Webber to go this week.

[Mello Yello 2,293]

"Stuart Webber Stay!".....

Whisper the 'Gummy Bears'.....

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

20 hours ago, norfolkbroadslim said:

Frankly I'm amazed the blokes lasted this long. I'm guilty of being one of those people who has being saying for years that Webber is a charlatan who has fooled so many with his Emperor's New Clothes act.

The club will be all the better for it when the obnoxious narcissist finally does one.

He has been sporting Director for us for five years, overseeing two Championship titles, two premier league seasons, a massive strengthening of the club's academy system, and a massive uptick in the club's financial viability. If he's a charlatan then I'd love to know what you put all of those positives down to considering the dire state the club was in when Webber arrived. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[hogesar 9,673]

11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

He has been sporting Director for us for five years, overseeing two Championship titles, two premier league seasons, a massive strengthening of the club's academy system, and a massive uptick in the club's financial viability. If he's a charlatan then I'd love to know what you put all of those positives down to considering the dire state the club was in when Webber arrived. 

Quite. He has his faults but suddenly the journey we've been on as a club under him is seen as easy. Look at all the clubs our size with much more money that haven't even achieved one promotion to the Premier League during the time Webber has been here.. 

[Mengo 822]

On 28/04/2022 at 14:39, Mello Yello said:

"Stuart Webber Stay!".....

Whisper the 'Gummy Bears'.....

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Mengo

[rock bus 851]

He’s not going to go this week is he?

[Greavsy 2,415]

4 hours ago, chicken said:

You don't want any workers job to take up 100% of their life, it's not healthy

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

On 27/04/2022 at 21:33, komakino said:

My source is adamant that is fact. As I’ve previously stated, there is conflicting stories about when this was. One was that she tried to invest when John Cobbold was Chairman, so would have been mid/late ‘70’s and my source claimed she tried again in the ‘90’s but was strongly rebuffed by Sheepshanks.

I don’t care whether she did or not, it makes no difference. What I believe then as now is that she is totally unsuitable for Norwich City Football club, unless she invests and/or allows outside investment. 

Oh my, this is beyond priceless. She tried twice? A moment’s thought would tell you the idea that she attempted to bankroll Ipswich Town around the mid-1970s is nonsense. The only TV shows she had done then were for Look East and then the BBC nationally. Not prone to pay millions per episode, the BBC. The profitable books, such as her Christmas volume and the seasonal collections, came later.

So a woman with in football terms absolutely no money to speak of who by then is several years into being a Norwich City fan, and who is married to a life-long fan, tries to invest the irrelevantly small amount she has in her club’s main rivals? No money, and no reason for such a move.

Fast-forward two decades on and she tries again? Granted she has some cash lying around, although still not that much by football standards, but by now she has been a Canary fan for around 25 years and is still married to the life-long fan, and Ipswich Town are still the main rivals. Now even less reason than before, and not surprisingly not once in your posts have you explained why she might have wanted to.

There are two explanations I can think of for this idiocy. One is you have simply invented a “source”. The other, which I choose to go with, is that someone, either to wind you up, or because they accepted a garbled  rumour of a rumour fourth or fifth hand, has told you these ultra-tall tales and you so much despise S&J (and no, I don’t think despise is too strong a word) that you have decided to believe them despite their obvious implausibility.

[Badger 2,405]

9 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

 

 

Do you ever get the impression that Nick Ma****er isn't quite as objective as you might hope a journalist would be?

His "insights" ought to be taken with a fistful of salt 😀

[Greavsy 2,415]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Do you ever get the impression that Nick Ma****er isn't quite as objective as you might hope a journalist would be?

His "insights" ought to be taken with a fistful of salt 😀

Maybe, but he is quoting Mrs Ward's comments. So in this case it's not his words or interpretation of said words. 

100% 24/7

[Badger 2,405]

He is indeed  + but do you get the impression he's neutral?

But what she is saying is total nonsense anyway. I worked incredibly hard for many companies during my working life but often slept and occasionally went out. I don't imagine I ever really gave more than 50%.

Either I'm a total wastral or the 24/7 is just a cliché

[Greavsy 2,415]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

He is indeed  + but do you get the impression he's neutral?

But what she is saying is total nonsense anyway. I worked incredibly hard for many companies during my working life but often slept and occasionally went out. I don't imagine I ever really gave more than 50%.

Either I'm a total wastral or the 24/7 is just a cliché

He would appear to have an anti Webber / ward  agenda in this situation. 

However he is only quoting her. Her words, no interpretation from anyone  required. 

[canarybubbles 1,915]

He's done great things for Norwich City and we are in a much better position overall than before he arrived.

But he wants to go, he can walk whenever he wants, he wants new challenges in his life, blah blah blah. He's no longer delivering. This season has been a disaster. He's becoming a PR nightmare. The gap between the fans and the club seems to get wider every day. His staying won't be good for him or the club.

So let's just do it. Come to a deal with him, agree to go our separate ways, and set about finding someone new. We can't afford to have this hanging over us once the season is over and we need to be planning for the next one. The club mustn't sit on its hands regarding this.

Edited April 29, 2022 by canarybubbles

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

9 hours ago, Greavsy said:

He would appear to have an anti Webber / ward  agenda in this situation. 

However he is only quoting her. Her words, no interpretation from anyone  required. 

How many footy people  come out with shoite like " giving 110%" ....... too much being read into this.

[Nuff Said 5,141]

15 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

I still find the outcry to what Webber has done pretty hyperbolic.

As I read it, he had a contract that ended this year and was clear that he intended to move on to do other things with his life. The club then asked what it would take to keep him on- he said as long as he could pursue his outside-of-work ambitions (taking pockets of time off or this '10%' Norwich fans are so angry is being withheld) he would stay. With a restructure that makes his absences less impactful, we've agreed. 

It's all seems bonkers to me that in just about a week SW has become this villain trying to massage his own ego and crash our club?

No, he is the anti-Christ and responsible for Covid, the war in Ukraine and climate change. What else do you think he’s up to in the 10%?

[hogesar 9,673]

10 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Oh my, this is beyond priceless. She tried twice? A moment’s thought would tell you the idea that she attempted to bankroll Ipswich Town around the mid-1970s is nonsense. The only TV shows she had done then were for Look East and then the BBC nationally. Not prone to pay millions per episode, the BBC. The profitable books, such as her Christmas volume and the seasonal collections, came later.

So a woman with in football terms absolutely no money to speak of who by then is several years into being a Norwich City fan, and who is married to a life-long fan, tries to invest the irrelevantly small amount she has in her club’s main rivals? No money, and no reason for such a move.

Fast-forward two decades on and she tries again? Granted she has some cash lying around, although still not that much by football standards, but by now she has been a Canary fan for around 25 years and is still married to the life-long fan, and Ipswich Town are still the main rivals. Now even less reason than before, and not surprisingly not once in your posts have you explained why she might have wanted to.

There are two explanations I can think of for this idiocy. One is you have simply invented a “source”. The other, which I choose to go with, is that someone, either to wind you up, or because they accepted a garbled  rumour of a rumour fourth or fifth hand, has told you these ultra-tall tales and you so much despise S&J (and no, I don’t think despise is too strong a word) that you have decided to believe them despite their obvious implausibility.

Quite. Whichever explanation it is, it's not a good look.

[A Load of Squit 5,164]

22 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

No, he is the anti-Christ and responsible for Covid, the war in Ukraine and climate change. What else do you think he’s up to in the 10%?

When I stubbed my toe yesterday my thoughts immediately turned to Webber and his part in my suffering.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

25 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

When I stubbed my toe yesterday my thoughts immediately turned to Webber and his part in my suffering.

You think that's serious? My local delicatessen has run out of lemon-flavoured mayonnaise, and no amount of Carrow Road spin will convince me that's not his fault...

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

11 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Maybe, but he is quoting Mrs Ward's comments. So in this case it's not his words or interpretation of said words. 

100% 24/7

What does working '100%' even mean? Don't eat, don't sleep, don't leave your desk? It's a stupid argument around a stupid phrase. 

[Monty13 2,234]

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What does working '100%' even mean? Don't eat, don't sleep, don't leave your desk? It's a stupid argument around a stupid phrase. 

The problem is it’s a mentality.

Giving a 100% (or 110% or any of the strange variations of more than 100%) is a statement of commitment. One persons 100% output is different from another persons 100% output for multiple reasons.

Everyone’s 100% at work is different and trying to codify 100% work effort is an impossible semantic and subjective argument.

People are usually naturally quite tolerant of people who are slower than them, approach things differently but get similar results, have a different work life balance etc. However if someone walks into work and doesn’t give it their full effort we recognise that instinctively.

If you flat out state your not going to give your 100% that is a pretty clear signal to people and thats why what he said is so controversial.

[komakino 272]

If you went for a job and in the interview you said you were 90% committed to the role you were applying for, what chance would there be of getting that job? 

None. 

Bit of a Chris Evans at Radio 1 here. Wanted Fridays off, then wanted to start later and so on. Eventually Radio 1 realised that could do without him. 

Webber can't go any further here, so its best for all concerned if he moved on. 

[Mason 47 1,379]

🙃

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

7 hours ago, komakino said:

If you went for a job and in the interview you said you were 90% committed to the role you were applying for, what chance would there be of getting that job? 

None. 

Bit of a Chris Evans at Radio 1 here. Wanted Fridays off, then wanted to start later and so on. Eventually Radio 1 realised that could do without him. 

Webber can't go any further here, so its best for all concerned if he moved on. 

I'd give them the job if they said 90%, because if they said they'd give it 100% I'd assume they were full of cr4p, and if they said 110% then I'd kick them out immediately!

Edited April 29, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[chicken 2,624]

On 28/04/2022 at 21:40, Greavsy said:

 

 

Right, so this marries up perfectly with what has been said then right? This isn't about not giving 100% to the club in terms of work, it's about giving 100% of his life to the club. This is why he wanted to leave, because he wanted to persue some other things. The club said "Hey, no, we can sort this, do both". And they came up with arrangements for both - in his words, 90% on the club, 10% for the ambitions he has outside of football.

Ward can give her opinion, and that's fine. His life still is 100% football because even when it's not, it is. That's what she's meaning. It's a lifestyle. Focus is on you whether you are at work or not. Case in point is football players. At the end of the season they get about a month off. Yet, even though they are not training, there is still constant speculation, contact from agents, the club, transfer moves, offers, contractual offers etc.

It's kind of sad how this is playing out with those still trying to insist that it's something it really isn't. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by chicken

[Capt. Pants 4,234]

All Webber has to do is announce precisely what his intentions are and what his commitment and focus to NCFC is, and what the role of Neil Adams will be this coming vital transfer window.

It really isn't difficult but instead there appears to be a stand off with the local media and altercation with the fans.

There is a way back if he chooses to take it, but it doesn't appear he wants to.

[A Load of Squit 5,164]

23 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

All Webber has to do is announce precisely what his intentions are and what his commitment and focus to NCFC is, and what the role of Neil Adams will be this coming vital transfer window.

It really isn't difficult but instead there appears to be a stand off with the local media and altercation with the fans.

There is a way back if he chooses to take it, but it doesn't appear he wants to.

What more do you want?

He's said he's arranged to take the time off when it's appropriate, he's explained why it's OK for him to be off at those times and when he's not here his assistant will cover for him.

[Greavsy 2,415]

5 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

What more do you want?

He's said he's arranged to take the time off when it's appropriate, he's explained why it's OK for him to be off at those times and when he's not here his assistant will cover for him.

Yes, but other than that.......

[Capt. Pants 4,234]

2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

What more do you want?

He's said he's arranged to take the time off when it's appropriate, he's explained why it's OK for him to be off at those times and when he's not here his assistant will cover for him.

Well a bit of reflection from him over these last week or so events would be nice. Perhaps he feels there isn't a need to patch things up with fans. I would suggest there most definitely is.

 

[essex canary 496]

5 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

What more do you want?

He's said he's arranged to take the time off when it's appropriate, he's explained why it's OK for him to be off at those times and when he's not here his assistant will cover for him.

He didn't have an assistant until relatively recently. Were his intentions a factor in introducing the assistant? Is the overall cost of the package - funded by fans money - greater than it needs to be if he wasn't engaged in so much time off?

How can fans have appropriate assurance about the Corporate Governance implications when his wife is a Board member?

[A Load of Squit 5,164]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

He didn't have an assistant until relatively recently. Were his intentions a factor in introducing the assistant? Is the overall cost of the package - funded by fans money - greater than it needs to be if he wasn't engaged in so much time off?

How can fans have appropriate assurance about the Corporate Governance implications when his wife is a Board member?

Ask him.

[Monty13 2,234]

At least he has no excuse for ghosting the media now. Monday morning he should be fronting up to answer questions.