Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
singing canary

a message to the board... your a disgrace to this fine city !

Recommended Posts

firstly i will say well done burnley .

little ground , not a big budget , and about half the crowd norwich get.

delia blaming relegation due to the increasing player wage demand , unable to attract big players .

sorry delia once again you are wrong .

mistake after mistake , managers brought in who have no idea of what they are doing , poor quality players who are more than likely on double what players of burnley are on .

the is no excuse for this poor season we have had , and our worst season for fifty years.

i question the players we had , people like croft, marshall who were quick enough to shoulder the blame and depart the following week .

even after relegation , poor execuses .

if delia had this clubs interests at heart , she should be talking to the fans of norwich telling us how they arte going to put things right .

but no ,

bryan gunn stating we should be patient regarding players we are going to bring in , carry on and we once again will miss the good players as other clubs will come in and snap them up .

the clubs value must have gone down rapidly over the last few seasons , now after relegation will be worth less .

delia if you want out , you have to go now because your are a cook, and your popularity is going downhill as quickly as our leauge status .

i firmly think delia will not sell , or if she does, she wants a figure way above what this club is now worth , so we are in a catch 22 situation , and she is being stubborn and not budge what so ever ,and rather watch the club decline and the loyal fans of norwich suffer in the process .

carry on delia , giving the hard luck story , as no one is buying it now .

further more to this i am now in agreement with most people on here regarding the appoinment of bryan gunn , how on earth is gunn going to know what players we need , when he has never managed or played in this unknown division to norwich city.

its clear to see what she is doing , she will not put any money into the club as she wants rid of it , and hope we will just tick over untill its sold , but asking a very unrealistic price for it at the same time .

due to her serious lack of knowledge of football , that is not going to happen the club will go further into debt and the chances of selling it will decline day by day , and the club will be worth less ,

my grandfather went to every home game and away game for sixty years, at the age of 92 used to walk to the ground, this once great club will end up as nothing , he would turn in his grave now.

i dont believe for one minute no one , has offered to invest or help , its more lies ,the great fans of this club have had to suffer .

you need to cut your losses and go delia , before your losses increase tenfold , because you have no idea.

as i have said time and time again the relationship with delia and norwich city has turned very sour , and it will get worse we will never see glory days at carrow road again whilst we have someone with no idea at the helm of this club .

this is not your play toy delia , this is our club and we want it back .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''d love to hear her excuses SC on why and how, Burnley, have managed to get promoted on their low gates and budgets, and why we can''t match that ambition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to give a round of applause to the lads on the bus from the UEA in Norwich on Sunday evening for their "Die, die, Delia, Delia, die!" chants... one happy club building with no funds and a clueless manager for a promotion tilt?

I don''t think so... people in the City behind the current boardroom to resurrect our fortunes???? [:$]

Share this post


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

I''d love to hear her excuses SC on why and how, Burnley, have managed to get promoted on their low gates and budgets, and why we can''t match that ambition.

[/quote]

Is quite simple... Burnley put Football first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Felixfan"]Subject line:- Do you mean "you are"[/quote]

No he means clowns like you that still defend the cook and others who have all but destroyed our club are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="First Wizard"]

I''d love to hear her excuses SC on why and how, Burnley, have managed to get promoted on their low gates and budgets, and why we can''t match that ambition.

[/quote]

Is quite simple... Burnley put Football first.

[/quote]

I was not / am not the biggest fan of Glenn Roeder but to be fair to him if the board had backed him when he wanted to buy Tiny Taylor and Martin Paterson when he was still at Scunthorpe i dont think we would be anywhere near the trouble we are in now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="Felixfan"]Subject line:- Do you mean "you are"[/quote]

No he means clowns like you that still defend the cook and others who have all but destroyed our club are.

[/quote]

You don''t even know Felixfan and off you go again Smudger chucking insults around trying to gain friends and influence people.

Before you ask,yes i do know Felixfan and you are being grossly unfair in your tiresome "clown" approach to everyone who you think and assume supports Delia.

There you are then off you go with no doubt a slag off NCISA opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Duke"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="First Wizard"]

I''d love to hear her excuses SC on why and how, Burnley, have managed to get promoted on their low gates and budgets, and why we can''t match that ambition.

[/quote]

Is quite simple... Burnley put Football first.

[/quote] I was not / am not the biggest fan of Glenn Roeder but to be fair to him if the board had backed him when he wanted to buy Tiny Taylor and Martin Paterson when he was still at Scunthorpe i dont think we would be anywhere near the trouble we are in now.[/quote]

I have posted exactly the same thing on another thread today. 

Yet it still seems we have a large percentage of Norwich fans who are prepared to blame Roeder for much of what has gone wrong at our club.

Never liked the bloke at all, but to suggest it was his fault that we were relegated is frankly ridiculous in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="Felixfan"]Subject line:- Do you mean "you are"[/quote]

No he means clowns like you that still defend the cook and others who have all but destroyed our club are.

[/quote]

You don''t even know Felixfan and off you go again Smudger chucking insults around trying to gain friends and influence people.

Before you ask,yes i do know Felixfan and you are being grossly unfair in your tiresome "clown" approach to everyone who you think and assume supports Delia.

There you are then off you go with no doubt a slag off NCISA opportunity.

[/quote]

Whoever said that I was trying to gain friends or influence anybody Tilly?

I just tell it like it is... always have done always will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its the boards fault for approaching roeder , giving him the job , and grant and gunn.

cheap options or bad choices .

but to let roeder get away with what what he did was crazy .

the board should have asked for references from roeders previous clubs , because i cant see them being very good to be honest .

pay peanuts , you get monkeys , lets face it we have had a few chumps and chimps in this club over the last few years .

Share this post


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

its the boards fault for approaching roeder , giving him the job , and grant and gunn.

cheap options or bad choices .

but to let roeder get away with what what he did was crazy .

the board should have asked for references from roeders previous clubs , because i cant see them being very good to be honest .

pay peanuts , you get monkeys , lets face it we have had a few chumps and chimps in this club over the last few years .

[/quote]

Again i will say this i am not a Roeder fan, but when he first came here we looked like we were all but down. Yet he managed to keep us in the league which was nothing short of a miracle.

When he took over i think it was said he was promised "as much money as he wanted" if he''d kept us up. He kept us up and the board went back on their word and back him into a very tight corner. This which was either abandon the club or stay and work with what little funds he had. If he''d of left then i think he would still be respected by the fans as the guy who kept us up rather than one of the people who helped send us down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smudger you are so childish and never have anything constructive to say, i would expect your views and victimisation from an 8 year old and not you, you need to grow up.

The duke, Norwich did agree a few for Martin Taylor of £1m in the end, however Mcleish would not sell until he got a replacement in, Cahil went to Bolton at the last minute meaning there was no chance of signing Taylor. Unfortunately this one cannot be blamed on the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just explain to me how you are blaming the board for our failure v Burnleys success when by your own admission they provided a football budget 3 times the size of Burnley to the manager. Argue all you like about money spent elswhere in the club instead of players.

 

Simple fact  Norwich playing budget £8.5 million. Burnley playing budget £3.5 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes Norwich did agree a fee for Martin Taylor, When it was to late, everything this club does is always to late.

Now we are hearing Gunn say the same things as Worthless,Grant, and Roedent, "We have to be Paitent with Signings", the next words of wisdom will be "We were out bid",

The fans of this great club are sick to the back teeth of hearing sob story excuses from the Board room, Who are clearly to blame for our demise,

Talking about the big money and claiming they are at fault for our demise is no more than boardroom claptrap, I think that over tha past 13 years collectivley we the fans have equalled the money that she has put in.

If people out there think we will go straight back up, think again we will only sink lower as long as Smith and Jones along with Gunn are in charge, Having Green and Yellow blood is clearly not good enought, And anyone of us fans could have ticked all the same boxes as Gunn did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="trueyellow"]

Smudger you are so childish and never have anything constructive to say, i would expect your views and victimisation from an 8 year old and not you, you need to grow up.

The duke, Norwich did agree a few for Martin Taylor of £1m in the end, however Mcleish would not sell until he got a replacement in, Cahil went to Bolton at the last minute meaning there was no chance of signing Taylor. Unfortunately this one cannot be blamed on the board.

[/quote]

Of course it can...arguing the toss for months on end over an additional £100k or so lost us the chance of signing Taylor FULL STOP.

Birmingham were never going to sell to us because they were sick of dealing with Doncaster and Delia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="pete_norw"]Yes Norwich did agree a fee for Martin Taylor, When it was to late, everything this club does is always to late. Now we are hearing Gunn say the same things as Worthless,Grant, and Roedent, "We have to be Paitent with Signings", the next words of wisdom will be "We were out bid", The fans of this great club are sick to the back teeth of hearing sob story excuses from the Board room, Who are clearly to blame for our demise, Talking about the big money and claiming they are at fault for our demise is no more than boardroom claptrap, I think that over tha past 13 years collectivley we the fans have equalled the money that she has put in. If people out there think we will go straight back up, think again we will only sink lower as long as Smith and Jones along with Gunn are in charge, Having Green and Yellow blood is clearly not good enought, And anyone of us fans could have ticked all the same boxes as Gunn did[/quote]

Good post Pete... [Y]

Share this post


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

So just explain to me how you are blaming the board for our failure v Burnleys success when by your own admission they provided a football budget 3 times the size of Burnley to the manager. Argue all you like about money spent elswhere in the club instead of players.

 

Simple fact  Norwich playing budget £8.5 million. Burnley playing budget £3.5 million.

[/quote]

So it just comes down to player budget does it?

Burnley spent transfer fees on proven Championship quality that were wanted by other clubs at that level... we wasted money on unproven players and has beens just like we have been doing ever since promotion to the Premiership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="pete_norw"]Yes Norwich did agree a fee for Martin Taylor, When it was to late, everything this club does is always to late. [/quote]

No, you are wrong. Roeder put a value on Taylor''s head and entered a protractes slagging match with Brady over the difference between the two club''s valuations. It was only when he was running out of options did he agree a price with them, unfortunately their new manager stopped the deal when his own targets were not realised.

Share this post


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

So just explain to me how you are blaming the board for our failure v Burnleys success when by your own admission they provided a football budget 3 times the size of Burnley to the manager. Argue all you like about money spent elswhere in the club instead of players.

 

Simple fact  Norwich playing budget £8.5 million. Burnley playing budget £3.5 million.

[/quote]

So it just comes down to player budget does it?

Burnley spent transfer fees on proven Championship quality that were wanted by other clubs at that level... we wasted money on unproven players and has beens just like we have been doing ever since promotion to the Premiership.

[/quote]

And who chose those players? Not the Board was it?

Share this post


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

[quote user="pete_norw"]Yes Norwich did agree a fee for Martin Taylor, When it was to late, everything this club does is always to late. [/quote]

No, you are wrong. Roeder put a value on Taylor''s head and entered a protractes slagging match with Brady over the difference between the two club''s valuations. It was only when he was running out of options did he agree a price with them, unfortunately their new manager stopped the deal when his own targets were not realised.

[/quote]This is very much water under the bridge, but Mustachio Furioso is right. The directors were willing to pay the asking price of £1m for Taylor right at the start of the transfer window. It was Roeder who told the directors that was £250,000 too much. The point is that Roeder was assuming Gary Cahill would eventually sign for Birmingham, who would then reduce the price for Taylor.Instead, Cahill finally went to Bolton and Birmingham took Taylor, who had by then got back into the first-team reckoning, off the transfer list. At the 11th hour Roeder told the directors to offer £1m, but that was then refused by Birmingham on the basis they now needed to keep Taylor.You can blame the board for many things, but not signing Taylor was Roeder''s fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mustachio Furioso"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="jbghost"]

So just explain to me how you are blaming the board for our failure v Burnleys success when by your own admission they provided a football budget 3 times the size of Burnley to the manager. Argue all you like about money spent elswhere in the club instead of players.

 

Simple fact  Norwich playing budget £8.5 million. Burnley playing budget £3.5 million.

[/quote]

So it just comes down to player budget does it?

Burnley spent transfer fees on proven Championship quality that were wanted by other clubs at that level... we wasted money on unproven players and has beens just like we have been doing ever since promotion to the Premiership.

[/quote]

And who chose those players? Not the Board was it?

[/quote]

An up and coming, experinced young manager who was first of all brought in by the Burnley board and then given the finances to speak to players agents about bringing in proven quality (at that level) talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"]

[quote user="pete_norw"]Yes Norwich did agree a fee for Martin Taylor, When it was to late, everything this club does is always to late. [/quote]

No, you are wrong. Roeder put a value on Taylor''s head and entered a protractes slagging match with Brady over the difference between the two club''s valuations. It was only when he was running out of options did he agree a price with them, unfortunately their new manager stopped the deal when his own targets were not realised.

[/quote]

This is very much water under the bridge, but Mustachio Furioso is right. The directors were willing to pay the asking price of £1m for Taylor right at the start of the transfer window. It was Roeder who told the directors that was £250,000 too much. The point is that Roeder was assuming Gary Cahill would eventually sign for Birmingham, who would then reduce the price for Taylor.

Instead, Cahill finally went to Bolton and Birmingham took Taylor, who had by then got back into the first-team reckoning, off the transfer list. At the 11th hour Roeder told the directors to offer £1m, but that was then refused by Birmingham on the basis they now needed to keep Taylor.

You can blame the board for many things, but not signing Taylor was Roeder''s fault.[/quote]

Really?

Find the evidence then... think it is just some of your well worded Billy Bull... not how I and many others remember things at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"]

[quote user="pete_norw"]Yes Norwich did agree a fee for Martin Taylor, When it was to late, everything this club does is always to late. [/quote]

No, you are wrong. Roeder put a value on Taylor''s head and entered a protractes slagging match with Brady over the difference between the two club''s valuations. It was only when he was running out of options did he agree a price with them, unfortunately their new manager stopped the deal when his own targets were not realised.

[/quote]This is very much water under the bridge, but Mustachio Furioso is right. The directors were willing to pay the asking price of £1m for Taylor right at the start of the transfer window. It was Roeder who told the directors that was £250,000 too much. The point is that Roeder was assuming Gary Cahill would eventually sign for Birmingham, who would then reduce the price for Taylor.Instead, Cahill finally went to Bolton and Birmingham took Taylor, who had by then got back into the first-team reckoning, off the transfer list. At the 11th hour Roeder told the directors to offer £1m, but that was then refused by Birmingham on the basis they now needed to keep Taylor.You can blame the board for many things, but not signing Taylor was Roeder''s fault.[/quote]

Really?

Find the evidence then... think it is just some of your well worded Billy Bull... not how I and many others remember things at all.

[/quote]The EDP of December 22nd, 2007:Norwich City are unlikely to increase their bid for Martin Taylor after manager Glenn Roeder said enough is enough.Birmingham, who agreed a £1.25m fee with Queen''s Park Rangers [Birmingham then cut the price to £1m after Taylor refused to go to QPR] refused

to allow City to extend Taylor''s loan, and then disputed Roeder''s

assertion that the Blues had snubbed an "excellent" offer. But Roeder

has reiterated his belief that Taylor will not play for the London club

- and says the deal may be resurrected - but not through Norwich upping

their offer.The

Birmingham City central defender has found himself on the wrong end of

a tussle for his services following the completion of a successful loan

spell at Carrow Road."That might just be completely stone dead now or it might rear its head again at the end of the window," said Roeder.Asked whether it would depend on City offering more cash he said: "No, I don''t want to We have offered more than enough. And the money has to be spread

round. It is all about valuations and I know that our valuation and

offer was an extremely good offer. It just so happens that QPR offered

a bit more, but it''s a worthless offer, because he won''t go there."------So that is Roeder saying HE didn''t want to pay more than £750,000, that HE considered that more than a fair price. If it was the board that was the problem he wouldn''t have made it plain he thought £750,000 was more than enough; he might even have hinted that he wanted to pay more but was being refused the money. Managers are not above that kind of blackmail. But Roeder kept stressing he didn''t think Taylor was worth more.And if you look back you will see Birmingham were convinced they were going to get Cahill from Villa, making Taylor surplus to requirements and so making it likely they would reduce the price to offload him. But, as it happens Cahill went to Bolton. We then offered £1m, which was refused. In other words, Roeder indulged in a bit of brinkmanship, and lost out.Glad you find my stuff so well-worded, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"]

[quote user="pete_norw"]Yes Norwich did agree a fee for Martin Taylor, When it was to late, everything this club does is always to late. [/quote]

No, you are wrong. Roeder put a value on Taylor''s head and entered a protractes slagging match with Brady over the difference between the two club''s valuations. It was only when he was running out of options did he agree a price with them, unfortunately their new manager stopped the deal when his own targets were not realised.

[/quote]

This is very much water under the bridge, but Mustachio Furioso is right. The directors were willing to pay the asking price of £1m for Taylor right at the start of the transfer window. It was Roeder who told the directors that was £250,000 too much. The point is that Roeder was assuming Gary Cahill would eventually sign for Birmingham, who would then reduce the price for Taylor.

Instead, Cahill finally went to Bolton and Birmingham took Taylor, who had by then got back into the first-team reckoning, off the transfer list. At the 11th hour Roeder told the directors to offer £1m, but that was then refused by Birmingham on the basis they now needed to keep Taylor.

You can blame the board for many things, but not signing Taylor was Roeder''s fault.[/quote]

Really?

Find the evidence then... think it is just some of your well worded Billy Bull... not how I and many others remember things at all.

[/quote]

The EDP of December 22nd, 2007:

Norwich City are unlikely to increase their bid for Martin Taylor after manager Glenn Roeder said enough is enough.

Birmingham, who agreed a £1.25m fee with Queen''s Park Rangers [Birmingham then cut the price to £1m after Taylor refused to go to QPR] refused to allow City to extend Taylor''s loan, and then disputed Roeder''s assertion that the Blues had snubbed an "excellent" offer. But Roeder has reiterated his belief that Taylor will not play for the London club - and says the deal may be resurrected - but not through Norwich upping their offer.

The Birmingham City central defender has found himself on the wrong end of a tussle for his services following the completion of a successful loan spell at Carrow Road.

"That might just be completely stone dead now or it might rear its head again at the end of the window," said Roeder.

Asked whether it would depend on City offering more cash he said: "No, I don''t want to We have offered more than enough. And the money has to be spread round. It is all about valuations and I know that our valuation and offer was an extremely good offer. It just so happens that QPR offered a bit more, but it''s a worthless offer, because he won''t go there."

------

So that is Roeder saying HE didn''t want to pay more than £750,000, that HE considered that more than a fair price. If it was the board that was the problem he wouldn''t have made it plain he thought £750,000 was more than enough; he might even have hinted that he wanted to pay more but was being refused the money. Managers are not above that kind of blackmail. But Roeder kept stressing he didn''t think Taylor was worth more.

And if you look back you will see Birmingham were convinced they were going to get Cahill from Villa, making Taylor surplus to requirements and so making it likely they would reduce the price to offload him. But, as it happens Cahill went to Bolton. We then offered £1m, which was refused. In other words, Roeder indulged in a bit of brinkmanship, and lost out.

Glad you find my stuff so well-worded, though.[/quote]

But why was Roeder involved in a bit of brinkmanship over £250k which could of definitely saved us from relegation at the time and may of pushed us up to the dizzy heights of the play-offs?

If he had £3million to spend on transfer fees that transfer window are you trying to tell me that he would not of paid the price which many fans and the national media felt was a fair price for such a player?

Also what happened to his interest in Paterson?  I suppose you can find another press release along similar lines to the Taylor one?  I seem to remember that there was one and that Roeder had other targets that did not involve a transfer fee.

Lupoli or Martin Paterson?  I think we saw the difference yesterday and have done all season long.

Of course, as with Worthy, Roeder was working with his C list... when the two mentioned players were obviously on his A list or B list.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"]

[quote user="pete_norw"]Yes Norwich did agree a fee for Martin Taylor, When it was to late, everything this club does is always to late. [/quote]

No, you are wrong. Roeder put a value on Taylor''s head and entered a protractes slagging match with Brady over the difference between the two club''s valuations. It was only when he was running out of options did he agree a price with them, unfortunately their new manager stopped the deal when his own targets were not realised.

[/quote]This is very much water under the bridge, but Mustachio Furioso is right. The directors were willing to pay the asking price of £1m for Taylor right at the start of the transfer window. It was Roeder who told the directors that was £250,000 too much. The point is that Roeder was assuming Gary Cahill would eventually sign for Birmingham, who would then reduce the price for Taylor.Instead, Cahill finally went to Bolton and Birmingham took Taylor, who had by then got back into the first-team reckoning, off the transfer list. At the 11th hour Roeder told the directors to offer £1m, but that was then refused by Birmingham on the basis they now needed to keep Taylor.You can blame the board for many things, but not signing Taylor was Roeder''s fault.[/quote]

Really?

Find the evidence then... think it is just some of your well worded Billy Bull... not how I and many others remember things at all.

[/quote]The EDP of December 22nd, 2007:Norwich City are unlikely to increase their bid for Martin Taylor after manager Glenn Roeder said enough is enough.Birmingham, who agreed a £1.25m fee with Queen''s Park Rangers [Birmingham then cut the price to £1m after Taylor refused to go to QPR] refused to allow City to extend Taylor''s loan, and then disputed Roeder''s assertion that the Blues had snubbed an "excellent" offer. But Roeder has reiterated his belief that Taylor will not play for the London club - and says the deal may be resurrected - but not through Norwich upping their offer.The Birmingham City central defender has found himself on the wrong end of a tussle for his services following the completion of a successful loan spell at Carrow Road."That might just be completely stone dead now or it might rear its head again at the end of the window," said Roeder.Asked whether it would depend on City offering more cash he said: "No, I don''t want to We have offered more than enough. And the money has to be spread round. It is all about valuations and I know that our valuation and offer was an extremely good offer. It just so happens that QPR offered a bit more, but it''s a worthless offer, because he won''t go there."------So that is Roeder saying HE didn''t want to pay more than £750,000, that HE considered that more than a fair price. If it was the board that was the problem he wouldn''t have made it plain he thought £750,000 was more than enough; he might even have hinted that he wanted to pay more but was being refused the money. Managers are not above that kind of blackmail. But Roeder kept stressing he didn''t think Taylor was worth more.And if you look back you will see Birmingham were convinced they were going to get Cahill from Villa, making Taylor surplus to requirements and so making it likely they would reduce the price to offload him. But, as it happens Cahill went to Bolton. We then offered £1m, which was refused. In other words, Roeder indulged in a bit of brinkmanship, and lost out.Glad you find my stuff so well-worded, though.[/quote]

But why was Roeder involved in a bit of brinkmanship over £250k which could of definitely saved us from relegation at the time and may of pushed us up to the dizzy heights of the play-offs?

If he had £3million to spend on transfer fees that transfer window are you trying to tell me that he would not of paid the price which many fans and the national media felt was a fair price for such a player?

Also what happened to his interest in Paterson?  I suppose you can find another press release along similar lines to the Taylor one?  I seem to remember that there was one and that Roeder had other targets that did not involve a transfer fee.

Lupoli or Martin Paterson?  I think we saw the difference yesterday and have done all season long.

Of course, as with Worthy, Roeder was working with his C list... when the two mentioned players were obviously on his A list or B list.

 

[/quote]Why did Roeder indulge in brinkmanship just for the sake of £250,000? You would have to ask him that. But it is what managers do sometimes. And it IS what happened on this occasion. He was too clever by half. Just as he was with assuming he would get Iversen last summer. A mistake that probably cost Roeder his job.As to Paterson, I have no idea, and have never pretended to have a clue. But as far as Taylor goes, my explanation (which corroborates that of Mustachio Furioso) is correct. Afraid you will have to cross Martin Taylor off that list of yours of crimes for which the directors stand accused. But I''m sure there are plenty left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mustachio Furioso"]

[quote user="pete_norw"]Yes Norwich did agree a fee for Martin Taylor, When it was to late, everything this club does is always to late. [/quote]

No, you are wrong. Roeder put a value on Taylor''s head and entered a protractes slagging match with Brady over the difference between the two club''s valuations. It was only when he was running out of options did he agree a price with them, unfortunately their new manager stopped the deal when his own targets were not realised.

[/quote]

This is very much water under the bridge, but Mustachio Furioso is right. The directors were willing to pay the asking price of £1m for Taylor right at the start of the transfer window. It was Roeder who told the directors that was £250,000 too much. The point is that Roeder was assuming Gary Cahill would eventually sign for Birmingham, who would then reduce the price for Taylor.

Instead, Cahill finally went to Bolton and Birmingham took Taylor, who had by then got back into the first-team reckoning, off the transfer list. At the 11th hour Roeder told the directors to offer £1m, but that was then refused by Birmingham on the basis they now needed to keep Taylor.

You can blame the board for many things, but not signing Taylor was Roeder''s fault.[/quote]

Really?

Find the evidence then... think it is just some of your well worded Billy Bull... not how I and many others remember things at all.

[/quote]

The EDP of December 22nd, 2007:

Norwich City are unlikely to increase their bid for Martin Taylor after manager Glenn Roeder said enough is enough.

Birmingham, who agreed a £1.25m fee with Queen''s Park Rangers [Birmingham then cut the price to £1m after Taylor refused to go to QPR] refused to allow City to extend Taylor''s loan, and then disputed Roeder''s assertion that the Blues had snubbed an "excellent" offer. But Roeder has reiterated his belief that Taylor will not play for the London club - and says the deal may be resurrected - but not through Norwich upping their offer.

The Birmingham City central defender has found himself on the wrong end of a tussle for his services following the completion of a successful loan spell at Carrow Road.

"That might just be completely stone dead now or it might rear its head again at the end of the window," said Roeder.

Asked whether it would depend on City offering more cash he said: "No, I don''t want to We have offered more than enough. And the money has to be spread round. It is all about valuations and I know that our valuation and offer was an extremely good offer. It just so happens that QPR offered a bit more, but it''s a worthless offer, because he won''t go there."

------

So that is Roeder saying HE didn''t want to pay more than £750,000, that HE considered that more than a fair price. If it was the board that was the problem he wouldn''t have made it plain he thought £750,000 was more than enough; he might even have hinted that he wanted to pay more but was being refused the money. Managers are not above that kind of blackmail. But Roeder kept stressing he didn''t think Taylor was worth more.

And if you look back you will see Birmingham were convinced they were going to get Cahill from Villa, making Taylor surplus to requirements and so making it likely they would reduce the price to offload him. But, as it happens Cahill went to Bolton. We then offered £1m, which was refused. In other words, Roeder indulged in a bit of brinkmanship, and lost out.

Glad you find my stuff so well-worded, though.[/quote]

But why was Roeder involved in a bit of brinkmanship over £250k which could of definitely saved us from relegation at the time and may of pushed us up to the dizzy heights of the play-offs?

If he had £3million to spend on transfer fees that transfer window are you trying to tell me that he would not of paid the price which many fans and the national media felt was a fair price for such a player?

Also what happened to his interest in Paterson?  I suppose you can find another press release along similar lines to the Taylor one?  I seem to remember that there was one and that Roeder had other targets that did not involve a transfer fee.

Lupoli or Martin Paterson?  I think we saw the difference yesterday and have done all season long.

Of course, as with Worthy, Roeder was working with his C list... when the two mentioned players were obviously on his A list or B list.

 

[/quote]

Why did Roeder indulge in brinkmanship just for the sake of £250,000? You would have to ask him that. But it is what managers do sometimes. And it IS what happened on this occasion. He was too clever by half. Just as he was with assuming he would get Iversen last summer. A mistake that probably cost Roeder his job.

As to Paterson, I have no idea, and have never pretended to have a clue. But as far as Taylor goes, my explanation (which corroborates that of Mustachio Furioso) is correct. Afraid you will have to cross Martin Taylor off that list of yours of crimes for which the directors stand accused. But I''m sure there are plenty left.[/quote]

Oh I see, it was about us being cleverer was it?

Maybe he had instructions from the Doomcaster then??? [:|]

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...