Roeder is the best thing for City since O'Neil

[Jacko 0]

I think it''s a little bit harsh dragging this up. At the time under Roeder we had managed to get up to about 8th from being 24th by some way and even looked like an outside bet for a playoff place. He had signed the likes of Martin Taylor, Ryan Betrand, Ched Evans and even Matty Pattison was playing quite well at the time. However this does teach us a lesson for the future. While Lambert is doing a brilliant job and is pulling the club up from the bootlaces people are allowed to question his decision making. I see to many people on stating quite valid opinions which are shot down on here for them ''not being Paul Lambert, hence their opinion is not valid.'' It was failure by the board to question Roeder and his £8.5 million budget which got us into this mess in the first place

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Harsh in that context my friend. There must be hundreds of posts from me over the years where I had misplaced confidence in all people at the club, even Roeder, Grant and Gunn. But I dragged it up because of yesterdays post about tipping points and realised I''d read it all before.

While it''s true that there has not been enough investment in the club to reclaim and sustain a Premier League place it''s also true that there has been enough investment by the current owners to be competitive in the Championship. It''s my view, and always has been, that adequate player budgets for Championship football have been wasted with poor football decisions.

If last seasons player budget had been 10m I doubt if the season would have ended much differently. According to Bowkett Wolves won the league with a very similar budget to ours.

 

 

[Jacko 0]

I agree with all that. Which is why people should continue to scrutinise Lambert''s decisions no matter how well he is doing. As has been proved by other appointments blind faith in a manager is not healthy. Roeder was effectively given licence to whatever he liked after keeping us up. I am not advocating a board who interferes hugely in first team affairs but a good manager should surely at least be able to explain the reasoning behind his decisions and if they are sensible everyone can accept them.

[Trent Canary 0]

Worthy went from hero to zero in a couple of seasons. Roeder went from the thoughts expressed on this thread to a joke within a season. If we end up in the relegation zone come the christmas period then I assume the crowd will turn against Lambert as well. (Although I have faith we will be around mid-table)Whilst his financial dealings are questionable, the one thing Redknapp is good at is getting out when the going is good, a very good skill to have.

[TheGoogler 324]

The thing is, Roeder was the best thing City has for a while, initially. He made great strides in stabilising us, brought in some good, solid players and got us playing good passing football again.

The 2nd season, though, Roeder did everything wrong. He let the wrong players go, he brought in the wrong players, he destroyed the team''s spirit, caused fan faith in him and the team to plummet to new depths and more.

It''s not inaccurate to suggest he was the best thing that happened to us for some time. For some time, it looked like he was to be a great manager for us.

[First Wizard 0]

It must be Friday.[:S]

[Ginja 26]

This is pathetic and childish nutty, I thought you were classier than digging up old posts to score points.

[morty 0]

Very funny though.[:)]

[Henry 0]

The benefit of hindsight .... being able to wet your pants laughing a year later [:)]

[Ginja 26]

[quote user="morty"]Very funny though.[:)][/quote]I wonder what your opinion of Roeder at the time was Morty... I''m assuming it was that you thought Roeder would be a failure?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Notts Canary"][quote user="morty"]Very funny though.[:)][/quote]I wonder what your opinion of Roeder at the time was Morty... I''m assuming it was that you thought Roeder would be a failure?[/quote]I didn''t pass opinion on this forum.[:)]

[First Jedi 0]

"I thought you were classier"

Does that make you more stupid than him then? ;)

[Ginja 26]

[quote user="First Jedi"]"I thought you were classier"

Does that make you more stupid than him then? ;)[/quote]I''m Dyslexic so it''s quite common for me to slip up, much to the amusement of my spouse who is an English Graduate [:P]At least I''m trying to get it right, unlike some on here [;)]

[First Jedi 0]

Like those that dunt write proper?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="TheGoogler"]The thing is, Roeder was the best thing City has for a while, initially. He made great strides in stabilising us, brought in some good, solid players and got us playing good passing football again. The 2nd season, though, Roeder did everything wrong. He let the wrong players go, he brought in the wrong players, he destroyed the team''s spirit, caused fan faith in him and the team to plummet to new depths and more. It''s not inaccurate to suggest he was the best thing that happened to us for some time. For some time, it looked like he was to be a great manager for us.[/quote]

Roeder relied largely on loans to get us out of an extremely precarious position, then found himself for various reasons with a squad down to 9 senior pro`s.  £8.5m with an established squad of players is a healthy budget.  £8.5m with a demoralised squad down to the bare bones is a different picture.  I believe that he didn`t have the funds to bring in players of the quality he wanted on permenant contracts and therefore went all-out on the loans policy which had worked for a while- obviously it failed badly.  The real issue was how the squad got that weak in the first place.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

There will always be tipping points and potential tipping points.

Just as there will always be tides in the affairs of men.

To recognise neither of these self-evident truths nor the context of time in the affairs of man is what is really funny.

Funny peculiar or funny hilarious? You choose.

[B]

OTBC

 

 

[Canaries Canary 0]

I always guessed that Roeder was trying to emulate Birmingham when they won the Championship with a host of loan signings including Nicklas Bentner. Worked for them.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="TheGoogler"]The thing is, Roeder was the best thing City has for a while, initially. He made great strides in stabilising us, brought in some good, solid players and got us playing good passing football again. The 2nd season, though, Roeder did everything wrong. He let the wrong players go, he brought in the wrong players, he destroyed the team''s spirit, caused fan faith in him and the team to plummet to new depths and more. It''s not inaccurate to suggest he was the best thing that happened to us for some time. For some time, it looked like he was to be a great manager for us.[/quote]

Roeder relied largely on loans to get us out of an extremely precarious position, then found himself for various reasons with a squad down to 9 senior pro`s.  £8.5m with an established squad of players is a healthy budget.  £8.5m with a demoralised squad down to the bare bones is a different picture.  I believe that he didn`t have the funds to bring in players of the quality he wanted on permenant contracts and therefore went all-out on the loans policy which had worked for a while- obviously it failed badly.  The real issue was how the squad got that weak in the first place.

[/quote]

Remind us someone, please. How did the squad get that weak in the first place?

OTBC

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]Remind us someone, please. How did the squad get that weak in the first place?

OTBC

[/quote]Seems the Googlemeister is losing his touch........

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]Remind us someone, please. How did the squad get that weak in the first place?

OTBC

[/quote]Seems the Googlemeister is losing his touch........[/quote]

Apparently another of your pal''s labels is not truthful then?

Maybe you should have a word with the Trading Standards folks? They deal with false claims I think.

Dear oh dear. Whatever next.

OTBC

 

 

 

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="TheGoogler"]The thing is, Roeder was the best thing City has for a while, initially. He made great strides in stabilising us, brought in some good, solid players and got us playing good passing football again. The 2nd season, though, Roeder did everything wrong. He let the wrong players go, he brought in the wrong players, he destroyed the team''s spirit, caused fan faith in him and the team to plummet to new depths and more. It''s not inaccurate to suggest he was the best thing that happened to us for some time. For some time, it looked like he was to be a great manager for us.[/quote]

Roeder relied largely on loans to get us out of an extremely precarious position, then found himself for various reasons with a squad down to 9 senior pro`s.  £8.5m with an established squad of players is a healthy budget.  £8.5m with a demoralised squad down to the bare bones is a different picture.  I believe that he didn`t have the funds to bring in players of the quality he wanted on permenant contracts and therefore went all-out on the loans policy which had worked for a while- obviously it failed badly.  The real issue was how the squad got that weak in the first place.

[/quote]

 

Bang on Mr C, your final sentence is the key question.

But who on earth has so little to occupy their mind other than to trawl through and rake up two year old posts?

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Barclay_Boy"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="TheGoogler"]The thing is, Roeder was the best thing City has for a while, initially. He made great strides in stabilising us, brought in some good, solid players and got us playing good passing football again. The 2nd season, though, Roeder did everything wrong. He let the wrong players go, he brought in the wrong players, he destroyed the team''s spirit, caused fan faith in him and the team to plummet to new depths and more. It''s not inaccurate to suggest he was the best thing that happened to us for some time. For some time, it looked like he was to be a great manager for us.[/quote]

Roeder relied largely on loans to get us out of an extremely precarious position, then found himself for various reasons with a squad down to 9 senior pro`s.  £8.5m with an established squad of players is a healthy budget.  £8.5m with a demoralised squad down to the bare bones is a different picture.  I believe that he didn`t have the funds to bring in players of the quality he wanted on permenant contracts and therefore went all-out on the loans policy which had worked for a while- obviously it failed badly.  The real issue was how the squad got that weak in the first place.

[/quote]

Bang on Mr C, your final sentence is the key question.

But who on earth has so little to occupy their mind other than to trawl through and rake up two year old posts?

[/quote]

Maybe there''s little to occupy?

OTBC

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Notts Canary, you are quite entitled to consider me pathetic and childish. You come across as self-important and condescending and to be honest mate I thought you had more about you than to spend your time trading insults on here. A few of the usual suspects are here now, still clinging on to their beliefs about what caused us to fall so far in such a short period of time. They invite debate but then stamp their feet and revert to type when they have nothing to debate with. Thing is Notts I''m happy to play wherever you posters want. I love talking about football and our club but if trading insults floats your boat then I''m more than happy to oblige.

 

Mr. Carrow has now decided, probably because Bowkett said so, that the board did back the managers last season. But instead of blaming poor football decisions he has decided the real blame lies with those who let the squad get so weak in the first place. Bly repeats his question in the style of Sybil Fawlty on the telephone. It''s amazing really because it''s not rocket science is it? 

 

It''s continually poor football decisions and the waste of competitive Championship football budgets by successive managers.

 

Worthy, to his eternal credit, always managed to get us a competitive Championship team from the budgets he had to work with. He never finished below 9th in his four full seasons in that League.  And when he couldn''t afford Hulse or Howard in 2006 he let the window shut without wasting money on players not good enough. He then signed Dion Dublin on loan. That was Worthy''s choice. A couple of hundred grand on someone like Chris Brown or Dion Dublin on loan. He made his decision and got slaughtered for it by those on here whose only method of debate was to shout Worthy Out. Anyone would be better than Worthy they said! Lucky manager they said! Dismal failure they said! So in a nasty poisonous atmosphere of protest and blame Worthy was sacked.

 

In came Grant and in came those players that Worthy left alone. Safri was pushed out. Etuhu and Earnshaw went to the Prem. They were accused of being greedy and mercenaries but the one thing you will never know is whether they would have stayed one more year for the manager who signed them. Did Grant have a competitive budget in 2007? I would think so. Did he waste it? I would think so too. How many other Championship clubs could afford to pay 1m for a keeper and the best part of a million for a striker? He''d also added Brown, Fotheringham, Lappin, Otsemebor, Chadwick, Russell, Gilks, Murray, Smith, Strihavka and Brellier. Another years budget well and truly p*ssed up the wall. And of course these had a knock on effect to future budgets especially in the cases of Marshall and Cureton. By the time Grant went we were relegation fodder and our best three players were Huckerby, Dublin and Doc. Three players left from Worthy''s tenure. Huckerby had spoken out. He talked of good players leaving and poor players coming. His words were used to accuse the board of not backing Grant but surely they were a reflection of the players signed. Can anyone seriously tell me that Grant couldn''t have done better with the amount of money he had to spend?

 

The problem with continually wasting the player budget is that you don''t get it again. And each year we had to change managers which cost more money. And in Jan 2008 when this thread was first written in came Bates, Bertrand, Evans, Gibbs, Henry, Pattison, Pearce and the next month Rigters and Velasco. And yet come the next summer we had another competitive player budget. All this was only possible because of our tremendously loyal support and the continual  injections of cash from the majority shareholders.

 

It''s always been my opinion that poor football decisions are what dragged this club down. Poor decisions in appointing managers and those managers wasting the competitive budgets they were given. When the money is spent there''s little more can be done without a money tree. Smith&Jones have always backed their managers with competitive championship budgets. But they aren''t rich enough to back them twice a season.

 

Let''s see what happens now. Maybe Notts will come and talk football. Or Mello will come and post a picture of an inbred playing a banjo. Or Bly will come out with some drivel about Auntie Delia and cakes. Or Mr Carrow will decide I was rude to his mate Keith Roads. (A man I see at every AGM but never with Mr C) Or that tw@t Barclay Boy will make some inane comment because he has no weapons whatsoever to debate with. Or others will come and tell me I''m neither plausible or honest. Or will someone actually come and tell me that I''m wrong but point out why and the mistakes I have made.

 

[Webbo118 0]

Thought I would read a few threads before going to bed to help me get to sleep and I   t h i n k i t'' s b e g i n n i  n g  t o ........ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[Budapest Canary 152]

Maybe the original statement is true in some ways. Had Roeder not kept us in the Championship two seasons ago, and we would have been relegated then, we would not have had Lambert to bring us back for the first asking....[:)]

[Houston Canary 0]

nutty, I am pretty sure you despise me, but even so I am happy to say I agree with what you wrote here about the situation with Roeder and the finances.

My complaint about him was that, like Grant, he seemed too determined to make the team HIS, damn the torpedos. He seemed too determined to make NCFC a reflection of him, damn what had already been working. He (and Grant) shifted players good at one position to others. He benched or left out players who were contributing well so he could put in his own ones who often turned out to be worse. From a distance, it looked like he wanted to make NCFC succeed but only if it succeeded the way he shaped it.

To me, a good new manager takes what he has and fixes it. Roeder (and Grant) were too determined to rip the guts out of the team and reshape the entire thing, not just the parts that needed reshaping.

If it ain''t broke, don''t fix it. He tried to fix the good parts as well as the bad ones. Or that''s how it looked to me.

As many threads said at the time, he seemed a decent judge of talent, but not so good at player management. I know Gunn ultimately drove us to relegation but had we kept Roeder, I can''t imagine things would have been any different, His record confirms this. 1 season of saving disaster, the next, total disaster.

I do appreciate your explanation of the financial situation, though, and am in no way attacking what you wrote. It all makes good sense, but did you not, at the time, sometimes wonder what his line-up choices were based on other than his desire to remake the entire team (unnecessarily) in his own image?

[Mello Yello 2,280]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Notts Canary, you are quite entitled to consider me pathetic and childish. You come across as self-important and condescending and to be honest mate I thought you had more about you than to spend your time trading insults on here. A few of the usual suspects are here now, still clinging on to their beliefs about what caused us to fall so far in such a short period of time. They invite debate but then stamp their feet and revert to type when they have nothing to debate with. Thing is Notts I''m happy to play wherever you posters want. I love talking about football and our club but if trading insults floats your boat then I''m more than happy to oblige.

 

Mr. Carrow has now decided, probably because Bowkett said so, that the board did back the managers last season. But instead of blaming poor football decisions he has decided the real blame lies with those who let the squad get so weak in the first place. Bly repeats his question in the style of Sybil Fawlty on the telephone. It''s amazing really because it''s not rocket science is it? 

 

It''s continually poor football decisions and the waste of competitive Championship football budgets by successive managers.

 

Worthy, to his eternal credit, always managed to get us a competitive Championship team from the budgets he had to work with. He never finished below 9th in his four full seasons in that League.  And when he couldn''t afford Hulse or Howard in 2006 he let the window shut without wasting money on players not good enough. He then signed Dion Dublin on loan. That was Worthy''s choice. A couple of hundred grand on someone like Chris Brown or Dion Dublin on loan. He made his decision and got slaughtered for it by those on here whose only method of debate was to shout Worthy Out. Anyone would be better than Worthy they said! Lucky manager they said! Dismal failure they said! So in a nasty poisonous atmosphere of protest and blame Worthy was sacked.

 

In came Grant and in came those players that Worthy left alone. Safri was pushed out. Etuhu and Earnshaw went to the Prem. They were accused of being greedy and mercenaries but the one thing you will never know is whether they would have stayed one more year for the manager who signed them. Did Grant have a competitive budget in 2007? I would think so. Did he waste it? I would think so too. How many other Championship clubs could afford to pay 1m for a keeper and the best part of a million for a striker? He''d also added Brown, Fotheringham, Lappin, Otsemebor, Chadwick, Russell, Gilks, Murray, Smith, Strihavka and Brellier. Another years budget well and truly p*ssed up the wall. And of course these had a knock on effect to future budgets especially in the cases of Marshall and Cureton. By the time Grant went we were relegation fodder and our best three players were Huckerby, Dublin and Doc. Three players left from Worthy''s tenure. Huckerby had spoken out. He talked of good players leaving and poor players coming. His words were used to accuse the board of not backing Grant but surely they were a reflection of the players signed. Can anyone seriously tell me that Grant couldn''t have done better with the amount of money he had to spend?

 

The problem with continually wasting the player budget is that you don''t get it again. And each year we had to change managers which cost more money. And in Jan 2008 when this thread was first written in came Bates, Bertrand, Evans, Gibbs, Henry, Pattison, Pearce and the next month Rigters and Velasco. And yet come the next summer we had another competitive player budget. All this was only possible because of our tremendously loyal support and the continual  injections of cash from the majority shareholders.

 

It''s always been my opinion that poor football decisions are what dragged this club down. Poor decisions in appointing managers and those managers wasting the competitive budgets they were given. When the money is spent there''s little more can be done without a money tree. Smith&Jones have always backed their managers with competitive championship budgets. But they aren''t rich enough to back them twice a season.

 

Let''s see what happens now. Maybe Notts will come and talk football. Or Mello will come and post a picture of an inbred playing a banjo. Or Bly will come out with some drivel about Auntie Delia and cakes. Or Mr Carrow will decide I was rude to his mate Keith Roads. (A man I see at every AGM but never with Mr C) Or that tw@t Barclay Boy will make some inane comment because he has no weapons whatsoever to debate with. Or others will come and tell me I''m neither plausible or honest. Or will someone actually come and tell me that I''m wrong but point out why and the mistakes I have made.

 

[/quote]

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Nutty, i`m sure you`ve waffled that opinion posing as fact at least 50 times before and as usual ignored the bits you don`t like.  The problem (imo), as many pointed out at the time, was using multi-million pound profits from player sales to fund a very large part of an average playing budget, making replacement of those outgoing quality players extremely difficult.  Having to rely on the bargain-basement to replace quality players is a risky strategy and unless you are very lucky to find one of those managers who can make a silk purse out of a cows ear you`re only going one way.  Even Worthy couldn`t manage it- Thorne, Louis-Jean, Colin, Hughes, Jarrett plus various loans, all cheap, useless and false economy.

We have just had a season where we have been net spenders in the transfer market for the first time since relegation and low and behold we`ve reversed our downward slide in spectacular fashion, and i`m pretty sure that now we have people at the club who actually have ambition for the football team instead of "building a property portfolio" as Bowkett put it, we`ll do the same next season.  I`m just waiting for the people who always argued against this approach to start up some kind of campaign against it- at least then they`d have some credibility for being consistant. 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Houston, what a strange thing to say. I don''t despise anyone from any part of my life. What a waste of energy that would be.

 

I agree with you about a good manager being able to fix a team from the players he has available. It''s my opinion that neither Roeder or Grant ever managed to field a team. They both fielded a collection of eleven players. The better managers throughout our history have always managed to use the players they have to form a team. A team can take you further than a collection of players, even if that collection of players have greater individual ability. Lambert has managed to make a good team based on the players he  inherited. Worthy managed it. And back in the 70''s Ron Saunders proved to probably be the best example of all.

 

 

Mr Carrow, at least you now accept that this has always been my opinion so I will take this as a step in the right direction. Out of all the players Worthy signed you list just five from your selective memory. I would argue that he was unlucky with Thorne and MLJ. Injuries cost him with those two who I believe were better players than Otsemebor and Cureton. Colin was signed as cover for MLJ but IMO was also a far better right back than Otsemebor. I also think Hughes would be a very useful player to have in a good team and Jarrett was an extremely poor signing who''d be more at home on Grants list.

 

It''s an interesting point that Bowkett made about our player budget being much the same as Wolves last season. Our collection of players wasn''t that much worse than theirs. We won 1, drew 4 and lost one of our six matches against the promoted sides. But our team was light years away and could never repeat a good performance consistently which in the end saw us relegated.