Transfer thread Summer 2015

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Canary Rob said:
The one thing I don't understand is why everyone is rating Brady so highly. I'd only heard of him in passing as some youth player for Hull until we were linked to him. And no-one else is remotely interested in signing him based on what is publicly available.

By contrast Snodders was the best-value fantasy football player cos of all those goals and assists! ;)
Click to expand...

So you don't remember him scoring the winner against us a couple of years ago form the penalty spot?
 
Canary Rob said:
The one thing I don't understand is why everyone is rating Brady so highly. I'd only heard of him in passing as some youth player for Hull until we were linked to him. And no-one else is remotely interested in signing him based on what is publicly available.

By contrast Snodders was the best-value fantasy football player cos of all those goals and assists! ;)
Click to expand...
In two seasons and 67 games he scored the princely total of 12 goals Rob. "All those goals and assists" does smack of over egging the pudding. My abiding memory of him is as a rather selfish, albeit talented, member of our team.
 
Look I think you're overstating my opinion (albeit it's probably difficult to find buried in my lengthy posts above...)

All I'm saying is that given we paid c. £2.5m for Olsson in similar circumstances, I don't think Brady's worth all that much more than Olsson (comparing him with a completely different player like Snodders is slightly tricky). I gave a range of £2m-£5m earlier in the thread, and stick by that. It's pure guesswork by me, of course. All the reasons you've given for Brady are valid to show he's not some high risk player - he's clearly got quality. But we were debating whether Norwich's opening bid was derisory not on what a fair price for Brady is. So comparing him to Snodder's fee is apples and pears.

£2m for Brady, as I've said a number of times, is right at the bottom of negotiations. I very much doubt we expected Hull to accept it. But as a starting point, it was not derisory. It appears, by all accounts, to have been bang on market. And anyway, I would be utterly astonished if someone as professional as McNally wasn't giving instructions to his team to negotiate bang on market anyway.

Snodders' final fee was £6m (part unpaid...), not £8m (the total of £8m is close to what we might end up with if Snodders meets all the conditions). That I do know. I said £5m was the upper limit I would expect for Brady, so I don't think I'm saying Snodgrass was that much better than Brady. And as RER alludes to, I think we probably got a decent price for Snodders so it's not as if £6m was Hull's first bid for him. But we could have announced to the press whatever their first bid was and called it derisory. Only we didn't because they probably would have walked away.

You may think Snodgrass was a one-trick pony, I don't entirely disagree, but the fact was he was one of the top performing creative midfielders in both his seasons in the Prem with us in terms of chances, goals, assists, key balls, etc. That was despite his obvious shortcomings. He was very valuable. Brady's not at that level and while I don't disagree with any of your comments about him, you can hardly deny that the lack of any other interest in him is pertinent?

Airing your dirty linen in public is not sensible behaviour, but what I really don't like about Bruce is that what he's said is actually misleading. That's the problem. It's deliberately designed to wind up his own fans. If he'd given an honest statement about how negotiations went and what they were like, I'd have been more sympathetic but actually he's muddied the waters more than necessary. Either give us all the information or nothing. Otherwise we get to 73 pages on a football forum with none of us really being much the wiser.
 
Tony_Munky_Canary said:
So you don't remember him scoring the winner against us a couple of years ago form the penalty spot?
Click to expand...

<laugh> nope it didn't come to mind when the rumour first came up, though I was reminded subsequently in this thread. Tbh, I forget quite a few of the players who scored against us...

Tony_Munky_Canary said:
I'm actually comparing the Rob's valuations of each player
Click to expand...

Just explained that above. I think we're going round in circles now. Snodgrass was clearly valued by us and Hull around £6m, so that's not really my valuation... Although some people might recall that there were quite a lot of unhappy posters on here when the deal was announced as everyone seemed to think the Snodgrass was worth a lot more than that until it was pointed out that £4-6m was about fair given his contract. Interesting people are quick to do him down now!

We clearly valued (at lowest point) Brady around £2m (although actually more like £4.5m unless the supposed £6m bid has been confirmed). So again not really my valuation.
 
Canary Rob said:
<laugh> nope it didn't come to mind when the rumour first came up, though I was reminded subsequently in this thread. Tbh, I forget quite a few of the players who scored against us...



Just explained that above. I think we're going round in circles now. Snodgrass was clearly valued by us and Hull around £6m, so that's not really my valuation...

We clearly valued (at lowest point) Brady around £2m (although actually more like £4.5m unless the supposed £6m bid has been confirmed). So again not really my valuation.
Click to expand...

But your analysis of the valuations was that £2m for Brady was about his value and that £8m for Snodgrass was an "exceptional bargain", and this is what I disagree with <ok>

You and I going round in circles?? Surely not!!!! ;)
 
Tony_Munky_Canary said:
But your analysis of the valuations was that £2m for Brady was about his value and that £8m for Snodgrass was an "exceptional bargain", and this is what I disagree with <ok>

You and I going round in circles?? Surely not!!!! ;)
Click to expand...

<laugh>

Ah, ok. I obviously wasn't clear.

I didn't say £2m for Brady was his value. I said as a bid it was market. By which I mean that it was a fair (i.e. not derisory) starting point for negotiations based on comparables. Olsson being the perfect example - it's roughly what we paid for Olsson, so it's fair that we would bid about that as a starting point for negotiations. I do not believe that it was a fair value in what we would expect to pay for him, didn't mean to imply that and as I said I very much doubt that Norwich thought we would agree that price or that it represented Brady's "value". And that is why Bruce's comments were unnecessarily inflammatory. Not least given that saying we bid "£2m" doesn't actually tell us that much (even though that's how the papers report it), because the value of a transfer is much more than just the headline figure and who knows whether part of it might have included a write-down of the amount owed by Hull for Snodders... In which case all of a sudden our bid might have looked very generous but as Bruce would only be seeing £2m of it for the transfer kitty he thought it's ok to rile up Hull fans!

The point about Snodgrass being "exceptional value" was my fault for not being clear - the pertinent bit was the next bit in my sentence "because we recognised that he was in the final year of his contract" - i.e. the reason he was exceptional value was because he was in the final year of his contract (much like most of the players we have bought). Not that the price we received in all the circumstances was exceptional value for Hull. The price we got was around 1.5 times his asset valuation by all accounts, so Hull hardly got a complete bargain there, but certainly did not pay a massive premium for him. As I subsequently said, it was a fair, professional deal which suited all parties (until Snodders cocked it up for himself and Hull by dislocating his knee cap).

Hope that at least clarifies what I was trying to say.
 
goldeneadie said:
In two seasons and 67 games he scored the princely total of 12 goals Rob. "All those goals and assists" does smack of over egging the pudding. My abiding memory of him is as a rather selfish, albeit talented, member of our team.
Click to expand...

Discounting Snod's time in Scotland he has averaged 1 goal per five games both at domestic and international level. Brady (albeit over a shorter time period averages less than one in 10). I have not looked into the assists but I'd be prepared to bet dollars for doughnuts that he had a considerably better ratio in that department as well. When he left us he was our POTS, he had had two good seasons in the PL - his star was very much in the ascendant.

I don't doubt that Brady is a decent player and has a lot of potential BUT he did not contribute a huge amount to Hull last season relative to Snod in his last season with us. I totally get why Snod would have a higher transfer value than Brady. I also haven't noticed any other clubs lining up to gazump our "derisory" offers.

At the end of the day though it is a bit of a game of poker - how badly does AN want him? How much are Hull prepared to risk losing if he walks away on a free next season? If Bruce feels he is key to getting Hull back up again then he should hold out but if, as appears to be the case he is a decent but not key player then they may as well cash in, use the money to strengthen elsewhere and move on.

I'd be surprised if a £4-5m plus add-ons deal wasn't hammered out in the coming days.

I am now of the opinion that other than Brady (or a similar style LWB) we won't be getting anyone - I think RvW will be brought back into the fold until January at least and unless something breaks at centre back I can see us going with what we have if AN has sufficient faith in the squad he has inherited. It's not as if we've lost much "dead wood" in close season.

Anyway I'm sure messrs Neil and McNally know what they are doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canary Rob
Not really if I'm being honest <laugh>

You did say "Hull got an exceptional bargain for a player in his prime", and to be honest it might just be me, but I'm not sure what the second half of that sentence (that I haven't quoted, but you have above) really means in the context of Hull getting a "bargain", let alone an "exceptional" one.

More than happy to leave it there though, seriously! I know we have a history of falling out over silly things like semantics and I really don't want to be going down that road again <ok>
 
Yeah I think Norfolkbhoy you're spot on. People are very quick to deride ex-players. Snodders had lots of very obvious faults, but in many ways he was fantastic too.
 
RiverEndRick said:
We currently have a squad of 25 senior players (18 of whom have played in the PL) and 8 younger players. I disagree that our defense failed in the PL. We went down (narrowly) because we failed to score enough goals. I have no problems with Whittaker, Martin and Bassong starting against Palace. I can see that Olsson's injury is a short-term problem (given that he has gone out to Germany), but that's not insurmountable. I agree that it'd be desirable to have another senior option available at LB and another at CB by the time the squad returns from Germany, but it isn't make or break. I certainly don't want any 'panic buys' to cover short-term problems.
Click to expand...
We will have to agree to disagree on this one Rick as I cannot see that one RB, one LB ( apart from an untried youngster ) , a shortage of Premiership quality CB's and no specialist left sided midfielder are ' short term problems '
 
  • Like
Reactions: KIO
Canary Rob said:
Yeah I think Norfolkbhoy you're spot on. People are very quick to deride ex-players. Snodders had lots of very obvious faults, but in many ways he was fantastic too.
Click to expand...

Those negative traits I listed a few posts ago weren't my opinion by the way Rob, I was definitely a Snodgrass fan and find it ridiculous that people have tried to re-write history since we sold him to make out that he was a liability, as I have often seen on here during the past year. he was deserving of the Barry Butler award, absolutely no question <ok>
 
RiverEndRick said:
We currently have a squad of 25 senior players (18 of whom have played in the PL) and 8 younger players. I disagree that our defense failed in the PL. We went down (narrowly) because we failed to score enough goals. I have no problems with Whittaker, Martin and Bassong starting against Palace. I can see that Olsson's injury is a short-term problem (given that he has gone out to Germany), but that's not insurmountable. I agree that it'd be desirable to have another senior option available at LB and another at CB by the time the squad returns from Germany, but it isn't make or break. I certainly don't want any 'panic buys' to cover short-term problems.
Click to expand...

Lets just hope Bassong doesn't have a wobble or get injury.
 
Tony_Munky_Canary said:
Not really if I'm being honest <laugh>

You did say "Hull got an exceptional bargain for a player in his prime", and to be honest it might just be me, but I'm not sure what the second half of that sentence (that I haven't quoted, but you have above) really means in the context of Hull getting a "bargain", let alone an "exceptional" one.

More than happy to leave it there though, seriously! I know we have a history of falling out over silly things like semantics and I really don't want to be going down that road again <ok>
Click to expand...


I think you've understood actually ;)...

I'm distinguishing between his value to Hull and his transfer value as a player with 12 months to run. If he hadn't been in the final 12 months of his contract, Snodders, or indeed any other player of similar pedigree, would have cost a lot more than the £6m which they haven't entirely paid (and indeed would have anyway pre-Bosman ruling).

"Exceptional bargain" was, as I say, my fault for over-egging the pudding. He was an exceptional bargain as an the addition to their squad (and I don't have one iota of a doubt that if he'd been fit all season they would have stayed up, but that's a different debate)... However, the transfer cost was not an exceptional bargain - it was a fair deal to all parties.

Tony_Munky_Canary said:
Those negative traits I listed a few posts ago weren't my opinion by the way Rob, I was definitely a Snodgrass fan and find it ridiculous that people have tried to re-write history since we sold him to make out that he was a liability, as I have often seen on here during the past year. he was deserving of the Barry Butler award, absolutely no question <ok>
Click to expand...

Yep - fair enough apologies. I do remember you have said as much in the past - ignore my previous post
 
1950canary said:
We will have to agree to disagree on this one Rick as I cannot see that one RB, one LB ( apart from an untried youngster ) , a shortage of Premiership quality CB's and no specialist left sided midfielder are ' short term problems '
Click to expand...

We've got 2 RB's its just that one of them is masquerading as a CB.
 
Norfolkbhoy said:
Discounting Snod's time in Scotland he has averaged 1 goal per five games both at domestic and international level. Brady (albeit over a shorter time period averages less than one in 10). I have not looked into the assists but I'd be prepared to bet dollars for doughnuts that he had a considerably better ratio in that department as well. When he left us he was our POTS, he had had two good seasons in the PL - his star was very much in the ascendant.
Click to expand...

What you fail to show here though is that whilst you've discounted Snodgrass's time in Scotland, you have still included his 86 appearances in League One, which make up significantly more than a third of your sample size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back