Webber still in control of the club?

[hogesar 9,776]

25 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

Can I ask you something I genuinely don't understand? You say that S&J are still in charge because the deal could still get called off, but how about the money Attanasio has loaned to the club? Could he just demand it back if S&J call the deal off? If so, isn't he the person really in charge?

I think you're likely right. He's a very smart businessman with a lot of very wealthy successful people around him talking numbers that Delia & Michael have never seen. Admittedly once you get to a certain point it's just "a number" and loses that sense of ridiculous value but ultimately he's not a lifelong fan of NCFC and owes us nothing.

Because of that he's put himself in the most powerful position possible whilst maintaining a "I'm helping the club" stance - which he is by the way, with his money lent. 

I get @shefcanary's stance but it's at odds with what we already know from MA's own mouth. He's already said he has constant contact with Knapper and on top of that, was sitting down with him to plan the January window. Not Delia, but MA and Knapper. 

There's every chance it's something DS and MWJ aren't delighted about but MA is in a position of power here, and he'll know fullwell he's going to pass the EFL tests.

[shefcanary 2,496]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

he'll know fullwell he's going to pass the EFL tests.

This is football, it is the EFL, I wish I had such confidence! 🙂 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

29 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Running the club is far fetched and I don’t believe that. 

But you’re confident he has no influence whatsoever with his Wife on the board? Especially when Delia liked him so much and he was due to be here till March? If you think that he doesn’t, you’re profoundly naive.

 

It depends what you mean by influence. If by influence you mean that people will listen to his opinions and his rationales based on his experience as the SD for the last five years when they ask him for them, including Knapper, I think it's an undoubted yes, and I also think Zoe Webber is completely irrelevant to that. On the other hand the fact that his wife is still with the club in her own role and Stuart also clearly has a very positive relationship with everyone at the club, including Attanassio, I've no doubt that whatever he has got to say will be offered in good faith in what he thinks will help the club. But that said, whatever he says, the club can take it or leave it and I'm absolutely positive that Zoe Webber isn't spending all her waking moments working out how to make sure the club does everything according to Stuart's personal opinions. To be honest, I think even the suggestion that she's simply a subjugate to Stuart rather than a serious independent-minded professional executive in her own right is somewhat sexist.

Edited January 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[hogesar 9,776]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

This is football, it is the EFL, I wish I had such confidence! 🙂 

Has there been an single rejection since they changed to the slightly different rules in pre-season? Birmingham went through even though it ended up requiring approval from the Hong Kong stock exchange, Leeds takeover went through despite loads of pro's in different sports and multiple investment groups.

MA knows, 100000% that he's going to, well, pass isn't the right word. As per the EFL, they're not looking at suitability, just if the person(s) are "eligible" 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It depends what you mean by influence. If by influence you mean that people will listen to his opinions and his rationales based on his experience as the SD for the last five years, including Knapper, I think it's an undoubted yes, and I also think Zoe Webber is completely irrelevant to that. On the other hand the fact is wife is still with us and also that he clearly has a very positive relationship with everyone at the club, including Attanassio, I've no doubt that whatever he has got to say will be offered in good faith in what he thinks will help the club. But that said, whatever he says, the club can take it or leave it and I'm absolutely positive that Zoe Webber isn't spending all her waking moments working out how to make sure the club does everything according to Stuart's personal opinions. To be honest, I think even the suggestion that she's simply a subjugate to Stuart rather than a serious professional executive in her own right is somewhat sexist.

Sexist, that’s a leap.

By the very nature a husband and wife share thoughts and opinions, and value them. Zoe will no doubt be influenced by Stuart’s opinions, as Stuart is, flipped the other way.

Therefore opportunity for SWs influence will always be there whilst ZW holds a senior leadership role. Wether that’s a good thing or not, is up for debate. But from a governance perspective, it’s an own goal. No other business at this level, would allow it. It’s a conflict of interest, however you dress it up.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

4 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Sexist, that’s a leap.

It's no leap at all. The entire suggestion hinges on the idea that little wifey will do whatever hubby thinks is best even in her own professional life where he's no longer officially involved. It totally dismisses her as a serious professional in her own right, as I already said.

Edited January 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's no leap at all. The entire suggestion hinges on the idea that little wifey will do whatever hubby thinks is best even in her own professional life where he's no longer officially involved.

That’s not what I’ve said or insinuated at all. My reply clearly states that. We’re talking about governance of this club, nothing else, so don’t take it there in an attempt to marginalise and discredit 👍

[shefcanary 2,496]

6 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Has there been an single rejection since they changed to the slightly different rules in pre-season? Birmingham went through even though it ended up requiring approval from the Hong Kong stock exchange, Leeds takeover went through despite loads of pro's in different sports and multiple investment groups.

MA knows, 100000% that he's going to, well, pass isn't the right word. As per the EFL, they're not looking at suitability, just if the person(s) are "eligible" 

It wasn't a rejection as such, but they took so long to rule on Dozy n Boozie at Sheffield United that their ownere gave up on him and kicked it into touch. That alone gives me no confidence because it didn't take that long for the SEC in the US to invoke proceedings of fraud against him!

I just think the EFL are extremely cautious at the moment following the cases you quote in making a decision too quickly. And they have a hellavu case load at the moment. I believe it is down to how hard the clubs push the EFL as to how quickly you get a decision. Are we pushing hard?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

4 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

That’s not what I’ve said or insinuated at all. My reply clearly states that. We’re talking about governance of this club, nothing else, so don’t take it there in an attempt to marginalise and discredit 👍

It's what everyone's insinuating then they suggest Zoe might be acting as a Stuart Webber proxy specifically because of her marriage to Stuart. It's insulting and degrading to Zoe in my view.

Edited January 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[hogesar 9,776]

3 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

It wasn't a rejection as such, but they took so long to rule on Dozy n Boozie at Sheffield United that their ownere gave up on him and kicked it into touch. That alone gives me no confidence because it didn't take that long for the SEC in the US to invoke proceedings of fraud against him!

I just think the EFL are extremely cautious at the moment following the cases you quote in making a decision too quickly. And they have a hellavu case load at the moment. I believe it is down to how hard the clubs push the EFL as to how quickly you get a decision. Are we pushing hard?

From what i've read, it's more that they're prioritising clubs that are in serious financial danger or risk. Which makes sense. If so, MA could have witheld loaning the club money until that happened but I suspect he's in no desperate rush as he's already in a power position as far as he's concerned.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's what everyone's insinuating then they bring Zoe into it specifically with regard to her marriage to Stuart.

Of course everyone brings Zoe into it. There's a conflict of interest, and people are right to question and bring it into the conversation, without being labelled sexist! 

Edited January 8 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

5 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Of course everyone brings Zoe into it. There's a conflict of interest, and people are right to question and bring into the conversation, without being labelled sexist! 

There's no conflict of interests. Stuart is not an employee of the club. Some fans have an axe to grind with him, but he has no axe to grind with S&J, Knapper, Attanassio, or any of the players if the guard of honour is to go by.. Like I said, everyone at the club will no doubt listen to his opinion if they want them. That's not a governance problem. Ultimately, the buck stops with the club over decisions made, but nobody can dictate to the people who do work for the club whose opinions they may or may not listen to.

 

Edited January 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

9 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There's no conflict of interests. Stuart is not an employee of the club. Some fans have an axe to grind with him, but he has no axe to grind with S&J, Knapper, Attanassio, or any of the players if the guard of honour is to go by.. Like I said, everyone at the club will no doubt listen to his opinion. That's not a governance problem. Ultimately, the buck stops with the club over decisions made, but nobody can dictate to the people who do work for the club whose opinions they may or may not listen to.

He definitely has no axe to grind with S&J. He'll never  hold a  high level job with no accountability, anywhere else again. Ever.

I disagree with you that there is no conflict of interest though. However,  since Delia and co are unelected and not answerable to the fans, you are quite right they can listen to whoever they want. The fact they'd still want to listen to SW though, raises other questions relating to incompetency. 

Edited January 8 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

5 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

He definitely has no axe to grind with S&J. He'll never  hold a  high level job with no accountability, anywhere else again. Ever.

I disagree with you that there is no conflict of interest though. However,  since Delia and co are unelected and not answerable to the fans, you are quite right they can listen to whoever they want. The fact they'd still want to listen to SW though, raises other questions relating to incompetency. 

The first paragraph lays out in clear view the axe to grind with him; he has always been accountable to S&J and the board and I've no doubt he has given his accounts for his decision-making and judgements made. He just hasn't been accountable to the fans, which is perfectly normal for a position like his.

What do you think is the conflict of interests exactly?

Edited January 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[Jim Smith 2,349]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What do you think is the conflict of interests exactly?

There are two issues with Zoe. Firstly nearly everything customer facing at the club has got worse since she and Stuart obtained effective control over day to day operations so there is in my view a performance issue, particularly when it comes to fan relations  and PR.

Secondly there is a potential conflict in asking a new SD to come in and potentially review how the club operates on the football side and report back when one of the people he is reporting back to is the wife of the guy who set up all those operations and indeed appointed the current coach. Now Knapper may be strong enough to not care about that and tell it how it is. Or Zoe may be professional enough not to take any criticism personally on either her behalf or her husbands behalf. So it may be there is no issue. But if both of those things are not the case then potentially there is an issue and it certainly makes Knappers position more difficult, especially if Stuart is still about in the background with the ear of both the owners and Zoe. 

 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

10 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What do you think is the conflict of interests exactly?

Maybe there is no direct conflict of interest, and I'm using the wrong term. 

What this is, is the potential for a former employee to influence decision making at a senior level. That is different to a COI, you're right. It doesn't move away from my point that I think its murky from a governance stand point. As well as it having the potential to undermine and unsettle other employee's, namely BN. 

There is also the SW legacy, that BN has to work with or against, with ZW. 

Edited January 8 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[essex canary 508]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's what everyone's insinuating then they suggest Zoe might be acting as a Stuart Webber proxy specifically because of her marriage to Stuart. It's insulting and degrading to Zoe in my view.

Which is more important, perceived fairness to thousands of supporters or one employee?

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

38 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

There are two issues with Zoe. Firstly nearly everything customer facing at the club has got worse since she and Stuart obtained effective control over day to day operations so there is in my view a performance issue, particularly when it comes to fan relations  and PR.

 

That could possibly be a fair observation; I can't really say either way. It's not a conflict of interests though.

38 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Secondly there is a potential conflict in asking a new SD to come in and potentially review how the club operates on the football side and report back when one of the people he is reporting back to is the wife of the guy who set up all those operations and indeed appointed the current coach. Now Knapper may be strong enough to not care about that and tell it how it is. Or Zoe may be professional enough not to take any criticism personally on either her behalf or her husbands behalf. So it may be there is no issue. But if both of those things are not the case then potentially there is an issue and it certainly makes Knappers position more difficult, especially if Stuart is still about in the background with the ear of both the owners and Zoe.

From Knapper's point of view, there's absolutely no conflict of interests in him coming in as Webber's replacement and making the changes he thinks are best for the club.

To be honest, you have to presume that Zoe is professional enough to do her job with the first priority being what's best for the club. Put it this way, if she was sacked tomorrow with a cited reason of over what discussions she might potentially have with her husband then she'd have a great industrial tribunual case against the club.

36 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Maybe there is no direct conflict of interest, and I'm using the wrong term. 

What this is, is the potential for a former employee to influence decision making at a senior level. That is different to a COI, you're right. It doesn't move away from my point that I think its murky from a governance stand point. As well as it having the potential to undermine and unsettle other employee's, namely BN. 

There is also the SW legacy, that BN has to work with or against, with ZW. 

Murky is a term I could have more sympathy with. It's undeniable that he could gain information that would benefit him at the club's benefit, and maybe even we get information from him, who knows? That's in the realms of unfounded suspicions though, and there are strong reasons not to believe that he wouldn't want to act in bad faith regarding the interests of the club, not least because his partner is still directly invested in the success and failure of the club. But ultimately none of it's a governance problem; it's a question of the employees of the club making judgements on what they can share with him and that's on them. Regarding Zoe specifically, if she was sacked tomorrow based on concerns about what she may or may not discuss with her husband, the club would rightly be in court and out of pocket to a great extent faster than you could say 'industrial tribunual', which illustrates why it really isn't an appropriate topic of discussion in my view.

Edited January 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[Sufyellow 225]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

Hope you are watching the ITV documentary on the Post Office. It will provide a great education upon the subject of protest in the modern world. 

There's quite a bit of brand protection going on in this thread,  but I think I will sit this one out. 

[essex canary 508]

1 minute ago, Sufyellow said:

There's quite a bit of brand protection going on in this thread,  but I think I will sit this one out. 

Misguided brand protection is the common denominator.

[shefcanary 2,496]

32 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

But ultimately none of it's a governance problem;

I'm truly astounded by this statement. Not trying to be obtuse at all, can you explain why you reach that conclusion given the rest of your statement quite clearly supports the fact it is a governance issue? #asbaffledbyanythingi'vereadonhere#

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That could possibly be a fair observation; I can't really say either way. It's not a conflict of interests though.

From Knapper's point of view, there's absolutely no conflict of interests in him coming in as Webber's replacement and making the changes he thinks are best for the club.

To be honest, you have to presume that Zoe is professional enough to do her job with the first priority being what's best for the club. Put it this way, if she was sacked tomorrow with a cited reason of over what discussions she might potentially have with her husband then she'd have a great industrial tribunual case against the club.

Murky is a term I could have more sympathy with. It's undeniable that he could gain information that would benefit him at the club's benefit, and maybe even we get information from him, who knows? That's in the realms of unfounded suspicions though, and there are strong reasons not to believe that he wouldn't want to act in bad faith regarding the interests of the club, not least because his partner is still directly invested in the success and failure of the club. But ultimately none of it's a governance problem; it's a question of the employees of the club making judgements on what they can share with him and that's on them. Regarding Zoe specifically, if she was sacked tomorrow based on concerns about what she may or may not discuss with her husband, the club would rightly be in court and out of pocket to a great extent faster than you could say 'industrial tribunual', which illustrates why it really isn't an appropriate topic of discussion in my view.

Non-Conflict on interest, fair, I'll concede. But 100%, it is a governance problem! And not the only one at the club. 

Edited January 8 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[Big Vince 324]

9 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

He's far from a weird Twitter troll making up rumours. Bloke contributes to My Football Writer and was Sky's go-to guy for that Football Fanzone thing they used to do (or still do?).

Put it this way, he's unlikely to have put something like this out there without genuinely believing it has legs.

It's not as easy to dismiss as total garbage as most of the ITK stuff you see on social media, nor as easy to dismiss as the defend-the-club-at-all-costs lobby group will tell you it is.

For me, it would be incredibly naive to believe that he doesn't have some influence over proceedings, especially whilst his wife is still in such a senior position. However, that's not the same as the utterly ridiculous handover process continuing as planned only with some clandestine manoeuvres taking place to hide it from supporters.

To treat someone who has completely and objectively failed at their role for the past 2-3 years, and whose failure has had a devastating impact on the position and direction of this club, as some sort of indispensable genius whose sage knowledge we cannot do without even with his replacement through the door is a total dereliction of duty from Delia and MWJ. 

Would not be the first time Delia had deployed smoke and mirrors.

[Big Vince 324]

5 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

There are two issues with Zoe. Firstly nearly everything customer facing at the club has got worse since she and Stuart obtained effective control over day to day operations so there is in my view a performance issue, particularly when it comes to fan relations  and PR.

Secondly there is a potential conflict in asking a new SD to come in and potentially review how the club operates on the football side and report back when one of the people he is reporting back to is the wife of the guy who set up all those operations and indeed appointed the current coach. Now Knapper may be strong enough to not care about that and tell it how it is. Or Zoe may be professional enough not to take any criticism personally on either her behalf or her husbands behalf. So it may be there is no issue. But if both of those things are not the case then potentially there is an issue and it certainly makes Knappers position more difficult, especially if Stuart is still about in the background with the ear of both the owners and Zoe. 

 

Smoke and mirrors. Now you see it, now you don't.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

I'm truly astounded by this statement. Not trying to be obtuse at all, can you explain why you reach that conclusion given the rest of your statement quite clearly supports the fact it is a governance issue? #asbaffledbyanythingi'vereadonhere#

There's nothing to be astounded about.

To put it in very simple terms: As he has no authority whatsoever in the club he is not part of the club's governance. It's therefore not a governance issue whether people at the club in executive positions refer to him for his point of view if they want it any more than if they were to seek the viewpoint of an outside consultant. No doubt his contract will require discretion on his part regarding his knowledge gained as part of the Executive at the club also.

Edited January 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

5 hours ago, essex canary said:

Which is more important, perceived fairness to thousands of supporters or one employee?

 

Given this thread is largely driven by a neurotic dislike of Stuart Webber among some fans, by no means all, the perceptions of those fans shouldn't be considered important compared to what Knapper himself deems useful contact with his predecessor in terms of fully coming to terms with the existing operations of the club according to how he feels he can serve the best interests of the club going forward.

Edited January 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[hogesar 9,776]

So if he's basically still running the club, we might as well get Webber back officially.....right?

[The Real Buh 3,486]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Given this thread is largely driven by a neurotic dislike of Stuart Webber among some fans, by no means all, the perceptions of those fans shouldn't be considered important compared to what Knapper himself deems useful contact with his predecessor in terms of fully coming to terms with the existing operations of the club.

Cope

[S_81 890]

Just now, hogesar said:

So if he's basically still running the club, we might as well get Webber back officially.....right?

No, as it’s still 5hit. We actually want some degree of success 

[S_81 890]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Given this thread is largely driven by a neurotic dislike of Stuart Webber among some fans, by no means all, the perceptions of those fans shouldn't be considered important compared to what Knapper himself deems useful contact with his predecessor in terms of fully coming to terms with the existing operations of the club.

There’s no more neurotic dislike than there is neurotic love-in evidenced in this thread