Shots Fired Prior To AGM.

[slaphead 17]

This is not what I signed up for when I bought my shares in the club. Remember when they didn't have a pot to p--s in. They try to run our club like a closed shop. Don't do as we do, do as we say. 

[NewNestCarrow 191]

There's a certain tin-eared irony in Lakey writing an OpEd about the club being defensive when he himself has Blocked more than one twitter user.

[Nuff Said 5,129]

12 hours ago, Mello Yello said:

Maybe it's a younger not retired lady and gentleman, that are actually running the club?....

AKA doing their jobs.

[king canary 7,604]

Interesting to see the responses to the clubs tweet about the AGM just in case anyone thought fans wouldn't care...

[Mello Yello 2,289]

9 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

AKA doing their jobs.

Yes both are doing their jobs and are to be applauded, as they're consistently under mountain pressure....

PS I really can't abide TLA's....(That's Three Letter Abbreviations for the curious)....

[Monty13 2,231]

11 hours ago, Badger said:

Without wishing to sound like a priest/ teacher surely it is time for the two to sit down and sort out their differences - the current situation seems to be damaging to both.

Paddy said on their Podcast he’s tried 3 times to  have conversations with the club about burying the hatchet and each time been rebuffed. The Pinkun are apparently more than happy to move forward but the club isn’t.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

10 hours ago, Monty13 said:

Paddy said on their Podcast he’s tried 3 times to  have conversations with the club about burying the hatchet and each time been rebuffed. The Pinkun are apparently more than happy to move forward but the club isn’t.

I have posted more than enough on this, but what is interesting is that restrictions have been placed on media outlets other than the EDP. Apparently none was allowed into the AGM. This emphasises the shift from the time when clubs had a press office, normally run by someone with a print journalism background, to now, when it is a public relations department, pushing and spinning a message.

[shefcanary 2,401]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I have posted more than enough on this, but what is interesting is that restrictions have been placed on media outlets other than the EDP. Apparently none was allowed into the AGM. This emphasises the shift from the time when clubs had a press office, normally run by someone with a print journalism background, to now, when it is a public relations department, pushing and spinning a message.

Agree, they seem to want to push just one agenda nowadays, come hell or high water. 

In the past the story they wanted to push would be shared in the regular coffee discussions with journalists, resulting in slight tweaks of those stories to meet the press agenda but with a good deal of editorial control at the club ensuring their overall picture was portrayed.

Now, they have lost the editorial control and if the impasse continues at some point a really big negative story will break which the club will have no control of whatsoever.

Believe me I have personal experience of both such approaches to PR and I know what version I would prefer, and it isn't the club's current model, despite the moral issues that raises.

[Google Bot 3,275]

12 hours ago, Monty13 said:

The Pinkun are apparently more than happy to move forward but the club isn’t.

But to be fair, it was Archant/Pinkun who seemingly broke trust.  It's not their hatchet to bury.

It's like your neighbour announcing to everyone at the church fete that they saw you in the house dancing in women's underwear,  Then at the beer festival a few months later asking if it can all be forgotten about cause you no longer acknowledge them over the garden fence.

If the club truly views this as a break in trust and feel that articles mocking the manager, and calling out the sporting director as damaging then it's for them to decide when to heal, is it not?

Edited November 11, 2022 by Google Bot

[SwindonCanary 455]

It's all a mix up between the club and Archant  why don't they sort it out ?

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

My neighbour said they wouldn't say a word about that ! 

[GMF 736]

25 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

But to be fair, it was Archant/Pinkun who seemingly broke trust.  It's not their hatchet to bury.

It's like your neighbour announcing to everyone at the church fete that they saw you in the house dancing in women's underwear,  Then at the beer festival a few months later asking if it can all be forgotten about cause you no longer acknowledge them over the garden fence.

If the club truly views this as a break in trust and feel that articles mocking the manager, and calling out the sporting director as damaging then it's for them to decide when to heal, is it not?

If it’s just an Archant issue, why the wider ban on Radio Norfolk, Look East, ITV and the Athletic? 

[Google Bot 3,275]

1 minute ago, GMF said:

If it’s just an Archant issue, why the wider ban on Radio Norfolk, Look East, ITV and the Athletic? 

I really can't answer that other than that's just how businesses have to operate now when employing policies.  Otherwise you step into the area of discrimination.

No policy makes it out without going through a legal advisor first.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Not trying to be fungi but the cynic in me regarding the mushroom piece, is in my opinion just a lame excuse thrown forward to blank the local media....When was the last time the club has blanked or criticised the media?....In over my 3 decades supporting NCFC I don't recall even when the Chase Out protests were ongoing that the local media were blanked?....Wots goin' orrrn?....

It wouldn't be because of simmering unrest in the upper echelons of the Club....would it?....   

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

44 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

But to be fair, it was Archant/Pinkun who seemingly broke trust.  It's not their hatchet to bury.

It's like your neighbour announcing to everyone at the church fete that they saw you in the house dancing in women's underwear,  Then at the beer festival a few months later asking if it can all be forgotten about cause you no longer acknowledge them over the garden fence.

If the club truly views this as a break in trust and feel that articles mocking the manager, and calling out the sporting director as damaging then it's for them to decide when to heal, is it not?

From all I have heard, from sources (plural) I believe, they didn't break any trust over privileged information, which is the club's official claim.

[Google Bot 3,275]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

they didn't break any trust over privileged information, which is the club's official claim.

As far as i'm aware that wasn't the clubs claim, the claim was that a break of trust had occured, not that privileged information had been shared against their wishes.

Where privledged information was stated is in response to the clubs policy moving forwards to no longer provide privileged information to local media as a result.  i.e. is an action, not cause.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Google Bot

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

Archant could start the process by issuing an apology.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

6 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Archant could start the process by issuing an apology.

For what?

[Google Bot 3,275]

5 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

For what?

The staff profile images for starters!

They're so pixelated and stretched they look like Doctor Who villians locked in a time vacuum.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Google Bot

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

On 10/11/2022 at 10:04, Google Bot said:

This "Break of trust" mantra seems like the perfect excuse to control things as they want.  They know traditional media outlets are suffering, and they have media services to promote themselves.  And if that fails they've only got to knock on the door of two lads in Yarmouth to get some positive media presence out there.

Worth noting the TNC lads had PinkUn's Connor Southwell as their guest this week and all 3 of them were pretty scathing about the club's handling of the situation and were extremely positive about the role of Local Media. They had BBC Norfolk's Rob Butler on last week and the sentiment was very similar.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Canary Wundaboy

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

12 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Archant could start the process by issuing an apology.

For what? Investigating a story and publishing it?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

37 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

As far as i'm aware that wasn't the clubs claim, the claim was that a break of trust had occured, not that privileged information had been shared against their wishes.

Where privledged information was stated is in response to the clubs policy moving forwards to no longer provide privedged information to local media as a result.  i.e. is an action, not cause.

I really was trying to stop posting on this! And I was enjoying a sunny Friday listening to the Lovin' Spoonful. It is in the Richens piece and he talks about how the club had provided privileged information, such as on transfers, ahead of time. in other words privileged either as off the record background not to be used, or not to be attributed the club, or with a time embargo until the deal was done.

And he immediately goes on to say the recent change in the relationship was that the EDP committed a breach of trust. So in that context he is clearly talking about a breach of trust over privileged information, and as it happens about Attanasio and investment.

In this case that has to mean the club supplied significant information to the EDP about the investment story that the EDP did not have (possibly even the very fact of the investment), either as not-to-be-used off the record background, or with a time embargo. And that the EDP agreed to those terms - the question of trust over privileged info - and then broke that trust by publishing immediately anyway.

From all I have heard that did not happen. Instead it was that the EDP got the story totally independently of the club, and not based on any privileged info. And then quite rightly refused the club's request to suppress the story. And that the club - which effectively told the world something was happening by parading the seven in the directors' box - is now trying to blame the EDP for getting and publishing a story it hadn't wanted to become public so soon.

Edited November 11, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

2 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

For what? Investigating a story and publishing it?

All the stuff they've done that has caused this issue.

[Google Bot 3,275]

15 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

And he immediately goes on to say the recent change in the relationship was that the EDP committed a breach of trust. So in that context he is clearly talking about a breach of trust over privileged information, and as it happens about Attanasio and investment.

He's clearly saying that the local media, such as Archant, have had privileged information in the past but since they broke an external story that the club asked them to not run with, they will be removing such access due to what they consider a break in trust.

It needs to be noted that "In the good ol' days" Archant probably would've been granted some kind of exclusivity if they held the story.  but currently they have much competition sniffing down on this so acted in their own interests to break it first.

And that's the long and short of it.  Nowhere along the line has the club officially stated that leaking of priviledged information was the reason for this policy change, and we have it from the horses mouth (Southwell) that the club didn't want the story to go out - and we know why, because it's involving critical negotations that could affect the future ownership of the club.

Now.. I'm just playing devils advocate here.  I don't like this mess and I think the club are morally wrong and more upset that Archant had spoilt an announcement they were overly excited to break themselves.

But we need to be objective.  The minute you go to to a business saying "Hey, we know a secret about you and we're telling the world" and they ask you not to, there's going to be ramifications and a break in trust don't you think? 

Edited November 11, 2022 by Google Bot

[The Real Buh 3,432]

14 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

All the stuff they've done that has caused this issue.

Their job then.

how does Webbers boot taste?

 

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

9 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

Their job then.

 

 

If their job is to write personal insults then yes they should apologise.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

Just now, A Load of Squit said:

If their job is to write personal insults then yes they should apologise.

1) they reported on somebody else doing the mushroom thing, it wasn’t them that did it

2) a mushroom would be  better manager than Dean Smith

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

2 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

If their job is to write personal insults then yes they should apologise.

Show me where the local media has published personal insults and I'll agree with you.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

33 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

He's clearly saying that the local media, such as Archant, have had privileged information in the past but since they broke an external story that the club asked them to not run with, they will be removing such access due to what they consider a break in trust.

It needs to be noted that "In the good ol' days" Archant probably would've been granted some kind of exclusivity if they held the story.  but currently they have much competition sniffing down on this so acted in their own interests to break it first.

And that's the long and short of it.  Nowhere along the line has the club officially stated that leaking of priviledged information was the reason for this policy change, and we have it from the horses mouth (Southwell) that the club didn't want the story to go out - and we know why, because it's involving critical negotations that could affect the future ownership of the club.

Now.. I'm just playing devils advocate here.  I don't like this mess and I think the club are morally wrong, but we need to be objective really.

Well, that may be the club's line but of course it is nonsense. I can only repeat that as far as I know there was no breach of trust over the particular provenance of the story itself.

And the other more encompassing idea, that it was a breach of some general trust that the EDP would only publish stories with the say-so of the club, is just absurd. If the top people at Carrow Road believe that the EDP was committing some heinous breach of ethics then I rather fear for the club.***

The EDP may have agreed to holding off on info/stories in the past when it wasn't too bothered about a delay, but this is the biggest Norwich City story in decades. Potentially the most significant development at the club since it was saved from going under in the 1950s. No serious media outlet would have agreed to put off publishing.

As to your claim that running the story endangered critical negotiations, I know of no reason to suppose that is true. Talks had been going on for several months before Attanasio and six others came to Norwich and then were paraded at Carrow Road. That would not have happened if there were still doubts about a deal.

***This is probably in part because of the change I referred to before, about how at football club in general instead of a press office run by a print journalist there are PR departments run by PR people. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[The Real Buh 3,432]

It’s the EDPs responsibility to go in hard as possible on the club now. Full scrutiny.

I wouldn’t worry about this situation lasting long, the idiot suits qt Carrow Road aren’t going to last much longer. We just need to bottom out before progress can be made.