Glenn Roeder ~ The myth perpetuates

[Maverick 0]

[quote user="a1canary"]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![/quote]

What''s Steve Bruce done to inspire that hatred ? Don''t forget that goal against the binners in the Milk Cup semi...

[Maverick 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]

I''ve got a few suggestions to rival Sibierski as worst signing ever - all from the last couple of seasons ..

James Henry

David Carney

Ian Murray

Kieran Gibbs

Chris Killen

Omar Koroma.

Mainly loans I know but even so,makes you realise the dross that has passed through here and how much it has cost us..

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I don''t blame Roeder as much as you do a1. As I remember it it was the board and Roeder who cooked up the loan policy. It made a bit of sense at the time because, as Smudger says, Grant had wasted a really healthy budget previously. And by wasted I mean wasted. I agree with Smudge that it was far more costly then the loans that we tried to rectify it with. What was the biggest waste of money, Sibierski or Brellier? Lita or Strihavka? Ched Evans or Jamie Cureton? I could go on and on. Did anyone replace any of Worthy''s players with better ones? How much has Otsemebor cost us? It''s frightening really. And just before Grant walked Hucks came out and said about how poor the quality of our squad was. He could see that Rusty wasn''t Etuhu, Fotheringham wasn''t Safri and Cureton wasn''t Earnshaw. Otsemebor wasn''t even Colin but it doesn''t suit people agenda''s to admit it. A few months before that Worthy made that speech about not bringing in players that weren''t good enough to take the club forward and in the main he was good to his word. People point to Hughes, Etuhu, Colin and even Robinson but those players were of far greater quality than the ones Peter Grant spunked his money on.

So Roeder came in and the board stumped up again to get rid of some of the players that they had stumped up to buy a few months previously and then a load of loan signings to get us out of the mess Grant had got us into. It''s my opinion that this was all a bit much for some of the board members and can you blame them? So we got to last season with no squad of permanent players and no money to buy yet another batch. So they hatched this loan plan. I don''t think Roeder can be entirely blamed for this. In fact as I remember it the "cleverer than the rest" statement was made by Munby.

But Bucketman said the club was perpetuating the myth that Roeder was to blame for the previous years mistakes. I have never seen any evidence of this. I thought the board had admitted the Grant mistakes over and over. The evidence was so damning they didn''t really have a choice did they?

 

[William Darby 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]It''s easy to split hairs and say actually we weren''t in a relegation position and say it''s a fact.  As far as I''m concerned the damage was done.  The team couldn''t score, they couldn''t string three passes together and we''d just got stuffed by Charlton who were just as crap.  Maybe, if the club  had replaced Roeder with someone other than Gunn it  would''ve been different.  But how things were if Roeder didn''t dip us into the bottom three chances are he would''ve, but we''ll never know.I''ll still stand by my opinion, spunking money on that number of loans was a recipe for relegation, which on a number of occasions various people within the media said was madness.

[a1canary 0]

MAVERICK: Simply, his attitude towards us every time we played Birmingham culminating in our play off defeat when he treated us with total and utter disdain. Despite giving him his break, he never had a good word to say about us and always refused to acknowledge us when we were in the same league as him.

It was only when there was a whole division separating us that he finally said some nice things about his time with us - can''t quite remember what the occasion was but was this season.

NUTTY - I don''t deny Strihavka and Brellier were mistakes. God, we could play that game for ever. Jarrett, Derveld, De Waard?

Our debts never went up 5million in one year and i do put this down to Roeder. We know for a fact there are 6 figure fees attached to premier loans like those Roeder bought in. Assume a conservative £150k per loan, 18 times, that''s £2.7m. Add an equally conservative 20k a week for wages for someone like Lita and that''s an annual salary over a million for him alone. So we''re already up to 3.7m? Ok Lita wasn''t here for a whole year but you get the picture. Our wage bill and tansfer losses must have been huge last year, way beyond what we could afford. McNally said this when he arrived.

Yes Grant wasted money. So did Worthy, so did Hamilton, so did Rioch. Roeder pushed us over the edge when we were least able to cope with it.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Sorry a1. I believe the loan policy was hatched because we didn''t have the money up front at the start of the season so we built a squad as we went along so to speak. The reason why we didn''t was because of Peter Grant and the way he wasted his "Worthy inheritance". We are still paying for that now with players like Cureton and Otsemebor. Yes all managers make mistakes in the transfer market but most of them get at least half their signings right. Grant got none right. We may say Russell and Lappin this season but that''s because we are in league One.

 

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Sorry a1. I believe the loan policy was hatched because we didn''t have the money up front at the start of the season so we built a squad as we went along so to speak. The reason why we didn''t was because of Peter Grant and the way he wasted his "Worthy inheritance". We are still paying for that now with players like Cureton and Otsemebor. Yes all managers make mistakes in the transfer market but most of them get at least half their signings right. Grant got none right. We may say Russell and Lappin this season but that''s because we are in league One.

 

[/quote]SSSSShhhhhh  Don''t mention David Marshall

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

But Bucketman said the club was perpetuating the myth that Roeder was to blame for the previous years mistakes. I have never seen any evidence of this. I thought the board had admitted the Grant mistakes over and over. The evidence was so damning they didn''t really have a choice did they?

 

[/quote]Small correction Nigel the myth to which I refer is "The Myth" and not the myth that Roeder is to blame as that has only ever been projected as a view by posters, never by the club and certainly has not reached mythical status by my benchmarks."The Myth" of course is that all the problems at the club for the last fifteen years have been attributable to.... well anyone but those at the top or in a position to make decisions. We can blame Roeders loan policy for a £5m loss if we like but we''d have to be deluded not to accept that had the Directors repeated their gesture of the previous year and provided a shortfall payment of £2m and had we actually received the sort of moneyfor transfer profits that previous years accounts have been able to offset against losses then the reality is that this £5m figure would have been considerably smaller than the previous years posted loss which did benefit from both a large extraordinary payment and some good transfer receipts.This years accounts are so poor not because of Roeder per se but because the transfer income which has balanced the books in the previous five years  has pretty well dried up and many of us could see that coming years ago with the boards reluctance to reinvest transfer fees.To blame Roeder for a policy which was in force for years at the club before he arrived would be very poor form indeed, I simply suggest that the chief policy maker of recent years be held far more culpable for the bottom line figure than a man who was with us a little over a year.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

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

Sorry a1. I believe the loan policy was hatched because we didn''t have the money up front at the start of the season so we built a squad as we went along so to speak. The reason why we didn''t was because of Peter Grant and the way he wasted his "Worthy inheritance". We are still paying for that now with players like Cureton and Otsemebor. Yes all managers make mistakes in the transfer market but most of them get at least half their signings right. Grant got none right. We may say Russell and Lappin this season but that''s because we are in league One.

 

[/quote]

SSSSShhhhhh  Don''t mention David Marshall
[/quote]

Imagine joining the board and stumping up a couple of million for Grant to spend. Then having to spend more money to get rid of some of them, and then more still for some loans to put it right and then be expected to dig deep again a few months later to buy another load.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Buckethead"]
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.

[/quote]

It was this I was referring to Bucketman because i have never seen the club blame Roeder for this.

Have you?

 

[Shyster 0]

I''ll tell you what isn''t a myth, Buckethead - you keep stretching the fonts with your posts making threads a chore to read.Is there the any chance of you stopping that please?

[William Darby 0]

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

Sorry a1. I believe the loan policy was hatched because we didn''t have the money up front at the start of the season so we built a squad as we went along so to speak. The reason why we didn''t was because of Peter Grant and the way he wasted his "Worthy inheritance". We are still paying for that now with players like Cureton and Otsemebor. Yes all managers make mistakes in the transfer market but most of them get at least half their signings right. Grant got none right. We may say Russell and Lappin this season but that''s because we are in league One.

 

[/quote]

He was still a good signing no matter how it ended upSSSSShhhhhh  Don''t mention David Marshall[/quote]

Imagine joining the board and stumping up a couple of million for Grant to spend. Then having to spend more money to get rid of some of them, and then more still for some loans to put it right and then be expected to dig deep again a few months later to buy another load.

 

 

[/quote]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

David Marshall was a good signing?

Not in my book. Good goalkeeper yes but can a club like Norwich afford to pay 1m for a young promising goalkeeper? We already had one of those anyway. Matty Gilkes was a good signing but he never played. Someone like him to play until Lewis was ready with 1m to be spent on players who can win games.

 

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

David Marshall was a good signing?

Not in my book. Good goalkeeper yes but can a club like Norwich afford to pay 1m for a young promising goalkeeper? We already had one of those anyway. Matty Gilkes was a good signing but he never played. Someone like him to play until Lewis was ready with 1m to be spent on players who can win games.

 

[/quote]You''re bound to say Grant got it wrong about Marshall, because you forgot about him[;)] 

[Nuff Said 5,088]

The fallacy of the "premiership players at bargain prices" loans policy can be seen when you look at the number of "Premiership" players we loaned who are actually now playing in the the Premiership. Even favourites like Lita and Ched Evans are playing in the Championship. Off the top of my head, the only loanee who comes to mind is Kieran Gibss who was slagged off when he was here and has been listed on this thread as a mistake. Wenger clearly doesn''t think so.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="a1canary"]MAVERICK: Simply, his attitude towards us every time we played Birmingham culminating in our play off defeat when he treated us with total and utter disdain. Despite giving him his break, he never had a good word to say about us and always refused to acknowledge us when we were in the same league as him. It was only when there was a whole division separating us that he finally said some nice things about his time with us - can''t quite remember what the occasion was but was this season. NUTTY - I don''t deny Strihavka and Brellier were mistakes. God, we could play that game for ever. Jarrett, Derveld, De Waard? Our debts never went up 5million in one year and i do put this down to Roeder. We know for a fact there are 6 figure fees attached to premier loans like those Roeder bought in. Assume a conservative £150k per loan, 18 times, that''s £2.7m. Add an equally conservative 20k a week for wages for someone like Lita and that''s an annual salary over a million for him alone. So we''re already up to 3.7m? Ok Lita wasn''t here for a whole year but you get the picture. Our wage bill and tansfer losses must have been huge last year, way beyond what we could afford. McNally said this when he arrived. Yes Grant wasted money. So did Worthy, so did Hamilton, so did Rioch. Roeder pushed us over the edge when we were least able to cope with it.[/quote]

Sorry but there is no way you can jump to such huge assumptions about the cost of loan players.  Some loan players were brought in for an initial fee but the parent club continued to pay wages (Bertrand was one), some came and we paid a contribution towards the wages, Lita was (i believe) 50% funded by C.Moore.  Whatever, players who have played scarcely any games for their parent clubs are not on big wages, and you also have to bear in mind that the parent club often WANT them to go out on loan to gain experience and toughen them up, therefore are prepared to compromise on the cost.  Roeder said that the loanees were 15% of the wage bill so unless we are saying he lied, i don`t think the loans were particularly expensive.

[BigFish 1,986]

Well that Ok then, Mr C''s fag packets say the loans weren''t too expensive!!Next he''ll prove that with another few million he would be a good manager

[a1canary 0]

Ok, whatever the precise numbers, i challenge anyone to deny that:

a) the loan policy was a disaster in terms of team performance

b) the loan policy cost us financially

c) the loan policy alienated the players and ultimately the club from the fans in a way i don''t ever want to see again

d) Roeder DID defend and promote the loan policy so i don''t believe for a minute that it was cooked up in the boardroom. It was his plan and it was backed in the boardroom. So yes, some blame belongs there too.

I don''t believe anyone would deny these points so please, lets not start this sympathy kick. He shouldn''t be allowed to ever set foot in the fine city.

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="a1canary"]Ok, whatever the precise numbers, i challenge anyone to deny that:

a) the loan policy was a disaster in terms of team performance

b) the loan policy cost us financially

c) the loan policy alienated the players and ultimately the club from the fans in a way i don''t ever want to see again

d) Roeder DID defend and promote the loan policy so i don''t believe for a minute that it was cooked up in the boardroom. It was his plan and it was backed in the boardroom. So yes, some blame belongs there too.

I don''t believe anyone would deny these points so please, lets not start this sympathy kick. He shouldn''t be allowed to ever set foot in the fine city.[/quote]How about......e) That if Roeder had played Lappin, not sent Martin & Spillane into exile or sold Joe Lewis he had the basis of a side that would have stayed upf) He could have got Grant Holt for the cash he spent on Sibierski

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="BigFish"]Well that Ok then, Mr C''s fag packets say the loans weren''t too expensive!!

[/quote]It was Roger Munby whoi stated that the loans accounted for just 15% of the budget, what would he have known at the time eh?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

But if Roeder had played Joe Lewis he would have had a 1m ''keeper sitting on the bench. If playing Joe lewis was a realistic option then why did we waste 1m on another promising young keeper? And it''s these things that lead me to believe that for all Roeders faults he was severely compromised by Grants transfer windows and the permanent players he inherited. Cureton is still part of the current player budget!

 

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

But if Roeder had played Joe Lewis he would have had a 1m ''keeper sitting on the bench. If playing Joe lewis was a realistic option then why did we waste 1m on another promising young keeper? And it''s these things that lead me to believe that for all Roeders faults he was severely compromised by Grants transfer windows and the permanent players he inherited. Cureton is still part of the current player budget!

 

[/quote]......or he could have sold a £1m GK and bought a decent striker to partner Martin. Er, like Grant Holt!

[smooth 114]

This is a great htread and refects our terrible disasters primarily when we shot ourselves in the foot following the relegation from the premiership

Worthy bought tripe for our first season in the championship, we bought etuhu who obviously we made some money on... but any one else from that era, he also started a rot in youth team not signing any... our long term strategy was totally not clear

worthy left, ashton left, green left... grant a succession of goalkeepers, earnie, ched evans... but we couldn''t keep them... we did not build a team from that point... defensively we never built a strong foundation or improved with our new signings... without huckerby we would have been further down the toilet.. he was the only good thing at this club in the last 5 years

then roeder comes in ready to move deadwood... but we have so much... loanees lita who played exceptionally, clingan, bell... average champ players but genuine quality compared to waht we had seen for a nubmer of years, stefanovic and kennedy would have been a formiddable partnership, injuries scuppered that... as mentioned the loanees are doing pretty well now

we were in trouble but the roots of this problem started during the prem season it is a long drawn out problem to where we are... as we have had little revenue from selling players etc.

roeder goes and the club shock us all, gunn... yeah I can support the club but biggest mistake... the rest is all too true we deserved to be where we were this season... but it is not down to only one or two managers it is a collective

lambert and mcnally have brought in some direction and there are green shoots... but by god it will take a long time to recover from this rot of 4-5 years... where do we want to be?

well even with this amazing fan base mid table champ team unless we get new investment... the mistakes and misfortunes have brought us to this lowest point for many a year

[nutty nigel 7,509]

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

But if Roeder had played Joe Lewis he would have had a 1m ''keeper sitting on the bench. If playing Joe lewis was a realistic option then why did we waste 1m on another promising young keeper? And it''s these things that lead me to believe that for all Roeders faults he was severely compromised by Grants transfer windows and the permanent players he inherited. Cureton is still part of the current player budget!

 

[/quote]

......or he could have sold a £1m GK and bought a decent striker to partner Martin. Er, like Grant Holt!
[/quote]

Which is what should have been done with the 1m in the first place. Except Wiz may have ended up with a Jamie Lad for each knee[;)]

 

[Buncey 1]

We continually sold players and failed to replace them satisfactory replacements. Whether that''s because managers post Worthy were poor judges of talent, whether they had their hands tied by The Doomster or they were just simply tactically incompetent seems to matter little anymore. We have a new CE who knows what he''s doing, we''ve got a new manager who knows what he''s doing and we''ve got a squad of players who know what they are doing. Times have changed very quickly and I can''t help but feel that showing Doncaster the door, and ushering McNally in has made all the difference. .... But Mr. Roeder still has the unenviable (and in my opinion justified) second season pattern on his CV and I think he will struggle to get a big spot in management for a while.

[canary cherub 1]

[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]

They simply won''t learn will they Smudger?

No manager in his right mind would prefer a squad full of loanees to permanent signings.  The same policy continued under Bryan Gunn, he was allowed (encouraged?) to bring in 6 or 7 more.  Who was responsible: Neil Doncaster.  Believe it or not folks, there''s more to being a chief executive than playing email tennis with the fans all day long and standing outside the ground on match days looking affable. 

 

[Binky 0]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="a1canary"]Ok, whatever the precise numbers, i challenge anyone to deny that:

a) the loan policy was a disaster in terms of team performance

b) the loan policy cost us financially

c) the loan policy alienated the players and ultimately the club from the fans in a way i don''t ever want to see again

d) Roeder DID defend and promote the loan policy so i don''t believe for a minute that it was cooked up in the boardroom. It was his plan and it was backed in the boardroom. So yes, some blame belongs there too.

I don''t believe anyone would deny these points so please, lets not start this sympathy kick. He shouldn''t be allowed to ever set foot in the fine city.[/quote]How about......e) That if Roeder had played Lappin, not sent Martin & Spillane into exile or sold Joe Lewis he had the basis of a side that would have stayed upf) He could have got Grant Holt for the cash he spent on Sibierski[/quote]Got it in two Bigfish! I do not believe that the loan policy was instigated by anyone other than Roeder. Sure Doncaster & Co may have agreed  to it - but no way would they have refused Roeder if he''d said he wanted to scour the lower divisions for less expensive talent instead. He never even got close to finding a Grant Holt did he? Lappin may have been burning a hole in his wages budget (prior to accepting his new contract) but to freeze him out in favour of loanees who couldn''t play was unforgiveable - and yes the CEO could have stepped in without directly interfering with the manager''s right to manage. Roeder was used to dealing with the big fish (sorry Bigfish) in the game - he had his "contacts" and was happy to win friends by paying fees. He clearly thought they were better value for money.Today''s story surely has the blessing of the new chief exec and I find the inference that it was Roeder''s policy and a costly one, inescapable.Canary Cherub says: "No manager in his right mind would prefer a squad full of loanees to permanent signings". Quite so. Yet Roeder did didn''t he? (I do so look forward to the meoirs of certain players - like Hucks for example).

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="Binky"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="a1canary"]Ok, whatever the precise numbers, i challenge anyone to deny that:

a) the loan policy was a disaster in terms of team performance

b) the loan policy cost us financially

c) the loan policy alienated the players and ultimately the club from the fans in a way i don''t ever want to see again

d) Roeder DID defend and promote the loan policy so i don''t believe for a minute that it was cooked up in the boardroom. It was his plan and it was backed in the boardroom. So yes, some blame belongs there too.

I don''t believe anyone would deny these points so please, lets not start this sympathy kick. He shouldn''t be allowed to ever set foot in the fine city.[/quote]How about......e) That if Roeder had played Lappin, not sent Martin & Spillane into exile or sold Joe Lewis he had the basis of a side that would have stayed upf) He could have got Grant Holt for the cash he spent on Sibierski[/quote]Got it in two Bigfish! I do not believe that the loan policy was instigated by anyone other than Roeder. Sure Doncaster & Co may have agreed  to it - but no way would they have refused Roeder if he''d said he wanted to scour the lower divisions for less expensive talent instead. He never even got close to finding a Grant Holt did he? Lappin may have been burning a hole in his wages budget (prior to accepting his new contract) but to freeze him out in favour of loanees who couldn''t play was unforgiveable - and yes the CEO could have stepped in without directly interfering with the manager''s right to manage. Roeder was used to dealing with the big fish (sorry Bigfish) in the game - he had his "contacts" and was happy to win friends by paying fees. He clearly thought they were better value for money.Today''s story surely has the blessing of the new chief exec and I find the inference that it was Roeder''s policy and a costly one, inescapable.Canary Cherub says: "No manager in his right mind would prefer a squad full of loanees to permanent signings". Quite so. Yet Roeder did didn''t he? (I do so look forward to the meoirs of certain players - like Hucks for example).[/quote]Cheers Binky. He never got close because he never looked. The only mistake the board made was appointing the incompetant in the first place.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Fellas"]We continually sold players and failed to replace them satisfactory replacements. Whether that''s because managers post Worthy were poor judges of talent, whether they had their hands tied by The Doomster or they were just simply tactically incompetent seems to matter little anymore. We have a new CE who knows what he''s doing, we''ve got a new manager who knows what he''s doing and we''ve got a squad of players who know what they are doing. Times have changed very quickly and I can''t help but feel that showing Doncaster the door, and ushering McNally in has made all the difference.

.... But Mr. Roeder still has the unenviable (and in my opinion justified) second season pattern on his CV and I think he will struggle to get a big spot in management for a while.
[/quote]

If you look at the players listed as flops by people who blame the managers solely for our demise, you will notice that they are nearly all freebies or extremely cheap.  I`ve been saying it for years but the penny still hasn`t dropped, if you pay peanuts.....

Even the backbone of our current team- Doherty, Drury, Russell, Lappin, Hoolihan and Holt- cost a fair bit by our standards.  There are only two reasonably expensive outright flops i can think of since relegation- Cureton and Hughes, all the rest have been the cheap option and total false economy.  So, the moral of the story is....??

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

If you look at the players listed as flops by people who blame the managers solely for our demise, you will notice that they are nearly all freebies or extremely cheap.  I`ve been saying it for years but the penny still hasn`t dropped, if you pay peanuts.....

Even the backbone of our current team- Doherty, Drury, Russell, Lappin, Hoolihan and Holt- cost a fair bit by our standards.  There are only two reasonably expensive outright flops i can think of since relegation- Cureton and Hughes, all the rest have been the cheap option and total false economy.  So, the moral of the story is....??

[/quote]

Well I don''t know many people who blame the managers solely for our demise. In fact I don''t know any. My view has always been that the demise was caused by poor managerial appointments and those managers wasting their budgets on building poor football teams.

 

Anyway, this post is a real gem even for you Mr C! If you pay more for players then you get better players! Well no sh1t Sherlock, I never would have guessed it! But if you think Norwich are going to start filling their squad with more players "who cost a bit by our standards" then you really do live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

 

“There is a budget here and it''s a tight budget and we have got to manage that very carefully to get the most from that and with having a tight budget you have got to be very careful how you spend it, simple as that.”

 

But this isn''t new is it? We have always had teams made up of players "who cost a bit by our standards", players from the youth, freebies and cheap options. 2003/4 was no different. Players like Marc Edworthy, Jim Brennan, Paul McVeigh, Gary Holt and Matty Svensson were cheap options to complement the nucleus of the side that cost a bit by our standards. And it''s always been as important to get those players right as well as the more expensive signings.

 

The team that played in Europe in 1993 was also no different being made up of players who "cost a bit by our standards" complimented by youth players, cheap options and freebies. But the difference is what calibre of players the manager of the day can get with his tight budget. In ''93 we had cheap options like Culverhouse, Bowen and Crook, freebies like Megson to compliment youth players and those that cost a lot by our standards. In 03/04 we had cheap options like Holt and Svensson with freebies like McVeigh, Brennan and Edworthy to compliment those that cost a lot by our standards and the youth players. So you see it is more to do with the football manager than you would have us believe. And poor old Peter Grant didn''t get any of it right. Not the players that cost a lot by our standards, or the cheap options, or the freebies!

 

So I reckon the moral of the story is the same as it ever was. But "Mr Carrow In Doc The Rock Shock" is at least entertaining but our good friend Bracket won''t like it[:O]