Minster Canary 0 Posted July 4, 2010 There was a glitch in getting Ruddy here yesterday to finalise, they were hoping to get the deal signed and sealed then, but he has since passed his medical and will the signing will be announced tomorrow, a three-year deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Flashheart 0 Posted July 4, 2010 Do you have any evidence for that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barclaybred 0 Posted July 4, 2010 I thought from yesterdays `in the knows`,it was a year long loan? ...For some reason i feel your statement carries authority so i believe you and am more than happy its a perm signing,though we dont normally do 3 year contracts,its usually 2 and on the odd occasion, with a year extension...So even more pleased..Now how about info from a reliable source on jackson please! :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan1992 0 Posted July 4, 2010 I''ll be stuck in 2 minds about this if it happens. I''ll be happy as he seems a good ''keeper, but also disappointed as i''d have really liked FF to come back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stowmarket Canary (not Delia) 0 Posted July 4, 2010 I loved Frasier as much as anyone but i think its always better to have your own players, otherwise we could face this situation every summer! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kdncfc 0 Posted July 4, 2010 He sounds as though he has the potential to be a good keeper, I''d far rather have our own player rather than borrowing someone elses any day of the week. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="Barclaybred"]...though we dont normally do 3 year contracts,its usually 2...[/quote]Surnam and Croft came in on a 3 year and Chris Martin renegotiated a 3 and a half year deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hog 0 Posted July 4, 2010 http://www.bluekipper.com/players/something_fishy/1398-ruddy_to_norwich.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stowmarket Canary (not Delia) 0 Posted July 4, 2010 According to an Everton site he''s been watched by Celtic after impressing last season at Motherwell! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beauseant 0 Posted July 4, 2010 This story does seem to be persistent, so tomorrow will be interesting. A lot of dots seem to be joining up, ie Lambert''s Plan B comments, the fact that Motherwell have just signed Randolph, the Celtic connection of Lambert and Moyes and the plethora of keepers at Everton.If true, it seems a good move. Clearly Hughton is unsure whether to loan Forster out, and it seems unlikely that he would do so without strings ( such as a recall clause) which could cause us discomfort. Ruddy is clearly rated highly (see Craig Brown''s comments) and the prospect of us owning promising 23 and 19 year old keepers is an attractive one, as Rudd will either develop on loan and become our number one, in which case Ruddy would be a saleable asset , or he won''t, in which case he would be worth a few bob himself. There is more future in that than any loan signing, however good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deano 0 Posted July 4, 2010 I remember watching him at Cambridge United. I know it was only League 2 but he looked like a very good keeper. he was only 18/19 at the time and his form there got him the move to Everton. Admittedly he hasnt broke through there, although he did get a few games for them a couple off seasons back when they had a keeper crisis, but he''ss been impressive during his loan spells by all accounts. I''d say Forster has the potential to be a better keeper but right know Ruddy is equally as good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="now youre gotta believe us....."]According to an Everton site he''s been watched by Celtic after impressing last season at Motherwell![/quote]There''s quite a bit on this but it''s all a couple of months old. Ruddy himself said that he does not want to sit in Everton''s reserves but needs to be playing at a "reasonable level" for at least three years on the trot before considering himself an established goalie. There are so many things in this rumour that add up that I will be shocked if he is not our permanent player in the next couple of days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crew Cut Wes 0 Posted July 4, 2010 Is Ruddy not on the pre-season tour in Australia? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shiplee15 0 Posted July 4, 2010 i dont know how reliable this website is but... http://www.norwich.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=203613 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
William Darby 0 Posted July 4, 2010 So the similar name theme continues... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="shiplee15"]i dont know how reliable this website is but... http://www.norwich.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=203613 [/quote]but what? It states quite plainly that at the moment it''s all rumours. Nothing new. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CJ 0 Posted July 4, 2010 Surely this can not be true , I hope not and I really can not see what planet the earlier post who compared Fraser Forster with Ruddyis coming from. No disrespect but Ruddy has been on loan to a lot of clubs and clearly not clicked otherwise they would have movedheaven and earth to keep him as I know we are trying to do with Forster.Oh dear if this is true means no Forster and long hard season Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
O.T.B.C 0 Posted July 4, 2010 If we get him, it will be mixed feelings as someone said. This means that we won''t be getting FF, but from what was said of Ruddy a few years back, he is a big talent. But we will have our keeper. I will still consider getting another keeper in so we can loan out Rudd and maybe Steer. It will do Rudd the a world of good to go out on loan instead of sitting on the bench. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kdncfc 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="CJ"]Surely this can not be true , I hope not and I really can not see what planet the earlier post who compared Fraser Forster with Ruddyis coming from. No disrespect but Ruddy has been on loan to a lot of clubs and clearly not clicked otherwise they would have movedheaven and earth to keep him as I know we are trying to do with Forster.Oh dear if this is true means no Forster and long hard season [/quote]Maybe some of the clubs he has been on loan at wanted him but couldn''t afford to buy him. Not saying he is any good cos I haven''t seen him play but he has certainly kept a lot of clean sheets whereever he has been and that is an encouraging sign whatever level he has been playing at. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beauseant 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="CJ"]Surely this can not be true , I hope not and I really can not see what planet the earlier post who compared Fraser Forster with Ruddyis coming from. No disrespect but Ruddy has been on loan to a lot of clubs and clearly not clicked otherwise they would have movedheaven and earth to keep him as I know we are trying to do with Forster.Oh dear if this is true means no Forster and long hard season [/quote] You clearly come from the "Frazer Forster is the only good keeper in the world" stable. Reality check - he will never sign for us because his future is at Newcastle. If we sign Ruddy we will have two very promising keepers WHO BELONG TO US. Frazer is a great keeper, but at best we would have him for a season. This, if true, is a much more progressive move. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhatCanary 0 Posted July 4, 2010 It was in the Sunday papers,it must be true!![:|] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barclaybred 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="Mustachio Furioso"][quote user="Barclaybred"]...though we dont normally do 3 year contracts,its usually 2...[/quote]Surnam and Croft came in on a 3 year and Chris Martin renegotiated a 3 and a half year deal.[/quote]You obviously missed the "normally" ..There are exceptions or i would have put "always".. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"] [quote user="Barclaybred"]...though we dont normally do 3 year contracts,its usually 2...[/quote]Surnam and Croft came in on a 3 year and Chris Martin renegotiated a 3 and a half year deal.[/quote]You obviously missed the "normally" ..There are exceptions or i would have put "always"..[/quote]Approximately a third of Lambert''s signings are on three years rather than two. A third is not "exceptional". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barclaybred 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="Mustachio Furioso"][quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"] [quote user="Barclaybred"]...though we dont normally do 3 year contracts,its usually 2...[/quote]Surnam and Croft came in on a 3 year and Chris Martin renegotiated a 3 and a half year deal.[/quote]You obviously missed the "normally" ..There are exceptions or i would have put "always"..[/quote]Approximately a third of Lambert''s signings are on three years rather than two. A third is not "exceptional".[/quote]So two thirds of Lamberts signings are not 3 year contracts then,so surely the norm is not 3years! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crew Cut Wes 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="ldnboy"]Is Ruddy not on the pre-season tour in Australia?[/quote]? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdlion 0 Posted July 4, 2010 This is good news if correct. Ruddy is a very good young goalkeeper. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"][quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"] [quote user="Barclaybred"]...though we dont normally do 3 year contracts,its usually 2...[/quote]Surnam and Croft came in on a 3 year and Chris Martin renegotiated a 3 and a half year deal.[/quote]You obviously missed the "normally" ..There are exceptions or i would have put "always"..[/quote]Approximately a third of Lambert''s signings are on three years rather than two. A third is not "exceptional".[/quote]So two thirds of Lamberts signings are not 3 year contracts then,so surely the norm is not 3years! [/quote]Though perhaps closer to the norm than the "2 year" or "2 year with extension" contracts, that you previously said make up the supposed "norm"? In which case you are firmly in the wrong. If not, you''re hardly "correct" in what you first said anyway.Nevertheless, regardless, they hardly seem to be an ''unusual'' occurance, so to dispel the likelihood of this rumour on the grounds of it being a 3 year contract offerred to one who is a relatively young keeper at the age of 23, is certainly odd to say the least. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barclaybred 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="John"][quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"][quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"] [quote user="Barclaybred"]...though we dont normally do 3 year contracts,its usually 2...[/quote]Surnam and Croft came in on a 3 year and Chris Martin renegotiated a 3 and a half year deal.[/quote]You obviously missed the "normally" ..There are exceptions or i would have put "always"..[/quote]Approximately a third of Lambert''s signings are on three years rather than two. A third is not "exceptional".[/quote]So two thirds of Lamberts signings are not 3 year contracts then,so surely the norm is not 3years! [/quote]Though perhaps closer to the norm than the "2 year" or "2 year with extension" contracts, that you previously said make up the supposed "norm"? In which case you are firmly in the wrong. If not, you''re hardly "correct" in what you first said anyway.Nevertheless, regardless, they hardly seem to be an ''unusual'' occurance, so to dispel the likelihood of this rumour on the grounds of it being a 3 year contract offerred to one who is a relatively young keeper at the age of 23, is certainly odd to say the least.[/quote]What school did you go to! If there is 1/3 that are 3 years contract as he stated,and 2/3 not,then 3year contracts are not the norm! ..I wasnt dispelling the rumour or fact,i was just stating that in the past,we seemed to offer 2 year contracts more,and some with an extension..So if this rumour/fact becomes a signing then it means,imo,Lambert has massive faith in this guy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="John"][quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"][quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"] [quote user="Barclaybred"]...though we dont normally do 3 year contracts,its usually 2...[/quote] Surnam and Croft came in on a 3 year and Chris Martin renegotiated a 3 and a half year deal. [/quote] You obviously missed the "normally" ..There are exceptions or i would have put "always".. [/quote] Approximately a third of Lambert''s signings are on three years rather than two. A third is not "exceptional". [/quote] So two thirds of Lamberts signings are not 3 year contracts then,so surely the norm is not 3years!  [/quote]Though perhaps ***closer*** to the norm than the "2 year" or "2 year with extension" contracts, that you previously said make up the supposed "norm"? In which case you are firmly in the wrong. If not, you''re hardly "correct" in what you first said anyway.Nevertheless, regardless, they hardly seem to be an ''unusual'' occurance, so to dispel the likelihood of this rumour on the grounds of it being a 3 year contract offerred to one who is a relatively young keeper at the age of 23, is certainly odd to say the least.[/quote]What school did you go to! If there is 1/3 that are 3 years contract as he stated,and 2/3 not,then 3year contracts are not the norm! ..I wasnt dispelling the rumour or fact,i was just stating that in the past,we seemed to offer 2 year contracts more,and some with an extension..So if this rumour/fact becomes a signing then it means,imo,Lambert has massive faith in this guy[/quote] Does lead one to wonder what school you went to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barclaybred 0 Posted July 4, 2010 [quote user="John"][quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="John"][quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"][quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"] [quote user="Barclaybred"]...though we dont normally do 3 year contracts,its usually 2...[/quote]Surnam and Croft came in on a 3 year and Chris Martin renegotiated a 3 and a half year deal.[/quote]You obviously missed the "normally" ..There are exceptions or i would have put "always"..[/quote]Approximately a third of Lambert''s signings are on three years rather than two. A third is not "exceptional".[/quote]So two thirds of Lamberts signings are not 3 year contracts then,so surely the norm is not 3years! [/quote]Though perhaps ***closer*** to the norm than the "2 year" or "2 year with extension" contracts, that you previously said make up the supposed "norm"? In which case you are firmly in the wrong. If not, you''re hardly "correct" in what you first said anyway.Nevertheless, regardless, they hardly seem to be an ''unusual'' occurance, so to dispel the likelihood of this rumour on the grounds of it being a 3 year contract offerred to one who is a relatively young keeper at the age of 23, is certainly odd to say the least.[/quote]What school did you go to! If there is 1/3 that are 3 years contract as he stated,and 2/3 not,then 3year contracts are not the norm! ..I wasnt dispelling the rumour or fact,i was just stating that in the past,we seemed to offer 2 year contracts more,and some with an extension..So if this rumour/fact becomes a signing then it means,imo,Lambert has massive faith in this guy[/quote]Does lead one to wonder what school you went to.[/quote]Pay attention at the back,yes that means you JOHN!!If i was paid £600 a week for 8 months and £200 a week for 4 months..would i normally being rich or poor? .....cmon im waiting,,, As i NORMALLY have £600 in my pocket than the FEW months i dont,i would NORMALLY be better off than not Share this post Link to post Share on other sites