Empty Mirror

If everyone had fought as he did, we''d still be in the Championship, and he''d still be here.  It''s no co incidence that our most spineless peformances at the end came when he was injured. Good luck Crofty.

[quote user="3canaries"] Also, even though Mumby and Doncaster have ''left'' the club, they are still Directors (if you know employment law this comes under section 8 of Directorships). [/quote] I do know employment law.   Directors are office holders, not employees.  They may have a separate employment contract, but that''s different.   And there is no "section 8 of Directorships".  

Shackell. And then, Lee.

History shows that anyone who tries to judge a manager by 19 games is likely to end up looking a fool. On that basis Alex Ferguson would have been a failure, whereas Roeder looked good after 19 games. Look instead at the longer term strategic decisions Roeder took in his first season, in which the roots of our relegation can be found: 1. The loans policy which destroyed all continuity and any hope of building a team. 2. Scrapping the reserves which destroyed all continuity and any hope of building a team. 3. Selling off our talented youth players like Lewis. 4. Loaning out our players, including to our relegation rivals. 5. Falling out with key players like Huckerby and letting him go. 6. Sacking large number of backroom staff which contributed to the sense of turmoil and loss of continuity. 7. Abusing the fans. Compare Gunn''s strategic decisions: 1. Signaling an end to the loans policy and indicating a focus on building a team of our own players. 2. Reinstating the reserve fixtures, giving us at least a chance of bringing the youth players through. 3. Giving debuts or places on the bench to our promising youngsters. 4. Recalling our loanees, especially from our relegation rivals. 5. Investigating a return for Huckerby. I don''t know if Gunn will turn out to be inspired or insipid. But in terms of the longer term strategic decisions, he''s got more right than wrong so far. I feared for the club this time last year because of what Roeder was doing, and we''ve reaped the fruits of his efforts. There are more grounds for hope now, because most of his mistakes have been undone, though it''s going to be a long haul.

For.  

Only a couple of years'' experience, failed in his last job and has a track record of falling out with players. Perfect, just what we need. Gunny over Ince, any time.

I can''t see Clinghan or Hoolahan staying.   The question is: is there a release clause in their contracts that means they can go for peanuts on relegation?   The figures being quoted for Marshall to Cardiff suggest he had one, but the circumstances of Clinghan and Hoolahan coming were a little different.  If those two don''t have release clauses we could hold out for decent money and reinvest - if we had a manager to do it.

Appointing Gunn as Manager based on one 4-0 win against Barnsley was a knee jerk reaction, and may, with hindsight, have been wrong. Dismissing him after 19 games in which he failed to turn round the ship that Roeder had set on course for the rocks would be a knee jerk reaction and may, with hindsight, turn out to be wrong. Rather than the sterile "Gunn is a legend / Gunn should go " debate, let''s focus on what the club actually needs. 1.   An end to the loans policy that Roeder built his team on, and which deprived us of any chance of actually building and developing a team. 2.   An end to the delusion that we are better than we are, and require "premiership quality".  Which, since we weren''t prepared to pay for it, meant we got "premiership quality" loanees who were either too young or too injury prone or too fragile to survive in the hurly burly of the Championship.   We needed good, strong, Championship players last season, and for next seasson we need good, strong, League One players. 3.   An end to sending out a team without leaders (and falling out with and sacking and not replacing any who might be). 4.   Experience at the helm. 5.   Someone who is in post now since it is apparent from Marhsall''s rumoured departure that the transfer market is going to start up, and we can''t allow a repeat of previous seasons.   The worst case scenario is we dither for six weeks, then appoint a new man, who has to appoint his own team, who then tells the squad that "everyone starts with a clean slate" and it''s October before he''s looked at what he has and we''re seriously in the market, by which time we''re down to taking other people''s cast off''s on loan again, and fighting another relegation battle again. 6.   Someone who knows the team now, and knows what he has got (and hasn''t got) in our squad so they can start overhauling the squad. 7.   Some stability.  A fourth manager in under two years will make us (even more of) a laughing stock and won''t encourage anyone to come here. 8.   Some luck.  With injuries and penalty decisions. Plainly, getting a new man in may tick the box for point 4.   Though it''s worth noting that most people''s choices are for someone relatively inexperienced like Robbins with one good season behind him.   A new man might tick the boxes on points 1,2 and 3, but might not - we could end up with another Roeder.  Do you really trust the Board to get it right this time?  A new man does not tick the box on points 5, 6,or 7. Gunn would tick the box on 1,2 and 3 (given what he did in 19 games and has said after them) and on 5,6 and 7.   He would not tick the box on 4. As for point 8, who knows? All of which suggests that - whilst the knee jerk reaction is to want a new man - we could do worse than Gunn.  If he''s picked, he''ll have my support.

Or, the Board are arguing amongst themselves (which would explain the mixed messages after the last Board meeting). Either way, it''s very worrying, perhaps the most worrying part of the whole sorry story.   We need a manager in place now.   We could drift for a month, then the new manager (unless it''s Gunn, who know what he''s got, or rather what he hasn''t got, in our players) will have to wait for the players to report for pre season training to look at them,  and to judge them over a few friendlies and the first games of next season, then the opportunity to buy will be gone but, never mind, we''ll get some loanees in, and the whole dire cycle will be repeated.    

To see what Croft was worth to us, you only have to look at our inspid performances without him in the last couple of games. With him, we had width because he had the tactical discipline to stay wide.  Without him, with Carney and Gow drifting in, we were narrow and predictable. With him, we had some fight and passion.  His tackling back and work rate got the fans and the rest of the team going.   Without him, most of the team looked as if they''d rather be anywhere else. With him, we had a man who could go past opponents.  Which in turn meant they double marked him (maybe they didn''t realise that his crosses aren''t that hot) and that led to space elsewhere.   Without him the opposition were in a comfort zone because none of our players even looked a threat. His crosses were often disappointing.  What do you expect in the Championship?   A player who can show tactical discipline, passion, tackle back, go past fullbacks, and cross, and score?    Messi on a good day, maybe Ronaldo twice a season.   But the knocking of a championship player on the basis that "He can do this, granted, and that, and that, and that, but he can''t do everything therefore he''s crap" is (a) stupid, and (b) goes to the heart of the NCFC malaise.  We just will not accept what we are.   We were a Championship club, with delusions of grandeur, convinced that the way forward was to sign endless loanees of "premiership quality" who couldn''t cut it in the rough and tumble of the chapionship.  But would we go out and sign a good Championship player?  No, because we''re Norwich, we play the Norwich way, we want premiership quality without paying for it.     Now, we''re not even a Championship side.   We''re a league one side.   And yet, there''s people on here slating Crofty, saying he''s only an average Championship player!   Wake up and smell the coffee.   What wouldn''t I give to have had 11 average championship players who made an average championship team who finished in an average championship position.   I don''t think he''ll stay; if there had been any chance (and he was clearly fond of the club, so there might have been) those true Norwich fans who gave the one player whom we all agree at least tried every match a rough ride at the Open Day and then post abuse on here have made sure of that.

Yes, terrible referee. But, only the Pique penalty was clear. The ball blasted at E''to''s shoulder wasn''t even close. OF the other two, Chelsea might have expected to be given one, but not both. And given how often Drogba dives, no surprise the referee was cautious. So, Chelsea should have had two penalties. There again, Barcelona had an equally clear penalty denied in the first leg (Henry). Plus Abidal sent off for a dive / falling over his own feet by Anelka. Two penalties not given against one penalty not given and one ridiculous sending off. Over all, the incompetence pretty much evened out. The solution for Chelsea might not have been to sit back on a one gaol lead against ten men? And if Chelsea aren''t banned for their behaviour afterwards (and predictably their fans are now publishing the ref''s home address and issuing death threats as they did the last time Chelsea lost to Barcelona) then what does a club have to do to get banned? Actually shoot the referee?

Yes. He''s not had long enough. Sacking after 19 games is a knee jerk reaction and will make us (more of) a laughing stock. We need stability and continuity and someone to get into the transfer market now (yes, I know, the window isn''t open yet, but there''s still work to be done).

If administration doesn''t follow, it doesn''t mean that 1st wizard didn''t have a source.   For example, I do know a little (but only a little) of what actually goes on within the club.  I have never posted any information I have had as a result, and never will, because it comes to me under an obligation of confidentiality, which obligation I respect.  I have no doubt that there are other posters on here in a similar position.  But, if I had posted some of what I have learned then, on some occasions I''d have been "proved right", but on others I would have been "wrong" - not because I made it up, but because that particular point of view didn''t carry the day at the subsequent Board Meeting, or because the club changed its collective mind, or because what the club planned to happen, didn''t happen because of unforeseen events.  

Some good points in the Opening Post, and it''s good to see someone trying to think about what has happened to our great club rather than screaming for the head of Mr Doncaster / the Board / the players / the tea lady or whatever without having an alternative. However, I can''t agree that we can''t expect better. The fact that we are in our lowest league position for half a century would seem to indicate that League One isn''t our natural level. The fact that our attendances, and season ticket sales, were (and still would be) among the best in the Championship would seem to confirm that we ought to expect to be a competitive Championship Club with premiership aspirations. Getting back to where we ought to be should start with an analysis of what went wrong, and move from that to what is needed to put it right. And that means looking at what went wrong in a longer term, strategic sense, not in the sense of "Was it right to put Shackell at left back against Charlton? (answer: "No". But we''ve been in decline for four years, it''s not the occasional tactical errors that all managers make that got us there). If "putting it right" (a) means the removal of Mr Doncaster / the Board / the players / the tea lady and (b) there is an alternative available, then, yes, they should go. If their removal wouldn''t help, or there is no alternative, then, no, they shouldn''t. Everyone will have different views as to what exactly when wrong, but I''m guessing there might be broad consensus around some if not all of the following: - Too many loan players, not enough of whom cared and who, even when they did care, were here today, gone tomorrow, and therefore undermined any chance of building a settled and competitive team. Probably one of the biggest causes for our downfall. Who''s to blame? There have been other loanees, but it was Roeder who made this the central plank of his strategy, deluding himself that his "premiership contacts" would enable him to build a premiership side on the cheap. What needs to be done? Probably, on this point, not a lot. I think the lesson has been well and truly learned - see comments from Gunn and Munby. - Signing the wrong type of player. To get out of the Championship, and even more, to get out of League One, a team needs a particular kind of balance. This probably amounts to having eight or nine strong, fit, physical and large players who will compete physically, plus one or two "flair" or "quality" players to provide creativity. Which isn''t to say that the strong, fit, physical players aren''t "quality" too, just that what they bring to the table is in part their physical presence. One couldn''t play eleven Hoolahans, or even eleven Huckerbys. Who''s to blame? Successive managers, starting with Worthington who got rid of the physical presence of Malky and Roberts and replaced them with smaller, less physical players. Grant carried on the trend (e.g., Lappin, whose conduct I hugely admire, and who may yet have a role, but whose greatest admirer wouldn''t call him physical). Roeder spotted the problem, talked about buying bigger players, and then went out and bought or loaned Sammy Clinghan, Wes Hoolahan, Arturo Lupoli, Antoine Falloverski, etc etc. I''m not saying that some of these weren''t good signings, but as the answer to an acknowledged need to bulk up the team it was a simply bizarre transfer policy. Gunn, actually, and to his credit, did do a bit better here, bringing in the robust Lee, and bringing Shackell back. What needs to be done? Well, get the transfer policy right - it will be even more important now, given that we are going to be relying in large part on our youth team who, almost by definition, are not large. Again, it''s not clear to me that this is, in itself, a reason for parting company with Gunn, who seems to have done more to put this right than his predecessors. -Not having enough leaders on the pitch. Worthington let Malky and Roberts go, Roeder shamefully got rid of Huckerby, Dion retired, and we never replaced them. Who''s to blame? Worthington, Grant and Roeder. Gunn, again, seems to have the point on board. -Living beyond our means in terms of our squad. Our expenses are more than income. Plainly we''ve spent too much on players and players'' wages. I went to all but two of last season''s home matches, and bought a program most times. I can only recall one occasion when the list of our squad on the back page was not bigger than the opposition''s squad. Mostly by three or four, sometimes by double that. Who''s to blame? Presumably the Board or the CEO ought to have addressed that. What needs to be done? Well, this would be one instance that points to parting company with either the Board or the CEO, though I don''t have enough information to know which is to blame. -Living beyond our means off the pitch. I don''t know if the various catering ventures have been a financial drain. One often reads (see Waghorn''s site) that they actually contribute income to the playing side. If so, the criticism aimed at them is unfair, and short sighted, but I can''t know if that''s right. What''s to be done? Clearly staff costs are going to have to be cut. If it''s true that Mr Doncaster is paid £180,000 per annum then that can''t be sustainable for a League One club. If there''s a way for Mr Doncaster to stay, it has to be in cutting staff costs, starting with a large cut in his own salary. -Tactical naivety. One shouldn''t focus on individual mistakes in particular games, the malaise is bigger than that. A fan''s perspective, never the less, is that our managers seem to make more than their fair share of gaffes. Gunn has often betrayed inexperience e.g. failing to close down the Southampton at home game, or the team for Charlton. There again, an "experienced" manager is no guarantee of success; the blindness of Roeder to our need for a target man seems to me a much bigger cause. What''s to be done? Easy to say "Pick the right manager" but, as Roeder showed, even the "experienced" make mistakes. There''s an argument for saying the one thing we haven''t had is a manager experienced at a lower level. Our delusions of grandeur have led us to appoint people either with no experience (Gunn, Grant) or with experience at a higher level e.g., Roeder but not someone with experience at the level we''re at. Which would point to someone like Boothroyd. There is an argument for going with Gunn, though, namely…. -Too much chopping and changing. We’ve had four managers in three years. Which can''t help. And besides constant upheaval, it''s expensive. At some point, we''re going to have to back our man and give him time. Even Sir Alex Ferguson needed Board support and patience at the outset. -Not enough investors. The argument about what happened when Mr Cullum did or didn''t make his offer is now sterile: if Cullum has the money now, he''ll come forward. If he hasn''t, then unless someone has an alternative, wishing for the current Board to go is just wishful thinking. If all that’s right, and in the absence of a big investor appearing, we''re best to stick with a policy of developing our own players and building a team, signing players who can do the job in the division we''re in, not the one we''d like to be in, cutting expenses on and off the pitch including the CEO''s salary, and either sticking with Gunn or going for someone like Boothroyd but then giving it time. A young team with a few old heads isn''t going to gel immediately, it may take a couple of seasons (see Forest). But we''ll get there.

I don''t really see why Doncaster should be the fall guy.  Did he pick the team?  Did he set the tactics?  Miss the chances?    Kick clearances direct to the opposition?  Deliver the pre match or half time team talks?   Decide which players to sign?    Appoint the manager?  He''s the chief executive, which means he reports to the Board, and does their bidding.   That''s his job.  He''s a lawyer by trade.   Sure, if the contracts over the hotel, say, or with key players, are rubbish and don''t protect the club, then his head should be on the block.   But because the manager plays Shackell at left back in a key game?  Or because the players don''t show passion in the most important game for ages?  Or because the Board appoints the wrong manager?  How are these Doncaster''s fault?     

Administration would not necessarily mean a change of leadership. The Administrator has a duty to get the best price for the creditors. If the existing shareholders offer the best price, then, of course, they will emerge the new owners. There are countless examples of this happening. Sometimes, a company goes into administration with this scenario effectively already "pre packed". What''s more, as Mrs Smith is one of the major creditors, she is not in a bad position, should she want to buy the company, because she can offer a deal on her own debt (which would make her offer more beneficial to the other creditors).

I don''t think "getting back to the Championship" is a strategy. It''s an ambition, or goal. The strategy is how to get there. On the strategic front, I suspect there are two broad options. One is to hold onto our players, or try to, reinvest money from any sales into new players, and put all our eggs into getting back first time. Leicester did this, with success. Of course, if it goes wrong, the season after we have to sell everyone to balance the books or to avoid administration. The other option is to try to balance the books now, cash in on Clinghan, Marshall, Hoolahan, reinvest little of that money, mainly into experienced and physical league one pros (or people like Alan Lee) and hope they can lead our talented youngsters forward. It may not work year one, but with the youngsters a year older things may improve the following year. Or the year after. Forest did this. Of course, we may not have a choice. If the finances dictate administration, and I fear they may, then we''re stuck with the latter option.

A good post CT. I struggle to find many positives in our great club''s relegation to the third tier. And I think that administration is as likely (or more likely) than fresh investors appearing now. But I suppose there is this positive. If Mr Cullum, or someone else, appears now, perhaps to buy from the administrator, it will be a fresh start (though many of us, myself included, will have very mixed feelings about a man who, if he waits for administration to make his move, could have saved us but preferred to get a better deal after administration). But, it would be a fresh start. And if neither Mr Cullum, nor anyone else, rides into town, and Delia continues, maybe buying the club back from an administrator on a "pre pack" deal, then we will know, beyond argument, that there really is no one else, that Mr Cullum, whatever his motives, misled a lot of people into believing he was coming to the rescue when he couldn''t, or wouldn''t, and we can then perhaps all get behind the young players who will be our team next season and stop fantasising about a white knight who isn''t coming.

[quote user="canary cherub "] I''m not making it up folks. Stood there imagining third division football at CR next season and suddenly the stadium seemed HUGE. It felt completely unreal. [/quote] Surely it''s not possible that this message board is unrepresentative of the vast majority of fans? Or that those who talk about protesting have no stomach for doing so and no plan for what they would do next? No, couldn''t be.

If someone will offer it, we need money for Marshall, given our financial circumstances, whether or not administration follows. And longer term, Rudd is the better prospect. Of all the ways we have of raising some money now, Marshall out and Rudd in,is probably the least painful.

Great post Jez. One of the saddest things about our great club''s relegation is that it gives an opportunity to some posters to hurl abuse at and seek to blame the fans whose support keeps the club going and whose support will be needed even more now, especially if administration follows. We are in the third tier for the first time in half a century. Who''s to blame? The players? All those missed chances and defensively inept performances? The manager? The previous manager? The Board who appointed them? The Chief Executive who wrote optimistic articles in the EDP? Andy D''Urso? A string of poor referees? A host of penalty decisions that went against us? A run of injuries? A run of bad luck? The cyclical nature of football success? No, none of those; it''s the fans, of course, who bought season tickets! How dare they? Serves them right!

Depends whether administration now follows. And on what happens if it does - does Mr Cullum suddenly find some money, or does the current regime buy the club back because there''s no other bidder? If we go into administration, and a 10 point penalty, and lose Marshall, Croft, Clinghan, Hoolahoop etc then I guess realistically 10th. Sneaking into the play offs would be an achievement.

Odd to see so many posters apparently pleased at the relegation of our great club because they can blame those whose "crime" is buying season tickets. Strange to see people talking about "relegation instead of administration". Wake up and smell the coffee. Administration, 10 point penalty and all is now quite likely. As for Mr Cullum, if the club now goes into administration, the truth about him will be revealed.

Not really sure why Doncaster gets the level of criticism that he does.   He''s the club''s in house lawyer.    He doesn''t miss the chances.  He doesn''t let the goals in.  He doesn''t pick the team.  He doesn''t make the substitutions.   He doesn''t decide the tactics.  He doesn''t set the level of investment in players.  He doesn''t choose which players to buy.  Or which not to buy.   Good grief, there''s plenty of people to criticise, why the hate for him?  He''s at a club where the Board seem to have lost their voices, and settle for sending their in house lawyer into the fray to take the flak, and there''s plenty of people who fall for it and direct their anger at him. And yes, his column in the EDP was pretty delusional, as it often is.    But what do you expect him to say?   We are in a position where an (unlikely) win at Charlton might still save us, so he has to do what he can to sound positive!   Just how would it help what slim chance we have if he wrote "We''re doomed.   I can''t see us winning at Reading, given the rubbish we serve up week in, week out.  And if we do, I don''t expect Barnsley to lose.  We''re as good as relegated already.   And then, we''re going into administration.  What''s more, Cullum has confirmed that he can''t put his money where his offer wasn''t, and there''s no other bidders, so you''re quite likely to be left with the same  management buying the club back out of administration on a pre pack with a deal on Delia''s debt, as  has happened elsewehre.  Then we''ll flog off our best players, and be left with the untried youngsters and the rejects no one else will touch.     And a ten point penalty.  So you can forget about the Championship again any time soon"?  For all we know, he may think this, but he''d be crucified if he said it, and rightly s0, ''coz it wouldn''t help.  So, he trots out delusional platitudes, which he must recognise as such.

Gibbs has looked a good player for Arsenal this year. I thought he looked out of his depth, a man amongst boys, for us. And the moral is?   "Premiership quality" doesn''t always shine through in the Championship.   You don''t prosper in the Championship because you have lots of "Premiership quality" players who happen to be either young and raw, or old and slowing down, which is the reason someone will loan or sell them to you.    Sure, if you put them in a premiership team, surrounded by experienced good players, they may do ok, as Gibbs did.   But in the hurly burly of the Championship, they disappear.   You prosper in the Championship by building a side that is physically strong, large, resolute, well organised,  and consisting not of "Premiership quality" but of good championship players.   Build a team like that and, maybe, you can accommodate one or two flair players or "Premiership quality" youngsters.   But the backbone of the squad has to be good champinonship players.  Look at any of the teams that hvae gone up in the last three years, with the possible exception of West Brom.  Roeder''s mistake, that looks like it will get us relegated, (along with his evident lack of man management skills) is that he never understood this, hence the line of "premiership quality" loan failures, from Gibbs to Sibierski (and compare their impact to Alan Lee, who is nobody''s idea of "premiership quality" but can do a good job in the championship). And how would we prosper in League 1 (aka Division 3)?   I suspect by building a physically strong, large, resolute, well organised team of good league 1 players, with a couple of youngsters or flair players thrown in.   That doesn''t mean hoofball, necessarily.   But it does mean we wouldn''t prosper by trying to pretent that we''re still a "quality team" with players of higher "quality", an attitude that will lead to more failure.