Billy Gilmour Next

[HertsCanary93 222]

I'm also in the 'worried the story has been leaked to drum up interest' camp and am very skeptical the deal will go through. This must have been in the pipeline before the euros, and his performance for Scotland will attract interest.

One one hand, we have proven with Skipp that we can be a great destination for young players on loan and can probably provide some assurances with regards to playing time - and this gives me some hope... On the other hand, ultimately most players will take the move to the more established club 9 times out of 10.

Will be a fantastic signing if we can close the deal, but yeah... I'm a bit skeptical.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

3 minutes ago, HertsCanary93 said:

I'm also in the 'worried the story has been leaked to drum up interest' camp and am very skeptical the deal will go through. This must have been in the pipeline before the euros, and his performance for Scotland will attract interest.

One one hand, we have proven with Skipp that we can be a great destination for young players on loan and can probably provide some assurances with regards to playing time - and this gives me some hope... On the other hand, ultimately most players will take the move to the more established club 9 times out of 10.

Will be a fantastic signing if we can close the deal, but yeah... I'm a bit skeptical.

I get that but I think in a loan situation it's more about what the owning club wants before the player.

Spurs sent Skipp to us for game time, there is no value in sending any player to a club and not getting them minutes, if Gilmour ends up at a Newcastle or a Palace and doesn't get to play then there is no value to the owning club.

They will see Norwich as a side that needs to play players like this, we play a system and style of football that suits and just as importantly Farke clearly has a great relationship with Tuchel, that goes a long way.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

54 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

But Football Insider - from BBC gossip round up - say Wolves are in for him.  As they are never right ....

Reading between the lines it appears/feels like we definitely have some form of (possibly verbal) agreement to take him (hence strong degree of confidence that its done) but its perhaps not signed and sealed yet and Wolves (plus possibly Rangers) may be trying to gazump us. Lets hope Tuchel/Gilmour are men of integrity and stick to the original plan. 

[Capt. Pants 4,228]

6 minutes ago, HertsCanary93 said:

I'm also in the 'worried the story has been leaked to drum up interest' camp and am very skeptical the deal will go through. This must have been in the pipeline before the euros, and his performance for Scotland will attract interest.

One one hand, we have proven with Skipp that we can be a great destination for young players on loan and can probably provide some assurances with regards to playing time - and this gives me some hope... On the other hand, ultimately most players will take the move to the more established club 9 times out of 10.

Will be a fantastic signing if we can close the deal, but yeah... I'm a bit skeptical.

Don't think it's anything to do with drumming up interest. Gilmour isn't for sale, he is a Chelsea player and it will stay that way.

Gilmour's development is the issue for Chelsea and finding the right club, but at the same time I doubt they would loan him to a rival and that puts us in a good position.

I'm doubtful we'll get him but that's because I expect Chelsea to have him as an active squad member!

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

1 minute ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

I get that but I think in a loan situation it's more about what the owning club wants before the player.

Spurs sent Skipp to us for game time, there is no value in sending any player to a club and not getting them minutes, if Gilmour ends up at a Newcastle or a Palace and doesn't get to play then there is no value to the owning club.

They will see Norwich as a side that needs to play players like this, we play a system and style of football that suits and just as importantly Farke clearly has a great relationship with Tuchel, that goes a long way.

True, but if Gilmour says 'I'm not going to Norwich' then Chelsea can't force him to go. They would then be forced to consider other team's offers, even if they aren't as appealing initially. It could also be that Chelsea weren't particularly wowed by Norwich, but before the Scotland game there were limited teams in for Gilmour.  

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

16 minutes ago, HertsCanary93 said:

I'm also in the 'worried the story has been leaked to drum up interest' camp and am very skeptical the deal will go through. This must have been in the pipeline before the euros, and his performance for Scotland will attract interest.

One one hand, we have proven with Skipp that we can be a great destination for young players on loan and can probably provide some assurances with regards to playing time - and this gives me some hope... On the other hand, ultimately most players will take the move to the more established club 9 times out of 10.

Will be a fantastic signing if we can close the deal, but yeah... I'm a bit skeptical.

Thinking logically though what is the purpose of "drumming up interest" here? His wages presumably are what they are. Ok perhaps Chelsea might think they can get a bigger loan fee but i'm sure we have agreed to pay what they wanted. What is your priority as a club or an agent for a player looking at going on loan for a season? Surely its likely game time and the style of play that the team plays. Hopefully this is Tuchel's decision and he's chosen us because of his trust in Farke and how we play.

I don;t really see what he would gain from a season at Wolves or Southampton over us? He's likely to play less and even if we go down then he will be going back to Chelsea anyway. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

4 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

True, but if Gilmour says 'I'm not going to Norwich' then Chelsea can't force him to go. They would then be forced to consider other team's offers, even if they aren't as appealing initially. It could also be that Chelsea weren't particularly wowed by Norwich, but before the Scotland game there were limited teams in for Gilmour.  

 

 

Journalists on Twitter almost suggesting we were a deliberate choice by Tuchel because of how we play and the role Gilmour would play. Lets hope those reports are correct because it makes it less likely that the deal will fall through. One was quoted as saying Tuchel and Chelsea had given this loan "a lot of thought."

[Tetteys Jig 830]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Thinking logically though what is the purpose of "drumming up interest" here? His wages presumably are what they are. Ok perhaps Chelsea might think they can get a bigger loan fee but i'm sure we have agreed to pay what they wanted. What is your priority as a club or an agent for a player looking at going on loan for a season? Surely its likely game time and the style of play that the team plays. Hopefully this is Tuchel's decision and he's chosen us because of his trust in Farke and how we play.

I don;t really see what he would gain from a season at Wolves or Southampton over us? He's likely to play less and even if we go down then he will be going back to Chelsea anyway. 

I don't think the loan fee will be of much concern to Chelsea, more where Gilmour is going to develop best as surely he's seen as a potential £100m player if all goes well. Getting a few grand more for him to then go rot in some other sides under 23s would do more harm than good.

Hopefully our long standing interest and clear plan for him will still trump more recent and spontaneous interest from "bigger clubs"

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Thinking logically though what is the purpose of "drumming up interest" here? His wages presumably are what they are. Ok perhaps Chelsea might think they can get a bigger loan fee but i'm sure we have agreed to pay what they wanted. What is your priority as a club or an agent for a player looking at going on loan for a season? Surely its likely game time and the style of play that the team plays. Hopefully this is Tuchel's decision and he's chosen us because of his trust in Farke and how we play.

I don;t really see what he would gain from a season at Wolves or Southampton over us? He's likely to play less and even if we go down then he will be going back to Chelsea anyway. 

I can see why Chelsea and Gilmour, would want to be at a 'better' team. 

When Skipp came to Norwich, Jose said that there were Prem teams interested but they liked Norwich as it was a team that had the pressure to win every game, similar to the pressure that Skipp would face when he started playing for Chelsea. 

I can see how Chelsea and Gilmour may see the experience he'd gain playing for Norwich, a team that will be on the back foot in 90% of games, as not that relevant to what he needs should he go on to play for Chelsea. Before the Euros, it might have been there were very limited offers on the table for Gilmour, but since then Chelsea and Gilmour feel they could get a few more teams interested to see what options are available now. 

It may be nothing, it may just be Gilmour's agent is taking the opportunity that the isolation period presents to see what options are available. It is just worrying as the vibe, especially from Bailey, is that this is not something Norwich were expecting or wanting to suddenly become very public.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

1 minute ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

I can see why Chelsea and Gilmour, would want to be at a 'better' team. 

When Skipp came to Norwich, Jose said that there were Prem teams interested but they liked Norwich as it was a team that had the pressure to win every game, similar to the pressure that Skipp would face when he started playing for Chelsea. 

I can see how Chelsea and Gilmour may see the experience he'd gain playing for Norwich, a team that will be on the back foot in 90% of games, as not that relevant to what he needs should he go on to play for Chelsea. Before the Euros, it might have been there were very limited offers on the table for Gilmour, but since then Chelsea and Gilmour feel they could get a few more teams interested to see what options are available now. 

It may be nothing, it may just be Gilmour's agent is taking the opportunity that the isolation period presents to see what options are available. It is just worrying as the vibe, especially from Bailey, is that this is not something Norwich were expecting or wanting to suddenly become very public.

Not sure we will be on the back foot for 90% of games. We may well have lost most of our game slast time but we certainly were not on the back foot for the majority of them. Indeed in most we dominated for periods before being caught by sucker punches!

I know what you mean though but interesting debate as to whether you will learn more from playing in a more pressurised situation or a cushy mid table gig (if there is such a thing). 

[York Canary 28]

35 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

Bryam is back. He'd recovered from his injury at the end of last season but the club didn't feel the need to get him back into the squad as the league looked pretty secure and they wanted to ease him in gradually. He'll be starting pre-season with the rest of the team as normal. 

If Gilmour arrives, it means Norwich can only loan one more player from a Premier League team, do the club risk keeping that slot open in the hope that Tottenham agree to let Skipp go - which is likely to be a decision only made at the 11th hour, or do they look to use that slot on someone else. 

I'd also have reservations about Norwich's midfield being Skipp and Gilmour. Two 20 year old players on loan might not be the greatest midfield partnership for a club that will likely be fighting against relegation.

You never win anything with kids.. 

But seriously, both Skipp and Gilmour appear to display maturity beyond their years. With Gibson/Hanley behind them they would hopefully do well.

I’ll tell you what does excite me a little bit though.. the thought of utilising a middle 3 of Skipp/Gilmour/McLean in some games with McLean perhaps being furthest forward or 1 or 2 of them driving forward from deep. McLean would also be there to lend experience and a bit of calmness/encouragement/feedback as required. Or at least that’s how it plays out in my head!

 

[Alex Moss 2,165]

6 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Thinking logically though what is the purpose of "drumming up interest" here? His wages presumably are what they are. Ok perhaps Chelsea might think they can get a bigger loan fee but i'm sure we have agreed to pay what they wanted. What is your priority as a club or an agent for a player looking at going on loan for a season? Surely its likely game time and the style of play that the team plays. Hopefully this is Tuchel's decision and he's chosen us because of his trust in Farke and how we play.

I don;t really see what he would gain from a season at Wolves or Southampton over us? He's likely to play less and even if we go down then he will be going back to Chelsea anyway. 

Exactly, this isn’t a purchase, which would make everything completely different, it’s a season long loan, and Billy Gilmour seems like a lad with his feet entirely on the ground. 

I’m trying to look at this as if I were not biased. And I’m thinking that, from his point of view, he will ultimately be most interested in joining a club where he is most likely to start, week in week out. I think that’s more likely here than at Wolves or Southampton. Neither side will likely be much higher up the food chain than us next season anyway.

We’ve seen what a bit of persuasion can do with an international team mate or 2 (Martinez and Buendia), and you can bet your life Tuchel only has one club in mind for him, and I do believe he holds more power over this than what we may think. We hold all the aces as far as I’m concerned, so am not unduly concerned yet.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

1 minute ago, Alex Moss said:

Exactly, this isn’t a purchase, which would make everything completely different, it’s a season long loan, and Billy Gilmour seems like a lad with his feet entirely on the ground. 

I’m trying to look at this as if I were not biased. And I’m thinking that, from his point of view, he will ultimately be most interested in joining a club where he is most likely to start, week in week out. I think that’s more likely here than at Wolves or Southampton. Neither side will likely be much higher up the food chain than us next season anyway.

We’ve seen what a bit of persuasion can do with an international team mate or 2 (Martinez and Buendia), and you can bet your life Tuchel only has one club in mind for him, and I do believe he holds more power over this than what we may think. We hold all the aces as far as I’m concerned, so am not unduly concerned yet.

I’d be more worried if Brentford or someone came in for him given that he wouldn’t have to move. But then sometimes moving away and standing on your own two feet off the pitch is an important a part of the process for these young players as what happens on the pitch. 

[York Canary 28]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Not sure we will be on the back foot for 90% of games. We may well have lost most of our game slast time but we certainly were not on the back foot for the majority of them. Indeed in most we dominated for periods before being caught by sucker punches!

I know what you mean though but interesting debate as to whether you will learn more from playing in a more pressurised situation or a cushy mid table gig (if there is such a thing). 

Definitely agree with the first part there. I remember us not being clinical enough at the top end either, particularly in the second half of the season. Hopefully that will be remedied this window 

[g00se 21]

I expect any delays are down to, or compounded, by Covid isolation. The club will want to have a medical before committing to a year's wages + fees - and on the other hand, the player will want probably want to visit the club before signing.

When would his isolation end?

[Alex Moss 2,165]

11 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

I can see why Chelsea and Gilmour, would want to be at a 'better' team. 

When Skipp came to Norwich, Jose said that there were Prem teams interested but they liked Norwich as it was a team that had the pressure to win every game, similar to the pressure that Skipp would face when he started playing for Chelsea. 

I can see how Chelsea and Gilmour may see the experience he'd gain playing for Norwich, a team that will be on the back foot in 90% of games, as not that relevant to what he needs should he go on to play for Chelsea. Before the Euros, it might have been there were very limited offers on the table for Gilmour, but since then Chelsea and Gilmour feel they could get a few more teams interested to see what options are available now. 

It may be nothing, it may just be Gilmour's agent is taking the opportunity that the isolation period presents to see what options are available. It is just worrying as the vibe, especially from Bailey, is that this is not something Norwich were expecting or wanting to suddenly become very public.

We sent McCallum on loan to Coventry for the very reason it was expected he would be joining a promoted side that would likely be on the back foot for the majority of games. ‘Comfortable’ was not an option when it came to that decision, in fact we purposely sent him out somewhere where his mettle would be getting thoroughly tested as much as possible.

As Gilmour himself is a more defensive midfielder, I’m sure Chelsea will see a move to Norwich as very beneficial if they have the same philosophy as we did with McCallum.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

1 minute ago, g00se said:

I expect any delays are down to, or compounded, by Covid isolation. The club will want to have a medical before committing to a year's wages + fees - and on the other hand, the player will want probably want to visit the club before signing.

When would his isolation end?

He tested positive last saturday so that’s 5 days ago 

[Alex Moss 2,165]

5 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I’d be more worried if Brentford or someone came in for him given that he wouldn’t have to move. But then sometimes moving away and standing on your own two feet off the pitch is an important a part of the process for these young players as what happens on the pitch. 

Hear what you’re saying, Jim, but to be fair, Norwich isn’t that far from London, and let’s not forget that he made the move from Scotland to London at a very tender age, so I don’t think standing on his own two feet will be an issue.

[Virtual reality 707]

3 hours ago, duke63 said:

You don't and can't know that. The Covid virus will evolve over time and each variant could be a new challenge.

Covid, on some level, will be an issue for many years to come.

Im just pointing out that the whole worlds population can’t catch it as if it spread uncontrollably we would reach a level of natural herd immunity There will be millions in this country that never catch it for the same reason. Also your 70 million figure is based on 1% but the death rate varies with age, the under 50s are mostly untouched, the overall death rate is around 0.15% I believe. I’m not playing the virus down, I’ve had it but the other members of my household didn’t catch it from me. It isn’t a case of everyone who comes into contact catches it. Anyway, hopefully we tie this Gilmore deal up before it’s hijacked 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Virtual reality

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Maybe our very own Mayor Kenny McLean and Cap'n Big Man Grant Hanley can have a few wee words with Young Billy (over a crate of Buckfast) and then hopefully coerce....er convince Young Billy boy - that a season long loan move to us would be most advantageous to furthering Billy's pro-football career.....?.....

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

1 hour ago, Mello Yello said:

Maybe our very own Mayor Kenny McLean and Cap'n Big Man Grant Hanley can have a few wee words with Young Billy (over a crate of Buckfast) and then hopefully coerce....er convince Young Billy boy - that a season long loan move to us would be most advantageous to furthering Billy's pro-football career.....?.....

Would Kenny be so keen for Gilmore to sign seeming as they could be fighting for then same spot alongside a defensive midfielder?. The Scots have McLean ahead of Gilmore (wasn’t Gilmore called up to replace after injury?) so it’s either all this game time we think we can offer is at Kenny’s expense or we change our usual formation and lose Dowel/Cantwell from the starting lineup.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

There seems to be a reasonable amount of concern about Gilmour not being physically imposing enough, but I would refer you to the videos posted on the previous page. He’s a tenacious little player, and is certainly not overawed in midfield. He is certainly not afraid to get stuck in. Not every player in the Premier League is a physical powerhouse - we only came unstuck in this department because we simply didn’t have enough across the pitch. I don’t think that’s the case now. 

[sonyc 5,515]

9 minutes ago, Alex Moss said:

There seems to be a reasonable amount of concern about Gilmour not being physically imposing enough, but I would refer you to the videos posted on the previous page. He’s a tenacious little player, and is certainly not overawed in midfield. He is certainly not afraid to get stuck in. Not every player in the Premier League is a physical powerhouse - we only came unstuck in this department because we simply didn’t have enough across the pitch. I don’t think that’s the case now. 

I've had the same thoughts re. Gilmour and indeed before, Skipp. The thing is, it's the footballing brain that is the difference. You can have  a level of skill, that is a given, but what these two lads have in abundance is in their reading of the game. I've watched Gilmour and he anticipates so well and as such is quick to the ball. I've posted my views on Skipp before. He sees space / the game so well, rare to see this and a delight for any fan who watches the play of midfielders with a keen eye. As someone who watched a young Stuart McCall decades ago, you just knew you were watching a top player and his career was a very good one, once he left Bradford City. Skipp and Gilmour are two more fantastic players. Either one of them could indeed be the difference next season.

I was at Blackpool years ago when Wes Hoolahan just bossed the match against us (yet we won!) and i remember feeling so happy when he signed for us! That recruitment I think went very well!

Anyway, little players (all the above) but nearly always put in big performances.

Edited June 24, 2021 by sonyc

[Alex Moss 2,165]

7 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I've had the same thoughts re. Gilmour and indeed before, Skipp. The thing is, it's the footballing brain that is the difference. You can have  a level of skill, that is a given, but what these two lads have in abundance is in their reading of the game. I've watched Gilmour and he anticipates so well and as such is quick to the ball. I've posted my views on Skipp before. He sees space / the game so well, rare to see this and a delight for any fan who watches the play of midfielders with a keen eye. As someone who watched a young Stuart McCall decades ago, you just knew you were watching a top player and his career was a very good one, once he left Bradford City. Skipp and Gilmour are two more fantastic players. Either one of them could indeed be the difference next season.

I was at Blackpool years ago when Wes Hoolahan just bossed the match against us (yet we won!) and i remember feeling so happy when he signed for us! That recruitment I think went very well!

Anyway, little players (all the above) but nearly always put in big performances.

Exactly, Sonyc - it’s that footballing brain that allows them to grab a yard, or release the ball that touch quicker, that keeps them out of trouble! But that said, Gilmour clearly relishes getting stuck in. He looks slight, but I think appearances can be deceptive. He did a job on what are considered England’s finest on Friday night - what more do you need?

Edited June 24, 2021 by Alex Moss
England!

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

5 hours ago, GenerationA47 said:

You are City 1st and I claim my 5 sovereigns

How dare you Sir! 10 Guineas to the man that gives you a damn good thrashing ! 😡

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

 

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/canaries-billy-gilmour-chelsea-graeme-souness-advice-8085368

I think Souness has a point here, Gilmour should look at Foden and see that staying with Chelsea may be his best option.

 

 

[Alex Moss 2,165]

10 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/canaries-billy-gilmour-chelsea-graeme-souness-advice-8085368

I think Souness has a point here, Gilmour should look at Foden and see that staying with Chelsea may be his best option.

 

 

That’s all we need! Pretty obvious he doesn’t think much of us at all but I’m not surprised.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

12 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/canaries-billy-gilmour-chelsea-graeme-souness-advice-8085368

I think Souness has a point here, Gilmour should look at Foden and see that staying with Chelsea may be his best option.

 

 

Agree to an extent. Yes, you will refine your skillset training with such players, but you lose the most important six inches. That is the confidence in knowing your skills are tested and honed in a match situation, not to mention the knowledge of knowing you can produce such during a long, arduous season.

Souness does make an excellent comparison with Foden, but I'd argue that Foden's had much more of a chance to thrive as Dias came, shoring the defence up, freeing up space for a youngster to play regularly and refine his game as invariably, at a champion side. Chelsea are a shade behind despite being a top-six outfit, not to mention they've had four managers in the time where City have had Guardiola in charge.

Skipp could be the poster boy of how a loan with us works well. Cantwell or indeed Godfrey could be poster boys of how our players benefited from loans. Foden could be the poster boy of how staying at home works.

[Gordon Bennett 783]

I think that opinion from Souness is rather black and white,  doesn't take into account that his experience was forty years ago when squads were tiny and faults roo recognise that Tuchel knows and trusts Farke. The Foden comparison had merit of course but Ince always thought that playing regularly is the best footballing education. 

[sgncfc 1,227]

Maybe Foden would be an even better player than he currently is if he'd gone out on loan and played every week. No one can know. It must surely depend upon what everyone concerned thinks is best at the time and I would imagine that Tuchel and his coaching staff know a lot more about Billy Gilmour than Graham Souness does.

The point he makes though is very much not anti-Norwich, but that going on loan to any club with lesser players is not in his best interests; that is a perfectly valid opinion, if indeed he is ready to compete with those higher level players. I suspect he isn't yet, which perhaps is why Tuchel wants him to play more.