West Ham back again for Holt

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][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.  

[/quote]

I didn''t say Hughton had a reputation for signing players with Premier League potential, I said that he had a good reputation for signing players in general. Whilst your right about Newcastle to a certain extent, he did a very good job at Birmingham at signing players. Marlon King and Chris Burke were both signed by Hughton and hit double figures in the league and considering his limited funds, was able to sign several good players (or make them good players, whatever you wish). I''m not saying it''s a guaranteed certainty that Hughton will sign a 15 goal a season striker (if Holt leaves) but I trust his ability.

[paul moy 235]

Well, as far as Marlon King is concerned, that was hardly a gamble as he was already a proven scorer, and he was cheap because nobody else wanted a player with his criminal record. I would not want is ilk at Norwich. I don''t think Hughton is as proven as many seem to believe, but I''m keeping an open mind.  

[Trawlerboy 0]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]Saw that comment again. WE DID NOT WIN MORE POINTS WITHOUT HOLT

Not even close.[/quote]I do not even know how you can compare, with games such as Swansea (h), Fulham (he) and QPR (a) very difficult to decide on how best to award points to Holty playing or not playing.The closest split I could come to would be 33 points with Holt on the pitch and roughly 16 points gained without Holt being on the pitch. Hardly surprising considering the number of games Holty played, but it does show that we have some talent in reserve.If Holty is to be sold then I think that if a reasonable replacemet is signed then we should be able to carry a similar attacking threat next season.What I am concerned about is will Hughton bring in a decent replacement?

[Cambridgeyellow 0]

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

[/quote]

Did Hughton not replace Lambert then ? Is the club in dissaray ?

Lambert must have known Holt had a problem as whatever Holt is claiming happened a while ago on his watch why did he not sort it ? Going by the new deals being announced if Holt would have waited as per the normal club end of season way I am sure he would have got a huge rise as well. You have to guess that he just does not love us anymore.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

I''m with the OP, without doubt the best course of action every time one of our best players asks for bigger contracts is to sack the board. We can have a sort of jury service across Norfolk where we each get called up for a brief stint, before the next player comes knocking saying ''gimme gimme gimme''.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="paul moy"]Well, as far as Marlon King is concerned, that was hardly a gamble as he was already a proven scorer, and he was cheap because nobody else wanted a player with his criminal record. I would not want is ilk at Norwich. I don''t think Hughton is as proven as many seem to believe, but I''m keeping an open mind.  [/quote]

 

[Y]

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="Green Jack"][quote user="Gingerpele"]Saw that comment again. WE DID NOT WIN MORE POINTS WITHOUT HOLT Not even close.[/quote]

I do not even know how you can compare, with games such as Swansea (h), Fulham (he) and QPR (a) very difficult to decide on how best to award points to Holty playing or not playing.

The closest split I could come to would be 33 points with Holt on the pitch and roughly 16 points gained without Holt being on the pitch. Hardly surprising considering the number of games Holty played, but it does show that we have some talent in reserve.

If Holty is to be sold then I think that if a reasonable replacemet is signed then we should be able to carry a similar attacking threat next season.

What I am concerned about is will Hughton bring in a decent replacement?
[/quote]

 

How many points with Ruddy on the pitch?[:O]

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="Yellowbeagle"] without doubt the best course of action every time one of our best players asks for bigger contracts is to sack the board. We can have a sort of jury service across Norfolk where we each get called up for a brief stint.[/quote]

So that there is no bias towards the player i think the jury should be made up of people who have never seen him in an actual game so may i suggest some posters from this messageboard supplemented by a few callers who ring up Canary Call after a game.[;)]

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="Yellowbeagle"] without doubt the best course of action every time one of our best players asks for bigger contracts is to sack the board. We can have a sort of jury service across Norfolk where we each get called up for a brief stint.[/quote]

So that there is no bias towards the player i think the jury should be made up of people who have never seen him in an actual game so may i suggest some posters from this messageboard supplemented by a few callers who ring up Canary Call after a game.[;)]

[/quote]

Now theres an idea, the look on other clubs chief execs faces would be priceless during negiotations on transfers when they come up against the formidable Canary Callers, we might have to get in Neil Adams or Paul McVeigh in a translator capacity though.

[Yellow Shirt 17]

OK- my point was very badly worded- yes he did play in a lot of the games when we had our best run, and got goals- but my feeling has been that more people were on form and Holt has been blown into a one man team in so many peoples heads (including his own I suspect).Holt has been massive for us over 3 years but I do not see him as irreplaceable- in fact as we WILL have to replace him in the next 2-3 years no matter what I''d rather do it now with the help of £4M+.Will he be the difference between staying up and going down? To me- no, we will need to bring in another goal scorer but 10-15 a season isn''t a HUGE return and I suspect that there are a lot of players out there in that region who could bag those goals in this team... and possibly bring more out of Moro. We also have Vaughan to step in if he can stay fit.This is not meant as anti Holt, or to belittle what he has achieved in the last 3 seasons which has been worthy of most of the praise. I do think though that given all the facts he could perhaps be best used at this point to fund his own replacement.

[Harry 0]

FFS get a grip Big Mince, and anyone would think you were a trolley.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Gareth"][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.

[/quote]The stats are from Soccerbase.com A) The results when Surman played in a game last season were:Won 30%, Drawn 30%, Lost 41%When Surman didn''t play in a game the results were:

Won 40%, Drawn 20%, Lost 40%B) The results when Surman started a game last season were:

Won 26%, Drawn 30%, Lost 43%When Surman didn''t start a game the results were:Won 42%,  Drawn 21%, Lost 37%Therefore results were better when Surman didn''t start a game, and results were better when he didn''t play in a game.

[Harry 0]

Bloody predictive text, images it should be troll not trolly as I assume you don''t have wheels.

[urdie_Canary 33]

Grant Holt is not bigger than Norwich City F.C.Lets wait and see how it all pans out.......

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]Well, as far as Marlon King is concerned, that was hardly a gamble as he was already a proven scorer, and he was cheap because nobody else wanted a player with his criminal record. I would not want is ilk at Norwich. I don''t think Hughton is as proven as many seem to believe, but I''m keeping an open mind.  [/quote]

Fair enough, although to say no one else wanted him is a bit of a stretch, I know for a fact that Coventry wanted to keep him. Hughton isn''t as proven as some see to think, I agree with you, although I think he''s certainly talented. The problem with Hughton''s managerial career in regards to transfers though is that hes been full time manager at two clubs, Birmingham and Newcastle, and at both transfers have been, not forced upon him, but the situation has asked him to act within strict guidelines. At Newcastle it was the policy of using Graham Carr to scout for talent (although I refuse to believe the manager had no say about players coming in to the club) and at Birmingham it was financial, shown by the fact that Hughtons signings were free agents or on low fees.

However some of the quality Hughton managed to pick up on frees is outstanding, Burke in particular went from an average squad player at Cardiff to one of the championships best wingers under Hughton. I think it''s fair to say that Hughton is a proven coach, but a not so proven buyer of players. 

Also I seriously doubt Hughton will try to sign King, that was more of a ''he''s a good player on a free and I (literally) cannot afford to be picky'' kind of thing.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="Ruddys Ring Finger"]Bloody predictive text, images it should be troll not trolly as I assume you don''t have wheels.[/quote]

He is a troll who is off his trolley.[:|]

 

[Phillip J Fry 0]

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

[/quote]The stats are from Soccerbase.com A) The results when Surman played in a game last season were:Won 30%, Drawn 30%, Lost 41%When Surman didn''t play in a game the results were:

Won 40%, Drawn 20%, Lost 40%B) The results when Surman started a game last season were:

Won 26%, Drawn 30%, Lost 43%When Surman didn''t start a game the results were:Won 42%,  Drawn 21%, Lost 37%Therefore results were better when Surman didn''t start a game, and results were better when he didn''t play in a game.[/quote]

Yeah but by that logic you could say that Simon Lappin is our best player as when he''s started a game it''s been

Won: 2

Drawn: 3

Lost: 0

So in terms of percentages, Simon Lappin should always start. We also need to establish the context of the results. What teams was Surman starting against? Should we expect to beat those teams? What was the team around him like? What was the general consensus of the performance? All your doing is quoting statistics as if it proves your point that Surman isn''t good enough, your not actually submitting a valid argument. 

[Jacko 0]

You have to factor things like the opposition in though. Surman definitely started both against Man City for instance. Games we were always likely to lose regardless of whoever played.

[William Darby 0]

Imo it''s quite possible with Ewan Chester on board we could pick up a tidy foreign player who''ll fit in nicely.  Quite capable of scoring 15 goals for a rather modest sum of money.  If Holt left tomorrow I really won''t be that fussed.  I''m sure whatever the price we get for him would be chucked into Hughton''s pot and not squirrelled  away for new carpet in the boardroom.

[Trawlerboy 0]

[quote user="urdie_Canary"]Grant Holt is not bigger than Norwich City F.C.Lets wait and see how it all pans out.......[/quote]Not yet he isn''t, but he could be if he ends up spending considerable time on another team''s bench and keeps packing away the pies this coming season.

[Jacko 0]

So Pinkun Role Model are you still in disagreement with me now McNally has come out and flatly denied these rumours. Abrahams has been forced to retract statements before because they are completely false and it would seem he has made things up again today. How you can him any credibility on the basis he once got something right nearly 6 years ago is beyond me.

[Officer Tillys small Willies (Nigel,lappy) 0]

I think its time to move on people 5mil for holt +5mil of our transfer budget could buy us a very good foreign striker.

Oh and note for happy clappers.... Remember to cheer his every move for west sham against us next season wont you. Just forget all the 5hit hes been stirring up the day Lambert went. Hes a t1t.

He gave it all the badge kissing yet he started to believe his own hype. Norwich made him and now were going to watch him finish his days as west shams reserve striker. However by the sounds of it its all come down to money, maybe not directly implied, however hes desperate for the three year deal, which is for MONEY. He gets his wish and now enjoy west ham Holt thanks for the memories However like lambert its the bad ones your going to be remembered for mostly BY MYSELF

[Oz Canary 0]

I havent seen anything that would suggest that we have excepted the Wet Spam offer for Holt. So, until that time I will choose to put my hands over my ears and mutter  "na na na na na".

However, if we do end up accepting the Wet Spam deal it better not be in the form that it is reported which top-up''s after appearances. I would be majorly disappointed if we coped that cr@p. 

[Fozzie 0]

Didn''t see this posted earlier (couldn''t be bothered to look for it) but some guy claiming to be a freelance journalist tweeted:"We went £4m plus £1 mill addons. Wages that would take it to £8m. Can''t go higher for 31 yr old. NCFC making it personal with kid"In one way I hope it''s true as it would mean they''ve been discussing personal terms with Holt before permission is given.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

For anyone who missed this on Twitter last night:

@afrodo1982: @davidmcnally62 @NorwichCityFC is it true we''ve accepted west hams bid for holt?

@davidmcnally62: @afrodo1982 @norwichcityfc no

Also I think some people need a bit of a reality check. Talk of spending £10m on a potential replacement is nonsense, whilst it is possible that we *could* afford a £10m fee if we got £6m for Holt, there is no way that we could afford the wages of a £10m footballer.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

I very much doubt there is any truth in this!

[/quote]

 

http://twitter.com/davidmcnally62/status/215920262540046336

 

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

http://twitter.com/davidmcnally62/status/215920262540046336

 

Some people!

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]Thanks wiz mate, it''s just how I feel.[/quote]

Really good to see you back on the forum WAY49, always enjoyed your posts

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]Thanks wiz mate, it''s just how I feel.[/quote]

Really good to see you back on the forum WAY49, always enjoyed your posts

[/quote]

 

Yes indeed.  I remember the good old days, especially in League One, but also in the Championship, where we had less tv coverage.  When we were in need of a goal, someone had a lucky kettle, I think someone also had a lucky cigarette break and I had a lucky toilet.  Happy days!

[Scooby 0]

quote use r= 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

And you know this for a fact do you? Explain how please. And please, not the ''because his agent said so'' arguement, that would be mildly pathetic.

Oh and Vince, while I agree with you that Holt should have been given 3 years, I do wish that you would SHUT THE F*** UP!!!!