Norwich bid for Ross McCormack

[jaemae2 0]

[quote user="ncfcstar"]EIGHT OR NINE MILLION?!!!I''ve heard it all now.He is no better than what we have.[/quote]

Seeing as we have Hooper and RvW, he''s HELL of a lot better than what we have. 80x better than Hooper and like 25x better than RvW

[BroadstairsR 2,184]

"Seeing as we have Hooper and RvW, he''s HELL of a lot better than what we have. 80x better than Hooper and like 25x better than RvW."

 

Wow! That''s some pretty precise analysis. What scale of achievement came up with those figure? 

[splutcho 173]

8 or 9 million. Haha.

[Newton 0]

Brought back my thread of a few weeks ago, as I was abused by most of the half wits on this board for suggesting we should pay £8/9M for McCormack.

Sky Sports are now reporting we are back in for him with Fulham at around £10M

All you twats who have not got a clue should go back to your other racy past time knitting

[William Darby 0]

do you really think we''d pay 10m for a player whilst in this league?

[BroadstairsR 2,184]

Whilst I feel it imperative that we use our current financial advantage to some effect, spending that much on a player considering our current status would be reckless.

 

Neither can I see it sensible to acquire yet another striker at the moment, unless something is definitely afoot with the likes of RVW or Hooper that we are being kept in the dark about. 

 

In the remotest of chances that we are seriously considering this player then I should imagine that Becchio will be part of the equation.

 

Otherwise it would seem that Leeds''s current interest in LB is brought about by the fact that McCormack is being sold to another club, probably Fulham. 

 

 

[mrs miggins 0]

let me guess; with becchio part of the deal?

[# 0]

[quote user="Newton"]Brought back my thread of a few weeks ago, as I was abused by most of the half wits on this board for suggesting we should pay £8/9M for McCormack. Sky Sports are now reporting we are back in for him with Fulham at around £10M All you twats who have not got a clue should go back to your other racy past time knitting[/quote]

 

Did they?..................when?

 

Damned if I or anyone on Waccoe could see it![:S]

[Herman 9,793]

Newton in ''full of sh!t'' shocker.

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

Ridiculous - there''s no way we would spend anything like that on a Championship player.

[chicken 0]

If we''re going to front £10million for anyone I would prefer it to be Rhodes if I am honest.Pretty basic head to head stats from Wiki(sometimes wrong)pedia:Age : Rhodes - 24, McCormac - 27.Rhodes 2012 - now has 51 goals in 89 appearances, prior to that he had a spell at Huddersfield 2009-12 where he scored 73 goals in 124 appearances.McCormac has been at Leeds since 2010 making 137 appearances scoring 53 goals. Prior to that he had a spell at Cardiff City from 2008-10 making 74 appearances and scoring 29 goals.Heights: Rhodes 6''1", McCormac 5''9".Position: Rhodes is a striker where McCormac has played as a striker and a winger.For me, due to being younger and probably still getting better Rhodes looks to be a better buy if we are looking for a striker.

[lharman7 39]

[quote user="Herman "]Newton in ''full of sh!t'' shocker.[/quote]

Newton in ''attention seeking'' shocker!

Lol

[Herman 9,793]

A bit of both methinks[:D]

 

How''s Perth by the way? Getting ridiculously expensive I hear.

[MancCanary 0]

So just because Fulham like to pay premiership fees for championship strikers, we should too? That tactic has gone really well for Fulham recently as well hasn''t it? The ink is barely dry on Mitrologu''s £10m signing, and now they''re going to spend the same again on a player who''s worth £5m tops.

Just because a stupid club is bidding £10m on a striker it doesn''t make him a genuine £10m striker.

[Newton 0]

we just signed there chief scout

[Katie Borkins 1]

Their.There, there.

[MancCanary 0]

That doesn''t suddenly mean we should spend most of our budget by paying twice what a player is worth.

PS, the scout doesn''t decide how much the club pays for players, he just recommends them.

[Newton 0]

No u right signing fulham chief scout who was responsible for there recent crap signings costing £25M does not mean he will sign crap players for us

Of course not silly me

[cornish sam 958]

[quote user="Newton"]No u right signing fulham chief scout who was responsible for there recent crap signings costing £25M does not mean he will sign crap players for us

Of course not silly me[/quote]

Will you please stop with this scout being responsible for Xmas amount spent on crap signings codswallop! The chief scout leads a team of scouts and goes with recommendations to the manager (or director of football or whatever). He doesn''t personally scout every player that is signed and he sure as hell doesn''t decide which recommendations to Persie and how much to pay for them. Shock horror, so metes managers and owners sign players regardless of whether or not the scouts have looked at them and what they think of them, for all we know the new owner fancied mitroglou, the chief scout said he''s pap but he signed him anyway as a signal of intent...

[cornish sam 958]

Bloody auto correct, "x amount" not Xmas... And what kind of filter replaces cr@p with ****, this ******* antiquated forum software...

[MancCanary 0]

Yes, silly you Newton.

You''ve given yourself an ambitious username there mate, as you seem a little way off Isaac in the brains dept. Perhaps you should hang about under apple trees? Maybe an apple on the head will allow you to understand this - the scout does not choose the price tag. Get it?

[Mr Angry 1,569]

Wow, Newton has finally taught me something-you can put twat in a post and it doesn''t get censored.

[Mr Angry 1,569]

Hmmm, mighty strange-his didn''t get censored, mine did!

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Mr Angry"]Hmmm, mighty strange-his didn''t get censored, mine did![/quote]it seems a bunch of twats is ok but one tw@t isn''t. [:D]

[lharman7 39]

[quote user="Herman "]

A bit of both methinks[:D]

 

How''s Perth by the way? Getting ridiculously expensive I hear.

[/quote]

Hey Herman, yes Perth is unfortunately very expensive now. We know of friends and other people actually moving back to the UK because of it.

We still have cheaper fuel but the cost of living and property prices have sky rocketed. I think it''s what generally happens when a state becomes a minning state as Western Australia is.

[# 0]

There is no way on earth  that we''ll pay that kind of money especially after our RVW experience.

[MancCanary 0]

You''re dead right there Wiz - We''re never going to spend even more money (£10m) on a player with even less pedigree than RVW did before we signed him. Just ridiculous.

I don''t get why QPR aren''t being linked with McCormack and Rhodes, if they''re so good? Why do they want Hooper?

Perhaps Hooper isn''t as bad as some would have us believe.. and perhaps McCormack and Rhodes aren''t quite up to hype.

[NCFCgardener 0]

Fulham agree £11m fee according to SkySports.... £11m!!!!!!

Always knew Leeds were dirty but this is daylight robbery! Crazy, crazy fee!

[Canary fun and games 0]

[quote user="NCFCgardener"]Fulham agree £11m fee according to SkySports.... £11m!!!!!!

Always knew Leeds were dirty but this is daylight robbery! Crazy, crazy fee![/quote]

And we go after a kid from coventry and don''t get him. Shows the difference in ambition!

[Herman 9,793]

Nothing to do with ambition.