thebigfeller

[quote user="Salopian"]Are you prepared for the new aggressive management to appoint a divisive manager? For instance many would like Boothroyd, but others are not keen on the long-ball approach he has adopted? To put it another way, we all want success and we all want good football, for which we are traditionally known.If the only candidate available who is likely to make us successful uses an approach which is unattractive to many supporters, and may not succeed at higher levels, do we go for him? Or we we use him for promotion and then look for someone else?[/quote]I''d love that. The overriding priority is promotion, so we need someone who can get us promotion. After that, who knows? Football is a ruthless world, and we''ve lost more and more ground by becoming more and more spineless: which starts at the top, and filters into the whole club and team. If you can''t beat ''em, join ''em: we''ll still maintain all our unique, ''nice'' characteristics: we were a much admired club under Robert Chase and Sir Arthur South too! It''s just crucial that we stop acting as though nice is all we are.As for Boothroyd: his legacy at Watford worries me, and I''d be concerned whether his style of play would suit the players we have. But he knows the club inside out, clearly has a deep affection for it, and was very good at Vicarage Road for getting on for three years. I''d take him.

[quote user="Skint Eastwood"]Take your point about the more professional nature of the new board members, but I think the timing of this is just awful. I guess it all depends on who the new manager is, and what his success rate will be early doors. Will they give him 20 games then sack him too if we aren''t in the top few? Or will he, unlike Gunn, be afforded the luxury of building his own team?[/quote]Here''s the thing. Whenever a manager leaves a football club, the timing is invariably regarded as awful. Of course, it''s ridiculous they didn''t do this in the summer - but I''ve at least tried to go into the reasons why in my OP. I doubt a new manager will get new players; but at this level, our squad should certainly be good enough. It''s enough to entice a decent manager I''d say - and sure, there''d be pressure. Pressure and ambition go hand in hand: we have to go up, this season.

[quote user="Mello Yello"] Why didn''t DM get the Arsenal job then?.....And why has he ''downsized'' his career at Carra? [/quote]Because he didn''t: he was just linked with them. As for us, there are good things about the club as well as bad things - but with his background, we''re punching well above our weight in terms of who our CEO is now I''d say.

[quote user="gsr600"]why would any new manager want to come here, were a shambles, would the new board sack him if we lose heavily again this season, do we really want to end up like newcastle with numbers of new managers in a season because were not going in the direction we should be, if mcnally was so good why hasnt he still got his job at fulham, who seem to be doing so much better since he left, doesnt seem right it was a unanimous decision as foulger, smith and jones all love gunn, and if he did have a player mutiny why did they win 4 - 0 in the following game, when roeder and grant lost the team we lost most games, and if its true that were linked with lawrie sanchez then that would be mcnallys decision mcnally wasnt in charge at fulham when hodgson was appointed, he was however when coleman was sacked and replaced with sanchez, wise move there by mcnally i think not[/quote]McNally was at Fulham when Hodgson was appointed. When he left Craven Cottage, he was so well regarded in the game that he was linked with Arsenal; and before Fulham, where he did a sound job for a number of years, did a brilliant job at Celtic, at a time they transformed themselves after years of stagnation and playing second fiddle to their great rivals.The board didn''t sack Bryan Gunn purely because we lost 7-1. They sacked him because he was incredibly incompetent and frighteningly out of his depth, as evidenced last season, let alone on Saturday. Freak results can happen mid-season when a club has an injury crisis and so on: remember us losing 5-1 and 6-1 against West Brom and Port Vale back-to-back under Mike Walker? But they never happen on the opening day - and if they do, something must be very seriously wrong. I think the board have, for once, established exactly what was wrong and dealt with it: and in the process, shown they''re actually serious about promotion. Something we wouldn''t have had a hope in hell of achieving under Gunn.Incidentally, if I had to put my head on the block and give you a name, I reckon the next Norwich City manager will be Mark Robins. But we''ll see.

[quote user="ricardo"] Why you think the people responsible for our decline are suddenly going to become our saviours is beyond my comprehension. I hope you are proved right but i''ve been a City supporter for long enough not to want to bet on it. [/quote]Because two of the people responsible for our decline (and one in particular) have gone; and the people most responsible have been joined by others with, I hope, rather different perspectives. Then, yesterday, we suddenly have a ruthless, unexpected and wholly unNorwich-like decision: it can''t just be a coincidence. In which case, Delia''s way isn''t McNally''s way; and McNally appears to have overruled her. Which is extremely encouraging.David McNally''s no rocket scientist. But he''s been in the game for many years, and knows it well. That he was appointed in the first place has to tell you something. And the problem with people who stick to a line of Delia Out, regardless of any viable buyer making themselves known, is they then have to tar everyone at the club with the same brush, and assume everything will turn out bad as long as the joint majority shareholders remain. Sorry, but I just don''t think it''s that simple. Even Foulger may well be having a bigger, more influential say now he''s put more money in - and I doubt he wants his money wasted by a two-bit manager, do you?

[quote user="Creative Midfielder"]Your opinion fair enough, but I don''t believe ''real'' football people think we gain credibility through having a Chief Exec allowing a manager sign a large group of players in pre-season only to sack him two games into the season. And going back to my original question, why does assembling a ''strong squad'' make Gunn such a terrible manager? It seems to me that today could be interpreted as either a level of ruthlessness, or panic, that we haven''t seen before but in either case pretty much all the evidence shows that changing managers with the frequency that we''ve managed in recent years achieves absolutely nothing.[/quote]No. Changing managers with the frequency we have and replacing them with self-evidently ridiculous choices achieves nothing. Replacing them with the right man achieves plenty - and for the first time in many years, we at last have real footballing expertise on the board, so can expect or at least hope for a proper appointment for once. We haven''t appointed a manager with a decent track record since 1998 - and we wonder why we''ve declined so much in the last five years.And yup, Gunn brought in good players (or rather, Gunn, Butterworth, Crook and Deehan, who I hope is kept on, brought in good players) - but Gunn couldn''t organise them, couldn''t motivate them, and couldn''t inspire them. That''s what good managers do; but Gunn was never one to begin with. Because McNally actually knows what he''s doing, he saw this, and acted: not a moment too soon either.

[quote user="Creative Midfielder"] Sorry to enter a discordant note but could you explain why following several years of a series of managers making consistently poor signings, and I include Worthington in that list, that Gunn is a laughing stock for assembling this ''strong squad''? Quite frankly the idea that we''ve gained credibility today by sacking a manager two games into the season (and into his permanent contract), with the most recent of the two a 4-0 victory is absolutely laughable - in fact I''m pretty sure I could hear chuckling in the background when I heard the news on Five Live.[/quote]IMO, we''ll have gained credibility among real football people who know their business. Not rent-a-quote Five Live reporters who know next to nothing about the club. Before the boardroom changes in the summer, we had a bunch of incompetents in charge on and off the field, none of whom were qualified to be so, so had zero credibility. Then it wet up a bit when the new board members were announced; now it''s gone up again. For the first time in years, it suggests NCFC actually want to be a successful football club again.Steve Claridge will almost always defend managers who are under fire, especially so early in the season. But on 606 last weekend, he agreed with everything I said about how absurd it was to have left Gunn in charge after last season: as he said, he''d had long enough to make a difference, but failed. Claridge is himself a failed manager, of course; but I think he''s just one of many, many people in the game left in total disbelief by the rudderless incompetence of our board, and the appalling complacency at the very heart of the club until the summer. As he said, 25000 fans deserve better; and we may at last be making the first baby steps forward along the road to recovery.

[quote user="in the real world canary"]Why do you think that any of your suggested managers would come to Norwich when we only give them 2 games with there own team it would only be for money is that were you want your money to go??[/quote]Because with McNally at the helm, we''ll actually be looking for a proper manager - and we have a strong squad that is, at this level, the envy of most clubs. Contrary to what many will think, we actually regained a bit of credibility today: under Gunn, and before the boardroom changes, we were an utter laughing stock. Any decent manager will only join a club with competent people in charge: Tweedledum and Tweedledee aren''t, but the CEO is. I''m not at all sure we''ll get Boothroyd; but I''m convinced Robins would join us, for example. Probably Tilson too.

[quote user="nutty nigel"] You beat me to it Cherub. There is change in the air, of that I have no doubt.  The sacking of Gunn just after we won 4-0 is not the usual "easy option" decision. It''s three months since relegation and the end of Roger Munby and Neil Doncaster. It would have been better if we''d got to here in 3 weeks. Let''s hope McNally, Bowkett and co prove worth the wait. Whatever happens now Smith&Jones will get no credit but that matters not because their decision has been made and their part has been played, they now have to let the people they have appointed get on with running the club. That being the case the new manager has to be McNallys man. Great to see you posting on here again Shaun[Y] Hope we meet up again soon[B]   [/quote]There is change in the air, no doubt about it. Not as radical as many of us had wanted - but then, since when do Delia''s NCFC do radical anyway? I just hope it''s happened in time. And yup, would be great to meet up again at some point!

[quote user="canary cherub "]Welcome back Shaun, where have you been? (lurking of course!) [:D] Outstanding as always, can''t disagree with any of that. At the Capital Canaries meeting on Monday McNally referred to the club''s finances as "dire" - what a contrast from the "no danger of administration" guff we used to get from Munby and Doncaster, who were only interested in telling Delia what she wanted to hear.  Perhaps he''s finally told T&T their fortune in a way that they can understand. The irony of course is that presumably they were the ones who appointed him - can they have got something right at long last? [^o)]   [/quote]Here''s hoping, CC: even broken clocks show the correct time twice a day, after all! In a sense, at least McNally''s appointment suggested they knew how out of their depth they were, but it''s a heck of a job for him to turn things round. He definitely seems to have his finger on the pulse, at least.As for me? Well, once Gunn had been appointed and we were into the close season, I couldn''t see what else there was to talk about really. We all knew what all the problems were, which is what made Gunn''s appointment so utterly dispiriting. You''ll have heard me on Canary Call the other day mind! (you weren''t happy with what I said either... ;)) I''m totally aware of Smith and Jones'' responsibility for all this, but the short term priority, especially given the boardroom changes, was to remove Gunn: hence me focusing on that. Thank heavens, it''s happened.

It''s my birthday today - and as far as I''m concerned, Norwich City in general, and David McNally in particular, have made it one of the best ever. I''m so, so relieved they''ve acted quickly, and not allowed this nonsense to paralyse our season: which may well prove to be the most important in the club''s whole history.In January, I believe we were desperate to appoint Boothroyd - but because of our finances (or rather, before Mr Carrow or canary cherub step in, because of where our finances had already been committed), only offered him a contract til May. Quite rightly, he refused. In despair, we turned to Gunn - but as Richard Balls said at St Stephen''s Hall in May, he was almost certainly offered a longer deal, along with Butterworth and Crook. Hence the charade we went through for a couple of weeks after Charlton, a period in which any sympathy I would otherwise feel for Gunny today was lost. I thought his behaviour was desperate and embarrassing: had he any self-awareness at all, he''d have walked away instead of publicly pleading for another chance.But the trouble is, new, harsh realities are appearing on the horizon. Given the loan due for repayment in December 2010, I think this season equals promotion or bust: administration is highly likely if we fail in my view. And the one thing nice, sentimental Norwich City could not countenance would be selling local businesses short: it''d destroy our reputation within the local community for many years.Hence today''s decision, with McNally, I''m sure, critical to it. Tweedledum and Tweedledee''s responses at the Capital Canaries AGM were pathetically weak, both on why Gunn had been appointed ("we thought he deserved more time". Is that it? Is that all you can offer?) and on our long term prospects of fighting financial fires. McNally, according to accounts on here, cut a rather different figure - I bet he cannot believe the level of incompetence on display from other board members, but I''m also confident he knows how to cut through the complacency and sentimentality poisoning this club. When a decision has to be made for the good of the club, you make it; and today, thank the good lord, we did.History may show that today, Norwich City Football Club at last bottomed out after five and a bit years of miserable decline: it all depends on who we appoint. Tweedledum and Tweedledee have dumbfounded me on many previous occasions; but I''d be stupefied if Butterworth or Crook get the permanent job. Our predicament demands a proper, good appointment; and to me, that means Boothroyd, Robins or Tilson. I absolutely believe our squad is good enough to win promotion under the right manager, with Ben Alnwick''s display at Yeovil only strengthening me in this view. In my opinion, we are one permanent goalkeeping signing and one good managerial appointment away from having every chance, despite what happened last Saturday: it''s just imperative that they finally get this right. Because if they don''t, the consequences could be as dire as you could ever imagine.OTBC

[quote user="Mick Dennis"]I am "scuttling off" to Yeovil soon, but let me try to say some of the things I would have liked to have said when I was sworn at on Saturday. I plead guilty to having been "booted and suited" and having accepted a kind invitation to be Delia and Michael''s guests at the game. I had already bought tickets when I got the invitation, so I gave my tickets to my son. After the game, my wife and I popped out briefly to see our son. I was sworn at and my instinct was to have a "discussion". My wife (a city fan long before we met, incidentally) urged me to keep walking and I think, in retrospect that she was right. It would not have been possible to have a reasoned discussion when we were all so upset and angry. As I have said in today''s Express, I can cope with being sworn at, but I don''t think my wife needed to hear it. As for the central charge in these posts (that I lack objectivity), well, I certainly accept that knowing Delia and Michael reasonably well colours my view of what they have done. I agree as well that, when you look into the eyes of the manager''s family and see the hurt it is impossible not to feel empathy and sympathy. But I also understand that the club is at its lowest footballing ebb for 49 years and has just suffered its worst ever home defeat. At last night''s agm of the Capital Canaries (I''ve been a member for 30 years), Delia and Michael accepted that they have made mistakes and that they endorsed mistakes by managers. But my views are coloured by two other things. The first is that I cannot and will not boo Norwich. I think that damages the thing I care about. I think it makes it more likely, not less, that things will get worse. Some of you disagree, but at least don''t discount my right to have a view on that. Secondly, for 34 years I have been a sports journalist and in that time I have been able to get close to a lot of people in football and to have privileged access to the inner workings of lots of football clubs -- good and bad. I have never, never, never met any owners who care more, work harder or give a higher proportion of their own money to a club than Delia and Michael. I am proud that they might consider me their friend. I do not apologise for it. Some of you want to drive them out and so will never agree with me, just as I will never agree with you. I expect to be abused on this forum and to my face. I make a living from expressing opinions, so can''t complain when people make it clear how they feel about me. But allow me to make one last point: Charlie Catchpole, who is mentioned in this thread, is a friend of mine. He worked at the EDP before me and we were employees of Murdoch together in the 80s. We disagree about some aspects of NCFC, but we are able to put aside those differences when we meet because each of us accepts that the other cares passionately about the club. If any of you are at Yeovil tonight, or Brentford next week, perhaps we can have a discussion on the same basis. OTBC[/quote]Hello Mick,Fair play to you for coming on here and replying. I don''t doubt some City fans must give you a hard time; but the thing is, it''s eminently justified if you ask me, and you largely bring it on yourself, often incorrigibly so.Many a time in the past, I''ve watched you as a pundit on, say, C5''s football show and been impressed. You always fought our corner, and very well too. But in the last couple of years, it''s as though you''ve become totally oblivious to the club''s many faults, and the reasons why we''ve fallen to such a miserably low ebb - and to my mind, that can only be because you''re compromised. As a result of your friendship with Delia and Michael, you quite clearly can''t do your job properly when it comes to reporting things NCFC - and that''s incredibly frustrating, largely because you''re the one national media voice the club seems to have.Sympathy for Glenn Roeder''s wife? Where was your sympathy when he sacked NCFC employees left, right and centre? Sympathy for Delia and Michael? I take it you also sympathise with directors of other clubs when they make a total pig''s ear of it? Thought not: because if it did, it''d again prevent you from doing your job. When football club owners are incompetent the world over, they have to be called on it: and it doesn''t matter how well intentioned they might be, or whether their heart is in the right place. Where have those qualities got our joint majority shareholders? Answer: to the point whereby they oversaw our plummet into the third tier of English football.At the Caps AGM, Delia and Michael accepted they''d made mistakes, as you say. But do they have any clue why they made them - and hence, any chance of not making similar ones in the future? I doubt it; because to my mind, they made their biggest mistake yet when giving the job to a total novice in May. Many of their mistakes over the past five years have defied logic - and it''s not hindsight which leads me to say that. Many people on here spotted them when they were made in the first place: none of it has been anything approaching rocket science.On the bright side, we at least have some new directors now - and especially a new CEO who, I hope, will brook no further nonsense. But could you explain something to me? How, on the one hand, can Delia Smith openly admit to knowing nothing about football, and on the other, play a huge role in the appointment of the club''s manager? She''s not qualified to do this; just as, surprise surprise, Bryan Gunn isn''t qualified to be a manager either. Are people in your profession appointed by people who don''t know what they''re doing? In your field, is an excuse of "but they care - and mean well" countenanced when someone is patently out of their depth?I can only assume Charlie Catchpole has arrived at similar conclusions to many of us. Frankly, they''re the only reasonable ones anyone with any objectivity could reach. Your friends Delia and Michael have, I''m afraid, turned Norwich City into a pathetic soft touch riddled with sentimentality: an attitude which betrays over 25000 fans, and stems from the very top. It''ll take years to rid ourselves of this - but sadly, Delia in particular continually encourages it, which is manna from heaven for our rivals. No wonder the club attracts so much praise: why would our many competitors in the most ruthless of industries want us to wake up to ourselves and where we''re going wrong? It''s such a shame: indeed, that Delia and Michael apparently care so much is, I''m afraid, very much part of the problem. Some day, in private, I hope you have the guts to tell them that.

FourFourTwo are about a month out of date: that''s the problem with print deadlines. Before all the signings, boardroom changes and so on, I was thinking about 15th myself. Mind you, like them, I also have Ipswich as runners-up in the Championship; but to Middlesbrough, not Newcastle. Given the state they''re in, Newcastle to win the Champ is one of their most bizarre predictions I can ever remember: I''ve got them 18th, unless there''s a takeover.

1. Leeds United2. Norwich City--------------------------------3. MK Dons4. Huddersfield Town*5. Southampton6. Southend United--------------------------------7. Millwall8. Oldham Athletic9. Gillingham10. Bristol Rovers11. Charlton Athletic12. Brentford13. Brighton and Hove Albion14. Tranmere Rovers15. Colchester United16. Leyton Orient17. Wycombe Wanderers18. Swindon Town19. Walsall20. Exeter City--------------------------------21. Hartlepool United22. Yeovil Town23. Carlisle United24. Stockport CountyHave a great season, everyone!

Glenn Hoddle?

*sigh* Peter Grant had only ever been a coach, and hadn''t managed anywhere. Owen Coyle was a coach at two different clubs prior to becoming St Johnstone manager. The whole of Scottish football took serious note of what he then did: he transformed them, and was hideously unlucky not to reach two Cup Finals, and be beaten to promotion in the final seconds of the season by big-spending Gretna. That Saints have gone up this season is down to the groundwork Coyle had done: he was a gamble worth taking based on his prior record. Sorry - but it''s the board''s job to know what''s going on throughout British and arguably European football, and who the hot managerial properties are. Burnley''s did - and yesterday, they went up. Ours didn''t - and having already seen plenty of evidence that Bryan Gunn is no manager, appointed him anyway. Go figure.

Mike Newell? I thought of Steve Tilson first, but it can''t be him - because we had an official approach rejected by Southend IIRC?

Right - having had a bit of time to reflect on this idea, I have to admit I don''t like it. Think about it for a moment: it''d just be a sop. The board could say it''d proved they were "listening", but whenever anything sensitive or confidential was discussed, the rep would either have to leave the room or be bound by confidence, meaning (s)he couldn''t report back to us. They''d have no actual power in terms of majority shareholding; and if things at the club continued to decline, would become an Aunt Sally figure amongst their fellow supporters, to be shot at from all sides. Some would accuse them of being motivated by ego or celebrity; others would suggest they were too cosy with the other board members. Scenario for you. The club sells a player against the fans wishes. What could a fans'' rep do to prevent this? Yet this wouldn''t stop the fans from turning on the rep, and suggesting they should resign unless they were properly able to "represent our views". It won''t work, folks; just as the fans owning a club doesn''t work above a certain financial level either. What I think we should be pressing for instead is for the rebate to be demanded back by as many fans as possible; for fans to cancel their STs; and for as many as possible not to renew next summer if the decline continues and there''s no obvious change in strategy by those in charge. But I don''t think the fans'' rep idea will get us anywhere to be honest.

[quote user="The Butler"] The slight shifting of postion by the Associte Directors, Bertram, Bowkett etc, would have nothing to do with the value of their shares SHOULD the financial pressure applied by fans force administration would it?   [/quote] Have the Associate Directors shifted their stance, though? Archant reported today that they''ve called for unity, and are fully behind the "fresh start" (arf!) offered by, er, more of the same. I was spitting feathers while reading it!

Yup, just as I thought. Bartholomew Bumpkin''s just a troll looking for attention. Best ignore him from now on, folks.

Bartholomew Bumpkin BSc (Hons) wrote: A very good point, Disturbed. Taking a straw poll from a room full of angry nutters is hardly going to come up with the most objective, reasonable set of views. I couldn''t agree more. Which is precisely why if you filled a room with a dozen pro-board, pro-Gunn nutters (because that''s about how many you''d be able to come up with, and nutters is certainly what they''d be), you''re not going to come up with the most objective, reasonable set of views. Last night''s meeting, on the other hand, was full of a huge cross-section of City fans. Men, women and children, of all ages and from all areas of Norfolk and beyond, people who are regarded as moderates. Yet the message they sent was abundantly clear. We''ve had enough. It''s time for change. And if the board won''t listen, it''s up to us to make them listen by boycotting, cancelling STs and refusing to renew, and withdrawing our financial support for this bunch of clowns and incompetents.

This thread was amusing to begin with - and Kathy''s certainly attractive. But it''s gone way, way over the line since, and I''m astonished the mods haven''t done anything about it. Some of the posts are just plain sleazy, about someone who posts on here just like everyone else. Hopefully she''ll see the funny side - but a few posts are bang out of order if you ask me.

[quote user="Ren"] One more point, Andy Larkin was by far and away the best speaker at the forum, well done lad!!!  If you were to lead one of these groups I think you could get a serious following and do some damage!!!! Keep it up pal! [/quote] I wholeheartedly concur. There were many good speakers, but Andy was just brilliant. I''m disappointed I didn''t get to meet him actually! On the bright side though, I did meet The Butler, gazzathegreat, Kathy, Daphne (is that her username on here though? Not sure...), face, lappinitup (I think!), cityangel, nutty nigel (top bloke by the way) and Smudger - who''s an absolute pussycat in real life (and I mean that in a good way). Others too - a pleasure meeting you all. Overall, I was very pleasantly surprised by the scale of the turnout, quality of the contributions and especially the almost total unity on show. I''d expected Tuesday and Wednesday''s announcement to take a lot of heat out of the situation, and leave many at the meeting feeling conflicted and unsure. But not a bit of it - and the lack of hellraising and rabble rousing was a tribute to how much everyone clearly thought about it beforehand. On the evidence of last night, moderates are as sick and tired of the board as anyone else - and it should all provide plenty for John (special note to him: did a marvellous job as Chair, I thought) and NCISA to tap into.

[quote user="tom cavendish"] Population of Kent = 1,646,900 Gillingham average attendance = 5,307   [/quote] LOL! And Gillingham Football Club have achieved, er, what exactly throughout their history? How often have they even been in the top two divisions? Meanwhile, Norwich City have won the League Cup twice, reached three FA Cup semi-finals, won in Munich and played brilliantly in Milan, finished 3rd, 4th and 5th in the top flight, where we were almost a fixture for 23 years, and played in the Premier League as recently as four years ago... and you''re trying to compare us with Gillingham? Do you do stand up as well?

That''s pretty similar to how I saw it. I didn''t think we''d go down until March - but in June last year, posted this predicted table given the way things were going at the time: http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/9/1254842/ShowPost.aspx#1254842 1. Birmingham City 2. Sheffield United 3. Crystal Palace 4. Queens Park Rangers 5. Ipswich Town 6. Wolverhampton Wanderers 7. Cardiff City 8. Reading 9. Sheffield Wednesday 10. Coventry City 11. Burnley 12. Plymouth Argyle 13. Preston North End 14. Nottingham Forest 15. Bristol City 16. Charlton Athletic 17. Swansea City 18. Norwich City 19. Derby County 20. Watford 21. Blackpool 22. Southampton 23. Barnsley 24. Doncaster Rovers