Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
WesHoolahansDefendant

Nathan Redmond

Recommended Posts

[quote user="GrantsMoustache"]Good Morty, I''m glad you think we need to reinvest a healthy proportion of all net transfer revenue. I agree. Leave it at that. [/quote]See, if you actually read peoples posts properly, you can avoid these misunderstandings.[:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That other player being Josh Murphy in the bigger scheme of things is certainly not the end of the world and he too will cause problems at this level for many defenders. Plus who''s to say that the club don''t bring in another player should we lose Redmond.....perhaps a player who is closer to the finished article, and who has a higher success rate on his crossing and shooting...and as such ends up contributing as much or more than Redmond. That all said......of course the only way the club will allow him to leave should be for a fee....in the region of what Morty suggests...9 or 10 million, with a significant sell-on clause too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''d still much prefer we got to see what Redmond could do in the Championship.Is one thing not looking quite ready for the Premier League, in a struggling team short of confidence who don''t play tactics which get the best out of attacking players, and another playing in one of the strongest teams in the division under a manager who wants us to play fast paced attacking football.Redmond would seem to fit what Adams wants to do perfectly, he wants to play fast paced attacking football, and Redmond is a fast paced attacking player..... I doubt Redmond is going anywhere unless we get a silly offer, must surely be one of the players that Adams wants to keep hold of the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Wiz"]No, because when you support City you soon realise that any good contents soon get flogged off for a quick profit.[/quote]How many players have been sold off for a quick profit in the last five years Wiz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is GM people misunderstand what market value means. People say ''I want £10m for Redmond'' and think that means we''re getting £10,000,000 deposited into a bank account. Whilst it is plausible that a transfer for Redmond could eventually take that sort of value, I promise you in terms of how the market works it is delusional to expect any more than £6m up front and even that is pushing it.

Here''s a likely deal for Redmond.

£4m up front.

+ £2m if player plays in 25 games.

+ sell on clause of around 20-25%

The £14m Borini deal will be similarly structured, but rise to that amount from an up front fee of around £5m.

So we haven''t actually got £8m for Snodgrass and we certainly won''t get £10m for Redmond.

The market is a myth, even Snoddy was overpriced at a deal worth £8m, Redmond certainly is at £10m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="GrantsMoustache"]I think we need to be bringing in a new face for every one that we lose now. Everybody saying that we have an abundance of wingers but pretty sure there was a period last season where we had one fit winger and had to use Hoolahan out wide.Josh Murphy has graduated and fills the hole in the squad that Snodgrass has left.  So if Redmond leaves, we need a winger. That Gary Mackay-Steven that somebody suggested looks decent.Neil Adams said that if anybody left we''d replace them with ''better'' players, which is a ridiculous comment really, because we aren''t going to be able to replace Redmond, Fer, or Ruddy with a ''better'' player.[/quote]

 

Nail on head. [Y]

[/quote]More like he has a nail gunned into his head . . . . . could someone please link to an article/interview where Adams is quoted as saying he will bring ''better'' players in. So far all I have read is that they are prepared and have targets should players leave, that they will try to bring in to replace them.And that, my dear friends is football. If you don''t like it, there is always tennis, golf or darts where you don''t have to worry about the transfer season . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]The thing is GM people misunderstand what market value means. People say ''I want £10m for Redmond'' and think that means we''re getting £10,000,000 deposited into a bank account. Whilst it is plausible that a transfer for Redmond could eventually take that sort of value, I promise you in terms of how the market works it is delusional to expect any more than £6m up front and even that is pushing it.

Here''s a likely deal for Redmond.

£4m up front.

+ £2m if player plays in 25 games.

+ sell on clause of around 20-25%

The £14m Borini deal will be similarly structured, but rise to that amount from an up front fee of around £5m.

So we haven''t actually got £8m for Snodgrass and we certainly won''t get £10m for Redmond.

The market is a myth, even Snoddy was overpriced at a deal worth £8m, Redmond certainly is at £10m[/quote]I believe that Snodgrass was in the region of £7million plus add-ons that could raise to £8million. If that is the case, you''d have to point towards it being a bloody good bit of business at the end of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="Yelloow Since 72"]I think Morty''s right that it depends on the state of your ''glass''. Sadly Wiz doesn''t even seem to have a glass, never mind any contents![/quote]

 

No, because when you support City you soon realise that any good contents soon get flogged off for a quick profit.

[/quote]

Erm. Support Wiz? Where is yours? Turned up to any games to Support or just glance at illegal streams? If you can support your team, that would make some of your posts at least credible!!!

Any - over the past five years where is this"flogged off for a quick profit" you mention? Only Snodgrass has been sold for profit over recent years. At least get your bl00dy facts right before making stuff up!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Pitchforks and Torches"]where is this"flogged off for a quick profit" you mention? Only Snodgrass has been sold for profit over recent years.[/quote]We had two years service from him so hardly a "quick profit" P&T.We also made a profit on Holt but after four years, not quick either.Same old Wizard, if you can''t find something to run the club down with, make something up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing for me is that a lot of this talk will depend on the tactics that NA is looking to utilise this season.

If we''re thinking a one up top with three behind quite narrow, I''m hoping to see more of Redmond in the hole and Bennett on the right. I would expect this to look like this.

Lafferty

Hoolahan Redmond Bennett

If that''s going to be what we''re aiming to use fairly regularly, we have the option of Grabban in just behind Lafferty, Hoolahan behind him with Murphy on the left and Benno on the right, Fer or Howson in the hole with Hoolahan and Murphy either side etc. A lot of permutations around that formation with personnel.

If we were looking at the diamond I think that it would be a similar option of players in the hole, but the winger options are more limited to Bennett, both Murhpys, Redmond, and potentially Olsson.

Any formation around players being utilised wider I think plays into our hands of upping our price. He''s incredibly valuable to us and we don''t have to or want to sell, and he''ll be an integral part of the squad.

If we''re playing more centrally then we still need to spend the money to replace, but we do have more players (I think) that can cover there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Wiz"]No, because when you support City you soon realise that any good contents soon get flogged off for a quick profit.[/quote]

How many players have been sold off for a quick profit in the last five years Wiz?






[/quote]

 

Fair point Lappin.[:$]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Pitchforks and Torches"]where is this"flogged off for a quick profit" you mention? Only Snodgrass has been sold for profit over recent years.[/quote]

We had two years service from him so hardly a "quick profit" P&T.

We also made a profit on Holt but after four years, not quick either.

Same old Wizard, if you can''t find something to run the club down with, make something up.
[/quote]

 

 But I would chuck back at you how many times in the last 5 years have we been relegated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Pitchforks and Torches"]where is this"flogged off for a quick profit" you mention? Only Snodgrass has been sold for profit over recent years.[/quote]We had two years service from him so hardly a "quick profit" P&T.We also made a profit on Holt but after four years, not quick either.Same old Wizard, if you can''t find something to run the club down with, make something up. [/quote]

 

 But I would chuck back at you how many times in the last 5 years have we been relegated?

[/quote]Once, with two promotions.Your point was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"][quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Pitchforks and Torches"]where is this"flogged off for a quick profit" you mention? Only Snodgrass has been sold for profit over recent years.[/quote]

We had two years service from him so hardly a "quick profit" P&T.

We also made a profit on Holt but after four years, not quick either.

Same old Wizard, if you can''t find something to run the club down with, make something up.
[/quote]

 

 But I would chuck back at you how many times in the last 5 years have we been relegated?

[/quote]

Once, with two promotions.

Your point was?
[/quote]

 

Did I ask you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Wiz"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Pitchforks and Torches"]where is this"flogged off for a quick profit" you mention? Only Snodgrass has been sold for profit over recent years.[/quote]We had two years service from him so hardly a "quick profit" P&T.We also made a profit on Holt but after four years, not quick either.Same old Wizard, if you can''t find something to run the club down with, make something up. [/quote]

 

 But I would chuck back at you how many times in the last 5 years have we been relegated?

[/quote]Once, with two promotions.Your point was?[/quote]

 

Did I ask you?

[/quote]Oh sorry, I thought this was a discussion forum.Anyhoo, getting back to your point, Norwich City were relegated to league one on the 3rd May 2009. We have since had two promotions and one relegation.Happy to help[Y]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another for Wiz and his misinformation. Coming from that CarrowRoad.net joke of a site as a headline:

 

"I rekon that will be another player leaving Carrow Road, as the club seem hell bent on making a profit and not spending anything.    Debt Free and profit Making   with the old mentality back of being Little old Norwich,  a championship Club"

 

Again myself and others will again ask, what about the last 5 years? CarrowRoad.net - making stuff up since 2000. We have got more players in this close season than those going out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree that we should keep Redmond & it would seem less likely that his head will be turned than someone like Fer.

My worry given the seemingly low transfer fees being touted around for some of our lads, especially in comparison to other club''s players, is potential release clauses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Any - over the past five years where is this"flogged off for a quick profit" you mention? Only Snodgrass has been sold for profit over recent years"

Not supporting Wiz''s argument at all, because he''s an idiot and just wrong.

But we also sold Cody McDonald, Sammy Clingan, Andrew Crofts and Grant Holt for more than we signed them - if we consider only transfer fees.

Of course, we should only consider the overall net transfer spend, and can''t remember the last time we spent less than we received on transfer fees. This summer may be the first for some time, but if the club needs some money then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But everything we are being told says we don''t need money! That''s exactly the point. If we start selling players like Redmond for 6 million, a pittance in today''s terms, then some serious questions need to be asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote] user="Flecky''s Flip-Flop"]But everything we are being told says we don''t need money! That''s exactly the point. If we start selling players like Redmond for 6 million, a pittance in today''s terms, then some serious questions need to be asked.[/quote]

I think I missed the report where we sold Redmond for £6M, anyone got a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very good COTW.

Your hypothetical deal structure highlights the reality. A club in need of cash (say Sporting LIsbon) might well be far better off in the short (and indeed long) term taking £8.5m up front for someone, than £14m in caveat clauses which are often illusory. It can suit both parties to state the headline figure, justifying the sale / exciting the masses to the new messiah, which can be verging on meaningless if much is never paid, plus the revenue returns on the sale can be structured in such a way that a high headline sale does not actually inject (any) short term funding boost.

As for Redmond, some of you are denying what your eyes tell you:

Redmond has weapons and value, though he has limitations. His potential is high, with his pace and direct running, though his end product returns are low.

Tactically - at a higher level - he is a liability playing in wide areas, as his structural positioning is poor. He displays a tic upon receiving the ball - often in ideal areas for him - whereby he delays for half a second before accelerating. This strange habit has either not be spotted of not been coached out of him. Either way it is to the massive detriment of a key party of his game. It is possible that this is the product of the brain delaying before evaluating the options, or almost a freeze moment at the excitement of the awaited opportunity.

Technically his shooting style is imperfect and he is not a clean striker of the ball, something else coaches need to address.

Pace is a priceless asset in the 2nd tier and he would be a great weapon there, but we to now have pace from the murphys, grabban and both full backs if Olsson stays and bennett plays in that position (a key role well suited to him if employing the diamond).

Given the above -and given that we haven''t get addressed the coaching issues that will impede the realisation of redmond''s potential - then a fast return upwards of £6m cash plus conditions, would represent a good return.

If we are going to give our own youth a chance, then that chance must inevitably come (slightly) before they are ready. Murphy must play games. The equation is therefore "Norwich - Redmond + £6.5m cash + Murphy + Murphy''s potential after 25 games played"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, top stuff as usual Parma, that''s no lip service, pleasure to read something educated on here.

Do you lend any credence to my theory (unnecessarily worrisome though it may be) that a fair bit of what Adams is doing is emulation of the stratagem of a Paul Lambert - i.e reverting to a diamond, bringing in a determined and bullish target man (Lafferty / Holt) as well as a pacy striker to attack the space behind the defensive line (Grabban / Jackson)

As it worked for Lambert before him it could work again, but I just worry that Adams is operating in this way in lieu of his own ideas. That said, he will no doubt want to utilise his golden boy (Josh Murphy) - and rightly so, the lad has potential...as long as he doesn''t play him up front as he tried with Redmond at the end of last season!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You''re right COTW, but conversely you don''t need to worry. Much of what Lambert did was thoroughly successful, particularly at a lower level, so replicating it is thoroughly logical. Neil is a bright enough and single-minded enough to go his own way - sometimes with more than a soupcon of Northern "I says what I likes and I likes what I says" - whilst being pragmatic and confident enough to copy, borrow and steal the good ideas of others. The Lambert years affected us all -and they did Neil too - so if there is some comfort in the stands and some cheap and good PR points scored in returning to some of it, in a tine of healing and necessary renaissance, then that is good management. As for the effect on grass, in the massively limited tactical sphere of English football, the diamond addresses a number of structural issues that infect English players brought up on the rigid lines, squares and lack of fluidity in the way 442 has been developed in England. Players in England have a fixed idea of the roles in this system and are slotted into them from a young age. Certain attributes are often attributed to - and selected for - certain 442 roles in English football. That this this far removed from the Italian football and Dutch way that I and many others were schooled in hardly needs stating.

The benefit of employing the diamond in the Norwich context is thus twofold: one, we can all go misty eyed at the lambert years and get excited at their return, simply by association with the magical properties of the diamond (good enough for the 2D among us). Two, the diamond enforces fluidity on English players that they wouldn''t necessarily otherwise do / be capable of / be receptive of. Full backs must often make a four or a five in midfield. The deep point must slot between centre backs as they split to make a three. The front point is a pivot and has freedom to drop deep or go beyond. The two side points must be disciplined and tuck inside ensuring a three in midfield (any England side take note, games are lost with a two in this key area), the front two can in theory play as a pair (weak teams), a split pair with a fixed target nine or even with a forward who likes to drive wide allowing for a pacier (similar) player driving forward and wide from the top point.

The coaching minded among you will (rightly) argue that there is no logical reason why all these things cannot be achieved with 442.

The answer to that - in English football - is to be found writ large in the dreadful work of Charles Hughes, the class system, education and our friend Freud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you are referring Sigmund and not Clement there Parma. Overall I like your analysis with one or two exceptions, which are just a matter of personal taste. I will be very surprised if Adams uses the diamond even frequently. He is experimenting in our few friendlies and seems prepared to utilise different formations even within the course of a match. His approach is much more fluid than his predecessor which bides well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...