Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TIL 1010

Shots Fired Prior To AGM.

Recommended Posts

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

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.

Well of course, I think most people would be in agreement of that. 

But it's not for us to decide as we're ill-equipped to know what deals were taking place, how far through they were, and if the exposure that a wealthy businessman looking around Norwich would be classified as a risk for the negotations.

To be objective you have to be willing to accept any such elements without bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

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

It's up to the people who feel that it became personal, that's why they should apologise.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A Load of Squit said:

It's up to the people who feel that it became personal, that's why they should apologise.

🤣🤣🤣 If you were any more of a mug mate Dean Smith would be drinking out of you on the touchline pre-match

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

🤣🤣🤣 If you were any more of a mug mate Dean Smith would be drinking out of you on the touchline pre-match

Ooh burn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Well of course, I think most people would be in agreement of that. 

But it's not for us to decide as we're ill-equipped to know what deals were taking place, how far through they were, and if the exposure that a wealthy businessman looking around Norwich would be classified as a risk for the negotations.

To be objective you have to be willing to accept any such elements without bias.

So when you posted this a short time ago:

"...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."

You had no idea if that was true, that when the story broke there were still critical negotiations going on. But claimed it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it very odd that the majority seem to be hell bent on blaming the club here, when clearly there is blame on both sides.  Nothing is a straight forward as people are claiming it to be, and it seems at odds with some of the more nuanced stuff that is posted on here from time to time.  I really don't get it.

We all know that relations with the club were strained from earlier on in the year when Archant went after Webber and asked if he 'really wanted the job', and they continued to fan the flames rather than back down once it became extremely personal.  So rightly or wrongly the club got the hump, and it lead to the final straw being the Attanasio story.

There are clearly apologies due from both sides here, but I think everyone has to look at this objectively and accept that Archant aren't the poor innocent victim here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

You had no idea if that was true, that when the story broke there were still critical negotiations going on. But claimed it anyway.

I wrote: "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."

And here's the horses mouth, timestamped for you (as before), saying "It was a quite delicate stage of where the deal was at":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QL08AsSrTs&t=507s

So it's not my claim whatsoever. 

Simply trying to break all this down objectively, sorry that it's offending you in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ridgeman said:

Seems like the Webbers can dish it out but can't take it!

You could argue the same about the local media, though.  The latest article by Lakey is pretty pathetic.

Both sides appear to now being rather petty and need to work a way to coexist for the benefit of the local population who after all the supporters (for the club) and readers (for media).  It’s not really in our interests for them to be being muppets with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I do find it very odd that the majority seem to be hell bent on blaming the club here, when clearly there is blame on both sides.  Nothing is a straight forward as people are claiming it to be, and it seems at odds with some of the more nuanced stuff that is posted on here from time to time.  I really don't get it.

We all know that relations with the club were strained from earlier on in the year when Archant went after Webber and asked if he 'really wanted the job', and they continued to fan the flames rather than back down once it became extremely personal.  So rightly or wrongly the club got the hump, and it lead to the final straw being the Attanasio story.

There are clearly apologies due from both sides here, but I think everyone has to look at this objectively and accept that Archant aren't the poor innocent victim here.

Archant shouldn't have to apologise for doing their job. Certain people at the club seemingly need reminding that criticism is part of their job and they need to get over themselves.

There is no 'both sides' to this. The club basically want the media to be compliant little lapdogs and as Davitt said that isn't going to happen as they aren't the clubs PR arm.

It does seem with some though that nothing the club does will ever put them in the wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Archant shouldn't have to apologise for doing their job. Certain people at the club seemingly need reminding that criticism is part of their job and they need to get over themselves.

There is no 'both sides' to this. The club basically want the media to be compliant little lapdogs and as Davitt said that isn't going to happen as they aren't the clubs PR arm.

It does seem with some though that nothing the club does will ever put them in the wrong.

I don't disagree with the wider point you are making, but as I said this seemingly all started because Archant fanned the flamed against SW in a fairly personal attack and that isn't, in my opinion, 'doing their job'.

So yes there is 'both sides' to this, and both of them need to understand, apologise, and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, we're talking about adults at both the club, and at Archant here.  When Archant decided to press ahead with the Attanasio story they already knew that relations with the club were strained.

I agree that the story was of interest to fans, and was rightly reported, but what I won't accept is that Archant naively published the story (after the club had expressed concern over that happening) without considering the possible ramifications of that.

Clearly this has all gone on for way too long now, but I can't believe anyone can seriously sit there and believe that Archant didn't expect consequences for upsetting a relationship which was already at breaking point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I don't disagree with the wider point you are making, but as I said this seemingly all started because Archant fanned the flamed against SW in a fairly personal attack and that isn't, in my opinion, 'doing their job'.

So yes there is 'both sides' to this, and both of them need to understand, apologise, and move on.

I agree totally other than the apology bit - that’s a bit ‘meh’ for me, it is what it is.

The club needs to realise the media is the media and will report stuff, but keeping a good relationship helps connect with supporters.  The media needs to realise that without a degree of leeway they will miss out on information from the club that will generate readership/sell copy.  

No one gains from a stand off, they should both grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Branston Pickle said:

I agree totally other than the apology bit - that’s a bit ‘meh’ for me, it is what it is.

The club needs to realise the media is the media and will report stuff, but keeping a good relationship helps connect with supporters.  The media needs to realise that without a degree of leeway they will miss out on information from the club that will generate readership/sell copy.  

No one gains from a stand off, they should both grow up.

But what kind of leeway are we talking?

As far as I can see the club, having already started to freeze journalists out basically asked them to not do their jobs and report what they'd found. That isn't leeway, it would be something that would entirely destroy their credibility if it came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I don't disagree with the wider point you are making, but as I said this seemingly all started because Archant fanned the flamed against SW in a fairly personal attack and that isn't, in my opinion, 'doing their job'.

So yes there is 'both sides' to this, and both of them need to understand, apologise, and move on.

I don't think they started it- Webber started it by refusing to speak to them post his stupid interview in the Sunday Times. He, quite correctly in my view, got called out for it.

If that headline upset Webber this much then frankly he's a thin skinned baby who needs to get a different job. In my view the club comes out those looking stupid and Webber comes out of it looking like a ludicrous playground bully who throws his toys out of the pram when journalists stop blowing smoke up his ****. I really don't see Archant as having done much wrong- as a fan I want them to be willing to be critical when the club does things that deserve criticism.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I do find it very odd that the majority seem to be hell bent on blaming the club here, when clearly there is blame on both sides.  Nothing is a straight forward as people are claiming it to be, and it seems at odds with some of the more nuanced stuff that is posted on here from time to time.  I really don't get it.

We all know that relations with the club were strained from earlier on in the year when Archant went after Webber and asked if he 'really wanted the job', and they continued to fan the flames rather than back down once it became extremely personal.  So rightly or wrongly the club got the hump, and it lead to the final straw being the Attanasio story.

There are clearly apologies due from both sides here, but I think everyone has to look at this objectively and accept that Archant aren't the poor innocent victim here.

I just don't see this.

I've been responsible for managing press relations in the past and these things blow over in no time at all; well as soon as the paper needs to fill a few column inches, but usually the damage has been done and you work with them to re-present your "tarnished" image.

I just haven't seen any story that paints a tarnished image of the club, so cannot understand what the club is so upset about, as you only get upset with media when you don't like what they portray, not the fact you are in the media highlight in the first place (all news is good news is the basic principle of PR), it just depends on how you manage the story).

The stuff about betrayed confidence is just a non-starter, especially as it is applied to all media now, not just Archant. How the hell that can exist unless there were as many stories as media partner beats me, they can't have had "confidences" with them all (see how easy that one falls). 

I cannot see what the club is trying to gain, most fans are on top of all media and are as likely to get information from Talk****e as from Archant, the Athletic or indeed the club.  

This has to stem from the departure of Phillips and the Board's lack of confidence in PR matters (yes, back to my recurring subject of corporate governance). I believe they are allowing a senior executive to govern their dealings with the press, rather than allowing the club to pursue a more rounded policy. You can guess which executive I think is behind it, and it is the one who is always clumsy in front of the media. If Tom really is a good Chair, he would be sitting down with the media during the World Cup break and sorting this charade out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty I see little change in the content. The journos still have access to Carrow Road and Colney. The press conferences still take place. Zoe Webber said some extra stuff wasn't taking place. Things like delaying club announcements to suit the press. I assume this stuff is favours rather than agreements. 

I don't think there was any media present last night. I did see Michael Bailey but he didn't appear to be reporting. Didn't see BBC, ITV or even radio Norfolk. Did anyone see any media there?

This could be the future. What we have been used to isn't the norm elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, king canary said:

I don't think they started it- Webber started it by refusing to speak to them post his stupid interview in the Sunday Times. He, quite correctly in my view, got called out for it.

That's where I feel all this started too. 

Archant had a decision to make on the Attanasio story and probably weighed up the likelihood of someone else breaking it before them and the fact Webber had already blanked them - and so went with it.  I don't think they would if it wasn't for those factors.

But there is also the possibility that the Attanasio story was building way before the Webber call out, and his lack of response to the media had already been declared behind the scenes.

Calling out Webber was April 26th, Attanasio story broke 27th May.   So a very short time between.

It's all a bit Miss Marple, really.  Shame we didn't have all this to discuss in during the winter break really.  I've about shot my load already. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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.

The step change by the club has been patently obvious to me. Increasingly through the modern social media era, although I’d say it’s accelerated over the last 18 months, the club is locking down its message and avoiding external scrutiny. It’s absolutely standard in modern business of any kind, but I’m surprised that some people don’t think it’s happening.

Share this post


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

I don't disagree with the wider point you are making, but as I said this seemingly all started because Archant fanned the flamed against SW in a fairly personal attack and that isn't, in my opinion, 'doing their job'.

So yes there is 'both sides' to this, and both of them need to understand, apologise, and move on.

How do you determine that as the start? 

The whole reason they printed that story was because the club locked itself down and wouldn’t answer questions.

It was extremely provocative, but I don’t think it was unprovoked or unprofessional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst the whole thing is pretty stupid, could this actually be a positive longer term?

How many times have local media been accused of not asking the right questions or not being hard enough on the club during troubled times?

Not something I personally agree with but it's been said on here every time we've been on a downturn as a club.

They've always been accused of being too close to the club.

The club now has the tech and infrastructure to deliver its own content effectively whilst the local media can now report with absolutely no conflict of interest, with no 'favours' from the club etc.

It's basically putting us in line with how the majority of similarly sized clubs seem to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Google Bot said:

I wrote: "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."

And here's the horses mouth, timestamped for you (as before), saying "It was a quite delicate stage of where the deal was at":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QL08AsSrTs&t=507s

So it's not my claim whatsoever. 

Simply trying to break all this down objectively, sorry that it's offending you in any way.

Can’t get into that link, but if it is Southwell saying that then then he can only be repeating what the club told him, since he was hardly going to to have been in on the negotiations. And the club was bound to play up that line, although I concede it might be true, or it might not, or it might be an exaggeration.

As said before, Attanasio was confident enough before the story broke of a deal to come over with six others and club was confident enough to parade the seven. And it is a matter of hard fact that the deal went through despite the story breaking.

But it is an Irrelevancy anyway. Even if the talks were at a delicate stage the club had no right to expect the EDP to hold off on the story. Especially since the club had helped let the cat out of the bag. An action that in effect meant the paper had to publish. Under those circumstances no self-respecting newspaper would have caved in. And the club has just made itself looking stupid by dreaming up this spurious claim of a breach of trust.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Can’t get into that link, but if it is Southwell saying that then then he can only be repeating what the club told him, since he was hardly going to to have been in on the negotiations. And the club was bound to play up that line, although I concede it might be true, or it might not, or it might be an exaggeration.

As said before, Attanasio was confident enough before the story broke of a deal to come over with six others and club was confident enough to parade the seven. And it is a matter of hard fact that the deal went through despite the story breaking.

But it is an Irrelevancy anyway. Even if the talks were at a delicate stage the club had no right to expect the EDP to hold off on the story. Especially since the club had helped let the cat out of the bag. An action that in effect meant the paper had to publish. Under those circumstances no self-respecting newspaper would have caved in. And the club has just made itself looking stupid by dreaming up this spurious claim of a breach of trust.

 

If the Club had a strong case on this why go down the road of mushroom gate?

I dropped them a line today to remind them of an earlier EDP article concerning a recently departed Supporter of the Year and the Clubs subsequent reaction totally lacking in community spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I don't think they started it- Webber started it by refusing to speak to them post his stupid interview in the Sunday Times. He, quite correctly in my view, got called out for it.

If that headline upset Webber this much then frankly he's a thin skinned baby who needs to get a different job. In my view the club comes out those looking stupid and Webber comes out of it looking like a ludicrous playground bully who throws his toys out of the pram when journalists stop blowing smoke up his ****. I really don't see Archant as having done much wrong- as a fan I want them to be willing to be critical when the club does things that deserve criticism.

I would think that Webber set the bar after his appointment by saying that the" last regime pissed the money up against the wall" instead of saying mistakes were made and we will try not to repeat them. Under the last regime (McNally) we had two goes at the premier league with Lambert and Neil and and fared better than the two goes under Webber. Once that statement was made he invited critisicm of any mistakes he made. IMO He has wasted far more money than before and is far more arrogant than Mcnally ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that no conspiracy theorist has said that maybe our friends from over the pond deliberately leaked their interest in investing in NCFC?.....Stranger things an' all that.....anyway....

From my padded plastic pew I normally look over into the Director's Box at our home games to see who's about...Usually I espy Ex players, managers, the odd celebrity etc....Our game against Spurs my attention was drawn to the group of chaps sat together a few rows behind our majority shareholding duo....I actually thought nothing much of their presence until rumourville and that pic of them was printed in the local heaving nooze....

The rest is now history....

 

Share this post


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

But it is an Irrelevancy anyway. Even if the talks were at a delicate stage the club had no right to expect the EDP to hold off on the story.

Of course they had no right - that would be more akin to a legal obligation, this issue is one of trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2022 at 09:55, keelansgrandad said:

Very difficult to understand this. I do wonder if there is a lack of hands on by Delia? She is an elderly woman of course but I just think so much of the club looks a bit ruthless at the moment.

She can't stay awake mate, of course she hasn't got a f*cking clue what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, king canary said:

I don't think they started it- Webber started it by refusing to speak to them post his stupid interview in the Sunday Times. He, quite correctly in my view, got called out for it.

If that headline upset Webber this much then frankly he's a thin skinned baby who needs to get a different job. In my view the club comes out those looking stupid and Webber comes out of it looking like a ludicrous playground bully who throws his toys out of the pram when journalists stop blowing smoke up his ****. I really don't see Archant as having done much wrong- as a fan I want them to be willing to be critical when the club does things that deserve criticism.

Webber is an arrogant a$$hole , who has brought all this negativity surrounding the club. Hopefully his time here is done soon. He is long past his sell by date. 

  • Like 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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...