The reason Neil is still manager is...

[ROBFLECK 132]

^^ By referring to Theoklitos, I meant the level of players we had on the pitch...he soon turned it round...

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

@ Tumbleweed:

"Alex Neil took a Chris Hughton/Neil Adams team to Wembley and won the play off final comprehensively outplaying a very solid and well organised team. "

A solid and well organised team that had about 30 minutes to prepare due to traffic and were definitely not at the races first half, resulting in them being 2 nil game with game over after 30 minutes. All we had to do for the remaining hour was defend in numbers, which we did.

Not meaning to downplay the achievements of the players that day but Boroat Wembley did not play to the same level of the Boro that did the double over us that season.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Canary Jedi"]Which one of the following do you believe is true, or is there another reason? I am going for number 2:

1. The board genuinely believe that given time Neil will turn things around and get us promoted, and therefore will continue to back him.[/quote]I am sure it is 1. although I would change the wording to:"...and therefore have so far backed him."I would make the point (speaking as an Outer from before we beat Brentford) that in terms of attracting managers it is no bad thing for a board to have the reputation of giving them time to get over bad patches, as opposed to some clubs where a few losses will see you out of the door clutching your P45. In this specific case I believe the board have given Neil too much time, but as a general policy it has its virtues.

[yorkie 0]

The BOD are not very bright and not very brave and are stubborn. End of.

The only way out of this may be a fans rebellion.

[Keith Scott 243]

There''s only two reasons Neil is still manager. Firstly our board are completely and utterly incompetent. And second our fans let them get away with being completely and utterly incompetent. Shambles from top to bottom.

[OldRobert 38]

Even if the unlikely happened, and the BOD were to make a U turn and sack Neil, with our majority shareholders giving the impression in their press interview of being somewhat out of touch with reality, and the way that football works now, it does make one wonder what sort of manager would wish to come and work for such an inward looking BOD as ours.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Keith Scott"]And second our fans let them get away with being completely and utterly incompetent.[/quote]With only 15,009 there Saturday I don''t suppose there was much they could do Snotty.....

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

I''ve heard that we are trying to find the compensation to pay Burton Albion for their manager!

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

"I''ve heard that we are trying to find the compensation to pay Burton Albion for their manager!"

That''s Nigel Clough. I like the sound of that. He has had a bit of a chequered managerial career but now seems to have matured into the role and is doing an excellent job at Burton Albion.

With a decent stint as a player at the top clubs and international caps he should command the respect of the players. Then there''s the name it''s self.

I do not suppose for one minute that it will happen and would respectfully suggest that it is just another mischievous rumour, but it''s a nice thought.

[Green and Yellow 0]

IF and it''s a big if City get hammered at Southampton tomorrow evening A.N will be gone.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user=" Green and Yellow"]IF and it''s a big if City get hammered at Southampton tomorrow evening A.N will be gone.[/quote]Well, that''s a good one!  [Y]

[Canary Jedi 573]

Thinking about purple''s point above about the club being seen to give a manager time. I like the Southampton approach - routinely change the manager even if doing ok just to keep the team mentality fresh.

Let''s face it if Neil was any good over a decent amount of time we would lose him anyway, so what''s the point of being loyal to our manager?

[Duncan Edwards 2,220]

I think the reported pay off figure is a bit of a non-headline. Not in so much that it is off-putting - it is a lot of money; more that the actual severance package is likely to be similar to what it was anyway. The compensation figure may have risen but Alex Neil had his wages divisionally adjusted like the players.

So theoretically it won''t cost us any more than previously to sack him. It is still a figure that must have them wondering whether it is a worthwhile exercise, especially if the "replacement" is in employment. Compo to Neil, Compo to club we poach from or put those funds towards freshening the squad up and trusting Alex Neil.

While we''d all (most of us) have pulled the trigger long ago, we don''t see the full consequences.

I''d sack him but if it was going to do my budget out of £3m+, I''m not sure I could guarantee that the new guy would recoup/be worth that.

The opposite argument is that it might cost us more to leave him in situ.

Glad I don''t have to make these decisions. Doing crap blogs is much easier!!!

[Canary Jedi 573]

I think I missed an option in the opening post which I am now starting to wonder if this is the real reason:

"There is a clause in Neil''s contract that he can be sacked without compensation should Norwich fail to achieve promotion."

Therefore even if the club think he cannot gain promotion they will still wait until the end of the season.

[Bill 1,788]

Canary Wundaboy

"Alex Neil took a Chris Hughton/Neil Adams team to Wembley and won the play off final comprehensively outplaying a very solid and well organised team. "

A solid and well organised team that had about 30 minutes to prepare due to traffic and were definitely not at the races first half, resulting in them being 2 nil game with game over after 30 minutes. All we had to do for the remaining hour was defend in numbers, which we did.

Not meaning to downplay the achievements of the players that day but Boroat Wembley did not play to the same level of the Boro that did the double over us that season.

You are right about one thing, they were not at the races... they were at Wembley

So please explain why Ayala''s mistake or the second goal was anything to do with supposed lack of preperation.

It was not a half hour either it was just under an hour... and that WAS NOT due to any misfortune but -

''Aitor Karanka claimed afterwards that although the coach did hit traffic in the capital, the late arrival was planned to ensure his players weren’t overawed by the enormity of the occasion at Wembley.''

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

Face it , we got lucky at Wembley , great for us fans to have the day of our lives . However, the many , and unaddressed shortfalls were exposed with our short visit to the Prem.

To continue withe the same clown in position of manager was foolish to say the least , the lack of necessary additions to address the shortcomings , ludicrous .

Nothing will change until the summer at earliest , and only if the manager is quite justifiablely sacked .

[Herman 9,716]

"Face it , we got lucky at Wembley"NO,WE REALLY DIDN''T. We well and truly deserved that win. I can agree with parts of your post but that is nonsense.

[City 2nd 191]

Simple answer- because he hadn''t been dismissed!