what?
Under Roeder and Gunn we have made more money selling players than spent on bringing players in.
Is that backing the manager?
None of us know what constraints were/are placed on Roeder or Gunn?
They might have wanted better players but were denied because of lack of ambition.
Posted By: UScanary on March 7th 2009 at 17:13:27
Message Thread
- imo the board got us here - they continue to avoid any sniff of ambition (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:02:38
- They gave the managers the backing over and above what they could afford and failed (NCFC) - Duke Of Cock, Mar 7, 17:04:05
- what? (NCFC) - UScanary, Mar 7, 17:13:27
- replace the word "ambition" with "money" (n/m) (NCFC) - Charles21, Mar 7, 17:19:28
- also true - it's their job to generate and find it too (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:20:37
- from where? (n/m) (NCFC) - Charles21, Mar 7, 17:25:29
- also true - it's their job to generate and find it too (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:20:37
- replace the word "ambition" with "money" (n/m) (NCFC) - Charles21, Mar 7, 17:19:28
- agreed (n/m) (NCFC) - Charles21, Mar 7, 17:07:22
- what managers ???? that's half my point (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:05:10
- The managers that, at the time, most of us here were happy with when they were appointed. (n/m) (NCFC) - the101ers, Mar 7, 17:06:01
- speak for yourself mate - not for me (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:07:13
- Well, if you examine the sentence, I spoke neither for you nor me. (NCFC) - the101ers, Mar 7, 17:08:23
- don't assume it was most of 'us' then (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:11:31
- Why - are you not included in us? (NCFC) - the101ers, Mar 7, 17:13:43
- I remember most thought Grant was cheap option & Roeder was about 3rd choice (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:18:28
- That may well be true, but you have avoided my contention... (NCFC) - the101ers, Mar 7, 17:22:16
- I remember most thought Grant was cheap option & Roeder was about 3rd choice (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:18:28
- Why - are you not included in us? (NCFC) - the101ers, Mar 7, 17:13:43
- don't assume it was most of 'us' then (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:11:31
- well so what? (NCFC) - Charles21, Mar 7, 17:07:56
- Well, if you examine the sentence, I spoke neither for you nor me. (NCFC) - the101ers, Mar 7, 17:08:23
- speak for yourself mate - not for me (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Mar 7, 17:07:13
- The managers that, at the time, most of us here were happy with when they were appointed. (n/m) (NCFC) - the101ers, Mar 7, 17:06:01
- what? (NCFC) - UScanary, Mar 7, 17:13:27
- They gave the managers the backing over and above what they could afford and failed (NCFC) - Duke Of Cock, Mar 7, 17:04:05
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.