City 2nd 191 Posted December 31, 2008 To all those NCFC fans over the last few weeks who have, on this message board, supported and applauded Glen ROEDER, well done.......!The man who has spent all of the transfer budget, and wasted money on the likes of LUPOLI (who he states is too lightweight) SIBIERSKI (whose a--e must be sore) KOROMA (God knows where he is) HENVILLE (we all know here he is cos we are still paying for him) KENNEDY (an injury prone misfit and back at his club again, who we are still paying until the loan ends).......!The man who has demoralised so many players CURETON, LAPPIN, MARTIN, SPILLANE JARVIS (X2) EAGLE to name but a few.......!And for what......for us to be 2 points of the bottom of the league and only going one way........!HE IS THE WORST MANAGER THIS CLUB HAS HAD AND COULD NOT ORGANISE A PISS UP IN A BREWERY.We are on the verge of destruction because of this idiot, and those who appointed him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShrewsCanary 0 Posted December 31, 2008 I don''t agree with all your sentiment (Spillane, Jarvis (2) and Eagle are not good enough). although ive seen nothing from Hoolahan to suggest he is anywhere near good enough.I forget the figures but we spent x amount on David Bell when only last year I was recommending David Edwards to the Doomcaster (Twice) and was overlooked... a much much better prospect, playing well for Wolves and at around the same price - never were those 2 players comparableI dont know the answer, but if Roeder doesnt go soon, there is only one way we are going - a season of being a massive club wouldnt be the end of the world tho! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gangmower 0 Posted December 31, 2008 Great post.People keep saying he had no money rubbish.He has wasted it on loan deals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve b 0 Posted December 31, 2008 [quote user="gangmower"]Great post.People keep saying he had no money rubbish.He has wasted it on loan deals.[/quote]been saying for ages that he''s had good money to spend, he is a born loser, he''s done nothing in his career, yet he has a pop at anyone who dares question him, now he''s moaning that this is such a small squad! well thats your fault glenn, huckerby lappin henville lupoli koroma cureton spillane and martin would increase the squad size you pratt! he wont play any of them again though as that would mean he got it wrong and he''ll never have that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wizard 0 Posted December 31, 2008 [quote user="gangmower"]Great post.People keep saying he had no money rubbish.He has wasted it on loan deals.[/quote]Totally agree, loans are seldom cheap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barclay_Boy 0 Posted December 31, 2008 [quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="gangmower"]Great post.People keep saying he had no money rubbish.He has wasted it on loan deals.[/quote]Totally agree, loans are seldom cheap.[/quote]totally disagree, we no doubt had to go for loans as there was insufficient money available to actually buy players of our own, a very embaressing state of affairs. I think you can trace the start of the problems back to being unable to come up with a paltry extra 250k to sign Martin Taylor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,317 Posted December 31, 2008 Trouble with loans is you basically end up spending as much as you would on a permanent transfer but have nothing to show for it at the end of the process (i.e. no saleable asset). At least with the likes of Clingan, Bell and Hoolahan we have players who we own and could sell if the worst came to the worst.I really worry that the paper again today is talking loans, loans, loans. Even suggests Roeder thinks tranfer fees will soon die out and it will all be loans. At the Capital Canaries forum Doncaster basically said that one of the benefits of not owning too many players is that if the worst happens and we either don''t find investment or go down we would not have too many players under contract to pay off/get rid of. Whilst obviously that is true (and obviously prudent) that is a depressing insight into our current situation! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Carrow 376 Posted December 31, 2008 [quote user="Jim Smith"]Trouble with loans is you basically end up spending as much as you would on a permanent transfer but have nothing to show for it at the end of the process (i.e. no saleable asset). At least with the likes of Clingan, Bell and Hoolahan we have players who we own and could sell if the worst came to the worst.I really worry that the paper again today is talking loans, loans, loans. Even suggests Roeder thinks tranfer fees will soon die out and it will all be loans. At the Capital Canaries forum Doncaster basically said that one of the benefits of not owning too many players is that if the worst happens and we either don''t find investment or go down we would not have too many players under contract to pay off/get rid of. Whilst obviously that is true (and obviously prudent) that is a depressing insight into our current situation![/quote]That sounds like the familiar story of the club working on the "worst-case scenario" basis and it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy ie. "budgeting for relegation" in the Prem. These idiots will never learn. I assume if we went down we would be "budgeting for a mid-table finish", thereby making it far more difficult to come straight back up.....[:@] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Branston Pickle 3,657 Posted December 31, 2008 [quote user="Barclay_Boy"][quote user="1st Wizard"] [quote user="gangmower"]Great post.People keep saying he had no money rubbish.He has wasted it on loan deals.[/quote]Totally agree, loans are seldom cheap.[/quote]totally disagree, we no doubt had to go for loans as there was insufficient money available to actually buy players of our own, a very embaressing state of affairs. I think you can trace the start of the problems back to being unable to come up with a paltry extra 250k to sign Martin Taylor.[/quote]Agree about the loans, Barclay - they are apparently much cheaper than we would probably think, and a LOT less than signing a player permanently. For the money spent on the loans this season we may have managed to buy possibly two (ie not stunning) £350k players + wages....but given that there were 6 or 7 gaps that needed filling, loaning players was the only option. IMO most of them have been ok gets, but you do wonder at some - Koroma, Troy and Lupoli suggest poor background work on the part of GR and he must take the blame for wasting cash on them if, in his opinion, they aren''t then up to it.I''d love to see us try more home grown players, but only if they are up to it. People going on about Jarvis/Martin do rather miss the point that they have done little despite playing several leagues below us. For example, Martin''s return of 5 in 26 starts this season does not really suggest someone who would set the Championship alight...and prior to the last game his return had been 3 in 25, not really the form of someone pushing for a recall, surely? Of course, that said, they probably couldn''t do a lot worse than those we currently have.[Btw, I cannot agree re: Taylor. I know for absolute certain that in the end he was never for sale; his sale to anyone was 100% dependent on Brum getting a replacement in first. Whether he would have then come to us is a completely different issue, but a potential sale to anyone fell through when they didn''t get anyone in last Jan.] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Branston Pickle 3,657 Posted December 31, 2008 [quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Jim Smith"] Trouble with loans is you basically end up spending as much as you would on a permanent transfer but have nothing to show for it at the end of the process (i.e. no saleable asset). At least with the likes of Clingan, Bell and Hoolahan we have players who we own and could sell if the worst came to the worst.I really worry that the paper again today is talking loans, loans, loans. Even suggests Roeder thinks tranfer fees will soon die out and it will all be loans. At the Capital Canaries forum Doncaster basically said that one of the benefits of not owning too many players is that if the worst happens and we either don''t find investment or go down we would not have too many players under contract to pay off/get rid of. Whilst obviously that is true (and obviously prudent) that is a depressing insight into our current situation![/quote]That sounds like the familiar story of the club working on the "worst-case scenario" basis and it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy ie. "budgeting for relegation" in the Prem. These idiots will never learn. I assume if we went down we would be "budgeting for a mid-table finish", thereby making it far more difficult to come straight back up.....[:@][/quote]Sorry Mr C, but you appear to be suggesting that those at the club shouldn''t consider the possibility of relegation in their plans, whereas it would be the worst possible financial management of the club if they didn''t - and surely you know this to be true.....it does have to be said that they should be taking it into consideration rather than actively planning for it, though! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gonzo 0 Posted December 31, 2008 Well I''m hoping one of 2 things: That Roeder won''t be around much longerorHe gets another lucky (e.g. Evans) loanee in the January transfer window If my second wish does occur I can only imagine we''ll be worse off in the long run with HIM - ah cut to the chase - Roeder Out! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnoBono 0 Posted December 31, 2008 I have said it before and will say it again, Roeder has mis-managed the Norwich City squad. His drastic surgery over the summer was too much too soon, and there were too many changes for the sake of change and at least one was political. He has ripped the heart out of the team as well as back room staff.Yes we had dead wood that needed clearing out. But by being so drastic Roeder left too many holes to be filled and not enough money to do it. Hence all the loans, and quite a few of them now look to be panic signings as well.If he had allowed some of the players to hang around that bit longer there would have been less of the need for the panic and the squad would had remained that much more settled.Is Chris Brown really any worse than what we have at the moment. No the goals were not flying in for him, but he was commited and would had bulked up our squad. Darren Huckerby did he really have to go? He complians now of a waffer thin squad and not enough players, yet leaves Lappin, a decent squad player, completely out of the frame. That is hardly economic sence in these cash stapped times! If Roeder had made good use of the loan market his clear out would be more understandable. He supposedly cleared out players that were not good enough for various reason to play for Norwich City. He has then replaced them with Lupoli who is too light weight, Koroma who never play''s, Henville who was never good enough and Sibierski who has never looked up to it. Roeder has stripped the club of assets. The reliance on loans is only a short term fix. It is also an unstabeling one at that. Here we go again this January trying to re-build the squad. Thats the third time Roeder has done this since he has been here. Does that really make economic sence?The budjet has been spent. But has it been well spent. Not while loaned in players like Lupoli and others can''t even get into the team and are more like payed spectators! The budjet gone and we sit just above the relegation zone. Norwich City is being mis-managed! But at least he knows what he is doing!?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites