Wednesday's "outrageous" Rhodes valuation

[gurujuan]

For those suggesting, maybe a run under Bruce, to get Rhodes back to the way he used to be. Do you really believe that will happen?  It won’t happen, Rhodes has lost that bit of speed he once had. He never was lightning fast, but he could run in behind, a ploy that brought him many goals. He can’t do that now, so even if he rediscovers his scoring touch, it probably won’t be enough Sides at this level cannot carry a fox in the box type player, so the best he can hope for, is a role on the subs bench

Edited June 1, 2019 by gurujuan

[Bluesteel]

51 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Norwich might argue that they got someone that comfortably outscored Rhodes last season (and reduced Rhodes to nothing more than an understudy striker) for nowt and quite probably on a far lower wage.

 

They might, but they need to go and find another one for free then don’t they?

[Bluesteel]

4 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

For those suggesting, maybe a run under Bruce, to get Rhodes back to the way he used to be. Do you really believe that will happen?  It won’t happen, Rhodes has lost that bit of speed he once had. He never was lightning fast, but he could run in behind, a ploy that brought him many goals. He can’t do that now, so even if he rediscovers his scoring touch, it probably won’t be enough Sides at this level cannot carry a fox in the box type player, so the best he can hope for, is a role on the subs bench

 

Billy Sharp, Jack Marriott, Patrick Bamford all finishers first and foremost and finished top six.

[gurujuan]

3 minutes ago, Bluesteel said:

 

Billy Sharp, Jack Marriott, Patrick Bamford all finishers first and foremost and finished top six.

Bamford was crap, but the other two have adjusted the way they play, and both are certainly still capable of running in behind.

Edited June 1, 2019 by gurujuan

[Bluesteel]

Just now, gurujuan said:

Bamford was crap, but the other two have adjusted the way they play, and both a certainly still capable of running in behind.

 

None are particularly quick though and useful assets to have. Not carried.

[ChinaOwl]

6 minutes ago, Bluesteel said:

 

They might, but they need to go and find another one for free then don’t they?

 

Their recent record has been quite good picking up players like Maddison and Pukki. I guess the mindset would become, if players like this are available on the cheap, why pay above the odds? That kind of thinking might stand them in good stead going forward.

[chizumgeorge]

8 hours ago, Mr. Tom said:

 

Sympathise with the frustration mate but honestly I think your first paragraph there is way off. It seemed far more like his struggle for form/service in a weird team shape here shredded what little confidence was left in him after his Boro debacle. He was visibly delighted to be here and worked hard, but looked broken by the time ‘pengate’ came along.

 

Don’t forget how toxic the atmosphere was becoming around S6 at that time. Yes he *should’ve* been able to shrug that off as a professional, but we all know his personality - he’s about the nicest guy in football, and for better or worse that tends to mean he’s very human with it. He was properly rattled, desire or commitment didn’t come into it for me.

He has the desire and commitment, just a lack of goalscoring ability and pace! His penalty away at leeds summed him up!

[gurujuan]

19 minutes ago, Bluesteel said:

 

None are particularly quick though and useful assets to have. Not carried.

No point was, if Rhodes was able to adjust his game, like Sharp has, then he might be able to challenge for a place in the side If you look at Sharp, yes he has similar predatory instincts to Rhodes at his peak, but he’s also able to run the channels, and even to drop deep and link play in the way that Hooper did for us. Sadly Rhodes doesn’t seem to be able to do either of those things

Edited June 1, 2019 by gurujuan

[Mr. Tom]

7 hours ago, Ian said:

A 29 year old striker with 2 years left on his contract and wanted by a Premiership team.......I’d love to know how many players of that ilk are valued at less than £10 million

 

Hasn’t thought about it in quite those terms, it’s a very good point

[Doghouse Daz]

Frustrating as a fan to watch, as the player to play under previous regimes. We've now adopted a better style of play under Bruce, which has been missing one ingredient, Rhodes.

 

Sod yer cashing in, Rhodes will be an integral part of the squad system next season. Norwich's loss, our gain. 

[S36 OWL]

Just read DC wants 15m for Dave , so 7m for Rhodes isnt too bad. 

[ChinaOwl]

1 minute ago, S36 OWL said:

Just read DC wants 15m for Dave , so 7m for Rhodes isnt too bad. 

 

15 million Baht is thereabouts. 

[S36 OWL]

[steelcityowlsfan]

If you put Rhodes in Wilders team last season does he get as many as Billy?

 

Sometimes it’s down to the tactics and motivational skills of the manager to get the most out of players and I believe we have that type of manager in Bruce. 

 

I for one won’t be upset if Rhodes is still our player come August. 

[Guest Jack the Hat]

£7m for Rhodes or £6m for Madine?

[ChinaOwl]

3 minutes ago, Jack the Hat said:

£7m for Rhodes or £6m for Madine?

 

Again, Norwich didn't pay £6 million for Madine, it was Cardiff. Norwich will measure against their own recent standards. They built a team capable of winning the Championship title on a relatively low transfer outlay and have a recent history of picking up bargains. Why would they change that policy now? Smart business in my book.

[theowlsman]

2 hours ago, A12owl said:

You started the Transfer Rumour flippin thread. The least you can do is contribute some tosh towards it. 

You are obviously bored now or you wouldn't be posting. Just go fishing and leave the rumours and guessing threads to those who enjoy it.

Good luck in your next (fishing) match. 

 

It’s tomorrow (my next match). I’ll pop into the thread at sometime to update you all. 

 

Don’t expect a Hugh though. I don’t have three Weetabix for breakfast.

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by theowlsman

[Guest Jack the Hat]

31 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Again, Norwich didn't pay £6 million for Madine, it was Cardiff. Norwich will measure against their own recent standards. They built a team capable of winning the Championship title on a relatively low transfer outlay and have a recent history of picking up bargains. Why would they change that policy now? Smart business in my book.

That’s not what I’m saying. In today’s market where silly prices have filtered into the championship 7million for the championships highest marksman seems reasonable against 6 million for  a player who is not prolific. Nothing to do with Norwich, delia 

[ChinaOwl]

1 minute ago, Jack the Hat said:

That’s not what I’m saying. In today’s market where silly prices have filtered into the championship 7million for the championships highest marksman seems reasonable against 6 million for  a player who is not prolific. Nothing to do with Norwich, delia 

 

If you take one player as the benchmark, that is probably true. However, Norwich might look at Pukki on a free and Maddison at whatever they paid for him and set against their own benchmarks. I am reluctant to criticise them because, for years, I've been saying we ought to be more savvy in the market. I am fine with the idea of setting a high price as a opening gambit in a negotiation process as long as we are prepared to change as needs must.

[1963owl]

10 hours ago, Mr. Tom said:

I don’t think we can really talk about Rhodes in terms of the general model of our (broadly pretty dreadful) transfer activity/policy over the past 3-4 years. Despite the fact that most of us were delighted to get him here, the deal that brought him in was a uniquely naive and shortsighted one, even by our own maddeningly clumsy standards.

 

We paid so wildly over the odds for him that we can’t possibly sell at a ‘reasonable’ price now, having had so little out of him for the investment we made, without looking like total mugs. (Although the coldly pragmatic part of me says we probably still should do, for his sake and ours - even if it amounts to a tacit public admission that we got our pants pulled down.)

 

On the other hand, I’d love to see what he can do under Bruce, who I do believe will focus on bringing in some pace down the flanks to provide better service into the box. Finally. We haven’t had that in YEARS, and it was a big part of why JR didn’t get any joy here. Who knows, it could change things massively.

 

Either way, point is we’ve timed it all so badly that if we give him another season here and it doesn’t work again, we’ll barely be able to ask anything for him the year after - 30, contract winding down, high wage. (A million if we’re lucky?)

 

Had we made a better post-CC appointment than Jos, who knows. But the time we wasted treading water there played a big part in putting us where we are now re: Rhodes, ie. in a very awkward position.

 

One thing I really think we must bear in mind either way is that none of this is Jordan’s fault, and it’s unfair to talk the way some do as if he had anything to do with the fee. We’ve spent considerably more, collectively, on at least four or five other players who’ve contributed far less between them even than Rhodes has been able to in his frustrating time here so far.

 

There’s no use in pointing the finger at any one person, because it’s been a joint effort really, but the money we’ve frittered in the past few years on weird agent shenanigans and gross errors of judgment really has been shocking.

 

Rhodes may have had the highest individual price tag, but reactions to his time at Norwich have for me confirmed what we already knew: look past the silly numbers and he’s a player who will score goals (9 for Norwich = joint third top scorer for us, level with Reach), even when not fully sharp/on form/starting. A true pro who always works his butt off and is great for the dressing room. He’s still ours as things stand - it’d be absolutely joyful to see him hit 20 in a season here. Can he? I suspect so, but it’s a gamble.

 

We know we’ve stuffed up financially, and selling for just £3-4m now - although exacerbating our FFP issues in the very short-term - might well be less damaging overall than getting next to nothing in 12 months’ time (having already paid another year of his wages). Or perhaps not, depending on how the 3-year rolling loss period works out - you’d need the full accounts in front of you to really see all the permutations clearly.

 

Can we afford to roll the dice again on keeping him? Fletcher has played brilliantly this season, but not as a finisher, whereas that’s really all Rhodes does in the right setup. Bruce badly needs a player LIKE Rhodes, but we’ve not got the money to buy anyone established - it’s JR or a young loan gamble.

 

High stakes. Very tricky situation.

great post mate