Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Clint

Roeder Has Been Backed By The Board

Recommended Posts

Those people who are still backing Roeder on the basis that he has had no money are spend, I would just like you to consider the facts.  The board have backed Roeder as much as they did Worthy whilst he was in this division, the only difference being Worthy got us to a play off final and subsequently promoted on a shoe-string budget.  Roeder has had the cash but he has either wasted it or used it in a completely inefficient manner. 

He has signed 24 players in roughly 14 months, each with a considerable signing on or loan fee and how many of these could you count as complete successes?!?  I would say possibly, only Clingan, Evans, Lita and Taylor with three of these only short term solutions and are no longer playing for us.  Bell looks promising but the jury is still out and whether he''s still here post January is anyone''s guess.

Whereas, how many of these have not worked out for one reason or another?!?  I would say Archibald-Henville, Bates, Gibbs, Grounds, Henry, Hoolahan (to date), Koroma, Lupoli (not sure why), Rigters, Sibierski and Velasco.  Bertrand and Omozusi have had a margin of success but are really no better than we already have.  Camara looked when he first signed but then after a few matches, seemed to be the first player to recieve what is now known as the Lappin, Chadwick, Lupoli treatment.  Kennedy and Stefanovic both appeared to be decent but neither will play for us again this season leaving us very short in defence.  Pattison has had his moments but is he really good enough to keep Russell out of the team?!?  Nelson hasn''t kicked a ball for us and I expect is not as good but being paid considerably more than Joe Lewis was.  Likewise, Cort is a gamble and thus far, has hardly played since signing. 

So of the permanent signings, I think Roeder has spent roughly £2m on Bell, Hoolahan, Pattison and Stefanovic of which none have been a mitigated success and for one reason or another, have hardly been the first names on the team sheet (plus signing on fees and decent wages, particulalry for Stefanovic).  Clingan, Nelson, Cort and Velasco we''re either free transfers or short term deals but would probably come with a signing on fee (certainly Clingan and Nelson would).

The loans will all cost money and contrary to what people seem to think aren''t necessarily a cheap solution.  Take Sibierski and Lupilo for example, Wigan and Fiorentina would demand a loan fee for their time here.  As well as this, we are reported to be paying £15k of Sibierki''s £25 per week wages.  I would guess we are paying at least £5k a week of Lupoli''s wages.   This means that since signing and up to the end of Jan we would have been out roughly £420k in wages, which would actually sign permanently a fairly decent lower league striker, who''s wage demands would also be massively less.  The said lower league striker would also be an asset of the club and not need to be replaced again in several months time, when the whole cycle will start again.  He could also possibly be sold in a season or two''s time for a profit.

If you apply this theory to the rest of the loan players, you will see that Roeder has actually spent and wasted a lot of cash and this cycle will continue whilst he is here.  If for whatever reason, Roeder isn''t going to play Lupoli, Archibald-Henville, Koroma why are they here?!?  That''s loan fee''s plus wages possibly of around £8-£10 per week that could be used elsewhere and is just being wasted.  That''s roughly £500k, which would have more or less covered the transfer fee of most of Worthy''s signings whilst we were in this division but yet people think Roeder hasn''t had any money to spend.  For those that are still pro-Huckerby, it would have also covered his wages for another season and I would expect he would have had much more of an impact that the three loan players.

So please do not say that Roeder hasn''t had any money.  He has managed to strip the club of several of its assets by releasing a number of our permanent players on free transfers and replacing them with temporary short term solutions.  This is actually costing the club a great deal of money but also devaluing it at the same time.  Have a look at the list of Roeder signings below, had I not mentioned them earlier, you probably wouldn''t have even remembered several of them:

Archibald-Henville      Bates      Bell      Bertrand      Camara      Clingan      Cort      Evans      Gibbs      Grounds      Henry      Hoolahan      Kennedy      Koroma      Lita

Lupoli      Nelson      Omozusi      Pattison      Pearce      Rigters      Sibierski      Stefanovic      Taylor      Velasco

Apologies for the lenght of post but this is a topic that is really starting to infuriate me!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bar some on the money bags who either had new chairmans or parachute money norwich would be near the top of the list of spenders in the last 18months (counting grants summer)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smudger has done some very detailed research to show that we are one of the lowest spending teams in the championship. The thread has only just finished. I don''t know the truth - tell me where he is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Clint"]

Those people who are still backing Roeder on the basis that he has had no money are spend, I would just like you to consider the facts.  The board have backed Roeder as much as they did Worthy whilst he was in this division, the only difference being Worthy got us to a play off final and subsequently promoted on a shoe-string budget.  Roeder has had the cash but he has either wasted it or used it in a completely inefficient manner. 

He has signed 24 players in roughly 14 months, each with a considerable signing on or loan fee and how many of these could you count as complete successes?!?  I would say possibly, only Clingan, Evans, Lita and Taylor with three of these only short term solutions and are no longer playing for us.  Bell looks promising but the jury is still out and whether he''s still here post January is anyone''s guess.

Whereas, how many of these have not worked out for one reason or another?!?  I would say Archibald-Henville, Bates, Gibbs, Grounds, Henry, Hoolahan (to date), Koroma, Lupoli (not sure why), Rigters, Sibierski and Velasco.  Bertrand and Omozusi have had a margin of success but are really no better than we already have.  Camara looked when he first signed but then after a few matches, seemed to be the first player to recieve what is now known as the Lappin, Chadwick, Lupoli treatment.  Kennedy and Stefanovic both appeared to be decent but neither will play for us again this season leaving us very short in defence.  Pattison has had his moments but is he really good enough to keep Russell out of the team?!?  Nelson hasn''t kicked a ball for us and I expect is not as good but being paid considerably more than Joe Lewis was.  Likewise, Cort is a gamble and thus far, has hardly played since signing. 

So of the permanent signings, I think Roeder has spent roughly £2m on Bell, Hoolahan, Pattison and Stefanovic of which none have been a mitigated success and for one reason or another, have hardly been the first names on the team sheet (plus signing on fees and decent wages, particulalry for Stefanovic).  Clingan, Nelson, Cort and Velasco we''re either free transfers or short term deals but would probably come with a signing on fee (certainly Clingan and Nelson would).

The loans will all cost money and contrary to what people seem to think aren''t necessarily a cheap solution.  Take Sibierski and Lupilo for example, Wigan and Fiorentina would demand a loan fee for their time here.  As well as this, we are reported to be paying £15k of Sibierki''s £25 per week wages.  I would guess we are paying at least £5k a week of Lupoli''s wages.   This means that since signing and up to the end of Jan we would have been out roughly £420k in wages, which would actually sign permanently a fairly decent lower league striker, who''s wage demands would also be massively less.  The said lower league striker would also be an asset of the club and not need to be replaced again in several months time, when the whole cycle will start again.  He could also possibly be sold in a season or two''s time for a profit.

If you apply this theory to the rest of the loan players, you will see that Roeder has actually spent and wasted a lot of cash and this cycle will continue whilst he is here.  If for whatever reason, Roeder isn''t going to play Lupoli, Archibald-Henville, Koroma why are they here?!?  That''s loan fee''s plus wages possibly of around £8-£10 per week that could be used elsewhere and is just being wasted.  That''s roughly £500k, which would have more or less covered the transfer fee of most of Worthy''s signings whilst we were in this division but yet people think Roeder hasn''t had any money to spend.  For those that are still pro-Huckerby, it would have also covered his wages for another season and I would expect he would have had much more of an impact that the three loan players.

So please do not say that Roeder hasn''t had any money.  He has managed to strip the club of several of its assets by releasing a number of our permanent players on free transfers and replacing them with temporary short term solutions.  This is actually costing the club a great deal of money but also devaluing it at the same time.  Have a look at the list of Roeder signings below, had I not mentioned them earlier, you probably wouldn''t have even remembered several of them:

Archibald-Henville      Bates      Bell      Bertrand      Camara      Clingan      Cort      Evans      Gibbs      Grounds      Henry      Hoolahan      Kennedy      Koroma      Lita

Lupoli      Nelson      Omozusi      Pattison      Pearce      Rigters      Sibierski      Stefanovic      Taylor      Velasco

Apologies for the lenght of post but this is a topic that is really starting to infuriate me!

 

 

[/quote]

 

Great post!

 

People who go along with all this we''re skint rubbish and insist Roedernowhere hasn''t been backed are talking absolute bollocks!

 

Roeders just used it very badly!

 

Example - We could of kept Hucks on cheaper wages than he previously got, which probably his mate Carl Moore would of subsidised and not signed on Eagle (not good enoguh and we knew that before this season!), Koroma (headless chicken not good enough) and Henville who never played for us and we''d of been better of!

 

If the likes of Barnsley, Blackpool, Plymouth, Preston and no doubt others can do better than us getting less than half our crowds, our great but badly ran club can''t use the we''re skint card!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clint ... really well put mate ,

the guy is wasting us money , why arnt the board questioning this..

surely if we are in that much of a dire mess , roeder has some explaining to do.

rather than bringing in players for a whole season , why not do a month to month contract first.

we will end up with no perminent players at the end of the season .

and have to start all over again , blowing serious amounts of money, and possilble relegation in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off topic but why doesn''t this thread fit on my big screen like other threads, I have to keep scrolling over to read it all?

Help??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Clint.It''s a matter that has infuriated me for sometime also, and i can''t tell you how relieving it is to see it be finally written down.Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its true clint that roedy has been through a ton of players in his short time here, but that his panning for gold has mainly drew silt and sludge with the odd nugget here and there...imo - he got jack all dosh in the last winter tranny window - (instead we got all that ''keeping powder dry'' bilge from the board) and as i''ve suggested, the wonderful momentum he''d created went - and just like austin powers mojo,,,once gone, its sometimes hard to get it back...this summer, he went for a mix of free tranny and loans - and we got some decent players in (on paper) - who had the potential to challenge towars the top end of the table, but as noted, if they underperformed, we''d struggle...regretfully, the later has occured,,,i''m guessing here, but all of his loanees either had question marks/past injury issues hanging over their heads, or were young - and so in mostof these cases, its not hard to imagine donny et al negotiating a very good discount of their loan fees, or even that we paid one all in some cases...but obviously, the loanees then represented a gamble (that comes with the value) and they haven''t paid off - in fact most have gone/are going...in short...its been a fudging disaster and has taken us into a relegation battle...i''m convinced reody can spot a good''un, if given the correct budget, but his attempts to be clever in the summer tranny market have gone bust...also -  i must admit, it doesn''t look like he can always get the players to perform well enough for him...and we shall all see on saturday and away to sheffield in the league if they ''want'' to play for him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="cityangel"]

Off topic but why doesn''t this thread fit on my big screen like other threads, I have to keep scrolling over to read it all?

Help??

[/quote]

And me!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Clint"]

So of the permanent signings, I think Roeder has spent roughly £2m on Bell, Hoolahan, Pattison and Stefanovic of which none have been a mitigated success and for one reason or another, have hardly been the first names on the team sheet (plus signing on fees and decent wages, particulalry for Stefanovic). 

[/quote]On a Talksport interview, Glenn Roeder said that David Bell his most expensive signing at 400k, so Stefanovic was less than that. Pattison was about 400k and Hoolahan was 225k.When you consider the money in from Joe Lewis, Chris Brown and Jason Shackell, I''d argue it just about balances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I lazily read through the titles of the threads I mistook the "b" for a "s"- I nearly fell off my seat until I realised it said backed instead of sacked. I thought we''d got rid!

You make a lot of good points Clint and come across from an angle I hadn''t really thought about. Money will have been available to make loan signings and that is the road he has taken (no pun intended)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little or not thought has gone into the OP. Think about it....Bates got injured, Grounds got recalled (no fault of Roeder for both these facts) and no mention of Pearce until the summary - three of Roeders loan successes conveniently ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

none of them have really hit the ground running, apart from lita..

so what we are saying here , the players are good on paper but dont perform .

a bit like the ones we have loaned out as well ..!!!

i think motovation is also a problem , or so it seems .

i think if you throw in a manager with a bit of clarity and was respected more , we may have done slightly better.

i dont think the players we have are any better than what we had previously,

a couple a decent loanees , thown in with grants team went on roeders run last year.

then he pulled the team apart, it hasnt paid off and has proved coastly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Delia S. Tickers"]Little or not thought has gone into the OP. Think about it....Bates got injured, Grounds got recalled (no fault of Roeder for both these facts) and no mention of Pearce until the summary - three of Roeders loan successes conveniently ignored.[/quote]

The gist of the original post is spot on. Grounds was indeed excellent and it was unfortunate that he was recalled. Can''t say as I can recall much of Bates. But look at it this way: has Roeder had the smallest budget in this division? Has Roeder got the worst squad in this division? Has he beaten the competition? When he''s gone, what will he leave us? (my answers would be: no; no; no - and not a lot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have to have some form of stabilty in a team to do well .

we have not , it seems like the players who want to play for us , roeder wont let ,

huckerby , lappin cureton ,

its seriously concerns me even if we do stay up , we have few perminent players to build from.

not only the expence, no familiar faces, round the workplace.

how are the players going to gell ?

club will do well when players want to play for the club..

you have to question do they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="singing canary"]

how are the players going to gell ?

club will do well when players want to play for the club..

you have to question do they.

[/quote]

That''s the nub of it SC. My post back on 4th August was one of several quoted in the EDP: "GR has bought well on a limited budget but it could take time for the team to gel and the players have got to want to die for him. Do they I wonder?"

(I don''t wonder anymore)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Binky"]

[quote user="Delia S. Tickers"]Little or not thought has gone into the OP. Think about it....Bates got injured, Grounds got recalled (no fault of Roeder for both these facts) and no mention of Pearce until the summary - three of Roeders loan successes conveniently ignored.[/quote]

The gist of the original post is spot on. Grounds was indeed excellent and it was unfortunate that he was recalled. Can''t say as I can recall much of Bates. But look at it this way: has Roeder had the smallest budget in this division? Has Roeder got the worst squad in this division? Has he beaten the competition? When he''s gone, what will he leave us? (my answers would be: no; no; no - and not a lot).

[/quote]

 

Precisely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Badger"]Smudger has done some very detailed research to show that we are one of the lowest spending teams in the championship. The thread has only just finished. I don''t know the truth - tell me where he is wrong. [/quote]Because Smudger is probably ignorant to the fact that loan signings cost a lot of money, and I don''t know how he has done some detailed research because all of the loan fees are undisclosed but it doesn''t take a genius to work out that the season long loanees would cost us a bit of money, and I''d imagine the short term loanees will be on a pay as you play basis. Roeder has spent more than a lot of clubs in this championship and this was a great post, but there will be so many people who are ignorant to the fact that the board have supported Roeder and will just conveniently ignore this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well where is the evidence that Roeder has spent a lot of money? Have you done the maths? How do you know what the players wages are anyway, so how could you work it out? Why do clubs bring players in on loan?

ANSWER: A club may take a player on loan if they are short on transfer funds but can still pay wages, or as temporary cover for injuries or suspensions.

 

The parent club might demand a fee and/or that the loaning club pays some or all of the player''s wages during the loan period.[2] A club might seek to loan out a squad player to make a saving on his wages,

 

From answers.com

http://www.answers.com/topic/loan-football

 

Norwich are short on transfer funds you idiots, that is why he is bringing them in temporarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BRAVEHEART"]

Well where is the evidence that Roeder has spent a lot of money? Have you done the maths? How do you know what the players wages are anyway, so how could you work it out? 

[/quote]

Agreed, OP post is long but fails to include the only relevant thing here - figures.  Back to the drawing board, bring me some figures and you might persuade me.  Gut feeling is your wrong - now off to find smudgers post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Badger"]
Smudger has done some very detailed research to show that we are one of the lowest spending teams in the championship. The thread has only just finished. I don''t know the truth - tell me where he is wrong.
[/quote]

I am not wrong... hence why not many people have tried to argue with the facts there on that thread.

Maybe the guy who started this thread can come up with evidence of the exact figures we have spent on permanent signings and the loanees that we hear about eating up so much of our budget?

Isn''t it funny how Barnsley speant £1.2 million on one player this summer (Iain Hume), plus signed another 11 permanent players and have also had approx 3 loanees all on average crowds of under 14,000?

Is that because they have not forgotten what they are first and foremost...ie: a FOOTBALL CLUB???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Clint"]

Those people who are still backing Roeder on the basis that he has had no money are spend, I would just like you to consider the facts.  The board have backed Roeder as much as they did Worthy whilst he was in this division, the only difference being Worthy got us to a play off final and subsequently promoted on a shoe-string budget.  Roeder has had the cash but he has either wasted it or used it in a completely inefficient manner. 

He has signed 24 players in roughly 14 months, each with a considerable signing on or loan fee and how many of these could you count as complete successes?!?  I would say possibly, only Clingan, Evans, Lita and Taylor with three of these only short term solutions and are no longer playing for us.  Bell looks promising but the jury is still out and whether he''s still here post January is anyone''s guess.

Whereas, how many of these have not worked out for one reason or another?!?  I would say Archibald-Henville, Bates, Gibbs, Grounds, Henry, Hoolahan (to date), Koroma, Lupoli (not sure why), Rigters, Sibierski and Velasco.  Bertrand and Omozusi have had a margin of success but are really no better than we already have.  Camara looked when he first signed but then after a few matches, seemed to be the first player to recieve what is now known as the Lappin, Chadwick, Lupoli treatment.  Kennedy and Stefanovic both appeared to be decent but neither will play for us again this season leaving us very short in defence.  Pattison has had his moments but is he really good enough to keep Russell out of the team?!?  Nelson hasn''t kicked a ball for us and I expect is not as good but being paid considerably more than Joe Lewis was.  Likewise, Cort is a gamble and thus far, has hardly played since signing. 

So of the permanent signings, I think Roeder has spent roughly £2m on Bell, Hoolahan, Pattison and Stefanovic of which none have been a mitigated success and for one reason or another, have hardly been the first names on the team sheet (plus signing on fees and decent wages, particulalry for Stefanovic).  Clingan, Nelson, Cort and Velasco we''re either free transfers or short term deals but would probably come with a signing on fee (certainly Clingan and Nelson would).

The loans will all cost money and contrary to what people seem to think aren''t necessarily a cheap solution.  Take Sibierski and Lupilo for example, Wigan and Fiorentina would demand a loan fee for their time here.  As well as this, we are reported to be paying £15k of Sibierki''s £25 per week wages.  I would guess we are paying at least £5k a week of Lupoli''s wages.   This means that since signing and up to the end of Jan we would have been out roughly £420k in wages, which would actually sign permanently a fairly decent lower league striker, who''s wage demands would also be massively less.  The said lower league striker would also be an asset of the club and not need to be replaced again in several months time, when the whole cycle will start again.  He could also possibly be sold in a season or two''s time for a profit.

If you apply this theory to the rest of the loan players, you will see that Roeder has actually spent and wasted a lot of cash and this cycle will continue whilst he is here.  If for whatever reason, Roeder isn''t going to play Lupoli, Archibald-Henville, Koroma why are they here?!?  That''s loan fee''s plus wages possibly of around £8-£10 per week that could be used elsewhere and is just being wasted.  That''s roughly £500k, which would have more or less covered the transfer fee of most of Worthy''s signings whilst we were in this division but yet people think Roeder hasn''t had any money to spend.  For those that are still pro-Huckerby, it would have also covered his wages for another season and I would expect he would have had much more of an impact that the three loan players.

So please do not say that Roeder hasn''t had any money.  He has managed to strip the club of several of its assets by releasing a number of our permanent players on free transfers and replacing them with temporary short term solutions.  This is actually costing the club a great deal of money but also devaluing it at the same time.  Have a look at the list of Roeder signings below, had I not mentioned them earlier, you probably wouldn''t have even remembered several of them:

Archibald-Henville      Bates      Bell      Bertrand      Camara      Clingan      Cort      Evans      Gibbs      Grounds      Henry      Hoolahan      Kennedy      Koroma      Lita

Lupoli      Nelson      Omozusi      Pattison      Pearce      Rigters      Sibierski      Stefanovic      Taylor      Velasco

Apologies for the lenght of post but this is a topic that is really starting to infuriate me!

 

 

[/quote]

Very cruel this. Roeder has has to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get in some of these players in. I strongly disagree with what you are saying about alot of the players you mention. Bertrand has the potential to be an outstanding left back, we all know this. Bates looked more than worthy of a place in our team last time we saw him. Grounds looked fairly decent. Koroma has hardly been given the chance to show the fans what he is made of. Lupoli has shown alot of promise in the short time Roeder has given him. Omozusi has shown real quality. And Rigters played one bloody game!!

All in all I would say that the players Roeder has bought in are more than satisfactory given his purse string limitaions. You cant buy the players you want if the board wont back you.

The problem isnt how Roeder has spent the money, the problem is how Roeder treats the assetts. Remember, a team made up of Roeder signings destroyed the best team in the league not so long back. Those times have gone I know but Roeder shouldnt be blamed for the make up of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roeders had more money than a lot of people make out!

 

Bertrand is very over rated, will never make it at Chelsea and isn''t the best left back at Norwich. If we was that skint Bertrand would never have signed instead Roeder would of had Lappin as Drurys understudy!

 

Bates and Righters- Yes unlucky and we were unlucky with Grounds!

 

Koroma in his few games for us looked like a headless chicken, not good enough and just a pure waste of money stab in the dark for Roeder!

 

Roeder signed Lupoli then doesn''t play him cause hes lightweight yet has done his job with scoring 5 goals whens hes hardly played - ludicrous!

 

Omozusi - good as a back up but shouldn''t of played as many games as he has but like Bertrand I suspect part of his deal is that he gets X amount of games which means that Roeder has hardly played his best team which is complete boll*cks and defies common sense!

 

I''d agree that Roeder has made some good signing and that he hasn''t the motivational skills or man management qualities to get the best of players but ultimately the team now is the team that Roeders made and the buck stops with him!

 

Roeder out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great post....proves roeder has been backed and done FA with those funds....should have cut back on 2-3 loans and lita would have been ours :-(

now ipsh*t are in for him...would he want to go to a dump like that???? i think not

i can see our mate carl moore getting his wallet out YET AGAIN to fund any lita deal(i live in hope of this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Clint"]

Those people who are still backing Roeder on the basis that he has had no money are spend, I would just like you to consider the facts.  The board have backed Roeder as much as they did Worthy whilst he was in this division, the only difference being Worthy got us to a play off final and subsequently promoted on a shoe-string budget.  Roeder has had the cash but he has either wasted it or used it in a completely inefficient manner. 

He has signed 24 players in roughly 14 months, each with a considerable signing on or loan fee and how many of these could you count as complete successes?!?  I would say possibly, only Clingan, Evans, Lita and Taylor with three of these only short term solutions and are no longer playing for us.  Bell looks promising but the jury is still out and whether he''s still here post January is anyone''s guess.

Whereas, how many of these have not worked out for one reason or another?!?  I would say Archibald-Henville, Bates, Gibbs, Grounds, Henry, Hoolahan (to date), Koroma, Lupoli (not sure why), Rigters, Sibierski and Velasco.  Bertrand and Omozusi have had a margin of success but are really no better than we already have.  Camara looked when he first signed but then after a few matches, seemed to be the first player to recieve what is now known as the Lappin, Chadwick, Lupoli treatment.  Kennedy and Stefanovic both appeared to be decent but neither will play for us again this season leaving us very short in defence.  Pattison has had his moments but is he really good enough to keep Russell out of the team?!?  Nelson hasn''t kicked a ball for us and I expect is not as good but being paid considerably more than Joe Lewis was.  Likewise, Cort is a gamble and thus far, has hardly played since signing. 

So of the permanent signings, I think Roeder has spent roughly £2m on Bell, Hoolahan, Pattison and Stefanovic of which none have been a mitigated success and for one reason or another, have hardly been the first names on the team sheet (plus signing on fees and decent wages, particulalry for Stefanovic).  Clingan, Nelson, Cort and Velasco we''re either free transfers or short term deals but would probably come with a signing on fee (certainly Clingan and Nelson would).

The loans will all cost money and contrary to what people seem to think aren''t necessarily a cheap solution.  Take Sibierski and Lupilo for example, Wigan and Fiorentina would demand a loan fee for their time here.  As well as this, we are reported to be paying £15k of Sibierki''s £25 per week wages.  I would guess we are paying at least £5k a week of Lupoli''s wages.   This means that since signing and up to the end of Jan we would have been out roughly £420k in wages, which would actually sign permanently a fairly decent lower league striker, who''s wage demands would also be massively less.  The said lower league striker would also be an asset of the club and not need to be replaced again in several months time, when the whole cycle will start again.  He could also possibly be sold in a season or two''s time for a profit.

If you apply this theory to the rest of the loan players, you will see that Roeder has actually spent and wasted a lot of cash and this cycle will continue whilst he is here.  If for whatever reason, Roeder isn''t going to play Lupoli, Archibald-Henville, Koroma why are they here?!?  That''s loan fee''s plus wages possibly of around £8-£10 per week that could be used elsewhere and is just being wasted.  That''s roughly £500k, which would have more or less covered the transfer fee of most of Worthy''s signings whilst we were in this division but yet people think Roeder hasn''t had any money to spend.  For those that are still pro-Huckerby, it would have also covered his wages for another season and I would expect he would have had much more of an impact that the three loan players.

So please do not say that Roeder hasn''t had any money.  He has managed to strip the club of several of its assets by releasing a number of our permanent players on free transfers and replacing them with temporary short term solutions.  This is actually costing the club a great deal of money but also devaluing it at the same time.  Have a look at the list of Roeder signings below, had I not mentioned them earlier, you probably wouldn''t have even remembered several of them:

Archibald-Henville      Bates      Bell      Bertrand      Camara      Clingan      Cort      Evans      Gibbs      Grounds      Henry      Hoolahan      Kennedy      Koroma      Lita

Lupoli      Nelson      Omozusi      Pattison      Pearce      Rigters      Sibierski      Stefanovic      Taylor      Velasco

Apologies for the lenght of post but this is a topic that is really starting to infuriate me!

 

 

[/quote]The reason we shouldn''t get rid of Roeder is because te vast majority of the players mentioned above are good quality players. He has a big contacts book and uses it - he has a long term plan and not just a short term fix. We don''t have the money to make every single player "our" player in one season so Roeder is taking the long term view. He worked a miracle last season and is doing as well if not better than any of our other realistic targets!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...