In a comment, I was asked "what CMS would you recommend thats very simple, very quick and very dirty? Is there huge disadvantages to writing your own?"
First, I would not ever suggest very quick and very dirty. Quick and Dirty leads to high technical debt, as explained in this excellent Martin Fowler post. You incur higher interest payments over a longer period of time, in the form of code maintenance and burden. Personally, I prefer projects that I can go back to after deployment, having not touched them in a long time, and go "wow, it still works!" to the projects that I go into time and again and grumble every time I do so because there was no real architecture built.
So with that, I would recommend against "rolling ones own". There are a lot of people tackling the web content management domain. For very simple, I would probably recommend a small commercial product like Macromedia Contribute. Adobe GoLive uses WebDAV very well to facilitate group web site management and development.
For a server solution, I would go with Plone. There are a lot of excellent add ons available for it and a lot of customization options out of the box.
But I have no recommendation of quick and dirty systems. They're just not worth dealing with. I have enough debt in my life.
Like all software, content management systems need to be evaluation based on an organizations or individuals needs. Questions need to be answered, such as how many people will be contributing content, how technically savvy they are, if features like workflow (publish/review, etc) or staging are required, etc. The concept of the site also needs to be considered. Is it an intranet? Is it a knowledge management base? Is it public? Is it personal? Is it a group? Is a CMS really needed? The current breed of HTML editors, such as Adobe GoLive and Macromedia's Dreamweaver and Contribute, are well equipped to handle group authoring and very smart site management. In some cases, that might be enough.