Bring back Mcnally.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I think it''s facts that cause you the most problems komakino. You need a better memory to get away with it....

[quote user="komakino"]Delia did try to invest in Ipswich Town. I''m not going to tell you who my source is, but lets just say that the directors know that this is true... They are not going to admit it in a million years, but this is a fact.[/quote]

[ricardo 7,347]

May have had some personal problems which a predilection to Twitter didn''t help but it was a mistake to let him go IMO.

[komakino 272]

I can''t remember who told me that - too long ago! Probably an old source from Ipswich Town. It would-be funny if true.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Surely it''s true because it''s one of your facts Komakino. And all the directors were aware of it.

[Van wink 2,994]

ricardo wrote the following post at 15/03/2017 4:04 PM:

May have had some personal problems which a predilection to Twitter didn''t help but it was a mistake to let him go IMO.

Indeed. Had many critics but you did feel that there was a strong pair of hands at the rudder.

[komakino 272]

[quote user="ricardo"]May have had some personal problems which a predilection to Twitter didn''t help but it was a mistake to let him go IMO.[/quote]

My understanding is that Delia & Michael were not exactly upset to see him go.

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="komakino"][quote user="ricardo"]May have had some personal problems which a predilection to Twitter didn''t help but it was a mistake to let him go IMO.[/quote]

My understanding is that Delia & Michael were not exactly upset to see him go.[/quote]I''m not surprised by that, they seem to prefer someone they can control.

[Woodman 92]

Weren''t people saying that he played hard ball with agents which prevented some of our intended signings to fall through or not even get past the initial enquiry phase?

You can''t deny that he (and Bowkett) kept a tight hand on the tiller when we were in financial trouble. The question is, how much credit he deserves for combining that with 3 seasons out of 5 in the Prem under Lambert and Hughton?

[komakino 272]

[quote user="Woodman"]Weren''t people saying that he played hard ball with agents which prevented some of our intended signings to fall through or not even get past the initial enquiry phase?

You can''t deny that he (and Bowkett) kept a tight hand on the tiller when we were in financial trouble. The question is, how much credit he deserves for combining that with 3 seasons out of 5 in the Prem under Lambert and Hughton?[/quote]

I had heard that too Woodman. McNally (allegedly) use to stick to one agent and some of Neil''s targets were sabotaged.

For me, the board could stand losing Bowkett, but not Bowkett and McNally. Bowkett in particular sorted the financial side out when the club was in a very precarious state and his role should not be underestimated.

McNally burnt himself out, but when you are the only professional in a board amongst amateurs, there is only so much you can do before it gets too much.

My worry since then has been the majority shareholders are too comfortable and apart Moxey''s brief rein as CEO - something Delia apologised to staff for earlier this year - who is going to be critical of the board?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="komakino"]The way this season has gone I feel more than justified. Norwich City unfortunately having never looked like going up this season. If the club were serious about Promotion, Neil would of gone last year. I maintain the club were not serious regarding this season or a very best extremely complacent.

Also you are assuming that keeping the bulk of the squad was good thing? I didn''t at the time and the proof was in the pudding. Neil kept a squad that was increasingly playing against him and players with nothing to prove as Michael Bailey pointed out much earlier in the season was not the way to go. Neil''s bullying of players - especially as he had no track record as a player - did him no favours.

With Bowkett and McNally gone, the board compromises of well meaning amateurs and I wouldn''t put anything past them. They are hopeless.[/quote]None of that verbiage is is the slightest relevant to what you kept posting, which was the "fact" that we budgeted right from the outset not to get promoted. When the opposite was true. We budgeted, perhaps to our longer-term financial discomfort, to try to get straight back up. Every fact supports that. I am not going to bother pointing this out again, and you are free to keep claiming you have "impeccable sources".  The trouble is that when you keep relying on these "impeccable sources" that get basic stuff completely wrong it diminishes whatever limited amount of credibility you might have started with.

[komakino 272]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="komakino"]The way this season has gone I feel more than justified. Norwich City unfortunately having never looked like going up this season. If the club were serious about Promotion, Neil would of gone last year. I maintain the club were not serious regarding this season or a very best extremely complacent.

Also you are assuming that keeping the bulk of the squad was good thing? I didn''t at the time and the proof was in the pudding. Neil kept a squad that was increasingly playing against him and players with nothing to prove as Michael Bailey pointed out much earlier in the season was not the way to go. Neil''s bullying of players - especially as he had no track record as a player - did him no favours.

With Bowkett and McNally gone, the board compromises of well meaning amateurs and I wouldn''t put anything past them. They are hopeless.[/quote]None of that verbiage is is the slightest relevant to what you kept posting, which was the "fact" that we budgeted right from the outset not to get promoted. When the opposite was true. We budgeted, perhaps to our longer-term financial discomfort, to try to get straight back up. Every fact supports that. I am not going to bother pointing this out again, and you are free to keep claiming you have "impeccable sources".  The trouble is that when you keep relying on these "impeccable sources" that get basic stuff completely wrong it diminishes whatever limited amount of credibility you might have started with.[/quote]

Agree to disagree. Move on.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="komakino"]

Agree to disagree. Move on.[/quote]

That''s what people usually say when they are wrong.

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

"That''s what people usually say when they are wrong."

What nonsense.

The master of one-liners strikes again.

Why is he wrong?

Please state in some detail.

Preferably with correct spelling.

[hogesar 9,618]

He''s wrong because he constantly refers to his "facts" even though evidence and actual facts contradict it. Not to mention, as Nutty has shown, one of his facts are suddenly now just rumours as time moves on..