Would you accept them back?

[Canary f1]

As has been pointed out in other posts, you give into one player and very soon they'll all be knocking on McNally's door. Financial stability for Norwich City is more important than Grant Holt.

I posted this in another thread.

Our problem is we can't replace Holt. If anything we need Holt and another new striker. Losing Holt is a massive blow, our strike force would be so horribly weak, especially with injury prone Vaughan. You can spend 50 million on a striker that scores less goals than Holty. It's not just his goals either, he offers so much more. He's a constant nuisance to even the best defenders. 400k in my opinion makes him irreplaceable.

We could spend 3-5 million on Rhodes, unproven in the prem or just give Holt a pay rise. People seem to think it would open the door to all players demanding pay rises, but I disagree. Holt is our best player over the last three years, he has decent argument. He's been the biggest on the pitch influence on our recent successes. Player of the season 3 times running, top goal scorer 3 times running. We must keep him. I think he is happy living here (opinion yes) but he wants to ensure he has a comfortable retirement, let's just give him that!

I got this guitar. And I learned how to make it talk -- Bruce Springsteen

 

[Walsh.i.am]

Jeepers peepers !

Could everyone just draw breath and think back to the days of Deehan, Megson, Rioch, Hamilton Grant and Roeder.

Let's get some perspective into all of this. Unlike most of the above names, we're in a position to appoint the person that we want - not who 'wants' us!

 

[WBA2_QPR3]

Seems that Holt is now bigger than Norwich.

I blame the pies

 

[Exile]

Whether either could come back I think still depends on exactly what's gone on.

In Lambert's case, if it were just about wanting the chance to speak to Villa, I think there'd be a way back. But I think it goes deeper than that, and I think his time here is done, no matter what happens with Villa.

For Holt, if it really is just about an extra year, McNally's in the box seat and we could well still see Holt start the season here. If he gets himself together and shows on the pitch he's worth an extension, it could be OK. However, the whole twitter thing has been so unprofessional it would take a bit of apologising for him to be welcomed back. More to the point, I'm not sure I believe it's solely about a 12 month extension.

 

[GozoCanary]

No, never go back. Lambert and Holt have forced the change, but now they have I think the club should forget them. They're history.

The key decision is who will be the next manager. As you can see on here, there is very little consensus - we all have our own heroes and villains and what a difficult decision the board has. The only thing we seem to agree on is that we don't want Bruce. I'd put it stronger than that - I don't want any 'established Premiership manager'. I want someone young and exciting. Maybe it'll be a disaster and down we go. Or maybe we find the next bright young thing and go forward. My personal choice on balance is Hughton (however you spell it!)

 

[GozoCanary]

Sorry, problems with technology. Please see post below.

Old man

 

[GozoCanary]

Our problem is we can't replace Holt. If anything we need Holt and another new striker. Losing Holt is a massive blow, our strike force would be so horribly weak, especially with injury prone Vaughan. You can spend 50 million on a striker that scores less goals than Holty. It's not just his goals either, he offers so much more. He's a constant nuisance to even the best defenders.

Sorry, but I disagree. If we can get 5m for Holt and use that money to buy a promising young striker like Rhodes, I think we should do it. Holt will only go down in value over the next few years (and I think he's dead in the water as a player for us now). If we buy wisely, we could have a player for many years in the future or make a hell of a lot of dough when he moves higher up the food chain.