Shifty Sid 0 Posted March 1, 2009 I''vethought long and hard over the past few weeks, thinking where did itall go wrong and who was to blame. Here are my thoughts...1. ReleasingMalky MacKay and Marc Edworthy.Malky was a leader on the pitch, solid at the back and gotthe odd goal or two as well. Edworthywas a very capable full back and could have done a job for us. Helveg never impressed me at all and wasnever worth the salary we paid him.Who was to blame: Worthington. 2. Failingto buy Dean Ashton in August rather than January.Had we shown just a little ambition and signed Ashton at the start of theseason I think it’s fair to say he would have bagged 3 or 4 extra goals forus. Considering the narrow margin bywhich we were relegated, I am convinced this would have been enough to havekept us in the Premiership. The Boardwanted to see where we were in the table by the time the January transferwindow opened and then take a decision on whether or not to spend themoney. By then, as history has shown –it was too late.Who was to blame: The Board. (Maybe Worthington as well, as I am not surehow hard he pushed them). 3. Thepurchase of poor players.On relegation, we had two successive years of £7.5Mn cashinjections from Sky’s ‘parachute payments’. This money was in my opinion wasted on sub-standard players such asPeter Thorne, Carl Robinson, Andy Hughes etc. This resulted in us struggling near the bottom of the Championship andwithout the quality to get us near the top.Who was to blame: Worthington. 4. KeepingWorthington way beyond his sell by date.Worthy did a great job for us, getting us to the play off final andwinning the division but about 2-3 months into our return to the Championshipit was clear to everyone but the Board, that we were under-performing andcontinuing to buy poor quality players. Worthington should have been dismissed for failing to challenge the topsix all season. He wasn’t and furtherdecline continued the next season.Who was to blame: The Board. 5. Theappointment of Peter Grant.With the calibre of the candidates that applied for the job, I wasastounded the Board gambled on someone with no managerial experience when wecould have gone with a proven manager and someone who would have made betteruse of the Sky money we still had at our disposal. Instead, Grant bought some very poor players. Also, in my opinion I feel we could have got amuch better striker for £950k than Jamie Cureton. I’m never a fan of buying 30+ players,particularly when they are average at best. I also believe it was a mistake buying Marshall for £1Mn. We had a perfectly good keeper in thereserves, in Joe Lewis. He should havebeen promoted and the million we spent on Marshall plus the £950k spent onCureton could have bought a decent striker and defender or midfielder. A wasted opportunity.Who was to blame: The Board. Grant should never have been appointed. 6. Theappointment of Roeder.Did a fantastic job keeping us up when he took over from Grant, but proceededto go on a self-destruct mission. Rippedthe heart and soul out of the club by releasing Huckerby and the manner inwhich it was done undermined his managerial tenure. No one can complain about the other playersshown the door by Roeder. It wassomething that had to be done; but I question the decision to get rid of such alarge number of players in such a short space of time. It must have cost us a small fortune incontract severance fees not to mention it left the squad chronically short onnumbers. When Roeder failed to bring inall his summer targets we had to over-rely on the loan system. Whilst there is nothing wrong with the oddloan player or two, to add quality you otherwise couldn’t afford to buy, Roederloaned in several players no better than we already had. His tactics (and because of the number ofplayers on short-term deals) meant the team was chopped and changed from gameto game and we never had a settled side. Inconsistent line ups lead to inconsistent results. The Board acted decisively in dismissingRoeder (which suggests they learnt from past mistakes with Worthington).Who was to blame: Roeder. His appointment worked initially, so I don’tfeel the Board can be blamed here. 7. Theappointment of Gunn.Legend that he is, a man with no managerial experience shouldnever have been charged with getting City out of the mess we found ourselvesin. It was far too much of a risk and weshould have opted for an experienced manager such as Aidy Boothroyd. Whilst performances have improved, resultshave not. The 4-0 win against Barnsleywas more a collective celebration on the departure of Roeder than Gunn’smanagerial prowess. The Board were naiveto think that would be repeated in subsequent games and made a decision withtheir hearts and not their heads.Who was to blame: TheBoard. So to sumthings up, I don’t think any one person or entity is to blame for our demise,it has been a catalogue of failures over a number of years. However, because ultimately the buck stopswith the Board, it is they who should take responsibility for theirfailings. To suggest they should resignis nonsensical – when you ownsomething you can’t simply resign. Youneed to sell – and if there is no buyer, there are not really that many optionsleft. Some wouldsay they had the opportunity to sell to Peter Cullum. I am not so sure. I am in a privileged position to know alittle bit on the inside of that particular episode in the club’s history. Cullum’s intentions were there. The money was also there. But the way he tried to take control for theClub via the media ruffled a few feathers with the Board. He tried to build public opinion to applypressure on Delia and Michael to sell up for a small percentage of what theClub was worth. She has never been inthis game to make money, in fact she stands to make a considerable loss. But why should she sell the Club for a cut-pricefee to someone worth billions? It wasquoted at the time, she wanted £56M to sell. This was merely calling his bluff to see how serious he was – and playinghim at his own game through the media. In reality, had he been forthcoming with a serious (and fair) offer, shewould have sold up – no question. I won’twaffle on this subject as it has been well documented before but I wanted todispel the myth that Cullum was sent packing with a flea in his ear, as thatsimply was not the case. Unless bysome miracle, we are now pretty certain to be in League One next year. We will undoubtedly lose the likes of Croftand Clingan and have very little money to rebuild in the summer. Challenging for promotion would be very toughindeed. We won’t have the foundations ofa solid backbone upon which to build the team. There are no signs our away form will improve either, so even with agood home record I can’t see us getting near the top six, even in LeagueOne. I’m afraid to say things look verybleak indeed and it could well be a long hard slog or 3 or 4 years simply toget back to the Championship. Even then,without serious funding we are going to struggle. I haverenewed my season ticket. Not because Iam some blind sheep throwing my money down the drain but because after 15 yearsof being a season ticket holder, I am still hooked. I’d miss the routine of trudging to CarrowRoad every other Saturday and I’d find that very hard to give up - even in League One. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yorkshire Canary 118 Posted March 1, 2009 From the time that we got prompted to the Premiership the wheels have started to come off. Releasing good squad players,buying crap, picking crap managers time and time again and wasting cash in the process. I put this all down to the board they have been naive and indecisive and just crap at making decisions. They all should clear off and run a bank ! They have done a worse job with us than Peter Risdale did at Leeds! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xavi- Poor Mans Ian Crook 0 Posted March 1, 2009 [quote user="Shifty Sid"] 6. Theappointment of Roeder.Did a fantastic job keeping us up when he took over from Grant, but proceededto go on a self-destruct mission. Rippedthe heart and soul out of the club by releasing Huckerby and the manner inwhich it was done undermined his managerial tenure. No one can complain about the other playersshown the door by Roeder. It wassomething that had to be done; but I question the decision to get rid of such alarge number of players in such a short space of time. It must have cost us a small fortune incontract severance fees not to mention it left the squad chronically short onnumbers. When Roeder failed to bring inall his summer targets we had to over-rely on the loan system. Whilst there is nothing wrong with the oddloan player or two, to add quality you otherwise couldn’t afford to buy, Roederloaned in several players no better than we already had. His tactics (and because of the number ofplayers on short-term deals) meant the team was chopped and changed from gameto game and we never had a settled side. Inconsistent line ups lead to inconsistent results. The Board acted decisively in dismissingRoeder (which suggests they learnt from past mistakes with Worthington).Who was to blame: Roeder. His appointment worked initially, so I don’tfeel the Board can be blamed here.[/quote] How can Roeder be to blame for his own appointment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCFC_Shaun 0 Posted March 1, 2009 The fact that the board no nothing about football is the problem. They do the right thing in getting rid of Worthy and Roeder. Then the completely wrong thing in appointing Grant and Gunn. The appointment of Gunn has sealed our fate. Anybody could have been in charge and we would have won that Barnsley game. Momentum from Roeders departure won us that, not Gunn''s tactics.However, that ''facebook'' group. As nice as it was from his daughter, heaps and heaps of fans joined in backing Gunn for the job. This, I believe, made the board take note and see how many fans wanted Gunn to be appointed. Their was no indication of how many fans wanted other candidates. So if you joined that ''Gunn in'' group. Congratulations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shifty Sid 0 Posted March 1, 2009 [quote user="Fabregas- Poor Mans Ian Crook"][quote user="Shifty Sid"] 6. Theappointment of Roeder.Did a fantastic job keeping us up when he took over from Grant, but proceededto go on a self-destruct mission. Rippedthe heart and soul out of the club by releasing Huckerby and the manner inwhich it was done undermined his managerial tenure. No one can complain about the other playersshown the door by Roeder. It wassomething that had to be done; but I question the decision to get rid of such alarge number of players in such a short space of time. It must have cost us a small fortune incontract severance fees not to mention it left the squad chronically short onnumbers. When Roeder failed to bring inall his summer targets we had to over-rely on the loan system. Whilst there is nothing wrong with the oddloan player or two, to add quality you otherwise couldn’t afford to buy, Roederloaned in several players no better than we already had. His tactics (and because of the number ofplayers on short-term deals) meant the team was chopped and changed from gameto game and we never had a settled side. Inconsistent line ups lead to inconsistent results. The Board acted decisively in dismissingRoeder (which suggests they learnt from past mistakes with Worthington).Who was to blame: Roeder. His appointment worked initially, so I don’tfeel the Board can be blamed here.[/quote] How can Roeder be to blame for his own appointment.[/quote]LOL...good point... I think I meant he was to blame getting rid of too many players, he should have got rid of 2/3 in August, another 2/3 in Jan and so on, rather than axeing 18 in one hit then struggling to make up the numbers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John 0 Posted March 1, 2009 [quote user="Fabregas- Poor Mans Ian Crook"][quote user="Shifty Sid"] 6. Theappointment of Roeder.Did a fantastic job keeping us up when he took over from Grant, but proceededto go on a self-destruct mission. Rippedthe heart and soul out of the club by releasing Huckerby and the manner inwhich it was done undermined his managerial tenure. No one can complain about the other playersshown the door by Roeder. It wassomething that had to be done; but I question the decision to get rid of such alarge number of players in such a short space of time. It must have cost us a small fortune incontract severance fees not to mention it left the squad chronically short onnumbers. When Roeder failed to bring inall his summer targets we had to over-rely on the loan system. Whilst there is nothing wrong with the oddloan player or two, to add quality you otherwise couldn’t afford to buy, Roederloaned in several players no better than we already had. His tactics (and because of the number ofplayers on short-term deals) meant the team was chopped and changed from gameto game and we never had a settled side. Inconsistent line ups lead to inconsistent results. The Board acted decisively in dismissingRoeder (which suggests they learnt from past mistakes with Worthington).Who was to blame: Roeder. His appointment worked initially, so I don’tfeel the Board can be blamed here.[/quote] How can Roeder be to blame for his own appointment.[/quote]Well he did apply for the job.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pete_norw 0 Posted March 1, 2009 [quote user="John"][quote user="Fabregas- Poor Mans Ian Crook"][quote user="Shifty Sid"] <!--[if !supportLists]-->6. The appointment of Roeder.<!--[endif]-->Did a fantastic job keeping us up when he took over from Grant, but proceeded to go on a self-destruct mission. Ripped the heart and soul out of the club by releasing Huckerby and the manner in which it was done undermined his managerial tenure. No one can complain about the other players shown the door by Roeder. It was something that had to be done; but I question the decision to get rid of such a large number of players in such a short space of time. It must have cost us a small fortune in contract severance fees not to mention it left the squad chronically short on numbers. When Roeder failed to bring in all his summer targets we had to over-rely on the loan system. Whilst there is nothing wrong with the odd loan player or two, to add quality you otherwise couldn’t afford to buy, Roeder loaned in several players no better than we already had. His tactics (and because of the number of players on short-term deals) meant the team was chopped and changed from game to game and we never had a settled side. Inconsistent line ups lead to inconsistent results. The Board acted decisively in dismissing Roeder (which suggests they learnt from past mistakes with Worthington).Who was to blame: Roeder. His appointment worked initially, so I don’t feel the Board can be blamed here.[/quote] How can Roeder be to blame for his own appointment.[/quote]Well he did apply for the job....[/quote]Oh Please wake up will you, we have had this board for 12 years, and Queen Delia picked the lot, 12 seasons later we are in a worst position, with 2 ok seasons and 10 relegation fights, (WHO IS TO BLAME)? Not me that I''m sure of Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smudger 0 Posted March 1, 2009 THE FANSFor sitting back in silence and allowing this happen.The lot of you have been MUGGED.Worse still there are still many already signing themselves up for another MUGGING in Div 3 next year!!! [:$] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smudger 0 Posted March 1, 2009 [quote user="NCFC_Shaun"]The fact that the board no nothing about football is the problem. They do the right thing in getting rid of Worthy and Roeder. Then the completely wrong thing in appointing Grant and Gunn. The appointment of Gunn has sealed our fate. Anybody could have been in charge and we would have won that Barnsley game. Momentum from Roeders departure won us that, not Gunn''s tactics.However, that ''facebook'' group. As nice as it was from his daughter, heaps and heaps of fans joined in backing Gunn for the job. This, I believe, made the board take note and see how many fans wanted Gunn to be appointed. Their was no indication of how many fans wanted other candidates. So if you joined that ''Gunn in'' group. Congratulations.[/quote]The FACT that you and so many other City fans know nothing about football is the problem NCFC_ShaunThese are the reasons why we have been stuck with a board of directors that are about to provide us with one of the darkest days most City fans have seen in their life time.The writing has been on the wall for many years now and you and the vast majority chose to ignore it.Looking for somebody to blame???Then look a little closer to home Sir. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
city-till-i-die 7 Posted March 1, 2009 [quote user="Smudger"]THE FANSFor sitting back in silence and allowing this happen.The lot of you have been MUGGED.Worse still there are still many already signing themselves up for another MUGGING in Div 3 next year!!! [:$][/quote]yes we are to blame for the relegation...another fantastic post FUDGER!!!we chose the last 3 managers and bought the players...yes the fans done this...also the fans invested in car parks...resteraunts...land....etc...you twit!!!!at least you are on a bit of a glory hunt with lowestoft town at the min!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Great Wall Of Tettey 0 Posted March 1, 2009 you have to take it up to the very top.board hasnt put enough money in.....money which if they didnt have, and clearly dont..............should have sold up.theyre obviously making money, or they wouldnt even be here ???doncaster doesnt even care, hes getting a bundle of cash at the end of the year, and he knows his job is safe. its just a stepping stone to get to the england job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Carrow 367 Posted March 1, 2009 Some good points SS, but i totally disagree with you on point three. We were so conservative with our money in the Prem. (remember the £9m profit?) that i was sure we would be cherry-picking the best young talent in an ambitious attempt to get straight back up. When we sold Jonsson, Svensson, Helveg and Francis for £3m i was even more sure the exciting signings were just round the corner. What we got were two lower-league journeymen on frees, a clogger from Reading for £500k and some Dutchman no-one had ever heard of for £200k. It was blatant asset-stripping and wilful capitulation. Then we sold Ashton for £7.5m and made our one ambitious signing since relegation in Earnshaw for £2.9m- but no more money was forthcoming for a desperately needed target-man, right-winger, or central midfielder. Worthy had both hands and legs tied behind his back by a board who had their minds focussed on land deals, subsiduary companies, new facilities etc."She has never been in this game to make money, in fact she stands to make a considerable loss. But why should she sell the club for a cut-price fee to someone worth billions?". To me, that is a contradictory statement. But my answer to the question is a, because she would be accepting precisely the deal she was begging for when she was spouting her usual populist drivel on several occasions ("It`s not about money for our shares- we don`t need money- it`s about money for the team, big money for the team.") and b, BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST THING FOR THE CLUB. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,473 Posted March 1, 2009 [quote user="Bryan Bryan Gunn "]you have to take it up to the very top.board hasnt put enough money in.....money which if they didnt have, and clearly dont..............should have sold up.theyre obviously making money, or they wouldnt even be here ???doncaster doesnt even care, hes getting a bundle of cash at the end of the year, and he knows his job is safe. its just a stepping stone to get to the england job.[/quote]How''s that work then?Oh, I see, it''s a joke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCFC_Shaun 0 Posted March 1, 2009 [quote user="Smudger"][quote user="NCFC_Shaun"] The fact that the board no nothing about football is the problem. They do the right thing in getting rid of Worthy and Roeder. Then the completely wrong thing in appointing Grant and Gunn. The appointment of Gunn has sealed our fate. Anybody could have been in charge and we would have won that Barnsley game. Momentum from Roeders departure won us that, not Gunn''s tactics.However, that ''facebook'' group. As nice as it was from his daughter, heaps and heaps of fans joined in backing Gunn for the job. This, I believe, made the board take note and see how many fans wanted Gunn to be appointed. Their was no indication of how many fans wanted other candidates. So if you joined that ''Gunn in'' group. Congratulations.[/quote]The FACT that you and so many other City fans know nothing about football is the problem NCFC_ShaunThese are the reasons why we have been stuck with a board of directors that are about to provide us with one of the darkest days most City fans have seen in their life time.The writing has been on the wall for many years now and you and the vast majority chose to ignore it.Looking for somebody to blame???Then look a little closer to home Sir.[/quote] What precisely do you think? Having previously wondered why others refuse to listen to your point of view, I now see why they think you just like the attention and post with the primary reason to annoy others.Nearly all of your posts are aimed towards your hatred of the board and how they are the problem. So my above post would appear to go hand in hand with your view of the board. However suddenly you have managed to change it around so that I, due to my blaming of the board, are the problem.I''m sorry but that makes no sense, and clearly shows you only post to stir trouble, sir. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites