OldRobert

Goodness knows how many on here have been pleading for the youngsters to be given some minutes..................

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]No again. This is almost certainly purely a case of the club not getting round to doing the paperwork to remove Moxey as a director. I would be surprised - to put it mildly - if he has set foot in Carrow Road since he was sacked as CEO, let alone done any work. He was only paid because he was CEO, so he won''t now be getting a salary. To all intent and purposes he no longer has any connection with the club.[/quote]I wonder if the club are aware that if you are right, and they haven''t done their paperwork, the press have picked up on the fact that Moxey is only sitting on the FL board because he is a NED of NCFC?

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]No. I would be amazed if that were the case, given the manner of/background to his departure. He may still technically be a director but I would be prepared to wager a substantial amount of money that he takes absolutely no part in decision-making.[/quote]My thoughts entirely.  But you can hardly give someone a position then deny them the duties, functions whatever of that position.  If you don''t want them to carry out those functions surely you don''t give them the position in the first place.  NEDs can attend board meetings, vote, are sent agendas, why was he ''kept on?  As you say Purple there was a ''manner of his departure'', yet it would appear he''s stll here..................

[quote] user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy"]You typically contribute expertise to others who ultimately have the responsibility to take or enact any decision. The non-Executive contributes expertise, contacts and an external critical eye over the business direction, operations, capabilities, weaknesses, wider market, competition, possible cross-pollination opportunities with other businesses and sectors, may even offer back-channel communication with competitors, buyers, sellers or investors. Payments are ad-hoc or as a retainer and no employment liabilities are typically incurred by the client. In this way additional skills are accessed for relatively limited cost and investment. In this way both thoughts are correct. It is technically a role that doesn''t take the decision per se, but may conversely have an influence over the decision taken. Having such roles in multiple Companies and across multiple sectors allows for excellent opportunities to share ideas, identify opportunities and merge positive elements from different sources. Any large Company or institution - including Norwich City - has a tendency to the insular after a period of time. Parma [/quote]Is Moxey that much of an asset to NCFC, that we should retain him as an NED?  If he is, I ask again why did we fire him and not just shuffle him sideways or is that, as I suspect, exactly what we have done?

[quote user="Salopian"] But given that the central defenders will be two from Martin, Bassong, and Bennett, do we have any choice?[/quote]That''s cheered me up no end...................

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="OldRobert"][quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]A non-3''xecutive director is an advisory/consultant type role. They will not take part in any of the board''s decision making, hence the giant clue of NON-executive in the title.[/quote]If part of their role is to facilitate strategic decisions by the executive directors, how can that fail to be part of the decision making process, or am I being thick here, which is perfectly possible?[/quote]There is a confusion here. That type of non-executive director is usually someone who is not only not employed by the company but has no direct connection with it, apart from the directorship. Their role is to provide an independent view specifically as outsiders.This kind of arrangement normally exists in large companies where there are enough senior executives (chairman, chief executive, chief finance officer etc etc etc) to form a working board of decision-making directors.It is different with Norwich City, where traditionally we have only had one executive director - the CEO. And the others are non-executive, but they are directly connected with the club, either as owners or fans and as such are an intrinsic part of the decsion-making process. Indeed since the non-execs always outnumber the one exec....---This unbiased and agenda-free post comes to you from the PurpleCanary "Football finance made impenetrable" Helpline.[/quote]Thank you for your response Purple ("Football finance made impenetrable" Helpline.).  So therefore, I was right in that Moxey, although fired from his post at NCFC, still has a part in the decision making process at NCFC?  And if I have that right, and indeed his former post of CEO has subsequently been abolished, what was the point of sacking him?  Rhetorical question.

[quote user="Van wink"]OldRobert wrote the following post at 16/04/2017 1:52 PM: Hoola Han Solo wrote: A non-3''xecutive director is an advisory/consultant type role. They will not take part in any of the board''s decision making, hence the giant clue of NON-executive in the title. If part of their role is to facilitate strategic decisions by the executive directors, how can that fail to be part of the decision making process, or am I being thick here, which is perfectly possible? They bring some external expertise Robert, have a role as you said as critical friend, asking the questions others might miss, but in this case no real authority.[/quote][Y]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]A non-3''xecutive director is an advisory/consultant type role. They will not take part in any of the board''s decision making, hence the giant clue of NON-executive in the title.[/quote]If part of their role is to facilitate strategic decisions by the executive directors, how can that fail to be part of the decision making process, or am I being thick here, which is perfectly possible?

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Thanks for that Robert and Lakey but seems all rather strange. [/quote]Found this definition of a Non-Executive Director (as I hadn''t a clue), makes me wonder whether Moxey was fired at all:The non-executive director The demand for non-executive directors has increased in recent years. Non-executive directors tend to be cherry picked for their personal qualities, experience and specialist knowledge. Good non-executive appointments can create positive PR, and help the organisation generate long-term exposure in the right areas. Their role is broad. Primarily they will provide objective criticism on board matters –  “constructive challenge” – and facilitate strategic decisions by the executive directors. Since they monitor the executive management, it is vital they are impartial and not influenced by other associations, shareholdings or directorships. Therefore they must be Independent of other stakeholders or interested parties. However, in all activities, they must act in the interests of those who have an interest in the company, such as employees, clients, shareholders and society in general. Non-executive directors also have a mentoring role to advise and guide Chairmen and Chief Executives where issues arise, or prior to them being brought up in board meetings. They are the ‘critical friend’ of the CEO and executive team, with 50% of their role asking questions on how the business is run in the best interests of its stakeholders, while spending 50% of the time supporting the team towards mission success and growth. They can also sit on sub committees to ensure the company benefits most from their skill sets. The non-executive directors will also be reimbursed and get additional pay for attending meetings, with an upward trend in their remuneration now beginning to plateau. Emma Ford The Professional Organisation for Non-Executive Directors

Morning Tilly.Eventually found it on Mail online it was publshed on Friday 14 April, found the paper:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4410292/Arsene-Wenger-blow-chairman-walks-Palace-game.htmlScroll down and it''s just above pic of Claire Balding.  Sorry no clicky, mine aren''t working anymore, like most things to do with me!The thing I didn''t understand was why he is still apparently a non-executive director of NCFC?

[quote user="lake district canary"]I used to defend Martin as a CB, but it has become difficult to defend any of our players, particularly ones that have been with the club over the last four years.  As a defence that resembles a seive at the slightest pressure, they''re all at fault.  They were at fault under Hughton after a good start (around twenty games) they were at fault under Adams after a good start (again after around twenty games) and they were at fault under AN after the run to promotion.  So I can''t defend Martin any more as a CB, or a right back, come to that.  Not only is the defence carp, as a captain he has failed to organise his defence and motivate the team when things are against us.  And the rest of the defence isn''t any better.  Sorry, but that is how it is. [/quote]Don''t often agree with you LDC, but I agree with every word of that post.  Well said.

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="OldRobert"]Can someone, who knows more about these things than I, explain why, Jez Moxey, despite being fired as CEO after 6 months, remains as a non-executive director of the club, which also apparently allows him to stay on the FL Board?[/quote]Source ?[/quote]Reported in the press on Friday.  Mail I think, Charles Sale column.  Can''t see why it would be made up.

Can someone, who knows more about these things than I, explain why, Jez Moxey, despite being fired as CEO after 6 months, remains as a non-executive director of the club, which also apparently allows him to stay on the FL Board?

A lot of excellent points above, none of which I disagree with.  I hope Mr Webber has a very good Head Coach in mind, as they''ve got one helluva job in front of them.

[quote user="Len"]I just wonder if we''re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. All those years of service but how loyal will Ricky Martin''s replacement be?I believe this is the first time Webber has undertaken such a large job of replacing so many people, and it remains to be seen if things will be a success.If it all goes wrong then we risk another season in League One.[/quote]Surely it''s a question of Martin''s replacement being better at his job.  It''s all very well being loyal, but if you are no good at your job, loyalty counts for nothing.

B ummer.

Best he clears off back from whence he came.................

Many congratulations Diane for the excellent work you and your fellow Volunteers have done, to raise such an incredible amount of money.  You all well deserve all the plaudits you are receiving.  Very well done.  Great pics btw.

[quote user="Alf Tupperware"]I believe the younger of the gutbuckets was given a four year ban due to previously problems ie an earlier banLesson here must beDon''t drink on an empty head[/quote]No alcohol for any binners then!

[quote user="Alf Tupperware"]I know we shouldn''t laugh, but..[/quote]Poor He he he he he he he he he Warren Haha haha haha haha haha haha haha haha, sorry can''t help it.

[quote user="daly"]PS Would have thought irrespective that we have both the brilliant Murphys that Canos would still have proven a good player to stick with We kept Randy Lafferty, Sick Note Jarvis and Mulumbu[/quote]Definition of forward thinking![;)]

If no-one wants to hurt his feelings, and he''s a jolly good fellow blah blah blah, make him a club ambassador, but for goodness sake get him away from being part of a ''defence'' (ha ha) that has been primarily responsible for leaking an unacceptable number of goals this season.  What is it 60+?  Get rid of the other defensive clowns and let the ''new structure'' completely overhaul our defence so we can resemble a side who wants to be at the top of, or near, the league next season.  No team that leaks goals like we do, has ever won anything, at any level.

[quote user="Diane"]Hubby and I have both voted for Wes[/quote]Never! lol

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Oh, all knowing, wise, old one.  Who is this generally accepted by???  By who, exactly, who would have any bearing on making such decisions???  How do you know this?  We don''t have a Head Coach and the Sporting Director has been in place only a couple of days!!![/quote]You are obviously being deliberately idiotic.In case it''s escaped your notice It''s a football forum, for discussion.  Posters opinions, nothing more although you don''t offer any.  In the case of this ''discussion'' if you'' bothered to read other threads of which there have been several opinions of who should stay, who should go.  Surprise, surprise several names came out as a common denominator, hence my phraseology.No nobody on here has any bearing on any decisions made by the Board or management of NCFC.  No-one said they did, no-one believes they do.I was not aware we didn''t have a Head Coach neither was I aware that the Sporting Director has been in place only a couple of days.  If you believe that you are even more gullible than you obviously are.Now I''m bored with this ''conversation'' if you can call it that, and intend now to call a halt to it.  I would rather carry this on with someone like Flashman who seems prepared to enter into a proper discussion.

[quote user="Flashman"]I''m not too sure about your choices. Players often respond to different managers and much is down to their attitude.Lafferty certainly fits that role. Turner is as good as gone, and Mulumbu can be ok on his day, but he would have to accept quite a pay cut to stay. Jarvis, as he seems to be permanently injured. Bassong has had his day. Those would be my certainties.Tettey, Whittaker, Bennett would be good enough as cover - so would depend on who we were able to bring in first.Keepers. Again possibly dependent on what happens to Rudd.A controversial suggestion would be for one of the Murphy''s to be moved on. Given how similar their playing style is there will only ever really be space for one on the pitch at most times.However it remains to be seen whether today was a flash in the pan or whether those players can deliver, regularlyroll on friday[/quote]Perfectly reasonable points Flashman.  Only problem is, don''t think any of them would go too far in bolstering the coffers which I assume is still a problem for us.  Yes, they''d free up some wages but surely we need to boost the transfer pot as well.Keepers, I know I read somewhere that Rudd had been told he could go as well as Ruddy, but Gawd knows where it was.  If so that leaves Matthews  I suppose.Agree totally with Bassong and Jarvis.  Flash in the pan?  Who knows, time will tell.