Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Commando Canary

What was the point of Ed Balls?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Buncey said:

No offence Mr Squit but no need to be rude. I know for a fact (ITK) that he wasn't contactable for most of that specific day. 

Are you saying that there was an urgent piece of club business that needed his input and he wasn't available?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Buncey said:

With respect Purple I am not. NCFC is a public company with a significant number of minority shareholders. I don't care for what other clubs do. We're not talking about Man City or Chelsea 100pc owned by billionaires and to which some consider a 'plaything'. In fact, the NCFC cannot act in the same way as those clubs precisely because it has a duty to shareholders other than the 'owners'.

Regardless, good governance is good governance. I'm sure fans of Coventry, Bolton and even Ipswich would likely agree with that. I can't be alone in wanting Norwich to be run with more oversight than those clubs. Least of all as a shareholder!

I also did not say Moxey was Balls's decision. It's very disappointing for you to say that. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite! I trust you said it in error rather than to distort my words. You should know me better than to be some troll.  

Regardless, we don't know how the decision was made. But we know at the time Balls was performing both executive functions and chairman functions (which were never clarified). It's clear that he would be heavily involved in that decision. That is not some leap of logic. Maybe instrumental wasn't the right word. But I am only trying to give balance to some of the other comments (such as, the DOF was his idea and he made it happen). 

Anyway, that's enough for me for another year. I've gone well over my yearly quota of posts and have very much come to regret it. 

I am sorry, Buncey,  but you did:

He was instrumental in bringing in Moxey which was a very costly mistake.  Of course, he was also part of bringing in Webber and moving us towards the director of football model.

There is not another way to read that, particularly since you go on to contrast that with him being only "...part of..." the decison to get Webber in. The clear meaning is that the first, the bad, was all Balls, as it were, and the second, the good, was only a bit him.

As for corporate governance, i agree the club could do better, but my point was you were painting this as an unusual situation, in which whatever corporate governance there might normally have been was not there, and so might well have played a part in a bad decision. Whereas I don't see there being any less than the normal amount of oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I am sorry, Buncey,  but you did:

He was instrumental in bringing in Moxey which was a very costly mistake.  Of course, he was also part of bringing in Webber and moving us towards the director of football model.

There is not another way to read that, particularly since you go on to contrast that with him being only "...part of..." the decison to get Webber in. The clear meaning is that the first, the bad, was all Balls, as it were, and the second, the good, was only a bit him.

As for corporate governance, i agree the club could do better, but my point was you were painting this as an unusual situation, in which whatever corporate governance there might normally have been was not there, and so might well have played a part in a bad decision. Whereas I don't see there being any less than the normal amount of oversight.

OK I'll bite... 

There is a way to read it. That is, the words I have written. Not your inference of it. If I wanted to say "he made the decision" - I would of. I did not. If you have misunderstood what I've said, that's off your back not mine. (p.s. definition of instrumental: "serving or acting as an instrument or means;useful; helpful.")

Again, I never said the corporate governance issue was 'unusual'. That's your interpretation. I really have no idea how you leapt to that conclusion. Perhaps you have some perceived notion of what I was trying to say. 

I've got no idea why you seek to twist my words. I don't think I've wronged you at any point. Neither do I think I've said anything unreasonable. I've only tried to give a balanced viewpoint mixed in with some of my professional and personal experience. I'd hoped that readers might have found that interesting or helpful. Perhaps not. It seems I've touched a sore subject with a few posters for whatever reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buncey said:

OK I'll bite... 

There is a way to read it. That is, the words I have written. Not your inference of it. If I wanted to say "he made the decision" - I would of. I did not. If you have misunderstood what I've said, that's off your back not mine. (p.s. definition of instrumental: "serving or acting as an instrument or means;useful; helpful.")

Again, I never said the corporate governance issue was 'unusual'. That's your interpretation. I really have no idea how you leapt to that conclusion. Perhaps you have some perceived notion of what I was trying to say. 

I've got no idea why you seek to twist my words. I don't think I've wronged you at any point. Neither do I think I've said anything unreasonable. I've only tried to give a balanced viewpoint mixed in with some of my professional and personal experience. I'd hoped that readers might have found that interesting or helpful. Perhaps not. It seems I've touched a sore subject with a few posters for whatever reason. 

Buncey, I think we have always got along as posters, but I have to make two points. Firstly, you admitted "instrumental"  was perhaps the wrong word, but now you are quoting a dictionary defintion to justify it. I do not twist what people say. Your clear meaning, especially with the deliberate contrast, was that Balls was instrumental, ie responsible, for getting Moxey but only party responsible for getting Webber.

As to the corporate governance, I am sorry but you did say it was unusual because normally Balls would have been just chairman, and so  able to provide some corporate governance, but in this case as temporary exec. chairman was in no position to do that. That was your whole point, that there was this blurring of roles:

The reason it's an issue is the chairman's role is to provide critical oversight to the decision making of the company. It becomes very blurry when the chairman becomes part of that decision making. It's a stretch to say that the Moxey fiasco was down to this governance issue. But I certainly think it was a contributing factor in why it was such a dog's breakfast. Mr Balls has himself admitted that hiring Moxey was a mistake at a previous AGM. 

To summaraise that as you saying the situation was unusual is perfectly fair. It it hadn't been unsusual, and in your view a factor in hiring Moxey, there would have been no point in you explaining all this. It just would have been a bad decision. But the unusual circumstances, you believe, contributed. Hence your OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is basically an intellectual edition of one of my many PinkUn arguments. 

I like it. Keep it up lads. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

If you put aside moronic kneejerk antagonism because he was a Labour politician

I don’t think it’s necessarily his political leanings that people don’t like.  More the fact that he comes across as a pompous, self-serving, media-hungry tart.  

 

Indeed, appointing Webber currently looks like a master stroke.  Equally, falling out with McNally and the appointment of ‘Jez’ doesn’t look quite so clever.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, daly said:

We've had Ed Balls and Mr/Mrs Fry

 

Who next Ant and Dec

Posh and Becks

Richard and Judy

Tarzan and Jane

Or could it be Corbyn and Abbott

 

Salvini and Orban?

Trump and Farage?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just 10 days before this announcement Ed Balls stood for re-election at the AGM but in the statement standing down he states it has been his intention since the autumn and the majority shareholders were aware of that.

The question i therefore ask is why then stand again at the AGM as surely that would have been the platform to make this announcement ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Just 10 days before this announcement Ed Balls stood for re-election at the AGM but in the statement standing down he states it has been his intention since the autumn and the majority shareholders were aware of that.

The question i therefore ask is why then stand again at the AGM as surely that would have been the platform to make this announcement ?

 

“I talked to Michael and Delia back in September and we agreed I would stay until my third year anniversary on Boxing Day.

“We could have announced it at the AGM but we felt that was a bigger day for the club, it wasn’t about me.

“I chaired the meeting, answered the questions, but I have now made it clear I am making this decision.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but he could have stated that intention to leave on Boxing Day at the AGM. We do have a Vice Chairman in Michael Foulger who could have presided at that meeting. Surely that title in itself must mean he steps in when for whatever the reason the chairman cannot conduct the meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hogesar said:

This is basically an intellectual edition of one of my many PinkUn arguments. 

I like it. Keep it up lads. 😁

You realise we will be asking  questions later on the several issue raised?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2018 at 19:15, Nuff Said said:

Well, I didn't know he's stepped down, so thank you for drawing my attention to that.

 

 

Yes, same as that.

image.png.b78eff058761c92c1df545e76633932f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Yeah but he could have stated that intention to leave on Boxing Day at the AGM. We do have a Vice Chairman in Michael Foulger who could have presided at that meeting. Surely that title in itself must mean he steps in when for whatever the reason the chairman cannot conduct the meeting.

I'm sure given time conspiracy theories will break. Didn't the same think happen with Bowkett and "once upon a time at Vicarage Road"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😂.

 

Ed is an extremely well educated and astute man. If people could put aside their own simplistic political leanings I’m sure they’d come to the same conclusion. Having spent some time in his company, he is every bit as Norwich centric as any of us. I’ve seen him home and away numerous times with his family and, if you give him the chance, he’s as engaging and enthused as any City fan you’d come across. 

 

My own little conspiracy theory is that perhaps the Labour Party need a new leader. As they stand today, they’re akin to that lot down the road but with less direction. Yvette Cooper seems to be well respected in and out of the party and should there be a leadership battle, she might be well placed. It’d be a good time to take the job given that only Corbyn, Darth Vader or Stalin would struggle to muster a polling lead against the dreadful May. My suspicion is that Ms Cooper will go for the leadership and in anticipation of an obvious landslide at the next GE will need Ed and the family fully on board. 👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I'm sure given time conspiracy theories will break. Didn't the same think happen with Bowkett and "once upon a time at Vicarage Road"?

No conspiracy theory surrounding this Nutty as far as i am aware but i find it all rather strange that the procedure of re-election took place with about 250 people raising their hands in the air for Ed to serve again as a director ( which one would assume meant carrying on as chairman ) when everybody at the top table viewing those hands in the air in support of the published resolution knew full well it would mean didderley squat within a few days.

Not my version of transparency i am afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

No conspiracy theory surrounding this Nutty as far as i am aware but i find it all rather strange that the procedure of re-election took place with about 250 people raising their hands in the air for Ed to serve again as a director ( which one would assume meant carrying on as chairman ) when everybody at the top table viewing those hands in the air in support of the published resolution knew full well it would mean didderley squat within a few days.

Not my version of transparency i am afraid.

Rearrange these words into a well-known phrase or saying: “beat with the stick to any club”.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yvette Cooper for leader of the party backed by Balls

Corbyn, Abbott and now Pixie the press will have a field day

More fiddles there than an Irish Band

Edited by daly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, daly said:

Yvette Cooper for leader of the party backed by Balls

Corbyn, Abbott and now Pixie the press will have a field day

More fiddles there than an Irish Band

Perhaps you’d like to point out politicians you regard as incorruptible models of probity? I would put money on it being a lot easier to find them in Labour (or the Greens, but choosing from a field of one isn’t very representative) than the Tories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

Rearrange these words into a well-known phrase or saying: “beat with the stick to any club”.

Well it took a long time by Pink Un standards for somebody to trot out that same old tiresome line with the expected reaction from FF who leaps upon it with his usual gusto.

This is worthy of discussion surely and by that i mean when the AGM took place those at the top table knew full well that this re-election was to be a worthless exercise within a fortnight ?

Edited by TIL 1010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Well it took a long time by Pink Un standards for somebody to trot out that same old tiresome line with the expected reaction from FF who leaps upon it with his usual gusto.

This is worthy of discussion surely and by that i mean when the AGM took place those at the top table knew full well that this re-election was to be a worthless exercise within a fortnight ?

You have to feel sorry for all those people who attended the AGM and had to go through the process of re-electing Ed Balls.

They'll never get that 90 seconds back. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but it did stop the opportunity had it been announced that he was standing down for anybody to ask questions about any replacements on the board or who was to replace Ed as chairman.Couldn't possibly have that situation arise now could we ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Yes but it did stop the opportunity had it been announced that he was standing down for anybody to ask questions about any replacements on the board or who was to replace Ed as chairman.Couldn't possibly have that situation arise now could we ?

That would of prolonged the agony for those in attendance as the inevitable 'We haven't decided on one yet but we still have until Boxing Day to find one so no need to panic' statement would've been trotted out.

The whole process might have been increased to two minutes. 😀

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Yes but it did stop the opportunity had it been announced that he was standing down for anybody to ask questions about any replacements on the board or who was to replace Ed as chairman.Couldn't possibly have that situation arise now could we ?

Surely this is a conspiracy theory given that an explanation was given?🙃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

Perhaps you’d like to point out politicians you regard as incorruptible models of probity? I would put money on it being a lot easier to find them in Labour (or the Greens, but choosing from a field of one isn’t very representative) than the Tories.

The Greens got 525,665 votes for their one seat.  The Scottish National Party got less than double the votes (977,568) and yet got 35 seats. 

And people still claim the system shouldn't change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NCFC were at full Board capacity. It might be that Webber’s importance to the operation is recognised and the kudos and golden handcuffs of making him a formal Director better enshrines his long-term retention.

Perhaps Ed Balls loves the Club, will still offer most of what he did as a VP and has plenty of other offers and avenues to chase. 

Perhaps Webber is in demand, is highly ambitious and it is good politics to provide him with a status that satisfies this ambition and encourages him to put down deeper roots here (particularly given that his Wife is also a key part of the Management Group and it is a rather lovely part of the world for a family).

Would indeed be good and decent politics all round. Thank you Ed.

Parma 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Ed Balls is an exceptional individual and was a credit to this football club.....It remains an enigma into why the foolish electorate didn't cast their valuable votes to reappoint this esteemed intellectual, and return this political demi-god back into his political seat where he quite rightly belonged ......?

 

Oh well, it's the foolish flippin' British electorates loss......and Norwich City Football Club's gain.....(Oh, and Strictly's).....

 

I will miss Ed as our Chairman.......and this coming Boxing Day, will be a very sad day indeed......Oh yeah......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

NCFC were at full Board capacity. 

Parma 

Parma, full capacity - not sure that this true? Articles of Association indicate the requirement for a minimum of four and a maximum of eight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×