Are we Stoke in disguise?

[Mr Jenkins 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

Norwich had limited resouces in the summer, and are there any players Hughton brought in that you would have rather he didn''t, thus allowing further recruitment in attacking positions? Would you have been happy if someone like Bassong or Turner weren''t signed in order for a new striker to come in? It was clear where the priority was at the end of last season, and those problems were addressed. Unfortunately for a club like Norwich every area of the pitched can''t be improved upon at the sametime due to limited resources.

[/quote]

 

That is quite true, Bethnal. But it raises the question of what happened - or rather what didn''t happen - in the January transfer window. One would have needed to be on the inside to be sure, but based on confirmed bids (for Hooper) and very strong rumours of bids (for Curtis Davies) it seems that we made several million pounds available. Probably getting towards £10m.

But in effect spent none of it. Whether that much money was made available solely for Hooper (or van Wolfswinkel, who was quickly priced out of our spending limit) I don''t know, although it seems unlikely. Our interest in Davies looked genuine.

Certainly by the time January came around it had become obvious there were two serious gaps in the squad apart from up front. A third central defender to back up Turner and Bassong. And a lack of  quality in central midfield. It is hard to imagine there was no-one available who would have improved matters. Perhaps the argument was that we were so close to safety that it would be better to wait, and I understand that (although was there no loan deal that could have been done?). But if so that was taking an enormous risk, because relegation, although unlikely, is still possible, based on our results since the window shut. As ricardo said on February 1:

1. If we stay up McNally is a hero, 10 million quid saved for the summer.

2. If everything goes tits up it will be the biggest missed opportunity in NCFC history.

That is the gamble and in 3 months time we will know the answer.

[/quote]

it was a calculated risk, but that''s what it''s all about isn''t it, I have no doubt that the gamble will payoff and we will be better equipped to bid for players in the summer as a result.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="canarygirl"]

it was a calculated risk, but that''s what it''s all about isn''t it, I have no doubt that the gamble will payoff and we will be better equipped to bid for players in the summer as a result.[/quote]

 

I don''t think that is necessarily true at all. Indeed, I suspect the opposite. To repeat, one would have needed to be on the inside to be sure, but the way it panned out it looked very much as if we mishandled the window. Particularly in terms of trying to buy Hooper. A large amount of money was plainly made available and so presumably we were prepared to spend it, but we misjudged Celtic''s attitude until it was too late to switch to another target - either a different striker or, say, a classy midfielder.

In the sense that we didn''t then at the last moment panic-buy someone, yes it is possible that at that point we were calculating that we were likely to stay up anyway. But in terms of how we played the whole month I don''t believe we had decided right from the outset that we would just go with minor additions. I think we screwed up.

Bear in mind that on several occasions before January Bowkett/McNally stressed the absolute necessity of staying up, and how everything would be done to try to ensure that, and when you look at the huge income difference between what we will get in 2013/14 in the Premier League and the Championship you can understand why. And that income difference vastly outweighs the several million it seems we were prepared to spend (but didn''t) in January. And that made sense - spending some millions to increase the chances of earning many more millions.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Yes I think when it became evident that we would not get Hooper we took a calculated risk.I have no doubt that we wanted Hooper but when it became clear that Celtic were not going let him go, other than for presumably a stupid figure, we made a judgement. We had to consider what value we could get for our money in the summer, against the risk of going down if we didn''t sign him. I think we made the right decision. With regard the whole window, the fact that we failled to sign someone like Hooper when clearly we wanted this type of player must make our performance during the window an F.

[Ha ya got a loight boy? 0]

[quote user="canarygirl"]Yes I think when it became evident that we would not get Hooper we took a calculated risk.I have no doubt that we wanted Hooper but when it became clear that Celtic were not going let him go, other than for presumably a stupid figure, we made a judgement. We had to consider what value we could get for our money in the summer, against the risk of going down if we didn''t sign him. I think we made the right decision. With regard the whole window, the fact that we failled to sign someone like Hooper when clearly we wanted this type of player must make our performance during the window an F.[/quote]

Its all about intent.   By showing our intentions to spend we are sending out a message that we are out to stay in this division and progress.   It doesn''t matter we didn''t get Hooper or that we may not get him in the future.   It is raising the stakes.   if we stay in the division the message is there - we will want to be buying quality and are prepared to pay for it.  Calling the performance in the window an F is a little harsh imo.    Kamara and Becchio are quality additions to the squad and could well make the difference to the end of the season.  Kamara almost single handedly got us back into the Everton match.  3 points we wouldn''t have otherwise got.   So how does that equate to an F ?  

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Kamara is a great loan so far, long may it continue, but if our intention was to get a big money signing in then we failled.