Has Roeder put too much faith in the board?

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 2,073]

I see Roeder has been quoted as saying that "with the players he is planning to bring in next season, he wasn''t able to guarantee a starting place for Huckerby every week". In my opionion to attract the calibre of player to this club that would keep Darren Huckerby out each week, Glenn Roeder is going to need the kind of money from this board of directors that they have NEVER made available to any manager of this football club in the championship.

  At at time when we have no parachute payments and no player of any significant value should he be sold for the first time in many a season, I am really failing to see how this board will come anywhere close to matching Roeder''s ambitions, especially when we read today that he feels we need two thirds of a squad with players of ''Premiership'' quality.

Either the board is going to so something this summer that I haven''t seen in nearly 30 years of supporting this club and make significant funds available or manager and board are on collision course sometime very soon !

[nutty nigel 7,963]

If they are on a collision course who are us fans going to side with [:^)] The nasty board? Or the just as nasty manager?

 

[Dr. Ink 0]

I think he will learn the hard way about our traditional difficulty in attracting the right players due to geographical remoteness.

I predict a flurry of cast-offs and loanees to be heading our way during the last week of the transfer window. This will be followed by the "time to gel" excuse.

[kdncfc 0]

I would be very surprised if Roeder would make such bold claims without having some idea of what he''s going to have to spend, unless they want us to get relegated the board don''t really have any option but to make money avaliable this summer.

[Creative Midfielder 2,203]

In my opinion the explanation is much simpler, and it is that Roeder is talking b*ll*cks.

Despite what you say about this board they gave both Worthington and Grant far more to spend that any other board/manager that I can remember.

But even in the, admittedly slightly unlikely, event of of us having a significant transfer budget this summer do you really think in our current position we could attract a sufficient number of sufficiently good players to keep Huckerby out of the team because frankly I dont.

Who knows what the real reason was, but concern for Hucks not getting a game - b*ll*cks.

[canary cherub 1]

I keep going back to his comment "they said I could have as much money as I liked if I could keep us up" or words to that effect.

Was it a joke, a way of saying "do you really expect me to tell you how much money I''ve got?"  If so it''s the first and last joke we''ve had from Roeder to date.

Or did it really happen?  Was it over dinner?  And was there alcohol involved?  [:)]

He''s talking as though it did happen, and he believes it''s true.

 

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Creative Midfielder"]

In my opinion the explanation is much simpler, and it is that Roeder is talking b*ll*cks.

Despite what you say about this board they gave both Worthington and Grant far more to spend that any other board/manager that I can remember.

 

[/quote]

Don ''t know how you work that one out, all the money that has been spent on new players has come from the fees we have recieved from the players we sold, and there was still plenty left over. There was one summer when Lee Croft was our only signing at 600k and last summer we all thought that Strihavka cost a million pounds when we ended up paying 250k for a years loan which meant our spending last year was not much more than a million quid, any wages that were paid for the incoming players were more than covered by the players that departed. So basically we''ve spent beggar all in comparison to what we''ve recieved.

[Hog 0]

[quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="Creative Midfielder"]

In my opinion the explanation is much simpler, and it is that Roeder is talking b*ll*cks.

Despite what you say about this board they gave both Worthington and Grant far more to spend that any other board/manager that I can remember.

 

[/quote]

Don ''t know how you work that one out, all the money that has been spent on new players has come from the fees we have recieved from the players we sold, and there was still plenty left over. There was one summer when Lee Croft was our only signing at 600k and last summer we all thought that Strihavka cost a million pounds when we ended up paying 250k for a years loan which meant our spending last year was not much more than a million quid, any wages that were paid for the incoming players were more than covered by the players that departed. So basically we''ve spent beggar all in comparison to what we''ve recieved.

[/quote]

 

Totally agree, in fact the Board have made much more in sales than they have spent on new players. The fact is that Worthington, love him or hate him, did buy some very good players at a very good price, enabling us to pocket a tidy profit. It is nothing short of criminal that these funds were not given back to the team budget, especially when we were promised that The Turner money meant that we would not have to sell anyone!

 

If the Turners don''t actually start investing in the team then we will go down.

[Joanna Grey 0]

I am fairly positive that GR''s statement about "having as much to spend as I want" was referring to his second interview he had with the Board. It was reported by Archant as being said in a humourous way, therefore I take it as he said it in jest. it seems , however, that some people have taken it in a different light (including Mr. R. Balls) and think he was being serious.

On the subject of GR having faith in the Board, I would suggest that if he did not know exactly how much cash he has in his budget for this summer then he should not be in the job.....

[Mr.Carrow 394]

[quote user="bunny"]I am fairly positive that GR''s statement about "having as much to spend as I want" was referring to his second interview he had with the Board. It was reported by Archant as being said in a humourous way, therefore I take it as he said it in jest. it seems , however, that some people have taken it in a different light (including Mr. R. Balls) and think he was being serious. On the subject of GR having faith in the Board, I would suggest that if he did not know exactly how much cash he has in his budget for this summer then he should not be in the job.....[/quote]

Roeder has stated catagorically that he doesn`t know how much he has to play with in the summer and one recent headline was "Roeder: Time to talk money".  I have a feeling there is more to the "spend as much as i want" comment than meets the eye and maybe the board made some rash promises in the event of Roeder keeping the club in this league.

[Mello Yello 2,588]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

If they are on a collision course who are us fans going to side with [:^)] The nasty board? Or the just as nasty manager?

 

[/quote]

You used to be indecisive though.....but now you''re not so sure...."Oooh, Er, Oh Dear, Er? [:P]

[nutty nigel 7,963]

Nah... I''ll side with the nasty manager cuz whatever happens he''ll be forgiven in time.. even Worthy is coming back into fashion now so all will be forgiven in the end  [^o)]

 

[Mello Yello 2,588]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Nah... I''ll side with the nasty manager cuz whatever happens he''ll be forgiven in time.. even Worthy is coming back into fashion now so all will be forgiven in the end  [^o)]

[/quote]

Are you sure? Or do you want to ask the audience, or phone a friend?[8-)]

[Creative Midfielder 2,203]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]

The fact is that Worthington, love him or hate him, did buy some very good players at a very good price, enabling us to pocket a tidy profit. It is nothing short of criminal that these funds were not given back to the team budget, especially when we were promised that The Turner money meant that we would not have to sell anyone!

[/quote]

Precisely, and where did the money come from to ''buy some very good players''?

[gazzathegreat 0]

We don''t know how much money has been allocated do we. Even Glenn Roeder might not yet have the figures.

All we can do is work on previous history and it''s not good. Yes Worthington was given money during his reign, but his buys when sold made money. Grant was not given the same sum in comparison (didn''t buy as well).

We can only hope the board have more faith in Roeder. Let''s also hope the budget isn''t reliant on the profit from the Greatest Ever Event. lol

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="bunny"]I am fairly positive that GR''s statement about "having as much to spend as I want" was referring to his second interview he had with the Board. It was reported by Archant as being said in a humourous way, therefore I take it as he said it in jest. it seems , however, that some people have taken it in a different light (including Mr. R. Balls) and think he was being serious. On the subject of GR having faith in the Board, I would suggest that if he did not know exactly how much cash he has in his budget for this summer then he should not be in the job.....[/quote]

Roeder has stated catagorically that he doesn`t know how much he has to play with in the summer and one recent headline was "Roeder: Time to talk money".  I have a feeling there is more to the "spend as much as i want" comment than meets the eye and maybe the board made some rash promises in the event of Roeder keeping the club in this league.

[/quote]

I wonder whether they gave Roeder assurances about money based on the assumption that they would have sold the LSE land by now?

 

[Mello Yello 2,588]

Whatever occurs.....I just hope it doesn''t all end in ''Fears''.....

[CaptnCanary 0]

[quote user="bunny"]I am fairly positive that GR''s statement about "having as much to spend as I want" was referring to his second interview he had with the Board. It was reported by Archant as being said in a humourous way, therefore I take it as he said it in jest. it seems , however, that some people have taken it in a different light (including Mr. R. Balls) and think he was being serious. On the subject of GR having faith in the Board, I would suggest that if he did not know exactly how much cash he has in his budget for this summer then he should not be in the job.....[/quote]

On another thread  about this I said that I think all the evidence points toward Roeder believing that he has alot of money to spend in the summer and that he believes that there was at least some truth in the ''as much money as I want'' quote. I also said that if it turns out that he doesn''t have much money to spend it may all end in tears with Roeder leaving in a similar style to Martin O''Neill. However, if Roeder released Hucks without knowing the available budget it would have been a very foolish decision verging on stupidity. And though I dont think much of Roeder at the moment both for getting rid of Hucks and how he went about it, I can''t say that I think he is stupid. So I still think that Roeder all ready has a large budget available (bigger than we have probably even seen) or this is all going to end in a nasty mess. I just hope its not the latter.

[blahblahblah 2]

Well, last season we had a squad (including loanees) of about 30 players, now the loanees have gone back it''s about what, 4, or 5 or something ?  Huckerby and Dublin have gone, so he''s got money in the pot because he''s removed some of the larger wage earners.

It was reported at the time of his leaving that Grant didn''t spend all he had to play with, madly enough, and there was a belief in January that Roeder held back his chips for the summer, using loanees instead.

Not only that, but there''s the new AVIVA deal, has anyone reported how much that''s for yet ?  And probably some quiet help from the Turners.

Oh, yes.  And Delias'' just had a best-selling book and TV series.

Now that they''ve got a manager that they can trust to spend money wisely, I believe that they''ll back him to the hilt.  They''ll have to - or we might not have players to fill the subs bench in August...

[ZLF 342]

If glenn has been assured there is money to spend can he do little else but have faith he will see its colour?

Its how he uses it that is the key;   and I am confident he will have more hits than either Worthy or Grant over the last 3 seasons...

[Mr.Carrow 394]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="bunny"]I am fairly positive that GR''s statement about "having as much to spend as I want" was referring to his second interview he had with the Board. It was reported by Archant as being said in a humourous way, therefore I take it as he said it in jest. it seems , however, that some people have taken it in a different light (including Mr. R. Balls) and think he was being serious. On the subject of GR having faith in the Board, I would suggest that if he did not know exactly how much cash he has in his budget for this summer then he should not be in the job.....[/quote]

Roeder has stated catagorically that he doesn`t know how much he has to play with in the summer and one recent headline was "Roeder: Time to talk money".  I have a feeling there is more to the "spend as much as i want" comment than meets the eye and maybe the board made some rash promises in the event of Roeder keeping the club in this league.

[/quote]

I wonder whether they gave Roeder assurances about money based on the assumption that they would have sold the LSE land by now?

 

[/quote]

I think you could well be right FP.  And apparently they chose to spend money on land rather than players because it was a safer investment......[8-)]

One more positive side to the situation that has crossed my mind is that the ongoing rumours of new investment could be something to do with loans against the value of the land, ie. Turners/Smiths put in X amount now but get it back (probably plus interest) when the land is sold.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="bunny"]I am fairly positive that GR''s statement about "having as much to spend as I want" was referring to his second interview he had with the Board. It was reported by Archant as being said in a humourous way, therefore I take it as he said it in jest. it seems , however, that some people have taken it in a different light (including Mr. R. Balls) and think he was being serious. On the subject of GR having faith in the Board, I would suggest that if he did not know exactly how much cash he has in his budget for this summer then he should not be in the job.....[/quote]

Roeder has stated catagorically that he doesn`t know how much he has to play with in the summer and one recent headline was "Roeder: Time to talk money".  I have a feeling there is more to the "spend as much as i want" comment than meets the eye and maybe the board made some rash promises in the event of Roeder keeping the club in this league.

[/quote]

I wonder whether they gave Roeder assurances about money based on the assumption that they would have sold the LSE land by now?

[/quote]

I think you could well be right FP.  And apparently they chose to spend money on land rather than players because it was a safer investment......[8-)]

One more positive side to the situation that has crossed my mind is that the ongoing rumours of new investment could be something to do with loans against the value of the land, ie. Turners/Smiths put in X amount now but get it back (probably plus interest) when the land is sold.

[/quote]

Let''s hope you''re right Mr C.  If Glenn has released Hucks because of the players he thinks he can bring in, and the board don''t back him, I feel nothing but pity for the man.  Still don''t really understand it though - there are four or five positions in the team that are more of a priority to replace than LW.

 

[Michael Starr 583]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

Well, last season we had a squad (including loanees) of about 30 players, now the loanees have gone back it''s about what, 4, or 5 or something ?  Huckerby and Dublin have gone, so he''s got money in the pot because he''s removed some of the larger wage earners.

It was reported at the time of his leaving that Grant didn''t spend all he had to play with, madly enough, and there was a belief in January that Roeder held back his chips for the summer, using loanees instead.

Not only that, but there''s the new AVIVA deal, has anyone reported how much that''s for yet ?  And probably some quiet help from the Turners.

Oh, yes.  And Delias'' just had a best-selling book and TV series.

Now that they''ve got a manager that they can trust to spend money wisely, I believe that they''ll back him to the hilt.  They''ll have to - or we might not have players to fill the subs bench in August...

[/quote]

Not forgetting next years season ticket sales injection! I believe there''s money there too, how much? No idea, nobody knows, and that''s a good thing! This is gonna work in our favour... inflation on prices etc, you know how it is.

[nutty nigel 7,963]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

And apparently they chose to spend money on land rather than players because it was a safer investment......[8-)]

[/quote]

That''s a ridiculous thing for them to even consider let alone for them to say! I''d be interested to see where that little gem came from Mr Carrow.

 

[Mr.Carrow 394]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

And apparently they chose to spend money on land rather than players because it was a safer investment......[8-)]

[/quote]

That''s a ridiculous thing for them to even consider let alone for them to say! I''d be interested to see where that little gem came from Mr Carrow.

 

[/quote]

The accounts regularly mention a risk-averse strategy in running the club and there are several instances when board members have banged on about how risky it is to spend money on players- one from N.D. from the `06-07 accounts that i have quoted on here.  I`m not going to trawl through them when there`s sunbathing to be getting on with, but have a read through yourself and see what you think.

[nutty nigel 7,963]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

And apparently they chose to spend money on land rather than players because it was a safer investment......[8-)]

[/quote]

That''s a ridiculous thing for them to even consider let alone for them to say! I''d be interested to see where that little gem came from Mr Carrow.

 

[/quote]

The accounts regularly mention a risk-averse strategy in running the club and there are several instances when board members have banged on about how risky it is to spend money on players- one from N.D. from the `06-07 accounts that i have quoted on here.  I`m not going to trawl through them when there`s sunbathing to be getting on with, but have a read through yourself and see what you think.

[/quote]

Well Mr Carrow [8-|][*][H] the suns well and truly gone down now [S] and I had a quick read through the report of the chief executive in the 06-07 accounts and I couldn''t see where he said they chose to spend money on land rather than players. Is it somewhere else [:^)]

 

[Mr.Carrow 394]

Sorry nutty, the year-ending May `05 is the one you want.  Must be sunstroke.

  I`d like to point out that the post you replied to is my opinion based on years of annual reports, interviews and columns by board members.  There are no quotes which prove my statement correct but there are dozens which suggest it is,  ie. on page 4 N.D. talks about "any investment in any promising player represents a huge financial outlay and, therefore, a huge risk" and on page 5 there is a paragraph about property trading which states that the clubs policy is "risk-averse".

[Mr.Carrow 394]

Found it nutty......?

[blahblahblah 2]

...And you wonder why there hasn''t been a populist revolt against the board despite your "fan pressure" and "financial boycott" Mr C.  All I''ve seen from the extremely diligent digging of others is that 1 million a season could have been spent but hasn''t, because of some loan taken out 5 seasons ago.  Funny also that despite the inherent risks of purchasing expensive players, Dean Ashton and Robert Earnshaw remain record purchases for us (and were subsequently record purchases for West Ham and Derby).  Surely our risk averse board wouldn''t have touched these players with a bargepole, but no, they are there, in the books as record transfer fees... [*-)]

[nutty nigel 7,963]

Sorry Mr. Carrow[8-|][*], I didn''t bother looking after you sent me on a wild goose chase last time.[:|] I thought you already told me it doesn''t exist anyway.[:-*] I thought you told me they never actually said that at all and it was all your opinion after all.[:@] So I am unlikely to find something that doesn''t really exist.[:S] It would be rather like searching for the Loch Ness Monster in Breydon Water. [&][H]