Bye Ben Kensell

[KeiranShikari 1,426]

6 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

2. Who is going to buy the shirt now, are you factoring that into your money comment

My guess is a hell of a lot of people. It'll be a loud minority we've been hearing today.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

Accountability should be a team thing. The Board should show some accountability especially bearing in mind the circumstances of the departure of Ben's predecessor which led to Ben changing his job role for which he ought to have received training or mentoring. It would be interesting to know if that happened. My belief is the Club has long standing weaknesses in admin roles. How about some constructive solutions rather than sacking?

Demotion then.

If somebody needs "training" to think to have a little look into company you are about to sign a headline contract with, then I'd love to know how old they were when they first learnt how to tie their own shoelaces.

Edited June 7, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[Wrathofthefarkely 54]

Not a proper pile on unless someone has their life ruined is it. 

[Branston Pickle 3,673]

1 minute ago, KeiranShikari said:

My guess is a hell of a lot of people. It'll be a loud minority we've been hearing today.

I think you’re probably right, rightly or wrongly - many people probably aren’t even particularly aware there’s an issue, others are aware but not too bothered.  I suppose it depends how things pan out.

[essex canary 504]

24 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Demotion then.

If somebody needs "training" to think to have a little look into company you are about to sign a headline contract with, then I'd love to know how old they were when they first learnt how to tie their own shoelaces.

Fair point. Remember though we had an unidentified club spokesperson talking about post event due diligence. Do they do this due diligence when they appoint the staff or before they take any important decision? And why does the spokesperson remain unidentified when the Club is supposedly committed to transparency. This goes beyond one individual.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

I don't most fans away from social media really care much to be honest.

Personally I find the whole thing a bit desperate and embarrassing but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

We are and always will be a bit tinpot when we try play with the big boys as we simply can't compete financially so have to chance our arm in other ways be it relying on youth, taking a dodgy sponsor or simply Waving the white flag before a ball is kicked, its sadly inevitable.

Best we can hope is we get a bit of a lucky break this season, we pick up a couple of rough diamonds and keep our best players fit and we scrape survival... maybe then we can build a bit but really we are heading nowhere further without significant backing.

The side needs £150m spent to get level with the likes of Leeds and Villa and at least half that to get to the likes of Palace and Burnley. The stadium is about 10k short of acceptable at this level as well.

Taking on dodgy deals like this dumb sponsorship is just par for the course as we try beg, steal and borrow to keep our place at the top table. Football sold its soul years ago, get with the times and suck it up or go watch Kings Lynn instead. We are just legacy fans now.

[Uncle Fred 526]

Sausage Gate is a new low not just at Norwich but country wide. Something is fundamentally wrong we haven’t learned a thing from that coffee company debacle that nepotism sorted 

[Ken Hairy 3,774]

All this talk of hot dogs is making me hungry....... 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

The club screwed up the away membership, they screwed up with the Moxey debate and they have massively screwed up this sponsorship deal. The commercial team accepted this deal as it was probably millions more... it puts to bed the "we are a better run club with better standards than he others" rubbish. We are the same just without investment. I wish people had been this upset at our best player being sold on the cheap. This one will run and run... 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

Ps why sack someone for doing what they have been told to do?

[Herman 9,805]

 

[Jim Smith 2,330]

Ultimately his job is to maximise revenues because that’s our model. We’ve seen it with the membership scheme. Notable that the owners did not get involved there and arguably that was worse and they were actually financially exploiting their own most loyal fans. 

[Remi 0]

8 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

 

Simon Jordan reckons that about £40 of that is profit for a club.

 

No he said the opposite. The % that goes to the club is very small, 5-10%.
 

There’s multiple sources that back that up

Also I must question this moral stance you’re undertaking? Hopefully You’ve filtered out all other companies with questionable practices / advertising. Doubt it though.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Remi

[Naturalcynic 642]

8 hours ago, Wrathofthefarkely said:

Not a proper pile on unless someone has their life ruined is it. 

Just as well he’s not a cricketer who tweeted something vaguely questionable when he was a teenager.  

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Ps why sack someone for doing what they have been told to do?

You do if he makes a glorious mess of it.

I'm not saying he should be sacked but with the experience he's gained since being in the role he really should have done better with the due diligence aspect, it's basic stuff.

We are promoting that brand now so he really should have looked at how they promote it themselves.

[king canary 7,646]

A few things on this...

1. 'We need to maximise revenue.' Has anyone actually looked at the reported figures for this? Michael Bailey says this deal is worth less than what we had with Dafabet (which does beg the question who asked to end that partnership early?) which stood at about £5m p/y. Our revenue this season will be north of £100m due to TV money. If we'd have taken a deal for 50% of the value of this one it would likely have only cost us a couple of million this year, hardly the difference between survival and relegation.
2. 'This will all blow over.' Maybe- but this has now made national news. You can read about our dodgy sponsors in the Sun, Mail and on the Sky Sports website. So the reputational damage is already out there. 
3. 'People are trying to ruin Ben Kensells life!' Hilarious coming from people who are accusing others of being hysterical about the sponsor. Kensell is a well paid executive with a high profile Premier League football club, who has made several PR **** ups in his time here, some big some small. If this leads to him being let go that is just basic accountability in his job- if I kept ****ing up in my work and got binned off then it would be my fault, Kensell is no different. I'm also certain he'll be on a comfortable 6 figure salary, will get a sizable pay off if he does have to leave and will have no issue finding himself another well paying job. 

[Michael Starr 519]

Ultimately, I don't think the board care too much. They knew that partnering with this company was never going to get a positive reaction, but the deal is as good as it gets for us commercially. The best financial deal Norwich have ever had in fact. So, yes, let's sack our Commercial guy after that.

Questions over due diligence sure. Perhaps they misjudged the reaction of the posts from the other company (which is embarrising more than anything else) but they acted swiftly to resolve. Calls for Ben to be sacked are ridiculous.

In a week or so, this thread will be on page 6 behind all the emi and max posts and nobody will really care.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Michael Starr

[king canary 7,646]

1 minute ago, Michael Starr said:

The best financial deal Norwich have ever had in fact.

Not true apparently.

[dj11 377]

43 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Just as well he’s not a cricketer who tweeted something vaguely questionable when he was a teenager.  

Some were definitely not questionable. 

[TheGunnShow 5,977]

A sacking is over-egging that pudding. Was it a mis-step considering our values? Absolutely.

But if a mistake gets you sacked, I think that encourages a culture where people get hamstrung into second-guessing, paralysis by analysis, and being scared to commit to action in case something bites you on the ****. Yes, I think there was a lot of focus on finance to the detriment of PR, particularly in a fraught post-Covid environment (and I strongly suspect, considering the termination of the Dafabet deal, that sponsorship deals may well be shrinking quite heavily, hence their enthusiasm to grab this one which was only close to the Dafabet deal), but we as fans just have to say "guys, not this one in future, OK!"

[lake district canary 4,540]

Ben Kensell may be the top operations man, but Ben Tunnell is head of commercial development.

[hogesar 9,711]

I wonder if Dafabet are in some financial crisis which meant they couldn't fulfill their obligation, and we then rushed into the decision to appoint whoever we could in time. Doesnt excuse the lack of research that's gone into it. Could have got them to remove their social media stuff before the announcement and no one would be any the wiser.

[birchfest 397]

It’s easy to forget there is a person behind the name sometimes, and I have no doubt there will be a few people very worried this morning about if they will still have a job by the end of it. That for me, as a human, doesn’t make me feel good and not something I would chuck around lightly.

 

Yes, there should be consequences and yes that might require someone being disciplined, but we have no idea what the full story is. For all we know the higher ups might well have been semi-aware and just thought no one would notice. Either way, don’t be so quick to wish hardship on others, even if they have done something wrong, let’s see if they can put it right.

[wcorkcanary 4,336]

2 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Ps why sack someone for doing what they have been told to do?

Aah the old.... " I was just following orders " excuse.  

[Feedthewolf 4,862]

5 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Ben Kensell may be the top operations man, but Ben Tunnell is head of commercial development.

Ben T reports into Ben K.

According to the club website, Ben Kensell "is responsible for leading the non football side of the business, including Finance, Operations and I.T, as well as all Commercial revenue generating areas; sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality, sales, retail, lotteries, marketing, special events and conference and banqueting".

If one of his reports has made a unilateral decision on a headline sponsorship package without his sign-off, that's just as concerning as if he'd signed it off himself.

[McKil 3]

This will be seen as an absolute win for BK8. Betting companies have never cared about people, and have only toed the line to keep their existence safe and profits maximised in the long run.

 

[Alex Moss 2,165]

25 minutes ago, king canary said:

A few things on this...

1. 'This will all blow over.' Maybe- but this has now made national news. You can read about our dodgy sponsors in the Sun, Mail and on the Sky Sports website. So the reputational damage is already out there.

I do think you’re getting a bit carried away there to say the least, KC - it most certainly will blow over as it’s really ISN’T massive news outside of Norfolk. And neither do I think our reputation will be damaged over this anywhere near the extent that others think. There will be more fuss back in Norfolk, I can see that, but when I go to work here in Dorset this morning, I’d be happy to wager it won’t even be mentioned whatsoever. Yes it was a bit of a gaff, and no I have no interest in seeing someone get the sack over it, but it’s really not that important to fans of other clubs etc. As I say, if I go to work today and everyone has changed their mind on City (people pretty much always talk very highly of our club and how we’re run to me) then I will have second thoughts on the matter, but I just don’t see that happening. There’s far bigger news out there, and this will blow over.

[Michael Starr 519]

21 minutes ago, birchfest said:

It’s easy to forget there is a person behind the name sometimes, and I have no doubt there will be a few people very worried this morning about if they will still have a job by the end of it. That for me, as a human, doesn’t make me feel good and not something I would chuck around lightly.

 

Yes, there should be consequences and yes that might require someone being disciplined, but we have no idea what the full story is. For all we know the higher ups might well have been semi-aware and just thought no one would notice. Either way, don’t be so quick to wish hardship on others, even if they have done something wrong, let’s see if they can put it right.

^ this

[king canary 7,646]

2 minutes ago, Alex Moss said:

I do think you’re getting a bit carried away there to say the least, KC - it most certainly will blow over as it’s really ISN’T massive news outside of Norfolk. And neither do I think our reputation will be damaged over this anywhere near the extent that others think. There will be more fuss back in Norfolk, I can see that, but when I go to work here in Dorset this morning, I’d be happy to wager it won’t even be mentioned whatsoever. Yes it was a bit of a gaff, and no I have no interest in seeing someone get the sack over it, but it’s really not that important to fans of other clubs etc. As I say, if I go to work today and everyone has changed their mind on City (people pretty much always talk very highly of our club and how we’re run to me) then I will have second thoughts on the matter, but I just don’t see that happening. There’s far bigger news out there, and this will blow over.

I'm not saying its ruined our reputation but its clearly hurt it and damaged relationships with our own fanbase- look at the reactions from oganisations like Proud Canaries, Supporters Trust, etc etc.

[Michael Starr 519]

23 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I wonder if Dafabet are in some financial crisis which meant they couldn't fulfill their obligation, and we then rushed into the decision to appoint whoever we could in time. Doesnt excuse the lack of research that's gone into it. Could have got them to remove their social media stuff before the announcement and no one would be any the wiser.

It's a good theory. Would make sense.