Loan Players - Myths and Facts

[CambridgeCanary 0]

Many threads end up discussing loan players and there seem to be certain fixed views shared by many if not most posters.  They are now accepted as undisputable truths and not challenged.   But are these views correct?  I know that there are a few posters who would never allow the facts to get in the way of a good prejudice but for the rest of you I would pose these issues:

1)   Loan Players Don''t Care - Sounds sensible as after all we are not their paymasters.  On the other hand, there is a clear opportunity for them to perform at a higher level than their reserves so they perhaps have an incentive.   I accept that some loan players, especially Gibbs have disappointed but that does not mean that they don''t care.

So apart possibly from Henry at Leicester, where is the actual evidence that loan players don''t care?  Which player at which match has given any indication of not trying as hard or not caring as much as the contract players?

Myth or Fact?

2)   Contract Players Do Care - We would all hope so but how many loan players were at Fulham in 2004, Plymouth for the last two seasons or QPR last season?   I think this is clearly a myth but

Fact or Myth?

3)   Local Players will Die For the Shirt - Ok, I will gladly give you Jamie but who else?   Plymouth last season featured Martin, Rossi and Shackell.   How much dying for the shirt that day?   Did any of them or Ryan or Spillane show any greater desire than non local players last season?   I would love this to be fact but can''t see it.

Fact or Myth?

Personally, I think these are all myths.  There may be reasons to object to loans but I suggest that they are not the ones usually given and challenged above.   If you disagree, what is your hard evidence in players and matches?

[nutty nigel 7,608]

This is spot on Cambridge.

But disappointment requires scapegoats and then ridiculous statements are made. If we still were relying on those players who cared so much last season we would really have something to worry about.

Remember the Worthy out days and the same things being said about the players he brought in compared to the ones he let go. Danny Crowe springs readily to mind.

 

[astrodyne 0]

Myth? Fact? - I think they are just points of view[:O]

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

Many threads end up discussing loan players and there seem to be certain fixed views shared by many if not most posters.  They are now accepted as undisputable truths and not challenged.   But are these views correct?  I know that there are a few posters who would never allow the facts to get in the way of a good prejudice but for the rest of you I would pose these issues:

1)   Loan Players Don''t Care - Sounds sensible as after all we are not their paymasters.  On the other hand, there is a clear opportunity for them to perform at a higher level than their reserves so they perhaps have an incentive.   I accept that some loan players, especially Gibbs have disappointed but that does not mean that they don''t care.

So apart possibly from Henry at Leicester, where is the actual evidence that loan players don''t care?  Which player at which match has given any indication of not trying as hard or not caring as much as the contract players?

Myth or Fact?

2)   Contract Players Do Care - We would all hope so but how many loan players were at Fulham in 2004, Plymouth for the last two seasons or QPR last season?   I think this is clearly a myth but

Fact or Myth?

3)   Local Players will Die For the Shirt - Ok, I will gladly give you Jamie but who else?   Plymouth last season featured Martin, Rossi and Shackell.   How much dying for the shirt that day?   Did any of them or Ryan or Spillane show any greater desire than non local players last season?   I would love this to be fact but can''t see it.

Fact or Myth?

Personally, I think these are all myths.  There may be reasons to object to loans but I suggest that they are not the ones usually given and challenged above.   If you disagree, what is your hard evidence in players and matches?

[/quote]I agree with all that Cambridge, however none of those are any of the reasons why our loans concern me anyway.  We lost Dublin and Hucks last season but for me the player who is most missed this season has been Evans, he was the one that needed replacing and wasn''t.My big conern over the loans is where does it leave us in the future, any good young talent in our squad at the moment belongs to someone else.  We just have far too many players to replace again come next summer, without allowing for any of our own players that may leave.  Loans are a fact of life in football now but 4 stikers on loan?  That''s just silly isn''t it?  I don''t see what Roeder is trying to acheive in the long term-term with so many.

[Fuglestad 0]

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

Many threads end up discussing loan players and there seem to be certain fixed views shared by many if not most posters.  They are now accepted as undisputable truths and not challenged.   But are these views correct?  I know that there are a few posters who would never allow the facts to get in the way of a good prejudice but for the rest of you I would pose these issues:

1)   Loan Players Don''t Care - Sounds sensible as after all we are not their paymasters.  On the other hand, there is a clear opportunity for them to perform at a higher level than their reserves so they perhaps have an incentive.   I accept that some loan players, especially Gibbs have disappointed but that does not mean that they don''t care.

So apart possibly from Henry at Leicester, where is the actual evidence that loan players don''t care?  Which player at which match has given any indication of not trying as hard or not caring as much as the contract players?

Myth or Fact?

2)   Contract Players Do Care - We would all hope so but how many loan players were at Fulham in 2004, Plymouth for the last two seasons or QPR last season?   I think this is clearly a myth but

Fact or Myth?

3)   Local Players will Die For the Shirt - Ok, I will gladly give you Jamie but who else?   Plymouth last season featured Martin, Rossi and Shackell.   How much dying for the shirt that day?   Did any of them or Ryan or Spillane show any greater desire than non local players last season?   I would love this to be fact but can''t see it.

Fact or Myth?

Personally, I think these are all myths.  There may be reasons to object to loans but I suggest that they are not the ones usually given and challenged above.   If you disagree, what is your hard evidence in players and matches?

[/quote]I agree with all that Cambridge, however none of those are any of the reasons why our loans concern me anyway.  We lost Dublin and Hucks last season but for me the player who is most missed this season has been Evans, he was the one that needed replacing and wasn''t.My big conern over the loans is where does it leave us in the future, any good young talent in our squad at the moment belongs to someone else.  We just have far too many players to replace again come next summer, without allowing for any of our own players that may leave.  Loans are a fact of life in football now but 4 stikers on loan?  That''s just silly isn''t it?  I don''t see what Roeder is trying to acheive in the long term-term with so many.[/quote]In my opinion Roeder''s plan was to impress at Norwich (with a load of loan players) get us pushing for play offs, and then jump ship to a Championship club with money. Sad but true. The man has an incredibly cynical view of football and will not be here long whether he is successful or not.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="astrodyne"]Myth? Fact? - I think they are just points of view[:O]
[/quote]

In which way?

[CambridgeCanary 0]

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

Many threads end up discussing loan players and there seem to be certain fixed views shared by many if not most posters.  They are now accepted as undisputable truths and not challenged.   But are these views correct?  I know that there are a few posters who would never allow the facts to get in the way of a good prejudice but for the rest of you I would pose these issues:

1)   Loan Players Don''t Care - Sounds sensible as after all we are not their paymasters.  On the other hand, there is a clear opportunity for them to perform at a higher level than their reserves so they perhaps have an incentive.   I accept that some loan players, especially Gibbs have disappointed but that does not mean that they don''t care.

So apart possibly from Henry at Leicester, where is the actual evidence that loan players don''t care?  Which player at which match has given any indication of not trying as hard or not caring as much as the contract players?

Myth or Fact?

2)   Contract Players Do Care - We would all hope so but how many loan players were at Fulham in 2004, Plymouth for the last two seasons or QPR last season?   I think this is clearly a myth but

Fact or Myth?

3)   Local Players will Die For the Shirt - Ok, I will gladly give you Jamie but who else?   Plymouth last season featured Martin, Rossi and Shackell.   How much dying for the shirt that day?   Did any of them or Ryan or Spillane show any greater desire than non local players last season?   I would love this to be fact but can''t see it.

Fact or Myth?

Personally, I think these are all myths.  There may be reasons to object to loans but I suggest that they are not the ones usually given and challenged above.   If you disagree, what is your hard evidence in players and matches?

[/quote]

I agree with all that Cambridge, however none of those are any of the reasons why our loans concern me anyway.  We lost Dublin and Hucks last season but for me the player who is most missed this season has been Evans, he was the one that needed replacing and wasn''t.

My big conern over the loans is where does it leave us in the future, any good young talent in our squad at the moment belongs to someone else.  We just have far too many players to replace again come next summer, without allowing for any of our own players that may leave.  Loans are a fact of life in football now but 4 stikers on loan?  That''s just silly isn''t it?  I don''t see what Roeder is trying to acheive in the long term-term with so many.
[/quote]

I understand what you say Saint but these are reasons given in other threads.

We have to take on some of the loans as contract players and take fewer fresh loans next season if we are to progress.

[William Darby 0]

Point one can be argued about, what exactly do they actually care about?Do they care about getting match fit and then going back to their pay master much sharper?  ultimately not giving a flying fig what happens to us in the long run. Of course this is more applicable  to short termers.Bit like agency workers getting sent to various companies.  Don''t particularly give a shiit, cos they know the shiit won''t stick to a temporary employee if it goes wrong.

[The Great Wall Of Tettey 0]

all te young players want to get in there teams where they came from, so theyre going to rry and impress arent they !!

if they were happy picking up there wages, they would be sitting in the stands or the bench at the clubs there are ??

makes sense to me

[jetstream 0]

As with all these things the truth (rather boringly) lies somewhere in-between in each case.

I just heard a text read out on the Scrimmage that said Huckerby was the only loan player to ''care'' and ''wear the shirt with pride''.

He probably did but the ''only one''?,

It''s this kind of black/white statement that makes any kind of balanced discussion difficult.

[Paul Spector 0]

Great post Cambidge

[Paul Spector 0]

Or even Cambridge*

[Shack Attack 0]

Good post Cambridge [Y]My opinion with regards to whether certain players care more than others will not be a particularly popular one but here goes. I believe that when fans claim that certain players ''don''t care'' or ''didn''t want it enough'' they''re simply using those phrases to cover up the fact that they can''t explain a certain players performance or a result as a whole. They want to appear knowledgeable but by trotting out the usual explanations about a ''lack of passion'' they''re actually showing how little they understand. If a player was genuinely not trying their hardest it would be obvious to the management team and they would be off before the half hour mark. We like to take the simplistic view that football is just a game of two halves and that the most skillful and commited team will win, but it''s so much more complicated that that. The result depends on thousands and thousands of decisions and incidents many of which owe a great deal to luck. How many times do we see a perfect goal - no mistake from a defender, bobble on uneven turf, deflection or error from an official?These decisions and incidents not only depend on luck, and a competent set of officials, but also on the plans laid out by the coaching staff during the weeks training. We have no knowledge whatsoever regarding these plans which makes it very difficult to analyse the decisions that the players are making. If a midfielder lets an opponent run on to be dealt with the defence is he being lazy because he doesn''t care or is he keeping his teams shape ready for a counter attack? The truth is we have absolutely no idea.I''m not saying that we should avoid criticising a player unless we get a full report on the weeks training, that''s just ridiculous, but we should try and avoid these black and white arguments. How often have you seen a player described as merely competent on here? I know it''s difficult to look at something dispassionately when you care so much but sometimes people need to take a step back and look at things logically. We were promotion candidates after playing Birmingham off the park and now we''ve lost to Southampton and Derby we''re relegation certanties. Are either of those statements true or does the truth lie somewhere in between?Nobody likes to look in that grey area in between though do they, that''s the area for fence sitters and nobody wants to be one of them. In this age of internet forums, interactive TV and radio phone ins everybody has to have an opinion.....on absolutely everything......regardless of whether they know what they''re talking about. Society shuns the grey area because within it lurks difficult questions about ourselves and our actions and we in turn seek the simplicity of a black and white argument. And those black and white arguments encourage people to suscribe to one of two extreme opinions. I guess it''s should be no surprise that it happens here when we''re conditioned to think like that every day but we really should try and do better.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

Many threads end up discussing loan players and there seem to be certain fixed views shared by many if not most posters.  They are now accepted as undisputable truths and not challenged.   But are these views correct?  I know that there are a few posters who would never allow the facts to get in the way of a good prejudice but for the rest of you I would pose these issues:

1)   Loan Players Don''t Care - Sounds sensible as after all we are not their paymasters.  On the other hand, there is a clear opportunity for them to perform at a higher level than their reserves so they perhaps have an incentive.   I accept that some loan players, especially Gibbs have disappointed but that does not mean that they don''t care.

So apart possibly from Henry at Leicester, where is the actual evidence that loan players don''t care?  Which player at which match has given any indication of not trying as hard or not caring as much as the contract players?

Myth or Fact?

2)   Contract Players Do Care - We would all hope so but how many loan players were at Fulham in 2004, Plymouth for the last two seasons or QPR last season?   I think this is clearly a myth but

Fact or Myth?

3)   Local Players will Die For the Shirt - Ok, I will gladly give you Jamie but who else?   Plymouth last season featured Martin, Rossi and Shackell.   How much dying for the shirt that day?   Did any of them or Ryan or Spillane show any greater desire than non local players last season?   I would love this to be fact but can''t see it.

Fact or Myth?

Personally, I think these are all myths.  There may be reasons to object to loans but I suggest that they are not the ones usually given and challenged above.   If you disagree, what is your hard evidence in players and matches?

[/quote]

 

Good post Cambridge. What supporters tend to overlook is that for the players this is not a hobby,its their job. If you consistently underperform at your job you lose it,so there is no long term mileage in simply going through the motions.I have made the point many times on other threads that the "loanees don''t care" argument is nonsense. Players on loan who get a bad report from their loan club will have a problem at their main one,without question.

The issue that is relevant is motivation.Managers have to make players want to play, but that''s not the whole story,because there is only so much that managers and coaching staff can do,after that its down to the player.Its an old managerial cliche ,but absolutely true nonetheless to say " I can''t play the game for you".When they cross that white line its down to them.I personally think that Roeder,whilst being an arrogant,prickly git,is a pretty good manager and that we have real talent in the squad (both owned and loaned) but somewhere the chemistry is awry. As Shack rightly points out,we don''t see enough of what goes on between matches to pinpoint why,which is why I try to refrain from criticising individuals.However witch hunts have existed as long as humans have grouped together,so I suppose that Wiz,Smudger et al are simply reverting to their hunter gatherer roots.

[BBFF 0]

This how Grounds looked at his short stay at our club. " I''ve had five games there which is excellent for match fitness." So he was looking to get fit ok but this what he thought about going back and playing for Middlesborough "It was fantastic to be back,”

Doesn''t sound like a player who was ever going to give his all for us.

Loan players are or should be a sort term temporary quick fix or a prelude to signing full time. Too many of our loan players from Prem clubs seem to be here just to lean how to play the game, is that what we want from a loan player?

Building a team round a bunch of loaners just means rebuilding the team every 6 or 12 months ending in no consistence and no future. Lets get back to having 2 or 3 quality loaners and build a real Norwich team. I have strayed off the Myths & Facts thread but the concept of building a team round 8 or 9 loaners is a mistake that will blight us in the future. 

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[jetstream 0]

"This how Grounds looked at his short stay at our club. " I''ve had five games there which is excellent for match fitness." So he was looking to get fit ok but this what he thought about going back and playing for Middlesborough "It was fantastic to be back,”

Doesn''t sound like a player who was ever going to give his all for us."

What did you expect him to say to the ''Boro press?

"I loved it at Norwich, I had so much passion for them and I''d love to go back as soon as I''m fit again."??????

[Nuff Said 5,176]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]Good post Cambridge [Y]My opinion with regards to whether certain players care more than others will not be a particularly popular one but here goes. I believe that when fans claim that certain players ''don''t care'' or ''didn''t want it enough'' they''re simply using those phrases to cover up the fact that they can''t explain a certain players performance or a result as a whole. They want to appear knowledgeable but by trotting out the usual explanations about a ''lack of passion'' they''re actually showing how little they understand. If a player was genuinely not trying their hardest it would be obvious to the management team and they would be off before the half hour mark. We like to take the simplistic view that football is just a game of two halves and that the most skillful and commited team will win, but it''s so much more complicated that that. The result depends on thousands and thousands of decisions and incidents many of which owe a great deal to luck. How many times do we see a perfect goal - no mistake from a defender, bobble on uneven turf, deflection or error from an official?These decisions and incidents not only depend on luck, and a competent set of officials, but also on the plans laid out by the coaching staff during the weeks training. We have no knowledge whatsoever regarding these plans which makes it very difficult to analyse the decisions that the players are making. If a midfielder lets an opponent run on to be dealt with the defence is he being lazy because he doesn''t care or is he keeping his teams shape ready for a counter attack? The truth is we have absolutely no idea.I''m not saying that we should avoid criticising a player unless we get a full report on the weeks training, that''s just ridiculous, but we should try and avoid these black and white arguments. How often have you seen a player described as merely competent on here? I know it''s difficult to look at something dispassionately when you care so much but sometimes people need to take a step back and look at things logically. We were promotion candidates after playing Birmingham off the park and now we''ve lost to Southampton and Derby we''re relegation certanties. Are either of those statements true or does the truth lie somewhere in between?Nobody likes to look in that grey area in between though do they, that''s the area for fence sitters and nobody wants to be one of them. In this age of internet forums, interactive TV and radio phone ins everybody has to have an opinion.....on absolutely everything......regardless of whether they know what they''re talking about. Society shuns the grey area because within it lurks difficult questions about ourselves and our actions and we in turn seek the simplicity of a black and white argument. And those black and white arguments encourage people to suscribe to one of two extreme opinions. I guess it''s should be no surprise that it happens here when we''re conditioned to think like that every day but we really should try and do better.[/quote]Shack, this is one of, if not the best post I''ve read in a very long time. People slip into a "yes it is, no it isn''t" argument far too easily and are reluctant to have the honesty to concede that football like everything else is a combination or art, luck and science - if it was that easy to manufacture success the league table would be simply a list of the richest to the poorest club. A very coherent reasoning why reading and contributing to this board is a waste of time, but it''s like a scab I can''t resist picking at!

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="BBFF"]

This how Grounds looked at his short stay at our club. " I''ve had five games there which is excellent for match fitness." So he was looking to get fit ok but this what he thought about going back and playing for Middlesborough "It was fantastic to be back,”

Doesn''t sound like a player who was ever going to give his all for us.

[/quote]How do you think Brellier or Murray felt about their stays at the club?I can tell you about Murray:"I felt I had to try it down there or I would be sitting in five or six years wondering ‘what if?’ but after Peter Grant

left, it was no fun. Playing for Glenn Roeder, it was the first time in

my life I felt like chucking it during a game, a lot of the players

felt that way. He’s an angry man, not nice to play for."There''s commitment for you.And Grounds was very good in every game he played in for Norwich - not one tackle shirked.It''s about individual players and their attitudes, not about Loanees versus "Permanents".

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="BBFF"]

This how Grounds looked at his short stay at our club. " I''ve had five games there which is excellent for match fitness." So he was looking to get fit ok but this what he thought about going back and playing for Middlesborough "It was fantastic to be back,”

Doesn''t sound like a player who was ever going to give his all for us.

[/quote]

How do you think Brellier or Murray felt about their stays at the club?

I can tell you about Murray:

"I felt I had to try it down there or I would be sitting in five or six years wondering ‘what if?’ but after Peter Grant left, it was no fun. Playing for Glenn Roeder, it was the first time in my life I felt like chucking it during a game, a lot of the players felt that way. He’s an angry man, not nice to play for."

There''s commitment for you.

And Grounds was very good in every game he played in for Norwich - not one tackle shirked.

It''s about individual players and their attitudes, not about Loanees versus "Permanents".


[/quote]

This is my point.  Did Grounds ever seem as if he didn''t care?  In the games I saw, he was apparently giving his all.  What else matters?

[BBFF 0]

What else matters is having players for longer than 5 games or 6 months having players to build into a real team not one for five minuets or 2 of months. Out of all the loaners over the past 2 seasons id say six played their part the rest we could have and can do without, Just think Lita is here for what 1 month 5 games at most, if you are happy with that so be it. They say you get the team you deserve, maybe us fans deserve a team that''s 4th from bottom.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[blinded by the story 0]

[quote user="jetstream"]As with all these things the truth (rather boringly) lies somewhere in-between in each case. I just heard a text read out on the Scrimmage that said Huckerby was the only loan player to ''care'' and ''wear the shirt with pride''. He probably did but the ''only one''?, It''s this kind of black/white statement that makes any kind of balanced discussion difficult.[/quote]

David Neilson - on fire when he was on loan - shocking when we signed him. I am always troubled by this one when I know I don''t like loan players. 

[nutty nigel 7,608]

When you lot were wetting your knickers to get Worthy out it was the permanent players who you took your disappointment out on. Jarrett, Thorne, Hughes, Louis Jean then Robinson and Etuhu were the players who didn''t care. And instead of pining for Martin and Spillane you were pining for Crowe, Hayes and Sinclair because than buffoon Worthington had let them go.

We are stuck with what we have this season so maybe we should support all the players who wear the shirt.

 

[Mello Yello 2,302]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

When you lot were wetting your knickers to get Worthy out it was the permanent players who you took your disappointment out on. Jarrett, Thorne, Hughes, Louis Jean then Robinson and Etuhu were the players who didn''t care. And instead of pining for Martin and Spillane you were pining for Crowe, Hayes and Sinclair because than buffoon Worthington had let them go.

We are stuck with what we have this season so maybe we should support all the players who wear the shirt.

 

[/quote]

[:''(]"Blub, blub, blub....Wiv a snivel and a sob and a boo hoo hoo.....they got rid of my beloved Worthy.....an'' I just don''t know what I''m going to do?"[:''(]

Put your wet blanket in the tumble dryer, and throw your teddy bear and toys back into the cot.....Worthington isn''t setting the National squad he''s presently attempting to manage, now, is he?".....He''s a chancer who got lucky, and so are the current board of Directionless who are totally inept - and out of their depth....They''ve been found out, the spin won''t save them - and they''re soon to be History!

"When the current board are soon no more, and the Donkster has long been shown the door.....I won''t have to listen to your snivellin'' and bleating anymore. Wet blanket nutster, you were such a bore."[|-)]

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

When you lot were wetting your knickers to get Worthy out it was the permanent players who you took your disappointment out on. Jarrett, Thorne, Hughes, Louis Jean then Robinson and Etuhu were the players who didn''t care. And instead of pining for Martin and Spillane you were pining for Crowe, Hayes and Sinclair because than buffoon Worthington had let them go.

We are stuck with what we have this season so maybe we should support all the players who wear the shirt.

 

[/quote]What a truly pathetic post and I am genuinley shocked that it''s come from you Nutty.  Not everyone who wanted Worthy gone was like you suggested.  I felt he should have gone but I never once wanted Hayes, Crowe etc back, in fact I argued against it, nor did I bemoan our own players.  Having said that though, how many of the players you listed actually covered themselves in glory in a City shirt?   I really don''t think posters like Zippers Left Foot, Yellow Rider and countless more were being unreasonable at the time nor are they unreasonable in general.  If you are going to criticise others on the forum for making sweeping statements and not seeing the full picture, maybe you should make sure you live by your own rules.

[nutty nigel 7,608]

[quote user="Saint Canary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

When you lot were wetting your knickers to get Worthy out it was the permanent players who you took your disappointment out on. Jarrett, Thorne, Hughes, Louis Jean then Robinson and Etuhu were the players who didn''t care. And instead of pining for Martin and Spillane you were pining for Crowe, Hayes and Sinclair because than buffoon Worthington had let them go.

We are stuck with what we have this season so maybe we should support all the players who wear the shirt.

 

[/quote]

What a truly pathetic post and I am genuinley shocked that it''s come from you Nutty.  Not everyone who wanted Worthy gone was like you suggested.  I felt he should have gone but I never once wanted Hayes, Crowe etc back, in fact I argued against it, nor did I bemoan our own players.  Having said that though, how many of the players you listed actually covered themselves in glory in a City shirt?  

I really don''t think posters like Zippers Left Foot, Yellow Rider and countless more were being unreasonable at the time nor are they unreasonable in general.  If you are going to criticise others on the forum for making sweeping statements and not seeing the full picture, maybe you should make sure you live by your own rules.
[/quote]

The point I was trying to make, maybe poorly, is that whenever fans are disappointed by results a lot of them then find fault with every decision the scapegoat of the day makes. A lot of the time it''s unfair. I thought Worthington was harshly treated and I''m not saying this with hindsight, I said it at the time. The current situation reminds me of those days now. There are so many similarities.

I didn''t suggest that these players covered themselves in glory in a City shirt. This thread is about loan players and permanent players. It''s about the myth that loan care less than permanents, your point about those players I mentioned not covering themselves in glory is surely endorsing the point I was making.

 

[nutty nigel 7,608]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[:''(]"Blub, blub, blub....Wiv a snivel and a sob and a boo hoo hoo.....they got rid of my beloved Worthy.....an'' I just don''t know what I''m going to do?"[:''(]

Put your wet blanket in the tumble dryer, and throw your teddy bear and toys back into the cot.....Worthington isn''t setting the National squad he''s presently attempting to manage, now, is he?".....He''s a chancer who got lucky, and so are the current board of Directionless who are totally inept - and out of their depth....They''ve been found out, the spin won''t save them - and they''re soon to be History!

"When the current board are soon no more, and the Donkster has long been shown the door.....I won''t have to listen to your snivellin'' and bleating anymore. Wet blanket nutster, you were such a bore."[|-)]

[/quote]

Always personal and never about the issues being discussed [:|]

 

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Saint Canary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

When you lot were wetting your knickers to get Worthy out it was the permanent players who you took your disappointment out on. Jarrett, Thorne, Hughes, Louis Jean then Robinson and Etuhu were the players who didn''t care. And instead of pining for Martin and Spillane you were pining for Crowe, Hayes and Sinclair because than buffoon Worthington had let them go.

We are stuck with what we have this season so maybe we should support all the players who wear the shirt.

 

[/quote]What a truly pathetic post and I am genuinley shocked that it''s come from you Nutty.  Not everyone who wanted Worthy gone was like you suggested.  I felt he should have gone but I never once wanted Hayes, Crowe etc back, in fact I argued against it, nor did I bemoan our own players.  Having said that though, how many of the players you listed actually covered themselves in glory in a City shirt?   I really don''t think posters like Zippers Left Foot, Yellow Rider and countless more were being unreasonable at the time nor are they unreasonable in general.  If you are going to criticise others on the forum for making sweeping statements and not seeing the full picture, maybe you should make sure you live by your own rules.[/quote]

The point I was trying to make, maybe poorly, is that whenever fans are disappointed by results a lot of them then find fault with every decision the scapegoat of the day makes. A lot of the time it''s unfair. I thought Worthington was harshly treated and I''m not saying this with hindsight, I said it at the time. The current situation reminds me of those days now. There are so many similarities.

I didn''t suggest that these players covered themselves in glory in a City shirt. This thread is about loan players and permanent players. It''s about the myth that loan care less than permanents, your point about those players I mentioned not covering themselves in glory is surely endorsing the point I was making.

 

[/quote]I thought Worthington was harshly treated by fans and the board and I really, really wanted him out.  To be honest towrads the end I spent more time defending him than people who wanted him to stay.  I agree about the loans, they care no less or more than any permanent player.  Ched Evans last year would have been my POTS had he had been here longer and he was on loan.  It''s not really about loans, perms etc.  It''a all about blending the right players together to make a good team, as is being discussed on another thread.Although not what you intended by the comment, I agree about the similarities between now and the Worthy Out days.  Firstly the reaction to our situation is well over the top.  Secondly we still have a manager who is playering strikers as wingers, making strange substitions, picking favourites and publicly berating players. 

[Mello Yello 2,302]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[:''(]"Blub, blub, blub....Wiv a snivel and a sob and a boo hoo hoo.....they got rid of my beloved Worthy.....an'' I just don''t know what I''m going to do?"[:''(]

Put your wet blanket in the tumble dryer, and throw your teddy bear and toys back into the cot.....Worthington isn''t setting the National squad he''s presently attempting to manage, now, is he?".....He''s a chancer who got lucky, and so are the current board of Directionless who are totally inept - and out of their depth....They''ve been found out, the spin won''t save them - and they''re soon to be History!

"When the current board are soon no more, and the Donkster has long been shown the door.....I won''t have to listen to your snivellin'' and bleating anymore. Wet blanket nutster, you were such a bore."[|-)]

[/quote]

Always personal and never about the issues being discussed [:|]

 

[/quote]

So.

[Mello Yello 2,302]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[:''(]"Blub, blub, blub....Wiv a snivel and a sob and a boo hoo hoo.....they got rid of my beloved Worthy.....an'' I just don''t know what I''m going to do?"[:''(]

Put your wet blanket in the tumble dryer, and throw your teddy bear and toys back into the cot.....Worthington isn''t setting the National squad he''s presently attempting to manage, now, is he?".....He''s a chancer who got lucky, and so are the current board of Directionless who are totally inept - and out of their depth....They''ve been found out, the spin won''t save them - and they''re soon to be History!

"When the current board are soon no more, and the Donkster has long been shown the door.....I won''t have to listen to your snivellin'' and bleating anymore. Wet blanket nutster, you were such a bore."[|-)]

[/quote]

Always personal and never about the issues being discussed [:|]

 

[/quote]

So.

[/quote]

Do you think poor old Bentley drivin'' Worthy is upset.....and misses us, the fans? Yeah, I do get personal, especially with wet blankets who do nothing but continually defend those who are selling the club down the Wensum....

You remind me of ''Linus'' in the ''Peanuts'' cartoon strip......Y''now, the one with the blanket and always sucking his thumb....[|-)]

[nutty nigel 7,608]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Always personal and never about the issues being discussed [:|]

 

[/quote]

So.

[/quote]

Do you think poor old Bentley drivin'' Worthy is upset.....and misses us, the fans? Yeah, I do get personal, especially with wet blankets who do nothing but continually defend those who are selling the club down the Wensum....

You remind me of ''Linus'' in the ''Peanuts'' cartoon strip......Y''now, the one with the blanket and always sucking his thumb....[|-)]

[/quote]

Didn''t know he drove a Bentley, I guess that good enough then.

Linus is cool, he''s smart and good at solving problems.

You remind me of his big sister Lucy.. in a lot of ways. Y''now, the brat who''s bossy, crabby and selfish. The loud one that yells a lot. The know-it-all who dispenses advice whether you want it or not.