Hammers 6 million bid for Holt!

[First Wizard 0]

Be wary City, that includes add on''s:

 

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2012/06/27/3202137/west-ham-prepare-fourth-bid-for-wantaway-norwich-striker

[Gingerpele 0]

Wiz, while I''m sure your intentions are positive, I don''t think the club need any advice.

For a start, Holt isn''t for sale. And if west ham plan to bud for him again before he talks to Hughton then they are a bit silly. It''s quite likely in my opinion, the talks with Hughton will have Holt staying here.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]Wiz, while I''m sure your intentions are positive, I don''t think the club need any advice. For a start, Holt isn''t for sale. And if west ham plan to bud for him again before he talks to Hughton then they are a bit silly. It''s quite likely in my opinion, the talks with Hughton will have Holt staying here.[/quote]

 

Every player has a price mate.

 

But to risk our present status for 4 million + 2 million add on''s would be suicidle.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

If the wages rise is true, then GH would be daft not to want away.

 

We owe it to the player to allow him to talk to West Ham, should they reach our valuation and conditions.

 

Should we reach their wages level, then he would be daft not to stay. There is no chance of us doing that though.

 

Pity, but true.

[Dibs 0]

Take it, then give the money to Spurs for Naughton

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

Wiz, what happened to the new Wiz, First Wizard?

 

 

I don''t think we should sell Holt to a direct rival, but then who else would be interested?  The only top 6 side who I think would be interested is Newcastle, but only if Ba goes.  If Holt did go to Newcastle and could perform at the levels he has here, for a few years there, he''d be a legend at the Toon Army.  They love that sort of player.

 

I agree though Wiz.  There is no benefit to us whatsoever in fannying about with add-ons and the like.  It must be all the money up front or no deal.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Dibs"]Take it, then give the money to Spurs for Naughton
[/quote]

 

Will he get us the goals to stay up Dibs?.......imo, Grant will.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

[quote user="Dibs"]Take it, then give the money to Spurs for Naughton
[/quote]

 

 

That''s just it though. If we are known to get £6m for Holt then Spurs are less likely to budge on their valuation of Naughton.

 

In one pocket, out the other.

 

The real equation though is assessing just how much of an influence a fully commited GH would have on  our chances of survival next season and the greater riches that this would provide. I suppose you could say the same about Naughton, except that full-backs are not seen as match winners in the same way that strikers are.

[clarkey1972 0]

when West Ham bought Ashton (or was it Green??) wasnt there some issue over them not paying or taking ages to pay as the deals were structured in a similar way.....or did I dream it?

100% cash up front IF we are to let him go....its our way or no way I say

[AndyCanary 0]

Mark Lawrenson‏@MARK_LAWRENS0N

Following 

http://Goal.com  are reporting West Ham have bidded £6m for @holty30. Anyone know how the last ‪#NCFC‬ striker got on at‪#WHU‬?

•  Reply 
•  Retweet 
•  Favorite

11:37 AM - 27 Jun 12 via web · Embed this Tweethttps://twitter.com/#!/MARK_LAWRENS0N/

[Dibs 0]

[quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="Dibs"]Take it, then give the money to Spurs for Naughton [/quote]

 

Will he get us the goals to stay up Dibs?.......imo, Grant will.

[/quote]Equally as important, with Naughton his stock will rise.As they say "prevention is the best form of defence"

[Phillip J Fry 0]

6 million upfront and you might get your foot in the door...

Also, WTF is big Sam on? 6 million for a 31-year old striker who many (non-Norwich) fans have only just heard of? West Ham fans already don''t like Sam, if he did buy Holt for this level of money, he might have a full scale revolt on his hands.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

Wet Sham were relegated to the championship with £70million debts and are by all acounts another £30million worse off after their championship season. £12million of this is transfer debts, £42 is owed to banks. Their turnover next year will be extreamly similar to ours given that the vast majority is made up by sky and yet they can offer our captain a triple your pay deal from £15k to £40k per week according to the article. Wet Sham owners are not stupid, they are successful business people so I dont really buy the whole ''they are gambling the clubs existance'' and it really highlights two things to me, firstly how much having wealthy owners as a saftey net if required can mean more creative freedom for the accountants and their purse strings and secondly, how our lenders have really handcuffed to club with their repayment inflexibility.

 

 

[AndyCanary 0]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Wet Sham were relegated to the championship with £70million debts and are by all acounts another £30million worse off after their championship season. £12million of this is transfer debts, £42 is owed to banks. Their turnover next year will be extreamly similar to ours given that the vast majority is made up by sky and yet they can offer our captain a triple your pay deal from £15k to £40k per week according to the article. Wet Sham owners are not stupid, they are successful business people so I dont really buy the whole ''they are gambling the clubs existance'' and it really highlights two things to me, firstly how much having wealthy owners as a saftey net if required can mean more creative freedom for the accountants and their purse strings and secondly, how our lenders have really handcuffed to club with their repayment inflexibility.

 

 

[/quote]I would say it was more us committing to repay. It probably worked out much better financially for us. With the state of our club at the moment I''m sure we could re-finance our debt easily. But by the sound bites we''ve had from the board it seems like our #1 priority is getting debt free.I''d much rather support a club who live within their means and are genuinely prosperous than one that lives outside their means and plays with fire. Even if that does mean losing star players every now and then.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="AndyCanary"]

Mark Lawrenson‏@MARK_LAWRENS0N

Following 

http://Goal.com  are reporting West Ham have bidded £6m for @holty30. Anyone know how the last ‪#NCFC‬ striker got on at‪#WHU‬?

•  Reply 
•  Retweet 
•  Favorite

11:37 AM - 27 Jun 12 via web · Embed this Tweethttps://twitter.com/#!/MARK_LAWRENS0N/

[/quote]if Lawro is being contriversial and trying to say Ashton was a failure when he turned up at West ham he might want to remember this is the same Dean Ashton who scored in the cup final and went on to play for his country.....

[fonejacker 0]

It''s not Mark Lawrenson.

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="Dibs"][quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="Dibs"]Take it, then give the money to Spurs for Naughton
[/quote]

 

Will he get us the goals to stay up Dibs?.......imo, Grant will.

[/quote]

Equally as important, with Naughton his stock will rise.
As they say "prevention is the best form of defence"
[/quote]

 

 

I thought the expression was ''Attack is the best form of defence''??

 

You might prevent every goal being scored, but if you don''t score any yourself it''s going to be season of 0-0''s.

 

[:S]

 

 

[Michael Starr 571]

What a prat that Twitter poster is. Dean Ashton was a superb player who could easily have become a top player for both West Ham and England. He didn''t succeed at West Ham simply because of injuries that finally took their toll. I think Ashton''s demise is a very sad story. Goodness me England needed him in Africa 2 years ago and possibly in Poland/Ukraine this time around.

[star_manic 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Dibs"][quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="Dibs"]Take it, then give the money to Spurs for Naughton
[/quote]

 

Will he get us the goals to stay up Dibs?.......imo, Grant will.

[/quote]

Equally as important, with Naughton his stock will rise.
As they say "prevention is the best form of defence"
[/quote]

 

 

I thought the expression was ''Attack is the best form of defence''??

 

You might prevent every goal being scored, but if you don''t score any yourself it''s going to be season of 0-0''s.

 

[:S]

 

 

[/quote]....not with condoms

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="AndyCanary"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Wet Sham were relegated to the championship with £70million debts and are by all acounts another £30million worse off after their championship season. £12million of this is transfer debts, £42 is owed to banks. Their turnover next year will be extreamly similar to ours given that the vast majority is made up by sky and yet they can offer our captain a triple your pay deal from £15k to £40k per week according to the article. Wet Sham owners are not stupid, they are successful business people so I dont really buy the whole ''they are gambling the clubs existance'' and it really highlights two things to me, firstly how much having wealthy owners as a saftey net if required can mean more creative freedom for the accountants and their purse strings and secondly, how our lenders have really handcuffed to club with their repayment inflexibility.

 

 

[/quote]I would say it was more us committing to repay. It probably worked out much better financially for us. With the state of our club at the moment I''m sure we could re-finance our debt easily. But by the sound bites we''ve had from the board it seems like our #1 priority is getting debt free.I''d much rather support a club who live within their means and are genuinely prosperous than one that lives outside their means and plays with fire. Even if that does mean losing star players every now and then.[/quote]

 

I know what your saying Andy, and I think if we were in the championship I would agree that getting debt free should be a major, if not number 1 priority because we would still be able to be competitive while doing so, this is not the case in the premiership if it leaves us only signing players that no other premiship side wants. Ok it worked last year, an it may work next year possibly but long term it wont. Unfortunately, you get NO points for running a club free of debt, just ask the only club last season to do just that and see if their supporters minded finishing bottom of the league. If what you say is true and it would be easy to refinance the existing debt to pay off over 3-5years rather than 12 months, but the board is choosing not to do it then they are taking a huge gamble also. If we stay up next season and become debt free then what?, will we increase our wages to match other clubs around us or will be borrow another chunk of money to build a new stand and spend the following 5 seasons keeping a unsuitable wage structure for our division so we can get debt free again?

Im not anti delia or anti board, I fully appriciate what they have done for us over the last decade but am worried about them holding us back currently.

 

 

[Salopian 1]

Did this appear first in the Mirror? If so, enough said. So far CR has denied any bids for Holt, I think. Somebody is playing games - Wet Spam, Holt''s agent, jopurnalists?

 

As other have observed, cash in hand now is what matters. Who knows how many appearances there may be, and what do we use for cash to buy a replacement. If the report is correct, then we should insist on cash up front, to counter their "high wage" enticement and low transfer fee approach.

[Bovril 264]

You rarely get to the rumoured stage of a 4th transfer bid without some piece of evidence...

From all the stories written it does seem that West Ham made an original offer of around £3-4mill and this was instantly rejected.

Big Sam played Kevin Davies until he was 64 so would not be surprised if West Ham had put in a totalled £6mill bid.

[AndyCanary 0]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

I know what your saying Andy, and I think if we were in the championship I would agree that getting debt free should be a major, if not number 1 priority because we would still be able to be competitive while doing so, this is not the case in the premiership if it leaves us only signing players that no other premiship side wants. Ok it worked last year, an it may work next year possibly but long term it wont. Unfortunately, you get NO points for running a club free of debt, just ask the only club last season to do just that and see if their supporters minded finishing bottom of the league. If what you say is true and it would be easy to refinance the existing debt to pay off over 3-5years rather than 12 months, but the board is choosing not to do it then they are taking a huge gamble also. If we stay up next season and become debt free then what?, will we increase our wages to match other clubs around us or will be borrow another chunk of money to build a new stand and spend the following 5 seasons keeping a unsuitable wage structure for our division so we can get debt free again?

Im not anti delia or anti board, I fully appriciate what they have done for us over the last decade but am worried about them holding us back currently.

 

[/quote]I totally get what you''re saying and I agree for the most part. But where you say ''you get NO points for running a club free of debt'' I say you don''t have a club if you have too much debt. Debt is a hole that you fall into and unless you''re successful it''s hard to get out. The short term solution to get out is to gamble by throwing more debt at the debt to buy success. The risks associated with that are very high - Leeds, Southampton, Portsmouth, Rangers etc etc.[quote user="Michael Starr"]What a prat that Twitter poster is. Dean

Ashton was a superb player who could easily have become a top player for

both West Ham and England. He didn''t succeed at West Ham simply because

of injuries that finally took their toll. I think Ashton''s demise is a

very sad story. Goodness me England needed him in Africa 2 years ago and

possibly in Poland/Ukraine this time around.[/quote]I think you''ll find it was said in jest. It''s hardly like it''s meant to be taken seriously, lol.

[Jim Smith 2,609]

They appear to be incrementally increasing their bids in the hope we will cave in. Personally I think we have to look at any bid ignoring add ons as we can''t guarantee that there will be any. We are therefore being asked to sell our team captain and top scorer for £4 million. Not nearly enough.

 

As an aside I am deeply concerned at any suggestion that one of our best players might leave because of a fall out with our chief executive. players fall out with managers all the time. Players also have wage disputes all the time. However this is being dressed up I suspect that is what this all comes down to and if it can;t be resolved then so be it. However if McNally has somehow offended Holt as suggested then he needs to be the bigger man and apologise. We should not be losing players over petty squables. 

 

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"] However if McNally has somehow offended Holt as suggested then he needs to be the bigger man and apologise. We should not be losing players over petty squables. 

 

[/quote]I''m sure we could all find a reason to fall out irreconcilably with our bosses if we too were offered nearly triple the money elsewhere......[;)]

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Wiz"] 

But to risk our present status for 4 million + 2 million add on''s would be suicidle.

[/quote]Is that when your own laziness kills you?

[Jim Smith 2,609]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"][quote user="Jim Smith"] However if McNally has somehow offended Holt as suggested then he needs to be the bigger man and apologise. We should not be losing players over petty squables. 

 

[/quote]I''m sure we could all find a reason to fall out irreconcilably with our bosses if we too were offered nearly triple the money elsewhere......[;)][/quote]

 

I agree and if thats why Holt wants to move then so be it. Just saying we should ensure that all other potential obstacles to him staying are removed. The relationship between the players and the Chief Exec should not really be a relevant consideration at a premiership club.

We''ve all seen what mcNally is like and for the most part i love the fact he is hard nosed and professional but just like Holt he also needs to keep the ego under control.

[Baldyboy 1]

No doubt you will blame Delia if he goes too Wiz!!!

[Monty13 2,736]

Son ova gunn, I can see your point but the main difference between borrowing/not paying off debt to buy players/pay wages is that there is no guarantee of any financial return. If we went back into debt with a stadium there will be extra revenue coming in, whether that''s enough to cover the debt depends on how clever the finance department does their figures but just borrowing money for players or not paying off money because your spending it on players means your constantly running at a deficit and without someone rich to balence your books you head down the rangers/Portsmouth etc. route. In fact you end up the football equivalent of Greece. I am under the assumption from what''s been said, but someone will probably provide evidence to the contrary, that once the debt is paid that extra money we are currently paying off will become part if the player budget.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

Andy  - But where you say ''you get NO points for running a club free of debt'' I say you don''t have a club if you have too much debt.

Im not saying that we should carry too much debt though, I am suggesting that the middle ground of some manageable debt, ie £9million with a 3-5yr payment schedual which may cost £2million more than paying it off in 12 months but would allow us to make the wages we pay now abit more competative. Our expenditure should still stay within our £75m turnover. While virtualy every other team in the division can offer our players triple wage increases any manager is going to find it hard to build an established premier club.

 

Morty - again, im not suggesting we run at a deficit just that the self imposed desire to be debt free is contributing to the situation this thread is discussing. If we had longer to pay off the existing debt we would be able to offer current players better terms and attract the calibre of player which will take us forward. If we get 6 million upfront for Holt thats the easy part, now find a £6million pound striker that will get out of bed for £15k per week. not so easy. You say if we get debt free at the end of this season then the borrowing for the new stadium will not effect the wage budget going forward because the extra seats will pay for themselves. Thats great, but what happens if we find ourselves in the championship again, could we fill it still every game so in my view, the rush to be debt free is a bigger gamble by the board than restructing our existing debt over a longer term if there is an option to do this.