and the fact he only managed one league goal all mean he was a far worse signing than, say, Chris Brown, who is clearly the inferior player.

3) In my opinion the blame for bad signings almost always lies with the manager/chief exec that signed off on them rather than the player, unless the player just doesn't try.

[king canary 7,580]

9 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

There is no blame.  Why does anyone have to be" blamed"?  Injuries happen, some players are more prone than others - some are just unlucky with injuries.

If Jarvis had been super fit and had been playing loads of games for West Ham, he would not have cost 2.5m and we wouldn't have been able to afford him.  The fact is he was a terrific player for West Ham until his injury problems and having got fit again deserved a chance with a new club and he could have been a shrewd buy for us.  That he was injured again is part of football - it happens. 

No blame due - there is no issue, it is just unfortunate he got injured again - it happens.  

When you sign a player who is already on loan for the season, already injured and give him a long term contract I'd say there is some blame due.

[lake district canary 4,531]

43 minutes ago, king canary said:

53 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

There is no blame.  Why does anyone have to be" blamed"?  Injuries happen, some players are more prone than others - some are just unlucky with injuries.

If Jarvis had been super fit and had been playing loads of games for West Ham, he would not have cost 2.5m and we wouldn't have been able to afford him.  The fact is he was a terrific player for West Ham until his injury problems and having got fit again deserved a chance with a new club and he could have been a shrewd buy for us.  That he was injured again is part of football - it happens. 

No blame due - there is no issue, it is just unfortunate he got injured again - it happens.  

When you sign a player who is already on loan for the season, already injured and give him a long term contract I'd say there is some blame due.

Not if the medical staff said he would be ok - and if they did, they were presuambly giving their opinions based on good medical reasons. In which case you couldn't blame the CEO or AN......and you couldn't blame the medical staff if it looked alright to them too....

So where does the blame lie?  Nowhere.

Signing any player is a risk, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. You could sign a great player who gets injured the first match, or you could sign a rubbish player that never gets injured.......football isn't an exact science.  Too easy to want to find someone to blame - it's just a convenient avenue for our frustration that a player didn't work out. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

In case anyone wants a reminder why he seemed worth the gamble and what he could offer. Two goals worthy of goals of the month.

[nutty nigel 7,510]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Yes you are missing the point NN as much as you say you're not.

Let me be as clear as possible...

1) Worst signing is not the same as worst player. The worst player I think I've seen play for us is possibly Simon Whaley. He isn't the worst signing though (although he might make a top 10 list).

2) The context of a signing matters. RvW for instance is far from the worst striker we've ever signed. Yet the fact he was our record signing, the fact he was hyped as being our key goalscorer (remember feed the wolf) and the fact he only managed one league goal all mean he was a far worse signing than, say, Chris Brown, who is clearly the inferior player.

3) In my opinion the blame for bad signings almost always lies with the manager/chief exec that signed off on them rather than the player, unless the player just doesn't try.

The only point I am seeing is that you started with Matt Jarvis and then built a set of circumstances that would apply to only him. What were the circumstances behind the other "worst signings" as the Jarvis stuff doesn't fit.

[king canary 7,580]

42 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

The only point I am seeing is that you started with Matt Jarvis and then built a set of circumstances that would apply to only him. What were the circumstances behind the other "worst signings" as the Jarvis stuff doesn't fit.

Why doesn't it fit? Because you say so?

Did you just ignore my whole part about RVW in the post you quoted for another example?

[nutty nigel 7,510]

Sometimes I feel like I've stumbled into a different thread. If you read back you will see I listed a bunch of "worst signings" to add to Tilly's "worst signings" and it's still beyond me how he gets Jarvis in the top ten.

You then came in with your VFM context and I still feel that to establish such a thing you would have to consider the percentage of budget that the cost was rather than use headline figures that only apply to one player. I pointed out that RVW would certainly be worse vfm but Muzinic quite possibly the worst vfm ever.

 

[king canary 7,580]

8 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Sometimes I feel like I've stumbled into a different thread. If you read back you will see I listed a bunch of "worst signings" to add to Tilly's "worst signings" and it's still beyond me how he gets Jarvis in the top ten.

You then came in with your VFM context and I still feel that to establish such a thing you would have to consider the percentage of budget that the cost was rather than use headline figures that only apply to one player. I pointed out that RVW would certainly be worse vfm but Muzinic quite possibly the worst vfm ever.

 

The feeling is more than mutual when talking to you- funnily enough it only seems to be you that constantly misses and ignores the point I'm actually making vs the point you think/want me to be making.

I've never said VFM is the only consideration- in fact I clearly stated it is a consideration, along with expectations and performances. You've just focused in on it.

You make an interesting point on budgets but I don't think that helps your point re Jarvis. We've had to significantly trim our wage budget over the last couple of years, so while his wages in the Premier League might not have been an issue, they've certainly hamstrung us since our commitment to being self funded. 

Re this top 10 thing- firstly it is important to remember things like this are subjective not objective. My definition of a bad signing is exactly that- my definition. You seem to have decided it is illegitimate for some reason.

Secondly I've repeatedly pointed out that for me, worst signing and worst player are different things. Take Jimmy Smith from your list- a 6 month loan that didn't work out (also, ironically, his spell was disrupted by injuries, something you don't think is fair re assessing Jarvis). Not a great player but hardly a terrible signing in my view.

[nutty nigel 7,510]

And thirdly my list if players was in reply to Tilly's list of players which had absolutely nothing to do with vfm or any of your latest parameters. 

You're right. It's subjective and not objective unless of course you set the parameters to measure it. You did exactly that with your VFM stuff. However Tilly just named a random list of past players and I was astounded that none of Peter Grants signings got on it. Even Huck's knew.....