Glenn Roeder ~ The myth perpetuates

[The Fish Seller 0]

So we have made a loss in excess of £5,000,000 and apparently this is largely attributable to Glen Roeders loan policy hmmm.Roeder brought in 18 loans in a season running up a six figure bill in signing on fees and..... Wait a minute the loss was a large seven figure sum, how on earth could this be caused by Roeder? Surely the most he could be could thus be blamed for is one fifth of the loss so who is to blame for the other 80%?Why did he bring in 18 loans? I''m guessing here when I suggest it''s because the club had previously cashed in on so many players that we didn''t actually own enough senior pros to field a full squad and wasn''t that still the case even when we awarded contracts to some of the youngsters who in reality weren''t actually ready and were hugely unlikely to feature regularly if at all?So we have a manager without a team to manage and a budget of £x plus wages with which to build a team to compete in the Championship. We don''t know and never will know what £x was, we can guess of course given the loss posted the previous year and the woeful state of the Clubs accounts that it wasn''t a particularly large sum, whether it was more than the ''six figure sum'' spent on loans we don''t know, possibly GR is unique in the football management world in that he just didn''t want to spend up to the maximum available to him to build the best possible team on which to place his professional reputation? Maybe he was given a transfer budget of millions and genuinely saw a series of loans as the best policy? Maybe he really did want to put the rest of his management career on the line by deliberately not assembling a solid team core but I doubt it.We were treated to Neil Doncaster telling us that our player budget was one of the largest in the division that year at around £8.5m, a figure now strangely quoted as being ''the wage bill''. Now if the ''wage bill'' was £8.5m and the player budget was also £8.5m simple arithmetic tells us that the amount available for transfers was £0 so how come we then had money available to spend  a six figure sum on loans? Jason Shackell? Again we can only guess but it makes sense that the Shackell transfer money was all GR had to play with during the entire season, of course he also had to now replace Shacks himself too on top of all the other Pros we''d sold thus further diluting the kitty.At times we fielded six or seven loans in a squad during that year such was the lack of strength in our own (owned) squad so it would be difficult to argue that we didn''t need at least half a dozen players and if all GR had available to him was £x and £x was a ''six figure sum'' I suggest he would have had to have been extremely fortunate to purchase six players, each and every one of a suitable standard with no room for mistakes, the moreso when you look at how much a Championship quality striker alone costs.Perhaps if the club were blaming Glenn Roeder for wasting 3 or 4 million pounds worth of the clubs transfer budget on loan players I would feel more inclined to concur with this theory but blaming a man who was in dire need of at least six championship quality players for spending a ''six figure sum'' to acquire the services of sufficient of these players on a short term loan basis to cover the gaping holes in our squad left by previous years plundering of the talent is abhorrent.To further stoop and lay a hefty loss of more than £5,000,000 at the feet of Glenn Roeder is not only unprofessional and cynical but just downright nasty.The books tell us that the club were quite capable of making seven figure losses before GR ever walked through the door. Remember the previous years loss would not have been that far short of the 08-09 loss were it not for a last minute bail out of some £2m by Delia and MWJ. The fact is that the 07-08 account would have been far greater than the posted loss were it not for those good old ''profits from player transfers''.Glenn Roeder is being blamed for a loss which already existed and this year could not be mitigated by a bail out by the directors or sales of players.Why? Well I can''t suggest why the directors didn''t chuck a couple of mill  in as in the previous year. There''s no obligation and it would be wrong of me to suggest there was or that anybody should be blamed for not throwing their hard earned into the pot. Break even or profit was only achieved in earlier years through ''profits from player transfers'' without which we would have been posting losses for four of the last five years.But there is an answer when we look at the question of why the ''profits on player trading'' were not used to reduce the clubs loss?And I think we all know the answer to that one.There was one other person at the club who cost the club a six figure amount last year.This person has presided over the club for a while during which time we have seen one promotion and two relegations.We''ve seen the club debt increase from 6 to 23 million.We''ve seen the team devalued season upon season.We''ve seen the club spend a large amount of money on the white elephant that is land.We''ve seen non playing costs rocket under this mans tenure.We''ve seen a corner of our ground turned into a Holiday InnAnd we''ve seen our clubs accounts deteriorate year after year for five years in a row.And we alll witnessed this man jumping ship to save his own career just before the doodoo hit the fan.Of course just like Glenn Roeder this man is no longer at the club but strangely there''s no mention of him being to blame for anything in todays article.It is apparently now all Glenn Roeders fault, just as it was all Robert Chases fault and so the myth continues.

[Beauseant 0]

Superb post[Y]

[nutty nigel 7,531]

It''s a good read Beaus but I''d be interested to know who it is that''s blaming Glen Roeder....

 

[William Darby 0]

Glenn Roeder was the main culprit for getting us relegated (with a dollop of useless Gunn).  So it is fair to blame Roeder up to a point for us taking a big financial hit is it not?

[morty 0]

Is it a simplistic view that normally the manager goes to the board stating what he wants to do, and then they see if its financially viable?Though stupidity did reign if Rodent proposed it and the board thought it a good idea to give him the cash!I''d suspect a collective blame rather than an individual!

[Nuff Said 5,129]

How much were agents'' fees? Presumably a large portion of these were loan related. Also, we don''t know how loan players'' wages compare to those we would have paid had we signed permanent players, but given that a lot of the loans were from Prem clubs they could well be higher. It smacks a little of hindsight to me to pick over the bones of whether £8.5 million was the player budget or the wage bill - if the manager is told you have £8.5 million to spend and chooses not to buy any permanent players, doesn''t this become the wage bill?Having said that, I don''t disagree with the thrust of your argument that the responsibility for the way the club is run has to ultimately lie with the Chief Exec - he sanctioons the appointment of the manager and how he spends the club''s money.Buckethead, do you have questions prepared for the webchat?

[Disco Dale 0]

A reliable informent did tell that Roeder sold Jason Shackell to fund Sibierskis (massive) wages.And the transfer fee still didnt cover it.Very clever Glenn.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Disco Dale"]

A reliable informent did tell that Roeder sold Jason Shackell to fund Sibierskis (massive) wages.And the transfer fee still didnt cover it.Very clever Glenn.

[/quote]Blimey!

[B-ru 0]

OK, whilst I am in agreement that not everything can be landed at Roeder''s feet, I think there has been a misconception/misquote...

This is the paragraph that I presume you read and felt was a point that had to be questioned...

"The Canaries loaned 18 players last season, with the club paying six-figure signing-on fees and wages without purchasing any players that the club could consider a sellable asset."

It doesn''t say that it was a six-figure sum for all 18 players... more like per player!!

Also, considering the players we got in on loan were Pram/Champ players, they are more likely to carry not only larger wages, but larger signing on fees. Adding the sheer amount of players we had on loan... even if the signing on fees were £100,000 per player (not unusual) this is a low price to get someone on loan and with 18 players is £1.8m, and this is without wages and the fact that some will be more than the £100k previously stated. Bertrand was here for a whoel season and no doubt we would have to pay the majority of his wages... so if you actually break it all down... This £5m is n''t far off...

This is just my calculation, is this unrealistic?

[William Darby 0]

Glenn Roeder was an arrogant bar steward.  I''m guessing he''d have said, you employed me as manager I''ll do it how I see it, with the funds available.  He chose to spunk it on loans in some kind of football experiment, and it got us relegated.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

The loan policy was Doncasters idea to save money and Roeder being an old hand grateful to have such a good managerial job didn''t argue and went along with it!

The old south stand needed replacing cause it would cost money just to keep sprucing it up to pass safety certificates and it offered no alternative income streams like office space, corporate facilities and function rooms.

The infill was I believe paid for by selling the other corner of for a hotel. The infill is filled to capacity most games and the hotel earns the club money. Like any football purist I''d of rather seen a hotel built onto the back of a seating area their but finances didn''t stretch that far. Its also possible in the future to build the ground up to a capacity of over 35,000 in other stands so the loss of at the most 2500 seats in this area is not disasterous!

The loan policy was a false economy as they were expensive and 75% of the loanees didn''t do any good because some were just poor quality, others were too young or old and most of them lacked that extra edge that comes from being owned by the club. Its obvious that keeping Huckerby, releasing eagle and not signing no mark loanees like Archibald Henville, Koroma, Gibbs, Henry and others would of been cheaper and the team would of been more successfull.

The club obviously had problems before Roeder but his disasterous management of the team only made things much worse!

While I think messrs Doncaster and Munby were decent people with the best of intentions but their decisions from when we won the 1st Division in 2003/04 to their resignations last summer were mainly the wrong ones which has led to us playing in the 3rd Division for the 1st time in 49 years.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="grantroederdisaster"]The loan policy was Doncasters idea to save money and Roeder being an old hand grateful to have such a good managerial job didn''t argue and went along with it!

The old south stand needed replacing cause it would cost money just to keep sprucing it up to pass safety certificates and it offered no alternative income streams like office space, corporate facilities and function rooms.

The infill was I believe paid for by selling the other corner of for a hotel. The infill is filled to capacity most games and the hotel earns the club money. Like any football purist I''d of rather seen a hotel built onto the back of a seating area their but finances didn''t stretch that far. Its also possible in the future to build the ground up to a capacity of over 35,000 in other stands so the loss of at the most 2500 seats in this area is not disasterous!

The loan policy was a false economy as they were expensive and 75% of the loanees didn''t do any good because some were just poor quality, others were too young or old and most of them lacked that extra edge that comes from being owned by the club. Its obvious that keeping Huckerby, releasing eagle and not signing no mark loanees like Archibald Henville, Koroma, Gibbs, Henry and others would of been cheaper and the team would of been more successfull.

The club obviously had problems before Roeder but his disasterous management of the team only made things much worse!

While I think messrs Doncaster and Munby were decent people with the best of intentions but their decisions from when we won the 1st Division in 2003/04 to their resignations last summer were mainly the wrong ones which has led to us playing in the 3rd Division for the 1st time in 49 years.[/quote]Do you honestly think Doomy told Roeder to build a squd of loans????[*-)]

[Mr.Carrow 376]

The £8.5m "wages" thing is very obviously a misunderstanding imo.  I believe that player wages will be about the same as the previous seasons £6.8m and the other £1.7m was what was available to bring a squad of 14 pro`s (including several kids who were not up to it), up to a decent Championship standard.  So we had £1.7m to sign about 8 players to strengthen an appallingly weak squad- so about £200k per player including signing/agents fees etc.  Would we have got a better result if we`d signed cheap permanants rather than loans?  Possible but unlikely imo.  The real question is why on earth our squad was allowed to get so weak in the first place....

Good post though Buckethead, and i totally agree that blaming Roeder for a £5m loss is ludicrous Doncaster-esque spin of the highest order.  Let`s hope they put it right in the Q and A later.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]Superb post[Y][/quote]

Second that.

It''s surprising how those known losses have concentrated certain peoples minds to at last get proffessional help.

Now wait and see what has been done to aleviate the debt burden and you will then understand why the accounts have been delayed.

 

[Dion Dublin=Legend 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s a good read Beaus but I''d be interested to know who it is that''s blaming Glen Roeder....

 

[/quote]

The "EXCLUSIVE!" headline on the EDP website. The storty is that we are now £5 million worse off than we were one year previously. It''s is accompanied by a picture of... Glenn Roeder. Why isn''t there a picture of Neil Doncaster?

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Nuff Said"]Buckethead, do you have questions prepared for the webchat?[/quote]Yes I''ve submitted two questions, fingers crossed MF gets the time to answer them.In a nutshell I''ve asked whether GR''s loan policy was a deliberate choice or whether it was forced upon him and had to be implemented due to budget constraints and the cost of purchasing the required half a dozen championship players (plus) in the closed season, and whether we can actually afford to be promoted this year (ie can we push on and consolidate or are we going to be in a position where all our better (champs quality) players must be offloaded to keep the club solvent in that league.

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="Disco Dale"]

A reliable informent did tell that Roeder sold Jason Shackell to fund Sibierskis (massive) wages.And the transfer fee still didnt cover it.Very clever Glenn.

[/quote]Christ id forgotten all about Sitonhisarski. He must have been the worst signing in the clubs history.

[Nuff Said 5,129]

Good luck getting an answer to those!Perhaps if you started with something crawly thanking him for buying Grant Holt you might stand a better chance.

[William Darby 0]

[quote][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s a good read Beaus but I''d be interested to know who it is that''s blaming Glen Roeder....

 

[/quote]

The "EXCLUSIVE!" headline on the EDP website. The storty is that we are now £5 million worse off than we were one year previously. It''s is accompanied by a picture of... Glenn Roeder. Why isn''t there a picture of Neil Doncaster?

[/quote]Obviously they''re counting the perceived lost revenue due to him being blamed for relegation.

[Dion Dublin=Legend 0]

[quote user="Tunica Molesta"][quote][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s a good read Beaus but I''d be interested to know who it is that''s blaming Glen Roeder....

 

[/quote]

The "EXCLUSIVE!" headline on the EDP website. The storty is that we are now £5 million worse off than we were one year previously. It''s is accompanied by a picture of... Glenn Roeder. Why isn''t there a picture of Neil Doncaster?

[/quote]

Obviously they''re counting the perceived lost revenue due to him being blamed for relegation.
[/quote]

The accounting period is to May 31st 2009, so it refers to losses incurred while we were still in the Championship, rather than the drop in revenue we''ll have encountered this season.

[William Darby 0]

[quote][quote user="Tunica Molesta"][quote][quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s a good read Beaus but I''d be interested to know who it is that''s blaming Glen Roeder....

 

[/quote]

The "EXCLUSIVE!" headline on the EDP website. The storty is that we are now £5 million worse off than we were one year previously. It''s is accompanied by a picture of... Glenn Roeder. Why isn''t there a picture of Neil Doncaster?

[/quote]Obviously they''re counting the perceived lost revenue due to him being blamed for relegation.[/quote]

The accounting period is to May 31st 2009, so it refers to losses incurred while we were still in the Championship, rather than the drop in revenue we''ll have encountered this season.

[/quote]My bad should have read it properly

[Houston Canary 0]

Who made the maddeningly weird line uop selections week after week, leaving good players on the bench or in the stands while trying to re-shape the team into his own image at whatever points it cost us?

[grantroederdisaster 0]

Exactly!

With a good manager or shall I suggest a PROPER manager we could of survived the loans policy!

Roeder together with Grant were awful appointments which led to Gunny taking the job cause noone else wanted it last season!

Lambert has so far done wonders with players he inherited and a very limited budget!

Doncaster while a nice bloke f*cked up bigtime!

Mcnally might be nasty but he seems to know what hes doing so far!

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="Barclayman"][quote user="Disco Dale"]

A reliable informent did tell that Roeder sold Jason Shackell to fund Sibierskis (massive) wages.And the transfer fee still didnt cover it.Very clever Glenn.

[/quote]

Christ id forgotten all about Sitonhisarski. He must have been the worst signing in the clubs history.
[/quote]

Not our finest moment I grant you but he did score and he did make the injury time winner for Lita against Doncaster (???) so there were probably worse signings.

[a1canary 0]

I will gladly hold my hand up Nutty and say I BLAME GLENN ROEDER.

Yes there were others involved as well at board level who let it happen - the loans i mean - but Roeder was incredibly persuasive, to the point of bullying almost. He always defended his loan policy very aggressively and certainly seemed to believe himself that it was the way to go.

I still don''t think it''s clear after the article in the EDP exactly how much of the increased debt was down to the loaning policy but i believe it is the main reason.

For the following reasons:

1. Loaning players (premier league ones) costs hundreds of thousands EACH time in fees.

2. Because of the ridiculous assumption that you are somehow getting these world beating players on the cheap, you agree to pay their over-inflated wages.

3.The net result once they''ve gone back (and done nothing for you) is a sum that is gone forever and has bought you nothing. It''s like renting and being left on the street when the landlord ends the tenancy.

4.Ordinarily, the sum you''ve ultimately shelled out for a few months of say Leroy Lita, could have have paid for Grant Holt to sign permanently.

In summary I BLAME ROEDER and i hate him for what he did to this club. It''s a strong word, and i wouldn''t even use it in reference to a binner or to Steve Bruce (i really don''t like him mind), but that''s how i feel about him. So there!

[Mello Yello 2,289]

....Nothin'' to do with me.....I''m a success.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Tunica Molesta"]Glenn Roeder was an arrogant bar steward.  I''m guessing he''d have said, you employed me as manager I''ll do it how I see it, with the funds available.  He chose to spunk it on loans in some kind of football experiment, and it got us relegated.
[/quote]

No Reoder saved us from Grant''s mess and never took us in the bottom 3 ever again until people like you called for his head and you got your wish with Club Legend Mr Gunn taking the reigns.  Mr Gunn then took us straight in to the bottom 3 in the space of a few short weeks and could not get us out of it again.

Those are the FACTS... Gunn had a pathetic win ratio of less than 20% which duly saw us relegated!

[I am a Banana 0]

Roeder paid around £1m (the money we got from selling shacks) towards just getting antione sit-on-your-arse-ski in only on loan!

[grantroederdisaster 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="Tunica Molesta"]Glenn Roeder was an arrogant bar steward.  I''m guessing he''d have said, you employed me as manager I''ll do it how I see it, with the funds available.  He chose to spunk it on loans in some kind of football experiment, and it got us relegated.
[/quote]

No Reoder saved us from Grant''s mess and never took us in the bottom 3 ever again until people like you called for his head and you got your wish with Club Legend Mr Gunn taking the reigns.  Mr Gunn then took us straight in to the bottom 3 in the space of a few short weeks and could not get us out of it again.

Those are the FACTS... Gunn had a pathetic win ratio of less than 20% which duly saw us relegated!

[/quote]

Your factually correct!

So you reckon Roeder would of kept us up last season?

Roeder sacked or not I think we''d of finished in the bottom 3, but I suspect with Roeder still in charge they''d of been a lot of trouble at games and a poisonous atmosphere (it was bad enough as it turned out!).

[Shack Attack 0]

A very good post Buckethead [Y]

The amount of posters who choose to pin the blame for relegation squarely on Roeder is really quite staggering. But then he was nasty to the fans, whereas Gunny was a club legend and Peter Grant honourably fell on his sword. The role of Neil Doncaster seems to have been almost completely forgotten. And of course Roeder did release Saint Darren of Huckerby [:O]

Is it too much to believe that the board take this into account before looking into who the latest scapegoat for our current situation should be. I mean everyone hates Roeder don''t they....even though he never took us into the bottom three last season.