Webber’s interview

[Jim Smith 2,349]

6 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Got it!! Rock bottom!!  I asked for evidence  that sacking Farke would guarantee  we stay up,  you can't,  it's impossible ( a bit like us staying  up )

Fair point you’ve got me, let’s never change anything ever then since that’s the natural conclusion of your argument!

I reiterate I hope he finds something from somewhere and miraculously gets us back in touch. If that happens it’s the best possible outcome. But if he loses on Sunday or can’t get a win out of the next two my position is we need to try something to stay up so they need to roll the dice. 

 

[Hardhouse44 261]

2 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

No need, not funny, have a little respect or find your own field (preferably in Suffolk)  and perhaps just stay there.  

Are you his mum?

[ron obvious 1,517]

1 hour ago, Uncle Fred said:

Clearly he didn’t believe what he was saying how the rest of us are expected to believe I don’t know 

You'd never believe anything he said anyway, even if he was nailed to a cross with choirs of angels singing Hallelujah The Redeemer Is Come How Blessed is He.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/oct/28/norwich-fire-back-at-critics-ambition-offer-farke-support-stuart-webber

[wcorkcanary 4,353]

56 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Fair point you’ve got me, let’s never change anything ever then since that’s the natural conclusion of your argument!

I reiterate I hope he finds something from somewhere and miraculously gets us back in touch. If that happens it’s the best possible outcome. But if he loses on Sunday or can’t get a win out of the next two my position is we need to try something to stay up so they need to roll the dice. 

 

The natural  conclusion, if you read what I wrote , is that we go down , he gets us promoted  and gets the old heave ho so that someone better suited  to the PL can be in the firing line . You assumed too much about  how I feel.....or didn't bother reading cos ' you already  knew '.

[hogesar 9,776]

31 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/oct/28/norwich-fire-back-at-critics-ambition-offer-farke-support-stuart-webber

Good read, thanks.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

26 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

The natural  conclusion, if you read what I wrote , is that we go down , he gets us promoted  and gets the old heave ho so that someone better suited  to the PL can be in the firing line . You assumed too much about  how I feel.....or didn't bother reading cos ' you already  knew '.

I mean, 9 games into the season with 29 games to play.

He's just been promoted, somebody better suited to the PL could come into the firing line now, why wait 20 months? 

[norfolkngood 1,092]

53 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I mean, 9 games into the season with 29 games to play.

He's just been promoted, somebody better suited to the PL could come into the firing line now, why wait 20 months? 

If they are As serious about staying up as webber says they club are then you have to try everything 

including sacking the Manager 

i do not think webber and board will have a choice to be honest can you honestly imagine what it would be like if this continues 

the crowd will turn like it did with Worthy and it will just be a awful place

i don't know if Webber has been in that position before in his career ?  

 

[Jim Smith 2,349]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

The natural  conclusion, if you read what I wrote , is that we go down , he gets us promoted  and gets the old heave ho so that someone better suited  to the PL can be in the firing line . You assumed too much about  how I feel.....or didn't bother reading cos ' you already  knew '.

well firstly there is a huge assumption there also that he gets us promoted again after what has happened this season. Secondly why take that kind of risk when a change now "could" transform us? Were we playing well I would not say the same thing. I'd be more in the "we are doing as well as we can so why change it" camp. But we are not. We are defending at a level that frankly my son's under 9's team can replicate at times and we have no identity, settled team/formation or attacking threat. There are very clearly areas that could be improved significantly if they were brought up to just par. 

[norfolkngood 1,092]

4 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

well firstly there is a huge assumption there also that he gets us promoted again after what has happened this season. Secondly why take that kind of risk when a change now "could" transform us? Were we playing well I would not say the same thing. I'd be more in the "we are doing as well as we can so why change it" camp. But we are not. We are defending at a level that frankly my son's under 9's team can replicate at times and we have no identity, settled team/formation or attacking threat. There are very clearly areas that could be improved significantly if they were brought up to just par. 

Exactly This 

If we were losing but giving everything and fighting for every point i would not want farke sacked we would be doing everything we could do and thats what i expect form a team our size in the PL 

But the way the team has been set up and players not playing, the defence and the lack of goals scored or even chances created it is becoming more a mess by the minute 

[Mullet 293]

4 hours ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

300 staff don’t pick the team though so I really did not understand his point. It’s most certainly is down to one man when it is on the pitch issues. 

But maybe the person that washes the kit is using itchy washing powder and the bloke that cuts the grass is cutting wonky lines and the bloke using the match day pa system has a rubbish taste in music. DF does the coaching and tactical stuff that is failing but don't blame him it's everyone's fault

[Icecream Snow 762]

4 hours ago, Tumbleweed said:

If its down to 300 people then DF makes, statistically, only 0.33% of the overall performance level. So could they do a cheeky job swap, perhaps with the guy who cooks the scampi, to see if that makes any difference for the Leeds game? Or does it mean we'd have to fire 299 people, but keep Farke, or maybe fire 151 as that is marginally more than an average chance of improvement? Or perhaps Ken Hairy is right and its all "I need to be seen to say something" claptrap......

The guys in Yellows are very good at burning the burgers.

[norfolkngood 1,092]

4 hours ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

300 staff don’t pick the team though so I really did not understand his point. It’s most certainly is down to one man when it is on the pitch issues. 

Its ok i have been told the office staff have been working extra hard this week so we can expect a good showing against leeds 

[Big Vince 324]

6 hours ago, shefcanary said:

But Vinnie, the Daily Mail (for once I've not been snidy about it) famously promoted Delia during the 70's - she would be nowhere without their support, so definitely don't think she was card carrying labour then.  Are you saying Wynnie (who god help me used to run a multi-million generating print & publishing business) turned her head? 

But more importantly, just because you support a particular political party does not necessarily mean you have adopted their underlying philosophy hook, line and sinker or are a card carrying member - it could just mean you think they are the best of a bad lot in managing UK Plc.  The Labour Party itself has never pursued a wholly socialist agenda anyway as they know they'd never survive in power if they did even when Corbyn was leader, that's why this whole frit the Fail gets into every election time is so tiresome.

But it is where we are, enjoy until the communists take over. 🙂

I'm afraid you don't know a lot about the history of the Labour Party. When it adopted Clause 4 as part of its constitution in 1918 it fully identified itself as a socialist party.  Written by Sidney Webb, a devout socialist, Clause 4 committed the party to the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Where wealth was seen not to be equitable, the party was committed to redistribution. These are socialist principles. The Labour Party remained committed to Clause 4 until 1994 when Tony Blair, whilst still identifying the party as socialist, diluted the meaning of it.

Due to his age and background, I would say Wynnie is Old Labour; thus committed to the original socialist principles contained within Clause 4. And yes, he did turn her head.

[wcorkcanary 4,353]

53 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

well firstly there is a huge assumption there also that he gets us promoted again after what has happened this season. Secondly why take that kind of risk when a change now "could" transform us? Were we playing well I would not say the same thing. I'd be more in the "we are doing as well as we can so why change it" camp. But we are not. We are defending at a level that frankly my son's under 9's team can replicate at times and we have no identity, settled team/formation or attacking threat. There are very clearly areas that could be improved significantly if they were brought up to just par. 

You've kinda started this assumption and outcome game Jimbo . 

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

9 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

I'm afraid you don't know a lot about the history of the Labour Party. When it adopted Clause 4 as part of its constitution in 1918 it fully identified itself as a socialist party.  Written by Sidney Webb, a devout socialist, Clause 4 committed the party to the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Where wealth was seen not to be equitable, the party was committed to redistribution. These are socialist principles. The Labour Party remained committed to Clause 4 until 1994 when Tony Blair, whilst still identifying the party as socialist, diluted the meaning of it.

Due to his age and background, I would say Wynnie is Old Labour; thus committed to the original socialist principles contained within Clause 4. And yes, he did turn her head.

You are confusing the theoretical principles with the practice. Labour may have been ‘committed’ to common ownership but when in power has never been committed enough to put it into practice. The reality is Labour has always been a broad church, ranging from true-believing socialists to centrist social democrats. And in power it has always acted like a social democratic rather than socialist party. I have no idea where in that spectrum Smith and Jones fit, but If I had to guess I would imagine roughly social Democrat rather than pure socialist.

[nutty nigel 7,649]

 

[wcorkcanary 4,353]

This what I love about the Pinkun message board, for days, maybe weeks, people have been crying out for a statement,  something, anything from  SW. 

Now it's all ' Nah, don't believe  him ' , ' it's spin',  ' he's only covering his ar5e etc etc 

This is the place unhappy  men unload their issues pretending  its concern  for 'their' beloved club. 

 

[Big Vince 324]

14 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

You are confusing the theoretical principles with the practice. Labour may have been ‘committed’ to common ownership but when in power has never been committed enough to put it into practice. The reality is Labour has always been a broad church, ranging from true-believing socialists to centrist social democrats. And in power it has always acted like a social democratic rather than socialist party. I have no idea where in that spectrum Smith and Jones fit, but If I had to guess I would imagine roughly social Democrat rather than pure socialist.

For decades the Labour Party pursued a programme of nationalisation which was common ownership put into practice.

[nutty nigel 7,649]

45 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

For decades the Labour Party pursued a programme of nationalisation which was common ownership put into practice.

I long since realised who ever you vote for the 'kin government get in.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,459]

listened to Webber speak at a Business event last night 

SW decided he had to react to the various press comments - his interviews with the national media were to put right some of the inaccuracies that have been written. Webber felt the Club had “got it wrong” in pre season by being too quiet and “humble” rather than putting its case and making more of the tough fixture start . 
As ever he was forthright and impressive. 

[Canaries north 151]

The best way of putting the case of the tough fixtures at the start would have been what we did after but I'm afraid that hasn't happened. 

[shefcanary 2,493]

9 hours ago, Big Vince said:

I'm afraid you don't know a lot about the history of the Labour Party. When it adopted Clause 4 as part of its constitution in 1918 it fully identified itself as a socialist party.  Written by Sidney Webb, a devout socialist, Clause 4 committed the party to the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Where wealth was seen not to be equitable, the party was committed to redistribution. These are socialist principles. The Labour Party remained committed to Clause 4 until 1994 when Tony Blair, whilst still identifying the party as socialist, diluted the meaning of it.

Due to his age and background, I would say Wynnie is Old Labour; thus committed to the original socialist principles contained within Clause 4. And yes, he did turn her head.

Genuinely pleasantly surprised by this response.  Researched, measured and well written.  But as you hinted, and as others have also responded, many in the party have pursued a more social democratic agenda which generally attracts the likes of Smith & Jones.   And therein lies the rub; Labour always trips itself up, this tension between the dogmatic socialist left wing and what is now known as the Blairite right wing.  And why the party in the end delivers nothing worse than what Bojo's current government is delivering when it gets in power (highest tax burden, increasing govt. centralisation, countless small regional vanity projects, confusion over major infrastructure, an NHS in crisis).  

[norfolkngood 1,092]

9 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

You are confusing the theoretical principles with the practice. Labour may have been ‘committed’ to common ownership but when in power has never been committed enough to put it into practice. The reality is Labour has always been a broad church, ranging from true-believing socialists to centrist social democrats. And in power it has always acted like a social democratic rather than socialist party. I have no idea where in that spectrum Smith and Jones fit, but If I had to guess I would imagine roughly social Democrat rather than pure socialist.

You are correct purple, my late auntie was a socialist in the 1970’s / 1980’s 

we used to have great chats about politics 

She told me about Corbyn how in the Labour Party always had a really hard left like corbyn that was true socialist 

but that’s to far left for general public that’s why labour were voted in 

I would not say Delia was really hard left , labour yes but not a true socialist 

[Gordon Bennett 794]

I'd have liked a change of manager this week but it's not happened so thoughts now turn to positive ones for Sunday. Can't really disagree with much that Mr Webber has says, he is right that everyone needs to be pulling in the same direction this weekend. He quite clearly blames himself and the 300 other employees at the club, people who think he is blaming the supporters are reading things which aren't there IMHO. And he is right that the national media has gone too far.

If we lose Sunday it's a different matter but lets be bullish, positive and up for it this weekend. Hopefully the squad is too.

[Robert N. LiM 4,570]

9 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

This is the place unhappy  men unload their issues pretending  its concern  for 'their' beloved club

Generally I think things started going wrong when they let unhappy old men have access to the internet.

[wcorkcanary 4,353]

2 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Generally I think things started going wrong when they let unhappy old men have access to the internet.

Not sure all of them are old tbh.

[Robert N. LiM 4,570]

2 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Not sure all of them are old tbh.

Being old is a state of mind

[wcorkcanary 4,353]

Just now, Robert N. LiM said:

Being old is a state of mind

True. 

[Big Vince 324]

4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Genuinely pleasantly surprised by this response.  Researched, measured and well written.  But as you hinted, and as others have also responded, many in the party have pursued a more social democratic agenda which generally attracts the likes of Smith & Jones.   And therein lies the rub; Labour always trips itself up, this tension between the dogmatic socialist left wing and what is now known as the Blairite right wing.  And why the party in the end delivers nothing worse than what Bojo's current government is delivering when it gets in power (highest tax burden, increasing govt. centralisation, countless small regional vanity projects, confusion over major infrastructure, an NHS in crisis).  

Well, Johnson is of course the reddest Conservative prime minister in living memory. The current Labour Party don't know how to dress themselves as their supposed opponent has stolen all their clothes.