Not a fan of short term fixes but to be honest with you we need a striker in that January window, over the summer though we need to seriously make an investment in the striking department.
I think it'd be a decent loan personally - thought when I saw he was looking for a loan that mr Chris might fancy him from their time together - would hope he knows enough about his game to get the best from him...like bassong, who looks back to his newcastle form... never been my favourite player but he's always scored goals - not sure you lose that. Just ask Jamie cureton.
In answer to your first question, Yes it does, read my original post. 'He wasn't considered good enough for any of the Prem teams or one of them would have signed him', so he's gone to the States to play sub standard football for money! (A mercenary is essentially motivated by money, the term mercenary usually carries negative connotations). So we drop Grant Holt to accomodate a short term loan who has no commitment to our club? He's better than Holty??????? Not in my opinion he isn't! No I don't want him or anyone like him at my club, we pride ourselves on being a team, not a club where players come and go for money, that will certainly bugger up morale! Superman I disagree with you on this, it hasn't happened for a while, but I stand by what I've said.
But he wouldn't be coming for money would he? He'd come to play at a higher level than where he's currently playing during his teams offseason. He won't be making anymore money by signing on a short term loan, he'd make the same amount as he would if he had a normal preseason in Los Angeles, instead of playing in England.
Well I guess he would be moonlighting technically. I assume he is still under contract to LA Galaxy but they will give him permission to come and play for us. So whatever we pay him will be a bonus for him. We definitely need something in the goalscoring department. While we are on a high at the moment because of our good form, we are still the lowest scoring team in the division. I wouldn't expect us to create too many chances against the top teams but against the middle and lower, we should and have, create enough chances. Unfortunately, the system that is standing us in good stead, doesn't allow for two up front, so Keane wouldn't be a starter even if he arrived. But I think he would give us that difference after an hour or when the game turns against us. Until Kane gets back from injury, I'm not sure Morison and JAckson offer much of an alternative to Holt. And if he gets injured or suspended, then we might just struggle.
I'm afraid I can't really see why anyone would have a problem with signing someone of Keane's undoubted pedigree if the deal suits everyone, it's an absolute no brainer to me
seems very simple to me as well, if it doesn't break the wage structure, which it wouldn't and therefore not an issue for the other players to get pissed off about, fits it and scores some goals: As those meercats say, simples!
if he does well then great, if he doesn't then its cost us two months wages. if he scores 3 in 6 like he did at villa last year it could be the difference between staying up or going down. as we all keep saying, if it fits in the wage structure, its a great deal, especially baring in mind our current top scorer has 3 in 12! it's irrelevant if you're wondering where he'd fit in. you could say that about any potential new signing at the moment...
No it's not, he's only going to be here for 2 months, potential new signings will be permernant and will have to fight for their place. You really want to throw 80 grand a month at something like this??? We are all in agreement that Chris Hughton is getting it right, 6 games unbeaten 3 clean sheets, why would you want to disrupt that? Beckham is available as well you know,
for the last time, i and everyone else is saying IF HE FITS IN THE WAGE STRUCTURE. if a better player becomes available then we should try and get him, even if it is only for a couple of months. impact signings like that have done much bigger clubs than ourselves wonders. everton with donovan; united with larsson etc. robbie keane is a very talented footballer who is far from being past it. he would improve our squad even if it is only for a couple of months, but a couple of months is about a 6th of a premier league season. if he were to deliver goals, and he's delivered goals wherever he has been, it would be a good signing. it really is a complete no-brainer as munky said earlier.
Of course its relevant. Part of this discussion has been about how well we are doing adopting the current system. If you think Keane is a direct replacement for Holt then I have to disagree. I know Keane is a hard worker but he wouldn't be Holt. I gave Holt some stick pre season for the fall out. I didn't even think he could play on his own up front. But ever since we've been playing the new style he has IMO been our best player. He kept the whole United back four busy on Saturday, He made Ferdinand look a mug with his nous and physicality. And he ran and ran and ran. While Ruddy got MOM and Hoolahoops got the plaudits, Holt, IMO, was the reason those guys got the parise. We have been discussing how we are going to score more goals. And we probably do need help. But maybe the help should come from the rest of the team. Howson's howler for example. I've already said I am all for Keane to come but I only see him helping out.
You really think I'm having at pop at CH? Of course not. But do you really think Macca is going to allow him to sign on anybody. I don't think so or else we will end up like QPR. But luckily we don't have a poser for majority shareholder.
so if van persie was available in our wage structure and wanted to come to norwich, would you sign him because he doesn't really fit into our system? (stupid example i know) robbie keane has played up front on his own for his country at world cups before - i'm 100% sure he'd be a fantastic impact sub at the very least. i think he's being rather underrated by one or two and i'm not sure why. i can only assume its cos he plays in the states. to be honest, even if he is our top earner for two months, his quality is enough to make that worthwhile. it would only be a temporary arrangement. its not like the club are going to be in financial trouble because of a two-month loan deal. comparisons to qpr are extreme in the least - we are nothing like them (thank god). if he didn't deliver the goods then it would be deemed a failure but no long-term damage is done. if a better option is available in january, a permanent signing, then we should go for that, but if not then its a great idea.
The "stupid" example was fine. I'm sure if RVP did sign for us, we would change our style and maybe try to build a franchise around him. However, IMO, I don't believe Keane is as good for NCFC as Grant Holt is. And we wouldn't be aiming to build around him. I believe or recent success has been because of Holt's ability to play up on his own. To see Ferdinand on his arse so much Saturday was one of the season's highlights for me.
impact, impact, impact! that is the word i keep using! 2 months for goodness sake. we are not trying to replace grant holt with robbie keane - it would be to give holty a hand. i maintain that a few people haven't given keane the respect he deserves as an all-round player. he is a seriously talented footballer. i find it amazing that people wouldn't want a very good premier league striker at our club, especially given all the clamour for a new one in january (when prices escalate and we could get a top one on loan). i don't even know why we are discussing it anyway - i simply cannot see it happening!
Calm down, So what would you expect his wage demand to be? at £20k a week, it's £80k a month, for 2 months thats £160k, if, and it's a bloody big IF, he scores a couple, is £80k a goal worth it?? But what if he doesn't score or gets injured in the first game, is £160k still worth it. My opinion is NO and I don't want him here. Yours is different, we won't agree on this, so in a week when we should be happy enjoying our sucess, I won't continue to argue with you I'm off to see if I can find out what "SWITHING" is??!?!?!?!?
Have to agree with the last post - a lot of arguing over something that has very little chance of happening. I don't know how close seaon loans from the States would work - I presume that he is under contract to his club and that we would have to pay either a proportion of his wages or all of his wages plus a fee? Either way I can't see it happening although personally I think he would be an excellent addition if only for a short time.
For those banging on about dropping Holt or changing the system, what about the other option? What if Holt were injured?? I know we've got Morisson and Jackson but come on.....
That is the point. Injured or suspended, we would be up the crek without Holt in our system. Morison is IMO a good Championship striker and Jackson somewhere in limbo between the divisions. But Holt has the nous, he's worked out the ****e prima donnas at the back and is keeping our style glued together.
If it is a choice between Holt and Keane I'd take Holt If it is a choice between getting a decent striker in January or Keane I'd take the new striker However if it is a choice between Holt being required for all of our matches over the winter with only our existing options to cover him or bringing in Keane or AN Other loanee then I'd take Keane. Yes it may cost a bit and be a gamble but if his presence allows Holt not to be run into the ground on heavy pitches all winter leaving him something in the tank for the run-in then I think that it is a risk worth taking.
