NCFC4LIFE 0 Posted February 2, 2011 I didnt realise we had bid that much for him, i think this transfer was a big risk for us. I have no question that if Lambert and McNally were willing to splurge that amount of money on the lad he has the potential of being a top draw player. All im saying is for 3.5 mill there are bankers out there that can pretty much guarantee goals and performances. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/norwich/9384922.stm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CRAZY LEGS 0 Posted February 2, 2011 so we offered at least 1.3m for bennett, at least we know thier is money to spend Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThorpeCanary 71 Posted February 2, 2011 the 3.5 million was referring to the price we paid for Earnshaw, apparently our final bid for Bennett was approaching 1 millionhttp://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/norwich_city_go_close_to_getting_bennett_for_near_1m_1_790289 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
"""""""""Ben """"""""""" 0 Posted February 2, 2011 Which then probably means we didn''t pay £1.2 million for Surman like everyone said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
a1canary 0 Posted February 2, 2011 This is how silly rumours and threads start, with people not reading properly. There is no suggestion anywhere that we offered 3.5m. Which would have been insane. I doubt it was more than 1.5m and would be amazed if it was that much.Does at least show that we were preparing to ''go for it''. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCFC4LIFE 0 Posted February 2, 2011 miss read the article, was thinking to myself 3.5 mil bit steep!!! LMAO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted February 2, 2011 "Which then probably means we didn''t pay £1.2 million for Surman like everyone said"The club accounts state that £1.4m IN TOTAL was paid out in 2009/10Though legally audited accounts are hardly a reliable basis for fact when set against sky sports football claims. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shaun Tilly Lace 0 Posted February 2, 2011 We bid close to a million, which is plenty for a 3rd Division player. The board did their best to bring Bennett to Carrow Road I feel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCFC4LIFE 0 Posted February 2, 2011 Surman''s fee could total 1.2mil, we probably had staggered payments!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
a1canary 0 Posted February 2, 2011 "Though legally audited accounts are hardly a reliable basis for fact when set against sky sports football claims."I take it there''s a liberal sprinkling of sarcasm in that sentence C1st!? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0 Posted February 2, 2011 [quote user="Ben"]Which then probably means we didn''t pay £1.2 million for Surman like everyone said. [/quote]It wasn''t everyone - if you checked my posts I was quoting a figure nearer £600k. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harry 0 Posted February 2, 2011 McNally said on Radio Norfolk we had offered a 7 figure sum and would have been the highest fee since Earnshaw.So if we did pay £1.2m for Surman it will be above that but not as much as the £3.5m we paid for Earnshaw.[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IY1-YF5ZKTA/THtuWAcs0VI/AAAAAAAAAsA/yifkdOtsnkU/s1600/simples.bmp[/IMG] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites