Why we still need Holt

[Houston Canary 0]

And the problem with selling him now is that there is every reason to believe his contribution to the club will continue to be worth more than the price quoted. He has done nothing to indicate otherwise.

Why is he suddenly not worth keeping? Every season since we rose from League 1, naysayers have been having a go at Holt saying he''s not good enough for the next season and every year these so-called fans have been proven not just wrong but completely so.

[Juggy 0]

Even if McNally and Hughton decided that the time is right for Holt to leave this club, I would rather it be for £400k to Melbourne Victory than £4m to a team hoping to finish 17th next season.

[William Darby 0]

IMO It''s not as simple as whether he good enough, (which he probably is anyway as it stands today). It''s about Hughton''s opinion on whether he can find an upgrade after weighing up wages and transfer fees.

[Juggy 0]

We need a fourth striker even if Holt stays, so Hughton would in fact need to find two strikers.

I''d argue that rather than spending our entire transfer budget on three new strikers, we should save some for other areas of the team, like a centre midfielder, and a left back, and a centre back, maybe a left winger, and the third goalkeeper that we will likely sign.

RVW, Becchio, Holt + One Other. There is absolutely no need for Holt to leave.

[Icecream Snow 761]

Depends really on how many strikers Hughton is planning on bringing in.I can''t help but feel that holding McNally at gunpoint to get that extra year is going to backfire on him.

[William Darby 0]

All I''m saying is you can''t say that for certain. Hughton might think differently.

[6088m canary 0]

Absolutely. Only proven striker (in PL) that we have!

Also, i´ve been thinking about Toivonen. Granted he is younger and perhaps plays slightly deeper than Holt (though it´s a role im sure GH could play) is he really that much better? I for one think that GH would get into the current Swedish first XI as he is easily as good as Elmander. People have already mentioned K.Davis in this thread and GH has a similar value to us as he did to Bolton. I would be amazed if we let GH go this summer, unless of course he himself wanted the move.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="TheNewBoy"]Even if McNally and Hughton decided that the time is right for Holt to leave this club, I would rather it be for £400k to Melbourne Victory than £4m to a team hoping to finish 17th next season.[/quote]

I assume you are talking about £4 million to Wigan Newboy ? They were relegated to the Championship .[:$]

[Houston Canary 0]

Yes Til, but they don''t want to get relegated to League 1.

[Juggy 0]

Actually was thinking about Palace, got the numbers mixed up. Still, £2m to Palace even worse.

Can''t see Dave Whelan spending £4m on a 32 year old, can you? They seldom spent that sort of money on 25 year olds in the Premier League.

[William Darby 0]

Possibly, a bit of muscle who can get around 20 goals in the Champs. It''d go a long way for a promotion push.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="TheNewBoy"]We need a fourth striker even if Holt stays, so Hughton would in fact need to find two strikers.

I''d argue that rather than spending our entire transfer budget on three new strikers, we should save some for other areas of the team, like a centre midfielder, and a left back, and a centre back, maybe a left winger, and the third goalkeeper that we will likely sign.

RVW, Becchio, Holt + One Other. There is absolutely no need for Holt to leave.[/quote]

1) How many posters agree with TheNewBoy and Highland, to name but two, that we need four strikers in the squad? Fantastic. Unanimity!2) How many posters believe (bearing in mind McNally''s "We are always looking to upgrade") that of the four at least three need to be of obvious Premier League quality, with at most one there to make up the numbers. Unanimity again!3) How many posters believe Becchio is truly a PL quality player , let alone be a starting striker? No, quite.4) How many posters genuinely believe Holt still has in it him to be a PL starting striker at least until January and possibly throughout next season? Some hands have gone up, but not a majority.5) How many posters believe we can have Becchio and Holt making up half the squad''s strike force, particularly when one of the other one-fourths (RVW)  is a player new to English football, and the fourth one-fourth (Toivonen or someone else) might  be as well?

 

[Juggy 0]

What matters is what Hughton thinks, and we shall find out in due course. What doesn''t matter is what you think, or what I think. That''s reality. I''d be willing to stick a fiver on Holt being here until at least January, would probably be willing to stick a fiver on Holt being here next summer. So perhaps the only relevant question that I have for Purple is:

1) When do you think Holt will leave this club?

[Norfolk Mustard 94]

Hardly a surprise there''s a bit of speculation at Hull...

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Hull-City-transfer-talk-June-30-Grant-Holt/story-19435929-detail/story.html#axzz2XhsESg2V

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="TheNewBoy"]Even if Holt became a bit part player next season, scored 4 or 5 off the bench, and then got allowed to leave for £0 next summer to Carlisle or Australia, turning down £4m would have been worth it.... That''s 4 or 5 goals closer to another £60m next summer. It is short-termist to think about £4m now when the goal has to be £60m next summer.

What''s the bigger risk? Leaving the team short of the goals necessary to secure £60m next summer, or risking £4m on Grant Holt?[/quote]And the key factor you''ve missed out of your little equation is that the suggested £4m (your words not mine) would be going on/towards purchasing a new striker to replace Holt, who may themselves easily score 4-5 goals (if not more) whilst improving our overall team for the future.Holt gives us a relatively good short term option (assuming he can perform to the level we''ve come to know from him, and not how he was for many games last season), but one with no re-sale value and highly likely diminishing returns, whereas selling him for a good price and investing in a new striker could easily see us right for far longer and give us an asset worth something in a year or so''s time...

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="TheNewBoy"]What matters is what Hughton thinks, and we shall find out in due course. What doesn''t matter is what you think, or what I think. That''s reality. I''d be willing to stick a fiver on Holt being here until at least January, would probably be willing to stick a fiver on Holt being here next summer. So perhaps the only relevant question that I have for Purple is:

1) When do you think Holt will leave this club?[/quote]

 

I have no idea, because I have no idea what our transfer budget is, no idea what Hughton thinks of Holt for next season, no idea who new might come in, no idea who else might leave etc etc etc.I am happy with Holt staying, as the fourth striker in our squad. I am not happy with the idea that he would be third in the pecking order, with Becchio as fourth. I would also, though, definitely take £3m-£4m for Holt (I doubt that is on offer but if it were...) because that would buy us most or all of a younger model.It all depends on the circumstances.

[Juggy 0]

I respect your right to an opinion which differs from mine, but I''d be interested to hear your list of ''younger Holt models'', can''t help but feel that people are being a bit unrealistic.

Hooper for £5m would look like a decent enough deal, but he is a completely different player to Holt and certainly not a replacement.

Can''t think of any off the shelf target men to be honest. Admittedly my knowledge of overseas football is limited, but I''d like to think that Becchio and Holt give us the option of play two up front this season.

I think a much bigger factor than transfer budget is Hughton''s tactical aspirations. If 4-4-2 is in his mind at all then I assert that we need four strikers with two of them preferably being physical players capable of winning the ball in the air and holding the ball up.

We were never likely to be able to sign Andy Carroll, and that''s what you pay for a younger model of Holt. There can''t be too many big physical strikers around because AC Milan were desperate for Andy Carroll.

Steven Fletcher would do, but look what money he went for. You are suggesting that we allow a striker to depart without any ideas whatsoever in respect of who we would replace him with.

I still assert that this is a year too early to lose Holt. Next summer we get another £60m, will hopefully not be in such desperate need of midfielders, and can think about signing another big name striker.

I really think that we need to think about strengthening our midfield, if we don''t do that then there is no point in signing any additional strikers.

[Juggy 0]

I do understand why people are looking to the future RE: Holt, but there are numerous weaknesses in our team which need to be addressed.

People should be more concerned at the moment about us signing a left back to compete with Garrido, a left winger to compete with Pilkington, and a centre midfielder who can dictate tempo and spray passes about. An upgrade on David Fox would be ideal.

Several areas that we need to think about strengthening. Van Wolfswinkel, Hooper, Holt, and Becchio would be a very strong front four.

As for Becchio, can''t help but feel that writing him off so quickly is in any way fair. He is an obvious upgrade on Morison and deserves a chance.

[Juggy 0]

Newcastle didn''t flog Shearer at 32 to get a few million before his legs went, instead that got a couple more OK seasons out of him and let me retire when his legs went. We should squeeze another season out of Holt and then let him go to Carlisle for free.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="TheNewBoy"]I respect your right to an opinion which differs from mine, but I''d be interested to hear your list of ''younger Holt models'', can''t help but feel that people are being a bit unrealistic.

Hooper for £5m would look like a decent enough deal, but he is a completely different player to Holt and certainly not a replacement.

Can''t think of any off the shelf target men to be honest. Admittedly my knowledge of overseas football is limited, but I''d like to think that Becchio and Holt give us the option of play two up front this season.

I think a much bigger factor than transfer budget is Hughton''s tactical aspirations. If 4-4-2 is in his mind at all then I assert that we need four strikers with two of them preferably being physical players capable of winning the ball in the air and holding the ball up.

We were never likely to be able to sign Andy Carroll, and that''s what you pay for a younger model of Holt. There can''t be too many big physical strikers around because AC Milan were desperate for Andy Carroll.

Steven Fletcher would do, but look what money he went for. You are suggesting that we allow a striker to depart without any ideas whatsoever in respect of who we would replace him with.

I still assert that this is a year too early to lose Holt. Next summer we get another £60m, will hopefully not be in such desperate need of midfielders, and can think about signing another big name striker.

I really think that we need to think about strengthening our midfield, if we don''t do that then there is no point in signing any additional strikers.[/quote]

 

No I am not. I would only argue for Holt going if the replacement was a younger model, at least as good as Holt in his prime and better than Holt is likely to be next season. Toivonen played as a striker fits that bill, and so do dozens of other players in world football we could afford and who might want to play for us. As to your view that Becchio is an obvious upgrade on Morison, I am not sure that many posters would agree.

 

[Juggy 0]

So what you are basically saying PurpleCanary is that if and when we sign another striker, you will then make a judgement as to whether keeping Holt is worth it?

Well I''m happy to go along with that, but it would take a very impressive signing to make me think "Holt isn''t going to get a game".

As for Becchio, he showed in one touch against West Brom that he is capable of things that Morison never has been and never will be.

[Juggy 0]

Becchio has started two games for us, is it really unfair for somebody to say that he deserves a chance?

Sorry but if people can''t see that Becchio is an upgrade on Morison then they need their heads checked. How long did Morison last at Leeds? Enough said.

[Redders Right Foot 22]

I think someone who makes a comment like that needs their heads checked, TNB.

Morro was a signing made by Colin, if a new manager comes in and he gets sent out on loan, it isn''t necessarily his fault.

[Juggy 0]

Clearly you don''t have any kind of grasp of the feelings that Leeds fans have towards Morison then.

[morty 0]

[quote user="TheNewBoy"]Clearly you don''t have any kind of grasp of the feelings that Leeds fans have towards Morison then.[/quote]

Did they not rate him then?I thought he was doing okay, and any bitterness was more likely about the loss of Becchio, rather than be about Morison.

[Redders Right Foot 22]

I do actually, and it was split 50/50.

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

Not sure I want to get into this particular wrangle, but I have a slightly different view on Holt. A younger version might offer something more, but I doubt that he''d offer the leadership and inspiration that Holt does. If Toivenon signs (and that is a big if), he has the capability of playing AM or striker, and that for me would provide enough for the fourth striker option. I''d prefer that City sign someone like Fer to further strengthen the spine of the team and a wide player with pace, another LB/WB before looking for another striker.

[Jacko 0]

The reason we still need Grant Holt is pretty simple. We have signed one striker this summer at present. Van Wolfswinkel looks a high calibre player but who knows how he will take to the Premiership and life in England. What happens if he gets injured for a while. We need alternatives and strength in depth. At present the rumours about Toivenan are just that - rumours. Last season Norwich won 10 of the 28 Premier League games Holt started (35.7%), whilst winning none of the 10 matches he didn''t start. I would accept Becchio had a bit of a raw deal last season but it shows we have no proven alternatives if Holt goes. It would be absolute madness to allow him to leave. That is before we even try to quantify his influence and leadership qualities.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="TheNewBoy"]So what you are basically saying PurpleCanary is that if and when we sign another striker, you will then make a judgement as to whether keeping Holt is worth it?

Well I''m happy to go along with that, but it would take a very impressive signing to make me think "Holt isn''t going to get a game".

As for Becchio, he showed in one touch against West Brom that he is capable of things that Morison never has been and never will be.[/quote]

 

Well, yes. I would have thought that was the obvious position to take. Only an idiot would at this point advocate selling Holt, without knowing (or having a good idea of) who the new replacement striker(s) was/were. But equally only an idiot would at this point say Holt should definitely be kept on, for the same reason.