Lack of experience

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]If Norwich expect every player they want to sign to come over to Colney and have nice sit down chat with Alex Neil then it is obvious why they are struggling to sign players. It is insulting to the player.

There is no reason players should agree to that, no other club that I have worked at or heard of has such a requirement. When Norwich signed Kei Kamara should he have flown over from America for a ''wee chat'' only to be told the club ''have changed their mind''? It''s unreasonable on the players.

You do long distance negotiations on the phone, or someone from the club goes to the player. When Arsenal wanted to sign a Romanian 17 year old, they sent their chief executive and chief negotiator to Romania to meet the player. If attitude is so important to AN he should go to Spain to meet the guy, not drag him over to Norwich - it shows the correct amount of professionalism and respect, in my opinion.

Some players will want to come and look around the club, but that is up to them - many won''t bother with such a formality, especially if they have to travel a distance to do so.[/quote]

Insulting? Football recruitment should be no different to any other kind of recruitment.   You show the right qualifications, if it''s long distance you get in touch with the prospective employer and discuss things in more detail, if all is well you then go and meet the employer to have a look round.  Agreed  that by that stage things should be pretty much done and dusted, but it is equally possible that possible differences can emerge between prospective employee and employer even at a late stage - and it is then one of the parties has to be strong.   

Players can afford flights and the time to travel to see where they might be working - it''s in their interests to, so I don''t see any problem with that - but to expect AN to go gadding about the globe  and see every player who might possibly be of interest is unreasonable, unless it is a player who is going to be in big demand elsewhere and we want him at all costs.  I really cannot understand why footballers think they should be treated as special in some way, to be feted and wooed like prima donnas.  They are prospective employees of a football club and if they don''t match up when they meet the boss - that''s tough.   

[star_manic 0]

[quote user="Thetford Yellow"]I''m sorry to say it but Neil is out of his depth and clearly floundering. He does not have the experience or profile to attract the type of players required and the board does not have the ambition to spend the money that might pursued top players to put their doubts AN to one side and sign for us. Hell be gone by Christmas, which is a shame because the board have left him to swing in this transfer window[/quote]

You are not sorry at all. You consistently twist every fact to berate, belittle and batter the club and board in order to get your vicarious enjoyment. It must be sad being you.

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="93vintage"][quote user="lake district canary"]Look. Lets get this straight.  There is NO evidence that the club or AN hav acted wrongly or in an inexperienced way - the only evidence that is that the club pulled out.   The supportive view of the club would be that it has reacted to a moving of the goalposts by the player or the agent.    That is a strong action, not a weak action. Or you could believe what the agent says............[/quote]It depends on what your definition of evidence is and whether you''re objectively examining it. To me there doesn''t seem to be any reason to not take what was said at face value. This is based on regarding both sides, rather than simply believing one side over the other.Alex Neil said, "Yes, he came over, I met him and decided it wasn''t for us. Simple as

that...I just

decided not to pursue it." The agent said, "There has not been any problem that may have lead to this. Nor has there been any change in the numbers of the operation."If there was a moving of the goalposts then I''d have expected the club to have come out and said so, especially if the agent denied that this was the case and layed into the club.All the evidence points towards Alex Neil deciding against signing Larrivey based on his view of the player after having met him in Norwich, not because eg wage demands were raised at the last minute.[/quote]

You are not going to get to the truth through just accepting what the different parties say in public - there are two sides to every argument - and the real reasons, whether it is a clash of personalities, or the player said something that angered AN, or whatever, will  be kept private.  The reasons will have been good ones - and better to risk embarrassment than get a player who is not going to fit in.  

As for interview by skype or whatever - you are never, ever, going to get a good feel for a person''s real attributes until you can look them straight in the eye across a table.   When a person is in their own safe environment being interviewed over a link, they can be more in control than when they are in a room face to face - nothing can beat the real thing. [/quote]Well you seem to be saying that it''s okay to form a view if it''s "supportive" of the club, otherwise you should just ignore the evidence in case its not true. What people say might not be true, but it''s still evidence.I agree with what you say about face to face meetings being superior, and also with what Bethnal said about going to meet players rather than having them come to Norwich.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="lake district canary"]AN - ergo the club - have done nothing that can be seen to be wrong (excepting for what an agent says).   The fault has to lie with the agent/player - therefore AN''s experinece or not does not come into it.[/quote]Sorry LDC, but that''s little more than idle supposition at best, and utter nonsense at worst.We have ZERO idea as to why the deal broke down, it could be the agents fault, the players fault, the clubs fault, AN''s fault, hell it could even be that Larrivey felt insulted by Doris the tea lady - we just don''t know, so stop claiming that it''s got jack all to do with the club or AN, because we simply do not know either way where the fault lies.I''m simply hoping that we pulled the plug for a genuinely good reason, and that we conducted ourselves professionally in the process - contrary to what the player''s agent appears to suggest.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="lake district canary"]AN - ergo the club - have done nothing that can be seen to be wrong (excepting for what an agent says).   The fault has to lie with the agent/player - therefore AN''s experinece or not does not come into it.[/quote]Sorry LDC, but that''s little more than idle supposition at best, and utter nonsense at worst.We have ZERO idea as to why the deal broke down, it could be the agents fault, the players fault, the clubs fault, AN''s fault, hell it could even be that Larrivey felt insulted by Doris the tea lady - we just don''t know, so stop claiming that it''s got jack all to do with the club or AN, because we simply do not know either way where the fault lies.I''m simply hoping that we pulled the plug for a genuinely good reason, and that we conducted ourselves professionally in the process - contrary to what the player''s agent appears to suggest.[/quote]

You are right - we have no idea why it broke down - which is why I have taken issue with those that say that it was due to "lack of expereience"  and them casting the manager in a particular light - without any real knowledge.  My opinions are based on a lack of knowledge too and all I am doing is giving the club the benefit of the doubt.    It''s way too simplistic to say that it broke down due to "inexperience".  

I haven''t said it''s got hjack all to do with the club, either - merely stating that the deal fell through  and that''s that - and no blame is necessarily due.   

[93vintage 16]

This is a football message board where people post opinions. It''s not a courtroom where we''re able to read sworn statements and crossexamine witnesses, so people will give opinions based on the available evidence.I don''t think anyone is claiming a particular scenario as hard fact. My own opinion was based on the evidence rather than being arbitrarily biased in favour of the club.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="93vintage"]This is a football message board where people post opinions. It''s not a courtroom where we''re able to read sworn statements and crossexamine witnesses, so people will give opinions based on the available evidence.I don''t think anyone is claiming a particular scenario as hard fact. My own opinion was based on the evidence rather than being arbitrarily biased in favour of the club.[/quote]There is a strong inference on this thread that AN''s inexperience was to blame for the situation with  Larrivey.   Then there was an inference that if it wasn''t his fault then it was the club''s fault.    My opinion is not based on  "being arbitrarily biased in favour of the club" but is based on that there is no real actual evidence of blame on anyone''s part.  Each side will have put forward its case to suit themselves - the agent will blame the club, but then the club will not blame the agent because that would look bad - so they just give a bland statement.  The agent can say what he likes, he has a position to uphold and doesn''t want to lose face - so he is bound to pass the blame on to the club.  In that scenario I would give the club the benefit of the doubt, but it is neither arbitary or biased.  

[Peanuts 150]

[quote user="lake district canary"]You are right - we have no idea why it broke down - which is why I have taken issue with those that say that it was due to "lack of expereience"  and them casting the manager in a particular light - without any real knowledge.  My opinions are based on a lack of knowledge too and all I am doing is giving the club the benefit of the doubt.    It''s way too simplistic to say that it broke down due to "inexperience".  [/quote]

According to Paddy Davitt in today''s Q&A Larrivey''s lack of physique was the main reason AN vetoed the transfer. You could argue that this shows the manager and footballing board are not in step, but it''s also proof that AN has the final say and that he isn''t under pressure to bring in someone he''s not 100% happy with, despite the perceived lack of transfer activity so far.

[cannigia1 0]

Neil Lennon is moaning in Scottish media that he has no money to buy quality players for Bolton ..and Alex Neil doesn''t need money to buy quality. he finds missfits and gets the best out of them ..that''s his forte ..Lennon has found out at Bolton.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="cannigia1"]Neil Lennon is moaning in Scottish media that he has no money to buy quality players for Bolton ..and Alex Neil doesn''t need money to buy quality. he finds missfits and gets the best out of them ..that''s his forte ..Lennon has found out at Bolton.[/quote]Not sure what relevance it has to this thread and I assume you mean ''Lennon has "been" found out''.   However, you make sense for once - AN does undoubtedly get the best out of what he has. That is really all any manager can be expected to do.   Crying because you can''t get anything better than what you''ve got undermines what you already have - and will send out the wrong message to his players. Glad we didn''t get him as manager.

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

I find it hard to believe that people feel that the club or AN have done something wrong in refusing to sign a player who AN felt, when met face to face, was wrong for the club. Skype is not face to face and this could explain why many clubs sign completely unsuitable players.

[KoromaCrab 0]

is it possible that Larrivey did not understand what Alex Neil was saying due to his strong Scottish accent?

Perhaps Larrivey said this to Neil which offended Neil greatly...