Nuff Said 5,652 Posted December 1, 2018 Seriously? What is the point of a post making plain how clueless you apparently are? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tired 111 Posted December 1, 2018 What's the point of you? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThorpeCanary 71 Posted December 1, 2018 Are you asking what a chairman does? Chairs events like that recent AGM we just had? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 10,691 Posted December 1, 2018 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
lake district canary 4,689 Posted December 1, 2018 16 minutes ago, Commando Canary said: ? I can see a lot of thought went into that. Well done! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hogesar 10,253 Posted December 1, 2018 If you have to ask the question I doubt you'd understand the answer anyway. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Commando Canary 0 Posted December 1, 2018 Wow, I haven't been on here for a while, I see Morty has gone, but has been replaced by a load of 'wannabes' #hogarse,LDC,Tired,Nuffsiad... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,689 Posted December 1, 2018 Well as he is standing down, I suppose the question is relevant, but really, he has been at the forefront of big changes at the club. We should be very grateful for his tenure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icecream Snow 775 Posted December 1, 2018 If you missed it, he's stepping down as Chairman Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dylanisabaddog 5,618 Posted December 1, 2018 Why are you speaking in the past tense? Has Ed Balls passed away? Did you mean 'What is the point of Ed Balls'? Either way, you are an idiot Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nuff Said 5,652 Posted December 1, 2018 14 minutes ago, Commando Canary said: Wow, I haven't been on here for a while, I see Morty has gone, but has been replaced by a load of 'wannabes' #hogarse,LDC,Tired,Nuffsiad...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
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,356 Posted December 1, 2018 Senior Fellow at Harvard University Kennedy School’s Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, and a Visiting Professor to the Policy Institute at King’s College London. Parma Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCFCInnit 52 Posted December 1, 2018 The new structure is certainly lean. Two couples and a nephew. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hogesar 10,253 Posted December 1, 2018 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted December 1, 2018 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
PurpleCanary 6,084 Posted December 1, 2018 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 10,691 Posted December 1, 2018 I coud have a quiet word with my Hungarian billonaire friend, he might be interested.😉 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AJ 1,306 Posted December 1, 2018 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
Buncey 1 Posted December 2, 2018 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
A Load of Squit 5,844 Posted December 2, 2018 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rivvo 261 Posted December 2, 2018 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
Buncey 1 Posted December 2, 2018 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rivvo 261 Posted December 2, 2018 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A Load of Squit 5,844 Posted December 2, 2018 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
Buncey 1 Posted December 2, 2018 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
keelansgrandad 6,680 Posted December 2, 2018 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
PurpleCanary 6,084 Posted December 2, 2018 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
Buncey 1 Posted December 2, 2018 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
Mello Yello 2,452 Posted December 2, 2018 Why not reappoint Mr Stone as our Chairman.....? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites