shefcanary

Trouble is, whatever we sing, someone will always come along and **** it up improve it! 🤣

OMG. 🤦‍♂️ When I first raised the issue of a lack of corporate governance at Board level, little did I think it would end up in this sort of a civil trial.

Ah, but what if it were a metaphorical banana skin, not a real one? Does what you say still count? 😉

Don't forget Matty Patty! Countless others in the years before that. The archives is a good read in that sense. One day perhaps someone could list out all those players who were detained at HM pleasure whilst donning the old yellow and green. I'm a bit busy right now but may get around to it one day. It could be my first book and would make a good fund raising project for The Nest; righting the wrongs of the past by funding good things in the present!

Careful, LYB. Define high crime area? Lots of people who live in very well to do locations snort coke, smoke weed, probably have done illicit deals at work and paid backhanders to people in cash to avoid tax and to get a job done more cheaply. I'd argue the value of those crimes far outweighs the value of crime in the areas you are thinking about. And, I say it again, the majority of those lads were brought up in areas which definitely are NOT high crime areas by any reasonable marker! That is why, and here I agree with you, the parents of, and the players themselves, are so pissed off about! If Webber did mistakenly link these players to being brought up in a high crime area (however defined) then as head of the institution where they were in effect placed in his care as vulnerable youngsters whilst in receipt of training that is a massive failure on his part. And thus indicative of an institution that is not managed effectively. This calls very much into question the status said institution enjoys from its major funder. And again I ask people on here, are they at all concerned about the Category 1 Academy status the club enjoys and do they not see why it is very much now under scrutiny, if not being threatened with the loss of said status? Even if this doesn't result, potential players who may not have given the opporutinty a second thought will be wary of joining now. After all it remains our major advantage over similar clubs, especially the Binners. Thankfully Knapper seems more interested in doing his job, so my "hysterical" fear should not come to pass. However, I'm sure the FA will be putting the club on "notice", and the recruitment team are going to have to work that much harder to sign young players from the hinterland of London. Corporate governance hey. Yawn! Means diddley squit in the real world! 😉

.

Ashley Barnes was on it! 😉

🤣🤣. Under Southgate!

I am a little disappointed that posters on here don't realise the risk of the Cat 1 status of our academy being withdrawn because of the ill founded comment of someone who was responsible for its inception. And the lacklustre riposte from the club which says very little in a positive way, and also says little of how they will ensure the best care and attention will be given to future members of that academy. But, I'm partly a risk manager by trade so it probably is only me. After all the club has directors who know far more than me about managing a football club. Shame for them it is a Plc that relies on heavy funding from organisations that have a vested interest in the welfare of young people.

White, yellow, brown even gammon pink kids can struggle to get jobs if they have the wrong start in life. Which none of these lads seemed to. The only thing linking them was supportive families, the colour of their skin and Norwich City. And unfortunately arrogant Mr Webber. Shall we consider one player that went to jail whilst employed by the club. The club have been quiet on that, which is fair enough. Might have been nice for Webber to discuss the problems that too much leisure time combined with a lot of disposable income gives young players perhaps, and what the club does to help them?

Duplicated post

Gosh, a thread after my own heart! Love it.

It was only set up when his partner realised his initial infamous interview about climbing that damn mountain had got both Webber himself and the club into a pickle. Her advice to him was that they needed to demonstrate other people would benefit by him only putting "90%" into his working life. The charity was set up on 23 March 2023, some time after the interview (actually strangely about the time Stu handed his notice in to the club). The first financial year has not ended yet so no official records of what they have done so far. The trustees are as follows:

Its also good for white kids, brown kids, yellow kids, so what is your point? FFS Lakey, roll in your neck quickly mate, your digging yourself into a hole here.

Not just the individuals but just as importantly their parents and the rest of their families, if not their neighbours as well. I would be damned annoyed at Webber if I lived next door to the parents of the five players, on their behalf but also on mine as well. There was no need to name any individual. He is even risking an ICO investigation of the club by doing so. The more I think about it, the more issues that interview raises. 🤦‍♂️

Still argue however, no matter how much I have over-egged the pudding, poor corporate governance has caused this particular problem. Webber should have been legally silenced. I was when I left my role at a company in similar circumstances, and it is normal in many industries. As others have ruminated, the current majority shareholders running such a public company ostensibly on trust, is always (yes always) going to be tested at some point, invariably leading to a major governance issue. As it has!

Woah, Lakey. As I've said elsewhere he could have made similar statements and named four white lads. But the same issue would have resulted. There was no problem with these named lads! That is the only problem here. Webber has implied the players had a social background and upbringing that he knew (or should have known given his access to the personnel records of them) was false in public. That is in effect implying their parents were somehow active in poorly nurturing their sons. Irrespective of race of those he named, the implied criticism of their parents is defamation. Just weird, not clumsy, definitely stupid. I know the above just repeats similar thoughts from others on here, but I am just ramming home the point- Lakey you are so wrong.

Ah, Black Humour always helps dissipates emotional reactions. 👏👏👏

That's a poke too far. The Trust would have acquired many of those shares well below the £25 per share they received from Attanasio. Under Charity Law regs the Trustees would have had to gauge whether they could have got more elsewhere, but given all the public pronouncements on what the club and Attanasio had agreed plus the evidence gained from elsewhere, they can rightfully discharge their role as Trustees on the basis that they would be unlikely to gain any better price in the forseeable future because of the size of the holding.

This particular pension fund with this latest transaction have actually recouped nearly all their original investment plus still have more to come. The club, however are still in the same financial **** should they not go up this season and lose McKenna to another club.

I only want good corporate governance at the club. I'm fairly risk averse when it comes to corporate matters, my role in a previous life taking over. Anyway, as Attanasio can do what he wants when he takes the club private again, my dream will only come true one day in another universe.

I wouldn't even say the racial profiling was the worst thing. He named four players sure, but he also said they were likely to be exposed to all sorts of negative experiences if it wasn't for football. But some, if not all, were actually brought up in areas which don't normally see young people being exposed to such things. So he has trounced the reputations of a number of families as well. The lads could have been white, the inference would have been the same. Then there is the likely impact on our Category 1 Academy status as well. Should a club that has employed someone with such views be granted such a status? The FA could revoke such a status far quicker than it takes to approve a new owner of a football club. As a "self funding club", losing Cat 1 status would be an absolute ****ing disaster.

It has no name to it though - for something of such importance it really should be have the Board signing it off at the very least.

Purps, I have a major contention with you on this for the first time ever on here I think. Of course the issue is a failure of corporate governance. He is still being paid by the club for the period to 31st March 2024 - effectively on gardening leave. It is good corporate governance in such states of affair to have a binding agreement with the departing employee to stay silent on all matters regarding his forming employer for at least that period, very usual for another 6 months or so afterwards, to distance him from the club. Then, I am afraid, his wife has to be caught up in all this because of their relationship and also because she is Executive Director. You have to assume she knew about the interview in advance - if she didn't then that must put the marriage decidedly on shaky ground (but that's their matter). She should therefore have ensured if any interview took place, the boundaries over discussion were clearly set out and the club's press officer (or whomever) was present throughout in case issues were raised that might be controversial - or if not an agreement was in place to see a transcript of the interview before it was published. As she is therefore implicated in this failure of corporate governance she should not participate in any further mitigation. That has to fall to her line manager, in this case the Board. However without a nominated Chair, the responsibility falls to the most senior members of that Board, namely Delia and Michael. Now you could say I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but unfortunately the whole football world now has a view on this, it could also do massive harm to the Academy including threatening the club's category 1 status! Corporate Governance, what is the point?

He relinquished his role as Director of football, but is contracted to the club until 31 March 2024, on gardening leave!