Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Ryy

Jakub Stolarczyk bid rejected

By Ryy, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

Lambert09

Lambert09

Posted
Posted

If Mads is happy to stay, surely in the books 5 mil for Jakob is better than say 20 for mads? I feel like we paid a decent amount for him? 

 

Seeing as the only thing that seems to matter in football any more is psr if we can somehow keep mads then that would be good work from the club. 

 

 

honeybradger

honeybradger

Posted
Posted

Watch us sell Mads, bring in a new number one that isn't better than Stolarczyk and barely play Stolarczyk over the new guy. Only for Stolarczyk to leave on a free in a few years time.

  • Like 4
Danizen

Danizen

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, teblin said:

The issue was there wasn’t a “since his injury” as he was still injured and probably shouldn’t have been playing.

Yeah, I forgot about that. I shouldn't have worded it like that. 

 

His potential suitors will probably wait to see his recovery, though. 

MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Why would Norwich bid literally days after he's signed a contract? 

 

Seems odd, and perhaps not fully true... 

 

 

good old Rob says contract agreed. Do we know for sure he’s signed it?

Edited by MPH
scinnell

scinnell

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

If Mads is happy to stay, surely in the books 5 mil for Jakob is better than say 20 for mads? I feel like we paid a decent amount for him? 

 

Seeing as the only thing that seems to matter in football any more is psr if we can somehow keep mads then that would be good work from the club. 

 

 

Signed for 6.5 million I think, so still think selling Mads would be better for PSR if he has any interest..

mozartfox

mozartfox

Posted
Posted

I am sure our esteemed Retirement Team can seek out a 40 year old replacement on a 5 Year deal.  Sell.  Rudkin’s Scottish Widows portfolio is always on the look out for new entrants.

Claudio Fannieri

Claudio Fannieri

Posted
Posted

Clubs don’t submit bids without sounding out the players representatives  first too see if there would be interest, therefore I think Norwich would have received some encouragement.
 

Maybe Mads is staying so Jakub is being sold to help with PSR. Maybe the rejected Norwich bid is being leaked to generate further interest, I think a few prem clubs may be interested as would be a decent back up option at a very reasonable price. 

Jazzy_Jeff

Jazzy_Jeff

Posted
Posted

I’d like to think we would try to shift players in order of their squad status.

 

If it meant selling any deadwood along with Jakob, Hamza, Ricardo and Ndidi instead of Mads and Bilal it would benefit us in the long run. A spine of Mads, Nelson, Bilal and a new CM/ST would have us set for years. 

slymunn

slymunn

Posted
Posted

If Mads is staying then this might be why he only added another year onto his contract. To ensure we dont lose him for free if he doesnt play, but also long enough to offer a new contract if he does play next season.

RowlattsFox

RowlattsFox

Posted
Posted

Whilst he's not done a lot wrong, I've not seen anything to suggest Jakub is going to be a 'great' goal keeper. Decent, and I'd be ok with him being number 1 this season but if there is an opportunity to cash in (assuming we keep Mads, and sign a reliable replacement lol) then we have to look at it. 

  • Like 1
Tommy G

Tommy G

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure Norwich have £5m to spuff on a keeper? Why is everyone saying £5m?

 

We don't want to make the same mistake we made with Iversen, hopefully the club have learnt their lesson, likely not. 

RedSoxUK

RedSoxUK

Posted
Posted

100% definitely sell if Mads is 100% definitely staying.

 

No brainer. Jacob is good enough to be a number 1 at a Championship club, and he's just seen the career waste of what happened to Iversen, who was also good enough to be a number 1 at a Championship club.

 

Like others have said, don't think Norwich would have bidded if they haven't sounded out interest from Jacob/representatives. Though I would imagine we're waiting on something more concrete around Mads.

CloudFox

CloudFox

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Christ, Norwich have their finger on the pulse don't they lol

 

Rudkin level's of thinking behind that move.

 

Thinking about it, perhaps this is a case of the announcement from the club that his contract has been extended, and external reports we've rejected a bid from Norwich, are not linear?

 

It would make sense that Norwich held interest in Jakub, spoke to his people, bid for him, we rejected it, and as a result we extended his contract as reassurance to him/his people that he would be important to the club for the foreseeable future. While also protecting an asset (longer contract = more leverage for negotiations).

  • Thanks 1
filbertway

filbertway

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CloudFox said:

Thinking about it, perhaps this is a case of the announcement from the club that his contract has been extended, and external reports we've rejected a bid from Norwich, are not linear?

 

It would make sense that Norwich held interest in Jakub, spoke to his people, bid for him, we rejected it, and as a result we extended his contract as reassurance to him/his people that he would be important to the club for the foreseeable future. While also protecting an asset (longer contract = more leverage for negotiations).

It did cross my mind, maybe it was an enquiry rather than a bid and its been blown up to be more than it was. If so, then the rest of what I write is irrelevant haha 

 

Just seems odd when its been widely accepted for a couple of months that hes likely to be our number 1 next season.

 

Id just expect DoFs to be aware of divisional rivals player situations

  • Like 1
RoboFox

RoboFox

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Funny how some words can mean the complete opposite, but be the same word Resign and cleave, for instance.

 

I say this because I saw this and thought, "but he already has resigned." Kinda.

Without getting into Pedant Thread territory, there is a bit of a difference between resign, and re-sign. :ph34r:

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...