Hoolahan for £250k + Matthew Gilks

[TheCardinal 0]

According to Radio Norfolk

[tribes 0]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"]According to Radio Norfolk[/quote]Yes and Oyston (Blackpool chairman) interviewed says Hoolahan to sign for Norwich.

[Hog 0]

Cool, but just out of interest if his release clause is 250 then I wonder why we are throwing Gilks in as well?

[ncfclad 0]

Well lets hope that Rudd is good.

[McCanary 0]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]Cool, but just out of interest if his release clause is 250 then I wonder why we are throwing Gilks in as well?[/quote]

Sweetener to move the Gorkss situation maybe??

Just a random thought[:)]

[Midlandcanary 0]

[quote user="McCanary"]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]Cool, but just out of interest if his release clause is 250 then I wonder why we are throwing Gilks in as well?[/quote]

Sweetener to move the Gorkss situation maybe??

Just a random thought[:)]

[/quote]

Maybe its becuase we want him off the wage bill and he wants to leave himself to play first team footie? my guess anyway!

[Yella_Forever 0]

this seems very strange, i gotta funny feeling that it could be a sweetener for the gorrks situation..... cos some sites been saying QPR where buying him for £600k, maybe he never had release clause so we gonna tie another deal up for him or maybe we paying £250k + gilks for them both???

dare to dream??

[:O]

[Mr Brownstone 0]

Is Wes handy between the sticks too then? Seems odd chucking in Gilks when Wes has a £250k release clause, unless it was to fend off QPR''s offer. With Lewis going it doesnt exactly leave us over run with GK options should Marsh pick up an injury or suspension, and gives GR yet another position to fill. Possibly another indication that there is a bigger budget than any of us imagined?

[Yella_Forever 0]

[quote user="ncfclad"]Well lets hope that Rudd is good.[/quote]

 

otherwise this is a crazy idea!!!!

[Camuldonum 0]

Matty has certainly been having talks with your Manager about his future and I believe he asked either to be released or allowed out on loan.  He has to get out.

[The Jinx 0]

If a player is being bought for £250,000 is he any good these days? Its hardly a big sum is it.

[SuperWesIrishWizard 0]

No i should imagine it is more to do with the fact that Blackpool owe Livingstone 73k before Hoolohan is officially cleared to leave the club. Therefore Blackpool could have agreed to pay off Livingstone the 73k if Norwich give them Gilkes, who wants to leave Norwich anyway and cost us nothing.

What this space for Declan Rudd, he wasnt modelling the kit yesterday for no reason at all you know.

Also, I was under the impression that Gorkks also has a 250k release clause?

[First Wizard 0]

Yippee! there is a tooth fairie after all!...........forget the low price, but for his get out clause, he would have cost a lot more.[Y]

[Hog 0]

This is a special special day. Wiz is happy!

[Stephen Frys Evil Twin 0]

[quote user="Yella_Forever"]

this seems very strange, i gotta funny feeling that it could be a sweetener for the gorrks situation..... cos some sites been saying QPR where buying him for £600k, maybe he never had release clause so we gonna tie another deal up for him or maybe we paying £250k + gilks for them both???

dare to dream??

[:O]

[/quote]

My theory is this...

Blackpool realise that they have negotiated a low release clause into Wes'' contract. Norwich come along and want to sign Gorkss and Hoolahan. Hoolahan''s release fee is £250k and Blackpool can''t negotiate that, whereas Gorkss doesn''t have this clause. Therefore, in order to not look like total mugs to the outside world and their fans, they have negotiated (for example) £600k plus Gilks for Gorkss, but are publically stating that Gilks is part of the Hoolahan deal to "boost" that transfer sum.

Or, I could be totally wrong...

[SuperWesIrishWizard 0]

Its a good move for Gilks as well..... i wish him luck if this is true.

[Trent Canary 0]

If true..

Then good luck to Gilks, heard the reports he wanted out, and it allows us to have one of our promising youngsters on the bench (And after the Joe Lewis saga keeping another young talented keeper as the number 3 isnt a good thing!)

From the business point of view, it has to involve Gorkss somehow. Otherwise it would suggest we are giving them Gilks for free? Which would just be crazy as hes worth a bit of money certainly. Otherwise Im just not sure why Gilks is tagged on the end of the transfer, its 250k for Hoolahan, surely anything else is a deal in its own right? (IE Hoola for 250k. then Gilks goes for free. Rather than 250k+Gilks for Hoola)

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="camuldonum"]Matty has certainly been having talks with your Manager about his future and I believe he asked either to be released or allowed out on loan.  He has to get out.[/quote]

Disapointed to lose matty and keep Marshall tbh.. i think he will go on to do very well at blackpool... Might prove us wrong!

Welcome Hooligan! im sure he will do well for us

jas :)

[SuperWesIrishWizard 0]

[quote user="Trent Canary"]

If true..

Then good luck to Gilks, heard the reports he wanted out, and it allows us to have one of our promising youngsters on the bench (And after the Joe Lewis saga keeping another young talented keeper as the number 3 isnt a good thing!)

From the business point of view, it has to involve Gorkss somehow. Otherwise it would suggest we are giving them Gilks for free? Which would just be crazy as hes worth a bit of money certainly. Otherwise Im just not sure why Gilks is tagged on the end of the transfer, its 250k for Hoolahan, surely anything else is a deal in its own right? (IE Hoola for 250k. then Gilks goes for free. Rather than 250k+Gilks for Hoola)

[/quote]

As i have already said, Hoolohan couldnt move until Blackpool paid Livingstone 73k that they owed. Therefore the simplest resolution to avoid a long drawn out legal process would be for Blackpool to pay Livingston 73k out of the 250k and in return allowing Gilks to go to Blackpool, a move which also gives some goodwill to a player that we signed for free with the promise of some football that he never got. I dont think we could have got any more than 100k-150k for Gilks anyway, and morally it is right to let him join a championship team for less than to demand he moves back to league one/two for the club to make 75k......... In return Gilks may be making a pay cut to sweeten the deal, because some players demand money to move if they are offered less money. Therefore it could be in our interests to give Gilks to Blackpool.

And im delighted for Gilks to be given the opportunity to play in the championship after an empty promise by Peter Grunt.

[Gentleman Jim 0]

[quote user="Stephen Frys Evil Twin"]

My theory is this...

Blackpool realise that they have negotiated a low release clause into Wes'' contract. Norwich come along and want to sign Gorkss and Hoolahan. Hoolahan''s release fee is £250k and Blackpool can''t negotiate that, whereas Gorkss doesn''t have this clause. Therefore, in order to not look like total mugs to the outside world and their fans, they have negotiated (for example) £600k plus Gilks for Gorkss, but are publically stating that Gilks is part of the Hoolahan deal to "boost" that transfer sum.

Or, I could be totally wrong...

[/quote]

Phew !  Football used to be all so simple ! Makes Einstein''s theories look easy , ha ha !

 

[Trent Canary 0]

Cheers for explaining, is this the definite case or what you think is going on (Not saying your wrong, just so I know whether its gospel)

Suppose the only arguement is the FIFA case and livingston isnt our problem. But if it gets us to sign him before anyone us else gets involved, potentially leads to Gorkss, and also if it means Gilks removal from the pay structure (Assuming he was on a few k) then its a good idea.

[Inch High aka Inchy.. 417]

http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1322187,00.html

[PurpleCanary 6,381]

Love the conspiracy theories, but I notice the Blackpool chairman is quoted by the BBC as describing this as "a part-swap deal", so it might not be £250,000 plus Gilks but £200,000 and a £50,000 Gilks.

[Inch High aka Inchy.. 417]

What a great signing.[:D][:D]

 

[Syteanric 1]

*waits for Gordon and his ''told you so'' post*

jas :)

[Good News Gordon 0]

Whats the point, I will shut up and just wait for the others to come

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

*waits for Gordon and his ''told you so'' post*

jas :)

[/quote]

When your pissing in the wind sooner or later you hit the target...

I assume that makes the highly rated Declan Rudd our new number 2?

[Freeza 0]

Brilliant! Best news of the summer so far.

Add Gorkss and Gow in the next couple of days and Glenn will pretty much have lived up to his promises as far as I''m concerned.

A shame Gilks never got a chance but this is a great chance for Declan Rudd and makes sense to me. If Marshall did happen to get injured he''d get a real chance and keepers are usually pretty easy to get in on loan if he struggles.

Great news

[Grif 0]

OVER THE MOON, brilliant signing, can''t wait to see him at Carrow Road!!!!!!!

[Camuldonum 0]

It''s a very good deal - Hoolahan will make a big difference to your forward line and it''s a very good deal for Matty as well.  He was 26 this week and he now has the chance to save his career.  I expect to see him in the 1st team slot showing people what a very good keeper he is - and he''s back home with friends and family in Lancashire.  Couldn''t be better.

I am very glad that Mr Roeder has been good enough to let him go.  It was not the fault of Norwich - just changing circumstances - but it has seriously derailed his career.  I think you have a real bargain in Hoolahan.  Perhaps your Manager does know what he is doing after all?