Concern permitted?

[Hog 0]

A host of articles about Harry bloody Kane today has me suddenly concerned that he will replace the need for a new striker in January.....

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11675/8330287

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2012/12/14/3601398/-

http://www.itv.com/sport/football/article/2012-12-13/hughton-awaits-kane-return/

 

Please tell me I''m way off base on this one

[Highland Canary 76]

Of course. I''m always concerned. Absolutely, we need to invest in a class, experienced striker to support Holt if we wish to have any chance of playing in the PL this season.

[whoareyou? 0]

I couldn''t care less who the player is that we need as long as he does his job.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

Agree with you OP and although I don''t think we saw the best of Kane I have difficulty in accepting the fact that we should be a developing club for our rival''s youngsters.

 

I trust Hughton in his transfer dealings to the extent that if he were to sign Kane then I would be happy enough.

 

A loan? No way. Let Spurs find out if their youngsters are upto it at White Hart Lane not Carrow Road.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,558]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

Agree with you OP and although I don''t think we saw the best of Kane I have difficulty in accepting the fact that we should be a developing club for our rival''s youngsters.

 

I trust Hughton in his transfer dealings to the extent that if he were to sign Kane then I would be happy enough.

 

A loan? No way. Let Spurs find out if their youngsters are upto it at White Hart Lane not Carrow Road.

[/quote]

Yeah!

 

That Kyle Naughton loan only brought Norwich trouble....

 

If Harry Kane provides a bit of competition for places and can pop-up and score so goals that win Norwich points, I don''t particulary mind if he belongs to another club or not. Whilst it is very important to think long-term, it is vital to not do so at the expense short-term. Buying players is an expensive and risky business, getting a couple in on loan adds all important depth to the squad whilst not adding greatly to the clubs liabilities.

 

The fact Kane is under-21 and Norwich had filled out their 25 man squad is also significant - without selling Norwich can only bring in younger players and that will always be easier (and considerably cheaper) to do on loan.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

Ok BGY, but Naughton was last season we have moved on since then. Besides he spends most of his time on the Spurs bench. Decent player but I won''t go OTT.

 

Naughton is always brought up by those defending loaning palyers, but we of all clubs should be aware of the pitfalls involved in this strategy.

 

Let''s buy a decent striker with some pedigree and let the Spurs youngsters go to the Portaloo as our beloved rivals now take that route. Hopefully to their demise.

 

P.S. Loans are no longer a cheap option either

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,558]

I think there is no harm in one or two loans to suppliment a squad, and although they aren''t cheap, they certainly aren''t as expensive as buying players and the subsequent liabilty of their wages. Consider James Vaughan, Norwich paid a couple of million for him but I imagine his contract is worth that again at least. Anyway, I reckon if Kane scored one goal for Norwich resulting in a win then he will have paid for himself with the increase in prize money come the end of the season.

 

Loans allow Norwich to add a couple of players to the squad knowing that if the worst should happen and the club is relegated then they don''t have to try and sell them off at the end of the year - or worse sell off established players like Holt, Ruddy and Pilkington to cover a wage bill unsustainable in the Championship - relegated clubs don''t tend to sell they deem not good enought, but the stars in the squad leave first.

 

There is a lot of revisionist history going on with Kyle Naughton who I think most on this board rated as one of our best players last season - signing him would have cost millions (which Norwich couldn''t afford) so loaning was the only option - and it worked out well. As I said before, Harry Kane offers a cheap way to add an additional body to squad which is already exceeding the 25 man limit.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

Everything you say BGY is right and perhaps I put my point badly.

 

The occasional loan at the right time can be of advatage but I object to us being a breeding ground for Tottenham''s fledglings. Why? Is it the little Norwich stuff?

 

I do actually disagree that an occasional Kane goal would be tantamount in us  staying put this season. We seem to be managing quite well without him and moreso whilst he was learning his trade with us we were actually doing quite badly. Neither did he cover himself in glory. What goals?

 

Buy him? Yes. Borrow him? No. IMO.

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

We have seen so little of Kane it is impossibel to say if he will or will not make an impact. Add to that is there a possibility that Hughton wanted to have him permenantly who knows. Either way i still expect a couple of decent signings in January to enable us to keep momentum going for survival. I would not be surprised if Kane features in the Peteerborough game in some way but probably not before then

[Nicko 0]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

Everything you say BGY is right and perhaps I put my point badly.

 

The occasional loan at the right time can be of advatage but I object to us being a breeding ground for Tottenham''s fledglings. Why? Is it the little Norwich stuff?

 

I do actually disagree that an occasional Kane goal would be tantamount in us  staying put this season. We seem to be managing quite well without him and moreso whilst he was learning his trade with us we were actually doing quite badly. Neither did he cover himself in glory. What goals?

 

Buy him? Yes. Borrow him? No. IMO.

[/quote]

Have to say I disagree. If it was Kanes goal that was the difference between relegation and survival then I think you''d feel differently about having younger players in on loan. It can only be an advantage if Spurs think he will progress here. I welcome it!

A prime example is Danny Wellbeck for Sunderland. I bet they would disagree with you!

Each to their own though :)

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,558]

I''m even talking about something so drastic as a Kane goal saving Norwich from relegation - but if he scored a goal that moved Norwich from 16th to 15th that is worth £1m extra in prize money.

 

Taking Kane is a risk-free transfer, he doesn''t add to the 25 and he doesn''t cost a huge amount - whilst providing something a little different to our exisiting players. It may turn out he isn''t great, then so be it - buying him would be a much riskier proposal and can Norwich really afford to spend large money on players who might be good in 2 or 3 years? Not at the moment.

[ZLF 274]

There is a world of difference in doing the Roeder / Paul Jewell approach to loan players and the more structured / prudent approach we have taken since relegated.

 

We have used loans effectively for years  - Huckerby, Crouch and co were not the first successful loans we have had - and Javi is another success this season after Naughton last year,  Lansbury & Pacheco the season before,  Rose and others the season before that.   All have played key roles in our success.

 

Picking the right players is the key,   and keeping them small in volume even more important - that way we dont become dependent but make our squad significantly better but adding class.   No,  Naughton was not cheap but loaning him was cost effective as we were a better team with him last season, he was comfortably our best defender and instrumental in our survival.

 

Its true we are were unable to buy him,  but loaning him last year supported our survival which has allowed us to strengthen this year with Bassong, Turner, Bunn & Snodgrass.  So no we dont have Nuaghton himself but these players are a good trade of and make our squad this year better than ever!  As such I completely support a continued loan policy along the lines we are currently doing. 

 

Completely ignoring the contributions a loan signing can make is a fool hardy as using 14 in a season.

 

 

 

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

Sorry Nicko, but didn''t quite get your point.

 

Why should Kane''s goals (if they exist) be the difference between relegation and survival anymore than Morison''s goals, Jackson''s goals or a fresh signing''s goals.

 

However, if Hughton has that much faith in HK then I approve, but from a distance I am unkeen.

[lake district canary 0]

People are quick to dismiss players when they haven''t had a chance to show what they can do.   We''re quite happy to loan out players for experience - why shouldn''t we be happy to accept Kane?   He has only had a cameo role so far - and is being judged on one miss.   A miss that was important - but came before he had found his feet at Norwich.   However - that chance came to him on his wrong foot but he had the balls to do the correct thing and go for it with his left.     

If he had dithered and tried to get it on his right foot - the chance would have gone.   So his decision making is good - and he has talent.   So give him a chance - he may prove to be more than just an occasional goal scorer.   We need someone to challenge for the second striker role - Kane could be that person.

[AJ 1,221]

Hughton''s words in the press did concern me a little. But it''s clear we aren''t scoring enough goals, I''m pretty sure the striker debate is being strongly scrutinized ahead of January

[Mr Jenkins 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]People are quick to dismiss players when they haven''t had a chance to show what they can do.   We''re quite happy to loan out players for experience - why shouldn''t we be happy to accept Kane?   He has only had a cameo role so far - and is being judged on one miss.   A miss that was important - but came before he had found his feet at Norwich.   However - that chance came to him on his wrong foot but he had the balls to do the correct thing and go for it with his left.     

If he had dithered and tried to get it on his right foot - the chance would have gone.   So his decision making is good - and he has talent.   So give him a chance - he may prove to be more than just an occasional goal scorer.   We need someone to challenge for the second striker role - Kane could be that person.

[/quote]

Here here! We should give the young man a chance.

[gorlestongirl 0]

Whenever someone criticises, (as they have a right to do of course,) the Club''s decision to take a promising youngster from a ''big'' club, I allow myself to think about Fraser Forster at Charlton away.

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

I was pleased with the Kane signing when it happened and I am still happy about it, even after the injury. BYG is spot on about the value of loans. Though I prefer loans with the potential for a permanent signing, Kane does add another option without costing one of the 25 squad places. I think CH will look to bring in another striker, with Chris Martin going out on loan again in January.