Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Commando Canary

What was the point of Ed Balls?

Recommended Posts

I am sure it was said that our current way of running the club was one his main ideas. Seems to be working rather well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Commando Canary said:

Wow, I haven't been on here for a while, I see Morty has gone, but has been replaced by a load of 'wannabes' #hogarse,LDC,Tired,Nuffsiad...

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

 

However....

 

Since Ed has been on the board, the club has had several critical issues which needed immediate action. The obvious key one being the financial impact of relegation, but there was also Moxey's resignation and the future of the academy. He has been a part, as chairman quite possibly one of the most important parts, in a huge amount of strategic change which currently has lead to the club being top of the Championship for 4 weeks now, with what looks like a gap of 5 points to third place.

 

That was the point of Ed Balls.

 

Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Commando Canary said:

Wow, I haven't been on here for a while, I see Morty has gone, but has been replaced by a load of 'wannabes' #hogarse,LDC,Tired,Nuffsiad...

Happy to be of service.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NCFCInnit said:

The new structure is certainly lean. Two couples and a nephew. 

sounds like some **** film made in suffolk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Herman said:

I am sure it was said that our current way of running the club was one his main ideas. Seems to be working rather well.

That is my understanding. If you put aside moronic kneejerk antagonism because he was a Labour politician the verdict has to be that he has done a good job under difficult circumstances, including overseeing the transition to a non-parachute payment existence and especially being the driving force behind the new management system.

He was much mocked when he arrived for saying he would work on a long-term plan, but he obviously did, talking to key figures at other clubs and particularly Damien Comolli, who was at Liverpool when Webber was there, and who impressed on Balls the need to switch to a DoF model.

It will be interesting to see who becomes chairman. Foulger would be the obvious in-house choice. Probably too early for Tom Smith. And whether Webber becomes a director, although if he attends every board meeting, as he probably does, then that would not be much of a change. Could finally be the Sage of Omaha, of course.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Ed, he comes across well and has the club's best interests at heart. I wish him well. What was the point of him? In layman's he was a good advisory, particularly on financial issues, to push the club in the right direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There'll be a few who will over egg his contribution. After all politicians are good at self-promotion. Granted he has a good network of contacts and people in the right places. 

That said on transfer deadline day 2016 he was busy dancing and not in Norwich seeing to business on arguably the most important day of the season. 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. How much that was 'his idea' is open to debate. Given Delia's historic statements advocating that model and our failed attempt with Joe Royle et. al in 2014. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll be leaving his position as Chairman with the club in a better position to face the future than it was when he was appointed.

He & the Board deserve credit for that.

The Chairman doesn't have any real input of transfer deadline day, that's the job of the Manager and CE.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Buncey said:

There'll be a few who will over egg his contribution. After all politicians are good at self-promotion. Granted he has a good network of contacts and people in the right places. 

That said on transfer deadline day 2016 he was busy dancing and not in Norwich seeing to business on arguably the most important day of the season. 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. How much that was 'his idea' is open to debate. Given Delia's historic statements advocating that model and our failed attempt with Joe Royle et. al in 2014. 

So he was ‘instrumental’ in bringing Moxey in (bad?) but only ‘part’ of bringing Webber and the DOF model in (good?) are you in the know with the board or just putting a slant on things to suit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rivvo said:

So he was ‘instrumental’ in bringing Moxey in (bad?) but only ‘part’ of bringing Webber and the DOF model in (good?) are you in the know with the board or just putting a slant on things to suit?

Well I was coy with my wording. But deliberate. Which comes down to the rather boring topic of corporate governance. (I'm a forensic accountant by trade). 

At the time of the Moxey hiring, Mr Balls was acting both as Chairman and doing 'some executive roles' for paid remuneration. It was never made clear what exactly those roles were. Regardless that's a big red flag in corporate governance and, in my view, in contravention of the UK Corporate Governance Code. Something Mr Balls would have been very familiar with given his previous role as Shadow Chancellor. (I made those views clear on this forum years ago). 

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. 

With regards to transfer deadline day. I don't, and that should be very obvious given what I've said above, expect the Chairman to be calling the shots. But, they should be there to critically challenge any major operational decisions. If, for example, we received an offer to sell our best player at well above market price, I'd want the Chairman to be making sure we as a club were making the right call by asking questions and analysing the options. Not something you can do when you are spending all day filming in a studio. 

None of this should be read as if I don't appreciate the role Mr Balls has performed. He appears to have done well given he stepped into the role during a difficult time for the club. However, any assessment must incorporate the good and the bad and avoid being clouded by our current short-term (though hopefully long-term!) success on the pitch. 

With all that said, one final point. This forum, and the public in general tend to lionise the senior management in companies. Few companies are run as dictatorships (and none should, it often ends very badly which I can professionally attest to). Decisions come down to the hard work to a collection of people. I was always very wary of the cult that built around McNally. And equally sceptical of the septic criticism Delia gets for that reason.

Anyway, Mr Balls has come and gone. So will a new Chairman. Our fortunes will ebb and flow. Plus ca change. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough then Buncey, you certainly know a lot more than I do in this respect so I’ll take your comments on face value. My response was because some people on here apparently twist the facts to suit their agenda, though I’m sure I’ve never seen it 😏 so I was just questioning to see if that was the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Buncey said:

Well I was coy with my wording. But deliberate. Which comes down to the rather boring topic of corporate governance. (I'm a forensic accountant by trade). 

At the time of the Moxey hiring, Mr Balls was acting both as Chairman and doing 'some executive roles' for paid remuneration. It was never made clear what exactly those roles were. Regardless that's a big red flag in corporate governance and, in my view, in contravention of the UK Corporate Governance Code. Something Mr Balls would have been very familiar with given his previous role as Shadow Chancellor. (I made those views clear on this forum years ago). 

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. 

With regards to transfer deadline day. I don't, and that should be very obvious given what I've said above, expect the Chairman to be calling the shots. But, they should be there to critically challenge any major operational decisions. If, for example, we received an offer to sell our best player at well above market price, I'd want the Chairman to be making sure we as a club were making the right call by asking questions and analysing the options. Not something you can do when you are spending all day filming in a studio. 

None of this should be read as if I don't appreciate the role Mr Balls has performed. He appears to have done well given he stepped into the role during a difficult time for the club. However, any assessment must incorporate the good and the bad and avoid being clouded by our current short-term (though hopefully long-term!) success on the pitch. 

With all that said, one final point. This forum, and the public in general tend to lionise the senior management in companies. Few companies are run as dictatorships (and none should, it often ends very badly which I can professionally attest to). Decisions come down to the hard work to a collection of people. I was always very wary of the cult that built around McNally. And equally sceptical of the septic criticism Delia gets for that reason.

Anyway, Mr Balls has come and gone. So will a new Chairman. Our fortunes will ebb and flow. Plus ca change. 

Nah, studio's get 'phone signals, filming isn't constant, there's plenty of time spent standing around waiting for stuff to happen. This is not a valid criticism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't any point in glowing over his contribution. As had been said many times. he was mainly a figurehead not a shareholder as such.

He gave us publicity and there is no bad publicity. But I guess he now believes his celebrity could and will open other doors which will keep him away for far too long.

Just say thanks and move on.

Share this post


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

Well I was coy with my wording. But deliberate. Which comes down to the rather boring topic of corporate governance. (I'm a forensic accountant by trade). 

At the time of the Moxey hiring, Mr Balls was acting both as Chairman and doing 'some executive roles' for paid remuneration. It was never made clear what exactly those roles were. Regardless that's a big red flag in corporate governance and, in my view, in contravention of the UK Corporate Governance Code. Something Mr Balls would have been very familiar with given his previous role as Shadow Chancellor. (I made those views clear on this forum years ago). 

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. 

With regards to transfer deadline day. I don't, and that should be very obvious given what I've said above, expect the Chairman to be calling the shots. But, they should be there to critically challenge any major operational decisions. If, for example, we received an offer to sell our best player at well above market price, I'd want the Chairman to be making sure we as a club were making the right call by asking questions and analysing the options. Not something you can do when you are spending all day filming in a studio. 

None of this should be read as if I don't appreciate the role Mr Balls has performed. He appears to have done well given he stepped into the role during a difficult time for the club. However, any assessment must incorporate the good and the bad and avoid being clouded by our current short-term (though hopefully long-term!) success on the pitch. 

With all that said, one final point. This forum, and the public in general tend to lionise the senior management in companies. Few companies are run as dictatorships (and none should, it often ends very badly which I can professionally attest to). Decisions come down to the hard work to a collection of people. I was always very wary of the cult that built around McNally. And equally sceptical of the septic criticism Delia gets for that reason.

Anyway, Mr Balls has come and gone. So will a new Chairman. Our fortunes will ebb and flow. Plus ca change. 

Buncey, I think this is slightly confusing the general oversight of corporate governance and vaidating specific decisions, and also comparing football clubs, most of which are unlisted and seem to lack a proper corporate governance structure, with listed companies which have such.

Without doing the research I would guess many football clubs have executive chairmen and indeed even executive-chairman owners, with in effect zero corporate governance.

Getting down to specifics, you said Balls was "instrumental" in hiring Moxey. That it was his decision. That is not the same as you now saying as chairman he should have exercised more oversight over that choice but was compromised by being a temporary exec. That is different from it having been his outright choice.

And even supposing it was his choice, some corporate governance would have come in because it would have to have been approved by Smith and Jones and the rest of the board. He cannot have hired Moxey without running it past the other directors. That is the only corporate governance NCFC has ever had, for good and for ill.

As to Balls admitting Moxey was a mistake, i suspect part (only part) of that was hindsight - that at the time they had thought about swiitching to the DoF/head coach model but decided to go with an old-style CEO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

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  

×