Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
87canary

Holt going to Leicester

Recommended Posts

"the fact that Norwich have accepted an offer for him "

That should be enough

Either the club has accepted (not received) or not.

If not, then time for McNally to contact m''learned friends - more so as it appears to be malicious rather than jumping on any speculation bandwagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jacko"][quote user="PeekY-Gloucester_Canary"]

as this will turn out to be complete rubbish.. i wonder if mcnally will sit down and take it, or warn em that if they continue selling bulls**t then we will take legal action? anyone else had this thought ?

[/quote]

If we havent accepted a bid then the Daily Mail has fabricated the story. This is very similiar to what the NOTW did with regard to us going into adminstration. So I don''t see why we couldnt sue again potentially.

[/quote]

---

A story has to be more than just untrue (assuming this Mail story isn''t true) to be defamatory. It has to cause some damagre - financial, or reputational (as with the NotW story) or whatever. It is hard to see what damage this story has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s definitely true. Lambert has decided he still has life on the football pitch has tripled his own wages and will be play the Lone Striker role as he was so disappointed and never being signed by a Premier League club in his playing days, he''s convinced he can take Norwich to the title by bagging the goals; hence selling Grant Holt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jacko"][quote user="PeekY-Gloucester_Canary"]

as this will turn out to be complete rubbish.. i wonder if mcnally will sit down and take it, or warn em that if they continue selling bulls**t then we will take legal action? anyone else had this thought ?

[/quote]

If we havent accepted a bid then the Daily Mail has fabricated the story. This is very similiar to what the NOTW did with regard to us going into adminstration. So I don''t see why we couldnt sue again potentially.

[/quote]

---

A story has to be more than just untrue (assuming this Mail story isn''t true) to be defamatory. It has to cause some damagre - financial, or reputational (as with the NotW story) or whatever. It is hard to see what damage this story has done.

[/quote]

Thats fair enough then. I guess arguing that it has unsettled the club before the season wouldnt wash then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously did that guy get paid for that article! Unbelievable really, What a job, Sit at a computer make some tosh up the collect your cheque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it has to be physical damage, there would be none as with this story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it alright to take Kathy off 15 minute intervals suicide watch yet? I kept telling her that his flip flop would treble in value but all she did was break down and cry everytime it was mentioned.[:''(][:''(][:''(][:''(][:''(][:''(]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="AJ Wizard"]No, it has to be physical damage, there would be none as with this story.[/quote]....[quote user="LeJuge"]If we sold Grant Holt to Leicester for £2m, or to

anybody for £2m, I would cut up my season ticket and post it to McNally.

[/quote]

If LeJuge carried out his threat, we might just have a lawsuit on our hands. [C]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jacko"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jacko"][quote user="PeekY-Gloucester_Canary"]

as this will turn out to be complete rubbish.. i wonder if mcnally will sit down and take it, or warn em that if they continue selling bulls**t then we will take legal action? anyone else had this thought ?

[/quote]

If we havent accepted a bid then the Daily Mail has fabricated the story. This is very similiar to what the NOTW did with regard to us going into adminstration. So I don''t see why we couldnt sue again potentially.

[/quote]

---

A story has to be more than just untrue (assuming this Mail story isn''t true) to be defamatory. It has to cause some damagre - financial, or reputational (as with the NotW story) or whatever. It is hard to see what damage this story has done.

[/quote]

Thats fair enough then. I guess arguing that it has unsettled the club before the season wouldnt wash then.

[/quote]

---

PYGlos, given the new regime''s attitude to anything it doesn''t like I wouldn''t put it past the club to complain to the Mail and try at the least for a retraction.

 

But if the club wanted to push it further than that it would have really a very hard time proving it had suffered in the slightest as a result of the story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwich and Grant Holt. West Brom and Ishmael Miller. Easy to get them confused!

For what its worth Henderson is rumoured to be a Norwich fan even though he used to cover the scum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="John"][quote user="AJ Wizard"]No, it has to be physical damage, there would be none as with this story.[/quote]....[quote user="LeJuge"]If we sold Grant Holt to Leicester for £2m, or to

anybody for £2m, I would cut up my season ticket and post it to McNally.

[/quote]

If LeJuge carried out his threat, we might just have a lawsuit on our hands. [C][/quote]Genius!!I''m not going to do it though, not now that it costs a fortune to get a replacement, lol.As for what is libel and what isn''t, I just thought that anything which the subject can prove as incorrect constitutes libel.... but, without any real damage to the business it wouldn''t be worth the clubs time. The judge would probably make them publish an apology but make City pay their own legal costs for something so minor, nowhere near the level of severity of the NOTW case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2022410/Norwich-prepare-sell-Grant-Holt-Leicester.html

the curse of McNally perhaps ?

maybe some kindly soul has a contact email for Mr Henderson, so we could send him our commiserations for having his article taken down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can''t believe that there are actually a couple of people on this thread suggesting that £2m for Grant Holt is in someway a good bit of business. I didn''t go to many away days last year, but it looks like they watched 23 completely different games of football than me last season at Carrow Road. You have to question:a) their insanityb) their knowledge of footballc) their true allegienced) whether they eat prawn sandwichese) whether an hour and a half of footy is just something to do to give them an excuse to pop into Morrisons.You have to be pretty dim, or just a complete willy, to think that Grant Holt is any way replaceable or expendable or to think that £2m is in anyway a good price. The bloke has just turned 30, he doesn''t rely on pace, he''ll still be scoring goals in three years time. I wouldn''t swap Grant Holt for any striker that we could currently buy with £6m, yet alone £2m. Go on any footy forum and ask them what they think about our chances, most of them say "You have a chance if you can keep Grant Holt", they have been saying that since May. He is class, as simple as. Go an look at how much Man City paid for a 30 year old Craig Bellamy, how much they want for a 32 year old Craig Bellamy now, and then ask yourself whether you would swap a 30 year old Holt for a 32 year old Bellamy right now. I bloody wouldn''t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="LeJuge"]

As for what is libel and what isn''t, I just thought that anything which the subject can prove as incorrect constitutes libel.... but, without any real damage to the business it wouldn''t be worth the clubs time. The judge would probably make them publish an apology but make City pay their own legal costs for something so minor, nowhere near the level of severity of the NOTW case.
[/quote]

 

--

No, just being untrue isn''t enough. You have to show the story caused some kind of damage or harm, whether financial, or reputational or emotional. And as you say, what real (and provable) damage has there been here? None.

 

If the Mail has pulled the story from its website that counts as a kind of retraction I said earlier the club might look for. Presumably following a phone call from Carrow Road to Northcliffe Towers. I doubt it will go much further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets have a balanced view on this. Holt is 30 and in a couple of years will have no transfer value. If we were a mid table championship side then i could understand the temptation to cash in £2m could in that contexy be regarded as a lot of money. We area premiership side and in that context £2m is not a lot an a drop in the oceon to the £40m we would lose if relegated. In that regard if Holt can get the goals to keep us up OR get us promoted again should we get relegated then it is a price worth paying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the story won''t come true and holt will stay - would the club really admit they had accepted a bid? McNally certainly wouldn''t. I''ve got reservations about holt in the prem, but £2 million is pretty low still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Maybe the story won''t come true and holt will stay

or maybe McNally is lying and the club have accepted a bid.

As to ''a balanced view'' perhaps we could also have a balanced view on the news that the moon is made of cheese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]Lets have a balanced view on this. Holt is 30 and in a couple of years will have no transfer value. If we were a mid table championship side then i could understand the temptation to cash in £2m could in that contexy be regarded as a lot of money. We area premiership side and in that context £2m is not a lot an a drop in the oceon to the £40m we would lose if relegated. In that regard if Holt can get the goals to keep us up OR get us promoted again should we get relegated then it is a price worth paying[/quote]I''m sure I''m not the only one who would rather have Grant Holt for the last few years of his career than £2m, which is peanuts in football terms for any club with 20000 season ticket holders whether they are in the Premier League or League One. Holt is a legend and an icon, his goals last year earnt us the £90m prize, I''d feel ashamed and disgusted if we sold him against his will for a couple of million quid unless he wants to leave. People bleat on about player loyalty and then throw around a few figures and numbers like loyalty in the other direction means f''all. Man City want £6m for a 32 year old Bellamy, after having paid £14m for a 30 year old Bellamy. Ipswich Town just paid £1.5m for Chopra!! Not only do I believe that £2m is below his market value, but I also believe that we could pay £2m ourselves to keep Grant Holt and still get value for money over the next few years.I happen to believe that Grant Holt will still be banging them in at 33, he doesn''t rely on pace, he keeps himself fit. I can''t see any reason why he would be worth nothing at 32, Jonathan Greening just went for £700k at nearly 33 years old. Look at Kevin Davies right now, 34 years old and as good as he has ever been for Bolton. Should Bolton have cashed in and flogged him for £2m-£3m four years ago? Or do you think he has fully justfied the loyalty of the club and fans? Brian McBride led the Fulham line until 35. Holt is just like those players.Not every player declines at 30-32, some peak at that age. I could go on and on with examples, but perhaps the best one is Kevin Phillips. He went to Southampton at 30 years old for £3.25 million and is still banging them in now at 38. Another is Teddy Sheringham. How old do you think Teddy Sheringham was when he signed for Man Utd for well over £3m? He was 31 and he left them at 35, was playing for England until he was 36, and went on to play for Spurs, Portsmouth, and West Ham, scoring lots of goals.Letting Holt go right now would be the biggest mistake we could make, I''d have him here at 36 if he could still come on for 20 minutes and bag a goal. The idea that a 30 year old player who has never had serious injury problems is in any way old in this day and age is ludicrious. Hoolahan is 29, should we flog him too? Look at the way that Alex Ferguson manages, and how successful he is. Then look at the failed ideology of Arsene Wenger...... Man Utd are looking to buy Wesley Sneijder to replace a 36 year old, they will still be playing with a 37 year old on the left wing next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]Lets have a balanced view on this. Holt is 30 and in a couple of years will have no transfer value. If we were a mid table championship side then i could understand the temptation to cash in £2m could in that contexy be regarded as a lot of money. We area premiership side and in that context £2m is not a lot an a drop in the oceon to the £40m we would lose if relegated. In that regard if Holt can get the goals to keep us up OR get us promoted again should we get relegated then it is a price worth paying[/quote]"Lets have a balanced view on this."If you are offering a balanced view, then please at least explain how it is that we lose £40m if we get relegated. Promotion is worth at least £40m this year, thanks to TV rights, plus everything else e.g. sponsorship and commercial stuff. We don''t lose any £40m if we go down, we just don''t get it again.What we do get however is an incredible parachute payments package and by not signing Keiron Dyer''s and Joe Cole''s, it will be four years before £2m becomes a lot of money to Norwich City again even if we go down this season. One single year in the Premier League followed by a straight relegation is worth £90m. The idea that we can rip the heart and soul out of a £90m team for a few sheckles is in itself the least balanced view going. I know that you said IF we were a mid-table Championship team, but the point is that we are not, and by the time we are skint again as a club Holt will be at least 34.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can''t believe there is any discussion on the matter.

This article was someone trying to either get a reaction, or making a wild prediction hoping it would come true to build themselves a reputation.

Grant Holt is our star player. Even if he isn''t our best. Captain, top scorer two seasons in a row. Puts in as much effort as possible, is clearly popular with the players, and fans, he''s pretty much at Hucks legendary status after two seasons.

Silly even discussing it really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]Lets have a balanced view on this. Holt is 30 and in a couple of years will have no transfer value. If we were a mid table championship side then i could understand the temptation to cash in £2m could in that contexy be regarded as a lot of money. We area premiership side and in that context £2m is not a lot an a drop in the oceon to the £40m we would lose if relegated. In that regard if Holt can get the goals to keep us up OR get us promoted again should we get relegated then it is a price worth paying[/quote]I''m sure I''m not the only one who would rather have Grant Holt for the last few years of his career than £2m, which is peanuts in football terms for any club with 20000 season ticket holders whether they are in the Premier League or League One. Holt is a legend and an icon, his goals last year earnt us the £90m prize, I''d feel ashamed and disgusted if we sold him against his will for a couple of million quid unless he wants to leave. People bleat on about player loyalty and then throw around a few figures and numbers like loyalty in the other direction means f''all. Man City want £6m for a 32 year old Bellamy, after having paid £14m for a 30 year old Bellamy. Ipswich Town just paid £1.5m for Chopra!! Not only do I believe that £2m is below his market value, but I also believe that we could pay £2m ourselves to keep Grant Holt and still get value for money over the next few years.I happen to believe that Grant Holt will still be banging them in at 33, he doesn''t rely on pace, he keeps himself fit. I can''t see any reason why he would be worth nothing at 32, Jonathan Greening just went for £700k at nearly 33 years old. Look at Kevin Davies right now, 34 years old and as good as he has ever been for Bolton. Should Bolton have cashed in and flogged him for £2m-£3m four years ago? Or do you think he has fully justfied the loyalty of the club and fans? Brian McBride led the Fulham line until 35. Holt is just like those players.Not every player declines at 30-32, some peak at that age. I could go on and on with examples, but perhaps the best one is Kevin Phillips. He went to Southampton at 30 years old for £3.25 million and is still banging them in now at 38. Another is Teddy Sheringham. How old do you think Teddy Sheringham was when he signed for Man Utd for well over £3m? He was 31 and he left them at 35, was playing for England until he was 36, and went on to play for Spurs, Portsmouth, and West Ham, scoring lots of goals.Letting Holt go right now would be the biggest mistake we could make, I''d have him here at 36 if he could still come on for 20 minutes and bag a goal. The idea that a 30 year old player who has never had serious injury problems is in any way old in this day and age is ludicrious. Hoolahan is 29, should we flog him too? Look at the way that Alex Ferguson manages, and how successful he is. Then look at the failed ideology of Arsene Wenger...... Man Utd are looking to buy Wesley Sneijder to replace a 36 year old, they will still be playing with a 37 year old on the left wing next year. [/quote]Amen.How Grant Holt''s value to this club, both on and off the pitch, has avoided anyone is frankly an indictment on the collective group of people that have supposedly intensely observed his career over the course of two years; and you having to explain it in such elaborate terms, whilst entirely just, rubs salt into the wounds somewhat.Very unfortunate to see how contentedly some would forfeit such an intrinsic part of a regime responsible for our current prosperity, and revival against all the odd''s. It''s generally been such policies that freely relinquish our most important and influential components to our success that have led to our downfall, regardless of the (short-sighted) fiscal benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×