I believe he refused to take a penalty in a play off final shoot out that they lost , which didn't go down well in Sheffield
All this talk about Bennett, Martin and Rhodes. All decent servants in their day - but let's look forwards, not back.
So by that logic, we keep Krul and ditch everyone over the age of 23? Or at 32 is Krul too old as well? Because by definition, a squad full of players who over the course of a season have shown they can't score goals, create chances, or prevent goals sufficiently well to avoid relegation have proven they cannot make it in the top league. None of our senior players shone, except arguably Pukki in the first few months of the season. Whilst we want to build for the Premier League, we still need to get out of the Championship first. There's no point signing players for a 21/22 Premier League campaign if it leaves us with a squad who can't get us there. Our squad has desperately lacked experience and nous at times this season, and the Championship is a long slog. There's definitely room in the squad for signing players who may be more content with a support role within the squad, who are inexpensive, can step in when injuries require it, and add experience - that's exactly how I see Rhodes and Bennett. Neither improve our first team, but both mean we can spend more money on a younger first team option who might have what it takes to step up to the Premier League. We appear to have a healthy transfer budget this summer, but it won't be the largest in the league. I can't find the quotes now, but I believe Webber has spoken about going beyond his own transfer record at Norwich (£3.5m for Hanley) but that we're unlikely to trouble the fees paid for Wolfswinkel, Naismith and Klose (£8-10m). So if we want to spend larger sums on a few select additions for the first team, the rest of the squad might need rounding out with smarter purchases. I'd be horrified if we replace Godfrey with Bennett and that's the only change to our defence. If Godfrey leaves, we absolutely need a top replacement. But given the injury records of our other CBs, five first team options for next season doesn't seem like a terrible idea, especially with Bennett comfortable in a 3 CB system. And if Godfrey's young replacement turns out to be another Marcel Franke, then we have players to step in. It also allows the likes of Famewo to go out on loan and gain experience. Bennett would be risk mitigation. Up front, is Idah ready to push Pukki for the role of first choice striker? I hope so, but don't know. I'd absolutely like to see an exciting striker of a good age to push Pukki join. That would give us great options. But we aren't going to be able to sign a striker with a stronger Championship pedigree than Pukki*, so we're going to be looking overseas, and that comes with risk (see Drmic!). If we can replace Drmic with Rhodes, there's probably a financial saving there and we gain a player who isn't going to kick up a fuss if he's restricted to 5 minutes at the end of every other game. And if Pukki never finds form, Idah can't cope with the Championship (or we prefer to loan him out to get maximum game time), and the new signing is Drmic 2.0, then at least in Rhodes we have a striker who I'd back to score 10+ goals in 40 games next season. Rhodes wouldn't be an exciting signing, he wouldn't be a long term solution, but he'd help balance the risk of spending big money on strikers from overseas. As ever, if the club are even interested in these players, we don't know how they fit into the squad picture. Bennett might be a cheap, less-injured replacement for Klose. I'm sure we're going to make some exciting additions this summer, and arguably we already have, but that doesn't mean the only way to improve our prospects for next season and beyond is to sign young players we think can step up. *Last season, 11 players scored more than 15 league goals in the Championship. 3 won promotion, 3 play for Brentford, Grabban is 32, Ayew is 30, Wells is 30, leaving Karlan Grant (for whom Huddersfield have rejected a £15m bid) and Adam Armstrong of Blackburn. So maybe one Championship proven striker of an age where he could step up, who might be available within budget, although there's apparently Premier Legaue interest in him. Going back to the 18/19 Championship season, and there are only two strikers who scored 15 goals or more who aren't now playing in the Premier League - Pukki and Grabban.
For me it seemed as if Pukki was desperate to get Finland to qualify for a major tournament, he was immense for them . After he achieved that, he appeared to lose the hunger and sharpness in games and with very little service he fizzled out . If he stays I could see him getting over 20 goals for us again.
Yes, this season will be a test for him and all of the other players who stay on. Hopefully the new players will give a 'young and hungry' lift as well. Sørensen should strengthen the spine as well as getting the ball forward more quickly. Placheta and Sinani may take longer to settle in, but watching their YouTube videos again, I sense they coul make a big difference over the season. Time will tell.
Good point DD. It must have been a huge disappointment to him when the Euros were postponed. Hopefully he can have a fresh start this season building towards next summer.
https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/10-free-agents-canaries-could-target-this-summer-1-6780794 I'm pretty sure Stoger has been mentioned in connection with NCFC before.
Pretty disappointing reading comments from Liverpool fans criticising us for not bending over and taking the £10m offered for Lewis. We don't need to sell and obviously Lewis would love the chance to join them but if they don't come close to the £20m then they won't sign him.
"We paid £8.5m for Robertson, why on earth would his understudy be worth more than that?" Might be a contender for the most moronic comment I've read.
All clubs deal in players; not all clubs set out deliberately to be dealers in players, i.e. to make a football "living" by trading in players. To pursue the commercial analogy, under Webber we have set up to strip the playing assets of other clubs, acquiring what we identify as under-valued assets to sell at a profit later. This takes "treating players as assets" to a different level; all professional clubs treat players as assets, measuring their worth by their performance value to the team and their monetary (transfer) value. But value to clubs isn't the only value involved in this process, there is also the question of value to the player. It would be nice to think that anything that benefits Norwich City in this process necessarily also benefits the players involved. But there is no necessity there at all. It is perfectly possible for a player to be bought and sold at a profit to the club but to the overall detriment of the player. This makes me uncomfortable when I hear people saying: "Oh well, it didn't work out, it was always a long shot but still worth the punt; after all, we bought him for £x and sold him for £x+y." Shouldn't we also ask how it looks on the balance sheet of the player's career? I posted about Raggett because he seemed to me an example of a player who might well have been better off if we'd shown no interest in him. His signing (complete with loan back to Lincoln City), had all the hallmarks of a "buy to sell" deal. Would we have "taken a punt" on him if our sole aim was to strengthen our Championship squad? I doubt it. For all DH cites examples of non-league players proving successful in the Championship, of those four, only Jamie Vardy made the jump (in his case to the top tier) without lower league experience first (Holty at Rochdale, Deeney at Walsall, Austin at Swindon Town). There are no doubt others, but that's not really the point. Had our scouts identified Raggett as a potential Norwich City first team player, or had they identified him as a cheap asset on which to turn a profit? To be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't engage in "buy to sell". What I'm saying is that, in doing so, we need to guard against burnishing the club's balance sheet at the player's expense. It is too easy to say "He was given a chance and wasn't able to take it". There are many degrees between a faint chance and near certainty.
I would rather have the cash, Rick. £5m for a make-weight, unproven young player is a lot in my book. As you say, we'll have to trust SW. There's no risk in keeping Lewis.
Really don't get what you're on about. Most of the power now days is in the hands of the players. The players pay plenty of money to agents to look after their interests. Most players don't give a toss about the club they play for only what the club can do for them. The club's responsibility is to look after the club. I get the feeling that because the club has been punching well above its weight in the area of developing young players, whilst making money you can't find a negative so are trying to invent something.
DHCanary: good link I had just read it before I spotted your post. Pretty comprehensive list and may be a pointer as to where we may be looking. Chris Martin to Luton seems like a long shot.
Realistically, this is a negotiation CS. Liverpool have made a first offer of £10m plus sell on fees. SW has talked tough and said we want £20m. The likelihood is that it will end up somewhere in between. It's uncertain whether Larouci would be prepared to come to us on a permanent deal but that might provide flexibility. If Liverpool get Lewis, losing Larouci (who's in the last year of his contract) is not a problem for them, but it could be advantageous for us. I doubt Liverpool will pay £20m, but a deal including Larouci and £15m would be the equivalent of at least £18m and maybe more if SW really does rate Larouci above Lewis. Lots of ifs, but I'm only guessing, like everybody else outside the actual negotiation.
