Pukki on his way to BDTBL

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Hamandcheese said:
I can only guess that we think these are particular reasons he underperformed last season, because he looked past it as championship level

My worry with this is that we will otherwise go with what we've already got up front

Hard to really see us signing more than 1 striker, and in that case we really shouldn't be signing a backup. We've got 3 already who should be backups
Click to expand...
problem is ham we cant afford to bring a number 1 striker in and thats the problem frees like pukki might be our only option although i would like the club to look in the foreign market for another striker thats where the value is
 

No way should we be giving a 3 year contract to him. If we are to sign him (and we can all have our opinion on that) the maximum term of the contract has to be 2 years. We can't be saddling ourselves with a player whos legs might suddenly go and then we are paying wages for 2 and a half years. That would just be daft. Ideally it would be a years contract but if that's not going to sail and we definitely want him then perhaps we can stretch to a 2 year deal. If he wants 3 years I would hope we tell him to jog on (provided he can and his legs haven't fallen off by then).
 
Nicolaus_Copernicus said:
A great striker and he also captained U-612 in Das Boot.

konarske_db2.jpg
Click to expand...
The U21s did well this season but do we even have a U-612 team?
 
ancientblade said:
problem is ham we cant afford to bring a number 1 striker in
Click to expand...

We can't get one in that is all of young, quality and permanent, no. We absolutely can bring in either a free agent in or someone on loan who would be significantly better than Pukki is. Mitrovic only costs £4m/year in wages ffs, obv he's not available as a specific example but one year striker rentals should not be out of our price range
 
I'd imagine we're going to be less attacking in the prem to what we were in the championship, and if you discount Pukki's record last season and look at his career overall, he wouldn't be a bad addition to our current strike force, providing we don't lose anyone either
 
My dads, mates, mum, who worked in Norwich in 1954 has a friend she still knows down there who happens to be the neighbour of Pukki and family, she has been told that hes off to Belize
 
Using Sharp and Stevens wages to give Pukki a 1 year deal is a fair use of resources. He's not getting 2 years
 
jt64 said:
As a one year hire I wouldn't hate the move, but I kind of fear he's just going to end up blocking the development of Jebbo/Osula and doing more damage to the club in the long run
Click to expand...
For one year? Neither Jebbo or Osula are pushing for a starting place and this may allow them out for a much needed loan without blocking them. Even if it’s a two year deal if those boys aren’t passed him come the start of 2024/5 season then they’re still nowhere near ready. Personally I think they’ll both be snapping at his heels
 
Awful signing, I know quite a few Norwich fans, not one of them is sorry he has left. They feel he has gone on a year too long
 
Signing Pukki to mostly sit on the bench should mean that Jebbo can go on loan for a year. We'll still sign another striker to be first choice.
 
billyblademan said:
Signing Pukki to mostly sit on the bench should mean that Jebbo can go on loan for a year. We'll still sign another striker to be first choice.
Click to expand...
This is very important. We can’t keep young players hanging around it’s detrimental to their development
 

Weasel said:
No way should we be giving a 3 year contract to him. If we are to sign him (and we can all have our opinion on that) the maximum term of the contract has to be 2 years. We can't be saddling ourselves with a player whos legs might suddenly go and then we are paying wages for 2 and a half years. That would just be daft. Ideally it would be a years contract but if that's not going to sail and we definitely want him then perhaps we can stretch to a 2 year deal. If he wants 3 years I would hope we tell him to jog on (provided he can and his legs haven't fallen off by then).
Click to expand...
i would say 1 year deal with an option of a 2nd year but if were bringing pukki in we still need another striker in imo possibly a premier loan or from abroad
 
Flatulent_Bob said:
For one year? Neither Jebbo or Osula are pushing for a starting place and this may allow them out for a much needed loan without blocking them. Even if it’s a two year deal if those boys aren’t passed him come the start of 2024/5 season then they’re still nowhere near ready. Personally I think they’ll both be snapping at his heels
Click to expand...
personally i rate jebbo more than mcburnie ok hes raw especially with his finishing but i cant see mcburnie troubling many premier league centre backs next season
 
He is a gamble and although he got 11 goals last season in the PL, he has managed just 10 this season in the Championship. When previously he has got over 20 goals in the Championship. So I am worried he is on the decline quite rapidly.

Norwich have been poor this season though so that might explain his poorer goal return. 1 year deal with the club having the option to activate a 2nd year might work if the wages are cheap enough.
 
On his day, one of the best finishers I have ever seen to be honest and has scored goals at this level, so we could do worse as a replacement for Billy. Let's hope we have another forward lined up as well though.
 
TopBoy said:
Yes, but they are very similar in that their race has been run at the level we're going into so I put them in the same category.
Click to expand...

Possibly but despite being a bit knackered Pukki's goal return is much better than Sharp's.
 
I've a mate who gets all his club gossip off a woman who a friend of the wife of an ex blade, he treats her every word as gospel, question, why aren't these women managing the club?
or are they, and thats the trouble?!
 
jt64 said:
We can't get one in that is all of young, quality and permanent, no. We absolutely can bring in either a free agent in or someone on loan who would be significantly better than Pukki is. Mitrovic only costs £4m/year in wages ffs, obv he's not available as a specific example but one year striker rentals should not be out of our price range
Click to expand...
Where to start with this...

Aside from the fact that Mitrovic is on well over £100k/week - he signed a deal last season allegedly making him the highest paid player in Championship history - it's not just about basic wages. Bonuses will take that £100k/week towards £120k (£6m gone) and then there's the loan fee to consider. If we're talking about a £25m player then a loan fee will be between £4m and £6m for the season. Your £4m just doubled or even trebled and we're now looking at spending 40-60% of our rumoured budget on one player who wouldn't even be ours longer term.

I don't envy Hecky and the scouting team. They've got a job on.
 
Christ, it was just an example of a player who's better than what we've got as a pure striker and I spent 10 seconds googling his wages, I'm not going to ring Fulham up and ask for a copy of his contract
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom