For those who bemoan the loan.

[@NYCANARIES 0]

Moan, moan, moan another loan, loan, loan...

Good. Loans are ace. They are fantastic. Why?

You get to sign players who you a: Cannot afford to buy, b: Cannot afford to pay.

What you don''t end up with is a duffer you CAN afford who is stuck on the wage bill for three years and a shot that a 2 year old would be happy with.

Go up? Brilliant. Your loans have done the job and you have plenty of wages freed up for the big time. Stay down? Get some more loans or re-sign a few you tried last year that worked as well as Bertrand.

Loans are fantastic ladies and gentlemen. Fabulous.

Finally for all the moaners who complain we should not be signing 34 year old forwards and young reserves, a reality check. My Norwich City and yours are currently a Championship club with a Championship budget. We have signed 13 players this summer and still the moaning on this board continues. How many clubs signed 13 this year, or for that matter 24 last year! From what I saw on Saturday we looked a bit tasty.

Sibierski is what we needed. A holding forward who can score. At this level he will be spot on. I personally would have prefered Iversen but I guess I will have to wait until January if ever.

Just a thought, out of the 13 we signed, who is unhappy with Stefanovic, Kennedy, Lupoli, Clingan, Hoolahan and Bertrand? I thought not...

Up the City!

Bigus.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Well done Bigus. Great attitude.

[canary cherub 1]

The problem is not the individual players but the excessive number of loans. 

As a short term fix last season to get us out of relegation trouble it was an acceptable strategy.  But as part of Glenn Roeder''s three year plan, which presumably is meant to turn us into promotion challengers, it''s a non starter.  Unless we have the money to convert the best loanees into permanent signings (and there''s no evidence that we do) it means rebuilding the team again at the start of next season, and the season after, and the one after that . . . it''s a recipe for zero progress. 

Which imo would suit the present incumbents of the boardroom just fine, provided the punters keep coming through the gates.

 

[@NYCANARIES 0]

Not quite true. Check out Hereford. Most loans are a better class of player than you can afford. If you can afford them then you blow 3 million on an Ameobi instead of getting 7 good loans. Yeah you can only play five. Well Archibald-Henville and Koroma will probably be squad now. I am hoping we don''t lose one of the back two or Lupoli.

We finally have depth at every position and instead of embracing that all people do is moan. If it were not for the loan system we would not have nearly as deep a squad as we do now. 2 players for every spot. Better players than we have had for a few years!

If they work out maybe we can keep a couple, if not then get another...Roeder is using players from a higher league and hoping their higher standard will do the job. I hope we CAN''T keep them because that means they are good and thats what gets you up above everyone else!

-Bigus

[canary cherub 1]

We shall see.

 

[@NYCANARIES 0]

Yeah thats all we can do Strawberry but I''d rather have Lupoli and Sibierski than Brown and Thorne.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

I think it''s fair to say that had somebody posted in June that we would have signed Sibierski, Stefanovic, Kennedy, Lupoli, Clingan, Hoolahan, Bell, Koroma and Bertrand by the end of the transfer window they would have been laughed off the board. Loans or not.

 

 

[@NYCANARIES 0]

There ya go. Agreed and 4 of those are perms...

Nice work City..

Marshall, Semi, Kennedy, Stefanovic, Bertrand, Hoolahan, Russell, Clingan, Bell, Sibierski and Lupoli.

Now that''s a nice starting 11.

-Bigus

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Strawberry"]

We shall see.

[/quote]

Come on Strawberry....be honest. Even you have to see the merit of the input from Nigel.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Strawberry"]

We shall see.

[/quote]

Come on Strawberry....be honest. Even you have to see the merit of the input from Nigel.

[/quote]

I think you''ve got your chronology in a twist.  The bit you''ve quoted wasn''t a reply to NN''s post, his came after mine.

 

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="Bigus"]Moan, moan, moan another loan, loan, loan... Good. Loans are ace. They are fantastic. Why? You get to sign players who you a: Cannot afford to buy, b: Cannot afford to pay. What you don''t end up with is a duffer you CAN afford who is stuck on the wage bill for three years and a shot that a 2 year old would be happy with. Go up? Brilliant. Your loans have done the job and you have plenty of wages freed up for the big time. Stay down? Get some more loans or re-sign a few you tried last year that worked as well as Bertrand. Loans are fantastic ladies and gentlemen. Fabulous. Finally for all the moaners who complain we should not be signing 34 year old forwards and young reserves, a reality check. My Norwich City and yours are currently a Championship club with a Championship budget. We have signed 13 players this summer and still the moaning on this board continues. How many clubs signed 13 this year, or for that matter 24 last year! From what I saw on Saturday we looked a bit tasty. Sibierski is what we needed. A holding forward who can score. At this level he will be spot on. I personally would have prefered Iversen but I guess I will have to wait until January if ever. Just a thought, out of the 13 we signed, who is unhappy with Stefanovic, Kennedy, Lupoli, Clingan, Hoolahan and Bertrand? I thought not... Up the City! Bigus.[/quote]

yeah fantastic, fabulous, perhaps we could change our name to Chelsea Reserves/not good enough for Fulham/recovering from injury of Celtic/Portsmouth Kids/Wigan Old Boys or just Norwich Cannot afford any players of our own City?

You should be really proud..

One thought though, that''s another player less that we actually own and 8 on loan. Undisclosed fee of course so that we peasants don''t know how much profit has been made again in this window. What actually happens when there is no one left that we actually own to sell? No wonder Yankee Canary loves it, fits in perfectly with his country''s idea of football clubs as franchises.

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Barclay_Boy"]

[quote user="Bigus"]Moan, moan, moan another loan, loan, loan... Good. Loans are ace. They are fantastic. Why? You get to sign players who you a: Cannot afford to buy, b: Cannot afford to pay. What you don''t end up with is a duffer you CAN afford who is stuck on the wage bill for three years and a shot that a 2 year old would be happy with. Go up? Brilliant. Your loans have done the job and you have plenty of wages freed up for the big time. Stay down? Get some more loans or re-sign a few you tried last year that worked as well as Bertrand. Loans are fantastic ladies and gentlemen. Fabulous. Finally for all the moaners who complain we should not be signing 34 year old forwards and young reserves, a reality check. My Norwich City and yours are currently a Championship club with a Championship budget. We have signed 13 players this summer and still the moaning on this board continues. How many clubs signed 13 this year, or for that matter 24 last year! From what I saw on Saturday we looked a bit tasty. Sibierski is what we needed. A holding forward who can score. At this level he will be spot on. I personally would have prefered Iversen but I guess I will have to wait until January if ever. Just a thought, out of the 13 we signed, who is unhappy with Stefanovic, Kennedy, Lupoli, Clingan, Hoolahan and Bertrand? I thought not... Up the City! Bigus.[/quote]

yeah fantastic, fabulous, perhaps we could change our name to Chelsea Reserves/not good enough for Fulham/recovering from injury of Celtic/Portsmouth Kids/Wigan Old Boys or just Norwich Cannot afford any players of our own City?

You should be really proud..

One thought though, that''s another player less that we actually own and 8 on loan. Undisclosed fee of course so that we peasants don''t know how much profit has been made again in this window. What actually happens when there is no one left that we actually own to sell? No wonder Yankee Canary loves it, fits in perfectly with his country''s idea of football clubs as franchises.

[/quote]

Marshall, Otsemobor, Stefanovic, Kennedy (who I think will be made perm), Doc, Bell, Chadwick, Croft, Russell, Clingan, Fotheringham, Russell, Hoolahan ...

Apart from left back and strikers, most of our potential starting eleven are our players in my opinion. Apart from the strikers, of whom I suspect we will make one perm signing in jan when Iverson is available, most of Roeder''s recent loans (those that exceed the 5 we can play at any one time, that is) are simply squad fillers and cover who are hopefully (injuries permitting) very unlikely to be playing first team footy. And before the most yawnworthy posters on here accuse me of being a Delia lover or Huckshater or whatever the most trendy current term is, I''m ABSOLUTELY neither. Just trying to add some perspective to those that imply that we have none of our own players.

   

[whoareyou? 0]

The big problem is, come January we could have to start all over again because aside from Lupoli and Komora, all the others will go back to their clubs.

I have no doubt now that the club is in financial doo-doo. Every time we sell a player for decent money they get replaced by a loanee.

[Dicky 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I think it''s fair to say that had somebody posted in June that we would have signed Sibierski, Stefanovic, Kennedy, Lupoli, Clingan, Hoolahan, Bell, Koroma and Bertrand by the end of the transfer window they would have been laughed off the board. Loans or not.

 

 

[/quote]

Spot on Nutty.  Decent team without blowing loads of money, well done Glen.

[Grando 260]

Decent team yet to win this season.

[lucky green trainers 0]

no one can doubt that  roedy has assembled a good looking squad on a poor budget, and has again exploited the  loan system to the absolute maximum in doing so...as pardew said on saturday, getting teams to perform to the same level week in, week out, is the key to this league - and if roedy can get this squad playing well - imo he''s got a squad with a credible top8 potential...so good on him,,,he''s wheeled and dealed  as good as redknapp  imo -  and  if we do well,  he''s bound to attract the attention  of a bigger club with the funds to match his ambition - ''arry will have schooled him well on this one...but - of course  - it all starts again in jan -  when loan deals run out -  and it seems we need to sell  each time to finance this deals...who else can we get more than £1m for??? - marshall, if he continues to improve looks fave next time...imo NCFC is scraping the barrel - its poverty stuff, or the final rollof the diceby the board - becuase patently, we can''t afford to pay the transfer fee of a quality striker, nor their wages on a 3 year contract - all this has to be budgetted in and accounted for and we seem to lack the cash to balance the books on this basis -  and so short-termism via loan deals has to be our preferrred method, cos thats all we can afford,,,if we are to get the quality in we need to do well in this league,/.mind you - there''s no plan B if sibs gets crocked, or he''s not the player he was - what should we do in these circumstances, play rusty or the doc up front???

[Yellowfuture 71]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]no one can doubt that  roedy has assembled a good looking squad on a poor budget, and has again exploited the  loan system to the absolute maximum in doing so...

as pardew said on saturday, getting teams to perform to the same level week in, week out, is the key to this league - and if roedy can get this squad playing well - imo he''s got a squad with a credible top8 potential...so good on him,,,

he''s wheeled and dealed  as good as redknapp  imo -  and  if we do well,  he''s bound to attract the attention  of a bigger club with the funds to match his ambition - ''arry will have schooled him well on this one...

but - of course  - it all starts again in jan -  when loan deals run out -  and it seems we need to sell  each time to finance this deals...who else can we get more than £1m for??? - marshall, if he continues to improve looks fave next time...

imo NCFC is scraping the barrel - its poverty stuff, or the final rollof the diceby the board - becuase patently, we can''t afford to pay the transfer fee of a quality striker, nor their wages on a 3 year contract - all this has to be budgetted in and accounted for and we seem to lack the cash to balance the books on this basis -  and so short-termism via loan deals has to be our preferrred method, cos thats all we can afford,,,if we are to get the quality in we need to do well in this league,/.

mind you - there''s no plan B if sibs gets crocked, or he''s not the player he was - what should we do in these circumstances, play rusty or the doc up front???

 

I think this is spot on. IMO Roeder is doing a great job and is not being supported by the Board. He has produced a potential top 6 side funded on peanuts.He has used his own personal influence to get good deals and the club is the beneficiary. It`s almost as if the board are sitting on the sidelines doing very little to add to the process but relying heavily on the managers own links and influence within the game. The view that Shacs` money is sitting in the bank waiting for him to use in January I fear is optimistic, Roeder does not only have to produce a team on the field but is having to fund our debts by selling.

I loved watching us play on Saturday and am looking forward to a good season, but just think what would happen to us if we lost Roeder. We are relying vey heavily on the manager, a very astute manager at that, if he is picked off by a stuggling Prem team around December time then I fear for our future. We are a selling club whether we like it or not, our accademy has not been producing over the last few years, how much family silver is left?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

Bigus - Not moaning, but is this business model sustainable?. We have seen Ryan Betrand play, we know he is good, should we be signing him before his price rises/somebody else tries to snap him up/, or we should we just be happy that we paid Chelsea to put him in the shop window......I accept loans have their place, but ultimately they are not our players.....

[Saint Canary 0]

I made sure I didn''t post anything on

here last night to ensure I had had time to think about what I wanted

to say.First off Sibierski (and most of the other loans) are,

on individual merits decent signings, not spectacular but decent. 

If anyone was expecting spectacular going into yesterday then you

were deluding yourself.However, IMO when taking yesterdays

transfer dealings in the context of our squad and circumstances, I

fail to see how anyone cannot be slightly disappointed with

yesterdays and the summers transfer activity.  Looking at

Sibierski first and considering that we have known since Dion

announced his retirement and Brown was sold that we needed a striker

to lead the line is this signing so great?  We had nine months

to fill this void, I am underwhelmed that in this time the best we

could manage was an injured 34 year-old on loan.  Yet people are

happy?  He will do but I thought Glenn wanted the "right

player" and not some last minute "he will do". 

Or have we really been working on the loan signing for Sibierski for

months in a Man Utd/Berbatov style lingering transfer.  I doubt

it.In regards to the number of loans we have.  I fully

accept that loans are the way in football now and you can get quality

that you cannot afford or others don''t want to sell but I just cannot

for the life of me understand how having 8 players on loan is a

healthy way to run a club.  Yes add quality but you should not

be in a situation whereby one third of your squad is on loan. That''s

not adding quality, that''s making up numbers.

At present we have just 1 striker of

our own to the 3 on loan and 4 defenders to the 5 on loan.  How

is this building for the future?  By my counting we have just 14

senior first-team players of our own and that''s including the likes

of Chadwick and Lappin who I can''t see getting close to the pitch

while Roeder is in charge.  We could not put out an team in a

4-4-2 formation of our own players without having people out of

position.  Can anyone tell me of other clubs with this many

players on loan right now?  I am thinking Luton but they have

been in administration.I will still be at all the home games

and most of the away games this season and will sing my heart out for

the team but I cannot pretend on this forum that I am happy that we

have signed just 4 players on permanent deals this summer. 

Worst of all is yet again we go into January needing major surgery

rather than just requiring 1 maybe 2 players.  Yet again we are

simply not being proactive enough in the transfer market in my eyes.

I would just like to point out am not

blaming anyone, I do not want anybody ”out”. I am just stating

my disappointment.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Grando"]Decent team yet to win this season.[/quote]

Decent team yet to take the lead this season.

 

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="Strawberry"]

[quote user="Grando"]Decent team yet to win this season.[/quote]

Decent team yet to take the lead this season.

 

[/quote]Decent team yet to keep a clean sheet this season.

[ron obvious 1,502]

Quick question: anybody know which players are due to go back in Jan?

[Lazza 0]

Why is everyone expecting a full squad to compete for promotion this year? Someone earlier in this thread mentioned GRs 3-year plan. It looks to me more like he is building a squad that can do well enough this season without setting anyones pants on fire but setting the foundations of a good squad that we can build on in the winter and summer windows to make a bigger push next year or perhaps even the following year.Remembering where we have come from i.e. the dismal squad we had last season I think he''s done damned well to assemble a squad that looks as good as it does! So far he has replaced some very poor players with some quality permanant signings and filled in the (many) gaps with loanees. In the next 2 windows he will no doubt sign some more players on permanant contracts and have to rely on loanees much less.Does anyone really believe that NCFC has made a profit on signings this summer? You have to take all the players we have brought in and sold this summer into account, not just the last day of the window!

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="Saint Canary"][quote user="Strawberry"]

[quote user="Grando"]Decent team yet to win this season.[/quote]

Decent team yet to take the lead this season.

 

[/quote]Decent team yet to keep a clean sheet this season.[/quote]Decent team who manage 0.75 points per game

[Destort 0]

[quote user="Barclay_Boy"]

[quote user="Bigus"]Moan, moan, moan another loan, loan, loan... Good. Loans are ace. They are fantastic. Why? You get to sign players who you a: Cannot afford to buy, b: Cannot afford to pay. What you don''t end up with is a duffer you CAN afford who is stuck on the wage bill for three years and a shot that a 2 year old would be happy with. Go up? Brilliant. Your loans have done the job and you have plenty of wages freed up for the big time. Stay down? Get some more loans or re-sign a few you tried last year that worked as well as Bertrand. Loans are fantastic ladies and gentlemen. Fabulous. Finally for all the moaners who complain we should not be signing 34 year old forwards and young reserves, a reality check. My Norwich City and yours are currently a Championship club with a Championship budget. We have signed 13 players this summer and still the moaning on this board continues. How many clubs signed 13 this year, or for that matter 24 last year! From what I saw on Saturday we looked a bit tasty. Sibierski is what we needed. A holding forward who can score. At this level he will be spot on. I personally would have prefered Iversen but I guess I will have to wait until January if ever. Just a thought, out of the 13 we signed, who is unhappy with Stefanovic, Kennedy, Lupoli, Clingan, Hoolahan and Bertrand? I thought not... Up the City! Bigus.[/quote]

yeah fantastic, fabulous, perhaps we could change our name to Chelsea Reserves/not good enough for Fulham/recovering from injury of Celtic/Portsmouth Kids/Wigan Old Boys or just Norwich Cannot afford any players of our own City?

You should be really proud..

One thought though, that''s another player less that we actually own and 8 on loan. Undisclosed fee of course so that we peasants don''t know how much profit has been made again in this window. What actually happens when there is no one left that we actually own to sell? No wonder Yankee Canary loves it, fits in perfectly with his country''s idea of football clubs as franchises.

[/quote]

Completely clueless with a little bit of racism thrown in, idiot.

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="Destort"][quote user="Barclay_Boy"]

[quote user="Bigus"]Moan, moan, moan another loan, loan, loan... Good. Loans are ace. They are fantastic. Why? You get to sign players who you a: Cannot afford to buy, b: Cannot afford to pay. What you don''t end up with is a duffer you CAN afford who is stuck on the wage bill for three years and a shot that a 2 year old would be happy with. Go up? Brilliant. Your loans have done the job and you have plenty of wages freed up for the big time. Stay down? Get some more loans or re-sign a few you tried last year that worked as well as Bertrand. Loans are fantastic ladies and gentlemen. Fabulous. Finally for all the moaners who complain we should not be signing 34 year old forwards and young reserves, a reality check. My Norwich City and yours are currently a Championship club with a Championship budget. We have signed 13 players this summer and still the moaning on this board continues. How many clubs signed 13 this year, or for that matter 24 last year! From what I saw on Saturday we looked a bit tasty. Sibierski is what we needed. A holding forward who can score. At this level he will be spot on. I personally would have prefered Iversen but I guess I will have to wait until January if ever. Just a thought, out of the 13 we signed, who is unhappy with Stefanovic, Kennedy, Lupoli, Clingan, Hoolahan and Bertrand? I thought not... Up the City! Bigus.[/quote]

yeah fantastic, fabulous, perhaps we could change our name to Chelsea Reserves/not good enough for Fulham/recovering from injury of Celtic/Portsmouth Kids/Wigan Old Boys or just Norwich Cannot afford any players of our own City?

You should be really proud..

One thought though, that''s another player less that we actually own and 8 on loan. Undisclosed fee of course so that we peasants don''t know how much profit has been made again in this window. What actually happens when there is no one left that we actually own to sell? No wonder Yankee Canary loves it, fits in perfectly with his country''s idea of football clubs as franchises.

[/quote]

Completely clueless with a little bit of racism thrown in, idiot.

[/quote]How is that racist?  It''s not even as bad as most of the things said about people in Suffolk.

[Old Boy 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I think it''s fair to say that had somebody posted in June that we would have signed Sibierski, Stefanovic, Kennedy, Lupoli, Clingan, Hoolahan, Bell, Koroma and Bertrand by the end of the transfer window they would have been laughed off the board. Loans or not.

 [/quote]

Good point. And to all those "decent team yet to.... etc." posts, I think everybody knows we''re playing much better football than this time last season, and that if we''d played like we did on Saturday against any other team in the division we''d have won easily. IMO the major weaknesses in the team now are ironically two contracted players - Fotheringham and Pattison (despite his 100% effort, he''s Hooze''s younger brother). Hopefully they''ll be replaced soon by Russell and Bell.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Strawberry"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Strawberry"]

We shall see.

[/quote]

Come on Strawberry....be honest. Even you have to see the merit of the input from Nigel.

[/quote]

I think you''ve got your chronology in a twist.  The bit you''ve quoted wasn''t a reply to NN''s post, his came after mine.

[/quote]

There you go again Strawberry, demonstrating your limited range. Okay, I''ll spell it out for you. 1) Bigus states how loans are a great way to go, 2) you indicate the problem is the excessive number of loans, 3) Nigel states how good the team looks versus what some may have thought was possible in June, regardless of whether they are permanent or loans, 4) I ask you to recognise the merit of Nigel''s remarks.

Do you see how it all links up now?   

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Old Boy"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I think it''s fair to say that had somebody posted in June that we would have signed Sibierski, Stefanovic, Kennedy, Lupoli, Clingan, Hoolahan, Bell, Koroma and Bertrand by the end of the transfer window they would have been laughed off the board. Loans or not.

 [/quote]

Good point. And to all those "decent team yet to.... etc." posts, I think everybody knows we''re playing much better football than this time last season, and that if we''d played like we did on Saturday against any other team in the division we''d have won easily. IMO the major weaknesses in the team now are ironically two contracted players - Fotheringham and Pattison (despite his 100% effort, he''s Hooze''s younger brother). Hopefully they''ll be replaced soon by Russell and Bell.

[/quote]

I think at times we concentrate too much on the individual parts of the team and not enough on the team if that  makes sense. I''ll try and explain best I can. Two seasons ago our midfield was:- Croft - Safri - Etuhu - Huckerby. On Saturday it was Pattison - Clingan - Fotheringham - Hoolihan. If you compare the parts of those two midfields most posters would say that Croft is better than Pattison, Safri was better than Clingan, Etuhu was better than Fotheringham and Huckerby was better than Hoolihan and on the evidence of my own eyes I would agree. But I would also argue that the midfield performance as a whole on Saturday was better than anything those better players served up 2 seasons ago. This illustrates how football is a team game and how when the lesser componenents are added together the sum can be greater than the parts would have you believe.

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Strawberry"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Strawberry"]

We shall see.

[/quote]

Come on Strawberry....be honest. Even you have to see the merit of the input from Nigel.

[/quote]

I think you''ve got your chronology in a twist.  The bit you''ve quoted wasn''t a reply to NN''s post, his came after mine.

[/quote]

There you go again Strawberry, demonstrating your limited range. Okay, I''ll spell it out for you. 1) Bigus states how loans are a great way to go, 2) you indicate the problem is the excessive number of loans, 3) Nigel states how good the team looks versus what some may have thought was possible in June, regardless of whether they are permanent or loans, 4) I ask you to recognise the merit of Nigel''s remarks.

Do you see how it all links up now?   

[/quote]

You prat.  How many hours has it taken you to come up with that?  Why did you quote my post if it wasn''t relevant?  Prat.