Newton 0 Posted June 6, 2014 I know its only paper talk but The Scotsman are claiming the following :-CELTIC could be set to land a six-figure sum should Gary Hooper leave Norwich this Summer. The striker, who has made it clear he wants to go elsewhere, is a target for QPR and Aston Villa. The Scottish Champions would receive a cut of the £8 miilion transfer fee that the frontman is expected to fetch, due a to 10% sell on fee clause inserted by Celtic as part of the £5.5million switch from Parkhead to Carrow Road last summer. Hooper had hoped that playing in the English Premiership would help push him into Roy Hodgson’s World cup plans, however Norwich’s relegation has scuppered his chances, leaving the striker frustrated. Norwich have denied that Hooper has handed in a transfer request. Would u sell Hooper for £8M ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Bates 9 Posted June 6, 2014 To make 1.7million from him in 1 season would be crazy. Of course we would sell.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZLF 274 Posted June 6, 2014 Depends who we got in as a replacement. I would rather he stayed (as with all our squad) £8m seems a fair price (although not if you compare it to Jordan Rhodes) and if he does not want to be here, as the rumours suggest, than that would be a good return. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted June 6, 2014 Aston Villa do not have £8m to spend on a player, until they sort out a new owner Lambert is only allowed to bring in players on loan or free transfers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kangaroo Court 0 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="Michael Bates"]To make 1.7million from him in 1 season would be crazy. Of course we would sell..[/quote]Sell and buy who to replace him? Blackburn want £14 million for Rhodes. No sense for us to sell a proven Championship striker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
littleyellowbirdie 2,549 Posted June 6, 2014 Yawn. Ain''t selling. Next. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="Kangaroo Court"][quote user="Michael Bates"]To make 1.7million from him in 1 season would be crazy. Of course we would sell..[/quote]Sell and buy who to replace him? Blackburn want £14 million for Rhodes. No sense for us to sell a proven Championship striker.[/quote] They can want £50m for him, they aren''t going to get it. Blackburn need to sell and get players off their wage bill or they will fall foul of the Financial Fair Play rules and face a hefty fine. Rhodes will end up leaving for a fraction of £14m, but it all depends on which Prem club blink first and make a move for him - Blackburn pretty much have to sell by the end of the summer window. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
havemyhowsonit 0 Posted June 6, 2014 Let him go for 8 million they can have rvw as an add to Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted June 6, 2014 I''d imagine a lot of our players are in the same boat. They would like premiership football, but know they have a price and any attempts to play hardball and risk rotting in our reserves could be massively damaging for their careers.Therefore until we get acceptable money from a top flight team, they will be happy enough to stay and prove (market themselves) that they are worth the decent money and good enough to step back up to the premiership.What we risk is them staying, proving they aren''t very good and then have them burning a hole in our pockets for a couple more years whilst not being very good.The best outcome for both of us would be Hooper firing us back to the premiership but if both don''t believe in that, £8m deal to take him instantly back suits us both, much less than that and we might as well tell the bidders to do one.Snodgrass may be a slight exception as he has only a year left so we risk him going for nothing.If £8m comes in for Hooper then fair play to him and the board. In the right side, if he can score about 10 prem goals he''d be worth that, it''s a fine line between a £2m striker and a £10m one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="Kangaroo Court"][quote user="Michael Bates"]To make 1.7million from him in 1 season would be crazy. Of course we would sell..[/quote]Sell and buy who to replace him? Blackburn want £14 million for Rhodes. No sense for us to sell a proven Championship striker.[/quote] They can want £50m for him, they aren''t going to get it. Blackburn need to sell and get players off their wage bill or they will fall foul of the Financial Fair Play rules and face a hefty fine. Rhodes will end up leaving for a fraction of £14m, but it all depends on which Prem club blink first and make a move for him - Blackburn pretty much have to sell by the end of the summer window.[/quote]So are we a ticking time bomb for that then? If we fail to go up this season do we have a big firesell/ cull of all our top earners? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary fun and games 0 Posted June 6, 2014 I would bit your hand off for 8 million for him. Use the money to buy Rhodes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
littleyellowbirdie 2,549 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="Jimmy Smith"]I''d imagine a lot of our players are in the same boat. They would like premiership football, but know they have a price and any attempts to play hardball and risk rotting in our reserves could be massively damaging for their careers.Therefore until we get acceptable money from a top flight team, they will be happy enough to stay and prove (market themselves) that they are worth the decent money and good enough to step back up to the premiership.What we risk is them staying, proving they aren''t very good and then have them burning a hole in our pockets for a couple more years whilst not being very good.The best outcome for both of us would be Hooper firing us back to the premiership but if both don''t believe in that, £8m deal to take him instantly back suits us both, much less than that and we might as well tell the bidders to do one.Snodgrass may be a slight exception as he has only a year left so we risk him going for nothing.If £8m comes in for Hooper then fair play to him and the board. In the right side, if he can score about 10 prem goals he''d be worth that, it''s a fine line between a £2m striker and a £10m one.[/quote]Risking Snodgrass going for nothing is worth it in my opinion. He''s a massive player for us whatever the naysayers say and risking a few million quid to get back into a league that will be worth about £100m a year to us by next season is a good gamble for what he adds. If Adams and co deliver the goods this season he might even decide to stay. He''s never showed any signs of being unhappy here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy_Bones 441 Posted June 6, 2014 Hooper is a decent player, but that would be a great profit on a player after just a season, and for that sort of money I think we can get someone who can do a similar job for us at half the price.8 million you say? - SOLD! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,558 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="Kangaroo Court"][quote user="Michael Bates"]To make 1.7million from him in 1 season would be crazy. Of course we would sell..[/quote]Sell and buy who to replace him? Blackburn want £14 million for Rhodes. No sense for us to sell a proven Championship striker.[/quote] They can want £50m for him, they aren''t going to get it. Blackburn need to sell and get players off their wage bill or they will fall foul of the Financial Fair Play rules and face a hefty fine. Rhodes will end up leaving for a fraction of £14m, but it all depends on which Prem club blink first and make a move for him - Blackburn pretty much have to sell by the end of the summer window.[/quote]Bethnal, I would be interested in your view of how the various FFPs are working so far. My superficial impression, which may be wrong, is that two out of the three are taking it seriously.Picking a heavy-hitter in Dehaene always looked as if Uefa''s version was going to be applied with some force, and that seems to have been the case. Coming down hard on two very high-profile clubs in Man City and PSG sends a message to the rest. Platini''s choice of replacement for Dehaene will be interesting.And the Football League version also seems to be having an effect, as you indicate with Blackburn, and with the QPR fine, although I see the latest Deloitte''s report says too many clubs have still been paying too much in wages, in an effort to reach the Premier League.Too early to say with the Premier League version? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted June 6, 2014 I don''t think he would leave if we got back to the Prem, agreed. It''s also worth thinking that we''d lose a bit of any potential fee to tax and buying a replacement, so say he was quoted at leaving for £3m or staying, we''d save maybe £10k tops on having a replacements wages instead but maybe only £1m of the fee if the replacement cost £1m (£1m on tax, signing on fees etc).In that respect I think we might as well keep him and give ourselves the best possible chance of promotion unless there is some ridiculous money offered for him or we get to January and are nowhere near. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted June 6, 2014 no it would be crazy to sell someone who is going to score the majority of goals for us Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syteanric 1 Posted June 6, 2014 I''m interested to know where he has "made it clear" he wants to leave?Their ''source'' must be John Ruddy''s best mates, sisters, cats, vets, daughters boss who once drove past Carrow road in the car so knows...! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="Kangaroo Court"][quote user="Michael Bates"]To make 1.7million from him in 1 season would be crazy. Of course we would sell..[/quote] Sell and buy who to replace him? Blackburn want £14 million for Rhodes. No sense for us to sell a proven Championship striker.[/quote] They can want £50m for him, they aren''t going to get it. Blackburn need to sell and get players off their wage bill or they will fall foul of the Financial Fair Play rules and face a hefty fine. Rhodes will end up leaving for a fraction of £14m, but it all depends on which Prem club blink first and make a move for him - Blackburn pretty much have to sell by the end of the summer window.[/quote]Bethnal, I would be interested in your view of how the various FFPs are working so far. My superficial impression, which may be wrong, is that two out of the three are taking it seriously.Picking a heavy-hitter in Dehaene always looked as if Uefa''s version was going to be applied with some force, and that seems to have been the case. Coming down hard on two very high-profile clubs in Man City and PSG sends a message to the rest. Platini''s choice of replacement for Dehaene will be interesting.And the Football League version also seems to be having an effect, as you indicate with Blackburn, and with the QPR fine, although I see the latest Deloitte''s report says too many clubs have still been paying too much in wages, in an effort to reach the Premier League.Too early to say with the Premier League version?[/quote] I would agree with most of that - very early days but the effects are being seen. Chelsea couldn''t bring in a striker last season for fear of breaching to the European rules - which also stopped Man City spending big on a new defender. Also, Chelsea selling Luiz is with one eye firmly on the rules and allows them a bit of flexibility in the market. Reducing the maximum squad size is a very clever punishment and is something that no amount of money will get clubs around. The Premier League one is a the most watered down of all the rules and so its affects are harder to notice. The most obvious results so far are as a result of the limiting how much clubs can increase their wage budgets per season - this really hampered West Ham last season after they blew their budget on Carroll. The Football League is something I know less about, how much QPR are fined will be interesting to see, but there are certainly many clubs mentioning how they are limited in their dealings by the rules (how much of this is chairmen finding a good excuse to not spend their own money is hard to know. The Football League certainly seem to be taking it more seriously than the Premier League and it is certainly something that every club has to take into consideration. It might still be a couple of seasons before its affects are really seen, but the dramatic thining of the Blackburn squad - 16 released and 6 on the transfer list - shows that it''s doing something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,558 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="Kangaroo Court"][quote user="Michael Bates"]To make 1.7million from him in 1 season would be crazy. Of course we would sell..[/quote] Sell and buy who to replace him? Blackburn want £14 million for Rhodes. No sense for us to sell a proven Championship striker.[/quote] They can want £50m for him, they aren''t going to get it. Blackburn need to sell and get players off their wage bill or they will fall foul of the Financial Fair Play rules and face a hefty fine. Rhodes will end up leaving for a fraction of £14m, but it all depends on which Prem club blink first and make a move for him - Blackburn pretty much have to sell by the end of the summer window.[/quote]Bethnal, I would be interested in your view of how the various FFPs are working so far. My superficial impression, which may be wrong, is that two out of the three are taking it seriously.Picking a heavy-hitter in Dehaene always looked as if Uefa''s version was going to be applied with some force, and that seems to have been the case. Coming down hard on two very high-profile clubs in Man City and PSG sends a message to the rest. Platini''s choice of replacement for Dehaene will be interesting.And the Football League version also seems to be having an effect, as you indicate with Blackburn, and with the QPR fine, although I see the latest Deloitte''s report says too many clubs have still been paying too much in wages, in an effort to reach the Premier League.Too early to say with the Premier League version?[/quote] I would agree with most of that - very early days but the effects are being seen. Chelsea couldn''t bring in a striker last season for fear of breaching to the European rules - which also stopped Man City spending big on a new defender. Also, Chelsea selling Luiz is with one eye firmly on the rules and allows them a bit of flexibility in the market. Reducing the maximum squad size is a very clever punishment and is something that no amount of money will get clubs around. The Premier League one is a the most watered down of all the rules and so its affects are harder to notice. The most obvious results so far are as a result of the limiting how much clubs can increase their wage budgets per season - this really hampered West Ham last season after they blew their budget on Carroll. The Football League is something I know less about, how much QPR are fined will be interesting to see, but there are certainly many clubs mentioning how they are limited in their dealings by the rules (how much of this is chairmen finding a good excuse to not spend their own money is hard to know. The Football League certainly seem to be taking it more seriously than the Premier League and it is certainly something that every club has to take into consideration. It might still be a couple of seasons before its affects are really seen, but the dramatic thining of the Blackburn squad - 16 released and 6 on the transfer list - shows that it''s doing something.[/quote]Thanks, Bethnal. Let''s hope we don''t have to worry about the Football League FFP for more than one season... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted June 6, 2014 " It might still be a couple of seasons before its affects are really seen, but the dramatic thining of the Blackburn squad - 16 released and 6 on the transfer list - shows that it''s doing something " most likely connected to the reduction in their parachute payments(we will get £7m less next season) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="City1st"]" It might still be a couple of seasons before its affects are really seen, but the dramatic thining of the Blackburn squad - 16 released and 6 on the transfer list - shows that it''s doing something " most likely connected to the reduction in their parachute payments(we will get £7m less next season)[/quote] Indeed, it is hard to tell what is due to lack of funds and what is due to fear of punishment from the Football League, the two are completely intertwined. The club have stated they need to work hard to stay within the rules, although they would probably also have to thin out without the rules due to a dramatic reduction in income, but as many clubs have shown on many occassions, Premier League ambition has often push common financial sense to the side - you have told us this many times in your repeated rants about Ipswich. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GJP 79 Posted June 6, 2014 £8m for Hooper? Fine by me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cornish sam 953 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="Kangaroo Court"][quote user="Michael Bates"]To make 1.7million from him in 1 season would be crazy. Of course we would sell..[/quote] Sell and buy who to replace him? Blackburn want £14 million for Rhodes. No sense for us to sell a proven Championship striker.[/quote] They can want £50m for him, they aren''t going to get it. Blackburn need to sell and get players off their wage bill or they will fall foul of the Financial Fair Play rules and face a hefty fine. Rhodes will end up leaving for a fraction of £14m, but it all depends on which Prem club blink first and make a move for him - Blackburn pretty much have to sell by the end of the summer window.[/quote]Bethnal, I would be interested in your view of how the various FFPs are working so far. My superficial impression, which may be wrong, is that two out of the three are taking it seriously.Picking a heavy-hitter in Dehaene always looked as if Uefa''s version was going to be applied with some force, and that seems to have been the case. Coming down hard on two very high-profile clubs in Man City and PSG sends a message to the rest. Platini''s choice of replacement for Dehaene will be interesting.And the Football League version also seems to be having an effect, as you indicate with Blackburn, and with the QPR fine, although I see the latest Deloitte''s report says too many clubs have still been paying too much in wages, in an effort to reach the Premier League.Too early to say with the Premier League version?[/quote] I would agree with most of that - very early days but the effects are being seen. Chelsea couldn''t bring in a striker last season for fear of breaching to the European rules - which also stopped Man City spending big on a new defender. Also, Chelsea selling Luiz is with one eye firmly on the rules and allows them a bit of flexibility in the market. Reducing the maximum squad size is a very clever punishment and is something that no amount of money will get clubs around. The Premier League one is a the most watered down of all the rules and so its affects are harder to notice. The most obvious results so far are as a result of the limiting how much clubs can increase their wage budgets per season - this really hampered West Ham last season after they blew their budget on Carroll. The Football League is something I know less about, how much QPR are fined will be interesting to see, but there are certainly many clubs mentioning how they are limited in their dealings by the rules (how much of this is chairmen finding a good excuse to not spend their own money is hard to know. The Football League certainly seem to be taking it more seriously than the Premier League and it is certainly something that every club has to take into consideration. It might still be a couple of seasons before its affects are really seen, but the dramatic thining of the Blackburn squad - 16 released and 6 on the transfer list - shows that it''s doing something.[/quote] I think that even though the football league are trying to do a good job with their FFP rules there is one glaring problem with it and one (enforced) missed opportunity.The big flaw is the inability to pass the proposed transfer embargo on to a team should it get promoted into the premiership, this means that some teams will quite happily throw their owners vast resources at a shot to get promotion happy that no matter how large the fine, billy big pockets owner can afford it and anyway, they''re getting ten times more for their one year in the premiership. The only teams that it punishes are those that are actually struggling to make ends meet due to other situations and historical debt. In much the same way as the premiership FFP is going to cement the rich clubs getting richer and the smaller ones (at the time of FFP adoption) not being able to catch them, the same will be true in the football league, if you are only getting 5k fans through the gate due to your current position then you have a glass ceiling that you will never be able to break despite the fact that that would entice more fans and so enable you to increase your spending.... Which brings me on to the missed opportunity. I was originally phrasing this as another glaring problem, but it is definitely more of a missed opportunity, in that it doesn''t matter how much the promoted teams get fined (should they break FFP) it will be of no benefit to the teams that they have effectively cheated against as that money is going to be going to charities. Originally it was to be divided evenly between the cheated teams, but I believe this was (or was going to be) legally challenged and the only acceptable solution was the charity one. Had the money been split between the cheated opponents then it would have allowed debts to be cleared and nvestments to be made to allow the clubs grow a little bit more and also spread the love in a way that the premiership is severly opposed to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary001 0 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="GJP"]£8m for Hooper? Fine by me.[/quote]He will be our Jordan Rhodes and without Hooper our chances of promotion would lessen greatly .No good getting rid of quality if you cannot replace with better and we most certainly wont sign anybody better than Hooper. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="City1st"]" It might still be a couple of seasons before its affects are really seen, but the dramatic thining of the Blackburn squad - 16 released and 6 on the transfer list - shows that it''s doing something " most likely connected to the reduction in their parachute payments(we will get £7m less next season)[/quote] Indeed, it is hard to tell what is due to lack of funds and what is due to fear of punishment from the Football League, the two are completely intertwined. The club have stated they need to work hard to stay within the rules, although they would probably also have to thin out without the rules due to a dramatic reduction in income, but as many clubs have shown on many occassions, Premier League ambition has often push common financial sense to the side - you have told us this many times in your repeated rants about Ipswich.[/quote]oh dear, we are in a bit of a strop arenn''t weperhaps you shouldn''t read them if they upset you so muchmaybe best stick to your long winded and detailed posts which could never be described as rantsand maybe take the key out of your back whilst you are at it and lighten up a bit ............... it is the binners after all ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted June 6, 2014 Ha, being told to lighten up by you City 1st, the angriest man on this message board, is a wonderful treat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow Wal 314 Posted June 6, 2014 Indy_Bones wrote the following post at 06/06/2014 11:54 AM:Hooper is a decent player, but that would be a great profit on a player after just a season, and for that sort of money I think we can get someone who can do a similar job for us at half the price.8 million you say? - SOLD!^^^^^^^^^^^This Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cheap Cheap Cheap Canaries 0 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="Yellow Wall"]Indy_Bones wrote the following post at 06/06/2014 11:54 AM:Hooper is a decent player, but that would be a great profit on a player after just a season, and for that sort of money I think we can get someone who can do a similar job for us at half the price.8 million you say? - SOLD!^^^^^^^^^^^This[/quote]And replace him with who exactly ? Hooper is head and shoulders above the lad we signed yesterday . Blackburn want £14 million for Rhodes yet you would have us sell a player who will score just as many in this league for £8 million . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GJP 79 Posted June 6, 2014 [quote user="Cheap Cheap Canaries"] Hooper is head and shoulders above the lad we signed yesterday . [/quote]Well that doesn''t say much for Lewis Grabban. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland Canary 76 Posted June 6, 2014 It would be madness to let one of our two most important players, and the one who most likely will top our goals scored list, leave for £8m. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites