West Ham back again for Holt

[WeAreYellows49 0]

Thanks wiz mate, it''s just how I feel.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Aggy"]Surman became an almost ever present for the second half of the season once he hit form following the Wolves game. Added to that, even squad players are going to be able to get 20k a week at most premiership clubs. If we want to keep hold of our best players, we need to start paying premiership wages.

As for the Holt thing - well Holt has clearly said the story was nonsense. Setanta seem to have missed the point that most of the argument seems to be about extending for a third year rather than wage increases. Surman, being significantly younger than Holt, is in a totally different boat on that front, and Holt - seemingly - isn''t even all that fussed about an increased wage, it''s the timescale.[/quote]Based upon last season and reported figures:Holt: £16k x 52 weeks = £832k/24 league starts = £34,666 per Premier League startSurman: £22k x 52 weeks = £1144k/21 league starts = £54,476 per Premier League startTherfore Holt is far better value for money.

[First Wizard 0]

There is talk on some Spam sites (KUMB) of Holt having a medical on Monday.....no source, just speculation.

[AndyCanary 0]

It''s probably another Holty spelling mistake.. Did he tweet something like:  "I need a merical on Monday"..  meaning I need a miracle but someone misread it as medical?

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Aggy"]Surman became an almost ever present for the second half of the season once he hit form following the Wolves game. Added to that, even squad players are going to be able to get 20k a week at most premiership clubs. If we want to keep hold of our best players, we need to start paying premiership wages.

As for the Holt thing - well Holt has clearly said the story was nonsense. Setanta seem to have missed the point that most of the argument seems to be about extending for a third year rather than wage increases. Surman, being significantly younger than Holt, is in a totally different boat on that front, and Holt - seemingly - isn''t even all that fussed about an increased wage, it''s the timescale.[/quote]Based upon last season and reported figures:Holt: £16k x 52 weeks = £832k/24 league starts = £34,666 per Premier League startSurman: £22k x 52 weeks = £1144k/21 league starts = £54,476 per Premier League startTherfore Holt is far better value for money.[/quote]

Would love Kieron Dyer''s stats from last season then.

[yellow blood 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Aggy"]Surman became an almost ever present for the second half of the season once he hit form following the Wolves game. Added to that, even squad players are going to be able to get 20k a week at most premiership clubs. If we want to keep hold of our best players, we need to start paying premiership wages. As for the Holt thing - well Holt has clearly said the story was nonsense. Setanta seem to have missed the point that most of the argument seems to be about extending for a third year rather than wage increases. Surman, being significantly younger than Holt, is in a totally different boat on that front, and Holt - seemingly - isn''t even all that fussed about an increased wage, it''s the timescale.[/quote]

Based upon last season and reported figures:

Holt: £16k x 52 weeks = £832k/24 league starts = £34,666 per Premier League start

Surman: £22k x 52 weeks = £1144k/21 league starts = £54,476 per Premier League start

Therfore Holt is far better value for money.
[/quote]

Almost as bad as a journalist. Surman''s reported 22K is from 1st July and not last season. He may start every game and therefore be a lot better...

Have you ever considered doing an similar exercise for Kieron Dyer?

[Jacko 0]

Haha. Great minds think alike Yellow Blood.

[Big Vince 318]

If Grant Holt is allowed to leave the club, can the Canary Board please explain to me exactly who is going to score the goals next season? Morison''s form fell off a cliff after January and there are no other goalscoring forwards on the books. McNally has already stated that getting a 15 goal a season Premier League striker would be prohibitively expensive. Probably cost anywhere between £10 and £100 million, depending how lucky you were and a host of other factors. As we know, Delia Smith refuses to accept that there are any billionaires out there, so where is the money for a replacement to come from? In the absence of any affordable replacement, the Canary Board ought to be moving heaven and earth to give the boy the third year he clearly deserves. I mean, come on, 70 goals in 3 seasons........But it seems we are run by pixies. Premier League TV money is going up to a minimum of £63 million in 2013 from £39 million now. The boy Holt is on £832,000 a year currently. So are the Canary Board saying they would really love to lose £24 million from 2013 in order to save £832,000 on the third year of a Holt deal? It should be a no-brainer to give the boy his deal. The Premier League is an unforgiving place for teams that cannot score, as we saw to our cost in 1994-95. But it is not just the boy''s goals. You have to look at the rest of his contribution to the Canary cause. He has that bit of devil about him that has turned Norwich from being a soft touch to a competitive force. His leadership of the team cannot be measured in money terms. I really do not think this Board thinks that Norwich ought to be in the top 20 of English clubs. As Norwich City have grown as a club, the mentality of the Board has remained in Division Three South. The outstanding hallmark of the Delia era has not been so much the lack of money, as the terribly poor judgement and bad decision-making that has cost us 14 Premier League seasons out of 17 (1996-2013). Grant Holt''s departure will be yet another example, and a costly one at that. The Canary Board see Norwich''s future as lying somewhere between the giant Bescot Stadium and a certain village in Somerset. The Board must go and go quickly.

[yellow blood 0]

[quote user="Big Vince"]If Grant Holt is allowed to leave the club, can the Canary Board please explain to me exactly who is going to score the goals next season? Morison''s form fell off a cliff after January and there are no other goalscoring forwards on the books. McNally has already stated that getting a 15 goal a season Premier League striker would be prohibitively expensive. Probably cost anywhere between £10 and £100 million, depending how lucky you were and a host of other factors. As we know, Delia Smith refuses to accept that there are any billionaires out there, so where is the money for a replacement to come from? In the absence of any affordable replacement, the Canary Board ought to be moving heaven and earth to give the boy the third year he clearly deserves. I mean, come on, 70 goals in 3 seasons........But it seems we are run by pixies. Premier League TV money is going up to a minimum of £63 million in 2013 from £39 million now. The boy Holt is on £832,000 a year currently. So are the Canary Board saying they would really love to lose £24 million from 2013 in order to save £832,000 on the third year of a Holt deal? It should be a no-brainer to give the boy his deal. The Premier League is an unforgiving place for teams that cannot score, as we saw to our cost in 1994-95. But it is not just the boy''s goals. You have to look at the rest of his contribution to the Canary cause. He has that bit of devil about him that has turned Norwich from being a soft touch to a competitive force. His leadership of the team cannot be measured in money terms. I really do not think this Board thinks that Norwich ought to be in the top 20 of English clubs. As Norwich City have grown as a club, the mentality of the Board has remained in Division Three South. The outstanding hallmark of the Delia era has not been so much the lack of money, as the terribly poor judgement and bad decision-making that has cost us 14 Premier League seasons out of 17 (1996-2013). Grant Holt''s departure will be yet another example, and a costly one at that. The Canary Board see Norwich''s future as lying somewhere between the giant Bescot Stadium and a certain village in Somerset. The Board must go and go quickly.[/quote]

God help us then when Holt decides to retire, if he decides to stay!

[Jacko 0]

Jesus christ how many times?! He was after the initial stand off, offered a 3 year deal. But his agent said the damage had "already been done."

[H4H 0]

Welcome to the pinkun Lee Payne.....

[Supermarket Prodigy 0]

Will you pipe down? Blimey. This forum does make me question my faith in the human race at times.

[Captain Canary Jr. 0]

Too long; didn''t read.

Learn to use paragraphs.

[Herman 9,756]

[quote user="Captain Canary Jr."]Too long; didn''t read. Learn to use paragraphs.[/quote]

Ditto this.

[Aggy 755]

Also, Tom, so what? Who''s comparing Holt and Surman? You were moaning about Surman''s wage. The point was nothing to do with Holt.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the main issue with Holt seemed to be the extension of the contract for a third year rather than his wage. So, if you''re trying to say that we should give Holt more money instead of Surman, it''s a fairly redundant argument, as the Holt issue isn''t over higher wages anyway.

[lake district canary 0]

Feel breathless after reading that lot.  Got the gist I think -  apparantly, Morison has fallen off a cliff, the board are trying to replace him with someone called Holt and there are pixies running around at Carrow Rd.    And apparently we''re all moving to Somerset.......Oh-aarr!!

 

 

 

[Aggy 755]

I also failed to read the whole thing, but you make the point that a 15 goal a season striker would cost 10 million plus.

You also ask the question of who will score the goals if Holt goes.

You seem to miss the fairly important bit of us having to accept a transfer fee for him. If a 15 goal a season striker would cost 10 million plus, and Holt is under contract with us therefore meaning another club would need to go out and buy our 15 goal a season striker from us, what do you think is likely to happen in this scenario?

[AndyCanary 0]

[quote user="Herman "]

[quote user="Captain Canary Jr."]Too long; didn''t read. Learn to use paragraphs.[/quote]

Ditto this.

[/quote]^^

[Cantiaci Canary 557]

[quote user="Big Vince"]If Grant Holt is allowed to leave the club, can the Canary Board please explain to me exactly who is going to score the goals next season? Morison''s form fell off a cliff after January and there are no other goalscoring forwards on the books. McNally has already stated that getting a 15 goal a season Premier League striker would be prohibitively expensive. Probably cost anywhere between £10 and £100 million, depending how lucky you were and a host of other factors. As we know, Delia Smith refuses to accept that there are any billionaires out there, so where is the money for a replacement to come from? In the absence of any affordable replacement, the Canary Board ought to be moving heaven and earth to give the boy the third year he clearly deserves. I mean, come on, 70 goals in 3 seasons........But it seems we are run by pixies. Premier League TV money is going up to a minimum of £63 million in 2013 from £39 million now. The boy Holt is on £832,000 a year currently. So are the Canary Board saying they would really love to lose £24 million from 2013 in order to save £832,000 on the third year of a Holt deal? It should be a no-brainer to give the boy his deal. The Premier League is an unforgiving place for teams that cannot score, as we saw to our cost in 1994-95. But it is not just the boy''s goals. You have to look at the rest of his contribution to the Canary cause. He has that bit of devil about him that has turned Norwich from being a soft touch to a competitive force. His leadership of the team cannot be measured in money terms. I really do not think this Board thinks that Norwich ought to be in the top 20 of English clubs. As Norwich City have grown as a club, the mentality of the Board has remained in Division Three South. The outstanding hallmark of the Delia era has not been so much the lack of money, as the terribly poor judgement and bad decision-making that has cost us 14 Premier League seasons out of 17 (1996-2013). Grant Holt''s departure will be yet another example, and a costly one at that. The Canary Board see Norwich''s future as lying somewhere between the giant Bescot Stadium and a certain village in Somerset. The Board must go and go quickly.[/quote]

 

He won''t be ''allowed to leave'' unless it''s for a decent price.

 

In my opinion he will go as he seems determined to leave and it doesn''t make sense keeping a brooding 31 year old around the place with 2 years left of his contract.

I trust McNally to get a decent price for him ... which certainly isn''t 3M with a further 2M based on appearances (which he won''t be allowed to reach!). 

[paul moy 235]

Well, you''ll probably gather from my previous posts that I agree with the OP. He has just put it far more eloquently.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

Feel breathless after reading that lot.  Got the gist I think -  apparantly, Morison has fallen off a cliff, the board are trying to replace him with someone called Holt and there are pixies running around at Carrow Rd.    And apparently we''re all moving to Somerset.......Oh-aarr!!

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

I didn''t think that was it. I thought he was saying we should sign Pixie Deehan to replace Grant Holt...

 

[Lord Horn 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]Well, you''ll probably gather from my previous posts that I agree with the OP. He has just put it far more eloquently.[/quote]Blimey Paul, that''s the funniest thing you''ve said since you stuck up for Cody Mac!!!

[Cambridgeyellow 0]

If we signed a 15 goal a season forward for £10m who had more than 1 season left reckon that would be a bargain. You have not allowed for the £6m we would get for Holt would be given to Hughton.With this and adding some of his budget he would have £10m to spend on a top forward. I reckon however he will be spending money on us not conceeding as many goals.

A fact regularly missed is that Holt may have scored 15 goals but I beleive we only won 4 of the games he scored in.

Getting £6m for Holt really puts us in the market if Hughton feels he needs for a top striker so if he has a 25 year old in mind you would have to think this is Houghtons team with no loyalties to Holt. If he does not want him at £6m reckon he would drive him to Wet Spam himself.

Holt has been amazing for this club but if his sale means we can move to the next level with a £10m striker I am all for it. You would think that if he was single handedly good enough to keep a club like our s in the Premiership there would be a lot of chairman on the phone to McNally out bidding each other.

[smooth 114]

Big Fish, you sum it up.There isn''t, I don''t think any club in the top 8 would look at him. I think he is as high as he will get and although he has a 2 year contract on good money he is looking for that bit more because he has seen others come in to the club who can offer so much to push us forward and he believes he warrants it. Personally I think he is worth the deal he already has.I still think if West Ham bought him he would be on the bench behind Carlton Cole. I rate Holty but I do not think he irreplacable, we need to replace him at some point anyway and if he wants to leave then it makes it easier as a club. Two new strikers in and a fresh start with some very promising forwards.£5million can still pick us up a capable forward. I would not be too unhappy if Nugent came over. Like his little arrogance on the field.

[87canary 0]

[quote user="Jacko"]

Jesus christ how many times?! He was after the initial stand off, offered a 3 year deal. But his agent said the damage had "already been done."

[/quote]

Can someone link me to where this was said? I appear to have missed that

[Jak G 0]

2011/12

Yakubu - 17 goals - £1.5million

Ba - 16 goals - Free Transfer

Graham - 12 goals - £3.5 Million

2010/11

Odemwingie - 15 goals - Less than £5 million

DJ Campbell - 13 goals - £1.25 million

That''s five players in the last two seasons that have been signed for cheap and gone on to score around the 15 goal market. The suggestion that we need to pay £10 million to find a striker that can score 15 goals is ludicrous

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="yellow blood"]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Aggy"]Surman became an almost ever present for the second half of the season once he hit form following the Wolves game. Added to that, even squad players are going to be able to get 20k a week at most premiership clubs. If we want to keep hold of our best players, we need to start paying premiership wages. As for the Holt thing - well Holt has clearly said the story was nonsense. Setanta seem to have missed the point that most of the argument seems to be about extending for a third year rather than wage increases. Surman, being significantly younger than Holt, is in a totally different boat on that front, and Holt - seemingly - isn''t even all that fussed about an increased wage, it''s the timescale.[/quote]Based upon last season and reported figures:Holt: £16k x 52 weeks = £832k/24 league starts = £34,666 per Premier League startSurman: £22k x 52 weeks = £1144k/21 league starts = £54,476 per Premier League startTherefore Holt is far better value for money.[/quote]

Almost as bad as a journalist. Surman''s reported 22K is from 1st July and not last season. He may start every game and therefore be a lot better...

[/quote]I clearly state "Based upon last season and reported figures:". His average over the last 2 seasons is 20 league starts, and over the last 3 seasons has an average of 14 league starts.The team stats when he started games last season:Won 26%, Drawn 30%, Lost 43%When Surman didn''t start:Won 42%,  Drawn 21%, Lost 37%Using that info averaged over a season in the league it could be said that if Surman had started every game last season then Norwich would have got 41 points. Likewise, if he hadn''t started a game all season then Norwich would have got 56 points.

[flecky76 0]

Apologies for yet another Holt report but rumours on twitter suggest that Wet Spam have agreed a figure for Holt.

@WHUFC_News. West Ham''s increased bid for Norwich City striker Grant Holt has been accepted. He''s expected to be a West Ham player soon.

This has also been circulated by Ian Abrahams, aka The Moose from Talksport.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

If true this should be good for at least ten new threads all on the same subject. [:''(]

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,749]

the length of contract theyve offered him will be as if not more so interesting than the fee. If theyve seen fit to give him 3 years and we didnt ,one of us is going to be proved horrifically wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!