Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bovril

Ipswich move for 'Tiny'

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="ellis206"]And what negligence is this then?? can you remind me of a time when the board have refused to give any of our managers money for a player?? Remember the whole Huckerby saga, when the board said that we couldn''t afford him, and then we signed Svensson and Leon McKenzie, which came to about 800k, and then they splashed out on Huckerby, its all mind games. If Martin Taylor doesn`t come to Norwich, then it will be no fault of our board, as they have clearly supported GR with funds, and as GR said himself, it was him who chose not to purchase him at the price they were asking, so no i''m not more in love with the board than NCFC, i''m just fed up with fans coming on here and slating the board for everything that happens at the club, even though GR has told everyone that the board have fully supported him, people still blame the board for Martin Taylor not being here. Question to you, if Norwich did sign Martin Taylor, would you then congratulate the board and the management for a job well done?? or would you just move on to criticise them on something else?And you said you''ll continue to speak with the best interest of NCFC at heart, well tell me what the best interest of Norwich is at the moment?? sack the board I assume? well if this board ever left us, I can gurantee this club will just fall and fall, but I suppose that''s what all you board bashers want! [/quote]every manager of city in recent years has complained of a small squad.  we''re oft linked with players - that never come.  we''re told no transfer business is done early pre-season cos everyone is on holiday - and then as the window begins to close, everybody is too expensive.  funny that doesn''t stop other clubs making signings.  its a perenial problem for NCFC - we make insufficient funds available for summer spend, and then panic into making loan signings mid-season.  we did it the year we went up - most of our business was done in the autumn and jan window.  sure, we made some signings for the prem, but shied away from getting a top front man in - result we drew loads and didn''t win for 10 (?) games or so.  imagine crouch or deano at the start of our prem campaign??? when we went down, we had a thin squad, bolstered by poor quality signings - and so had to plunge into the loan market again in the autumn.  the season worthy went, he was allowed to sign 1 player, crofty.  grant again observed we had a small squad, and despite always trying to add to it, released more than he took on.  he got into trouble - sacked - more emergency loans done by duffy - and now roeder.  beginning to get the picture???  the real shocker, was allowing grant to sniff out bargains in the scottish leagues, similar to how hamilton raided the continent.  in both cases, the players they signed were patently not good enough, and they both went as city flirted with the bottom 3.  to make a mistake is careless, to repeat it is negligence imo.  i''m deeply unhappy with the state of english football, and the fantasy economics played out in it, but speculative investment is the name of the game, and unless we join in and play by these rules, we risk becoming uncompetitive, marginalised and league 1 bound - with leeds.  and yes, i do praise the board where its due - at 4.50pm today actually - see the chris brown sold for £400k thread!!![/quote]

So much truth in every word you say on this thread LGT... some fantastic posts.

As for Ellis well the guy just simply does not have a clue does he???

[/quote]thanks smudge - been on holiday???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ellis206"]Ok and I agree with just about everything you said on this post, but I disagree with you saying that we make insufficient funds available for summer spend, this year did we not have a bid accepted for 2 million for Billy Sharpe? and didn''t we put in a substantial bid for Freddy Eastwood as well? It was no fault of the manager or the board that neither of these players decided to join us, it was the players decision. And we all know that the funds were just not there to buy Dean Ashton or Peter Crouch at the start of the premiership season, it''s like you don''t walk into tescos, get a massive trolley full of items, and then go to the checkout without having money on you! all this stuff you have come out with doesn''t show negligence on the boards behalf, it shows negligence on the managers behalf, look at the state this club is in now compared to 10 years ago, look how much nicer the stadium is and surrounding areas etc etc, ok our team is under performing at the moment but I honestly believe GR will change this, and the board have given him money to spend and I think he will use it wisely, unlike PG who just wasted it. And this bit.......  "the real shocker, was allowing grant to sniff out bargains in the

scottish leagues, similar to how hamilton raided the continent.  in

both cases, the players they signed were patently not good enough, and

they both went as city flirted with the bottom 3.  to make a mistake is

careless, to repeat it is negligence imo"
  are you basically saying that you don''t want the board to support our managers? So if the board had took a stand and told Peter Grant he wasn''t allowed to buy any of the players he wanted to, would you have been pleased? or would you have said it was the board keeping there money in the pocket and not showing any ambition?? Basically whatever the board do, they can''t win, they will always have people moaning at how they run things. And yes, it was a great bit of business to actually receive money for Chris Brown :)[/quote]fair comments ellis - but you''re either in the hunt or not, and despite hearing ''prem ambition'' - less and less its backed up actions.  either the club is properly organised to mount a convincing prem challenge, or its not.  their responsibility is to to keep up with developments in the football world, to ensure we are realistically funded - and if not, we can certainly thank them for their effort, but concede they are punching below weight and need a shake up. the grant/hamilton thing was full circle for me - and full term for the board imo.  i concur with MWJ that this point was a watershed in the clubs history, because hopefully it signals that extra investment is coming into the club.  i''m was hoping the turners&/or others were picking up the mantle behind the scenes, and so naturally i was very disappointed to see taylor not signed for the sake of £250k, or peanuts as adams calls it.  either we act like we have prem ambition or we don''t - and having enjoyed championship winning form with tiny hear, how crass was it to let this opportunity pass NCFC by again.a defensive rock like tiny is worth his weight in gold - and imo signing him would''ve clearly signalled we meant business.  who knows, if we could''ve had the boy hear for december - we may have won some of those games we drew, and be mid-table, harbouring dreams of a top 6 finish.  palace are doing it - the likes of bristol c and stoke are doing it - why shouldn''t NCFC??? those teams were in the ole div 3 while we were in div 1 - with our crowd support - we''re a deserved prem team, but at boardroom level - we''re an average champs team - make no mistake.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ellis206"]And what negligence is this then?? can you remind me of a time when the board have refused to give any of our managers money for a player?? Remember the whole Huckerby saga, when the board said that we couldn''t afford him, and then we signed Svensson and Leon McKenzie, which came to about 800k, and then they splashed out on Huckerby, its all mind games. If Martin Taylor doesn`t come to Norwich, then it will be no fault of our board, as they have clearly supported GR with funds, and as GR said himself, it was him who chose not to purchase him at the price they were asking, so no i''m not more in love with the board than NCFC, i''m just fed up with fans coming on here and slating the board for everything that happens at the club, even though GR has told everyone that the board have fully supported him, people still blame the board for Martin Taylor not being here.
Question to you, if Norwich did sign Martin Taylor, would you then congratulate the board and the management for a job well done?? or would you just move on to criticise them on something else?
And you said you''ll continue to speak with the best interest of NCFC at heart, well tell me what the best interest of Norwich is at the moment?? sack the board I assume? well if this board ever left us, I can gurantee this club will just fall and fall, but I suppose that''s what all you board bashers want!
[/quote]

Are you for real? Since relegation we have been linked with/had bids for Sidwell, Koumas, Howard, Edwards, Halford, Eastwood, Hulse etc. All of them have been sold on for/are worth more than the asking price rumoured at the time. The Southend chairman branded our Eastwood bid "a joke". After the board vetoed Worthingtons`move for Howard he came out in the press and stated "City must pay the going rate". Howard has since moved on for a £500k profit after playing a big part in getting Derby promoted. Worthington also publically questioned why we couldn`t afford to prize Norris away from Plymouth. He`s now being touted for double what was being asked back then. As for "not being able to afford" Crouch or Ashton after securing a promotion worth £35m......gullible isn`t the word.

This Taylor business is just the same old story of the club not being willing to go the extra mile to secure a player of proven quality and hoping we can pick up another reject for £300k "who will do". This approach has saddled the club with Louis-Jean, Jarrett, Thorne, Gallagher, Colin, Hughes, Robinson, Brellier, Strihavka etc., total wastes of money and a prime example of an idiotic level of false economy.

As for your last sentence, what exactly have the club been doing for the last three years? Wake up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the real shocker, was allowing grant to sniff out bargains in the scottish leagues, similar to how hamilton raided the continent.  in both cases, the players they signed were patently not good enough, and they both went as city flirted with the bottom 3.  to make a mistake is careless, to repeat it is negligence imo"

Was the mistake appointing Grant and Hamilton or was it backing their judgement in the transfer market. Surely once you have appointed a manager you should back them? Should the board have said to Grant not to ask for players from Scotland?

I wonder what the success rate is on managerial appointments. This board have Rioch, Hamilton, Worthington, Grant and Roeder on their CV. The Jury is out on Roeder and of the other four Worthington is the only proven success. So that''s 25%. How does that compare with boards at other clubs?

The comparison of players signed by Grant to those signed by Hamilton isn''t fair. Grants were better surely. And Grant  signed Mark Fotheringham who has become a hugely important part of our team. I think a priority would be to get him on a longer contract.

I blame the board for not backing the managers not for backing them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

"the real shocker, was allowing grant to sniff out bargains in the scottish leagues, similar to how hamilton raided the continent.  in both cases, the players they signed were patently not good enough, and they both went as city flirted with the bottom 3.  to make a mistake is careless, to repeat it is negligence imo"

Was the mistake appointing Grant and Hamilton or was it backing their judgement in the transfer market. Surely once you have appointed a manager you should back them? Should the board have said to Grant not to ask for players from Scotland?

I wonder what the success rate is on managerial appointments. This board have Rioch, Hamilton, Worthington, Grant and Roeder on their CV. The Jury is out on Roeder and of the other four Worthington is the only proven success. So that''s 25%. How does that compare with boards at other clubs?

The comparison of players signed by Grant to those signed by Hamilton isn''t fair. Grants were better surely. And Grant  signed Mark Fotheringham who has become a hugely important part of our team. I think a priority would be to get him on a longer contract.

I blame the board for not backing the managers not for backing them.

 

[/quote]naturally nutty, once the board picks their man, its down to him to wheel and deal, and produce a team that meets the boards/players and fans criteria - ie to aim for promotion.   however, grant was not backed from the start, he couldn''t bring his own back room staff in, and his transfer budget left him with little choice than to  pick up bargains here and there - he said  better value could be  had from  scotland where wages were lower  - not ideal if we''re serious about prem challenge.   even when the coach left, he wasn''t replaced, he never signed the centre half he''d been banging on about all pre-season, but the chief exec reckons he never asked - and in the next breath mentioned we had a ''black hole'' in the accounts.  i''d agree that grant made 3 decent signings for us, but some truly awful ones too.  bu hamilton did bring in holt and steeno.to my mind, 1 good season in 10, and 2 adequate ones - doesn''t provide a ringing endorsement for this board.  if they had any sense, they began the process of passing the batton on during the 3 week gap between granty going and roedy coming in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this a laugh at Ipswich thread? If it is, we (Leicester) knocked back a 1million pound bid from them for Gareth McAuley, not havning much luck at getting new players in despite their investors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rumour going about is that Ipswich have placed a bid for Taylor, but its just short of the £1m asking price, lets hope Brum stick to there guns and turn the bid down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally there is more to come out of this Taylor saga. In the end I think that as January wears on then Brum will have no choice to sell to us. I think the board perhaps is not to blame here. I do think £1.25 million is a lot for a player who''s going to be out of contract soon and is unwanted at his club no matter how good/bad he is. Glenn is playing the waiting game and as QPR were the only other team to have put a bid in, and there''s being accepted but Taylor turning them down, it looks unlikely Brum will get anymore offers. We shall see.I have to dis-agree with you about Ashton though "ellis". Ashton was a target on Worthington radar for a long while. He inquired during our promotion season, in the end opting for mckenzie and svensson and was told a fee (that was significantly higher than our purchase, approx 4.5m) during the summer that only liverpool matched. Ashton and Gradi turned them away though. Worthy asked the board to match liverpools offer but he was turned away. Either way the board has penny pinched at the wrong times too often for me. They might want to flash their hand soon but I have no confidence in them till they can prove they have the track record to help us out of our current plight.In other news I saw Taylor on the A12 heading towards Ipswich so it looks like he''s going there. Oh well John Terry was seen in Asda so at least we''ll be getting some good cover for the Doc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

The comparison of players signed by Grant to those signed by Hamilton isn''t fair. Grants were better surely. And Grant  signed Mark Fotheringham who has become a hugely important part of our team. I think a priority would be to get him on a longer contract.

[/quote]

On the flipside Hamilton had virtually no cash.  Grant had a decent amount to spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]lol they just had a bid for yet another player turned down [;)][/quote]

Noone wants to sell in January, as we and the scum are finding out.  Decent players are hard to come by and won''t come cheap, especially from fellow Championship sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats because unlike our sensible board they haven''t had any qualms about shouting to all and sundry that they have got big money to spend.  They will be held to ransome now for every player they go for, pillocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this has been going round for a couplr of weeks now,but in last night press it was  reported that bcfc would accept a bid of £750,000 for tiny from ncfc,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ianboogie"]this has been going round for a couplr of weeks now,but in last night press it was  reported that bcfc would accept a bid of £750,000 for tiny from ncfc,[/quote]

what?! if im right, im pretty sure we bid £750,000 for him in the first place?! and it was duly turned down as QPR offered £1million, and even after taylor stated he didnt want to go to QPR, our bid was still turned down... so yes, possibly near the end of the window we might be able to nab him for that figure (providing ipswich or others dont agree personal terms) but i cant see that price being accepted during the initial stages of the window.... though of course i''m happy to be proved wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He''s a bloody good player for the championship so would be very surprised if he''s not subject to offers from five clubs or more. Derby may even nab him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

"the real shocker, was allowing grant to sniff out bargains in the scottish leagues, similar to how hamilton raided the continent.  in both cases, the players they signed were patently not good enough, and they both went as city flirted with the bottom 3.  to make a mistake is careless, to repeat it is negligence imo"

Was the mistake appointing Grant and Hamilton or was it backing their judgement in the transfer market. Surely once you have appointed a manager you should back them? Should the board have said to Grant not to ask for players from Scotland?

I wonder what the success rate is on managerial appointments. This board have Rioch, Hamilton, Worthington, Grant and Roeder on their CV. The Jury is out on Roeder and of the other four Worthington is the only proven success. So that''s 25%. How does that compare with boards at other clubs?

The comparison of players signed by Grant to those signed by Hamilton isn''t fair. Grants were better surely. And Grant  signed Mark Fotheringham who has become a hugely important part of our team. I think a priority would be to get him on a longer contract.

I blame the board for not backing the managers not for backing them.

 

[/quote]

naturally nutty, once the board picks their man, its down to him to wheel and deal, and produce a team that meets the boards/players and fans criteria - ie to aim for promotion.   however, grant was not backed from the start, he couldn''t bring his own back room staff in, and his transfer budget left him with little choice than to  pick up bargains here and there - he said  better value could be  had from  scotland where wages were lower  - not ideal if we''re serious about prem challenge.   even when the coach left, he wasn''t replaced, he never signed the centre half he''d been banging on about all pre-season, but the chief exec reckons he never asked - and in the next breath mentioned we had a ''black hole'' in the accounts. 

i''d agree that grant made 3 decent signings for us, but some truly awful ones too.  bu hamilton did bring in holt and steeno.

to my mind, 1 good season in 10, and 2 adequate ones - doesn''t provide a ringing endorsement for this board.  if they had any sense, they began the process of passing the batton on during the 3 week gap between granty going and roedy coming in.




[/quote]

LGT - I think Worthy signed Gary Holt. Hamilton chased him for a while and I remember something about a £400,000 fee being agreed. Worthy got him for £100,000.  Hamilton did bring in Steeno who proved to be an excellent signing  but he also................. don''t get me started on Hamilton! [:@]

I just really don''t know if Grant ever did want to bring his own people in. He eventually brought in Duffy but they weren''t really a partnership. He then fell out with Martin Hunter at a time when he was falling out with everyone and it was obvious there were huge divisions within the club. Idon''t really believe Grant ever had a backroom team to bring in.

Who is this centre half that Grant had been banging on about? Was there one? If Grant tried to sign one and the board didn''t back him then I agree to blame them. But my recollection is that Grant didn''t try to sign one. He always seemed happy to play Dublin there and then bought in Murray and I got the impression that he was happy to go with Doherty, Dublin, Murray and Shackell.

The one thing in Grants favour is that he was always honest. He told it how it was. He was honest at the end and we should all be grateful for that. So if Grant says the board backed him then I believe him.

One good season in ten is a bit harsh. The last two seasons have been abysmal and totally unacceptable and this season so far is much the same. However, I would have thought that 2002/3 was acceptable/adequate as we spent over half the season in the top 6 and only dropped out of play off contention in late April. So that makes 3 good seasons, 1 adequate and 6 sh*t which is still not good enough.

But its the last two seasons that have caused the unrest amongst the fans and I still have a real problem about the board not backing Worthy before the 2006/7 season. They neither backed him or sacked him, I would have backed him, but to do neither was unforgivable. However, I don''t think any of it is relevent to now. Roeder is a new manager, there have been changes at boardroom level, I guess as uncomfortable as some may find it we have to wait and see.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

"the real shocker, was allowing grant to sniff out bargains in the scottish leagues, similar to how hamilton raided the continent.  in both cases, the players they signed were patently not good enough, and they both went as city flirted with the bottom 3.  to make a mistake is careless, to repeat it is negligence imo"

Was the mistake appointing Grant and Hamilton or was it backing their judgement in the transfer market. Surely once you have appointed a manager you should back them? Should the board have said to Grant not to ask for players from Scotland?

I wonder what the success rate is on managerial appointments. This board have Rioch, Hamilton, Worthington, Grant and Roeder on their CV. The Jury is out on Roeder and of the other four Worthington is the only proven success. So that''s 25%. How does that compare with boards at other clubs?

The comparison of players signed by Grant to those signed by Hamilton isn''t fair. Grants were better surely. And Grant  signed Mark Fotheringham who has become a hugely important part of our team. I think a priority would be to get him on a longer contract.

I blame the board for not backing the managers not for backing them.

 

[/quote]naturally nutty, once the board picks their man, its down to him to wheel and deal, and produce a team that meets the boards/players and fans criteria - ie to aim for promotion.   however, grant was not backed from the start, he couldn''t bring his own back room staff in, and his transfer budget left him with little choice than to  pick up bargains here and there - he said  better value could be  had from  scotland where wages were lower  - not ideal if we''re serious about prem challenge.   even when the coach left, he wasn''t replaced, he never signed the centre half he''d been banging on about all pre-season, but the chief exec reckons he never asked - and in the next breath mentioned we had a ''black hole'' in the accounts.  i''d agree that grant made 3 decent signings for us, but some truly awful ones too.  bu hamilton did bring in holt and steeno.to my mind, 1 good season in 10, and 2 adequate ones - doesn''t provide a ringing endorsement for this board.  if they had any sense, they began the process of passing the batton on during the 3 week gap between granty going and roedy coming in.

[/quote]

LGT - I think Worthy signed Gary Holt. Hamilton chased him for a while and I remember something about a £400,000 fee being agreed. Worthy got him for £100,000.  Hamilton did bring in Steeno who proved to be an excellent signing  but he also................. don''t get me started on Hamilton! [:@]

I just really don''t know if Grant ever did want to bring his own people in. He eventually brought in Duffy but they weren''t really a partnership. He then fell out with Martin Hunter at a time when he was falling out with everyone and it was obvious there were huge divisions within the club. Idon''t really believe Grant ever had a backroom team to bring in.

Who is this centre half that Grant had been banging on about? Was there one? If Grant tried to sign one and the board didn''t back him then I agree to blame them. But my recollection is that Grant didn''t try to sign one. He always seemed happy to play Dublin there and then bought in Murray and I got the impression that he was happy to go with Doherty, Dublin, Murray and Shackell.

The one thing in Grants favour is that he was always honest. He told it how it was. He was honest at the end and we should all be grateful for that. So if Grant says the board backed him then I believe him.

One good season in ten is a bit harsh. The last two seasons have been abysmal and totally unacceptable and this season so far is much the same. However, I would have thought that 2002/3 was acceptable/adequate as we spent over half the season in the top 6 and only dropped out of play off contention in late April. So that makes 3 good seasons, 1 adequate and 6 sh*t which is still not good enough.

But its the last two seasons that have caused the unrest amongst the fans and I still have a real problem about the board not backing Worthy before the 2006/7 season. They neither backed him or sacked him, I would have backed him, but to do neither was unforgivable. However, I don''t think any of it is relevent to now. Roeder is a new manager, there have been changes at boardroom level, I guess as uncomfortable as some may find it we have to wait and see.

 

[/quote]from what i remember nutty - holty arrived for a stadium tour the day ham got the chop.   so yeah, worthy signed him, but ham got him in the first place.  cud be wrong though, its a while back.   re granty: it sensible, practical and good practice to bring your own backroom boys in - i think grant sold his soul a bit in choosing/agreeing to stay with worthy''s (maybe to egt the job???)  - but then as you say duffy arrived on the scene, which common sense tells you would cause friction with hunter - who jumped ship, never to be replaced.  i''m sorry - but this period looks ham-fisted and unprofessional - what a way to run a club???  from recollection, pre-season - granty clearly expressed a wish to bring in a centre-half, but then as you say - went with what we had.  a good season for me is a top 6 champs finish.  nothing else is acceptable, i want to see NCFC back in the prem.  but worryingly, from my point of view, 1 prem season in recent years doesn''t qualify us as ''being back where we belong.''  for me, too many fans have lost perspective from our prolonged stay in the champs and the agonies we''ve endured.  we''ve got used to accepting our lot, tolerating the sub-standard, and merely shrugging our shoulders, sighing and saying -''ah, well, never mind, thas life boy!!!''the little ole naaarwich mentality seems chronically entrenched in the heart of this club - it needs cutting out and starting again.  we need to talk the talk and walk the walk as a ''big club'' imo - and i believe roedy and his staff have these standards and beliefs on board.   his public roasting of the players post-plymouth (and the recent blood-letting of players) suggests he has certain standards that he expects players to meet - and those that don''t shape-up, make no mistake - he will ship out.  to my mind, he''s learned by his managerial experience to date, and knows how to be nice, and how to play tough - and where to get the balance right.  so crucial for successful management.  i feel we''re about to reap the rewards of roedy''s advancement along his football learning curve - and lets hope for all sakes its an upwards one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]
from what i remember nutty - holty arrived for a stadium tour the day ham got the chop.   so yeah, worthy signed him, but ham got him in the first place.  cud be wrong though, its a while back.   re granty: it sensible, practical and good practice to bring your own backroom boys in - i think grant sold his soul a bit in choosing/agreeing to stay with worthy''s (maybe to egt the job???)  - but then as you say duffy arrived on the scene, which common sense tells you would cause friction with hunter - who jumped ship, never to be replaced.  i''m sorry - but this period looks ham-fisted and unprofessional - what a way to run a club???  from recollection, pre-season - granty clearly expressed a wish to bring in a centre-half, but then as you say - went with what we had. 

a good season for me is a top 6 champs finish.  nothing else is acceptable, i want to see NCFC back in the prem.  but worryingly, from my point of view, 1 prem season in recent years doesn''t qualify us as ''being back where we belong.''  for me, too many fans have lost perspective from our prolonged stay in the champs and the agonies we''ve endured.  we''ve got used to accepting our lot, tolerating the sub-standard, and merely shrugging our shoulders, sighing and saying -''ah, well, never mind, thas life boy!!!''

the little ole naaarwich mentality seems chronically entrenched in the heart of this club - it needs cutting out and starting again.  we need to talk the talk and walk the walk as a ''big club'' imo - and i believe roedy and his staff have these standards and beliefs on board.   his public roasting of the players post-plymouth (and the recent blood-letting of players) suggests he has certain standards that he expects players to meet - and those that don''t shape-up, make no mistake - he will ship out. 

to my mind, he''s learned by his managerial experience to date, and knows how to be nice, and how to play tough - and where to get the balance right.  so crucial for successful management.  i feel we''re about to reap the rewards of roedy''s advancement along his football learning curve - and lets hope for all sakes its an upwards one.

[/quote]

The thing with Grant was that he said straight away that he wanted to give the staff already in place a chance with him. In his press conference he said he didn''t agree with people losing their jobs without first being given a chance. I don''t believe anyone can doubt Peter Grants honesty so I am happy to believe him. I think he then brought in Duffy for his experience as things started to go wrong for him. I am sure he would have been better off starting out with his own people but I doubt he had anyone in mind to bring in anyway as he came here from being a number two. I would love to see Grant become a success somewhere else if only for his honesty and the dignified way he brought his tenure here to a close.

We agree that a top 6 finish in this league constitutes a good season so that''s 3 good seasons in the last 10. I still think a season where we spend months in the top 6 and only drop out of contention in late April is adequate, I never said it was good though.

Make no mistake Glen Roeder is cut from different cloth to Peter Grant and Worthy. I am a great fan of Nigel Worthington and I thought we had some good times here under him, in fact for younger fans the only good times they have witnessed. But Worthy was "nice" and I guess he was lucky that the big players at the club respected him. he came through from the coaching staff so was a lot closer to the players than a manager coming in from outside. I bet Glenn Roeder is much more detatched from the players, he is an experienced manager with a big club mentality. He has brought in coaching staff to compliment eachother and I believe has the balance right. Roeder is definitely no "Mr Niceguy"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]from what i remember nutty - holty arrived for a stadium tour the day ham got the chop.   so yeah, worthy signed him, but ham got him in the first place.  cud be wrong though, its a while back.   re granty: it sensible, practical and good practice to bring your own backroom boys in - i think grant sold his soul a bit in choosing/agreeing to stay with worthy''s (maybe to egt the job???)  - but then as you say duffy arrived on the scene, which common sense tells you would cause friction with hunter - who jumped ship, never to be replaced.  i''m sorry - but this period looks ham-fisted and unprofessional - what a way to run a club???  from recollection, pre-season - granty clearly expressed a wish to bring in a centre-half, but then as you say - went with what we had.  a good season for me is a top 6 champs finish.  nothing else is acceptable, i want to see NCFC back in the prem.  but worryingly, from my point of view, 1 prem season in recent years doesn''t qualify us as ''being back where we belong.''  for me, too many fans have lost perspective from our prolonged stay in the champs and the agonies we''ve endured.  we''ve got used to accepting our lot, tolerating the sub-standard, and merely shrugging our shoulders, sighing and saying -''ah, well, never mind, thas life boy!!!''the little ole naaarwich mentality seems chronically entrenched in the heart of this club - it needs cutting out and starting again.  we need to talk the talk and walk the walk as a ''big club'' imo - and i believe roedy and his staff have these standards and beliefs on board.   his public roasting of the players post-plymouth (and the recent blood-letting of players) suggests he has certain standards that he expects players to meet - and those that don''t shape-up, make no mistake - he will ship out.  to my mind, he''s learned by his managerial experience to date, and knows how to be nice, and how to play tough - and where to get the balance right.  so crucial for successful management.  i feel we''re about to reap the rewards of roedy''s advancement along his football learning curve - and lets hope for all sakes its an upwards one.[/quote]

The thing with Grant was that he said straight away that he wanted to give the staff already in place a chance with him. In his press conference he said he didn''t agree with people losing their jobs without first being given a chance. I don''t believe anyone can doubt Peter Grants honesty so I am happy to believe him. I think he then brought in Duffy for his experience as things started to go wrong for him. I am sure he would have been better off starting out with his own people but I doubt he had anyone in mind to bring in anyway as he came here from being a number two. I would love to see Grant become a success somewhere else if only for his honesty and the dignified way he brought his tenure here to a close.

We agree that a top 6 finish in this league constitutes a good season so that''s 3 good seasons in the last 10. I still think a season where we spend months in the top 6 and only drop out of contention in late April is adequate, I never said it was good though.

Make no mistake Glen Roeder is cut from different cloth to Peter Grant and Worthy. I am a great fan of Nigel Worthington and I thought we had some good times here under him, in fact for younger fans the only good times they have witnessed. But Worthy was "nice" and I guess he was lucky that the big players at the club respected him. he came through from the coaching staff so was a lot closer to the players than a manager coming in from outside. I bet Glenn Roeder is much more detatched from the players, he is an experienced manager with a big club mentality. He has brought in coaching staff to compliment eachother and I believe has the balance right. Roeder is definitely no "Mr Niceguy"

[/quote]

ok nutty N - agree re what constitute a good and adequate season.  i appreciated what nigel did for NCFC, but equally i was frustrated at his limitations, and eventaully they outweighed the positives for me.  RE: 3 good seasons outa 10??? its an underperformance in my view-given we had been a big club, with many years of division 1 seasons under our belts.  especially when its realised that maybe 9-12 clubs in the champs are better funded than us now - who can say with reasonable certainty that in the next 10 years we will A) equal or better this or B) even make the top 6 again???  becuase if 10 clubs have bigger playing budgets than us, its rational and reasonable to suppose we will struggle to make 6th spot or better.   relying on doing a ''watford'' is like waiting for a comet to come around again i.e every 3-5 years.  its hardly inspiring.  the big 4 in the prem are simply that, because they spend the most.  its not rocket science. i also see where you''re coming from with roeder - he has a big club/ultra professional mentality, and has learned that giving players a chance who don''t deserve it, and/or lack talent & application is a sure fire recipe for failure and the sack.  he''s learned the hard way(there''s often no other)  - but i feel he''s fair to his boots and will give private/public instructions to what he expects and a time frame, and if the player doesn''t respond he''s out - his recent public advice to martin is a recent example.  (obviously roedy knows the boy has talent, but has clearly told young martin that he needs to work hard to exploit his talents.  i think the players know where they stand with roeder - martin might not like the advice, but he at least knows what he must do, and if being fair to people is being ''nice'' then roedy must qualify in this regard at least.  my view of grant re his backroom staff (or lack of it) is that whether it was his choice, or the boards or a mixture of both - it smacked as naive at best and unprofessional at worst.  i can''t imagine a serious manager not bringing in his own men.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...