This is what really annoys me!!!!!!!!

[colneycanary 0]

WBA are now going after Taylor with a 1 million bid. We mess around for weeks and let other clubs come in for him and we end up losing out again. What is it with this tight board of ours? They really are starting to pee me off. All we hear about is loan players. According to Richard Balls in last night evening news we have a profit of nearly 4 million on player sales since last summer. We have nearly the biggest gates in the league, so show Roeder the money!!!!!!!!!!!

[CiderkiddCanary 0]

Dont worry, it may just be the Agent try to get Norwich to pay more so he gets a bigger fee.

[Cheerio 0]

[quote user="city til i die"]WBA are now going after Taylor with a 1 million bid. We mess around for weeks and let other clubs come in for him and we end up losing out again. What is it with this tight board of ours? They really are starting to pee me off. All we hear about is loan players. According to Richard Balls in last night evening news we have a profit of nearly 4 million on player sales since last summer. We have nearly the biggest gates in the league, so show Roeder the money!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]Not again. Its ROEDERS decision not to up the bid NOT THE BOARD. The board have already said they will back him. If he asked the board to up the bid they''d be on the phone in a flash.Why is it you think this is down to the board? I''d really love to know why so many people are so ignorant on this.

[blahblahblah 2]

I can understand you being annoyed if WBA had actually signed him.  However, nobody has signed him yet.You''ll give yourself a connery getting all stressed like that, calm down...

[First Jedi 0]

Roeder made the decision. Not the board. Stop ignoring the facts.

[First Wizard 0]

I''ll be serously hacked off if we miss out on Taylor. I have my renewal forms sitting by me at the moment, and they can stay that way until Febuary the 1st.

If the board,  or indeed Roeder, let us down on this.............................................................[:|]

[ca 1]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]I can understand you being annoyed if WBA had actually signed him.  However, nobody has signed him yet.

You''ll give yourself a connery getting all stressed like that, calm down...
[/quote]

I think WBA will sign him too.

Off topic I see you have Jeremy Beadle in your avatar and hear that he''s in the intensive care unit fighting pneumonia today, lets hope he gets better soon.

[McCanary 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]

I''ll be serously hacked off if we miss out on Taylor. I have my renewal forms sitting by me at the moment, and they can stay that way until Febuary the 1st.

If the board,  or indeed Roeder, let us down on this.............................................................[:|]

[/quote]

 

If we miss out on Tiny will it really be the end of the world?

We are in the middle of a great run of results - in my opinion a striker is a bigger priority to put away all the chances we are creating.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"]
Why is it you think this is down to the board? I''d really love to know why so many people are so ignorant on this.


[/quote]

Or indeed why you are so gullable![:|]

[First Jedi 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"]
Why is it you think this is down to the board? I''d really love to know why so many people are so ignorant on this.


[/quote]

Or indeed why you are so gullable![:|]

[/quote]

Because Roeder has admitted it was down to him...

[CJ 0]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Board are likely to completely ruin this season for the sake of a relatively small amount of transfer money. I really dont understand why we are still messing around over Martin Taylor. An ambitious team would have kept him on loan and bought him for what I think is a reasonable fee.

He fits well into the team , he wants to play here, he scores goals as well as defends well so what the hell are we playing around at! I am firmly of the belief that we would be higher up the table and still in the FA Cup if we had done this. As any manager will tell you , a team is built from the back. A solid defence means your midfield have enough confidence to go forward and support the attack . I unlike others really belive we have enough up front given good midfield support.

The last time we showed real ambition signing Huckerby it worked, I like others on this message board  have watched and waited and now I have got to the stage where I begin to realise we will leave it all too late. I hope I am wrong and that Glenn really has got it under control. He clearly is a good manager but he needs the Board to support him now!

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="ob1"]Roeder made the decision. Not the board. Stop ignoring the facts.[/quote]

There''s a difference between ignoring facts and taking what the manager (or anyone else connected with the club) says to the media with a pinch of salt.

 

[Eadies Right Foot 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"]
Why is it you think this is down to the board? I''d really love to know why so many people are so ignorant on this.


[/quote]

Or indeed why you are so gullable![:|]

[/quote]

yawn, another completely unfounded swipe at the board when roeder has said publicly that he wont pay 1m for him. only suprise is that you didn''t pull out the old "prudence with ambition" quote. some people on this board need to change the record...

[ca 1]

Eadie''s Right Foot"

But did Roeder say that because of financial restraints? Seems odd that he''s so desperate for the player but would rather pay out for loanees than capture his man for another £250k?

 

CA

[renegade tootsie 0]

Roeder has already proven he can walk into a lot of jobs - he wants to succeed.  Do you think he will meekly say ''ok'' if the board block the bid?  He is playing hardball, and it is so lucky he has stronger nerves than the spineless on this forum who slam in posts like this all the time.  For gods sake calm down!

 

 

[quote user="CJ"]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Board are likely to completely ruin this season for the sake of a relatively small amount of transfer money. I really dont understand why we are still messing around over Martin Taylor. An ambitious team would have kept him on loan and bought him for what I think is a reasonable fee.

He fits well into the team , he wants to play here, he scores goals as well as defends well so what the hell are we playing around at! I am firmly of the belief that we would be higher up the table and still in the FA Cup if we had done this. As any manager will tell you , a team is built from the back. A solid defence means your midfield have enough confidence to go forward and support the attack . I unlike others really belive we have enough up front given good midfield support.

The last time we showed real ambition signing Huckerby it worked, I like others on this message board  have watched and waited and now I have got to the stage where I begin to realise we will leave it all too late. I hope I am wrong and that Glenn really has got it under control. He clearly is a good manager but he needs the Board to support him now!

[/quote]

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="McCanary"][quote user="1st Wizard"]

I''ll be serously hacked off if we miss out on Taylor. I have my renewal forms sitting by me at the moment, and they can stay that way until Febuary the 1st.

If the board,  or indeed Roeder, let us down on this.............................................................[:|]

[/quote]

 

If we miss out on Tiny will it really be the end of the world?

We are in the middle of a great run of results - in my opinion a striker is a bigger priority to put away all the chances we are creating.

[/quote]

It may or may not be the end of the world, but I''d rather we''d didn''t test that theory.

Is DDDDWLD really a "great" run of results?

When Tiny was here we won four games out of eight.  Since he left we''ve won two out of nine.  That''s good enough for me.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="cityangel"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]I can understand you being annoyed if WBA had actually signed him.  However, nobody has signed him yet.You''ll give yourself a connery getting all stressed like that, calm down...[/quote]

I think WBA will sign him too.

Off topic I see you have Jeremy Beadle in your avatar and hear that he''s in the intensive care unit fighting pneumonia today, lets hope he gets better soon.

[/quote]Blimey, I had no idea.

[McCanary 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="McCanary"][quote user="1st Wizard"]

I''ll be serously hacked off if we miss out on Taylor. I have my renewal forms sitting by me at the moment, and they can stay that way until Febuary the 1st.

If the board,  or indeed Roeder, let us down on this.............................................................[:|]

[/quote]

 

If we miss out on Tiny will it really be the end of the world?

We are in the middle of a great run of results - in my opinion a striker is a bigger priority to put away all the chances we are creating.

[/quote]

It may or may not be the end of the world, but I''d rather we''d didn''t test that theory.

Is DDDDWLD really a "great" run of results?

When Tiny was here we won four games out of eight.  Since he left we''ve won two out of nine.  That''s good enough for me.

 

[/quote]

But we have only won two out of nine because of our inability to score, not because we are conceding loads.

 

[ricky knight 0]

Its only Roeder''s decision because he is working as part of the boards measly budget. If it is Roeder''s decision only, which i doubt, then for the first time i question Roeder.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"]

[quote user="ob1"]Roeder made the decision. Not the board. Stop ignoring the facts.[/quote]

There''s a difference between ignoring facts and taking what the manager (or anyone else connected with the club) says to the media with a pinch of salt.[/quote]

Here is what Glenn Roeder said to the media.

From the official site on Tue 18 Dec 2007"I think that QPR have definitely had a bid accepted and he''s spoken to QPR, which he''s had permission to, but he doesn''t want to go there," he said. "He doesn''t fancy going to the club at all. He wants to come here. And she (Karen Brady) knows that as well. But we couldn''t get a deal between the two of us on the valuation really, I suppose."From the official site - 21 Dec 2007But Roeder said the two clubs had tried to negotiate a deal, and said he would not be forced into paying over the odds when asked if he would increase his bid."I don''t want to," he said. "We''ve offered more than enough. And the money has to be spread round. It''s all about valuations and I know that our valuation and offer was an extremely good offer.

So FP, are you calling Glenn Roeder a liar ? 

[Flecks right thigh 0]

[quote user="McCanary"][But we have only won two out of nine because of our inability to score, not because we are conceding loads.

 

[/quote]

Yes but if Shackell or Doc get injured who have we got to cover in central defence? Apart from Dion, who Roeder has already stated he prefers playing up front.

[Syteanric 1]

its been apparent for a while that we werent going to Sign Taylor.. Roeder should (perhaps does) have another player lined up... if not then the finger needs to be pointed at him im afraid...

jas :)

[ellis206 0]

Again CJ, it was GR''s decision not the boards. People on here are so ignorant to think that the only reason we haven''t signed taylor is because the board don''t want to splash out 250k more on him, even though our loan signings would have cost more than that, as did Matty Pattison, the board has already spent over a million this transfer window i imagine. As someone said before, people on here are so ignorant to the facts, GR didn''t want to pay what he thought, was over the odds for Taylor, we all might not agree with him, but he''s the manager, if your so intent on blaming somebody for this transfer saga, then you blame Glenn, not the board.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="McCanary"][quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="McCanary"][quote user="1st Wizard"]

I''ll be serously hacked off if we miss out on Taylor. I have my renewal forms sitting by me at the moment, and they can stay that way until Febuary the 1st.

If the board,  or indeed Roeder, let us down on this.............................................................[:|]

[/quote]

 

If we miss out on Tiny will it really be the end of the world?

We are in the middle of a great run of results - in my opinion a striker is a bigger priority to put away all the chances we are creating.

[/quote]

It may or may not be the end of the world, but I''d rather we''d didn''t test that theory.

Is DDDDWLD really a "great" run of results?

When Tiny was here we won four games out of eight.  Since he left we''ve won two out of nine.  That''s good enough for me.

 

[/quote]

But we have only won two out of nine because of our inability to score, not because we are conceding loads.

[/quote]

We weren''t scoring a hatful when Tiny was here (12 in 8 compared to 10 in 9 since) but we won twice as many games.

I doubt if anyone would disagree that we need another goalscorer as well as a defender.  But in Taylor we have a defender who has played for us, is affordable and apparently wants to come here.  He may not be John Terry, but we''re not Chelsea either.  We haven''t had a really commanding centreback since Malky left and they are few and far between.  We''re always being told how difficult it is to attract players to Norwich.  Yet we''re arsing about over a couple of hundred K.  Quite incredible. 

By delaying we''ve also lost most of the momentum we had built up by the time Tiny left (four wins in his last five games).  He had become an integral part of the team, a rock on which we could begin to build.  Now, even if we eventually land him, we''ll have to start again. 

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Yet we''re arsing about over a couple of hundred K.  Quite incredible. [/quote]A couple of hundred K that could be used on a loan signing from Arsenal perhaps ?  Got to just love money-pit economists...

[quote]By delaying we''ve also lost most of the momentum we had built up by

the time Tiny left (four wins in his last five games).  He had become

an integral part of the team, a rock on which we could begin to build. 

Now, even if we eventually land him, we''ll have to start again. [/quote]

Rubbish - the understanding between Tiny and the players around him will still be there.

Back to the point you dodged, in taking Mr. Roeders'' comments regarding his reponsibility for the transfer budget with a pinch of salt, are you calling him a liar ?  Seems to me that you think you could do a better job than he is doing currently.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

[quote user="ob1"]Roeder made the decision. Not the board. Stop ignoring the facts.[/quote]

There''s a difference between ignoring facts and taking what the manager (or anyone else connected with the club) says to the media with a pinch of salt.[/quote]

Here is what Glenn Roeder said to the media.

From the official site on Tue 18 Dec 2007

"I think that QPR have definitely had a bid accepted and he''s spoken to QPR, which he''s had permission to, but he doesn''t want to go there," he said. "He doesn''t fancy going to the club at all. He wants to come here. And she (Karen Brady) knows that as well. But we couldn''t get a deal between the two of us on the valuation really, I suppose."

From the official site - 21 Dec 2007

But Roeder said the two clubs had tried to negotiate a deal, and said he would not be forced into paying over the odds when asked if he would increase his bid.
"I don''t want to," he said. "We''ve offered more than enough. And the money has to be spread round. It''s all about valuations and I know that our valuation and offer was an extremely good offer.

So FP, are you calling Glenn Roeder a liar ? 
[/quote]

No of course not. 

take with a grain, pinch of salt: to believe with some reserve (Chambers Concise 20th century dictionary)

I seldom believe anything that appears in the media without some reserve.  Apart from anything else, it can take very careful reading to work out what was actually said.  

For example, do you believe that "would not be forced into paying over the odds" is a direct quote from Roeder?  It isn''t.  All he''s quoted as saying is "I don''t want to".  Don''t want to what?  What question was he answering?  We have no idea.  But ok, let''s assume he is referring to paying "over the odds".  Of course he doesn''t want to, who would?  He''s not really saying anything at all.  And what exactly is "over the odds"?  Anything over and above the original offer?  Are we willing to negotiate or not?  Are Birmingham?  Again we have no idea.

You''ve actually picked a very good example of the craft of journalism.  How to put words into someone''s mouth to make a good story out of little or nothing without actually misquoting.  That''s why I take it with a pinch of salt.

 

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Yet we''re arsing about over a couple of hundred K.  Quite incredible. [/quote]

A couple of hundred K that could be used on a loan signing from Arsenal perhaps ?  Got to just love money-pit economists...

[quote]By delaying we''ve also lost most of the momentum we had built up by the time Tiny left (four wins in his last five games).  He had become an integral part of the team, a rock on which we could begin to build.  Now, even if we eventually land him, we''ll have to start again. [/quote]

Rubbish - the understanding between Tiny and the players around him will still be there.

Back to the point you dodged, in taking Mr. Roeders'' comments regarding his reponsibility for the transfer budget with a pinch of salt, are you calling him a liar ?  Seems to me that you think you could do a better job than he is doing currently.

[/quote]

No blah I hadn''t seen your post when I replied to the above.  I''ve seen it now and there''s a reply in the system. 

Having a bad day are we?  I''m not trying to pick a fight, simply putting my point of view.

 

[Mello Yello 2,293]

A couple of hundred K that could be used on a loan signing from Arsenal perhaps ?  Got to just love money-pit economists...

You just lurve the Black Hole disappearing disparates - who can still find the frugal florins to fund foodytastic facilities, dosh for decor, cash for corporate catering, bullion for building, roubles for roads.......(but not for Roeder).......allegedly.

I think the point is, Roeder may be responsible for the transfer budget for what it''s worth.....(but, what is it worth?) Maybe, if he''d been given £3 million we''d probably have Taylor here....(and a coupla udders).......If say, he''s only got £1.25 million, (HAH!) he''s got to amend his shopping list and look for a bargain in QD and not M&S.....

I just think he has limited funding to purchase his priority targets.......I also believe that the club is deeper in financial sch-tum - than they care to let on....If the squad gets any thinner, it''ll be transparent. My fear is that even with the hopeful acquisition of ''Tiny'' and A. AN OTHER.....S We are still going to be flirting with the drop up until May.

I expect loans, after reading Mr Doncaster''s fortnightly feckless feuilletonism......[|-)]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]We''ve offered more than enough. And the money has to be spread round. It''s all about valuations and I know that our valuation and offer was an extremely good offer.[/quote]The above quote is not journalism FP, it''s a direct quote.  It''s Roeders'' call, he has said so to the Press.  He wouldn''t have taken the job if he didn''t think he could do it within the budget allowed.And my day is fine, thankyou, kind of you to ask.  I just can''t believe that some people automatically assume black is white and vice versa - I mean, why bother even having press conferences if people won''t believe a word that is said at them.  Why bother having newspapers ? [:s]

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

[quote user="ob1"]Roeder made the decision. Not the board. Stop ignoring the facts.[/quote]

There''s a difference between ignoring facts and taking what the manager (or anyone else connected with the club) says to the media with a pinch of salt.[/quote]

Here is what Glenn Roeder said to the media.

From the official site on Tue 18 Dec 2007

"I think that QPR have definitely had a bid accepted and he''s spoken to QPR, which he''s had permission to, but he doesn''t want to go there," he said. "He doesn''t fancy going to the club at all. He wants to come here. And she (Karen Brady) knows that as well. But we couldn''t get a deal between the two of us on the valuation really, I suppose."

From the official site - 21 Dec 2007

But Roeder said the two clubs had tried to negotiate a deal, and said he would not be forced into paying over the odds when asked if he would increase his bid.
"I don''t want to," he said. "We''ve offered more than enough. And the money has to be spread round. It''s all about valuations and I know that our valuation and offer was an extremely good offer.

So FP, are you calling Glenn Roeder a liar ? 
[/quote]

No of course not. 

take with a grain, pinch of salt: to believe with some reserve (Chambers Concise 20th century dictionary)

I seldom believe anything that appears in the media without some reserve.  Apart from anything else, it can take very careful reading to work out what was actually said.  

For example, do you believe that "would not be forced into paying over the odds" is a direct quote from Roeder?  It isn''t.  All he''s quoted as saying is "I don''t want to".  Don''t want to what?  What question was he answering?  We have no idea.  But ok, let''s assume he is referring to paying "over the odds".  Of course he doesn''t want to, who would?  He''s not really saying anything at all.  And what exactly is "over the odds"?  Anything over and above the original offer?  Are we willing to negotiate or not?  Are Birmingham?  Again we have no idea.

You''ve actually picked a very good example of the craft of journalism.  How to put words into someone''s mouth to make a good story out of little or nothing without actually misquoting.  That''s why I take it with a pinch of salt.

[/quote]

Expressing a point of view is one thing Fat Prophet. We all do that. The manner in which you do it, however, leaves one shaking their head. The article clearly stated that Roeder said he doesn''t want to pay over the odds when he was asked if he would increase his bid. This was followed by his answer of " I don''t want to." For goodness sake, what do you think he was saying he doesn''t want to do. He doesn''t want to go to the toilet? He doesn''t want Mummy''s egg and chips for dinner?

You then go on to ask "What exactly is over the odds?" and follow that by saying we have no idea, even though you clearly state earlier on the thread "Yet we''re arsing about over a couple of hundred K.  Quite incredible." What''s incredible is that you apply the "Royal We" to those that have no idea, although you can feel free to state it''s a couple of hundred K.