Do we have any family jewels?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

I mean anybody who could be sold for a decent fee to balance the books if things don''t work out this season?

Seems to me that the only players who could bring in the 1m region are are Marshall and Shackell.

The board must be worried and hoping that Peter can polish a diamond or two - or do we only have zircons?

Just forward planning for the downside option.

OTBC

 

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

I mean anybody who could be sold for a decent fee to balance the books if things don''t work out this season?

Seems to me that the only players who could bring in the 1m region are are Marshall and Shackell.

The board must be worried and hoping that Peter can polish a diamond or two - or do we only have zircons?

Just forward planning for the downside option.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

I''m afraid the strong box is laid bare....whereas Robert Chase left plenty to sell and land galore for others to exploit...easily covering the trivial debts of £6 million at that time. Had we been Moroccan however....the string of donkeys currently stabled here would have been very handy when asked to carry the burden dumped on them by our skinflint Board.

Our Board are not so much Zircons as Gherkins....Green...often pickled...and soft to the core.....

[Norwich R Us 59]

No worries.

We will get 30% when chelsea activate Andy Hughes'' 11mill buy out clause.

[One Flew Over... 33]

Hopefully the board and manager have budgeted so that we don''t need to sell any players. Better to have a team than some players and some very good individuals. I''d guess if we do bring in any big name signings at Christmas then they could well be sold the follosing summer if we don''t go up.

Maybe add Martin to your list of possible 1m players? Premiership clubs love spending huge amounts on English youngsters. Ideally the Academy will produce a couple more 1st teamers.

[Sambool 0]

oh brilliant! thats a huge weight off my shoulders now I know handy andy has an 11million buy-out clause...I''d have thought it would be 30million..typical 

[Time to go Delia 0]

I dont think we will have to worry to much about the transfer windows opening from now on , i doubt even the better teams in the Championship would come knocking .

[Regime Change 0]

Didn''t Worthy pay £1m for Doc?

If so, most of the squad must be worth £3 or 4m!

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

I mean anybody who could be sold for a decent fee to balance the books if things don''t work out this season?

Seems to me that the only players who could bring in the 1m region are are Marshall and Shackell.

The board must be worried and hoping that Peter can polish a diamond or two - or do we only have zircons?

Just forward planning for the downside option.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

We have sold our best assets and bought cheap replacements for so long now that I think the cupboard is finally bare.

If Marshall has a good season we might make a small profit on him but I can''t see anyone else who would be likely to go for much over £500k.

Huckerby and Cureton are going to be to old soon so no possibility of a profit there. Croft, I think we would be lucky to get the £700k we paid for him.

The only hope of a real pay day would have to be Chris Martin but he has some way to go before that becomes a possibility.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]We have sold our best assets and bought cheap replacements for so long now that I think the cupboard is finally bare.[/quote]And there was me thinking that we haven''t bought too badly when you consider the mad amount of money being thrown about for league 1 players like Billy Sharp and Luke Varney.  Wasn''t Etuhu a cheap replacement for someone ?  And then we sold him a season or so later for 3 times the value ?

• Strihavka is considered to be a genuine candidate for the Czech national teams'' number 9 / 10 shirt.
• Cureton, fair enough, money spent and not coming back, unless his goals get us near the play-offs, in which case he''ll be worth every penny of the 750k we were rumoured to have spent plus wages.
• 1 million pound signing Marshall has just been called up for international duty, alongside a 9 million pound goalkeeper.
• Lappin was an absolute steal for 75k. 
• Chadwick is unlikely to move on, being anchored in Cambridge.
• Russell was one of Stokes'' best players last season - 400k is good business.
• Brellier was a free, and could prove to be Premiership quality, he was an integral part of the 2nd place Hearts team before Romanov set about picking the team.

If the team is successful, you''ll be amazed how many offers we will have to turn down for some of our players.

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]We have sold our best assets and bought cheap replacements for so long now that I think the cupboard is finally bare.[/quote]

And there was me thinking that we haven''t bought too badly when you consider the mad amount of money being thrown about for league 1 players like Billy Sharp and Luke Varney.  Wasn''t Etuhu a cheap replacement for someone ?  And then we sold him a season or so later for 3 times the value ?

• Strihavka is considered to be a genuine candidate for the Czech national teams'' number 9 / 10 shirt.

• Cureton, fair enough, money spent and not coming back, unless his goals get us near the play-offs, in which case he''ll be worth every penny of the 750k we were rumoured to have spent plus wages.
  

• 1 million pound signing Marshall has just been called up for international duty, alongside a 9 million pound goalkeeper.

• Lappin was an absolute steal for 75k. 
  

• Chadwick is unlikely to move on, being anchored in Cambridge.
  

• Russell was one of Stokes'' best players last season - 400k is good business.

• Brellier was a free, and could prove to be Premiership quality, he was an integral part of the 2nd place Hearts team before Romanov set about picking the team.

If the team is successful, you''ll be amazed how many offers we will have to turn down for some of our players.
[/quote]

If Strihavka makes it, which is by no means certain on the evidence so far, then he could make a profit. However my understanding is that there is a buy out clause which will prevent us making any serious money.

Lappin............ can''t see us making big time money on him.

If the team is successful, yes, there may be a few reasonable offers coming in but the days of big fees for the likes of Sutton. Bellamy etc seem highly unlikely to be repeated with the present crew.

I am still of the opinion that a young striker would have been a better option than Jamie. As much as I like the lad I consider the fee spent on him is dead money.

[Norwich R Us 59]

[quote user="ricardo"]

I am still of the opinion that a young striker would have been a better option than Jamie. As much as I like the lad I consider the fee spent on him is dead money.

[/quote]

we did go for sharpe (the future potential option) first remember? not being ''sheffield enough'' can hardly be lamented as ''bad business'' by the club!

It astonishes me that the same moaners who were furious about us selling ''star players'' this summer are now moaning about the prospect of not selling ''star players'' in the future! Any old excuse for a big  MOAN hey!

[ricardo 8,034]

 

Perhaps you should read the title of the thread NRU.

The question Bly asked was do we have any family jewels left to sell. My analysis is that we don''t. That doesn''t mean that I am hoping that we will be selling star players in the future.

The history of the club shows that we always sell our star players. The only difference between the past and the present is that now we have nothing left to sell.

As for being furious about selling our star players in the summer. I was furious when Reeves went, when Fashanu went, when Bellamy went etc etc. But hey, somethings never change do they?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]I am still of the opinion that a young striker would have been a better

option than Jamie. As much as I like the lad I consider the fee spent

on him is dead money.[/quote]The fact is that Jamie Cureton is capable of getting us 20 goals a season for the next couple of seasons.  There is no guarantee that Billy Sharp or Eastwood are capable of this.  If we were to get promoted in the next couple of seasons (I know, hopeless optimism) with a Sharp or an Eastwood in the team, it''s more than likely we would be looking to offload them rather than rely upon them for Premiership goals.  With Cureton we wouldn''t have that problem, he''d just become a back-up striker seeing out his contract.More to the point, isn''t the whole point about player values that nobody really expects players to suddenly find their worth ?  How many of us would have given Etuhu the value of 1.5 million last January ?  Sounds to me like you''re moaning at the club for not giving you the chance to moan when players get sold on, Ricardo old chum.

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]I am still of the opinion that a young striker would have been a better option than Jamie. As much as I like the lad I consider the fee spent on him is dead money.[/quote]

The fact is that Jamie Cureton is capable of getting us 20 goals a season for the next couple of seasons.  There is no guarantee that Billy Sharp or Eastwood are capable of this.  If we were to get promoted in the next couple of seasons (I know, hopeless optimism) with a Sharp or an Eastwood in the team, it''s more than likely we would be looking to offload them rather than rely upon them for Premiership goals.  With Cureton we wouldn''t have that problem, he''d just become a back-up striker seeing out his contract.

More to the point, isn''t the whole point about player values that nobody really expects players to suddenly find their worth ?  How many of us would have given Etuhu the value of 1.5 million last January ?  Sounds to me like you''re moaning at the club for not giving you the chance to moan when players get sold on, Ricardo old chum.

[/quote]

Fair comment on Jamie, Blah and I really hope you are right and he goes on to score 20 goals for us.

What I am moaning about (if you want to use that word) is that when we sold in the past we always bought someone with an eye to making a profit when we sold him. Ashton and Earnie are the most recent examples of this approach. I am not saying that I was happy with the sale of promising young players but at least it was a clear strategy. My argument that the Cureton fee is dead money is because it falls outside this strategey. With Ashton and Earnie we got got their purchase price and wages back when we sold them. With Jamie (successful or not) it will not be an option.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]What I am moaning about (if you want to use that word) is that when we

sold in the past we always bought someone with an eye to making a

profit when we sold him. Ashton and Earnie are the most recent examples

of this approach.[/quote]The problem with this approach is that it leads to a lop-sided team, in terms of wages, transfer fees, and arguably ability.  Huckerby and Earnshaw are talented players, but they don''t make a team, and we can''t afford a team of players of that quality.  We needed to spread our bets with the Earnie / Etuhu money, had Sharp signed for us I doubt we would have made 7 signings, more like 2 or 3, maybe even just Sharp and Marshall, and in that situation we would have struggled to field a decent first 11 in the case of injuries.  At least with a bit of strength in depth we have half a chance of coping in the case of injuries, and meaningful competition for most first 11 places too.

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]What I am moaning about (if you want to use that word) is that when we sold in the past we always bought someone with an eye to making a profit when we sold him. Ashton and Earnie are the most recent examples of this approach.[/quote]

 At least with a bit of strength in depth we have half a chance of coping in the case of injuries, and meaningful competition for most first 11 places too.
[/quote]

 

But Bly''s question was will any of them be the next "family jewels"

I think not. What do you think?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]

But Bly''s question was will any of them be the next "family jewels"

I think not. What do you think?[/quote]

In an inflated market that shows no sign of running out of steam, and with more coal put to the engine by TV Companies every year, if the team performs well this season, then anyone playing for us under the age of 28 could be the next family jewel.

[Mello Yello 2,572]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]

But Bly''s question was will any of them be the next "family jewels"

I think not. What do you think?[/quote]

In an inflated market that shows no sign of running out of steam, and with more coal put to the engine by TV Companies every year, if the team performs well this season, then anyone playing for us under the age of 28 could be the next family jewel.
[/quote]

And we''ll be paid in full for these clown jewels - with "Fool''s Gold"........and not a sign of ''Gilt'' on any of the NCFC board''s faces.[:|]