Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
raunds canary

Doomcaster on five live.

Recommended Posts

No decision on Gunn yet , wont be made until the board meeting . Apparently he has to make a pitch to keep the managers job. Going on his time this season he has no chance!

Share this post


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

No decision on Gunn yet , wont be made until the board meeting . Apparently he has to make a pitch to keep the managers job. Going on his time this season he has no chance!

[/quote]

The board are stringing you along. Ian Crook has had the job for next season written into his contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was on Radio Norfolk at 7.30 saying the same thing but what worried me the most was him saying that the loan market is being questioned by clubs but Norwich intend making full use again next season.

Do they never learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''d have thought Butterworth would be more likely to be manager than Chippy.

Or maybe it''s just that Ian Crook is my all-time favourite City player, and I don''t want him to fail and be crucified...

Share this post


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

He was on Radio Norfolk at 7.30 saying the same thing but what worried me the most was him saying that the loan market is being questioned by clubs but Norwich intend making full use again next season.

Do they never learn.

[/quote]Oh dear God, please tell me thats wind up?They are SERIOUSLY contemplating the loan market again next season?Why? It doesn''t fucking work and it hasn''t fucking worked!!!!! The proof is out there. We did it this season, we got relegated. Can''t they see that?The loan system works in one way and one way only. One, possibly two players in, and in for the season and from close season or August onwards. Players brought in because of experience not potential. But then leave it alone. Forget all the claptrap we got this season about it bringing in "qualilty" hell, in somecases, it even led to money being wasted on players who didn''t even play for us! Small exceptions granted-Lita one of perhaps three at very best. I repeat the fact Neil, it got us relegated this season, it gave us two squads-the regular players and the loanees-it gave and offered nothing, yesterdays denoument is all the evidence you will ever need.I hope that clubs do question and regulate the loan system and I am glad he is worried about it.

Share this post


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

He was on Radio Norfolk at 7.30 saying the same thing but what worried me the most was him saying that the loan market is being questioned by clubs but Norwich intend making full use again next season.

Do they never learn.

[/quote]

You must be kidding me... You really must![:''(]... [:''(]... [:''(]... [:@]... [:''(].....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time it''s ever really worked was when Huckerby, Crouch and Harper came in and we went on that title-winning run. Ever since then, there''s been a gross misconception by the powers that be, that each loan we bring in could be the next Huckerby...

I''m aghast that Doomcaster is even *considering* relying on loans again next season, we need to rebuild from the bottom up, if it''s a bunch of 18 year olds so be it, brirng them in from non-league if that''s all the finances allow, I don''t care - I just want our team to be OUR team, not a patchwork quilt made from hand-me-downs from Chelsea, Spurs, Palace, etc. 

As you say, perhaps Leroy Lita has been an exception, along with [arguably] Mooney and Lee... but I''d be dying to hear Doomcaster explain what positive results arose this season from borrowing the likes of Killen, Archibald-Henville, Koroma, Omozusi, etc... [and they''re just the ones which I can remember, which says it all]  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The loanees are not the reason we got relegated this season. 

The two weakest areas of the pitch were central midfield and full back.   Of those ONLY Bertie was a loanee,  and he played with more committment on monday nights than Ots, Cling or Russell - all permanent players.

We HAVE got the balance wrong.  However there is a place for us to build a squad that contains loanees.  We had too many this season,  and crucially too many that did not even get a game or were shocklingly poor (who was responsible for identifying those targets - oh yes....) The likes of Mooney, Lita, Lee, Bertrand and Lupoli were all better than we had and played well.

We had more problems with our ''owned'' players than the loaned - lack of committment/attitude problems from Russell, Clingan, Fozzy, Pattison, Otsemebor, shackell before he left,  - lack of bility from Otsemebor, Russell, Clingan, Fozzy, Pattison, Cureton, Lappin, Drury etc etc etc.

Lack of committment from loan players is a risk and more understandable;  however we saw less passion and fire from our own players (consistently from Russell, Clingan, Fozzy, Pattison, Otsemebor)  than we did the loanees - and that is unforgiveable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''d personally afford Clingan more credit than that - more often than not he''s been having to over-compensate for his midfield partner, be it Fotheringham or Russell.

But the point is that the money, time and resources spent on loan after useless loan could and should have been used better in bringing in permanent signings who would potentially have brought in stability and maybe even more quality to the exsisting side. I''ll agree that yes, several of the full-time squad are even more to blame, particularly Otsemobor, Fotheringham, Cureton, but reliance on those loans at the expense of real squad building have cost us very dear yet again.

That already, noises are coming out to suggest it''ll be more of the same next season, is very worrying indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cannot afford to bring in waste of space players like TAH, Sibierski, Koroma, Killen, Kennedy, Carney who drain good money away from us and were even worse than we had.  and gunn had a big hand in identifying and bringing those players here - THEY are the costly mistakes were cannot repeat - as are permanently signing past it uncommitted hasbeens (Russell, Cureton) and poor full backs who can run fast without having any footballing or defensive ability and really are not bothered that they dont...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only reason the board are keeping faith the loan market is that it worked ONCE... we got Peter Crouch, Kevin Harper, and Darren Huckerby....

2 of those players were internationals and 1 of them was at the time of life for a footballer where he wanted to settle down...

the board are hoping to hell that they can do something like that again. get in 2 up and coming international players we have some tiny chance of signing, or getting in the next hucks to win the fans over...

the chances ae very slim, we are more likely to get the next elliot Omozuis...

jas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

we are more likely to get the next elliot Omozuis...

jas :)

[/quote]

Not if the manager does their job properly!

And he WAS better than Ots [:-(]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think it would be madness to stick with gunn. He had his chance to prove he was the right man for the job and while i think he was unlucky in losing croft and hoolahan that i think was crucial to our survival, he is the man that took us down. How can we continue with him. We need experience to get us out of league 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they appoint Gunn I''d imagine there would be serious backlash. Never mind what he says in his pitch, Roeder talked a good game..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Munby was on Talksport this morning saying that the major reason for our downfall was the number of loanees. There is a case for some loanees but the usage of them this season has been way over the top and has cost us dearly in team spirit.

Share this post


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

The loanees are not the reason we got relegated this season. 

The two weakest areas of the pitch were central midfield and full back.   Of those ONLY Bertie was a loanee.

[/quote]Where did Shackell come from? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is clearly a loanee centre back - our weakest areas being full back and central midfield - who was far better as a returning loanee than a squad member

 

That our feckless uncle fester of a managee saw fit to repeat the atrocious worthy experiment of shackell at left back sums up the ineptitude of our coaching staff... 

Share this post


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

The loanees are not the reason we got relegated this season. 

The two weakest areas of the pitch were central midfield and full back.   Of those ONLY Bertie was a loanee,  and he played with more committment on monday nights than Ots, Cling or Russell - all permanent players.

We HAVE got the balance wrong.  However there is a place for us to build a squad that contains loanees.  We had too many this season,  and crucially too many that did not even get a game or were shocklingly poor (who was responsible for identifying those targets - oh yes....) The likes of Mooney, Lita, Lee, Bertrand and Lupoli were all better than we had and played well.

We had more problems with our ''owned'' players than the loaned - lack of committment/attitude problems from Russell, Clingan, Fozzy, Pattison, Otsemebor, shackell before he left,  - lack of bility from Otsemebor, Russell, Clingan, Fozzy, Pattison, Cureton, Lappin, Drury etc etc etc.

Lack of committment from loan players is a risk and more understandable;  however we saw less passion and fire from our own players (consistently from Russell, Clingan, Fozzy, Pattison, Otsemebor)  than we did the loanees - and that is unforgiveable

[/quote]

I think you need to watch the game again because Bertie has not out performed Clingan and his committment stinks of being a loanee unlike Clingan. Also where was Bertie yesterday when we needed him, allegedly out on the pull the night before along with a few others by all accounts whereas Clingan was one of just a few who gave their all.

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...