GR comments in todays Evening News

[Leftfootdad 0]

Interesting.

http://new.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/Sport/GlennRoeder/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=GlennRoeder&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=GlennRoeder&itemid=NOED29%20Aug%202008%2010%3A33%3A19%3A370

Seems there are 2 players he could be after...If Iverson is one, who''s the other?

[NCFC_Thain 0]

It seems like its one of the 2 or we go with what we''ve got then

[Match Day Pie 0]

He''s also saying he doesn''t have enough money.

It''s not good enough really. While I understand the board may simply not have any more money to give him, you have to wonder whether it''s time the Turners started putting more in more bucks for their bang. For chrissakes, why are they allowed this privileged position when they''ve put so little money in?

Make the effort - make the difference. Simple as.

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="Match Day Pie"]

He''s also saying he doesn''t have enough money.

It''s not good enough really. While I understand the board may simply not have any more money to give him, you have to wonder whether it''s time the Turners started putting more in more bucks for their bang. For chrissakes, why are they allowed this privileged position when they''ve put so little money in?

Make the effort - make the difference. Simple as.

[/quote]

100% agree MDP, reading between the lines I think that''s exactly what GR is saying. Also agree re the Turners, all we''ve seen so far appears to be the interest free loan, and precious little else.

[OTBC 0]

I read it as: season over.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

"There is no point kidding ourselves that Ronaldo is going to turn up." - Glen Roeder.

Thats the problem. No ambition....sorry AMBITION.

[They need to EARN the right to play us 0]

[quote user="Match Day Pie"]

He''s also saying he doesn''t have enough money.

It''s not good enough really. While I understand the board may simply not have any more money to give him, you have to wonder whether it''s time the Turners started putting more in more bucks for their bang. For chrissakes, why are they allowed this privileged position when they''ve put so little money in?

Make the effort - make the difference. Simple as.

[/quote]How much have they put in then?

[Match Day Pie 0]

[quote user="Reg Presley"][quote user="Match Day Pie"]

He''s also saying he doesn''t have enough money.

It''s not good enough really. While I understand the board may simply not have any more money to give him, you have to wonder whether it''s time the Turners started putting more in more bucks for their bang. For chrissakes, why are they allowed this privileged position when they''ve put so little money in?

Make the effort - make the difference. Simple as.

[/quote]

How much have they put in then?
[/quote]

Couple of mil plus probably a bit more this summer. But it''s their shadowy presence that makes me feel uncomfortable. They''ve put in a relatively small amount considering their assets but enjoy the status. It''s all disturbingly Masonic. What exactly do they want?

If we are going to entertain such small investment, we should do what Derby did - gather a bunch of investors who can offer the same, making it a substantial investment (they got 5 or 6 people to throw in about £5m each).

 

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="Match Day Pie"]

He''s also saying he doesn''t have enough money.

[/quote]

Like nearly every other football manager then?

 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

How many times does he use the word "budget."

 

It is blatantly going to be a loan after the end of the transfer window.

 

 

[TheboyMark 0]

I think his comments are quite cute (not in the ''awwwwww'' sense of the word), since they make a thinly-veiled reference to the board not putting up enough £ for the player he clearly wants, to be easily obtained (let''s face it, EVERY player has their price).  It seems every week at least one more city player is quoted in the press mentioning the need for the target man..so it this a skillfully-orchestrated P.R campaign by Roeder to ensure everyone blames the board when we don''t get Iverson?  That particular type of player is the difference between top six and bottom six potentially.

[Dicky 0]

Despite all of the other replies on here, I find GR''s comments very sensible and I agree with all he is saying - it''s not just us looking for that elusive striker, so are Palace (haven''t scored all season, I believe), so are the Scummers, so are many other clubs.

If it was all that easy, there would be 40 clubs at the top of the Prem....

[They need to EARN the right to play us 0]

[quote user="Match Day Pie"][quote user="Reg Presley"][quote user="Match Day Pie"]

He''s also saying he doesn''t have enough money.

It''s not good enough really. While I understand the board may simply not have any more money to give him, you have to wonder whether it''s time the Turners started putting more in more bucks for their bang. For chrissakes, why are they allowed this privileged position when they''ve put so little money in?

Make the effort - make the difference. Simple as.

[/quote]How much have they put in then?[/quote]

Couple of mil plus probably a bit more this summer. But it''s their shadowy presence that makes me feel uncomfortable. They''ve put in a relatively small amount considering their assets but enjoy the status. It''s all disturbingly Masonic. What exactly do they want?

If we are going to entertain such small investment, we should do what Derby did - gather a bunch of investors who can offer the same, making it a substantial investment (they got 5 or 6 people to throw in about £5m each).

 

[/quote]

So, like me, you don''t actually know how much they have put in. But as far as I can see they have put in more than anyone else with the exception of Mr and Mrs Wynn-Jones, so having two places on the board seems not unreasonable to me. And since they have also said that they were actually going to act as non-executive directors should then their presence seems a step forward to me.Another thing I don''t know is the identity of these investors who can put £5 million in each. Cullum is not interested in that sort of deal. Care to name them?

[Match Day Pie 0]

[quote user="bunny"][quote user="Match Day Pie"]

He''s also saying he doesn''t have enough money.

[/quote]

Like nearly every other football manager then?

 

[/quote]

 

Yup - although he has just said this: “I think there''s enough money in the budget to get a decent one.”

I stand by my original comments about the Turners, though.

[Leftfootdad 0]

And so the ''other player'' GR refers to won''t be JFH

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/Sport/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=Sport&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=Sport&itemid=NOED29%20Aug%202008%2011%3A36%3A07%3A807

 

 

[Match Day Pie 0]

Reg Presley wrote the following post at 29/08/2008 11:53 AM:

''So, like me, you don''t actually know how much they have put in. But as far as I can see they have put in more than anyone else with the exception of Mr and Mrs Wynn-Jones, so having two places on the board seems not unreasonable to me. And since they have also said that they were actually going to act as non-executive directors should then their presence seems a step forward to me.

Another thing I don''t know is the identity of these investors who can put £5 million in each. Cullum is not interested in that sort of deal. Care to name them?''

------------------------------

I don''t understand why your tone is a little aggressive - forgive me if I''ve misjudged, though.

I''m saying that their presence is a little half-arsed, frankly. It''s neither here nor there. I don''t object to small investors being involved, and their money is of course welcome but in today''s football world, what good is only one investor with a couple of mil? Whereas if we found five investors to put in the same amount, collectively it would be of much more value - and that extra few quid at the end of the transfer window might not be as diffiuclt to find.

I''ve not said that I''m aware of the five investors so I don''t understand your question about naming them.

[They need to EARN the right to play us 0]

[quote user="Match Day Pie"]

Reg Presley wrote the following post at 29/08/2008 11:53 AM:

''So, like me, you don''t actually know how much they have put in. But as far as I can see they have put in more than anyone else with the exception of Mr and Mrs Wynn-Jones, so having two places on the board seems not unreasonable to me. And since they have also said that they were actually going to act as non-executive directors should then their presence seems a step forward to me.Another thing I don''t know is the identity of these investors who can put £5 million in each. Cullum is not interested in that sort of deal. Care to name them?''

------------------------------

I don''t understand why your tone is a little aggressive - forgive me if I''ve misjudged, though.

I''m saying that their presence is a little half-arsed, frankly. It''s neither here nor there. I don''t object to small investors being involved, and their money is of course welcome but in today''s football world, what good is only one investor with a couple of mil? Whereas if we found five investors to put in the same amount, collectively it would be of much more value - and that extra few quid at the end of the transfer window might not be as diffiuclt to find.

I''ve not said that I''m aware of the five investors so I don''t understand your question about naming them.

[/quote]

Let me put it simply: there has never been evidence at all that investors of the type you mention actually exist - I assumed by raising the issue you were privy to some information that suggested they did - I apologise for that. And again you say that the Turners'' presence is a little half-arsed - do you actually know that? I don''t know either way - but there have been moans on here that the club had become a worse to work since they arrived. It will also be interesting to see what deal Grant cut when he walked away.

[Koreacanary 0]

Looks like another loan is on the cards given those comments, the permanent transfer window will be shut after Monday !

[Leftfootdad 0]

So it''s probably MORE waiting to do until midnight on Monday, then MORE frustration when we find out we haven''t permanmently signed the player we''re looking for! In the meantime MORE disappointment that we haven''t taken 3 points from Saturday''s game and are left languishing near the foot of the table!!!!!!!!!!!

I can''t stand all this 

[Davo 0]

[quote user="Dicky"]

Despite all of the other replies on here, I find GR''s comments very sensible and I agree with all he is saying - it''s not just us looking for that elusive striker, so are Palace (haven''t scored all season, I believe), so are the Scummers, so are many other clubs.

If it was all that easy, there would be 40 clubs at the top of the Prem....

[/quote]I agree with you here. I given our seemingly limited budget I would prefer to wait till January if it means getting the right player instead of wasting money on a half-arsed solution now. Even if it means we''re in the bottom half of the table till then. We don''t have money to waste on players so getting the right one is more important.Davo

[Inch High aka Inchy.. 405]

Match day I''m in total agreement with you, Reg Turner is just being a tad pedantic.

The Turners were allowed into the club far too cheaply and have stayed too cheaply as well. I would rather the club had not accepted the 2mill they loaned to allow them onto the board.

The 2 million plus I believe around £500,000 this summer in the big scheme of footballing things is a mere drop in the ocean and smacks of Delia and MWJ trying to keep their own boat afloat as apposed to admiting that they need to spread the investment net further afield and throw the towel in and admit that they are done.

Delia uses her little Norwich to enhance her media carreer and not alot else, she likes the ladies who lunch and her friends in the WI to think we all worship the ground she walks on and if you ever bother to watch her tv prog you will see when shes at the club she''s surrounded by a security blanket of luvvies making it look like we all do indeed worship her.

[lucky green trainers 0]

its a plain as day - proven strikers cost money - we can''t afford, simple as...expect a loanee to  arrive  until jan, when hopefully roedy will be able to claim iversen...Roedy''s budget has been insufficent for him to credibly fulfil his aim of putting out a teamwith prem ambition - that much is painfully obvious, he''s not got the full compliment of ''inbetweenies'' he aimed for - and while i agree there''s more quality in the squad this season, than at the start of last, it remains to be seen if roedy can get this group of players to realise their potential, keep improving and performing upto and beyond the present ability- cos that''s whats needed to mount a prem challenge...if it goes wrong, and players underperform, or are frustratingly inconsistent week to week, then its likely we will be struggling in the wrong half of the table...on present form, we look more like relegation battlers than promotion hopefuls...but don''t worry, if the demise continues into the autumn, our brave board will dig deep into their pockets for quality loanees to rescue the sittuuuaashun again - make no mistake???  lets hope it doesn''t come to that...

[Match Day Pie 0]

Reg Presley wrote the following post at 29/08/2008 12:09 PM:

Let me put it simply: there has never been evidence at all that investors of the type you mention actually exist - I assumed by raising the issue you were privy to some information that suggested they did - I apologise for that. And again you say that the Turners'' presence is a little half-arsed - do you actually know that? I don''t know either way - but there have been moans on here that the club had become a worse to work since they arrived. It will also be interesting to see what deal Grant cut when he walked away.
-------------------------

I wish I was privvy to such information but, alas, I''m not! I''m thinking out loud that finding five investors with £2m each might be a better way to get investment if the board don''t want to turn the whole thing over to one person. Quite who they would be is another matter entirely...

The Turners'' presence is half-arsed in my, and many fans views, but I''m saying that from a perception point of view, not of what I actually know of what goes on behind closed doors. But that''s the point - they don''t have a lot to say yet have a lot of influence for relatively little investment. We know this because of what we are told by the club.

I''m not getting into assumptions about people''s roles or characters because I don''t do that - it''s pointless. However, with so little money going into the club, the perception is that the Turners are on a bit of a jolly. This may or may not be true, but as I''ve already said, having just one investor with £2m(ish) is not enough to convince me and many other people what the Turner''s intentions are.

[Leftfootdad 0]

So to add my two penneys into the mix, there''s only one set of people you cane blame for this...that''s the Board, not necessarily releasing enough money (as we currently don''t have much) BUT for not being proactive enough in finding BIG investment, OR for turing away the opportunity when it came their way.

 

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]its a plain as day - proven strikers cost money - we can''t afford, simple as...expect a loanee to  arrive  until jan, when hopefully roedy will be able to claim iversen...

Roedy''s budget has been insufficent for him to credibly fulfil his aim of putting out a teamwith prem ambition - that much is painfully obvious, he''s not got the full compliment of ''inbetweenies'' he aimed for - and while i agree there''s more quality in the squad this season, than at the start of last, it remains to be seen if roedy can get this group of players to realise their potential, keep improving and performing upto and beyond the present ability- cos that''s whats needed to mount a prem challenge...

if it goes wrong, and players underperform, or are frustratingly inconsistent week to week, then its likely we will be struggling in the wrong half of the table...

on present form, we look more like relegation battlers than promotion hopefuls...but don''t worry, if the demise continues into the autumn, our brave board will dig deep into their pockets for quality loanees to rescue the sittuuuaashun again - make no mistake???  lets hope it doesn''t come to that...








[/quote]

[They need to EARN the right to play us 0]

[quote user="IncH_HigH"]

Match day I''m in total agreement with you, Reg Turner is just being a tad pedantic.

The Turners were allowed into the club far too cheaply and have stayed too cheaply as well. I would rather the club had not accepted the 2mill they loaned to allow them onto the board.

The 2 million plus I believe around £500,000 this summer in the big scheme of footballing things is a mere drop in the ocean and smacks of Delia and MWJ trying to keep their own boat afloat as apposed to admiting that they need to spread the investment net further afield and throw the towel in and admit that they are done.

Delia uses her little Norwich to enhance her media carreer and not alot else, she likes the ladies who lunch and her friends in the WI to think we all worship the ground she walks on and if you ever bother to watch her tv prog you will see when shes at the club she''s surrounded by a security blanket of luvvies making it look like we all do indeed worship her.

[/quote]What is your reason for believing it to be £500,000? But accepting for argument''s sake that you are right how can £2.5 million be described as a "drop in the ocean". The board valued the club at £16 million last October, it seems clear that Mr Cullum feels it to be worth substantially less than that. £2.5 million is a significant amount to put in and I don''t see why it shouldn''t be accompanied by places on the board. Of course, in the same way that you seem to have inside information as to what the Turners'' contribution has been this summer, you may also have inside information as to what Barry Skipper actually did. For those of us outside the loop it really isn''t clear that replacing him with Mr & Mrs Turner was a backward step. And if that £2 million bought us just 3 extra points then I''m really glad we accepted it.There have been deep-rooted problems at the football club, for those Mr & Mrs Wynn-Jones must take the blame. Based on what little information has been made public they also appear to be grossly at fault for way negotiations with Mr Cullum were handled. But I think it''s far too early to start slagging off the Turners - they are 2 of the very few people who have actually been willing to put money into the footbll club.

[They need to EARN the right to play us 0]

[quote user="Match Day Pie"]

Reg Presley wrote the following post at 29/08/2008 12:09 PM:

Let me put it simply: there has never been evidence at all that investors of the type you mention actually exist - I assumed by raising the issue you were privy to some information that suggested they did - I apologise for that. And again you say that the Turners'' presence is a little half-arsed - do you actually know that? I don''t know either way - but there have been moans on here that the club had become a worse to work since they arrived. It will also be interesting to see what deal Grant cut when he walked away.-------------------------

I wish I was privvy to such information but, alas, I''m not! I''m thinking out loud that finding five investors with £2m each might be a better way to get investment if the board don''t want to turn the whole thing over to one person. Quite who they would be is another matter entirely...

The Turners'' presence is half-arsed in my, and many fans views, but I''m saying that from a perception point of view, not of what I actually know of what goes on behind closed doors. But that''s the point - they don''t have a lot to say yet have a lot of influence for relatively little investment. We know this because of what we are told by the club.

I''m not getting into assumptions about people''s roles or characters because I don''t do that - it''s pointless. However, with so little money going into the club, the perception is that the Turners are on a bit of a jolly. This may or may not be true, but as I''ve already said, having just one investor with £2m(ish) is not enough to convince me and many other people what the Turner''s intentions are.

[/quote]

I genuinely don''t understand the point: on the one hand you say they have a lot of influence for "relatively" little investment, on the other hand you say they''re on a bit of a jolly. In terms of influence what they have is access to Mr & Mrs Wynn-Jones, but whatever the Wynn-Jones''s say is what goes. I would think in reality they have less real influence than Mr Doncaster.As for it being a relatively small investment - relative to what? Not relative to the size of the company, and not relative to what anybody else has put in.

[Davo 0]

[quote user="Reg Presley"]What is your reason for believing it to be £500,000? But accepting for argument''s sake that you are right how can £2.5 million be described as a "drop in the ocean". The board valued the club at £16 million last October, it seems clear that Mr Cullum feels it to be worth substantially less than that. £2.5 million is a significant amount to put in and I don''t see why it shouldn''t be accompanied by places on the board. Of course, in the same way that you seem to have inside information as to what the Turners'' contribution has been this summer, you may also have inside information as to what Barry Skipper actually did. For those of us outside the loop it really isn''t clear that replacing him with Mr & Mrs Turner was a backward step. And if that £2 million bought us just 3 extra points then I''m really glad we accepted it.There have been deep-rooted problems at the football club, for those Mr & Mrs Wynn-Jones must take the blame. Based on what little information has been made public they also appear to be grossly at fault for way negotiations with Mr Cullum were handled. But I think it''s far too early to start slagging off the Turners - they are 2 of the very few people who have actually been willing to put money into the footbll club.[/quote]So you are saying a 2 million loan (and yes it is a loan based on the accounts) is enough for 2 seats on the board? Going on that basis why don''t Axa have 10 seat on the board as they have loaned the club alot more than £10 mil after all. The murky bit behind the Turners I feel is what is it they actually do? What to they bring to the table apart from a £2 mill loan and a bit more? Why are they involved and for what reasons?Davo

[Pinks 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

How many times does he use the word "budget."

 

It is blatantly going to be a loan after the end of the transfer window.

 

[/quote]

        

Now that''s working within budgets

[They need to EARN the right to play us 0]

Once again I stand corrected - I wasn''t aware that the AXA loan, like the Turners'' was on non-commercial terms. I also wasn''t aware that AXA were willing to put up anyone, let alone 10 people, to act as unpaid non-executive directors.Personally I think that the resulting board, with 14 or so members, would not be effective.And apart from the £2million interest-free loan, of which everone is so dismissive, they bring this:

"Thirdly our role is that of Non-Executive Directors. That

means we, together with the other Non-Executive Directors, are there to

provide a check and balance on the executive team. And we do that on

behalf of all shareholders of the Club - not just Delia and Michael.

Our role is to ask three simple questions:

-Have we got the right man?

-Has he got the right plan?

-Is he delivering it?

It is that simple.

To start we believe Neil is the right man. But don''t think

that means we will give him an easy time. Quite the opposite. As

independent Directors we will be constantly assessing his performance

and holding him to account. Next we have a business plan that has been

developed by Neil and his team which we review and update on a regular

at least monthly basis. And so far we are broadly on track in

delivering that plan."

Whether they are doing that effectively it is too soon to tell.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Nigel Worthington in the summer of 2006 said :-

“There is not a lot of plan C, D, E, F, G, H from the point of view of the quality that we need to come into this football club and take us forward. I can go and sign five six-foot three strikers tomorrow for £100,000 apiece - they won''t do the job that we want because they are not good enough, simple as that, and if you want to move forward then you need good players within the club.

“We have looked across the board and the two top targets were Hulse number one, and Howard number two.”

“It is not a surprise because when there is not an abundance of those types of strikers about, they command high transfer fees, they command high wages,” he said. “Certainly in the Howard situation, yes, £1m is a lot of money for him, but if that''s what there is about and that''s the going rate at the time, then that''s it.

“There is a budget here and it''s a tight budget and we have got to manage that very carefully to get the most from that and with having a tight budget you have got to be very careful how you spend it, simple as that.”

He then brought us Dion Dublin on loan insted of buying players who were not good enough for the club.[Y]

Peter Grant then bought the players who weren''t good enough in 2007 [N]

And now in 2008 it appears we have recovered to where we were under Worthy 2 years ago but Roeder is finding those same obstacles still there.

If, as has been hinted, Iverson would be available in November/January, then I suggest we find another Dion Dublin for the short term. Sooner that than we go down the 2007 route.