Three major errors

[Taxing 0]

IMO the following three failures illustrate a general malaise at our club, an incompetence or an acute  lack of funds or commitment or all three.

1. Failure to sign Martin Taylor - what a commanding centre back, goalscorer from set pieces and leader he would have been for the team for years to come. Roeder stated he wanted him, Brum wanted a £1M but the deal was never done.

2. failure to keep Huckerby (no I won''t "get over it" and "move on") - in anybody''s book the decision not to give Hucks a one year extension was simply breathtaking. One of the best players we have ever had at the club, criticized last season but he wasn''t fully fit, adored by most of the fans and a player who could turn a game with a bit of magic. Capable of bagging a good quota of goals and oodles of experience and charisma. Stuck with us even after the Premiership debacle when he could have gone for more money elsewhere. What did we do, we let him go. IMO Roeder''s ego was so big he couldn''t bear the idea of keeping Hucks at the Club and the Board supported Roeder because all they could see with their one dimensional brains was the money that would be saved in wages.

3. The Club''s failure to sign a striker of the big and athletic kind - must have been a no brainer for Roeder within weeks of him joining the Club. Had he brought in such a striker in January and had we kept Taylor then maybe a play-off place would have been achieved. Either Roeder failed to recognise the need or identify a suitable target or the Board didn''t back him. Whatever it was, there was a tantalising  period when we were looking up the table rather than down and players of the likes of Taylor and a striker in the mould of Iwelumo (who apparently went to Wolves for £400K) could and would have given us that extra momentum and propulsion up the table. Instead, the initial fireworks died down and we ended up just, only just, avoiding the drop.

.......... and today we are backing in the relegation zone having already dropped 5 points out of a very achievable 6.  Early days I know but nothing I have witnessed gives me any faith or confidence that things will change for the better.

 

 

 

[barclay seats 4849 0]

I often do not agree with your posts snooty........................but on this occasion, I am in total agreement. I feel very sad , mostly because of the way the fans are being let down.

I cannot get into arguements with the apologists,, I do not have the heart right now.

WE all support the CLUB ...NCFC................................I for one do not support the board anymore , and I am not very impressed with the manager either.

Now I get shot at  I suppose................................Ho Hum

[Syteanric 1]

Taylor would surely have been the replacement for Malky we had been missing! the media quoted we had offered 700,000 for Taylor... Brum apparently wanted 1 million.. the "Going rate" for a player is what the selling club want for him....

Im afraid we werent prepared to pay the going rate.

in hindsight.. if we had forked out 1 million for Tiny.. would there have been any money for Bell and Hooligan? the entrie transfer budget blown on 1 player would of been sucide.

 I dont blame Roeder for this.. if the funds arent there he has too work with what he has got.

as for the target man striker... Were we right to release Strihavka? Foreigners usually take a season to come good and get used to the pace of the game over here... he went back to Cz Rep and scored twice against Spurs in the Uefa cup... we missed the boat with Big Dave.. and its come back to bite us on the Arris im afraid

jas :)

[missing in action? 0]

i shall agree with you on 2 points but there is one you are being very harsh on.we offered the 1million pounds, bt lil miss Brady refused to acknowledge our bid as they tried to generate interest in him.i bet they would of chewed their arm off for a million after the eduardo incident.and with regards to huckerby, yes give him a contract, on the previso he would be a bit part player, as that was what he was becoming.

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

Taylor would surely have been the replacement for Malky we had been missing! the media quoted we had offered 700,000 for Taylor... Brum apparently wanted 1 million.. the "Going rate" for a player is what the selling club want for him....

Im afraid we werent prepared to pay the going rate.

in hindsight.. if we had forked out 1 million for Tiny.. would there have been any money for Bell and Hooligan? the entrie transfer budget blown on 1 player would of been sucide.

 I dont blame Roeder for this.. if the funds arent there he has too work with what he has got.

as for the target man striker... Were we right to release Strihavka? Foreigners usually take a season to come good and get used to the pace of the game over here... he went back to Cz Rep and scored twice against Spurs in the Uefa cup... we missed the boat with Big Dave.. and its come back to bite us on the Arris im afraid

jas :)

[/quote]

 

Trouble is we don''t know what the transfer budget was or is but if we were prepared to offer £700K then another £300K surely would have made sense for such an important player ? He would have given the team backbone, something it has lacked since Malky and Iwan went.

[Joanna Grey 0]

Point 2, I will not comment on, I''m staying out of the whole "Huckerby" debate.

Point 3, Yes we do need a big striker and he should have been in before the start of the season.

Point 1 - As jaykay has said (and as I am led to believe) - Brum wanted to sell him to thier friends at QPR for £1.25m, that did not happen. GR put in a bid of about £850,000 (his valuation) which was rejected. We upped our bid some time later (some say at the insistence of the Board) which was accepted but rejected again because Brum could not get in a suitable replacement.

[alex_ncfc 664]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

as for the target man striker... Were we right to release Strihavka? Foreigners usually take a season to come good and get used to the pace of the game over here... he went back to Cz Rep and scored twice against Spurs in the Uefa cup... we missed the boat with Big Dave.. and its come back to bite us on the Arris im afraid

jas :)

[/quote]

Was only saying to a mate the other day that we should kept hold of Strihavka - he would have been an option at least, and like you I think he would have come good. You have to ask yourself, did he ever get a good run?

Even under Grant, the answer is no.

[Empty Mirror 0]

I agree with all three points. Howlers, all of them.  And, interestingly for those who blame the Board for everything, Mr Roeder is clearly responsible for one (Huckerby) and implicated in the other two.  

Plus here is another major error, this one down to the Board alone:

4. The (apparent) failure to involve Mr Cullum. I''m not saying the Board should have sold out to him: it''s well documented that he hasn''t made a formal offer, so there was nothing to accept. But upon hearing that the fortieth (or whatever) richest man in the country is a Canary fan and wants to invest money surely the Board owed a duty to the fans and the other shareholders to at least try to involve him somehow. Surely the appropriate response to him would have been along the lines of "Peter, it''s brilliant that you want to get involved, we must meet for dinner, do come to some matches in the directors'' box, and let''s see what we can work out, we may disagree about valuation but there''s plenty of ways of getting involved, how about you fund this transfer and we''ll give you a seat on the Board and the City stand can be the Peter Cullum stand" (or whatever - it really doesn''t matter, the point was to seize the opportunity and try to involve him, not react like it was a hostile take over bid - which it has now, or (if results continue to go badly) will shortly, become).

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="Empty Mirror"]

I agree with all three points. Howlers, all of them.  And, interestingly for those who blame the Board for everything, Mr Roeder is clearly responsible for one (Huckerby) and implicated in the other two.  

Plus here is another major error, this one down to the Board alone:

4. The (apparent) failure to involve Mr Cullum. I''m not saying the Board should have sold out to him: it''s well documented that he hasn''t made a formal offer, so there was nothing to accept. But upon hearing that the fortieth (or whatever) richest man in the country is a Canary fan and wants to invest money surely the Board owed a duty to the fans and the other shareholders to at least try to involve him somehow. Surely the appropriate response to him would have been along the lines of "Peter, it''s brilliant that you want to get involved, we must meet for dinner, do come to some matches in the directors'' box, and let''s see what we can work out, we may disagree about valuation but there''s plenty of ways of getting involved, how about you fund this transfer and we''ll give you a seat on the Board and the City stand can be the Peter Cullum stand" (or whatever - it really doesn''t matter, the point was to seize the opportunity and try to involve him, not react like it was a hostile take over bid - which it has now, or (if results continue to go badly) will shortly, become).

[/quote]

This sounds far too reasonable ! Seriously, I couldn''t agree more. It''s this type of thing which creates the idea that Delia believes that NCFC is her personal plaything. She''s a very proud and stubborn person but IMO she is badly advised by self-serving people who have nothing to gain and everything to lose if Norwich were to be sold to Cullum. By the way, this thread reminds me of the old Montypython sketch of the Spanish Inquisitor whoe named one heresy then two then three and so on !

 

[Here We Go 0]

 

as regard to point number two isnt it better to die a hero than to live as a villian. (Yes i know he hasn''t died) but look at it like this in this team that so many people on here think i scrap he wouldn''t of performed people would start getting on his back, for not lifting the team and not being there to help at the back. I am glad he has left as the hero, as the legend, and moved to were he can make his name even bigger. yes he may have been are best player, but there is a point when you have to say goodbye. He will always be one of are legends, but i am glad he has left before he became the villian.

I think we should of kept strihavka, in the games i saw of him, he was much better at knockign a ball down and doing those neat little flick ons, that we needed. I think he would of come good, given the chance.

And yes blame the bored all you want, if you back the team then i don''t care, Roader(Spelling?) has done his best, and we will have to see whta comes.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

as for the target man striker... Were we right to release Strihavka? Foreigners usually take a season to come good and get used to the pace of the game over here... he went back to Cz Rep and scored twice against Spurs in the Uefa cup... we missed the boat with Big Dave.. and its come back to bite us on the Arris im afraid

jas :)

[/quote]

The only mistake we made with Big Dave was signing him in the first place. Even if he had come good in a couple of seasons we can''t afford to wait.

Remember watching him play for the reserves, he gave up far too easily. Never looked likely to cut it in English football.

 

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="NewArthur"]

 

as regard to point number two isnt it better to die a hero than to live as a villian. (Yes i know he hasn''t died) but look at it like this in this team that so many people on here think i scrap he wouldn''t of performed people would start getting on his back, for not lifting the team and not being there to help at the back. I am glad he has left as the hero, as the legend, and moved to were he can make his name even bigger. yes he may have been are best player, but there is a point when you have to say goodbye. He will always be one of are legends, but i am glad he has left before he became the villian.

I think we should of kept strihavka, in the games i saw of him, he was much better at knockign a ball down and doing those neat little flick ons, that we needed. I think he would of come good, given the chance.

And yes blame the bored all you want, if you back the team then i don''t care, Roader(Spelling?) has done his best, and we will have to see whta comes.

[/quote]

 

with respect that''s not the point I was making. In making the points I did I was only thinking of the best interests of Norwich not necessarily the players. I think that most sensible fans would agree that Hucks still had "some rocket fuel in the tank" and we could have benefitted from another year of him even if only as an impact player with 20 mins to go. I doubt that another year on his contract would ahev resulted in him leaving under any sort of a cloud but I agree that from his point of view the move may turn out to be the best thing he could have done for him and his reputation and his family. I bet the Huckerbys come back to Norfolk to settle though !

[Grumpy Old Blogger 0]

Empty Mirror wrote the following post at 19/08/2008 2:34 PM:

I agree with all three points. Howlers, all of them.  And, interestingly for those who blame the Board for everything, Mr Roeder is clearly responsible for one (Huckerby) and implicated in the other two.  

Plus here is another major error, this one down to the Board alone:

4. The (apparent) failure to involve Mr Cullum. I''m not saying the Board should have sold out to him: it''s well documented that he hasn''t made a formal offer, so there was nothing to accept. But upon hearing that the fortieth (or whatever) richest man in the country is a Canary fan and wants to invest money surely the Board owed a duty to the fans and the other shareholders to at least try to involve him somehow. Surely the appropriate response to him would have been along the lines of "Peter, it''s brilliant that you want to get involved, we must meet for dinner, do come to some matches in the directors'' box, and let''s see what we can work out, we may disagree about valuation but there''s plenty of ways of getting involved, how about you fund this transfer and we''ll give you a seat on the Board and the City stand can be the Peter Cullum stand" (or whatever - it really doesn''t matter, the point was to seize the opportunity and try to involve him, not react like it was a hostile take over bid - which it has now, or (if results continue to go badly) will shortly, become).

Point 4 is absolutely spot on. I would go even further and say that, knowing that one of the richest men in the UK was sitting in a box at Carrow Road, wouldn''t you think that our board could have been just a tiny bit more proactive? Maybe even pop over there on a match day, invite him for lunch, try to get him involved at any level or just invite him onto the board for no good reason other than he must have a fantastic contact book...and before any pedantics pick me up and say "how do you know they didn''t do that"? The answer is pretty clear in all the arms length dealings after the non-offer became public - there simply wasn''t any common ground before or after.

[Robert N. LiM 4,479]

[quote user="Lord Snooty"]

IMO the following three failures illustrate a general malaise at our club, an incompetence or an acute  lack of funds or commitment or all three.

1. Failure to sign Martin Taylor - what a commanding centre back, goalscorer from set pieces and leader he would have been for the team for years to come. Roeder stated he wanted him, Brum wanted a £1M but the deal was never done.

2. failure to keep Huckerby (no I won''t "get over it" and "move on") - in anybody''s book the decision not to give Hucks a one year extension was simply breathtaking. One of the best players we have ever had at the club, criticized last season but he wasn''t fully fit, adored by most of the fans and a player who could turn a game with a bit of magic. Capable of bagging a good quota of goals and oodles of experience and charisma. Stuck with us even after the Premiership debacle when he could have gone for more money elsewhere. What did we do, we let him go. IMO Roeder''s ego was so big he couldn''t bear the idea of keeping Hucks at the Club and the Board supported Roeder because all they could see with their one dimensional brains was the money that would be saved in wages.

3. The Club''s failure to sign a striker of the big and athletic kind - must have been a no brainer for Roeder within weeks of him joining the Club. Had he brought in such a striker in January and had we kept Taylor then maybe a play-off place would have been achieved. Either Roeder failed to recognise the need or identify a suitable target or the Board didn''t back him. Whatever it was, there was a tantalising  period when we were looking up the table rather than down and players of the likes of Taylor and a striker in the mould of Iwelumo (who apparently went to Wolves for £400K) could and would have given us that extra momentum and propulsion up the table. Instead, the initial fireworks died down and we ended up just, only just, avoiding the drop.

.......... and today we are backing in the relegation zone having already dropped 5 points out of a very achievable 6.  Early days I know but nothing I have witnessed gives me any faith or confidence that things will change for the better.

 [/quote]

1. It could be argued that the decision not to buy Taylor was the right one. He was overpriced at 1 million, and we ended up staying up without him. From what I''ve heard, Stefanovic seems to be his equal. Given that we didn''t spend that money in January, though, I still can''t understand the sale of Lewis.

2. I think the decision not to renew Huckerby''s contract was at least defensible. I think I''m a "pretty sensible Norwich fan" (I doubt anyone would say otherwise about themselves) and I saw nothing last season to suggest he had more rocket fuel in the tank. He looked quite good against League One defences (Bury, Colchester - sorry Cam), and pretty average against Championship ones, even at the end of the season when I thought the rave reviews of his performances were the wishful thinking of fans who understandably, wanted to see him back to his best. There was obviously a case for keeping him on a much reduced contract and using him as a sub, but I think there was also a case for letting him go. 3. If we fail to sign a target man before Aug 31st, I think we will be in for a season of serious struggle. If we sign one, I think we''ll do all right.There is no ''relegation zone'' after two games.No one knows the truth of the Cullum situation. I can''t imagine there''s a Norwich fan who wouldn''t want his millions swilling around the club''s coffers. And obviously if the team is struggling his name is going to be heard every day. I don''t really feel able to comment on who''s fault his lack of involvement is, and it astonishes me that lots of other people think they can.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

If we make no more additions to the strike force (targetman), getting rid of Chris Brown will have been a mistake!

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="Grumpy Old Blogger"]

Empty Mirror wrote the following post at 19/08/2008 2:34 PM:

I agree with all three points. Howlers, all of them.  And, interestingly for those who blame the Board for everything, Mr Roeder is clearly responsible for one (Huckerby) and implicated in the other two.  

Plus here is another major error, this one down to the Board alone:

4. The (apparent) failure to involve Mr Cullum. I''m not saying the Board should have sold out to him: it''s well documented that he hasn''t made a formal offer, so there was nothing to accept. But upon hearing that the fortieth (or whatever) richest man in the country is a Canary fan and wants to invest money surely the Board owed a duty to the fans and the other shareholders to at least try to involve him somehow. Surely the appropriate response to him would have been along the lines of "Peter, it''s brilliant that you want to get involved, we must meet for dinner, do come to some matches in the directors'' box, and let''s see what we can work out, we may disagree about valuation but there''s plenty of ways of getting involved, how about you fund this transfer and we''ll give you a seat on the Board and the City stand can be the Peter Cullum stand" (or whatever - it really doesn''t matter, the point was to seize the opportunity and try to involve him, not react like it was a hostile take over bid - which it has now, or (if results continue to go badly) will shortly, become).

Point 4 is absolutely spot on. I would go even further and say that, knowing that one of the richest men in the UK was sitting in a box at Carrow Road, wouldn''t you think that our board could have been just a tiny bit more proactive? Maybe even pop over there on a match day, invite him for lunch, try to get him involved at any level or just invite him onto the board for no good reason other than he must have a fantastic contact book...and before any pedantics pick me up and say "how do you know they didn''t do that"? The answer is pretty clear in all the arms length dealings after the non-offer became public - there simply wasn''t any common ground before or after.[/quote]

Totally agreed here as well.