Jump to content
cambridgeshire canary

Can we get a refund for Sargent?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Petriix said:

I'm still firmly in the 'all our summer transfer business was awful' camp. I don't rate Rashica so far either. That's why we're doing so badly. Two wins against woefully out of form teams and the fact we've played more games than anyone else at the bottom have temporarily lifted us outside the relegation zone. That doesn't mean we're suddenly guaranteed survival.

I'll stand by what I said. I'll reserve judgement on Sargent until next season in the Championship. Hopefully he'll do well. 

Rashica is a very good player for the money we spent.

Sargent may not end up a good signing but at 21 and showing the performance he did on Friday im not going to stubbornly refuse to accept he could end up proving a lot of us (primarily you) wrong 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Comments like this boggle my mind.

Not withstanding that we have had loan players who have been crucial to Norwich sides of the past (Skipp, anyone?) we always seem to need to assign a scapegoat.

Gilmour has not had an impressive season but show me any of our central midfielders that have. I think Billy has been just as good (or bad) as PLM, or McLean. Why this frothing at the mouth to suggest Gilmour has been out for him only or that Chelsea's interests are put above ours is absolute nonsense.

Comments like yours also boggle my mind.

Yes I agree Skipp was crucial for us last year.

But again who benefitted most. Skipp's value at least doubled, he gained immense experience by playing every week and set himself up for this season, he gained great exposure by playing every week (helping him become a regular in the England Under 21s) and developed his game. Spurs, and Olly Skipp, must be very thankful.

Meanwhile we are promoted with a team in which Skipp is one of the key players, if not the most important. He, understandably, goes back to his parent club leaving us with hell of a hole to fill which we struggled to do. I cannot think of a more crucial loan player that we have ever had. In fact the loan players (anyone?) that we have had have had nowhere as big an influence on a team as Olly.

As for "to suggest Gilmour has been out for him only or that Chelsea' interests are put above ours is absolute nonsense", do you really think Chelsea thought 'we'll let Gilmour go to Norwich, he will help them"? Or did they think that the move would benefit their player, increase his value, give him the opportunity of playing matches, and more importantly let them evaluate his performances and see how he performed in the Premiership?

We are fortunate to have a loan player such Brandon William who gives 100% every match, But the above applies, Manchester United did not let him come to us solely for our benefit!

When are the poorer Premiership clubs going to stop developing the richest club's players and make them even richer?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Wal said:

But again who benefitted most. Skipp's value at least doubled, he gained immense experience by playing every week and set himself up for this season, he gained great exposure by playing every week (helping him become a regular in the England Under 21s) and developed his game. Spurs, and Olly Skipp, must be very thankful

And we get promoted which at last count benefits us to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.

Utter nonsense comment. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Petriix said:

I'm still firmly in the 'all our summer transfer business was awful' camp. I don't rate Rashica so far either. That's why we're doing so badly. Two wins against woefully out of form teams and the fact we've played more games than anyone else at the bottom have temporarily lifted us outside the relegation zone. That doesn't mean we're suddenly guaranteed survival.

I'll stand by what I said. I'll reserve judgement on Sargent until next season in the Championship. Hopefully he'll do well. 

Binary thinking is a modern day curse. Why can’t our summer transfer business be good in some ways, bad in others? No, it’s either all good, or all bad. In the same way Brexit was either a liberation of the UK or a disaster, you’re either in favour of rights for trans people to go anywhere and do anything or you hate them, VAR should either be kept or binned, the BBC is a British institution that can’t be criticised or a nest of Communists… I could go on.

Life is complicated, it’s about shades of grey and unfortunately it can’t all be reduced to yes or no arguments.

 

And… why are you waiting to see Sargent play in the Championship. If he goes onto score 15 more this season, will you still be reserving your judgement?

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Petriix said:

I'm still firmly in the 'all our summer transfer business was awful' camp. I don't rate Rashica so far either. That's why we're doing so badly. Two wins against woefully out of form teams and the fact we've played more games than anyone else at the bottom have temporarily lifted us outside the relegation zone. That doesn't mean we're suddenly guaranteed survival.

I'll stand by what I said. I'll reserve judgement on Sargent until next season in the Championship. Hopefully he'll do well. 

Good to see a positive, upbeat post. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

And we get promoted which at last count benefits us to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.

Utter nonsense comment. 

We get promotion with other club's players and other clubs benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions by farming young players. Chelsea have 21 players out on loan this season and have had 30 or more out on loan other seasons. For whose benefit and to whose detriment do you feel this is for.

The rich get richer and the poor stay in their place. The only way out is to try a Newcastle and manage to find extreme wealth. But it is no good finding a millionaire, it must be a billionaire at least.

Don't look at the smaller picture, look at the larger one. What hope have great clubs of yesteryear now languishing in lower divisions (Sunderland, Sheffield Wednesday, Bolton Wanderers and more) ever got of reaching past glories. I'm not saying they would but it would be good for them to have hope.

It used to be a level playing field.

Edited by Yellow Wal
Clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Binary thinking is a modern day curse. Why can’t our summer transfer business be good in some ways, bad in others? No, it’s either all good, or all bad. In the same way Brexit was either a liberation of the UK or a disaster, you’re either in favour of rights for trans people to go anywhere and do anything or you hate them, VAR should either be kept or binned, the BBC is a British institution that can’t be criticised or a nest of Communists… I could go on.

Life is complicated, it’s about shades of grey and unfortunately it can’t all be reduced to yes or no arguments.

 

And… why are you waiting to see Sargent play in the Championship. If he goes onto score 15 more this season, will you still be reserving your judgement?

Hallelujah. I wish people would listen to this. Example;

Idah is amazing and the next Ronaldo when he scores a hattrick in the cup, he barely gets on the pitch and when he does is ineffective and he's league one level at best, he has a couple of good games and he's our saviour.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Terminally Yellow said:
2 hours ago, Yellow Wal said:

But again who benefitted most. Skipp's value at least doubled, he gained immense experience by playing every week and set himself up for this season, he gained great exposure by playing every week (helping him become a regular in the England Under 21s) and developed his game. Spurs, and Olly Skipp, must be very thankful

And we get promoted which at last count benefits us to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.

Utter nonsense comment. 

It is not utter nonsense.  There is strong evidence that Sorensen is a good player and if Skipp had not been at the club that Sorensen would have got much more playing time AND we still could have been promoted, with Sorensen much better placed to make an impact this season and without having to lose key players who then go back to their clubs.

There is a danger that all these loan players are doing is holding back our own developing players. Williams is good - but we have to make sure that we have players all ready to step in when he goes back to his mother club. Gilmour, is different. he has not made a huge difference - and as we have won the last two games without him, it suggests he is not crucial to the team.  Normann and Kabak we have the option to buy at the end of the season (if we stay up) but there is not a lot of point in playing them if we keep losing when they are in the team and then they go anyway at the end of the season.

It's a balance I guess, each case is slightly different, but putting a loan player in the team when there is someone else who could do the job equally well, is not very sensible.

Edited by lake district canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

Binary thinking is a modern day curse. Why can’t our summer transfer business be good in some ways, bad in others? No, it’s either all good, or all bad. In the same way Brexit was either a liberation of the UK or a disaster, you’re either in favour of rights for trans people to go anywhere and do anything or you hate them, VAR should either be kept or binned, the BBC is a British institution that can’t be criticised or a nest of Communists… I could go on.

Life is complicated, it’s about shades of grey and unfortunately it can’t all be reduced to yes or no arguments.

 

And… why are you waiting to see Sargent play in the Championship. If he goes onto score 15 more this season, will you still be reserving your judgement?

You're missing my point. I'm not writing him off even if the rest of the season goes as badly as the season so far. I'm willing to reserve judgement until next season. Of course if he goes on to score another 10 and we stay up then that's great.

But it's fair to say that our summer transfer business is, so far, looking woefully short of success in terms of survival this season. And what I've seen from Rashica doesn't inspire me to think otherwise. Yes, one very good cross to go with his one decent corner and just one cup goal against a mid-table League One side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that we would struggle to recoup our money on most of our summer acquisitions. Those two goals from Sargent have gone round the world. He doesn't need to do anything else and we would easily get £10m for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, All the Germans said:

Hallelujah. I wish people would listen to this. Example;

Idah is amazing and the next Ronaldo when he scores a hattrick in the cup, he barely gets on the pitch and when he does is ineffective and he's league one level at best, he has a couple of good games and he's our saviour.

FFAF. Football Fans Are Fickle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, hogesar said:

Sargent may not end up a good signing 

I think if he sticks around if we get relegated to help get us back up he'll become a bit of a fans favourite, and contributing to a promotion would make us forget about the high fee.

But that's a big 'if', as he wanted out of Werder Bremen after their relegation from the top flight. Just guess it comes down to whether he really has always wanted to play in the Premier League like he said in his interview, if we go down his best chance of doing that again is us coming back up at first attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lake district canary said:

It is not utter nonsense.  There is strong evidence that Sorensen is a good player and if Skipp had not been at the club that Sorensen would have got much more playing time AND we still could have been promoted, with Sorensen much better placed to make an impact this season and without having to lose key players who then go back to their clubs.

There is a danger that all these loan players are doing is holding back our own developing players. Williams is good - but we have to make sure that we have players all ready to step in when he goes back to his mother club. Gilmour, is different. he has not made a huge difference - and as we have won the last two games without him, it suggests he is not crucial to the team.  Normann and Kabak we have the option to buy at the end of the season (if we stay up) but there is not a lot of point in playing them if we keep losing when they are in the team and then they go anyway at the end of the season.

It's a balance I guess, each case is slightly different, but putting a loan player in the team when there is someone else who could do the job equally well, is not very sensible.

I agree with the point, for me loans should only be a stop game, or if we simply can't recruit someone with the potential / talent ourselves.  Skipp was a mazing but had Lungi had 20 games at CDM last season perhaps he would have started there this season.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Newtopia said:

I agree with the point, for me loans should only be a stop game, or if we simply can't recruit someone with the potential / talent ourselves.  Skipp was a mazing but had Lungi had 20 games at CDM last season perhaps he would have started there this season.

Lungi still had the opportunity to play games last season, just had to convince Farke he was better than those playing. Our players also benefit from incoming loans, playing and training alongside, being pushed and providing opportunities for others to go out and get game time. If we didn’t have Williams on loan do you think Sam McCullum would be getting regular game time?: The loan system is fine, in fact I think we do very well out of it because it’s central to a strategy of developing players to sell and thus taken very seriously by the club.

Edited by Son Ova Gunn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

Lungi still had the opportunity to play games last season, just had to convince Farke he was better than those playing. Our players also benefit from incoming loans, playing and training alongside, being pushed and providing opportunities for others to go out and get game time. If we didn’t have Williams on loan do you thing Sam McCullum would be getting regular game time?: The loan system is fine, in fact I think we do very well out of it because it’s central to a strategy of developing players to sell and thus taken very seriously by the club.

Exactly. Cantwell, Maddison, and Godfrey are the three obvious recent examples for us.

Edited by TheGunnShow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, lake district canary said:

It is not utter nonsense.  There is strong evidence that Sorensen is a good player and if Skipp had not been at the club that Sorensen would have got much more playing time AND we still could have been promoted, with Sorensen much better placed to make an impact this season and without having to lose key players who then go back to their clubs.

There is a danger that all these loan players are doing is holding back our own developing players. Williams is good - but we have to make sure that we have players all ready to step in when he goes back to his mother club. Gilmour, is different. he has not made a huge difference - and as we have won the last two games without him, it suggests he is not crucial to the team.  Normann and Kabak we have the option to buy at the end of the season (if we stay up) but there is not a lot of point in playing them if we keep losing when they are in the team and then they go anyway at the end of the season.

It's a balance I guess, each case is slightly different, but putting a loan player in the team when there is someone else who could do the job equally well, is not very sensible.

There is also strong evidence that Skipp is at a different level to Sorensen and that Skipp was instrumental in our promotion and the whole team didn't click without him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's possible that loans can benefit BOTH clubs? As has been eloquently said already, it's not just black and white.

I'd rather us be in the Prem now than still in the Champ with a slightly improved Lungi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/01/2022 at 17:19, Nuff Said said:

Binary thinking is a modern day curse. Why can’t our summer transfer business be good in some ways, bad in others? No, it’s either all good, or all bad. In the same way Brexit was either a liberation of the UK or a disaster, you’re either in favour of rights for trans people to go anywhere and do anything or you hate them, VAR should either be kept or binned, the BBC is a British institution that can’t be criticised or a nest of Communists… I could go on.

Life is complicated, it’s about shades of grey and unfortunately it can’t all be reduced to yes or no arguments.

 

And… why are you waiting to see Sargent play in the Championship. If he goes onto score 15 more this season, will you still be reserving your judgement

Could not have said better myself. 👍🏾

Edited by mrD66M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Petriix said:

You're missing my point. I'm not writing him off even if the rest of the season goes as badly as the season so far. I'm willing to reserve judgement until next season. Of course if he goes on to score another 10 and we stay up then that's great.

But it's fair to say that our summer transfer business is, so far, looking woefully short of success in terms of survival this season. And what I've seen from Rashica doesn't inspire me to think otherwise. Yes, one very good cross to go with his one decent corner and just one cup goal against a mid-table League One side.

A club like Norwich does not normally attract this kind of entitled, arrogant thinking. Such people usually support club basket cases like MU or the tractor boys down the road. But I would not support NCFC if it was just another club playing financial russian roulette, and/or was disconnected from its roots, its values and its community. 

A phrase that my late dad said a long time ago and stuck with me to this day... We may be poor but we're honourable. Being humble does not mean being a doormat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Factoring in the Grealish sale, Villa have spent a net of £250m+ with a load of players not working out, and also highlighting that you don't get much for £10m

image.png.a52c2c8856d3f58a46806c95fde6f0a4.png

then £90m on this lot

image.png.0df48bb1b698bc83446145d9bf7bc7ba.png

image.png.f0ee6fdb6168c1cd4b6ed03b8e6c42f1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Icecream Snow said:

Factoring in the Grealish sale, Villa have spent a net of £250m+ with a load of players not working out, and also highlighting that you don't get much for £10m

image.png.a52c2c8856d3f58a46806c95fde6f0a4.png

then £90m on this lot

image.png.0df48bb1b698bc83446145d9bf7bc7ba.png

image.png.f0ee6fdb6168c1cd4b6ed03b8e6c42f1.png

That's ****ing mental.

And they are just 10 points ahead of us for all that outlay. And people think our owners are doing a bad job?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mrD66M said:

A club like Norwich does not normally attract this kind of entitled, arrogant thinking. Such people usually support club basket cases like MU or the tractor boys down the road. But I would not support NCFC if it was just another club playing financial russian roulette, and/or was disconnected from its roots, its values and its community. 

A phrase that my late dad said a long time ago and stuck with me to this day... We may be poor but we're honourable. Being humble does not mean being a doormat.

I'm not sure what you think is arrogant or entitled about being unhappy with the value for money of our transfer business. I would have massively preferred to make fewer (or no) signings and stuck with last year's team. We didn't replace Skipp and we spent a lot of money without appearing to improve the squad.

I'd say spending all that money makes us a little less 'honourable'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hertfordyellow said:

There is also strong evidence that Skipp is at a different level to Sorensen and that Skipp was instrumental in our promotion and the whole team didn't click without him.

Sorensen has proved time and again he is a very good player, whether it be left back, right back, centre half, defensive midfield. Whenever he has been called upon he has done well (with the occasional exceptance that all players can get when they have an occasional bad game). If we hadn't got Skipp, he would likely have been much more inflential and promotion could well have happened anyway. Skipp was excellent, but we were not a one man team last season.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Sorensen has proved time and again he is a very good player, whether it be left back, right back, centre half, defensive midfield. Whenever he has been called upon he has done well (with the occasional exceptance that all players can get when they have an occasional bad game). If we hadn't got Skipp, he would likely have been much more inflential and promotion could well have happened anyway. Skipp was excellent, but we were not a one man team last season.

 

 

Time and again he’s a very good player? He’s started 20ish games for us. I like him but he’s not Skipps level. I didn’t say we were a one man team, I said his position and how he played it was instrumental. As important as Buendia. I don’t think we get promoted automatically without him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/01/2022 at 17:05, Petriix said:

I'm not sure what you think is arrogant or entitled about being unhappy with the value for money of our transfer business. I would have massively preferred to make fewer (or no) signings and stuck with last year's team. We didn't replace Skipp and we spent a lot of money without appearing to improve the squad.

I'd say spending all that money makes us a little less 'honourable'. 

Sometimes comes a poster that I'm not sure is aware of the constraints of Norwich City FC.

We only spend what we have. That is honourable. We buy cheap/undervalued players and develop them. Skipp was never ours to begin with, and we would have offered roughly half of our last summer's budget to sign him, but it was out of our hands. Norwich City in this current form is a selling club, and we buy only a certain kind of player. To afford to keep someone like Emi would require sustained incoming PL receipts, which is just out of our reach at the moment.

Any other points that you need help clarify?

Edited by mrD66M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Petriix said:

I'm not sure what you think is arrogant or entitled about being unhappy with the value for money of our transfer business. I would have massively preferred to make fewer (or no) signings and stuck with last year's team. We didn't replace Skipp and we spent a lot of money without appearing to improve the squad.

I'd say spending all that money makes us a little less 'honourable'. 

Case in point - Adam Armstrong, who was linked with us some time ago. How well is he doing at Southampton? Do you think he has justified his transfer fee so far?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mrD66M said:

Case in point - Adam Armstrong, who was linked with us some time ago. How well is he doing at Southampton? Do you think he has justified his transfer fee so far?

You're clearly not comprehending my posts. Just because I think Sargent, Rashica and Tzolis - the club's three biggest transfer fees ever paid - aren't very good, doesn't mean that I think we should have signed Adam Armstrong. I'd prefer to have promoted the youth players and kept Josh Martin in the squad. 

I've never advocated spending more money than we have. I just wish we hadn't spaffed the biggest budget in our history on this current crop. However I've also made it clear that I won't write anyone off until I've seen them play in the Championship.

I've got a horrible feeling that we're in the early stages of a long decline - largely because we've changed too much too quickly. I'd really love to be wrong but I think we'll struggle to replicate our previous Championship success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Petriix said:

You're clearly not comprehending my posts. Just because I think Sargent, Rashica and Tzolis - the club's three biggest transfer fees ever paid - aren't very good, doesn't mean that I think we should have signed Adam Armstrong. I'd prefer to have promoted the youth players and kept Josh Martin in the squad. 

I've never advocated spending more money than we have. I just wish we hadn't spaffed the biggest budget in our history on this current crop. However I've also made it clear that I won't write anyone off until I've seen them play in the Championship.

I've got a horrible feeling that we're in the early stages of a long decline - largely because we've changed too much too quickly. I'd really love to be wrong but I think we'll struggle to replicate our previous Championship success.

I appreciate your lack of patience and lack of empathy towards young players from abroad that I believe will get better in time - even if not with us (and I don't think we'll go into administration or bankrupt over this). I appreciate your beliefs are so tinged with pessimism and negativity, and you project your worldview onto the club.. please get help.

I prefer to believe there will be better days ahead if we keep going with these guys, with Dean Smith and Shakespeare - relegation or not. Never mind the dangers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Petriix said:

You're clearly not comprehending my posts. Just because I think Sargent, Rashica and Tzolis - the club's three biggest transfer fees ever paid - aren't very good, doesn't mean that I think we should have signed Adam Armstrong. I'd prefer to have promoted the youth players and kept Josh Martin in the squad. 

I've never advocated spending more money than we have. I just wish we hadn't spaffed the biggest budget in our history on this current crop. However I've also made it clear that I won't write anyone off until I've seen them play in the Championship.

I've got a horrible feeling that we're in the early stages of a long decline - largely because we've changed too much too quickly. I'd really love to be wrong but I think we'll struggle to replicate our previous Championship success.

I just wish we hadn't spaffed the biggest budget in our history on this current crop. However I've also made it clear that I won't write anyone off until I've seen them play in the Championship."

SUch contradiction in two sentences.. if only you could see it.

Once Stuart Webber leaves, you're more than welcome to replace him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Petriix said:

I'm not sure what you think is arrogant or entitled about being unhappy with the value for money of our transfer business. I would have massively preferred to make fewer (or no) signings and stuck with last year's team. We didn't replace Skipp and we spent a lot of money without appearing to improve the squad.

I'd say spending all that money makes us a little less 'honourable'. 

Sorry, this is rubbish.

Normann was brought in to replace Skipp. Are we expecting a possible £10million player to be better than a player that is starting regularly for a consistently top 6 side? No, don't be daft.

As for improve the side, yes, we did.

Gibson and Giannoulis both improvements on the squad last season and made permanent this season. £15m for the pair. Presumably you didn't mind that as you said you'd rather go with the players from last season?

Gunn - £5m for a premier league experienced goal keeper who was 25, now 26, and knew the club well and performed well with us during a previous spell? Bit of a no brainer. Better than McGovern? Yes. Strengthened the squad? Yes. 

Kabak - 21, has shown glimpses that given more time in the English game and the right coaching, he could be quite an asset. On loan, so if it doesn't work out, and he's not for us, nothing lost. Deal already agreed should we want to keep him if we stay up. £10m is the rumour, and that is cheap for a PL level defender. Without him we would have had to play games without a recognised CB.

Williams - you'd struggle to find any reasonable argument to suggest he hasn't improved our squad, let alone strengthened it.

Normann - injuries aside, many feel he has been a class above. A quality signing. Improved the squad? Certainly.

PLM - For Lees-Melou you need to look at who we were losing, Tettey, Trybull, Vrancic. None of them were really premier league quality anymore. Tettey has since retired. Trybull went to a Bundesliga 2 side. Vrancic has continued to do well at Championship level but was never going to be a regular started for us. So whether you agree or not, PLM is an improvement and has strengthened the side. Perhaps we are seeing more consistency from him now he is adapting to the English game? Debatable, so that's 1 out of 4 so far.

Gilmore - tough one. Has he got the quality in there? Yes. Consistency? Not yet. He's 20, and like Tzolis, you have to expect that unless that are already at a fantastic level, consistency is something you expect from more established players, more experienced players. He has played well at times, again, glimpses, but is the squad stronger with him added to it? Arguably at this point he's not done anything that Vrancic couldn't do, for example.

Rashica - now here's the thing, if you are considering him like for like with Buendia, then no, not as good. However, for the money, I think we brought in a very good player. Clearly gifted and much faster than Buendia. Arguably spends less time on the floor complaining that he didn't manage to dribble past 3 players either. Again, seems to be hitting his stride after a period of adapting to the English game etc. So a yes/no - better than Dowell/Hernandes/Placheta - yes. Better than Cantwell this season - yes. Better than Buendia - no. Currently our best wide player.

Tzolis - we were told one for the future. The only really questionable signing in many ways. Can we afford to pay out £10m for a player that will be good in a couple of years when what we need is a player that can help us stay up now? He really is one that we'll have to judge with time, though he has shown glimpses of the quality he has.

Sargent - £8m. Better than Hugill? For me, yes. More mobile, more adaptable. Hugill scored 5 goals in 34 league and cup appearances last season and cost us £5m. At 21, Sargent has 4 goals in 21 league and cup appearances this season - at a higher level. A certain improvement on Hugill and along with Idah, means we have essentially a two horse race to be the successor to Pukki... though, as things are at the moment, all of them on the pitch together appears to be working pretty well.

So overall, I think there are genuinely two players you could genuinely suggest haven't improved the squad. Have they performed consistently enough? Not yet.

The only way you can spend more money on fewer players though, is to not make some signings and to keep some of the players we released from their contracts. Skipp was never ours too keep, so holding onto him isn't part of the question. Nor was keeping hold of Buendia - something we now know we did last summer because of an agreement to move him on this summer. A deal largely in place from early last year by all accounts.

So at that point you have:
- Skipp, returning to Spurs.
- Buendia, sold to Aston Villa.
- Nyland, released.
- Heise, released.
- Tettey, released.
- Leitner, released.
- Trybull, released.
- Vrancic, released.
- Klose, released.
- Thompson, released.
- Stiepermann, released at his request.
- Drmic, loaned out.
- Soto, loaned out.
- Hernandez, loaned out.
- Hugill, loaned out.
- J.Martin, loaned out.

Those are the main players considered to be in and around the first team squad or at least have been in the past. Out of those who would you argue to have kept? Out of those, do you genuinely believe any of them are better than what we have now?

Then which of our signings would you have not spent on? We can't consider Gibson and Giannoulis as the deals that brought them to us last season meant we were locked into signing them, and wouldn't have gained promotion without them. That leaves:
- Sargent, £8m.
- Rashica, £9.5m.
- Tzolis, £10m.
- Gunn, £5m.
- PLM, £3.75m.
- Normann, loan.
- Kabak, loan.
- Gilmore, loan.
- Williams, loan.

You could argue to keep Nyland and not bother with Gunn, that's a bit of a gift but doesn't help anything long term, purely a short term stop gap, IF Nyland is happy to play backup again. Though, £5m would then presumably be added to the pot for a striker, so no Sargent? Isn't enough to have landed Armstrong... Tzolis perhaps?

For me, that's really what it comes down to. Tzolis. Not that he is a bad player, it's clear he has quality, but that are we able to afford to spend that kind of chunk of our budget on a player who will be good but isn't there just yet. Honestly, that's the only real criticism I can see. You could arguably make the same point about Sargent, Kabak, Gilmore and Williams. Gambling on the consistency of youth, investing in their promise rather than their current levels, to keep us up?

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...