Is Neil Adams the problem?

[Bert 236]

Things are going from bad to worse on and off the pitch when it comes to the playing side.

Adams has been promoted to Webber’s deputy and taking on more of his responsibilities, could he be the weak cog in the machine that is going wrong? 

Let’s face it, he didn’t set the world on fire as a manager. 

[A Load of Squit 5,128]

2 minutes ago, Bert said:

Things are going from bad to worse on and off the pitch when it comes to the playing side.

Adams has been promoted to Webber’s deputy and taking on more of his responsibilities, could he be the weak cog in the machine that is going wrong? 

Let’s face it, he didn’t set the world on fire as a manager. 

He was appointed in Nov. 2021.

 

[Ken Hairy 3,759]

Not sure if this is bait....... 🤔😏

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

No, is the answer to your question although clearly Farke was the first fall guy for Webber's mistakes maybe Adams could be the second since Webber doesn't look as though he is going to take any responsibility for the series of mistakes he has made this season, wrecking it in the process.  

[canarydan23 4,060]

6 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

No, is the answer to your question although clearly Farke was the first fall guy for Webber's mistakes maybe Adams could be the second since Webber doesn't look as though he is going to take any responsibility for the series of mistakes he has made this season, wrecking it in the process.  

He's an odd man. At the end of the day, Farke was sacked because Webber didn't think he could keep us up. So now we stare an abject relegation in the face there are two possible scenarios;

1) The squad was never good enough to stay up, in which case sacking Farke was incorrect as he was the fall guy for mistakes that weren't his (and The Athletic has all but established that he had a different idea of what should have happened regarding recruitment than what ended up transpiring). If this scenario rings true, the buck stops with Webber as head of recruitment.

2) The squad was good enough to stay up. In which case, appointing Smith as Farke's replacement was incorrect. If this scenario rings true, the buck stops with Webber as the man who chose Smith as the successor.

Either way, we're in this sh!tfest because of Stuart Webber, there's no logical basis to deny it.

[Lewis DW 11]

Where's Russell Martin when you need him?! 

Norwich fans love a scapegoat - can't just accept that there are 19 considerably better squads of players in the league! 

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, Lewis DW said:

Where's Russell Martin when you need him?! 

Norwich fans love a scapegoat - can't just accept that there are 19 considerably better squads of players in the league! 

Everyone accepts there are 19 better squads of players in the league.

It's the reasons why that situation has come to pass, especially when you consider that last season we were 6 points and 10 points better than two of them last season.

[Lewis DW 11]

Norwich have been relegated because the squad wasn't good enough. 

Too many gambles on players that don't fit the style of play needed for a Pukki-led team. 

[7HAR1980 102]

90%

[canarydan23 4,060]

6 minutes ago, Lewis DW said:

Norwich have been relegated because the squad wasn't good enough. 

Too many gambles on players that don't fit the style of play needed for a Pukki-led team. 

Yes, and someone is to blame for that, yes?

[essex canary 491]

More like the solution  with an excellent footballing CV all round including a goalless draw at Chelsea.

[hertfordyellow 460]

[Monty13 2,229]

29 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

He's an odd man. At the end of the day, Farke was sacked because Webber didn't think he could keep us up. So now we stare an abject relegation in the face there are two possible scenarios;

1) The squad was never good enough to stay up, in which case sacking Farke was incorrect as he was the fall guy for mistakes that weren't his (and The Athletic has all but established that he had a different idea of what should have happened regarding recruitment than what ended up transpiring). If this scenario rings true, the buck stops with Webber as head of recruitment.

2) The squad was good enough to stay up. In which case, appointing Smith as Farke's replacement was incorrect. If this scenario rings true, the buck stops with Webber as the man who chose Smith as the successor.

Either way, we're in this sh!tfest because of Stuart Webber, there's no logical basis to deny it.

Slightly disagree Dan. I think it’s point one but instead of making the best of it and accepting relegation with a fight Farke became overly negative to both media and players.

I don’t think Webber was necessarily wrong to sack Farke given how absolutely abject we were, just ultimately wasn’t likely to make any difference. The damage was already done in the summer (presumably mainly by Webber) and then compounded in those first 10 games (By Farke).

[komakino 272]

7 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Slightly disagree Dan. I think it’s point one but instead of making the best of it and accepting relegation with a fight Farke became overly negative to both media and players.

I don’t think Webber was necessarily wrong to sack Farke given how absolutely abject we were, just ultimately wasn’t likely to make any difference. The damage was already done in the summer (presumably mainly by Webber) and then compounded in those first 10 games (By Farke).

I don't think any manager could have kept us up given such poor recruitment by Webber. 

Farke got more time this season than any other club would have accepted. It should be remembered because Farke was in situ for so long, you had Garth Crooks asking the question 'Is he really in charge?' because we kept losing and the club did nothing about it. From a PR point of view, the club looked unwilling to retain its EPL status, so forced Webber's hand. 

I still find it bizarre that Farke was sacked when a replacement was not lined up. At least McNally got his men without going through the official recruitment process!

[Bradwell canary 109]

How on earth can he take the blame?

He has more knowledge of what makes a footballer than Webber ever will.

He was the one, when loan manager, checking one of the Murphy boys at Coventry. He spotted Maddison was a talent, then got him to Norwich.

Sadly the manager of the day sent him back to Coventry on loan, then off to Scotland for a further loan. Fact is he was good enough to start for us when he signed.

Just hope he won’t be another one to bite the dust, instead of Webber!

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

I sometimes wonder what the hell Webber does to fill his time out, let alone Adams.

We used to have 2 people doing the job of 1, we now have 3.

[essex canary 491]

6 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

I sometimes wonder what the hell Webber does to fill his time out, let alone Adams.

We used to have 2 people doing the job of 1, we now have 3.

Exactly and it cost us the Chief Operating Officer and/or the season ticket rises. 

[Mello Yello 2,280]

Saw Neil in the Directionless Box on Sunday - although I couldn't see Mr Stu?.....

I don't mind Neil Adams....not sure about the rest of them though?.....

[Midlands Yellow 3,934]

Stu already in Leicester to welcome the landing this afternoon? 

[Mello Yello 2,280]

13 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Stu already in Leicester to welcome the landing this afternoon? 

Their travel expenses....do they have to show or submit receipts to the Club Claims Cashier?....

[shefcanary 2,385]

Right, it's back to Corporate governance isn't it?  Adams was appointed by Webber, so Webber has to take the blame for anything that is laid at Adams' door.  The big issue now is just who does Webber report to so you can sling mud at him and that it sticks?  I'm sure it is not his wife, therefore given his seniority does he report to the Board as a whole seeing as how there is not a CEO or a Chairperson?  This is where it all breaks down.  The four directors (with his missus sitting out the discussion as an interested party) probably debate where things are going wrong and then are unable to make a decision. This is because Smith & Jones view is to let him off, Phillips and Foulger saying give him the boot, but that is a tied vote so the most senior person's vote counts double - Delia's?

[komakino 272]

11 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Right, it's back to Corporate governance isn't it?  Adams was appointed by Webber, so Webber has to take the blame for anything that is laid at Adams' door.  The big issue now is just who does Webber report to so you can sling mud at him and that it sticks?  I'm sure it is not his wife, therefore given his seniority does he report to the Board as a whole seeing as how there is not a CEO or a Chairperson?  This is where it all breaks down.  The four directors (with his missus sitting out the discussion as an interested party) probably debate where things are going wrong and then are unable to make a decision. This is because Smith & Jones view is to let him off, Phillips and Foulger saying give him the boot, but that is a tied vote so the most senior person's vote counts double - Delia's?

As Smith & Jones are majority shareholders, what they say goes surely? 

[shefcanary 2,385]

2 minutes ago, komakino said:

As Smith & Jones are majority shareholders, what they say goes surely? 

Indeed, that is probably true as I indicated in my hypothetical example.

[The Raptor 1,199]

No. I think he should've stayed as loan manager tho. (Or maybe he still is as well I've lost track!) 

I know its oldish but I found it interesting. He'd probably be doing a similar thing at a bigger club if he didn't have loyalty to Norwich.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/14319824/norwich-neil-adams-transfers-academy/

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

On 10/05/2022 at 11:37, Bert said:

Things are going from bad to worse on and off the pitch when it comes to the playing side.

Adams has been promoted to Webber’s deputy and taking on more of his responsibilities, could he be the weak cog in the machine that is going wrong? 

Let’s face it, he didn’t set the world on fire as a manager. 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Terminally Yellow

[Big Vince 318]

7 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

He's an odd man. At the end of the day, Farke was sacked because Webber didn't think he could keep us up. So now we stare an abject relegation in the face there are two possible scenarios;

1) The squad was never good enough to stay up, in which case sacking Farke was incorrect as he was the fall guy for mistakes that weren't his (and The Athletic has all but established that he had a different idea of what should have happened regarding recruitment than what ended up transpiring). If this scenario rings true, the buck stops with Webber as head of recruitment.

2) The squad was good enough to stay up. In which case, appointing Smith as Farke's replacement was incorrect. If this scenario rings true, the buck stops with Webber as the man who chose Smith as the successor.

Either way, we're in this sh!tfest because of Stuart Webber, there's no logical basis to deny it.

Nonsense. The current situation is entirely to do with the Socialists who do not pay EPL wages.

If you want to stay in this league you have to be forking out £38m on the likes of Bruno Guimaraes and then paying the wages that kind of player commands.

Webber is not allowed into that market place. He can only buy the likes of Sargent at a fractional cost of Guimaraes, both in terms of transfer fee and more especially wages.

[lake district canary 4,531]

6 hours ago, komakino said:

Farke got more time this season than any other club would have accepted. It should be remembered because Farke was in situ for so long, you had Garth Crooks asking the question 'Is he really in charge?' because we kept losing and the club did nothing about it. From a PR point of view, the club looked unwilling to retain its EPL status, so forced Webber's hand.

Who cares what Garth Crooks thinks, or any other media buffoon?  The logical position was to keep the seige mentality going, give the manager the authority to deal with uppity young players - and continue the battle to improve. 

And PR?  What the f*** is that?  Who cares what anyone else thinks about the club?  No one forced Webber's hand except himself.

[canarydan23 4,060]

46 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Nonsense. The current situation is entirely to do with the Socialists who do not pay EPL wages.

If you want to stay in this league you have to be forking out £38m on the likes of Bruno Guimaraes and then paying the wages that kind of player commands.

Webber is not allowed into that market place. He can only buy the likes of Sargent at a fractional cost of Guimaraes, both in terms of transfer fee and more especially wages.

Don't smoke all that crack-pipe.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

i like Neil Adams  

but is he hard enough to thrash out a deal ?

is he to much of a yes man ? 

i would prefer to get the very best we can if it is Neil then so be it but i do have my doubts 

[komakino 272]

48 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Who cares what Garth Crooks thinks, or any other media buffoon?  The logical position was to keep the seige mentality going, give the manager the authority to deal with uppity young players - and continue the battle to improve. 

And PR?  What the f*** is that?  Who cares what anyone else thinks about the club?  No one forced Webber's hand except himself.

PR is very important because the worse the club appears, the less attractive it is signing better players, staff, sponsors etc.

Crooks was spot on, because they weren’t Farke’s players and like many, couldn’t understand why he was still in situ after losing week in and week out.  I’m no Webber fan, but at the very least it had to been seen to be doing something and changing manager is the most obvious route, even if the change was very late. 

Had no change been made, the club arguably would be seen to be content to go down and that would have lead to ever further charges made by the media. 
 

Farke was stuffed by Webber, but he should have seen it coming.