Big Dave Striker.......

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Clint"]

.

Open your eyes to the bigger picture Jas, not everything is as it seems in this world of spin, does the name Carlos Tevez not ring any bells?!?!  

[/quote]

 

yes... he was the bloke who was signed illegally by West ham.. hence a court case,... he was not on loan with a view to a permanent deal at the spammers... which isnt what u eluded to in ur original post... so either we have signed him or he is on loan.. surely your Bottle of Ketchup (sauce) has told u which it is?

 

yet more evdicne that this is piffle...!

I''ll buy the EDP tommorow... will make for interesting reading im sure... do i have to read just the first letter of every Word as its a cryptic message revealing everything?

jas :)

[WeAreYellows49 0]

Clint, so name your source then and how they came about the info.

I have emailed the club and Mr D and await with interest a reply, have pointed out all the details you state in your post.

[Hog 0]

Mr D is away, if its business or pleasure is anyones guess?

[Syteanric 1]

i expect Mr Doncaster is no doubt negotiating a 25 year loan for a player and will report we spent 20 million to sign him... a free bottle of HP is on its way to CLint for his part on the deal too

jas :)

[Grando 260]

I''ve heard from a reliable source that Dave Striker doesn''t actually exist and is a figment of our collective imaginations - which would explain why he''s not featured much...

We seem to have a habit of signing pretend strikers, so I tend to think my source may have this one right.

[Trent Canary 0]

This thread is brilliant, great work everyone!

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

Wouldnt suprise me. It happened at Portsmouth with Laurent Robert and also with Diomansky Kamara.

[Fozzie 0]

Has anyone actually asked Glenn specifically about Dave?  I''d imagine his name would be on the tip of most journo''s tongues when they get a chance to talk to the jaffa about our striker situation.  All I''ve heard for months is hearsay, but that''s enough about my music collection.

[Syteanric 1]

well i read the paper like Caramac told me too... him and clint can go back to making up stories now... no mention of anything they said... they will probably be on in a mo anyway.. the school lunch bell goes soon.

jas :)

[noz4lyf 0]

StrivStrav Will Go !

[Caramac 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

well i read the paper like Caramac told me too... him and clint can go back to making up stories now... no mention of anything they said... they will probably be on in a mo anyway.. the school lunch bell goes soon.

jas :)

[/quote]

Doesn''t change the essential truth in the story.  I would imagine that the club is putting pressure on Archant not to publish - it''s not exactly the sort of story that a club which strives for transparency would want in the public domain - or Archant is double-checking the veracity of the story.

I know that I have hardly ever posted on here before, but I regularly lurk and don''t see the value in contributing to the daily tittle-tattle.  On this occasion I nobly thought I would defend Clint''s honour because I genuinely have the information too.

 

[Mello Yello 2,281]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]Mr D is away, if its business or pleasure is anyones guess?[/quote]

Probably went to see the ''Spice Girls'' gig in London.......[|-)]

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="Caramac"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

well i read the paper like Caramac told me too... him and clint can go back to making up stories now... no mention of anything they said... they will probably be on in a mo anyway.. the school lunch bell goes soon.

jas :)

[/quote]

Doesn''t change the essential truth in the story.  I would imagine that the club is putting pressure on Archant not to publish - it''s not exactly the sort of story that a club which strives for transparency would want in the public domain - or Archant is double-checking the veracity of the story.

I know that I have hardly ever posted on here before, but I regularly lurk and don''t see the value in contributing to the daily tittle-tattle.  On this occasion I nobly thought I would defend Clint''s honour because I genuinely have the information too.

[/quote]I had heard a similar rumour - not that he was on loan, but that we had initially signed him on a one-year contract, with an option to extend it if we wanted to. If this is true, I would expect it to come to light sooner rather than later, as it could free up more money to spend in the transfer window as we would obviously not renew his contract based on his contribution so far. Could just be speculation, of course, but we shall see...

[lappinitup 629]

Thought I''d run a quick check on how it was reported at the time.......

http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1071620,00.html

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Sport&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=sport&itemid=NOED05+Jul+2007+11%3A21%3A44%3A080

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/Sport/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=Sport&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=Sport&itemid=NOED11+Jul+2007+12%3A45%3A43%3A587

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/norwich/6287472.stm

So, Strihavka''s club Banic Ostrava, NCFC, Archant and the BBC all stated a four year contract. I wonder why they would do this if it was indeed a loan ?.

 

 

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Caramac"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

well i read the paper like Caramac told me too... him and clint can go back to making up stories now... no mention of anything they said... they will probably be on in a mo anyway.. the school lunch bell goes soon.

jas :)

[/quote]

Doesn''t change the essential truth in the story.  I would imagine that the club is putting pressure on Archant not to publish - it''s not exactly the sort of story that a club which strives for transparency would want in the public domain - or Archant is double-checking the veracity of the story.

I know that I have hardly ever posted on here before, but I regularly lurk and don''t see the value in contributing to the daily tittle-tattle.  On this occasion I nobly thought I would defend Clint''s honour because I genuinely have the information too.

 

[/quote]

 

so they are also stopping Banik, Sky Sports, the BBC, football365, Soccerbase, The FA and the Czech FA all reporting it as well are they?

 Your source is yanking your chain... let it go mate...

jas :)

[renegade tootsie 0]

Lol the rumour was true and some on here maybe need to do a bit of humble pie this morning....

[quote user="Coelho"][quote user="Caramac"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

well i read the paper like Caramac told me too... him and clint can go back to making up stories now... no mention of anything they said... they will probably be on in a mo anyway.. the school lunch bell goes soon.

jas :)

[/quote]

Doesn''t change the essential truth in the story.  I would imagine that the club is putting pressure on Archant not to publish - it''s not exactly the sort of story that a club which strives for transparency would want in the public domain - or Archant is double-checking the veracity of the story.

I know that I have hardly ever posted on here before, but I regularly lurk and don''t see the value in contributing to the daily tittle-tattle.  On this occasion I nobly thought I would defend Clint''s honour because I genuinely have the information too.

[/quote]
I had heard a similar rumour - not that he was on loan, but that we had initially signed him on a one-year contract, with an option to extend it if we wanted to. If this is true, I would expect it to come to light sooner rather than later, as it could free up more money to spend in the transfer window as we would obviously not renew his contract based on his contribution so far. Could just be speculation, of course, but we shall see...
[/quote]

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="JC"]

Lol the rumour was true and some on here maybe need to do a bit of humble pie this morning....

[quote user="Coelho"][quote user="Caramac"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

well i read the paper like Caramac told me too... him and clint can go back to making up stories now... no mention of anything they said... they will probably be on in a mo anyway.. the school lunch bell goes soon.

jas :)

[/quote]

Doesn''t change the essential truth in the story.  I would imagine that the club is putting pressure on Archant not to publish - it''s not exactly the sort of story that a club which strives for transparency would want in the public domain - or Archant is double-checking the veracity of the story.

I know that I have hardly ever posted on here before, but I regularly lurk and don''t see the value in contributing to the daily tittle-tattle.  On this occasion I nobly thought I would defend Clint''s honour because I genuinely have the information too.

[/quote]
I had heard a similar rumour - not that he was on loan, but that we had initially signed him on a one-year contract, with an option to extend it if we wanted to. If this is true, I would expect it to come to light sooner rather than later, as it could free up more money to spend in the transfer window as we would obviously not renew his contract based on his contribution so far. Could just be speculation, of course, but we shall see...
[/quote][/quote]

No it wasn''t.  He was our player, he was not on loan.  He had a contract with us, if it was a loan he would be going back to Banik, as it is he is joining Prague.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="JC"]

Lol the rumour was true and some on here maybe need to do a bit of humble pie this morning....

[quote user="Coelho"][quote user="Caramac"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

well i read the paper like Caramac told me too... him and clint can go back to making up stories now... no mention of anything they said... they will probably be on in a mo anyway.. the school lunch bell goes soon.

jas :)

[/quote]

Doesn''t change the essential truth in the story.  I would imagine that the club is putting pressure on Archant not to publish - it''s not exactly the sort of story that a club which strives for transparency would want in the public domain - or Archant is double-checking the veracity of the story.

I know that I have hardly ever posted on here before, but I regularly lurk and don''t see the value in contributing to the daily tittle-tattle.  On this occasion I nobly thought I would defend Clint''s honour because I genuinely have the information too.

[/quote]
I had heard a similar rumour - not that he was on loan, but that we had initially signed him on a one-year contract, with an option to extend it if we wanted to. If this is true, I would expect it to come to light sooner rather than later, as it could free up more money to spend in the transfer window as we would obviously not renew his contract based on his contribution so far. Could just be speculation, of course, but we shall see...
[/quote][/quote]

The rumour wasn''t true though was it?  He wasn''t here on loan, he wasn''t on loan from Ostrava. 

He signed on a 1 year contract with the option of another 3 years.  Banik Ostrava haven''t done very well out of this have they.  If we''d kept him they would have received a further £1.1m, now I think I am right in saying they will get no more money.

Great deal for us, I find it a bit perplexing that Ostrava agreed to it.

Anyway, Roeder must surely have some strikers lined up now.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

so they are also stopping Banik, Sky Sports, the BBC, football365, Soccerbase, The FA and the Czech FA all reporting it as well are they?

 Your source is yanking your chain... let it go mate...

jas :)

[/quote]Have you read this mornings news??The deal could have been for four years, but we safegaurded it by being able to terminate it after one.

[Michael Starr 519]

looool!!! it was true... that''s hilarious... 

At the time he signed, like others on here, I really couldn''t get my head around why Norwich spent 1M outright on an unproven player when cash was tight on the recommendation of a rookie manager, and then not playing him even when in the crap playing poor football at the foot of the table.

Now it''s come to light that we only paid 240k... in my eyes, he was here on a years trial, an expensive trial, but a trial none-the-less which failed, I see this as 1M gained rather than 240k lost. "Try before you buy" is good when you''re an Arsenal or Man Utd, NOT when your a struggling Championship club in desperate times. Good idea, but Dave was not good enough.

[Caramac 0]

Jas, I wish I got my chain yanked like that a little more often!  So what if the club is dressing it up a little bit to look like someone at NCFC had been very clever - the essence is that it was a 1-year loan/deal with an option of a further 3 years if City paid a further 1.1 million.  So not the 4-year deal that they publicised at the time. 

Of course this means that the 2.2 million they said they spent on players over the summer needs to be reallocated a little bit - as pretty much everyone assumed that Dave cost us 1 million euros (£700k) - so maybe Cureton, Russell, Marshall et al cost a little bit more than assumed. 

This club couldn''t be less transparent if someone smeared vaseline over Fred Scuttle''s glasses. 

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="Caramac"]

Jas, I wish I got my chain yanked like that a little more often!  So what if the club is dressing it up a little bit to look like someone at NCFC had been very clever - the essence is that it was a 1-year loan/deal with an option of a further 3 years if City paid a further 1.1 million.  So not the 4-year deal that they publicised at the time. 

Of course this means that the 2.2 million they said they spent on players over the summer needs to be reallocated a little bit - as pretty much everyone assumed that Dave cost us 1 million euros (£700k) - so maybe Cureton, Russell, Marshall et al cost a little bit more than assumed. 

This club couldn''t be less transparent if someone smeared vaseline over Fred Scuttle''s glasses. 

[/quote]

Caramac, you seem convinced it was a loan, do you have any evidence to show that he is still Banik Ostrava''s player? 

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="Michael Starr"]

looool!!! it was true... that''s hilarious... 

At the time he signed, like others on here, I really couldn''t get my head around why Norwich spent 1M outright on an unproven player when cash was tight on the recommendation of a rookie manager, and then not playing him even when in the crap playing poor football at the foot of the table.

Now it''s come to light that we only paid 240k... in my eyes, he was here on a years trial, an expensive trial, but a trial none-the-less which failed, I see this as 1M gained rather than 240k lost. "Try before you buy" is good when you''re an Arsenal or Man Utd, NOT when your a struggling Championship club in desperate times. Good idea, but Dave was not good enough.

[/quote]1. He was here on trial for about a week before we actually put pen to paper.2. It was never quoted that it was 1M. It was said that the deal was 750k which is about right looking how much the 4-year deal would have cost us. To carmac and the others I don''t see how the board are doing spin etc. After all the deal was probably, he signs a 4 year contract. The first year costs norwich 250k after the first year has finished the payment goes up to 1M. We obviously had an option to cancel the deal and his contract in one go anytime during the first year. So it was like when we cancelled hartson''s early. Hartson wasn''t on a 2 week loan he was on a 4 week loan but we didn''t want him anymore so we let him go. Hardly murky now is it?

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Caramac"]

Jas, I wish I got my chain yanked like that a little more often!  So what if the club is dressing it up a little bit to look like someone at NCFC had been very clever - the essence is that it was a 1-year loan/deal with an option of a further 3 years if City paid a further 1.1 million.  So not the 4-year deal that they publicised at the time. 

Of course this means that the 2.2 million they said they spent on players over the summer needs to be reallocated a little bit - as pretty much everyone assumed that Dave cost us 1 million euros (£700k) - so maybe Cureton, Russell, Marshall et al cost a little bit more than assumed. 

This club couldn''t be less transparent if someone smeared vaseline over Fred Scuttle''s glasses. 

[/quote]

Well done Caramac & Clint. Ok, no doubt some will quibble you said loan as opposed to a one year deal, but the essence of your posting was correct and your sources are reliable. Hope there''ll be some apologies coming your way. What other inside info do you have for us?

 

[Huddy 0]

Carmac and Clint were basically right. Ok,it wasnt a straightforward loan, but it certainly wasnt the £1 Million, 4 year contact. It was similar to a loan in being a year long, we hadnt paid for him and we could get out of it!

Now Carmac and Clint, didnt one of u have some other rumour or am i getting confused. If so, what was it?!

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="JC"]

Lol the rumour was true and some on here maybe need to do a bit of humble pie this morning....

[/quote]

well i read the paper like Caramac told me too... him and clint can go back to making up stories now... no mention of anything they said... they will probably be on in a mo anyway.. the school lunch bell goes soon.

jas :)

[/quote]

Doesn''t change the essential truth in the story.  I would imagine that the club is putting pressure on Archant not to publish - it''s not exactly the sort of story that a club which strives for transparency would want in the public domain - or Archant is double-checking the veracity of the story.

I know that I have hardly ever posted on here before, but I regularly lurk and don''t see the value in contributing to the daily tittle-tattle.  On this occasion I nobly thought I would defend Clint''s honour because I genuinely have the information too.

[quote user="Coelho"][quote user="Caramac"][quote user="jas the barclay king"] I had heard a similar rumour - not that he was on loan, but that we had initially signed him on a one-year contract, with an option to extend it if we wanted to. If this is true, I would expect it to come to light sooner rather than later, as it could free up more money to spend in the transfer window as we would obviously not renew his contract based on his contribution so far. Could just be speculation, of course, but we shall see...[/quote][/quote]

The rumour wasn''t true though was it?  He wasn''t here on loan, he wasn''t on loan from Ostrava. 

He signed on a 1 year contract with the option of another 3 years.  Banik Ostrava haven''t done very well out of this have they.  If we''d kept him they would have received a further £1.1m, now I think I am right in saying they will get no more money.

Great deal for us, I find it a bit perplexing that Ostrava agreed to it.

Anyway, Roeder must surely have some strikers lined up now.

[/quote]The rumour was true – exactly as I said last night, if you read it again. I never said he was here on loan. An initial one-year deal, with the option to extend it if required!

[Trent Canary 0]

Well played Coelho! That version sounded more believable. Think it was the "On loan" part that threw people off and would never have happened IMO. But the original post was half right so well done.

 

[Clint 221]

Thank you all and well done to the others who backed me up!  I may not have been 100% spot on as is usually the case with these things (no-one except the big cheeses at the club know all the info) but the essence of what I was trying to get across has been substantiated. 

To all those doubters, I hope you now realise that I don''t post on here infrequently to spread rumours but only when I have something to say that I think others may find interesting. 

The other info I had, is that Strihavka''s agent is the same man as Grant''s which is now irrelevant but could that be a reason as to why he was signed in the first place?!?  I also eluded to the fact that we have no cash and Roeder basically only has available what he brings in, I beleive this has been substantiated to a certain extent by the recent culling of players and the still lack of any decent permanent signings almost 2 weeks into the transfer window (bar Matty, which was funded by Lewis'' imminent departure)!

The infamous Barclay King seems conspicuous by his absence, oh well Jaz, I better get back to class now to learn, something you could incorporate into your day of posting 1,000''s of pointless messages on this site!!!   

 

[Caramac 0]

[quote user="Clint"]

Thank you all and well done to the others who backed me up!  I may not have been 100% spot on as is usually the case with these things (no-one except the big cheeses at the club know all the info) but the essence of what I was trying to get across has been substantiated. 

To all those doubters, I hope you now realise that I don''t post on here infrequently to spread rumours but only when I have something to say that I think others may find interesting. 

The other info I had, is that Strihavka''s agent is the same man as Grant''s which is now irrelevant but could that be a reason as to why he was signed in the first place?!?  I also eluded to the fact that we have no cash and Roeder basically only has available what he brings in, I beleive this has been substantiated to a certain extent by the recent culling of players and the still lack of any decent permanent signings almost 2 weeks into the transfer window (bar Matty, which was funded by Lewis'' imminent departure)!

The infamous Barclay King seems conspicuous by his absence, oh well Jaz, I better get back to class now to learn, something you could incorporate into your day of posting 1,000''s of pointless messages on this site!!!   

 

[/quote]

 

I actually think the story has changed.  Like you say, you can never be 100% aware of all the facts - but I was told twice by two separate people it was a loan - whether I was told it was a loan to expedite a long explanation might back-up the changed position as of today.  BTW - ''tis also true about Grant and Dave having the same agent.

Now where were we with other rumours?  Just this one: Joe Lewis held off signing for the Posh because he was hopeful that a leading Championship club with NCFC connections would come in for him.  Again not relevant anymore, but if that had materialised the attitude over his sale would have changed considerably.  Goes to show you how much we are in need of cash right now...

[Syteanric 1]

actually no... Clint said that Dave was here on Loan orginally.. so did Caramac.. they conveniantly changed their story... right up to and including the fact that he was co-owned... which wasnt true...

ok so they were right in the end but how many different variations did we have?

 And it was Technically a 4 year deal wasnt it? had he of been banging in the goals he probably would of had it already....

 jas :)