As much as I would like to see Snodgrass come to City, there would not be a cat in hell's chance of an exchange for Grant Holt - the guy is a talisman for the club in the same mold as Iwan Roberts was some years ago. With the goals he clearly is capable of scoring in the PL (and so many said he could not raise to the level!) City would be stupid to even contemplate letting him go. I reckon he has at least another season in the top flight in him, possibly a bit more.
i wouldn't accept that deal. Snoddy is far too good to let go for a deal like that. I like Holt and i think that type of player we are missing (By the way Becchio does not equal Holt. Hoilt is a far far better player and always has been, he can actually link up with other players and direct his headers towards people as well as score goals, far better player imo) but the deal still wouldn't benefit us, snoddy is not a player that can be replaced with 3m, we rely on him so heavily
Becchio assists per game last season: 0.26 Holt assists per game last season: 0.31 Id est, Becchio set up a goal once every four games, Holt did it once every three. Not a huge difference in terms of how many goals they provided. So Josh, did Becchio acquire this assists tally by fluke or did the ball just bounce off his clumsy, lumbering body into the path of more fortunate players? [nsfw]Also Becchio's hit rate was 0.55gpg whereas Holt's was 0.48, but that's not important to this discussion.[/nsfw]
haha, i dont care about stats. Becchio is not as good as Holt. There was many players who scored less than Becchio last year and probably got less assists that i prefer to Becchio. I think he is rather clumsy and his overall game is not good enough
You also though Keogh was our best striker so I don't think I'm going to agree with anything you have to say about forwards. Becchio's not the most elegant player in the world but he gets the job done and gives everything for the team, he's the kind of player defences hate playing against.
All round Holt is better than Beccio - However I like Beccio and when fit is a handfull for any defence... 3 mil and Holt for Snodds is a good deal as i said earlier as long as that 3 mil was spent in the right places and thats where it would go sour as Bates would keep the dosh.
I still think it would be an awful deal when we already have Becchio, whether you think Holt is better or not. £3m would never buy a replacement as good as Snoddy.
simple.... why even discuss something that should not happen! SOONER FLOG McCORMACK AND TAKE BECKFORD BACK ON LOAN! Use McCormack cash for a decent CB
And then when Beckford's gone for a season...? That's no way to build a team. Exactly what we've done with Gradel. Sell him, buy Pugh and bring in Townsend on loan. On reflection, we should have kept him. We make enough money not to need to sell players to get a transfer fund. It's just that Bates does wasteful things with that money.
and what about the small old problem of gradel wanting to leave.... Keeping him wasn't an option and if we forced him to stay we would have had an unhappy player who is only here for a season (effectively a loan deal) that then goes on a free.
as leeds are a feeder club then if a premiership team shows an interest then papa will be interested no matter what you think. Its the same if any of the big teams come sniffing around our players then we would be interested.....
Whatever we get on selling players goes to BATES not the club so don,t think for one moment the money will be given to SG to strenghten the team
We wouldn't have got more than 1mil -1.5mil for beckford though. Its always a tough decision but i'd prefer to get rid of a player that doesnt want to be at the club (bearing in mind beckford pulled back his transfer request and decided he didnt want to leave in that january season) and also beckford was not the same player the second half of that seaso, if he was anywhere near where he was beforehand we woulda won promotion way before that (also i dont think that gradel is as god as beckford but thats another argument for another time)
We only just got more than that for Gradel. Was it reinvested? Was it ****. All we've spent was the Kasper money. The Gradel money won't even fully arrive till 2013 anyway, Bates has said as much himself. It was a ridiculous transfer which hardly gave us any return realistically. Well if we'd kept Gradel like we did with Beckford, we might have got him to rescind his transfer request. But we didn't even try. Worst of all, we could have stopped the problem at the root by offering him a decent contract like he said he wanted. He wanted to stay, let's not bat about the bush, it's just that he wanted too much and then decided he wanted to go back to France after the club failed to even offer him an extension. He still won us promotion, and Gradel would have got us into the playoffs if we'd kept him. He had a couple of poor games, but still looked more threatening than anything we've had this season bar Snodgrass and McCormack. Again, Gradel said he wanted to stay at Leeds before suddenly having a change of heart when the club didn't offer him a contract. Wonder why that was. If we'd kept him, he'd still have been happy with the team, just not with the Chairman. And that hardly affects your playing ability. Keeping Gradel was an option, and it would have worked out.
I wouldnt want to swap holt for snod. personally id get a striker on loan for a month, giving becchio a spell on the bench to get himself sorted out and properly fit- which he should already be but clearly isnt
Fact is if we had given Gradel a new contract to consider he might have signed it then if after some negotiations he had signed an improved offer the interest from France would not have materialised.
