Connor Southwell et al

[CardiffCanary 131]

First things first… I have no dog in this fight (!) but I really enjoy what this guy writes and says about ncfc.  He’s balanced,  fair and articulate.  Equally I enjoy what paddy has to say and quite like the fact that he’s a Cov fan, for me counter balances well with his obvious soft spot for our club.

now …

is there any video footage of delia totally disrespecting Connor as a journo having asked a perfectly reasonable question after the agm?

 

interesting that iwan gets on board with Connor this week aswel.

 

Probably some people don't care but I feel it’s another division between us ( the fans) and them ( the board)

[Duncan Edwards 2,256]

Glad somebody has brought this up. 

[mastoola 185]

45 minutes ago, CardiffCanary said:

First things first… I have no dog in this fight (!) but I really enjoy what this guy writes and says about ncfc.  He’s balanced,  fair and articulate.  Equally I enjoy what paddy has to say and quite like the fact that he’s a Cov fan, for me counter balances well with his obvious soft spot for our club.

now …

is there any video footage of delia totally disrespecting Connor as a journo having asked a perfectly reasonable question after the agm?

 

interesting that iwan gets on board with Connor this week aswel.

 

Probably some people don't care but I feel it’s another division between us ( the fans) and them ( the board)

Can you elaborate?

 

[CardiffCanary 131]

As in delia having a go at him/ totally disrespectful of him … just wonder if there’s any audio of it ?

even iwan talks about in his Column 

I personally think he deserves better 

 

[Pyro Pete 1,909]

52 minutes ago, CardiffCanary said:

is there any video footage of delia totally disrespecting Connor as a journo having asked a perfectly reasonable question after the agm?

Would this be the post-AGM Q&A you're referring to? Connor's questions come about a third of the way in.

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by Pyro Pete

[CardiffCanary 131]

Thank you Pete 

17mins in 

Ps…They are defo drunk !!!

[Pugin 601]

It was a ham-fisted and badly worded question, and even now no one can be sure what the question meant .

Primarily, 'governance' is likely to refer to legal governance, as applying to Company law. If that's what he was asking, then it was quite an offensive question. But that probably wasn't what he meant. It's more likely to have been 'who oversees the Board in its decision making'.

Whatever he meant, the question was poorly considered as if dropping a big word into it made it serious question..

[canarybubbles 1,934]

If it was badly worded, as you claim, this was probably because a) he is a football journalist, not a legal expert, and, more importantly, b) because he realised the sensitivity of the question and was trying his very best not to be provocative. 

[The Real Buh 3,455]

Shes drunk

Marks embarrassed 

Michael is struggling to remain conscious 

[A Load of Squit 5,201]

It's obvious that Southwell got his selections wrong when planning his question formation.

Unless the Pinkun gets a decent set piece question coach these opportunities will continue to be wasted.

He'll just have to chalk that one down to experience and go again next week.

[Pugin 601]

1 hour ago, canarybubbles said:

If it was badly worded, as you claim, this was probably because a) he is a football journalist, not a legal expert, and, more importantly, b) because he realised the sensitivity of the question and was trying his very best not to be provocative. 

OK @canarybubbles , so what did the question mean? You sound as if you are saying that you know.

[Naturalcynic 642]

40 minutes ago, Pugin said:

OK @canarybubbles , so what did the question mean? You sound as if you are saying that you know.

Governance: framework of authority and accountability.  Given that there were two cosy couples in charge of authority and accountability, it seems fairly clear to me what he was asking and why he was asking it. Your attempt at defending the Board by attacking the journalist who had the temerity to ask the question really does you no credit.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Naturalcynic

[Bert 236]

The real question is why does she not like to be held accountable!!

[Ulfotto 641]

Southall and Seaman are 20%ers. Davitt is giving a detached perspective and is the one whose opinion holds any validity. The other two are just fans.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,294]

20 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

Southall and Seaman are 20%ers. Davitt is giving a detached perspective and is the one whose opinion holds any validity. The other two are just fans.

I think Southall and Seaman are quite balanced tbh. But Davitt is definitely more to the point. 

They’re an Ok listen, but Micheal Bailey, Dave Freezer and Paddy Davitt were levels above.

[S_81 828]

3 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

Shes drunk

Marks embarrassed 

Michael is struggling to remain conscious 

Mark actually moves away from her in his chair when she says the word whingers. 

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Governance: framework of authority and accountability.  Given that there were two cosy couples in charge of authority and accountability, it seems fairly clear to me what he was asking and why he was asking it. Your attempt at defending the Board by attacking the journalist who had the temerity to ask the question really does you no credit.

Yes, the question asked was obviously about corporate governance and the management of risk within the business.

It’s very difficult to say how effective this is when the non-executive directors put so much trust in their executive team, with little, or no, proper external oversight.  The executive directors are effectively “marking their own homework.”

[crispeduk 282]

Pretty sure as a young journalist Connor will have faced much fiercer put-downs, while Delia and Michael will have been asked far worse and responded well more harshly, but yes, it’s right to defend him. I can recall a friend from the past was threatened with leaving by a third-floor window when, alone in the boardroom with the owner of a faraway club, he asked the wrong question. And if I remember correctly (apologies if it’s incorrectly), Connor upset Daniel by suggesting there was no Plan B or something of the sort – he didn’t let that hold him back, just kept his head down for a short time, probably coached and helped away from the direct firing line by the likes of Paddy. One day he’ll likely do similar himself for a younger colleague. We are fortunate to still have the Pink Un in its present form. Amidst the industry’s jobs carnage some sports desks have fared far worse than in the Fine City, where old-school working standards remain. Box-on lads.

Btw The club's meeja team could give a little thought to backdrops in public appearances - that pot plant was the star of quite a few agm images - Malcom Tucker would've had a ***@&,*** glorious Thick of It reaction.

[canarybubbles 1,934]

2 hours ago, Pugin said:

OK @canarybubbles , so what did the question mean? You sound as if you are saying that you know.

Like several other people on here, I took it to refer to a lack of accountability; that, to quote GMF above, the Board are 'marking their own homework'.

I freely admit that I have no experience of what happens in any organisation at the executive level, but I sense a lack of checks and balances in our club over the last three years and that this has had a deleterious effect on and off the pitch. I think this is what Southwell was trying to raise in an elliptical manner, and other people seem to think this, too. 

What did you take the question to mean?

[canarybubbles 1,934]

2 hours ago, Ulfotto said:

Southall and Seaman are 20%ers. Davitt is giving a detached perspective and is the one whose opinion holds any validity. The other two are just fans.

"Just fans". Says everything. How dare they be questioning their betters?

[Pyro Pete 1,909]

Connor, as a local journalist, has every right to raise the issue of governance.

It's been evident over the past few years that the decision-making at the club has become highly questionable.

Delia's response is just to dismiss the question by saying, "You have no idea!" Well then tell us. Provide some context and accountability. But she doesn't. Neither does MWJ.

Later she boasts how she's "seen it all" and mocks Connor's age, "since before you were born."

Does she not know how defensive and desperate she sounds?

Edited December 12, 2023 by Pyro Pete

[essex canary 504]

8 minutes ago, Pyro Pete said:

Connor, as a local journalist, has every right to raise the issue of governance.

It's been evident over the past few years that the decision-making at the club has become highly questionable.

Delia's response is just to dismiss the question by saying, "You have no idea!" Well then tell us. Provide some context and accountability. But she doesn't. Neither does MWJ.

Later she boasts how she's "seen it all" and mocks Connor's age, "since before you were born."

Does she not know how sad, pathetic, defensive and desperate she sounds?

Exactly. After defending young footballers, how can she then justify being so patronising towards a young journalist and the rest of the supporters? 

It is also a tacit admission that Club Communications are not good enough.

Her comments about taking pride in being debt free are interesting. Why having achieved it did she let it go again and use Everton as an excuse?

[shefcanary 2,438]

In a nutshell, what Connor should have more explicitly asked was "who represented the 30% of shareholders with no representation at Board level under the former Smith & Jones plus Foulger structure? Also, given that one of the Board members was a connected person of one of the most important employees of the club, who on the Board truly had the "football industry experience, skill and competence" to ensure that person was being appropriately challenged."

He could then have followed up with a question to Attanasio on how he expected things to change during the remainder of his 3 year working agreement. But that would have really been provocative, made Delia even more angry whilst it would have been almost impossible for Attanasio to answer without criticising Smith & Jones even further.    

But, although he didn't get the question across well, it got the sort of reaction that completely justified the subject being brought up, sealing I think an acceleration of change at the club.

Without such a question being posed, the real failures of the past board structure would still have been conjecture. Everyone now has the evidence of how things were managed at Board level now, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture and underlines why the club has failed to take the biggest opportunities on offer to it.

[essex canary 504]

4 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

In a nutshell, what Connor should have more explicitly asked was "who represented the 30% of shareholders with no representation at Board level under the former Smith & Jones plus Foulger structure? Also, given that one of the Board members was a connected person of one of the most important employees of the club, who on the Board truly had the "football industry experience, skill and competence" to ensure that person was being appropriately challenged."

He could then have followed up with a question to Attanasio on how he expected things to change during the remainder of his 3 year working agreement. But that would have really been provocative, made Delia even more angry whilst it would have been almost impossible for Attanasio to answer without criticising Smith & Jones even further.    

But, although he didn't get the question across well, it got the sort of reaction that completely justified the subject being brought up, sealing I think an acceleration of change at the club.

Without such a question being posed, the real failures of the past board structure would still have been conjecture. Everyone now has the evidence of how things were managed at Board level now, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture and underlines why the club has failed to take the biggest opportunities on offer to it.

All very reasonable aside from the fact that you clearly have much more experience in these matters than Connor.

[Robert N. LiM 4,460]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

In a nutshell, what Connor should have more explicitly asked was "who represented the 30% of shareholders with no representation at Board level under the former Smith & Jones plus Foulger structure? Also, given that one of the Board members was a connected person of one of the most important employees of the club, who on the Board truly had the "football industry experience, skill and competence" to ensure that person was being appropriately challenged."

He could then have followed up with a question to Attanasio on how he expected things to change during the remainder of his 3 year working agreement. But that would have really been provocative, made Delia even more angry whilst it would have been almost impossible for Attanasio to answer without criticising Smith & Jones even further.    

But, although he didn't get the question across well, it got the sort of reaction that completely justified the subject being brought up, sealing I think an acceleration of change at the club.

Without such a question being posed, the real failures of the past board structure would still have been conjecture. Everyone now has the evidence of how things were managed at Board level now, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture and underlines why the club has failed to take the biggest opportunities on offer to it.

This. Noting that Southwell could have put the question (and especially his follow-up) much better is not defending D&M's responses in that exchange. Tbh, I think Southwell let them off the hook a bit there.

[The Real Buh 3,455]

It’s this sort of thing that needs to be highlighted and illuminated. I’ve referred to the fact that some sort of very public show of Delias true colours needs to happen and she possibly needs to be baited into it. This isn’t a smoking gun, it needs to be something that other fans clubs can get a hold of. 
 

Right now, all other club fans know is that little old delia smith runs the club, they think it’s quaint and funny. They assume that she’s the same person who did the cooking shows in the 80s and she once went on the pitch and said let’s be having you. We need an event to show everyone her true colours. Then, she’ll be exposed and she’ll have to go.

[Ken Hairy 3,779]

12 hours ago, CardiffCanary said:

Thank you Pete 

17mins in 

Ps…They are defo drunk !!!

Love the way at that point Attanasio realises Delia and mumbly Michael were about to make tools of themselves and just sat back with a slight smug look on his face 🤣

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

For what it is worth I think he was alluding to the fact that we had a Director of Football who effectively had his wife as his boss. I do not buy into the idea that Stuart got away with decisions because Zoe is his wife as I believe that the Board allowed him to get on with his job.

Where I think the response from Delia fell down is although quite rightly highlighting how hard Stuart worked and the positive aspects of his time with us (even if Colney Lane is the facility it now is off the back of investment from supporters via the bond), she said she did not know where things have gone wrong. I would suggest her 28 years of experience should tell her she only has to look at what is now happening on the pitch to see where things have gone wrong and that is a direct result of Stuart Webbers player acquisition strategy.

I would also suggest that sitting at football matches and being a Leeds fan I doubt there is very little, if any, bad language Stuart Webber has not heard over the years, basically he failed to heed his own mantra of being the bigger man and ignoring the noise.

Not only did he react badly to the protestors which you could put down to a heat of the moment thing , he decided, after having had time to put his professional head back on to attack supporters publicly with his "divorcees in the Snakepit" comment.

Attacking supporters is always a big mistake, unfortunately despite her 28 years of experience in football Delia appears to be making the same mistake, she clearly adored/adores Stuart Webber and seems resentful that he has left and that appears to have fulled the "20% whingers" remark.

What I find odd about this is she seems to fail to understand that the majority of the crowd at Carrow Rd are season ticket holders, I would guess a lot of them have been season ticket holders for a long time, as far as away supporters are concerned they are beyond criticism in my book, even if 20% of them are whingers, anybody who is prepared to travel long distances to watch us at the moment should be lauded, not slated...............

Edited December 11, 2023 by Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB

[Mello Yello 2,298]

A classic audio and visual display by the current club Matriarch of the term....."In Vino Veritas".....

[Cowboy 197]

4 hours ago, S_81 said:

Mark actually moves away from her in his chair when she says the word whingers. 

Yes, the body language speaks volumes throughout that interview. How long can they all work together for? Is Attanasio holding back and waffling out of embarrassment for them, or is he really that vague?