singing canary 0 Posted February 11, 2009 i really am trying to see the logic behind this one .dont get me wrong , i think he is a good player , but why sell him to start with , then bring him back on loan !i know norwich are the loan kings this season , but this move seems really bizzare to say the least !! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Flashheart 0 Posted February 11, 2009 I think Roeder chose to sell him. Maybe you should ask him. [:P] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
7rew 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Change of the person making the decisions?Some loans become permanents eventually. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SitTee 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Its not hard...We sold him for near enough £1 MillionWe used that money for playersWe have loaned him back at a small cost.Wise move by the board. Very clever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Flashheart 0 Posted February 11, 2009 Surely it''s a wise move by Gunn? [I] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
singing canary 0 Posted February 11, 2009 i hope it works out for him , i dont think its a bad move , we should not have got rid of him to start with . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
singing canary 0 Posted February 11, 2009 how much do you think it cost us to get him back on loan ??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Flashheart 0 Posted February 11, 2009 [quote user="singing canary"]we should not have got rid of him to start with . [/quote]I suppose we can all thank Grim Roeder for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
singing canary 0 Posted February 11, 2009 lord flash heart ... do you think roeder would come up with a good reason !!!!nothing he done made any sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
singing canary 0 Posted February 11, 2009 hope we get the chance to buy him back on the cheap !!!say 400k .. that would be good buiseness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Flashheart 0 Posted February 11, 2009 [quote user="singing canary"]nothing he done made any sense.[/quote]I''m not so sure about that myself. Yes he did an awful lot wrong, but he also got a few things right. Anyway he''s gone now so b*llcks to him. [:D]I''m glad that the Shack is back and I won''t be moaning about him if he puts in 100% for as long as he''s here. [Y] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Fish Seller 0 Posted February 11, 2009 [quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="singing canary"]we should not have got rid of him to start with . [/quote]I suppose we can all thank Grim Roeder for that.[/quote]I think the decision to sell him was based on financial rather than footballing factors and I''ve never been convinced that GR was entirely happy about it. His transfer pot failed to materialise and then right on the stroke of midnight any spending we had made during the summer was recouped by the sale of Shacks.The timing, the disappearance of the money received from the transfer fund and all just as the Turners pulled out leaving us with a shortfall.If it was a footballing decision why did we sell him when we did and why has the money not been made available for replacement players? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites