Those of you who tweet (I appreciate a lot of you don’t) will be familiar with the conundrum that arises every time a City player is sold. To continue to follow or unfollow.
Of course it’s daft, but for me there is no dilemma to be had. Once a City player becomes an ex-City player and is pictured in a shirt that’s not yellow, holding aloft a scarf that’s not yellow and green then that’s it. He’s a goner.
I did it with Josh Murphy earlier in the week, albeit reluctantly, and yesterday morning – with rather less regret – the unfollowing ceremony of Marley Watkins took place.
As it transpired, the deal for Josh caught most of us – at least those of us who are not ‘in the know’ – a little off guard, but it was one that the club clearly felt fell in the ‘too good to turn down’ category. And it was.
It was also a no-brainer given that Josh, according to Stuart Webber, had made it known he was ready for a fresh challenge – something I suspect had been in the back of his mind since Jacob departed for Tyneside one year ago.
That the twins have raised – or will eventually raise – in excess of £20million for the club’s coffers is, as Webber alluded to on Canaries.co.uk, a triumph for the academy. But it’s an even bigger triumph for the business model that this club is operating – an absolute must in fact.
Quite where Josh ended up is irrelevant as far as we, the supporters, and the club are concerned – Vincent Tan’s money is worth the same as Mike Ashley’s etc – but at the back of my mind I do wonder how he will fit into a Neil Warnock set-up that relies almost solely on grit, determination and muscle. For all his undoubted qualities, he’s not huge on any of those three.
Now watch him prove me wrong.
But Warnock, who one assumes has done his homework, was prepared to pull up trees to get his man and must have assured Josh that there is a place in Cardiff for his knack of beating full-backs with a drop of the shoulder and scoring the occasional worldie.
Webber’s reference to ‘some difficult times’ at the club was clearly a reference to Josh’s sometimes fractious relationship with elements of the City support, and there clearly were times when player and fans were on a different wavelength. But, unless I’m missing the point, I’m not sure just being one of our own should make you immune to any form of criticism.
I’m not going to lie – there were times when Josh frustrated me and times when I felt his application was not at the level it should be. I didn’t berate him – I save that for Ipswich players and Chris Wilder – but could understand the frustration some felt the need to express.
If the criticism is unjustified, that’s different, and no player benefits from brickbats, but equally being a product of the academy doesn’t mean they should be wrapped in cotton wool.
I will just say, any suggestion that criticism of Josh pertained to reasons other than footballing ones are, in my view, nonsense.
But he’s gone now. He’s no longer one of us and he now wears a blue shirt. And we wish him well.
***
The curious case of Marley Watkins doesn’t tug at the heartstrings in quite the same way, and I have to say seeing him back in a red shirt looks right. The yellow and green was never a comfortable fit, and going far back as the second friendly of last summer – when he underwhelmed against Lowestoft Town – there were early suggestions he was going to be ‘the next Steve Morison’.
In the event, Morison’s relationship with the faithful was positively warm and cosy compared to the Watkins/Yellow Army coupling.
It was just one of those that didn’t work out – perhaps in part because he was brought in by Webber prior to the arrival of Team Farke and therefore didn’t fit the new player profile.
Yet it wasn’t just a case of him being a square peg in a round hole. He was tried in a hexagonal one, a triangular one, even an octagonal one and yet always looked more likely to get sent off than score. When you’re signed as a striker and your Championship goals are outnumbered by your red cards you know it hasn’t worked out.
But he isn’t the bad player some describe. No-one gets double figures in the Championship by being a poor footballer – him and Norwich City was just a poor fit. I expect him to thrive at Ashton Gate, and probably score against us.
***
What did get under the skin of a few was a small piece on the BBC Sport website that suggested that Ben Godfrey is in the sights of Crystal Palace, Swansea and West Brom. According to the piece he has “attracted interest” from the trio who are “weighing up bids of around £3m”.
It was sufficient for there to be a Twitter rumble for most of yesterday.
The no smoke without fire theory doesn’t stand up in the transfer silly season, and so while it’s obvious that someone of Godfrey’s calibre will be attracting interest after the season he just enjoyed at Shrewsbury, I’d be astonished if the club were daft enough to give any bid the time of day.
For starters, he fits the profile of players the club are trying to bring in rather than sell – young, hungry, cheap, on an upward curve, still learning – and in these time of searching for value on the continent, he’s a tick in the box for our ‘homegrown’ quota (six of the 18 in a matchday squad have to be).
If this one is entertained we’re in deeper 5hit than any of us imagined.
***
And finally… James Maddison.
Southampton’s is the latest hat to be chucked into the ring, with one daily tabloid going as far as to suggest that the Saints have met City’s valuation and have been given permission to speak to the player.
Again, who knows if this has legs, but what is clear is it’s a matter of when and not if, even with the revenue from Josh’s sale taken into account. A financial black hole or no financial black hole, Maddison would have been on his way.
What the Murphy deal may have done however is to give Webber and Steve Stone a bit more wriggle room, and allowed them time to negotiate the best deal possible.
I saw a tweet earlier that in less than 280 characters summed up the Maddison scenario far better than I ever could in 1000 words. So, with thanks to @ncfcmustard, I’ll leave you with this…
Most #ncfc fans realise @Madders10 is capable of playing at the very top level; a top 6 side could buy & loan back, the other 14 could offer him a regular Premiership platform. He wants to enjoy playing, so that narrows it down!
A few will regret not bidding though…#ncfc— Norfolk Mustard (@ncfcmustard) June 17, 2018
5hit? ?
1
NewsNow have a filter 🙂 By saying it, it’d not make it onto their site.
1
If palace want Godfrey then he would probably want to go there to get a taste of the premiership and demand a move like Pritchard,so can see this happening,especially as the board will see more cash in front of their eyes!
4
It was never ever going to be just about Maddison, was it?
Josh, I can understand, if not his destination. Marley too, although I doubt his return to Carrow Road will be met with a polite round of applause.
The ‘acid test’, as you allude to, will be Godfrey. Any social media meltdown will pale into insignificance compared to yesterday’s mutterings, not least because of the wider financial implications for the Club.
“Too good an offer to turn down” simply won’t cut it, if it happens.
6
I simply don’t think “they” would be dumb enough to let Ben Godfrey go. I really don’t.
Neither do I believe it will escalate to *acid test* status as the speculated £3million into the black hole would be nothing compared to the PR disaster such a sale would create. Webber will know that too.
However, should Ben have a successful season with us and attract Josh-style offers he’ll be out the door this time next year for sure. As will Jamal Lewis and any other youngster who breaks into the first team.
We’re not really in a very good place just now.
11
I gather we’ve already rebuffed enquiries for Jamal Lewis – and that’s in the current situation when we (for the final time) need to fill a cash hole from losing parachute payments.
Perhaps not the “sell everything we can” stance that some would like to ascribe to the club?
4
Certainly not selling everything we can, agreed.
But every one of our youngsters who becomes rated at over £5million will be quite an easy and obvious target for the vultures in our short to mid-term future.
I see no alternative under this business model, which I still more or less support despite odd bouts of negativity.
1
It is not the final time we have to fill that black hole. The black hole is caused by a drop in income not a one off item of expenditure. OK we will have reduced the wage bill again but we will have to keep it low and sell players just to stand still. That is why Villa took a gamble on promotion, the world without PL money is a very harsh world, ask Mr Evans with his £7m p.a. direct debit to ITFC
5
Exactly – it’s a drop income that won’t recur after this summer. Next season we’ll have no parachute payments
0
Thank goodness for someone else who understands. It’s a permanent loss of income being hidden by one-time sales from a previous business model.
4
Don’t you think there’d be uproar if Godfrey went?
It wouldn’t be so much about the player, it would go against the underlying ethos of what we’re looking to achieve and, simultaneously, be an admission that the financial situation is far worse than thought.
I’m not suggesting it is, but it would send out all the wrong signals ‘IF’ it happens.
3
Tend to agree. Of course, it depends in part on who’s coming in
0
I wouldn’t be too sure about that Martin. Stranger things have happened.
Godfrey however, is the standard bearer for the “model”, a blueprint for what we are told they are trying to achieve.
Indeed, many of the contributions on this very site consider him a vital component in Webbers plans. According to one he is “obviously earmarked for the first team next season”. Quite how his sale would sit with those supporters is anybody’s guess.
One thing is for sure, the quoted 3 million pounds is too insignificant a sum for such a transfer to be entertained. It’s a trifling sum in modern football circles and certainly not worth the PR disaster which would follow.
Many have commented on the “storm” which accompanied the speculation on social media, describing hysteria and overreaction. However, it is probably indicative of the amount of mistrust among the wider support for the club hierarchy that such a suicidal deal could be countenanced.
The fall out could be a useful bellwether as to the public reaction should Webber feel the need to sell another player.
It would be virtually impossible for Webber to justify.
4
Hi Chris
I think Gary F gets it right when he says “It wouldn’t be so much about the player, it would go against the underlying ethos of what we’re looking to achieve”.
That’s where I stand too tbh.
We have no evidence they are even contemplating it and my guess would be that they are not.
However, your word “mistrust” is quite an interesting one.
I don’t think some of the more “influential” of our supporters understand how the rest of us feel in that context. You know the type of thing – you’ve not enough respect for the status quo so belt up. Not an approach I’m onside with, I’m afraid.
I sincerely believe Ben Godfrey will be at Carrow Road in 12 months time.
Strangely I still believe in Webber and Farke!
5
Good sense, Gary, from top to bottom.
In much of life there’s no smoke without fire – but transfer windows are an exception. A club director told me that 90% of rumours have no foundation whatsoever.
What gets my goat is when another club is reported (accurately or not) to be interested in one of our players, and certain fans immediately squeal “there we go, NCFC selling another player”. Get a grip!
4
To play devil’s advocate, who would take 4 million from Palace for Godfrey and getting him back on loan for a season?
For all of Stewart Webber’s criticisms of the previous regime and publicly stating that the academy wasn’t good enough, they haven’t done too badly from player sales since they’ve been here…
2
Like most NCFC fans if we sold Godfrey now I would be up in arms. Apart from anything else a good season next year and he will be worth upwards of 10m.. He looks the part. I can accept the others having to go on financial grounds but if all we replace them with are lower division German players and players with dodgy injury records then I will be seriously worried. It is early in the window and there may yet be surprises but at the moment I am looking forward to this season less than I have for many years. Also, at what point will this black hole be filled? Buying a new pitch so that we can watch expensively assembled teams run rings round us does not seem a good use of funds when money is scarce. The players mentioned, the Murphys, Maddison and Godfrey were all scouted by the previous regime rather than Webber.
4
Maddison and Godfrey were scouted by previous regimes, but only given a chance by Farke.
2
? true, Godfrey was given the chance to play in Shrewsbury all season.
5
Classic Stewart.
Maddison “wasn’t given a chance” by a prior regime, even though he went on two successful loans, allowing him to garner almost 30 first team games under his belt, before returning to the club and working his way into the squad via the subs bench. He came off the bench 6-7 times and even scored last season and was primed to step up this season. Something I’m sure would be called successful development if Farke and Webber did it. But Neil & Irvine – no.t so much
Godfrey, who did play first team football under the previous regime, “was not given a chance”, yet under Farke has not featured in the first team, instead being sent off on loan, yet Farke HAS been given a chance by him.
I have no idea what logic is being applied here.
5
Here’s the logic, Dave.
Maddison is a couple of years ahead of Godfrey. I think it’s quite possible Farke would have loaned Maddison to Scotland (or elsewhere) as Alex Neil did. But he’d have treated him very differently when he returned. Given Maddison’s form as soon as he started for Norwich (ie last August), it’s impossible to believe he wasn’t worth more than a few minutes of late sub appearances at the end of the previous season.
Wes and others were telling Maddison – and Alan Irvine – that he should be starting. Irvine rejected it. The evidence seems clear to me that Wes was right, Irvine wrong.
Happy for that to be “classic Stewart” information and reasoning.
0
Maddison actually had one League Cup start before being sent out on loan to Aberdeen, plus three substitute appearances at the end of the season – not the 6/7 as suggested.
One change that’s happened over the last couple of seasons, mainly under the guidance and influence of Neil Adams, is the increased use of the loan system by the Club to assist player development – largely as a result the recognition that the Under 23’s isn’t competitive enough and doesn’t usually offer an adequate route to first team football.
1
Currently I can’t think of one positive thing to say about City at the moment.
What little entertainment we received last year has either left or about to leave the club.
Season ticket prices are the most expensive outside the premier league.
Our possession style football is the most boring entertainment I’ve ever witnessed on a football field.
Is the excuse making ever going to end?
Good job it’s the cricket season.
11
Did you not sit through the Hamilton, Roeder and Grant eras – they were, in my opinion, far, far worse.
2
Little difference. If they’d had Maddison in their sides they would have finished 14th or better.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Gunn received more passes in open play than most of our out players. Slow, predictable and boring.
7
Okay, let’s just agree to disagree on that one, although I accept last season was far from what’s acceptable. It’s a game of opinions after all.
2
Who were the owners responsible for all this boredom?
5
The same owners who’ve also had 4 promotions and 4 relegations.
2
They’ve received huge slices of luck and messed up every time.
Time for a complete change with fresh investment before we are trapped in division 1.
6
I echo your thoughts Gary spot on. I however throughout the season have been disappointed by treatment of Murphy by some of the fans. He did not deserve such treatment especially to the level that I witnessed. I think it is time for him to move on and it is a very good fee, but if Neil Warnock thinks he may well be the one that keeps Cardiff in the premier league he is way off the mark,unfortunately Josh is not strong enough mentally or physically to have that expectation on his shoulders. As for Maddison I would have thought he was aiming higher than Southampton but perhaps the deal could involve Harrison reed returning.
3
Good post Duncan and I agree with you.
As for Harry Reed we’ll have to wait and see. I would imagine that every pound coming in would be more important than signing a player in part-ex just now but I would LOVE to see Harry Reed back here.
Madders and Redders together? Nice for the Saints if it happens:-)
0
If Godfrey is a similar character to Maddison he’ll be happy to continue building his career with us and wait until he’s genuinely ready for the PL.
If however he’s like Pritchard he’ll be bellyaching for a PL move at the first opportunity, in which case we may as well cash in. I don’t think we got much wrong in our transfer dealings last season (Watkins on a free was worth a punt, Franke perhaps the biggest flop), but if there ever was serious interest in Oliveira we should – with hindsight of course – have let him go.
I’ve got no idea which of those he most resembles but as his route is much more like Maddison’s (lower leagues, loan, work hard) than Pritchard’s (failed PL academy, thinks he’s owed a living) I’m optimistic.
Selling Godfrey to the PL now might, depending on the circumstances and the fee etc., be understandable. Selling him to a Championship rival certainly wouldn’t, but realistically I can’t see that happening.
2
Even if Pritchard agitated for a move which is uncertain in my eyes it would be understandable given the fact he was a bit older and had a couple of good seasons at this level under his belt before joining us. I believe there was an element of urgency in his move
3
Pritchard agitated for a move
1
I can’t blame him, he didn’t want to end up in division 1.
6
Hi Gary
Another enjoyable read and summary of the transfers that have happened and those that might.
The Sun, and other papers, are reporting City have accepted £20m for Maddison – I just think that they would accept the first offer when the same papers are saying that there are at least 5 other clubs interested in him.
This window has started very slowly and I can’t see it speeding up til one club makes a major signing – as in Man City buying Mahrez or Man United buying Alderwield. Then all hell just might happen.
Spurs are one of the clubs interested in Maddison – I would like him to go there but, like Man City or Liverpool, would he get many games? But these clubs might consider loaning him back for a season as part of a deal. Southampton could offer £20m and throw in Reed, either on loan or permanently. City could also ask Man City to loan Gunn as well as Maddison to close a deal.
Murphy to Cardiff was, and is, a strange transfer. Warnock hasn’t got the best record of keeping promoted teams in the Premiership, so next season he could be in a relegation dogfight unless Tan releases enough money for a few big buys. Warnock has already said his budget is much less than Huddersfield’s was last year, so they look certain to come back down.
Marley was a disappointment. Farke said he agreed to his signing prior to his announced arrival and both parties should have parted ways in January – his heart wasn’t in it once he knew Bristol City wanted him.
Godfrey – this would be a big mistake to sell. He has a lot to learn and let’s hope these so-called interested clubs don’t start to badger his agent with offers to unsettle him. As someone else has mentioned, if he has an excellent season he could fill in another black hole next summer.
Oliveria to Nottingham Forest – I would like him to leave but not to a direct competitor in the league. Let him go back home; it would mean less money but it wouldn’t bite us in the backside if he had a good season.
Pinto – I like him but we need a better right-back. No rumours of any interest so he will be staying.
Klose – same as above.
Franke – he might come good possibly a part exchange with St Pauli for their striker?
Jarvis – he should retire or has he done so already and it hasn’t been announced?
Martin – give him a free transfer.
Naismith – same as above. The Edinburgh club are interested; their chairwoman has said she would like to get a deal done with City – please let it happen.
OTBC
0
I can’t see Maddison going to someone like Spurs and then being loaned back. We aren’t going to pay PL wages for him to play in the Championship, and why would the buyer pay the difference between a PL deal and his current package when he wouldn’t even be playing for them?
0
Keith a number of clubs buy players and then loan them back to continue their learning and it was only a suggestion that city could try, also a number of premiership clubs help by supplementing some of the wages so that the loaning club can give the players experience
0
Yes, we’ve done it ourselves, but it’s a big difference in wages between Championship going back to League One or Scottish Premier, as opposed to PL to Championship.
And I honestly don’t think Maddison is the sort of lad who would agree to it – the only tangible benefit to him would be the extra money he’d earn, and I don’t that alone is enough for him. I’d love to be proved wrong though!
1
Lots of interesting points!
I wonder if you’re giving as much attention as you should to wages. They’re a major obstacle to Harrison Reed coming to Norwich permanently, for instance, and a massive one to anyone signing Naismith.
I think we need to take as much as we can get for Oliveira.
3
Stewart
Oliveria I agree we short get the maximum for him if possible but my point was if there was an offer from abroad that was acceptable it would be preferable to selling him for a similar amount to a championship club.
Sky reporting Southampton and Leicester have both agreed a £22m plus add ons for Maddison
0
I’m lucky that those round me at matches don’t tend to pick on individual players but there is one and his target was Murphy, I felt Josh was a decent player who relied on what was going on around him, maybe looking to profit from a colleague taking a defender away and that is why he looked at his best when he played alongside Hernandez. Maybe Warnock will play to his strengths. With Watkins I was never expecting more than a bench warmer, I saw the Lowestoft match and everyone was a bit slow and he did score. With the Fulham match he found good positions but his shooting was weak. Both these departures look good business. With the Godfrey rumours I am assuming that it is one of 3 scenarios, first another club is looking to test the water, second someone connected to Godfrey is pushing for a better deal in some sense or third we really are in trouble. With Maddison, it makes sense for everyone for him to move on, we can not have so much tied up in one player. I don’t think the early transfer window closure will do us any favours but by that time we need to have a squad stronger than we had in 2008/09, that team had some good players, some potential but still got relegated. At present I think we are slightly ahead (assuming Maddison goes) but still have positions to fill
2
Looks like Madders is having a medical at Leicester.
0
On the twitter pages that accompany this site, there is a comment stating what a “great transfer window” it has been so far!
That kind of insight sums up everything that is wrong with the current set up.
We all understand the club cannot survive without money. It’s about time someone recognised that it cannot survive without a team.
Dangerous game the board are playing. August could well be a make or break month for them going forward.
9
We have now sold all the most saleable players and received very good sums of money for each of them. I would hope that all have hefty add-on clauses and sell on fees.
Coventry are looking at £3m from Maddison and that is good negotiating on their behalf and will continue to get a share of any further money City receive from these add-ons.
The question now is if Leicester sell him on for a large profit City will, I presume, get between 10/15% of the fee above the original fee paid. So would Coventry get a share of that?
To me, their involvement ends once he signs for a new club, so any future profit should be wholly for Norwich. Please tell me if I am incorrect in my thinking.
We are hearing of many players City are supposed to be interested in but no clear indication that offers or arrivals are due to be announced.
Now to complete a good start to the transfer window let’s see if we can sell or give free transfers to Naismith, Martin, Jarvis and McGovern.
1
I can tell you that in FM14 they would continue to see revenues. How much FM reflects real life, no idea.
1
The Times reports Maddison to Leicester for £22m. At this juncture it doesn’t look like there will be much to entertain us next season. Maddison and Wes both gone along with Pritchard it’s going to be pretty grim stuff to watch – they were the only bright spots last season.
4