Jump to content
Danke bitte

Webber’s mountain climbing training

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

If, however, when negotiating his new contract he made it very clear to the board that he wanted to do this and the board sanctioned it on the basis they would rather facilitate it than lose him at this juncture then its quite a different scenario and obviously the board will have to face the consequences if anything goes wrong with the arrangements. 

I "speculate" this is probably what has happened, but it is a clear governance weakness that a clear statement to this fact has still not been issued by the club.  If it was issued with clarity about all the points over this bloody "adventure" of Webber's, then we could all get on with debating what needs to happen in the transfer market this summer, to get us back to the EPL without embarrassing ourselves again when we return.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No, I said you're minimising the importance of the state that the Club has already agreed, that's all. I think you give the agreement less weight than I do.

How am I? just because the club and Webber already agreed to his contract doesn’t absolve Webber or the club of any questions around the circumstances of him fulfilling his personal ambitions, I don’t get your point.

18 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If the contract had not been concluded and they were still in negotiations and Webber's future was still up in the air, then I would wonder about commitment as there's no sign.

We have no idea how long negotiations took but I believe his contract was ending last year so a new one was needed or he wouldn’t even be here, happy to be corrected.

It’s an odd conclusion to think he’s highly motivated and committed just because he signed a contract that was offered.

I could offer you numerous examples of footballers who signed contracts and turned out to be completely unmotivated and committed later.

18 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The Club and whoever negotiated the deal clearly think he's motivated / still committed to the cause, or his contract would not have been offered or extended. That's another thing they will inevitably know far better than we do - his commitment/work ethic in the position, as well as his likely ability to handle matters when ostensibly not in the office full time.

Or alternatively they thought him staying was so important they were prepared to give him massive concessions? That’s another possible take.

Also they only know what Webber is telling them in terms of his future commitment and motivation, same gamble any employer makes, same point as above. 

If there is a plan to cover Webber to some degree agreed by the club, maybe they could share it, which again is my point.

Regardless far from “clearly”, we are both just speculating which is why some transparency from Webber and the Club would be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

How am I? just because the club and Webber already agreed to his contract doesn’t absolve Webber or the club of any questions around the circumstances of him fulfilling his personal ambitions, I don’t get your point.

We have no idea how long negotiations took but I believe his contract was ending last year so a new one was needed or he wouldn’t even be here, happy to be corrected.

It’s an odd conclusion to think he’s highly motivated and committed just because he signed a contract that was offered.

I could offer you numerous examples of footballers who signed contracts and turned out to be completely unmotivated and committed later.

Or alternatively they thought him staying was so important they were prepared to give him massive concessions? That’s another possible take.

Also they only know what Webber is telling them in terms of his future commitment and motivation, same gamble any employer makes, same point as above. 

If there is a plan to cover Webber to some degree agreed by the club, maybe they could share it, which again is my point.

Regardless far from “clearly”, we are both just speculating which is why some transparency from Webber and the Club would be good.

Sorta agree in dispatches, but there are bits where we've gone around each other.

Re. your last sentence, I said it is clear that the Club thinks he's motivated and also thinks that their plans - or indeed maybe even succession plans - are in order. Not us. As for us, sure, we don't know for certain and sure, there are plenty of cases of footballers who had contracts and then lost their fire (do I hear Cantwell??). By definition, that's after the event, not before.

His contract appears to be a rolling one-year deal after the three-year deal he had until 2022. So it's not that he's tied in for prolonged periods if the **** really does hit the fan, which also largely answers Jim's question about the length of financial consequences. If he's that poor this time around or just wants out, he's out at the end of next season (and if for some bonkers reason he isn't and his contract is extended, we know the Club done screwed up). If he's performing well and decides he wants to hang around for longer, no doubt he'll be offered another. If he's performing well but decides he's done all he can, he leaves on a relative high. Looks a pretty flexible arrangement that doesn't unduly burden the club for too wrong if he turns out a total lemon in this phase, but we won't know the exact contract content, just that it is a roller.

Norwich City chief Webber staying on rolling deal | The Pink Un

If the Club has misread his motivation and got that wrong, then again, I would definitely say that's their issue for being a poor judge of horseflesh. What we do know is that Webber / the Club were both happy to negotiate that deal, the Club was happy to ultimately sanction it along with the relatively unusual adventure. And re. your possible take that they thought his staying was so important (which is very possible) and they got it askew...again, their lookout.

Share this post


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

Depends who at "the club" has signed off on it really. The chief executive officer?

Neppers Tom I bet.....Pfft!....

Share this post


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

Sorta agree in dispatches, but there are bits where we've gone around each other.

Re. your last sentence, I said it is clear that the Club thinks he's motivated and also thinks that their plans - or indeed maybe even succession plans - are in order. Not us. As for us, sure, we don't know for certain and sure, there are plenty of cases of footballers who had contracts and then lost their fire (do I hear Cantwell??). By definition, that's after the event, not before.

His contract appears to be a rolling one-year deal after the three-year deal he had until 2022. So it's not that he's tied in for prolonged periods if the **** really does hit the fan, which also largely answers Jim's question about the length of financial consequences. If he's that poor this time around or just wants out, he's out at the end of next season (and if for some bonkers reason he isn't and his contract is extended, we know the Club done screwed up). If he's performing well and decides he wants to hang around for longer, no doubt he'll be offered another. If he's performing well but decides he's done all he can, he leaves on a relative high. Looks a pretty flexible arrangement that doesn't unduly burden the club for too wrong if he turns out a total lemon in this phase, but we won't know the exact contract content, just that it is a roller.

Norwich City chief Webber staying on rolling deal | The Pink Un

If the Club has misread his motivation and got that wrong, then again, I would definitely say that's their issue for being a poor judge of horseflesh. What we do know is that Webber / the Club were both happy to negotiate that deal, the Club was happy to ultimately sanction it along with the relatively unusual adventure. And re. your possible take that they thought his staying was so important (which is very possible) and they got it askew...again, their lookout.

I note the "rolling 1 year contract".  I assume the leave given for the " bloody expedition" is compensation for him not signing, say, a fixed three year contract.  But I would argue that giving someone an additional 2 months leave out of a 12 month contract (given he seems to be taking normal annual leave at the moment for his "training") is somewhat generous.  Lucky (or is that top performing) boy ....

Share this post


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

All the clues were there in his statement, it seems a shame that the experts on here missed them, looks like the shareholders who were present were pleased with the announcement.

No-one seemed to bring up our terrible corporate governance issues at the AGM, wouldn't that have been the best time to do it?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

All the clues were there in his statement, it seems a shame that the experts on here missed them, looks like the shareholders who were present were pleased with the announcement.

No-one seemed to bring up our terrible corporate governance issues at the AGM, wouldn't that have been the best time to do it?

 

He didn't mention his extra curricular activities then which may have created a different impression regarding his commitment.

One question that certainly was asked at the AGM was wouldn't be a good idea to have a sixth Board Director with a fans focus and by implication a vision beyond the Directors Box. I doubt whether the questioner had Zoe in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

All the clues were there in his statement, it seems a shame that the experts on here missed them, looks like the shareholders who were present were pleased with the announcement.

No-one seemed to bring up our terrible corporate governance issues at the AGM, wouldn't that have been the best time to do it?

 

I assume you were at the AGM then? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, essex canary said:

He didn't mention his extra curricular activities then which may have created a different impression regarding his commitment.

One question that certainly was asked at the AGM was wouldn't be a good idea to have a sixth Board Director with a fans focus and by implication a vision beyond the Directors Box. I doubt whether the questioner had Zoe in mind.

The clues were there.

"“I’ve got ambitions away from football, I‘ve got a load of ambitions and Delia and Michael have always known this. "

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, essex canary said:

 

One question that certainly was asked at the AGM was wouldn't be a good idea to have a sixth Board Director with a fans focus and by implication a vision beyond the Directors Box. I doubt whether the questioner had Zoe in mind.

They did very well to get someone who has a long record of working with some top flight football clubs and has a great reputation in the game. 

Share this post


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

The clues were there.

"“I’ve got ambitions away from football, I‘ve got a load of ambitions and Delia and Michael have always known this. "

 

Let’s hope he follows his ambitions sooner rather than later

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, daly said:

Let’s hope he follows his ambitions sooner rather than later

 

I think he will. The appointment of Adams and the Everest climb suggests to me it's 12 months absolute max. The rolling contract is perfect for both parties to go separate ways. If we lose every game between now and the end of the season, it might come sooner than we think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Capt. Pants said:

I think he will. The appointment of Adams and the Everest climb suggests to me it's 12 months absolute max. The rolling contract is perfect for both parties to go separate ways. If we lose every game between now and the end of the season, it might come sooner than we think.

I think he’s been excellent for the club but nothing gold can stay. Maybe it’s best for all parties to move on? No idea if Adams is the man for the role but we don’t have a say and I’ve lost a lot of enjoyment in the club this season for apathy to creep in to feel very “meh” about the whole thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, daly said:

Let’s hope he follows his ambitions sooner rather than later

 

Sooner. Get rid of the egotistical ****. Time is way past his sell by date. He's not capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. 100% focus on the Norwich job or nothing. Bye bye fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to read the EDP article on this today and the sympathy towards young people.

Pity the latter isn't directed towards young people's accessibility and affordability in watching football.

Assuming young people can get a ticket at Carrow Road, at next season's prices Ipswich have an U19 price category relative to our U18. Their U23 category is 30% cheaper than our U21. Above that the cheapest Adult Ticket at Carrow Road is over £200 more.

Edited by essex canary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Interesting to read the EDP article on this today and the sympathy towards young people.

Pity the latter isn't directed towards young people's accessibility and affordability in watching football.

Assuming young people can get a ticket at Carrow Road, at next season's prices Ipswich have an U19 price category relative to our U18. Their U23 category is 30% cheaper than our U21. Above that the cheapest Adult Ticket at Carrow Road is over £200 more.

The 3rd division is cheaper, not much of a shock. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, essex canary said:

Interesting to read the EDP article on this today and the sympathy towards young people.

Pity the latter isn't directed towards young people's accessibility and affordability in watching football.

Assuming young people can get a ticket at Carrow Road, at next season's prices Ipswich have an U19 price category relative to our U18. Their U23 category is 30% cheaper than our U21. Above that the cheapest Adult Ticket at Carrow Road is over £200 more.

Not sure comparing a midtable league one sides cost to watch football with a likely relegated prem team is all that relatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/03/2022 at 13:57, king canary said:

Exactly- Adams clearly wasn't a great manager but that doesn't mean he doesn't have what it takes to be a good SD.

Saying that I do get the skepticism. The last couple of times we've decided the best person for big job was someone already in house we ended up with Adams and Gunn as managers. I hope Adams makes a good SD but I'm not going to say it doesn't feel like a return to the comfort zone of 'nice guys' who just 'get the club.' 

Neil Doncaster was also an 'in house' appointment wasn't he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

I hope he’s popped into Millets, a retailer that offers quality and value to an outdoor pursuits person. 

Millets. Never. Hollywood Stars 🌟 and pop stars. Celebrities . Millets is way below our film star SW.  This is the posh and becks of Norwich ffs.1😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mengo said:

Millets. Never. Hollywood Stars 🌟 and pop stars. Celebrities . Millets is way below our film star SW.  This is the posh and becks of Norwich ffs.1😉

Stu loves a bargain (see Hugill) Millets is so good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hogesar said:

Not sure comparing a midtable league one sides cost to watch football with a likely relegated prem team is all that relatable.

From the public's perspective it is one and the same - the cost of watching their team ( in areas of similar wealth).

A higher quality product could enter into the equation. Ipswich stated that they would charge 5% more in the Championship.

Should Club's loss of TV contracts or constrained ground capacity act as reasons to increase charges and thereby price at least some of their potential customers out of watching football?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, essex canary said:

From the public's perspective it is one and the same - the cost of watching their team ( in areas of similar wealth).

A higher quality product could enter into the equation. Ipswich stated that they would charge 5% more in the Championship.

Should Club's loss of TV contracts or constrained ground capacity act as reasons to increase charges and thereby price at least some of their potential customers out of watching football?

Personally, I couldn't care less what it costs to watch Ipswich, Liverpool, Man City, Bradford Park Avenue or anyone else, because I have no interest in doing so. Ipswich could offer to pay me to watch them and I still wouldn't go.

Mind, if you were looking for a family day out, I expect it wouldn't be too difficult to get 4 tickets together at Portman Road. 

  • Haha 1

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

×
×
  • Create New...