Crooks 18 months??

[CANARY CHARGE 0]

The only reason i can see why they would give crook 18 months was they were worried about appointing Gunn in the first place, By appointing a team of ex Norwich players it strengthens there position and create''s a band of creability around the appointment, i really hope the learn from there mistakes, and Gunn does not get the job!! Lets hope todays movements cerments good times at carrow road!

[chicken 0]

[quote user="CANARYCHARGE"]The only reason i can see why they would give crook 18 months was they were worried about appointing Gunn in the first place, By appointing a team of ex Norwich players it strengthens there position and create''s a band of creability around the appointment, i really hope the learn from there mistakes, and Gunn does not get the job!! Lets hope todays movements cerments good times at carrow road![/quote]A: There are plenty of posts on this subject already why start a new one.B: I think that the board wanted him as well as Gunn, and if we are lead to believe that the papers get things right sometimes he applied for the managers position both when Grant and then Roeder got the job. Perhaps they felt by bringing him in even if it was to work as part of a team they could get to see how he works with the players and if he has what it would take to be a manager. In addition to that he wasn''t going to drop a 3 year deal on the other side of the world for a 3 month one here.At the end of the day - as I said on another post - if worse comes to worse they could re-assign him to something like head of the accademy but so far the names that are being bandied around as possible managers may well keep him on anyway as they don''t seem to have their own established backroom team. The likes of Boothroyd or Ince.Its no big deal really, I cant imagine he is on a lot of money - he isn''t even the assistant manager.