West Ham back again for Holt

[Oz Canary 0]

The Sun is reporting that Big Sam has upped his offer to 5.5m to test our resolve. Link below

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4382874/Grant-Holt-transfer-West-Ham-increased-bid-to-55million-for-Norwich-ace.html

Apparently the deal starts at 3.5m goes up by £2m on appearances. I would tell Wet Spam that he''s not for sale for anything less than  6m and its 6m up front . Take it or leave it.

[Kingston Yellow 259]

Why on earth would McNally agree to a deal where a large % of the fee was based on number of appearances? It''s McNally''s concern that Holt is too old to make a long term number of apperances that has created this mess.

[smooth 114]

Think that proves what many other premiership teams would be thinking.Is he good enough for a full season, West Ham will be playing Carlton Cole, they are apparently interested in other forwards too. There is no guarantee Holty will play every game for West Ham.Although there is speculation Everton are interested, with Moyes still being muted as possible Tottenham boss I don''t think they will make a move. It would be preferred move for Holty I presume closer to home, but also for us as Everton will be in that mid table league that we will be aspiring ot get into over the next 2-3 years.If West Ham are the only team that are interested, then they and Holty are in a strong position.

[Oz Canary 0]

Agree Kingston.

If the deal is a serious one it should be 6m with a top-up of another 1m if he makes an England appearance.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

West Ham could be  serious rivals for the dreaded next season.

 

Holt will contribute to any cause, one way or another.

 

Five million, six million, this clause, that clause.

 

False economics IMO. It could end up costing us so much more.

 

Everton? Maybe. Spam? No way.

[The Yellow Pimpernel 0]

Why would we want to sell him to West Ham, helping them stay up at our expense?  Look at the bigger picture.  We need to stay in this league, so its not helping our cause if we give our best players to a rival.  Doesnt make sense.

 

Give Holty a small pay rise for his remaining two years.  Hes earnt it.  Hes far exceeded everbodies expectations, and is a legend who we need to keep on board.

 

Note to Holts agent: theres right ways and wrong ways to go about your business.  You actions fall squarely into one of those catagories.

[Indy 3,471]

5.5 million in one bundle and he can go, but 2 million on appearances, no chance.

 

As for selling to a rival, well better a player who wants to be here than one who might cause unrest!

 

we could get Rhodes for 5.5 million a fitting replacement on paper, in pratice it would be good to see! 

[Mahogany 0]

5.5m for Rhodes is crazy.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Mahogany"]5.5m for Rhodes is crazy.[/quote]

 

You are right, Mahogany. It is.

 

But it will be the same old story if Holt does leave for big money. Other teams will see Norwich as having had a large injection of cash, and desperate to plug the striker gap made by Holt''s departure, so will demand top dollar, be it for Rhodes or anyone else for that matter.

 

No, it will be difficult; and as many on here have said, the ideal solution would be for a compromise to be reached, and a fully-committed Holt to be still a Norwich player in August . But the longer this fiasco wears on, the less likely an outcome that appears . I''m sure that CH has a plan formulated re striker recruitment should the worst happen, but, make no mistake, getting the right bodies in is not going to be cheap.

[Jacko 0]

£5 million up front for Holt is the starting point otherwise there is no deal.

[Indy 3,471]

Why is 5.5 million too much for Rhodes?

 

He''s young, fired Huddersfield to the Championship and Huddersfield would point to Rodrigez being sold for 7 million to southampton.

 

On paper I would swap Holt for Rhodes, a 31 year old coming to the end against a young hungry player with a point to prove next year!

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="Indy"]

Why is 5.5 million too much for Rhodes?

 

He''s young, fired Huddersfield to the Championship and Huddersfield would point to Rodrigez being sold for 7 million to southampton.

 

On paper I would swap Holt for Rhodes, a 31 year old coming to the end against a young hungry player with a point to prove next year!

[/quote]

The valuation in itself is probably about right when take into account the goal record, the hype and the fact that Huddersfield dont actually need to sell him because they have a rich owner. Taking into account loan fees as well Norwich probably spent around £15 million or so on transfers last season. Even accounting for an uplift in spending this season would you be happy for a very significant chunk of the budget to be spent on one player, when there are other areas of the squad such as the full backs areas which urgently need to be addressed?

[Indy 3,471]

But the budget would not be touched as it would be the money for Holt we spend!

 

Anyway this is only a debate what happens is way outside our control.

 

We will see what the club decide to do over the next few weeks.

[Yellow Wal 315]

5.5M is far too much for Rhodes. Yes, he has scored goals for Huddersfield, but that was in League 1. He is unproven at a higher standard and the risk simply isn''t worth it.

There were a great many Premiership teams looking at him during the January window but not one of them put in a serious offer or declared an interest.

He could well turn out to be another Craig Mackail-Smith who scored loads of goals for Peterborough and who many people wanted us to sign. He did not even hit double figures for Brighton last season after costing them £2.5M.

Buying unproven players from the lower leagues is OK as long as you don''t spend silly money on them in case it doesn''t work out.

[lake district canary 0]

Holt is worth more to us than any other club in the division.     In my view to allow him to go to another club in the prem not only helps that club when they come up against us, it also means we have to find a replacement which is not going to be as easy as some people seem to think.   The only option we are likely to have is to buy an up and coming palyer from a lower division, whether its Rhodes or anyone else.  Not only will they be untested at this level, they will cost as much as we would likely get for Holt.  Therefore selling a proven goalscorer, captain, all round team player and getting an unproven youngster in for the same money who may not make the grade.   £6 million for Holt?   Sounds good, but means little in the scheme of things.  

 

 

The fact that big Sam wants him shows what he thinks - he sees another Kevin Davies situation - and Sam''s no fool.    Taking everything into consideration it would be foolish to sell Holt. We should try to keep him - no question.         

 

 

 

[Indy 3,471]

Totally disagree LDC, every player is a risk! Ask WH fans if they value Holt at 6 million and they will say no!

 

Only played at this level for one season and done well, but at 31, 32 nexst year is he going to stay fit, is he going to be the same player as last year?

 

Every player comes with calculated risk, this Holt situation is just so wrong, either sit down and sign for Norwich or just sell him, even if it is to West Ham! We don''t need a poor dressing room atmosphere at the start of next season!

 

Holt is only worth to us what he can deliver next season, he could go the season and not even get into the side! It could be that Vaughan and Morison or a new signing deliver the goals next year!

 

Calculated risk for me is to cash in on 5.5 million one off payment. West Ham are not daft, 3 million up front just shows that big Sam is not too sure Holt can do the same the second season in the Premiership.

 

Just my opinion, not saying anyone is right but lots to consider over this situation.

[Cantiaci Canary 610]

What worries me is that we won''t be able to replace Holt even if we got £5M (plus any money we had already put aside for a new striker) because players of that calibre are on far higher wages than we will offer.

 

Without Lambert and Holt and with Reading (Pogrebnyak), Saints (Rodriguez) and West Ham all spending big already it really looks like a very very tough test ahead.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

Holt is worth more to us than any other club in the division.     In my view to allow him to go to another club in the prem not only helps that club when they come up against us, it also means we have to find a replacement which is not going to be as easy as some people seem to think.   The only option we are likely to have is to buy an up and coming palyer from a lower division, whether its Rhodes or anyone else.  Not only will they be untested at this level, they will cost as much as we would likely get for Holt.  Therefore selling a proven goalscorer, captain, all round team player and getting an unproven youngster in for the same money who may not make the grade.   £6 million for Holt?   Sounds good, but means little in the scheme of things.  

 

 

The fact that big Sam wants him shows what he thinks - he sees another Kevin Davies situation - and Sam''s no fool.    Taking everything into consideration it would be foolish to sell Holt. We should try to keep him - no question.         

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

There are a number of very mixed messages in that posting LDC. First of all you claim that Holt''s value to any other club is far less than it is to us. But then you say that selling him to a rival would be a huge mistake. How does that work ?

 

Then you say that buying an unproven player from the lower leagues would be our only option and that may not work. But was that not exactly the same scenarion when Gunn took a punt on him in summer 09.  ?

 

Then Kevin Davies is, for some reason, brought into the equation . Yes, Sam got a few good seasons out of him, but equally, his form last season at Bolton was one of a big bustling centre forward, the wrong side of 30 .So, again not necessarily as cut and dried as you suggest.

 

Yes, I agree with you that,if all things were equal, it would be best if Holt stayed with us, but if there are elements that do not suit either party, then I''d suggest that to keep him at all costs, just to deprive another team of his services would be the economics of the madhouse.

[York Canary 29]

I want him to stay. I think he can win us any game and will prove doubters wrong again next season. He leads from the front and has proven he can score all manner of goals and bully defences. He just epitomises Norwich with his energy and effort, but he does have technique too and can be clinical. I know he''s been an arse and has let himself and us down massively, but if there''s a way back then I''d love him to stay. If he HAS to go then I''d rather it was abroad or to someone like Everton.

[Oz Canary 0]

I agree Cantiaci.

Who would we look at? You would need someone capable, a hit the ground running experienced striker.

Berbatov????

With Rhodes he''s young but untested. Maybe CH has a few more than us, here''s hoping!!!!!

[paul moy 235]

We should pay the money he wants to keep him as long as it''s reasonable. Short-term penny-pinching is crazy bearing in mind Premiership income and IMO has already cost us Lambert.

[alysha 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]We should pay the money he wants to keep him as long as it''s reasonable. Short-term penny-pinching is crazy bearing in mind Premiership income and IMO has already cost us Lambert.[/quote]

According to Holt''s agent, the club did agree to Holt''s requests, this whole situation is about more than that now though.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="alysha"]

[quote user="paul moy"]We should pay the money he wants to keep him as long as it''s reasonable. Short-term penny-pinching is crazy bearing in mind Premiership income and IMO has already cost us Lambert.[/quote]

According to Holt''s agent, the club did agree to Holt''s requests, this whole situation is about more than that now though.

[/quote]

 

That''s OK as far as it goes, Al, but I''m not sure whether we should be taking at face value any of Holt''s agent''s pronouncements these days.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="alysha"]

[quote user="paul moy"]We should pay the money he wants to keep him as long as it''s reasonable. Short-term penny-pinching is crazy bearing in mind Premiership income and IMO has already cost us Lambert.[/quote]

According to Holt''s agent, the club did agree to Holt''s requests, this whole situation is about more than that now though.

[/quote]

His requests have changed due to the club''s bullying attitude. They now have to pay him more because of that or lose him and probably suffer relegation. Suggestions that Rhodes could fill his place are ludicrous IMO.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="alysha"]

[quote user="paul moy"]We should pay the money he wants to keep him as long as it''s reasonable. Short-term penny-pinching is crazy bearing in mind Premiership income and IMO has already cost us Lambert.[/quote]

According to Holt''s agent, the club did agree to Holt''s requests, this whole situation is about more than that now though.

[/quote]

His requests have changed due to the club''s bullying attitude. They now have to pay him more because of that or lose him and probably suffer relegation. Suggestions that Rhodes could fill his place are ludicrous IMO.

[/quote]

 

So, just to be clear on this, what you are saying Paul is that if Holt leaves, due to the club''s intransigence, then relegation is more or less a certainty ? And that any attempts to replace him with fresh new talent would be futile ?

 

Glad Chris Hughton got the manager''s job , not you , mate..........

[alysha 0]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"][quote user="alysha"]

[quote user="paul moy"]We should pay the money he wants to keep him as long as it''s reasonable. Short-term penny-pinching is crazy bearing in mind Premiership income and IMO has already cost us Lambert.[/quote]

According to Holt''s agent, the club did agree to Holt''s requests, this whole situation is about more than that now though.

[/quote]

 

That''s OK as far as it goes, Al, but I''m not sure whether we should be taking at face value any of Holt''s agent''s pronouncements these days.

[/quote]

I''d agree with that, but the basis of our speculation is going to be on what we are told, not to mention the fact that him actually admitting that the club did in fact agree to Holt''s request doesn''t particularly do anything to raise sympathy for Holt, in fact it could be argued it does the opposite.

[Cambridgeyellow 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="alysha"]

[quote user="paul moy"]We should pay the money he wants to keep him as long as it''s reasonable. Short-term penny-pinching is crazy bearing in mind Premiership income and IMO has already cost us Lambert.[/quote]

According to Holt''s agent, the club did agree to Holt''s requests, this whole situation is about more than that now though.

[/quote]

His requests have changed due to the club''s bullying attitude. They now have to pay him more because of that or lose him and probably suffer relegation. Suggestions that Rhodes could fill his place are ludicrous IMO.

[/quote]

So we offered him what he wants - he turned it down then wanted more and its us not him moving the goal posts mmm We are at last almost rid of our financial problems yet what you are saying is no one is capable of keeping us up other than Holt.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="alysha"]

[quote user="paul moy"]We should pay the money he wants to keep him as long as it''s reasonable. Short-term penny-pinching is crazy bearing in mind Premiership income and IMO has already cost us Lambert.[/quote]

According to Holt''s agent, the club did agree to Holt''s requests, this whole situation is about more than that now though.

[/quote]

His requests have changed due to the club''s bullying attitude. They now have to pay him more because of that or lose him and probably suffer relegation. Suggestions that Rhodes could fill his place are ludicrous IMO.

[/quote]

 

So, just to be clear on this, what you are saying Paul is that if Holt leaves, due to the club''s intransigence, then relegation is more or less a certainty ? And that any attempts to replace him with fresh new talent would be futile ?

 

Glad Chris Hughton got the manager''s job , not you , mate..........

[/quote]

He can be replaced but not cheaply and with no guarantee of success. Holt staying will mean no replacement is necessary, thus cheaper, and he is proven goal-scoring material at Prem level, so guaranteed goals. Sign a replacement by all means but only as an understudy as the Prem is not a place to take stupid risks.....Rhodes = Jermaine Beckford IMO . Who do you think Hughton will sign that will get us 15 goals a season at the peanuts we are willing to pay ?

 

  

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Cambridgeyellow"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="alysha"]

[quote user="paul moy"]We should pay the money he wants to keep him as long as it''s reasonable. Short-term penny-pinching is crazy bearing in mind Premiership income and IMO has already cost us Lambert.[/quote]

According to Holt''s agent, the club did agree to Holt''s requests, this whole situation is about more than that now though.

[/quote]

His requests have changed due to the club''s bullying attitude. They now have to pay him more because of that or lose him and probably suffer relegation. Suggestions that Rhodes could fill his place are ludicrous IMO.

[/quote] So we offered him what he wants - he turned it down then wanted more and its us not him moving the goal posts mmm We are at last almost rid of our financial problems yet what you are saying is no one is capable of keeping us up other than Holt.[/quote]

From my reading of the situation we only offered him what he wanted either after he had put in a transfer request or he had been tapped up by other clubs that knew he was looking for better terms. If the club had been proactive they could have offered him better terms and had this all sewn up as soon as we knew we were safe, just as they could have done with Lambert and his team. The club delayed, tried to be tough on spending, and look what has happened.  A complete mess IMO !! Surely that 2 million paid to release Hughton could have been better spent elsewhere.

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

I dont know why you are all getting wound up. Like it or notHolt has 2 yrs to run on his contract so is going nowhere unless we allow it. If he was younger he would have an option of running down his contract and going on a bosman. at his age he does not have that option, Norwich despite all the bluster and hype hold all the aces and as said before there is noway he should be going to a relegation candisate like west ham