Jump to content
king canary

The worst news if true...

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Because he's been a great servant for us, owes us nothing and we are looking to progress the team around Dean Smith's requirements?  Not to mention that we get a fee for him this season. 

Personally, I can't see why an earth he'd want to stay and do this merry go round a third time.  He deserves to be playing at a higher level, club can't be promoting mental health and then holding a player against his will restricting a once in a lifetime chance to play high level European football.

Have a day off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Perhaps you'd like to explain why a reasonable assessment would provoke such a response?

You can **** right off too ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, paddycanary said:

If the Goat really is gazing over the starboard side at a brighter horizon, we'll be forced to cast our 'reasonably-sized' nets further out to sea than planned. Perhaps Dean Smith will prove himself an able captain, and steer us safely back to the shores of the Prem? I fear we could get stuck in the doldrums if we go with Idah & Sargent to bring home this year's catch.

And just to add to the nautical references we would be up **** creek without a paddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Last relegation we didn't sell key players. 

The old amnesia kicking in again I see!!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect its just a play to get one last decent contract for Pukki. Unless someone from the prem stumps up £10m plus for an ageing player, I suspect he will stay put. Will worry about this if it comes to fruition, but Pukki isnt going to keep going at the level he's at for much longer and its time for Idah / others to step up. Im hoping Sargeant for one should be able to chip in with a number of goals this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’ll be typical of Norwich to sell Pukki to bag some cash and save £60k pw wages. This is what a Norwich have done all my life. We’ll run with Hugill as he doesn’t rock the boat and is a team player. 
 

This’ll guarantee a 10th EFL positioning next season unless, and this is the big unknown, that Idah finally comes to the party. If he does then the loss of Pukki could be absorbed (along with the midfield chipping in more).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

A predictable response from a habitually unpleasant poster

A predictable response from an utter ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

hmm...think we're witnessing some form of a breakdown here.

Sad to see

More expletives on there way for that reply I’d guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

hmm...think we're witnessing some form of a breakdown here.

Sad to see

Hmm ... Think we're witnessing an utter **** here. 

Not at all sad to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read the article I dont see why this has caused such a debate:

  • Top player says he would rather be playing in a top league
  • Agent says he would like to get his player the best possible contract for the most money (for his player and himself)
  • Club says they dont want to sell one of their best player unless someone pays them the money they want for them.

His agent is even quoted as saying it is unlikely a club will make an offer we would accept given his age.

So in reality I dont think the position has changed from how it was at the end of last season (or even at any point for any player).

In fact it is now the club which is taking the risk - do they accept a lower fee for Pukki now say £10m OR run the risk of him not helping us to secure promotion and losing him for free next year (when if we still hold hopes for promotion we will need to find a bargain basement/lucky replacement as we wont even have £10m to spend on a new striker).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank goodness he’s 32. It means his transfer value is much lower than what he is worth for us. This makes a move almost impossible unless the selling club want to sell. 

But why would they? Even if holding onto him means we let him go on a free next year - he arrived on one anyway and so we lose nothing - and get massive value out of him this year. 
 

The most anyone will pay is under £10m and it would cost £30m to replace him. The numbers just don’t add up for Teemu. 
 

Meaning if he does go this would signal massive lack of ambition by the board. A suicidal risk not worth taking. My money is Pukki staying and getting to that 100 goals record 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, canarybubbles said:

Plus he's hardly been prolific, has he? 2 goals in a lower midtable team; Pukki scores 11 in an utterly crap team. Seems a poor exchange for us.

Could be that Southampton's style of play doesn't suit him? In 20/21 he scored 28 goals for Blackburn at a rate of a goal for every 124 minutes on the pitch. Teemu scored 26 goals at a rate of a goal every 133 minutes. Teemu was playing for the team that won the Championship, Armstrong was playing for a mid-table team. (No idea how many penalties either player scored).

When the rumours about us being interested came out at the end of last season I think I posted an article that compared playing styles which indicated that Blackburn's style was similar to ours. I feel that he would have had a similar return to Teemu had he been playing for us.

Having said that, we don't play the same way now anyway so he might not suit us this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, yellowrider120 said:

The old amnesia kicking in again I see!!

The old 'I'll argue, but won't actually mention any examples of key players in my eyes who left that refute the statement' kicking in I see!!

To save you some time, the fact we went on to be promoted as champions underlines that the people who did leave weren't key players.

 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I think the argument was that they weren't key players. They were effectively the ones the club chose to sell because they could get good fees for them.

I suppose it depends on how you define key but I'd suggest selling two of our starting back four counts as key players.

Not saying the club was wrong to do it but I don't think it helps the argument to try and claim they weren't key. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pukster has been a loyal an' honest player at NCFC through thick an' thin....If he wants away to ply his trade elsewhere, well our Flyin' Finn goes with my thanks an' blessing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/06/2022 at 11:03, Google Bot said:

If we're to promote mental health, then yes we do owe him a move if the alternative is holding him against his will and restricting his personal ambitions.  It's possible to have empathy with your staff in business.

So, hang on, you don't think we should be promoting mental health? Or we should, but if we do we have to let players go?

Either way, it seems a reasonably cretinous retort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BobLoz3 said:

So, hang on, you don't think we should be promoting mental health? Or we should, but if we do we have to let players go?

My issue was more related to whether we 'owe' a player a move based on goodwill alone.

As I see it, If we're promoting mental health as foundation of the club, then yes I think such morals should extend to playing staff who've given the club so much and have been let down in regards to supporting their needs as a professional.

We're allowing Webber to break off from his work to pursue opportunities, is it cretinous if I think that's good, too?  Helping people with their mental health has been a large part of my life so perhaps I'm a little bit soft when it comes to the individual.

To break it down financially, Pukki is arguably worth 100m to us when you consider the promotion prize money available.  In relation, I consider any bid accepted under 10m as a goodwill measure from the club.

Share this post


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

I suppose it depends on how you define key but I'd suggest selling two of our starting back four counts as key players.

Not saying the club was wrong to do it but I don't think it helps the argument to try and claim they weren't key. 

To be fair, it wasn't even my argument, but as you say, it depends how you define key. They were regular starters, but they certainly weren't irreplaceable, and were in fact replaced by players who cost considerably less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Stick or Twist. It's that simple. I have no idea which is best though.

I do. Stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pukki is arguably the most important player at the club in terms of where we finish in the league. That tends to suggest a value to us of £100m should we win promotion (assuming that is our objective). To others I suspect he’s valued at £5m or less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The old 'I'll argue, but won't actually mention any examples of key players in my eyes who left that refute the statement' kicking in I see!!

To save you some time, the fact we went on to be promoted as champions underlines that the people who did leave weren't key players.

 

Here's the examples you sadly missed - B Godfrey sold for c£25M and J Lewis sold for c£14M. Both extremely highly rated young defenders at the time. c£40M doe seem an awful lot of money for 'non' key players I might suggest?

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

Here's the examples you sadly missed - B Godfrey sold for c£25M and J Lewis sold for c£14M. Both extremely highly rated young defenders at the time. c£40M doe seem an awful lot of money for 'non' key players I might suggest?

  

I suppose you could argue they weren't key in the same way Pukki or Buendia was (is). They were quite easily replaced in terms of what we needed to go and win the title comfortably.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

My issue was more related to whether we 'owe' a player a move based on goodwill alone.

As I see it, If we're promoting mental health as foundation of the club, then yes I think such morals should extend to playing staff who've given the club so much and have been let down in regards to supporting their needs as a professional.

We're allowing Webber to break off from his work to pursue opportunities, is it cretinous if I think that's good, too?  Helping people with their mental health has been a large part of my life so perhaps I'm a little bit soft when it comes to the individual.

To break it down financially, Pukki is arguably worth 100m to us when you consider the promotion prize money available.  In relation, I consider any bid accepted under 10m as a goodwill measure from the club.

Ok. Thanks for breaking that down. I understand that point.

I think losing him would be pretty awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think any club outside top 6 in the PL would pay 10 to 15 mil for pukki 

not many players outside top 6 score the goals he has and he has been in a really struggling team in PL 

imagine him in a better team with more service and chances created 

wages would be cheap for most and if he bags 10 to 15 goals which is quite possible would be a good signing 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This to me looks like an agent trying to get his player a new contract. He says that Pukki is a man who honours his contracts, that he's a star player for fans, sponsors and the entire community and that he's too valuable to Norwich for them to realistically sell him, unless a ridiculous offer comes in for him.

It's not too much of a stretch for this to be nothing more than Pukki's agent trying to get him an extended contract to remain here and maybe see out his career. It's the solution that makes most sense to all parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, OnDaBall said:

This to me looks like an agent trying to get his player a new contract. He says that Pukki is a man who honours his contracts, that he's a star player for fans, sponsors and the entire community and that he's too valuable to Norwich for them to realistically sell him, unless a ridiculous offer comes in for him.

It's not too much of a stretch for this to be nothing more than Pukki's agent trying to get him an extended contract to remain here and maybe see out his career. It's the solution that makes most sense to all parties.

No good asking Webber, he’s probably still at base camp

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...