priceyrice 123 Posted April 29, 2011 Just reporting today''s gossipit literally only says thisChampionship high-flyers Norwich City are ready to make a £2m move for in-form Millwall striker Steve Morison. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1381702/Norwich-City-set-make-2m-swoop-Millwall-hot-shot-Steve-Morison.html#ixzz1KrXotIZz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newyorkcanary 14 Posted April 29, 2011 So I hear from my friend (son of one of the minority owners) that Morison is going nowhere, let alone for 2m. They don''t need the money, newly capitalized by US ownership, and they love Morison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CRAZY LEGS 0 Posted April 29, 2011 could be true lambert was after him this time last year, but millwall have just as much of a chance as we do of getting to the prem Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerry Harrison 2 Posted April 29, 2011 Millwall can''t get automatic promotion, we have it in our own hands. Millwall aren''t in the top six, we are guaranteed a play off place at least. How the hell have they got as much of a chance as we do of getting to the prem? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CRAZY LEGS 0 Posted April 29, 2011 win all our games we are promotedmillwall win all their games they are promotedforest will bottle it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
O.T.B.C 0 Posted April 29, 2011 Have him here in a shot. Good player and one I think can make the step up in the Premier League. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerry Harrison 2 Posted April 29, 2011 Norwich have to win two games to guarantee promotion.Millwall have to win two games, hope Nottingham Forest don''t win their last two games, and get through the play offs to get promotion.I think you''ll find Norwich are more likely to get promoted then Millwall! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GJP 79 Posted April 29, 2011 [quote user="newyorkcanary"]So I hear from my friend (son of one of the minority owners) that Morison is going nowhere, let alone for 2m. They don''t need the money, newly capitalized by US ownership, and they love Morison.[/quote] Can''t see that anyone would pay more (or much more) than £2m for him anyway. Good in this league but I wouldn''t be overly confident about him in the Prem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crafty Canary 495 Posted April 29, 2011 The Daily Mail this morning claims we are considering a £2M bid for the Millwall forward. I know we were linked with him in January. Does this suggest that should we be promoted PL will continue to look at lower league players he thinks could do a job for us in the Premiership? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canaries_1990 0 Posted April 29, 2011 Good player, would like to see him here next year (especially if we are in the Championship) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted April 29, 2011 [quote user="GJP"][quote user="newyorkcanary"]So I hear from my friend (son of one of the minority owners) that Morison is going nowhere, let alone for 2m. They don''t need the money, newly capitalized by US ownership, and they love Morison.[/quote] Can''t see that anyone would pay more (or much more) than £2m for him anyway. Good in this league but I wouldn''t be overly confident about him in the Prem.[/quote]True, but then a lot of people were saying the same about Grant Holt last year (League One vs Championship). If you''re looking to stay up/stay lower mid-table in the Prem, the gap isn''t that vast. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Kent 0 Posted April 29, 2011 http://www.footballfancast.com/2011/04/football-news/norwich-plan-summer-raid-for-millwall-ace Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GJP 79 Posted April 29, 2011 [quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="GJP"][quote user="newyorkcanary"]So I hear from my friend (son of one of the minority owners) that Morison is going nowhere, let alone for 2m. They don''t need the money, newly capitalized by US ownership, and they love Morison.[/quote] Can''t see that anyone would pay more (or much more) than £2m for him anyway. Good in this league but I wouldn''t be overly confident about him in the Prem.[/quote]True, but then a lot of people were saying the same about Grant Holt last year (League One vs Championship). If you''re looking to stay up/stay lower mid-table in the Prem, the gap isn''t that vast.[/quote]Hmm but I like Grant Holt as a player better than I like Steve Morison. Infact, from what we''ve seen of Simeon Jackson over recent weeks I like the look of him better than Morison. Even Chris Martin looks a better player although Morison is a more likely goalscorer than CM. I suppose if we were looking to sign Morison do play in the Championship then I''d be pleased with that but to go up to the Prem I think there are strikers in this league I''d prefer to him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smudger 0 Posted May 1, 2011 I would much rather we spent £2 million to £3 million on Steve Morison than Craig Mackail Smith.I think that Morison is a good player and he is also young and has the ability to step up another level. He would bring real competition to Holty for his place in the starting line up in my opinion and with time on his side has the potential to become the first choice target man at City for the next few years (even if that does include playing most of that time in the Premiership).Would be a marvellous signing!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CRAZY LEGS 0 Posted May 1, 2011 mackail smith is younger than morrison, but only just wouldn''t mind either but don''t think either of them are worth over £1m Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smudger 0 Posted May 1, 2011 Would prefer Shane Long if Reading don''t win promotion in the play-offs though! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smudger 0 Posted May 1, 2011 ... or Danny Graham perhaps??? Although I don''t think that he would be as good in the air as either Morison or Long and we need "a little bit of help" for Holty as Lambert would put it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legend Iwan 30 Posted May 1, 2011 If we do go up, I think we''ll need two more strikers. One fitting Holt''s stature, i.e. Graham etc and someone like Borini - keep pressure on Jackson and Martin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John 0 Posted May 1, 2011 [quote user="Smudger"]I would much rather we spent £2 million to £3 million on Steve Morison than Craig Mackail Smith.I think that Morison is a good player and he is also young and has the ability to step up another level. He would bring real competition to Holty for his place in the starting line up in my opinion and with time on his side has the potential to become the first choice target man at City for the next few years (even if that does include playing most of that time in the Premiership).Would be a marvellous signing!!![/quote]If it''s age that concerns you i think it''s worth noting Morison is older than Mackail-Smith. Admittedly it''s only a few months that seperate the two, both now aged 27, but seeing as we''re comparing them, age surely has little reason to come into the equation?Personally i''d vye for Smith out of the two. I firmly believe Mackail-Smith now has enough in his locker to make a step up (or two), and exhibits the kind of assets that would better compliment our game (primarily in his "unbelievable" work-rate).However there''s no assurance that either will make the step up, and i were given free reign over the budget i personally wouldn''t go for either with them both at the £2 to £3 million mark. Any two forward orientated players from Ched Evans, Gary Madine, Francisco Sandaza (out of contract), Shane Long (out of contract), James McFadden (out of contract), Billy Sharp, David Nugent (out of contract), Kazenga LuaLua (out of contract), Simon Cox (out of contract) and Danny Graham (out of contract) could be aquired at a comparitively cheaper, or similar price, and have just as good a chance of performing for us in my opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legend Iwan 30 Posted May 1, 2011 Graham and Long are not out of contract. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CRAZY LEGS 0 Posted May 1, 2011 didn''t realise long and graham were out of contract, but reckon someone like celtic or wolves will come along with more money Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John 0 Posted May 1, 2011 [quote user="Legend Iwan"]Graham and Long are not out of contract.[/quote]Apologies, my mistake. [:$]Only goes to show the pitfuls in relying on the Pink ''Un for ''factual'' analysis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legend Iwan 30 Posted May 1, 2011 [quote user="John"][quote user="Legend Iwan"]Graham and Long are not out of contract.[/quote]Apologies, my mistake. [:$]Only goes to show the pitfuls in relying on the Pink ''Un for ''factual'' analysis.[/quote]I thought exactly the same until last week when a Reading fan came on here and linked a BBC story that Long had extended his contract for another year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YankeeCanary 0 Posted May 1, 2011 [quote user="John"][quote user="Legend Iwan"]Graham and Long are not out of contract.[/quote]Apologies, my mistake. [:$]Only goes to show the pitfuls in relying on the Pink ''Un for ''factual'' analysis.[/quote]John, if you want others to read what you write then you need to 1) ensure your spelling is reasonably accurate ( it''s pitfalls ) and 2) you need confirmation from a second source when citing "facts." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John 0 Posted May 1, 2011 [quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="John"][quote user="Legend Iwan"]Graham and Long are not out of contract.[/quote]Apologies, my mistake. [:$]Only goes to show the pitfuls in relying on the Pink ''Un for ''factual'' analysis.[/quote]John, if you want others to read what you write then you need to 1) ensure your spelling is reasonably accurate ( it''s pitfalls ) and 2) you need confirmation from a second source when citing "facts."[/quote]In the first instance, my only excuse is that i do suffer from a ''pitfall'' of my own (dyslexia), and wasn''t expecting a joyless, sanctimonious, pedant to pick me up on it. Secondly i realise i should research topics (in this case, i.e. the contractual status of players) before posting with any sort of authority on the matter.Mind you, i''d gander the amount that does so would comprise of little more than 10% of this forum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YankeeCanary 0 Posted May 1, 2011 [quote user="John"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="John"][quote user="Legend Iwan"]Graham and Long are not out of contract.[/quote]Apologies, my mistake. [:$]Only goes to show the pitfuls in relying on the Pink ''Un for ''factual'' analysis.[/quote]John, if you want others to read what you write then you need to 1) ensure your spelling is reasonably accurate ( it''s pitfalls ) and 2) you need confirmation from a second source when citing "facts."[/quote]In the first instance, my only excuse is that i do suffer from a ''pitfall'' of my own (dyslexia), and wasn''t expecting a joyless, sanctimonious, pedant to pick me up on it. Secondly i realise i should research topics (in this case, i.e. the contractual status of players) before posting with any sort of authority on the matter.Mind you, i''d gander the amount that does so would comprise of little more than 10% of this forum.[/quote]John, what I gave you was good advice. What you gave me in return was an insult. Incidentally, if your condition is your excuse for not understanding the difference between "pitful" and "pitfall" it did not seem to obstruct you from using words like sanctimonious and pedant. Nevertheless, my advice for you still stands, that is if you wish to encourage others to read what you write. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John 0 Posted May 1, 2011 [quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="John"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="John"][quote user="Legend Iwan"]Graham and Long are not out of contract.[/quote]Apologies, my mistake. [:$]Only goes to show the pitfuls in relying on the Pink ''Un for ''factual'' analysis.[/quote]John, if you want others to read what you write then you need to 1) ensure your spelling is reasonably accurate ( it''s pitfalls ) and 2) you need confirmation from a second source when citing "facts."[/quote]In the first instance, my only excuse is that i do suffer from a ''pitfall'' of my own (dyslexia), and wasn''t expecting a joyless, sanctimonious, pedant to pick me up on it. Secondly i realise i should research topics (in this case, i.e. the contractual status of players) before posting with any sort of authority on the matter.Mind you, i''d gander the amount that does so would comprise of little more than 10% of this forum.[/quote]John, what I gave you was good advice. What you gave me in return was an insult. Incidentally, if your condition is your excuse for not understanding the difference between "pitful" and "pitfall" it did not seem to obstruct you from using words like sanctimonious and pedant. Nevertheless, my advice for you still stands, that is if you wish to encourage others to read what you write.[/quote]Dyslexia isn''t a matter of consistency, but of inconsistency. It wasn''t for example a result of poor linguistic and grammatical study and teaching that i failed to correctly spell ''pitfall''; i''m sure i''ve come across the term on plenty of occasions. I did however inadvertently rely on my immediate sensory interpretation of the word before phrasing it, rather than my learned understanding of it. Hence, my being able to spell ''sanctimonious'' and ''pedant'' is fairly insubstantial in relation to the condition of dyslexia, at least in this instance (from what i understand it takes a variety of forms, and by no means is my condition exclusive - should you happen to highlight a whole new batch of flaws in this particular comment).My fault, yes, and one that has caused me great discomfort in academia. But for me i''ve persevered, and like a great proportion of dyslexic people my age, i have to some extent been able to disguise my condition. I do however let it slip, just as you pinpointed earlier.As for the ''facts'', in this case i simply made the mistake of relying on what was considered a ''given'' by most on the occasions any conversation has been struck on either Graham or Long on here. I''d tell you i''m ''usually'' relatively well researched on matters i discuss on here (i''m not adverse to referencing to sources like Football365, ESPN Soccernet, BBC Website... etc.), but then what truthful advice could you bestow upon me if you were to believe me?I apoligise for insulting you Yankee; when in fact i should have concentrated on your ''advice'', i couldn''t avoid the character that decided it was best fit to intervene with an ill judged and disconcerting lecture.And i would be humbled if i were to hear candidly that your initial intentions were nothing other than good in the first place. Though if i am to derive anything from the manner in which i see you converse with others on here, and have with me in the past, i believe i''d best remain doubtful of seeing the good in you above anyone else on this forum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YankeeCanary 0 Posted May 1, 2011 [quote user="John"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="John"][quote user="YankeeCanary"] [quote user="John"][quote user="Legend Iwan"]Graham and Long are not out of contract.[/quote]Apologies, my mistake. [:$]Only goes to show the pitfuls in relying on the Pink ''Un for ''factual'' analysis.[/quote]John, if you want others to read what you write then you need to 1) ensure your spelling is reasonably accurate ( it''s pitfalls ) and 2) you need confirmation from a second source when citing "facts."[/quote]In the first instance, my only excuse is that i do suffer from a ''pitfall'' of my own (dyslexia), and wasn''t expecting a joyless, sanctimonious, pedant to pick me up on it. Secondly i realise i should research topics (in this case, i.e. the contractual status of players) before posting with any sort of authority on the matter.Mind you, i''d gander the amount that does so would comprise of little more than 10% of this forum.[/quote]John, what I gave you was good advice. What you gave me in return was an insult. Incidentally, if your condition is your excuse for not understanding the difference between "pitful" and "pitfall" it did not seem to obstruct you from using words like sanctimonious and pedant. Nevertheless, my advice for you still stands, that is if you wish to encourage others to read what you write.[/quote]Dyslexia isn''t a matter of consistency, but of inconsistency. It wasn''t for example a result of poor linguistic and grammatical study and teaching that i failed to correctly spell ''pitfall''; i''m sure i''ve come across the term on plenty of occasions. I did however inadvertently rely on my immediate sensory interpretation of the word before phrasing it, rather than my learned understanding of it. Hence, my being able to spell ''sanctimonious'' and ''pedant'' is fairly insubstantial in relation to the condition of dyslexia, at least in this instance (from what i understand it takes a variety of forms, and by no means is my condition exclusive - should you happen to highlight a whole new batch of flaws in this particular comment).My fault, yes, and one that has caused me great discomfort in academia. But for me i''ve persevered, and like a great proportion of dyslexic people my age, i have to some extent been able to disguise my condition. I do however let it slip, just as you pinpointed earlier.As for the ''facts'', in this case i simply made the mistake of relying on what was considered a ''given'' by most on the occasions any conversation has been struck on either Graham or Long on here. I''d tell you i''m ''usually'' relatively well researched on matters i discuss on here (i''m not adverse to referencing to sources like Football365, ESPN Soccernet, BBC Website... etc.), but then what truthful advice could you bestow upon me if you were to believe me?I apoligise for insulting you Yankee; when in fact i should have concentrated on your ''advice'', i couldn''t avoid the character that decided it was best fit to intervene with an ill judged and disconcerting lecture.And i would be humbled if i were to hear candidly that your initial intentions were nothing other than good in the first place. Though if i am to derive anything from the manner in which i see you converse with others on here, and have with me in the past, i believe i''d best remain doubtful of seeing the good in you above anyone else on this forum.[/quote]John, it may be difficult for you to believe but my comments were well intentioned because, my thinking was, you must enjoy writing as you have a blog. I get criticised quite often on here when I pull people up on poor spelling or grammar. I''m willing to accept that criticism because I believe tolerating mediocrity in that area, particularly from the young, makes us all responsible for what, in my view, is a fast track towards unrecognisable English. I have faults myself in those areas but nothing like to the degree I see on this forum, just as one example.That comment, of course, is in no way directed to you. You have no need to be humble and, equally, I have no need to apologise to you because I was totally unaware of your condition. Now that I am I will not react that way with you in the future. However, at the risk of annoying you, I will repeat once more if, as appears to be the case, you enjoy writing for others then it may be wise of you to use the tools available to ensure your content will continue to attract others to what you write. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John 0 Posted May 1, 2011 [quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="John"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="John"][quote user="YankeeCanary"] [quote user="John"][quote user="Legend Iwan"]Graham and Long are not out of contract.[/quote]Apologies, my mistake. [:$]Only goes to show the pitfuls in relying on the Pink ''Un for ''factual'' analysis.[/quote]John, if you want others to read what you write then you need to 1) ensure your spelling is reasonably accurate ( it''s pitfalls ) and 2) you need confirmation from a second source when citing "facts."[/quote]In the first instance, my only excuse is that i do suffer from a ''pitfall'' of my own (dyslexia), and wasn''t expecting a joyless, sanctimonious, pedant to pick me up on it. Secondly i realise i should research topics (in this case, i.e. the contractual status of players) before posting with any sort of authority on the matter.Mind you, i''d gander the amount that does so would comprise of little more than 10% of this forum.[/quote]John, what I gave you was good advice. What you gave me in return was an insult. Incidentally, if your condition is your excuse for not understanding the difference between "pitful" and "pitfall" it did not seem to obstruct you from using words like sanctimonious and pedant. Nevertheless, my advice for you still stands, that is if you wish to encourage others to read what you write.[/quote]Dyslexia isn''t a matter of consistency, but of inconsistency. It wasn''t for example a result of poor linguistic and grammatical study and teaching that i failed to correctly spell ''pitfall''; i''m sure i''ve come across the term on plenty of occasions. I did however inadvertently rely on my immediate sensory interpretation of the word before phrasing it, rather than my learned understanding of it. Hence, my being able to spell ''sanctimonious'' and ''pedant'' is fairly insubstantial in relation to the condition of dyslexia, at least in this instance (from what i understand it takes a variety of forms, and by no means is my condition exclusive - should you happen to highlight a whole new batch of flaws in this particular comment).My fault, yes, and one that has caused me great discomfort in academia. But for me i''ve persevered, and like a great proportion of dyslexic people my age, i have to some extent been able to disguise my condition. I do however let it slip, just as you pinpointed earlier.As for the ''facts'', in this case i simply made the mistake of relying on what was considered a ''given'' by most on the occasions any conversation has been struck on either Graham or Long on here. I''d tell you i''m ''usually'' relatively well researched on matters i discuss on here (i''m not adverse to referencing to sources like Football365, ESPN Soccernet, BBC Website... etc.), but then what truthful advice could you bestow upon me if you were to believe me?I apoligise for insulting you Yankee; when in fact i should have concentrated on your ''advice'', i couldn''t avoid the character that decided it was best fit to intervene with an ill judged and disconcerting lecture.And i would be humbled if i were to hear candidly that your initial intentions were nothing other than good in the first place. Though if i am to derive anything from the manner in which i see you converse with others on here, and have with me in the past, i believe i''d best remain doubtful of seeing the good in you above anyone else on this forum.[/quote]John, it may be difficult for you to believe but my comments were well intentioned because, my thinking was, you must enjoy writing as you have a blog. I get criticised quite often on here when I pull people up on poor spelling or grammar. I''m willing to accept that criticism because I believe tolerating mediocrity in that area, particularly from the young, makes us all responsible for what, in my view, is a fast track towards unrecognisable English. I have faults myself in those areas but nothing like to the degree I see on this forum, just as one example.That comment, of course, is in no way directed to you. You have no need to be humble and, equally, I have no need to apologise to you because I was totally unaware of your condition. Now that I am I will not react that way with you in the future. However, at the risk of annoying you, I will repeat once more if, as appears to be the case, you enjoy writing for others then it may be wise of you to use the tools available to ensure your content will continue to attract others to what you write. [/quote]I wouldn''t dare ask you to apologise for not knowing what you were not expected to know Yankee, and (don''t consider this ''one-upmanship'') i don''t believe i did, only going so far as to highlight my dyslexia, and how it has become vastly (and frustratingly) intertwined with my writing.In some ways i imagine i''m just as overtly against the newer contingentsexcusing bad grammar on account of what they perceive this forum tobe, or reverting to some ''mobile text speech'' equivalent, as you; i also don''t want the flaws in my attempts to write to the best of my abilities to count against the virtues in opting for a sensible use of English.I take on board what you have to say, in that i should take a more studious approach to the topics i discuss on here (although i won''t the hide the fact that i have always endeavoured to do it as often as i can in this department). However my approach to blogging is very different, and i assure you that i spend almost as much time on search engines as i do writing when constructing them. You can feel free to assess the validity in that particular remark (in saying that, i''m not trying to ''advertise'' my blogs here), but i will go so far as to say i''m confident of the foundations that support the content.As for you receiving criticism Yankee, you come across as very accomplished in your understanding of linguistics, and authoritative. The problem i personally find is that you seem rather officious, and at times dare i say, assuming. That is in no way meant as an insult, only that i find that in the arguments i''ve seen you hold, it frequently starts with other posters taking a defensive stance, seeming to construe your comments as a cold display of arrogance. Unfortunately one way discourse (your advice for example) often has that type of characteristic attached to it, and while it''s accepted in things like academia (the student/teacher relationship), it''s awkward territory for it''s use outside of such institutions.If your approach were to be more subtle, and a little more social rather than tutorial, i myself would gander you''d end up in far less verbal conflict, for overall i do perceive you as one of the more intelligent posters in here, littered with ideas that encompass many of the best debates, detracted only by the short tolerance you have for those outside of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John 0 Posted May 2, 2011 I should say for the sake of whatever dignity and credibility i may have left, the irony in the latter part of my comment isn''t lost on me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites