West Ham back again for Holt

[Yellow Shirt 17]

[quote user="Cambridgeyellow"][quote user="Mr Brownstone"]I''m hoping this is about as accurate as the story about him being upset at Surman''s new deal, or the Ruddy/Butland piece of fiction.

Very bad news if true. We won''t be able to replace him.[/quote]

Would be a lot harder to replace him when he retired without the £5 - £6m we will get if we sell him now. And why so confident we need to replace him ? Vaughan fit Morison rising to the challenge without everyone wanting him out to get Holt back in the team.[/quote]I agree with this- take the money!

[Boyo 0]

We will get a decent bit of cash for Holt and add that to the transfer budget and we will have enough money to buy a younger, quality striker.  Holt IS replaceable.  He doesn''t want to be here, let him go.  It''s the start of a new era now.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Jacko"]

There could be something in this. The West Ham site is fairly reliable. But as for Ian Abraham. Dont believe anything that useless fat tub of lard says. Remember this a few days ago. He is a liar.

 

http://www.bluekipper.com/news/club_news/4696-everton_threaten_legal_action_over_moyes_links_to_spurs.html

[/quote]I have to disagree. He''s had some stuff spot on.  He said that we''d gone in for Peter Grant a few days before anybody else picked it up.

[Branston Pickle 3,709]

Elmander scored 18 in 92 apps for Bolton 10 in 37 in his last season), so I hardly think that link is crucial - surely more relevant to Bolton was injuries to key players.

The Holt situation needs sorting either way, as soon as possible so that we can plan accordingly. IMO £5-6m would be extremely handy when added to our funds, but so would Holt staying; for me it is a 50:50 thing and there isn''t really a right and wrong answer.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

[quote user="paul moy"]Ah well, I suppose the great Zigic is already lined up as a replacement.[/quote]

 

Cody is 10 times better than him!

[/quote]

.. and of course CM is better than Holt as Hughton probably saw him play for Palace against Brum and now thinks he has a ready made replacement. No worries now then......

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

5.5-6 million for a 31 year old player who does not want to play for us anymore.

We would be mugs not to take it.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]5.5-6 million for a 31 year old player who does not want to play for us anymore. We would be mugs not to take it.[/quote]

... until you''ve seen the replacement perhaps ?

[Syteanric 1]

Manchester utd always said Cantona was irreplaceable... That once he left it would be years before they challenged again, that their day had gone......

12 months later they won the champions league....Eric who?

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

[quote user="Cambridgeyellow"][quote user="Mr Brownstone"]I''m hoping this is about as accurate as the story about him being upset at Surman''s new deal, or the Ruddy/Butland piece of fiction. Very bad news if true. We won''t be able to replace him.[/quote] Would be a lot harder to replace him when he retired without the £5 - £6m we will get if we sell him now. And why so confident we need to replace him ? Vaughan fit Morison rising to the challenge without everyone wanting him out to get Holt back in the team. Look at players like Shearer and Owen moved on and never had the same impact but were replaced ok. We replaced Lambert ok and that was much harder[/quote]

 

You must be clairvoyant!

[/quote]

Indeed, he must have seen the future. That''s ok then, we''re safe....... Pheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew!!!

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][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.[/quote]

Because, as we all know, the reason we lost more games with Surman in the team is purely because Surman was starting?

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]Manchester utd always said Cantona was irreplaceable... That once he left it would be years before they challenged again, that their day had gone......

12 months later they won the champions league....Eric who?[/quote]

Just repeat Jas. Cantona left in 1997. United lost the league title to Arsenal in the 1997/98 season. And they certainly didnt win the Champions League that year either.

[Gingerpele 0]

[quote user="Yellow Shirt"]Holt is NOT a premier league goal machine.As I recall Holt did not play all that much in the part of the season were we picked up most of our points (Sept-Jan).Being the second top English scorer is not the same as being the second top scorer in England- by a lot.Has Holt been great for us? Yes.Should we cash in? Yes.[/quote]

For goodness sake, where are you getting that from?

For a start, Holt played a big part all season. Most games he didn''t start, he got 20-30 mins. Secondly we picked up more points from game 20-38 and I''m certain Holt played a bigger part than Moro in that section. Plus games such as Liverpool and Everton away before then, Holt won us points.

[yellow blood 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][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 start

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

Therefore 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.
[/quote]

But you aren''t comparing like for like. You are basing the past figures on the future (or in Holt''s case current) salary. Surman could have been on 11K previously and therefore the figures would be different. Likewise your games won and lost stat when Surman started etc. How many of those games when he came on did he make an impact and contribute to us winning or getting a draw? Not necessarily by scoring but a key contribution...

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Jacko"]

[quote user="paul moy"]Ah well, I suppose the great Zigic is already lined up as a replacement.[/quote]

Unlikey considering Birmingham are paying him about £65k a week.

[/quote]

Well, by the time a free transfer and a big fat signing on fee is paid he won''t need to be paid 65K to effectively get the same money over his contract term.   

[I am a Banana 0]

John Guidetti is the man we need! Never going to get a game at Man City ahead of Tevez, Aguero, Dzeko, Balotelli, + extra signings...

[Gingerpele 0]

[quote user="I am a Banana"]John Guidetti is the man we need! Never going to get a game at Man City ahead of Tevez, Aguero, Dzeko, Balotelli, + extra signings...[/quote]

Newcastle want him. He just scored 20 in 23 games, would be surprised if he ends up at a club that didn''t finish near the top of their league.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="yellow blood"][quote user="tom cavendish"][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.[/quote]

But you aren''t comparing like for like. You are basing the past figures on the future (or in Holt''s case current) salary. Surman could have been on 11K previously and therefore the figures would be different. Likewise your games won and lost stat when Surman started etc. How many of those games when he came on did he make an impact and contribute to us winning or getting a draw? Not necessarily by scoring but a key contribution...

[/quote]Based upon his stats for last season (inc. sub appearances) if he was to play in every game: Won 30%, Drawn 30%, Lost 41% = 45.6 points.

[Norfolk Mustard 94]

[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]

 

Well the agent would say that wouldn''t he? - he doesn''t want to be proved wrong!

Personally I love this mind-set quote: "If you don''t change your mind from time to time, what''s the point of having one?"

 

[drurys testamonials V 15 0]

Name a striker who is GUARANTEED to score 15+ goals a season.Just because Van Persie got loads this season, it doesn''t follow he will next season. He may break his leg or get ill or have personal problems that impact on his game - which is the common thoughts for Morison achieveing less than we''d hoped he''d do. Managers can only buy a striker who they hope will score 15+  but they have no control over their strike rate.Look at Rooney. Can score for Man Utd but is not so prolific in an England shirt. A different team but fits the analogy IMO.

[drurys testamonials V 15 0]

Diddums

[Bury Yellow 2]

I am mildly amused by the anti Holt brigade. So, we can get a suitable replacement. So, we picked up more points when Holt wasn''t playing. I assume that means we would have been better off without him.

Well the first point, I do hope that becomes a reality. The second point is fantasy.

If Holt does go, the only positive I can think of, is that Lambert''s team seemed to rely so much on Holt both as a scorer and a supplier of goals he was almost irreplaceable. With Hughton, the style of play may cover for his absence. Just a thought!

[87canary 0]

I call bullpoop.

The rumour came from @WHUFC_News. Who "broke the story" via a tweet from some random west ham fan who tweeted

"Clungewhu. Looks like norwich have accepted our bid for holt. Will be confirmed b4 saturday"

http://twitter.com/#!/Adzman89/status/215798413311225856

and

http://twitter.com/#!/WHUFC_News/status/215831101522984962

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]... until you''ve seen the replacement perhaps ?

[/quote]

We have no choice, if he isn''t happy to be here, he won''t be half the player he was last season.

It''s a no win situation for Norwich unless we can find a decent replacement.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

If Holt stays, then he stays, we get to keep a goalscorer and an important part of the team. If he goes, then he goes, and we enter the market for a new striker (hopefully with a reasonably large sum of money from the Holt sale), replacing Holt will be difficult but not impossible and Hughton has a good reputation in the transfer market when it comes to players. If Holt stays I''ll be delighted, if he leaves then he has my thanks for what he achieved help he gave the club (although I''ll still be bitter about the way it ended) but we''ll replace him. It''ll be hard, no doubt about it, bit not the impossible task some make it out to be.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="yellow blood"][quote user="tom cavendish"][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.[/quote]

But you aren''t comparing like for like. You are basing the past figures on the future (or in Holt''s case current) salary. Surman could have been on 11K previously and therefore the figures would be different. Likewise your games won and lost stat when Surman started etc. How many of those games when he came on did he make an impact and contribute to us winning or getting a draw? Not necessarily by scoring but a key contribution...

[/quote]Based upon his stats for last season (inc. sub appearances) if he was to play in every game: Won 30%, Drawn 30%, Lost 41% = 45.6 points.[/quote]

Once again, you are assuming that over the course of the season that Surmans current record would reflect what would happen to every game throughout the season, you are not counting external variables and your ''statistics'' are misleading. Just because you don''t rate Surman as a player does not mean you can just make s**t up.

[Gingerpele 0]

Saw that commen again. WE DID NOT WIN MORE POINTS WITHOUT HOLT

Not even close.

[TheRock 171]

[quote user="Wings of a Sparrow"]Holt doesn''t want to be here so sell him rather than have a disruptive element around the club.

Anything over £3.5m would do nicely thank you.

Holt suited Norwich and Norwich suited Holt.

Whether he stays or goes you won''t get another 15 goal season out of him either way.

Houghton no matter what he said at his preference may have other ideas about the strike force anyway.[/quote]£3.5m? you''re joking right? anything less than £6m is an insult [:|]

[Canary23 0]

Well if he stays he won''t be committed so best cut our losses though I can''t say I wish him particularly well

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Gareth"]If Holt stays, then he stays, we get to keep a goalscorer and an important part of the team. If he goes, then he goes, and we enter the market for a new striker (hopefully with a reasonably large sum of money from the Holt sale), replacing Holt will be difficult but not impossible and Hughton has a good reputation in the transfer market when it comes to players. If Holt stays I''ll be delighted, if he leaves then he has my thanks for what he achieved help he gave the club (although I''ll still be bitter about the way it ended) but we''ll replace him. It''ll be hard, no doubt about it, bit not the impossible task some make it out to be.

[/quote]

I''m interested in you telling us who the players Hughton signed that are Prem potential. They have an excellent scout at Newcastle who I''m sure was responsible for finding good Prem talent.... Not Hughton as far as I''m aware.  

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="BigFish"]Lets face it, despite Holt''s agent drumming up his clients availability there has hardly been a rush of clubs coming in for him at any price. Combined with Hodgson''s rejection of him it might be time to recognise that his reputation is not as great in the football world outside Carrow Road. If the truth be known I don''t think Lambert rates him that highly either[/quote]

Had a look at the West Ham forums to see if there was any real idea if this is all true. They seem pretty almost universally adamant they dont want him, i''m not sure they will be as forgiving of the rough edges to his game as we are, so he''s going to have to hit the ground running for them or he could see out the rest of his career in their reserves.