People say it wasn't Gunn's team BUT.....

[canarynotsonew77 0]

wasn''t he head of player recruitment? I know Roeder had the final say in signing but come on, surely Gunn can''t rely too much on the team not being his. Plus he did bring in his own players too - some ok, some very poor indeed. It just seems that Gunn will cling on to this job by any means necessary.

[Gentleman Jim 0]

[quote user="canaryspike7"]wasn''t he head of player recruitment? I know Roeder had the final say in signing but come on, surely Gunn can''t rely too much on the team not being his. Plus he did bring in his own players too - some ok, some very poor indeed. It just seems that Gunn will cling on to this job by any means necessary.[/quote]

We don''t know for sure yet "Be Smart" do we ? : Even though your fictitious "man-in-smart-suit" said so ! [:D]

 

[Rupethebear 0]

He did bring in several players and my point is that the way his team played at Birmingham was good enough to keep us up yet after that match they lost 5 from 6. Perhaps he couldn''t motivate them??

[Budapest Canary 152]

When he took over from Grant, Roeder brought in about as many loanees as Gunn did, and at that time that was enought for him to shake things up well before the window. Gunn made quite substantial changes, but they didn''t work.

[canary cherub 1]

Gunny''s job was to keep us exactly where we were, no more no less.  We weren''t in the relegation zone when he was appointed and he had 19 games to keep our heads above water.  He couldn''t make any permanent signings but he brought in three or four loanees.

There was only one relegation spot really up for grabs.  Charlton were as good as down and Southampton hardly threatened even before the points deduction sealed their fate.  The other candidates were those giants of the Championship Plymouth, Barnsley and Blackpool, together with Forest in their first season back in the division.  The odds were stacked in his favour. 

By any standards he didn''t succeed, and I can''t think of another club where appointing him permanently would even be considered. 

Nothing personal against Gunny, but that''s how football works - at every other club except Norwich City it seems.  If he''s appointed it will be final proof that we have cut ourselves adrift from the wider world of football and are floating away over the horizon into oblivion.

 

 

[John Boubepo 0]

Ok let''s pretend the whole squad was Gunns just so we can bash him some more, no doubt it was his decision to bring in over 30 loanees over the last 3 -4 years!A squad made up of loanees doesn''t work, pure and simple, It may have seemed the cheap way out for a club with no money but we have learnt the hard way,          Clubs with slightly less skillful players and youngsters they can call their own,  will do better than a club made up of supposedly more skillful players on loan.That''s the root of the problem folks and that''s your lesson for today.           

[Binky 0]

[quote user="John Boubepo"]Ok let''s pretend the whole squad was Gunns just so we can bash him some more, no doubt it was his decision to bring in over 30 loanees over the last 3 -4 years!A squad made up of loanees doesn''t work, pure and simple, It may have seemed the cheap way out for a club with no money but we have learnt the hard way,          Clubs with slightly less skillful players and youngsters they can call their own,  will do better than a club made up of supposedly more skillful players on loan.That''s the root of the problem folks and that''s your lesson for today.            [/quote]Well said JB. Add to that the absence of any "big captain" on the pitch and Gunn had a problem that was definitely not of his making. (Anyone keeping count on all these duplicate threads...?)