£5.5 million up front is very different from £3.5 million up front + £2 million based on whatever. If DM has rejected the latter, it is probably because he wants something closer to the former -- quite rightly. After all, he has to find the money for a replacement.
I am bored ****less of all this Holt stuff now, not even paying much attention to it. Dragged on way too long and just damaging his reputation the more it drags on. Next #9 and captain please?
According to 'The Moose' who is TalkSport's resident West Ham fan, their move for Holt has come to a terminal conclusion.
Whilst I agree that ideally we need to get shot of Holt asap, I also think that the longer this takes, the harder McNally is screwing the potential buyer for every last possible penny. I get the impression this whole episode seems to have left McNally with a sour taste in his mouth, and I have absolutely no doubt that he's currently negotiating the absolute best possible deal he can - Especially as Holt is contracted to the club for two years, and his agent has been a right sh1t, I'm sure McNally is pressing so hard that not a cent goes back to Lee Payne in agents fee's and that we get as much of what West Ham want to pay upfront as possible. Why should Lee Payne get any commission from the fee for this, as far as I'm concerned if he and Holt want the move so much then Holt can pay him a fee from the excess earnings he'll get from the move. I like Holt and I think he could have gone down in Norwich history as an absolute legend (he will still be regarded highly), but someone needs to shift the power from the players back to the clubs, and I think McNally is just the man to do that.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11709/7835118/Holt-set-for-Hughton-talks Bit more publicity for his agent. He must be loving it
he's becoming a pain in the arse. i'll get my coat. seriously though, Holt should talk to Hughton before he burns all his bridges.
Tipsy- I think this is good news. I know they're only reading into one line, and it's not really any more than we suspected, but the point is that the Holt situation is not irretrievable. This confirms that. We now know for certain that Holt won't just be sold without Hughton having a good, independent (from the original parties to the argument) chat about his future. McNally's right- whatever fee we get for him, Holt's virtually irreplaceable, just simply as a talisman. If Hughton can get a happy Holt before August, that will be worth more than any new signing.
haha! It is about the most sensible thing he has said, not that it has much competition! Clearly it makes sense for all parties involved to not make any decisions until after talks with CH. May already be too late for Holt though.
I agree it is good news, although it can be hard to know if their 1 line quote is out of context. In my opinion it is good, more because it gives CH the choice of persuading Holt to stay or letting him go if he doesn't think he is worth it. He may want to make a fresh start with a new side that does not involve Holt but at least he has the option. It would however suggest that if Holt really did want to stay he may have one last chance. Only time will tell
I totally agree with this, and hope that Holt stays. But what everyone seems to be overlooking is that, in my opinion at least, we have a ready made talisman-in-waiting already at the club, in James Vaughan. Yes, he is always injured, but if he can stay fit from now on then why not? He's clearly a good player, has a work rate to match Holt's, is 7 years younger and isn't trying to force a departure from the club. By all means, let's try and keep Holt if we can, but if he does leave I truly believe that it'll be James Vaughan who fills his shoes more than any other player. However, for now at least, we ****ing love Grant Holt.
Hope that holt stays personally, as for James Vaughan filling his shoes cant see that happening.Having watched him play a couple of times he was ok but not a striker to hit double figures, although i would like to be proved wrong
i think vaughan is a terrific striker, better than holt anyway. potentially england class. the problem he's got is his injury record is just awful. i'd love for him to get a whole season under his belt but its impossible not to have doubts.
If it were me I would sit Holt down, tell him he is going nowhere for 2 years whether he likes it or not and that if he wants to train with the youth team and play in the reserves then so be it. If however he wants to get his head down and prove his worth then a contact extension may be discussed in January or next Summer dependant on form. He is a lower league striker who has had ONE good season in the prem so far. I'd want a few more guarantees before giving him more than he is getting now. Holt would then have a choice, tow the line or his career is finished. **** the money, the principle is more important.
Kenny that would be great. I think that would work perfectly if it could be done, really stamp authority and Holt would have no choice. The trouble is Holt (and his agent) know that Norwich don't want to do the equivalent of burning 800 odd grand in wages and the £3m-5m transfer fee they could get for him. Norwich just can't afford to do that, when it amounts to losing Holt and we could invest that money somewhere else. Would love to see it happen though. I thought Man City dealt with the Tevez situation very well actually- they essentially did that, and he ended up having to toe the line (and win them the league).
excellent post kenny. however, i think if he is as unhappy as he comes across then the club gets far more benefit from selling him at an inflated price.
It wouldn't come to that with Holt though. I dont think he is that kind of guy. I still think we should call his bluff. He is OUR player, not the other way round. I would rather lose the 6m+ and send a message out to the football world that we WILL keep our best players if we want to. If you sign a contract with Norwich then you WILL honour it unless the club decides otherwise. Lets say for instance that Holt wanted to stay but Norwich wanted to sell him, if he wanted he could refuse a move and remain. Surely that has to swing both ways?
In the short term I agree, but long term, we would send out a message that the board are strong and that we will not be held to ransom by players, other clubs or agents. This could be of huge financial benefit in the future.
