' Kyle Lafferty '

' Kyle Lafferty '

Norwich City striker Kyle Lafferty ended up with no new club, so he stays with Norwich City.


Cardiff City had been in 'advanced talks' with the Northern Ireland target man as recently as Tuesday afternoon but with former club Palermo hoping to take him back to Sicily and City not able to agree on financial terms as City were not prepared to pay what Norwich had been paying him,the deal eventually died.

In the end, the 28-year-old remained at Norwich with a move to Reading also collapsing.

Many Cardiff City fans had different opinions on signing the Northern Ireland International, with plenty not believing he was the right striker for Cardiff City and others saying give him a chance.

Cardiff City were only ever after one new striker and eventually they signed ex international Rickie Lambert on a free transfer from WBA, giving the striker a two year contract.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Given the choice I'm glad we've got Lambert over lafferty

We needed him as well as Lambert. Simple as.

Given the choice I'm glad we've got Lambert over lafferty

100% agree

We needed him as well as Lambert. Simple as.

I do believe we needed two, but to get one from this current regime is virtually a miracle, so I won't complain

We needed him as well as Lambert. Simple as.

I do believe we needed two, but to get one from this current regime is virtually a miracle, so I won't complain

Me neither at least we will score some goals now. Its goalkeeper that worries me most, Bolton 2nd choice v our third choice a week ago

We needed him as well as Lambert. Simple as.

I do believe we needed two, but to get one from this current regime is virtually a miracle, so I won't complain

Me neither at least we will score some goals now. Its goalkeeper that worries me most, Bolton 2nd choice v our third choice a week ago

Wilson will be first choice with Amos as back up.

Maybe Healey will bang a few in on his loan til January and cone back as the new Chopra

Indian with a gambling addiction ?

lambert is probably the better choice, but i'm not sure of the logic being giving a 34 year old a two year deal. at that age it should always be a 1 year deal unless the player has a proven track record of fitness and is showing no signs of slowing down.

2 years is a hell of a long time in football. his record in the last two years reads 4 goals in 60 games..... yes alot were substitute appearances but it makes for horrific reading, so lets not get too carried away.

lambert is probably the better choice, but i'm not sure of the logic being giving a 34 year old a two year deal. at that age it should always be a 1 year deal unless the player has a proven track record of fitness and is showing no signs of slowing down.

2 years is a hell of a long time in football. his record in the last two years reads 4 goals in 60 games..... yes alot were substitute appearances but it makes for horrific reading, so lets not get too carried away.

A two year deal would probably be on a smaller weekly wage than a one year
We probably got him for £15k a week on a two year deal = £1.5 million in total
Rather than a £20k a week one year deal = £1 million in total
If this is the case it's a good deal all round

We needed him as well as Lambert. Simple as.

I do believe we needed two, but to get one from this current regime is virtually a miracle, so I won't complain

Me neither at least we will score some goals now. Its goalkeeper that worries me most, Bolton 2nd choice v our third choice a week ago

Wilson will be first choice with Amos as back up.

That makes sense I would be surprised if Amos was brought in to be No1 , hope Wilson is up to the job

I'm happy with lambert he could well save our season? A proven scorer

Indian with a gambling addiction ?

lambert is probably the better choice, but i'm not sure of the logic being giving a 34 year old a two year deal. at that age it should always be a 1 year deal unless the player has a proven track record of fitness and is showing no signs of slowing down.

2 years is a hell of a long time in football. his record in the last two years reads 4 goals in 60 games..... yes alot were substitute appearances but it makes for horrific reading, so lets not get too carried away.

clubs prefer to make a contract a bit longer so the costs are offset over two yrs rather than one, i read an article a few weeks back thats why arsenal sign players on five yr contracts its called Amortisation

Didn't need Lafferty a player with a bad attertude sorry just got rid of 2 rubbish strikers. Now we have a striker who will score and help the striker we have with his vast experience

lambert is probably the better choice, but i'm not sure of the logic being giving a 34 year old a two year deal. at that age it should always be a 1 year deal unless the player has a proven track record of fitness and is showing no signs of slowing down.

2 years is a hell of a long time in football. his record in the last two years reads 4 goals in 60 games..... yes alot were substitute appearances but it makes for horrific reading, so lets not get too carried away.

clubs prefer to make a contract a bit longer so the costs are offset over two yrs rather than one, i read an article a few weeks back thats why arsenal sign players on five yr contracts its called Amortisation

that doesnt apply at the age of 34 though. it should have been a loan, or at have least a break clause at the end of the first year. this may well be the case, but the people doing the deals at our club aren't the brightest.

arsenal would be very wary of giving a 2 year contract to a player of such an age. almost every other club would be very hesitant to give a player who is 34 such a contract, especially when he hasn't completed many full games in the past 2 years.

amortisation doesnt mean much if a player's legs have gone and he ends up picking up the wages for the last year. especially as the fee would be minimal and the bulk of the costs in this transfer would be player wages.

Was told he done a medical and talks were successful on Tuesday but agent told him he had other options where he stalled us over the day, difference is Lambert was keen to come and Lafferty was happy to stall us.

The difference is Lafferty will now be warming the bench at Norwich and thinking what might have been. Instead of progressing his career he has effectively stalled it.

We don't need or want another player with a bad attitude, which is what we may have got judging by the comments made on Lafferty. Personally, I think we dodged a bullet with this guy.

Lambert could also be an excellent role model for Fred, Zohore and Healey.

lambert is probably the better choice, but i'm not sure of the logic being giving a 34 year old a two year deal. at that age it should always be a 1 year deal unless the player has a proven track record of fitness and is showing no signs of slowing down.

2 years is a hell of a long time in football. his record in the last two years reads 4 goals in 60 games..... yes alot were substitute appearances but it makes for horrific reading, so lets not get too carried away.

clubs prefer to make a contract a bit longer so the costs are offset over two yrs rather than one, i read an article a few weeks back thats why arsenal sign players on five yr contracts its called Amortisation

that doesnt apply at the age of 34 though. it should have been a loan, or at have least a break clause at the end of the first year. this may well be the case, but the people doing the deals at our club aren't the brightest.

arsenal would be very wary of giving a 2 year contract to a player of such an age. almost every other club would be very hesitant to give a player who is 34 such a contract, especially when he hasn't completed many full games in the past 2 years.

amortisation doesnt mean much if a player's legs have gone and he ends up picking up the wages for the last year. especially as the fee would be minimal and the bulk of the costs in this transfer would be player wages.

OF COURSE IT APPLIES THE COST ISNT GOING TO BE ALL ON THE ACCOUNTS FOR THIS YR ITS SPREAD OVER THE TWO

Lafferty was linked last season with us - the guy has had more than a week to think about his football future ( IMO ).

Given the choice I'm glad we've got Lambert over lafferty

I agree. Lafferty seemed like one hell of a gamble.

Indian with a gambling addiction ?

lambert is probably the better choice, but i'm not sure of the logic being giving a 34 year old a two year deal. at that age it should always be a 1 year deal unless the player has a proven track record of fitness and is showing no signs of slowing down.

2 years is a hell of a long time in football. his record in the last two years reads 4 goals in 60 games..... yes alot were substitute appearances but it makes for horrific reading, so lets not get too carried away.

clubs prefer to make a contract a bit longer so the costs are offset over two yrs rather than one, i read an article a few weeks back thats why arsenal sign players on five yr contracts its called Amortisation

that doesnt apply at the age of 34 though. it should have been a loan, or at have least a break clause at the end of the first year. this may well be the case, but the people doing the deals at our club aren't the brightest.

arsenal would be very wary of giving a 2 year contract to a player of such an age. almost every other club would be very hesitant to give a player who is 34 such a contract, especially when he hasn't completed many full games in the past 2 years.

amortisation doesnt mean much if a player's legs have gone and he ends up picking up the wages for the last year. especially as the fee would be minimal and the bulk of the costs in this transfer would be player wages.

OF COURSE IT APPLIES THE COST ISNT GOING TO BE ALL ON THE ACCOUNTS FOR THIS YR ITS SPREAD OVER THE TWO

quote from carl curtis:

The wages, including the signing on fee, in the absence of a transfer fee, I am told is £32k per week.

according to CC you were wrong, i was right. it was quite clear that a player of this age would have only commanded a nominal fee, if that. the club will suffer if lambert legs go, but at least we can amortise that £0 fee over 2 years, i suppose.