Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Midlands Yellow

Who was the brains behind Webber’s appointment

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, chicken said:

I think that says it all. Considering my knowledge is limited, I've never worked in finance or banking etc and you worked for HBOS and have less of a clue than me... I think we can see why there was a bloody crash in 2008!!! 

Stick to things you know or get burned, your choice at this point.

I did, that's why I was doing IT for them 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Badger said:

I get what you mean, but really the shame is that our politics makes it easier for someone like Cameron/ Blair/ Johnson to be a elected as Prime Minister than someone like Brown, Major or May. It rewards to flashy bullsh1tters rather than people of substance who have a track record.

I wouldn't put Cameron and Blair in the same category as Johnson. Though they would do things to remain in power, they simply banked on the wrong things in the end, and made some bloody poor choices.

Johnson... Johnson is deliberately making those choices. He knows they are poor but he doesn't care. If it keeps his cronies happy he's fine with it. He's an entire other level of nasty. The bumbling buffoon image is just a front, though he does clearly not know about some things, he knows about power and that's all he wants. He's manipulative and he couldn't give a monkey's about anyone, which is why he has surrounded himself with like minded people.

Anyway, back to football. Ed Balls, did a good job in bringing in a system to the club that had been mentioned before, in the early noughties, but they couldn't find a manager willing to commit to such a system. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

 

Oh dear, a certain lack of knowledge here. The labour government of 1945 came in after six years of a world war which required massive public borrowing. Even then it was not following a Tory government but a wartime coalition government which included several Labour cabinet members. There was never a Labour government following a Tory government in the 50s either.

The incident being referred to happened in 1964.

Reg Maudling left a note apologising for the terrible mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading an article with Nephew Tom when he joined and he talked about how football clubs are changing to adopting head coach, technical director, fitness director etc and how the days of the 'gaffer' might be over and we need to move with the times.

Not saying he hired Webber etc but... he might have influenced the major shareholders to back a change 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

The incident being referred to happened in 1964.

Reg Maudling left a note apologising for the terrible mess.

This is what I was referring to:

Midland Yellow wrote: The tories did that to the incoming Labour Govt. in the 40/50s first. 

So we can all agree MY wrote factual nonsense. But DCB is the only one who gets called out for his factual errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

 

Oh dear, a certain lack of knowledge here. The labour government of 1945 came in after six years of a world war which required massive public borrowing. Even then it was not following a Tory government but a wartime coalition government which included several Labour cabinet members. There was never a Labour government following a Tory government in the 50s either.

A little pompous there sir. Yes I should of done a google search to get finer detail but I wasn’t far off the money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, chicken said:

I wouldn't put Cameron and Blair in the same category as Johnson.

TBF, I don't think I would put anybody in the same category as Johnson 😃 

There are similarities though - they all give a strong impression that they are in it for what they can get. You only have to contrast Blair and Cameron's post PM careers to Brown and May's to get an impression about their motivations. My guess (well, almost certainty, is that Johnson will milk it as much as he can for financial gain as well.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

This is what I was referring to:

Midland Yellow wrote: The tories did that to the incoming Labour Govt. in the 40/50s first. 

So we can all agree MY wrote factual nonsense. But DCB is the only one who gets called out for his factual errors.

I didn’t give facts but had a rough guess of the decade. Don’t be so pedantic all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

I didn’t give facts but had a rough guess of the decade. Don’t be so pedantic all the time. 

You weren't that far out anyway MY. Although it was a coalition govt, the Conservatives had more than twice as many seats as Labour prior to the 1945 election.

Churchill needed Labour party support as he was very unpopular in the Tory party and some wanted to get rid of him as PM (although of course, you don't hear much about that nowadays, from them anyway😃)

Share this post


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

I'm no expert but my view is the further we get away from the crisis itself the better Gordon Brown's reputation becomes. Shame he just didn't have the personality to be Prime Minister. 

Indeed KC! On the world stage political leaders and economists unanimously laud Brown's response to the 2008 crisis as fundamental in preventing a complete catastrophic meltdown. Sadly, party political prejudice in this country prevents him getting the credit he deserves in the UK. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

An expert finance man?? Ed Balls?? The only chancellor of the exchequer to have left a note to his successor saying he had blown the entire nation’s wealth? 

You really are a ****ing moron........this is totally untrue.

Understand now why you know so little about football......seems like you know little about most things.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

You really are a ****ing moron........this is totally untrue.

Understand now why you know so little about football......seems like you know little about most things.

So I made a mistake due to memory about his actual cabinet position at the time - big deal. He was the one who was associated with it - as google quickly shows https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/16/david-cameron-ed-balls-no-money-note

Anyway - I least I was taught good manners and don’t just rudely insult people as in the post above. I would rather be nice and mistaken than right and unpleasant! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

An expert finance man?? Ed Balls?? The only chancellor of the exchequer to have left a note to his successor saying he had blown the entire nation’s wealth? 

Cool story, but completely made up - Ed Balls has never been the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 

The Chancellor of the Exchequer when Labour lost power was Alistair Darling.

Only, Darling didn't leave that note either, it was left by the Ex-Treasury Secretary, Liam Byrne. 

Stick with what you know perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

An expert finance man?? Ed Balls?? The only chancellor of the exchequer to have left a note to his successor saying he had blown the entire nation’s wealth? 

Ed Balls did not leave the note, it was Liam Byrne. My understanding is that there is a history of the outgoing Treasury Secretary leaving a a note to the incoming Treasury Secretary albeit the one left by Byrne was ill thought out. The only people to actually believe that all the money had gone appears to be the Daily Mail and its readers............

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

He was the one who was associated with it - as google quickly

He was not "associated with it" - he merely pointed out that Cameron had broken with the "gentleman's agreement" and tradition that these outgoing informal notes were not published for political benefit.

 

2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Anyway - I least I was taught good manners

And were you taught that it was good manners to persist in trying to mislead?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Stick with what you know perhaps?

Oh pray do tell, what does Dean Coney's Boots know? I hadn't realised that there was anything...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Oh pray do tell, what does Dean Coney's Boots know? I hadn't realised that there was anything...

Nothing at all. It is a huge privilege to be schooled by a genius like you - thank you so much Badger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Nothing at all. It is a huge privilege to be schooled by a genius like you - thank you so much Badger. 

Certainly not a genius - but like many others I do check my facts, something that I wish you would do. Try it just once, it's not hard and you might even get used to it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, cornish sam said:
18 hours ago, Badger said:

In the great scheme of things though, the amount of money is very small. To put in in perspective, it is approximately equivalent on 0.000000002% of the money that we have borrowed since 2010.

 

Please ignore the figure, I quoted above, I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake on my spreadsheet formula - it is total garbage! 😳

Still quite minor in the great scheme of things but the figure itself is way too small. 🥴

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

So I made a mistake due to memory about his actual cabinet position at the time - big deal. He was the one who was associated with it - as google quickly shows https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/16/david-cameron-ed-balls-no-money-note

The article you link shows nothing of the sort, as actually reading the article would have "quickly" shown you. The article says Cameron criticised Balls (The Shadow Chancellor) for saying that Liam Byrne's note was meant as a joke. It does not say that Balls was in any way connected to the note. So actually it is a "big deal" when you accuse Balls of something for which he is not remotely responsible. It renders your claim entirely baseless, and suggests your attack on Balls is motivated entirely by malice and not genuine political disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short answer is we don't know. The long answer is probably a combination of people at the club making the call. 

Delia and MWJ have always been keen on a DOF model. Although each time it hadn't worked out. Back in the 90s, Delia had publicly stated that she sought to recreate the Auxerre model (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/apr/06/delia-smith-hails-norwich-new-direction-improve-academy and https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-interview-delia-smith-hardboiled-but-softcentred-1086611.html). She had also met with Arsene Wenger and took on board lots of his innovations (in particular, player nutrition, http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/content/articles/2005/02/25/sport_delia_carbohydrates_feature.shtml ).

The first time a DOF model was tried out was in the 90s with Rioch as manager and Hamilton as DOF. That unhappy pairing ended up with Hamilton as manager after Rioch resigned. Rioch left after feeling the club lacked ambition (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2000/mar/14/newsstory.sport1

The second time was almost doomed from the start. With Adams as manager and Joe Royle as a 'football consultant'. That lasted less than a month before Royle moved to Everton. Instead, Mike Phelan came in as head coach, to support Adams and reprise the very successful job he had done at Man U. It didn't work out and Neil came in. It is commonly accepted he wanted full control and we went back to a more 'traditional' set up - he would not accept a DOF. 

After Neil was sacked it was commonly accepted at the club that the 'traditional' model was not sustainable - particularly the player recruitment side (which, let's be honest, was very poor under Neil and put a huge strain on our finances) (https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/ed-balls-explains-club-restructure-alex-neil-6864232). Ed Balls was a driving factor in getting Delia and MWJ to try again with the DOF model having a relationship with Damien Comolli (though I've always been slightly skeptical of Ed's implication that Delia and MWJ needed convincing given the history I've set out above).

The obvious difficulty was that you had to recruit the right person, which we hadn't done in the past. Webber was seen around that time as one of the most successful DOFs out there (at least at or around our level). I'm sure also that his wife being at the club already and the mutual contact with Comolli also put him high up the shortlist. 

Regardless of who made the call it was certainly the right one. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

The short answer is we don't know. The long answer is probably a combination of people at the club making the call. 

Delia and MWJ have always been keen on a DOF model. Although each time it hadn't worked out. Back in the 90s, Delia had publicly stated that she sought to recreate the Auxerre model (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/apr/06/delia-smith-hails-norwich-new-direction-improve-academy and https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-interview-delia-smith-hardboiled-but-softcentred-1086611.html). She had also met with Arsene Wenger and took on board lots of his innovations (in particular, player nutrition, http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/content/articles/2005/02/25/sport_delia_carbohydrates_feature.shtml ).

The first time a DOF model was tried out was in the 90s with Rioch as manager and Hamilton as DOF. That unhappy pairing ended up with Hamilton as manager after Rioch resigned. Rioch left after feeling the club lacked ambition (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2000/mar/14/newsstory.sport1

The second time was almost doomed from the start. With Adams as manager and Joe Royle as a 'football consultant'. That lasted less than a month before Royle moved to Everton. Instead, Mike Phelan came in as head coach, to support Adams and reprise the very successful job he had done at Man U. It didn't work out and Neil came in. It is commonly accepted he wanted full control and we went back to a more 'traditional' set up - he would not accept a DOF. 

After Neil was sacked it was commonly accepted at the club that the 'traditional' model was not sustainable - particularly the player recruitment side (which, let's be honest, was very poor under Neil and put a huge strain on our finances) (https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/ed-balls-explains-club-restructure-alex-neil-6864232). Ed Balls was a driving factor in getting Delia and MWJ to try again with the DOF model having a relationship with Damien Comolli (though I've always been slightly skeptical of Ed's implication that Delia and MWJ needed convincing given the history I've set out above).

The obvious difficulty was that you had to recruit the right person, which we hadn't done in the past. Webber was seen around that time as one of the most successful DOFs out there (at least at or around our level). I'm sure also that his wife being at the club already and the mutual contact with Comolli also put him high up the shortlist. 

Regardless of who made the call it was certainly the right one. 

 

An excellent summary. The only point I would add is that what crucially facilitated the switch was that both the two main jobs in the old system - CEO and football manager - were vacant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/08/2021 at 15:52, chicken said:

I wouldn't put Cameron and Blair in the same category as Johnson. Though they would do things to remain in power, they simply banked on the wrong things in the end, and made some bloody poor choices.

Johnson... Johnson is deliberately making those choices. He knows they are poor but he doesn't care. If it keeps his cronies happy he's fine with it. He's an entire other level of nasty. The bumbling buffoon image is just a front, though he does clearly not know about some things, he knows about power and that's all he wants. He's manipulative and he couldn't give a monkey's about anyone, which is why he has surrounded himself with like minded people.

Anyway, back to football. Ed Balls, did a good job in bringing in a system to the club that had been mentioned before, in the early noughties, but they couldn't find a manager willing to commit to such a system. 

Can't believe you are happy to rationalise Blair's Labour voting to enter into an illegal war without UN resolution which resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians dying with anything that Johnson or Cameron have done.

Is this because hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives don't matter if they are in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Tony Blair should have been tried at the Hague and then executed like Saddam Hussein, what you call "poor choices" were war crimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Can't believe you are happy to rationalise Blair's Labour voting to enter into an illegal war without UN resolution which resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians dying with anything that Johnson or Cameron have done.

Is this because hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives don't matter if they are in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Tony Blair should have been tried at the Hague and then executed like Saddam Hussein, what you call "poor choices" were war crimes. 

I don't disagree that there should be a trial. You won't get me disagreeing with that. And of course the lives of people matter wherever in the world they are.

However, it is worth noting that there was genocide committed in Iraq and no one batted an eyelid. The plight of the Kurdish and the Shia's went relatively unaided other than for the US to encourage uprisings without assistance on their part. It's complicated. Very much a war for the wrong reasons and motivations and has contributed heavily to unrest in the region ever since. Blair, was Bush's lap dog.

The thing is with Johnson, is that he'll never face trial. He'll never be investigated for gross negligence, and nor will any of his cabinet. They are destroying evidence and sweeping up behind them. Having been responsible for 130,000 deaths, many of which could undoubtedly have been saved. The cronyism, the giving contracts, without tender, to their friends, many of whom had never produced the items they were given contracts for, ignoring cheaper and established suppliers in the process. The greed. The damage he has done to this country and those further afield, lets not forget he was in the foreign office at the time of the air strikes on Syria.

There is probably a good argument to say they are as bad as each other. But as much as I hate Cameron, as corrupt and as greedy as he was, I'm not sure he's in the same boat as the other two.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...