SuperWesIrishWizard 0 Posted January 14, 2009 I can remember despising Peter Grant even after he had left the club, in hindsight I was wrong to despise him. He made some woeful mistakes, lost the players, most of his signings were awful.But you know what? He cared about the club, he cared about the fans, and realised pretty quickly that he wasnt the man for the job. He held his hands up, said that it hadnt worked out, walked away from the club knowing that he had underperformed but had been quite rightly remunerated for the time that he spent at the club at least knowing that he had given it a go and believed that he was doing tight. He walked away knowing that it would be a travesty for this club to go down and knew that the fans, the city and the legends of this great football club deserved better.Glen Roeder, to the contrast, has made just as many mistakes, which he wont admit to, cares little about the fans, the city or the legends of this great football club and it would not bother him at all if this club went down. He would walk away with just another big flop on his CV but a larger bank balance, knowing that he probably wont get another job in football but also knowing that financially he doesnt need one. It was well documented that Huckerby and Grant didnt see eye to eye, but I genuinely believe that even Grant would have kept Huckerby at this club in some form. The players didnt have a clue under Grant, the players dont have a clue under Roeder. Both have wasted money. There is very little to distinguish between these two in terms of performance on the pitch, performance in the transfer market, and the respect of the players.... both have very little.There is a hell of a lot to distinguish between them in terms of dignity and loyalty to a cause. Grant cared about the clubs future and not just about his bank balance, Roeder is in this job because he somehow managed to persuade just another club to give him money to play with its future like a boys toy. I therefore give my personal ratings in terms of performance as manager:Overall Transfer Market Performace: Grant 3/10 Roeder 3/10Permanent Transfer Performace: Grant 3/10 Roeder 5/10Tactical Ability Grant 3/10 Roeder 3/10Motivational Ability Grant 2/10 Roeder 2/10Team Selection Grant 4/10 Roeder 3/10Respect of the players Grant 4/10 Roeder 3/10Respect of the inherited backroom staff Grant 6/10 Roeder 1/10Respect of the fans Grant 4/10 Roeder 2/10Loyalty to long term future of club Grant 6/10 Roeder 1/10Loyalty to fans and players Grant 3/10 Roeder 1/10Total Scores:- 38/100 23/100Wealth Moderate HighConclusion:- Not cut out Crazy Clueless Dictator Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Two Tails 0 Posted January 14, 2009 The difference that I see between Roeder and Grant, is that Grant was very passionate about the club and cared. He was honest and you could not fault him for trying his best, he was basically a nice guy. But he just did not cut it at management.Roeder on the other hand, is arrogant and rude towards the fans who will be here long after he has departed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Green and Yellow 0 Posted January 14, 2009 [quote user="SuperWesIrishWizard"]I can remember despising Peter Grant even after he had left the club, in hindsight I was wrong to despise him. He made some woeful mistakes, lost the players, most of his signings were awful.But you know what? He cared about the club, he cared about the fans, and realised pretty quickly that he wasnt the man for the job. He held his hands up, said that it hadnt worked out, walked away from the club knowing that he had underperformed but had been quite rightly remunerated for the time that he spent at the club at least knowing that he had given it a go and believed that he was doing tight. He walked away knowing that it would be a travesty for this club to go down and knew that the fans, the city and the legends of this great football club deserved better.Glen Roeder, to the contrast, has made just as many mistakes, which he wont admit to, cares little about the fans, the city or the legends of this great football club and it would not bother him at all if this club went down. He would walk away with just another big flop on his CV but a larger bank balance, knowing that he probably wont get another job in football but also knowing that financially he doesnt need one. It was well documented that Huckerby and Grant didnt see eye to eye, but I genuinely believe that even Grant would have kept Huckerby at this club in some form. The players didnt have a clue under Grant, the players dont have a clue under Roeder. Both have wasted money. There is very little to distinguish between these two in terms of performance on the pitch, performance in the transfer market, and the respect of the players.... both have very little.There is a hell of a lot to distinguish between them in terms of dignity and loyalty to a cause. Grant cared about the clubs future and not just about his bank balance, Roeder is in this job because he somehow managed to persuade just another club to give him money to play with its future like a boys toy. I therefore give my personal ratings in terms of performance as manager:Overall Transfer Market Performace: Grant 3/10 Roeder 3/10Permanent Transfer Performace: Grant 3/10 Roeder 5/10Tactical Ability Grant 3/10 Roeder 3/10Motivational Ability Grant 2/10 Roeder 2/10Team Selection Grant 4/10 Roeder 3/10Respect of the players Grant 4/10 Roeder 3/10Respect of the inherited backroom staff Grant 6/10 Roeder 1/10Respect of the fans Grant 4/10 Roeder 2/10Loyalty to long term future of club Grant 6/10 Roeder 1/10Loyalty to fans and players Grant 3/10 Roeder 1/10Total Scores:- 38/100 23/100Wealth Moderate HighConclusion:- Not cut out Crazy Clueless Dictator [/quote]Agree with you on that one. He failed but with hindsight he had and still has more dignity and honour than Roeder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
