For those who bemoan the loan.

[Old Boy 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][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.

 [/quote]

You are absolutely right (the England "team" are another great illustration of the point). Safri, Etuhu and Huckerby all turned up when it suited them, which wasn''t very often. If that trio had all played to their talent all the time, we''d have been promoted again. But Roeder''s aware of that and he''s cleaned house. He''s been forced to bring in a lot of loans, but who can say that Kennedy, Bertrand and Lupoli are less committed to the Norwich cause on the pitch than the other three?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Strawberry"][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.[/quote]Blimey Strawbs, no messing with you, is there? lol. [:S]

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Strawberry"]The problem is not the individual players but the excessive number of loans. [/quote]I have several points to make:1) given todays events, I will be surprised if the boardroom looks the same come january anyway.2) Glens 3 year plan:Year 1 - buy Midfield + loansYear 2 - keep Midfield and buy strikers.Year 3 - keep Midfield and strikers and buy defenders.  (poss 2+3 other way round.)3) There are only 4 season long loans allowed per season: we have Koroma, Lupoli, Archibald-Hennville, Omozumi.The other loans we have are:Kennedy: January - prob looking to be made permenant.Sibierski: January - filling gap while waiting for Iverson in January.Bertrand: January - agreement to extend in principle.Grounds: November - this looks like cover while the Doc is out given the time scale.4) So if we look at what each player is required for we have:Strikers:Sibierski: First choice.Lupoli: First choice.Koroma: Standard cover.Defenders:Kennedy: First Choice.Omozumi: Competition for RB slot.Bertrand: Competition for LB slot.Archibald-Hennville: Cover for CD.Grounds: Injury Cover for the Doc.Its not ideal, its possible we will have to juggle the loan players.  On the otherhand it could certainly be worse.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Strawberry"][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.[/quote]Blimey Strawbs, no messing with you, is there? lol. [:S]

[/quote]

I wouldn''t dream of being so rude to anyone else but Yankee deserves it bigtime.  He is one of the most committed windup merchants on this forum, but gets away with it most of the time because he uses such pompous language. 

 

[CID 0]

[quote user="Dicky"][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.

[/quote]

Too right mate .

FCS, just compare the team that took the pitch against Brum with some of Grunt''s teams & I''d sooner have a side half full of decent-class loan players [:)]

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

And still no one is able to say if the business model of loans is sustainable. My other fear is that we will get a reputation for loaning in players without playing them very much, given that at least three will have to sit out each game.

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="John Boubepo"][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
[/quote]

Over 4 games. Statistically, I reckon your calculations are based on far too small a data set to draw any meaningful conclusions. [:)] What do you reckon 7rew, or any scientists on here?

I''d be more inclined towards a more qualitative analysis at this early stage of the season. [;)]       

[@NYCANARIES 0]

Barclay Boy...I think that fact that they are not ours is to our advantage...They suck? Send em back..They work out? Great..Nothing lost. Promotion is the goal but who wants to be stuck with a bunch of players on 3 year deals when we do? Players who cannot play in the Prem? Getting players from the Prem is a win win.

Sons of Boadicea. I see your point but Bertrand was never within our budget or that of any Colaship club.. Chelsea turned down 2 mil in the summer from Hull. He is better than this league and we are reaping the benefits. The loan system works a treat.

Bertrand may be on a 3 month loan but Roeder indicated at the time that this would be extended for the season. The 3 months covers Chelsea''s back should they suffer an injury crisis.

A good debate this one...One thing is for sure. Lupoli and Kennedy would not be here if not for loans. Bishop and Shackell would.

-Bigus

[ron obvious 1,501]

[quote user="macdougalls perm"]

Over 4 games. Statistically, I reckon your calculations are based on far too small a data set to draw any meaningful conclusions. [:)] What do you reckon 7rew, or any scientists on here?

I''d be more inclined towards a more qualitative analysis at this early stage of the season. [;)]       

[/quote]Speaking as a trained physicist, taking a rms deviation from the (presumably) monotonic series represented by the weighted average of player performance vs fitness/payment graphical representation (in polar co-ordinates) & plotting the best fit through the resultant error bars, I''d say it was all boll*cks.

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="macdougalls perm"]

Over 4 games. Statistically, I reckon your calculations are based on far too small a data set to draw any meaningful conclusions. [:)] What do you reckon 7rew, or any scientists on here?

I''d be more inclined towards a more qualitative analysis at this early stage of the season. [;)]       

[/quote]

Speaking as a trained physicist, taking a rms deviation from the (presumably) monotonic series represented by the weighted average of player performance vs fitness/payment graphical representation (in polar co-ordinates) & plotting the best fit through the resultant error bars, I''d say it was all boll*cks.
[/quote]

Just as i suspected, lol!

[7rew 0]

[quote][quote]

Decent team who manage 0.75 points per game[/quote]

Over 4 games. Statistically, I reckon your calculations are based on far too small a data set to draw any meaningful conclusions. [:)] What do you reckon 7rew, or any scientists on here?

I''d be more inclined towards a more qualitative analysis at this early stage of the season. [;)]       

[/quote]Id say that while the atrithmetic mean is indeed 0.75 points per game.  The modal and meridian averages are 1 point per game. I would also say that a sample size of 4 is too low to be considered statistically significant.  A sample size of 10 -15 would be neccesary for statistical significance.

[Barclay_Boy 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]

what a complete moron you are, where did you get the racism jibe from? Racist to Americans because they like to use clubs as franchises? Stereotyping, possibly, racism no chance. You are no doubt so thick you do not understand the meaning of racism or you would not bandy such accusations about. You are a  pathetic waste of space. Grow up.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Thought this was a nice little thread this morning - I was having a pleasant little chat with Bigus and Old Boy over a nice cup of tea [C] Now all of a sudden everyones apparently either a prat, a racist or a moron. [:O]

For what it''s worth, I still think our squad is better and much stronger than last season, loans or no loans.

 

[ron obvious 1,501]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Thought this was a nice little thread this morning - I was having a pleasant little chat with Bigus and Old Boy over a nice cup of tea [C] Now all of a sudden everyones apparently either a prat, a racist or a moron. [:O]

For what it''s worth, I still think our squad is better and much stronger than last season, loans or no loans.

 

[/quote]No change there, then

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Strawberry"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Strawberry"][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.[/quote]Blimey Strawbs, no messing with you, is there? lol. [:S]

[/quote]

I wouldn''t dream of being so rude to anyone else but Yankee deserves it bigtime.  He is one of the most committed windup merchants on this forum, but gets away with it most of the time because he uses such pompous language. 

[/quote]

I won''t engage in name calling Strawberry, however, I do think you''re old enough that you should have learned by now how to act like a lady. Also, don''t try and excuse your behaviour by making accusations....deal with what''s on this thread. How on earth was there any wind-up or, quite frankly, anything annoying in my first post asking you to acknowledge the merit of Nigel''s viewpoint? Now, be nice, or get help.

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

Bigus - I doubt very much anybody would have bid £2M for Plastic before seeing him play for us, and I doubt many on here had heard of him before he joined us. Soon after joining us on loan the first time round he made noises about being happy to join us permanently, I suspect his valuation then would have been way below £2M.

You whole arguement appears to be based on the premise that everybody we buy will be an expensive flop but if we loan them and they are shite they can go back. Presumably this means you doubt GR`s judgement in these matters, and where does that leave you in terms of the players we have bought?, personally I think they are rather good....No matter what you say about loans the fact remains that a) Their loan could be cut short at any time, b) We have to start afresh next season, with a third of the squad dissappearing (and that is without any permanent players whose contracts have expired/are expiring and c) At least three of our loanees miss out each game, which may make teams think before they loan to us in the future.

 I totally understand and agree with the role of of the loan player, but I am worried at our over reliance on these.

Personally I think this business model works if you are happy to "bump along" in the Championship, but if you truly want to get promoted to the Prem and stay there (or at least become a yo yo team) it requires a greater ratio of permanent signings. I totally accept that Norwich City will always be a selling club, but we are slowly running out of players to sell.....

[Mello Yello 2,281]

So, Glenn sorts out a winning combination of a squad - that slaughters every other opposition Championship team, leaving them all bloodied and lifeless in their wake - as they charge unbeaten to the top of the league by Christmas......The loans are playing like devils possessed and getting rave reviews in the media and football world.......January comes, the loans are due to return to their respective clubs......and the loaning clubs say ''no, sorry'' to an extension and, ''no, sorry'' to their ''prudent'' purchase in the transfer window. "As the loan stars have come good and due to the Prem''s ''Big Bench'' allowance for subs, would prefer them to be returned to sender....Then what?

We may as well have half the squad out injured....

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Where as I can totally see where you are coming from SOB, I just don''t think the quality of player that Roeder wants to sign is available for us to buy. Grant bought players, I''m remembering Brown, Chadwick, Fotheringham, Lappin, Brellier, Cureton, Marshall, Murray, Otsemebor, Gilks, Russell and Strihavka and the club had them all on contracts. A year on and only Fotheringham, Marshall, Otsemebor, Cureton and Russell seem to figure now and some of those aren''t going to be first choice. So the club needed to bring in yet another dozen players. I would imagine the Peter Grant exercise was horrendously costly for the club with replacing so many players again so quickly. And Roeder seems to recognise that the quality he wants is not always available for our club to buy. But I honestly believe this squad of players, even though many are loans, is a lot stronger than the one we owned last August.

 

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

NN - I am not arguing against our squad being stronger and I certainly have no beef with the players we have loaned....but it is a risky strategy, and Mello put it far more succintly than I could (and I hate him for it[:D]). I hear what you say about the players Grant bought but GR is a different kettle of wombats, I think he is better at spotting quality players and has better contacts. What you say about the quality of player is correct, that is why I am saying sooner or later we are going to have to start buying players if our ambition is truly to be playing Premiership football again.

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]NN - I am not arguing against our squad being stronger and I certainly have no beef with the players we have loaned....but it is a risky strategy, and Mello put it far more succintly than I could (and I hate him for it[:D]). I hear what you say about the players Grant bought but GR is a different kettle of wombats, I think he is better at spotting quality players and has better contacts. What you say about the quality of player is correct, that is why I am saying sooner or later we are going to have to start buying players if our ambition is truly to be playing Premiership football again.[/quote]Agreed. We have a better squad now, and Glenns done a good job assembling it. But as it stands we will need another rebuilding process next summer, with all our current loans going back. Sooner or later we need the permanent players in to build a stable squad without relying on players that we know will be leaving at the end of the season.However im relatively optimistic on the playing side, hes getting there slowly but surely.

[@NYCANARIES 0]

"Then what''s" and "what if''s" are irrelevant. What of we''d bought Maynard for 2.25 million and he got injured? Then what would we do?

Sons of...I hear ya and I don''t disagree but I never said we should fill the side with loans and not have any assets. No one can rate Bell yet, but Clingan, Stefanovic and Hoolahan do look good. I did however say that having assets that are cr-- instead of a loan like Bertrand or Lupoli will leave you with nothing to sell but just another player to release like Lappin. Another player sucking wages that has nothing to offer the standard you need to climb the table.

The face of football is changing forever with rising fees and whether or not you or I like it the loan market is a good way to obtain quality players. I am also reading in more than one place by many people that Saturday''s performance was the best for years. Linking play involving our loans was at times fantastic. You can''t have it both ways...This team with it''s loans included makes the team at the same time last year look League 2.

And I haven''t questioned Glenn''s Judgment, in fact I have applauded it. His clever use of the loan market to improve our side is seriously impressive .

-Bigus

[@NYCANARIES 0]

Trent..I am hoping we will be doing that re-building in the Prem!

[John Boubepo 0]

Totally agree[quote user="Mello Yello"]

So, Glenn sorts out a winning combination of a squad - that slaughters every other opposition Championship team, leaving them all bloodied and lifeless in their wake - as they charge unbeaten to the top of the league by Christmas......The loans are playing like devils possessed and getting rave reviews in the media and football world.......January comes, the loans are due to return to their respective clubs......and the loaning clubs say ''no, sorry'' to an extension and, ''no, sorry'' to their ''prudent'' purchase in the transfer window. "As the loan stars have come good and due to the Prem''s ''Big Bench'' allowance for subs, would prefer them to be returned to sender....Then what?

We may as well have half the squad out injured....

[/quote]Totally agree, loan signings are generally unproven youngsters on the fringes or or 33 yr + players needing match fitness or need off loading, If the feeder club sees their player has finally reached match fitness or their youngster might have something after all, they invariably ask for them back [who can blame them] if they see they look very ordinary they gladly leave them with us, as we are paying their wages - It''s not rocket science

[@NYCANARIES 0]

So you don''t want Lupoli, Bertrand, Kennedy and Sibierski then? Ok...Lets get Thorne, Brown and a bunch of  kids from the acedmy that aren''t up to snuff back.

[ron obvious 1,501]

As I said on a previous thread, I am certain Glenn''s strategy is to bring in permanent players wherever possible, but they have to be of the required standard & be affordable (i.e. cheap). Fortunately he has an excellent eye for a bargain, an attribute I find entirely laudable. When he can''t get the right stuff permanently, then he loans in, but his long term aim is to have a team of his players playing the way he wants them to. At present he has, I think, 6 or 7 players on permanent deals he is happy with. This time next year I would hope he''d have 11.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Yes I do see the point of having to replace them when the loans run out and the danger that comes with it. But there''s just as much risk, especially financial, in giving players contracts. Last year Brellier, Brown, Chadwick and Lappin were put on contracts until June 2009, Cureton, Otsemebor and Russell until June 2010 and Strihavka until June 2011. It must cost an awful lot of money to cancel those contracts and sometimes a player can be left taking up a wage in the first team squad but not wanted by his club. Just imagine if Jimmy Smith had been signed for 1m and put on a long contract instead of the three month loan.

It''s like deciding whether to buy or rent. There''s pros and cons for both. The best scenario would be to own all the ones that work out and loan the duffs. But for that you need hindsight and a lot of money. Always assuming the clubs who own the players are prepared to sell.

 

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="Bigus"]So you don''t want Lupoli, Bertrand, Kennedy and Sibierski then? Ok...Lets get Thorne, Brown and a bunch of  kids from the acedmy that aren''t up to snuff back.[/quote]Assume your not reffering to me here. Im very happy with those players, and think they are good quality in this league.Adding to my point about rebuilding; Say we dont go up this season, our loans go back, and we have to bring new ones, dont we just go back to this rebuilding phase at the start of the season? Right now we havent won a game this season, however im optimistic as we are building a squad (Still trying to turn round the mess Grant left us in). However if we want to get promoted we cant really afford this sort of start. Next season I want us to have a settled squad/team, come out on the opening weekend firing, and have a team that is ''gelled'' from day one. With the constant influx of loans this wont happen.However on the other hand the loan system means we can bring in quality players for less money, so it has its pros and cons. Which side is right? Well seeing as though we have the most loans by far in the league (Someone worked it out) then time will tell! I feel the success of Roeders reign depends on whether this strategy comes off.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

[quote user="Bigus"]So you don''t want Lupoli, Bertrand, Kennedy and Sibierski then? Ok...Lets get Thorne, Brown and a bunch of  kids from the acedmy that aren''t up to snuff back.[/quote]

Bigus Dickus. It''s not a case of not wanting the above mentioned players....I am more than happy with the above.....But, they''re loans....not ours, and if they prove themselves a gem, like Ched - then will more than likely never, ever, wear a NCFC shirt again after their loan period expires.

They''re unfortunately, ''hire-cars'' and have to be returned to the hiring company afterwards - free from damage - and probably with a full tank of gas.......

[Trent Canary 0]

But as someone above has said, I hope Roeder is slowly planning to bring in more permanents when the right player is available for the right price, and that patience is commendable. Makes a change from Grant anyway.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

Now you are showing off Mello....