Webber still in control of the club?

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

4 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Come on Nutty, not sure what your problem is. Just answer the question, I'm genuinely curious.

Do you think the Board is working effectively? Do you think the Board is also communicating effectively with its supporters?

Nutty can never answer a question, he just gives 5 back. 

[Mello Yello 2,315]

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

It’s the battle of Little Bighorn, Delia’s frontline ain’t giving up yet. 

[nutty nigel 7,656]

10 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Come on Nutty, not sure what your problem is. Just answer the question, I'm genuinely curious.

Do you think the Board is working effectively? Do you think the Board is also communicating effectively with its supporters?

What question? You just manipulated a quote. There was no question.

[shefcanary 2,503]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

What question? You just manipulated a quote. There was no question.

Do you think the Board is working effectively? Do you think the Board is also communicating effectively with its supporters?

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

What question? You just manipulated a quote. There was no question.

Go Nutty go. 

[nutty nigel 7,656]

Just now, shefcanary said:

Do you think the Board is working effectively? Do you think the Board is also communicating effectively with its supporters?

I think what they communicated at the AGM interviews was far more than I expected or in fact could be reasonably expected. Unfortunately it's a shame that it's hardly reported. Michael Bailey is a huge loss in this regard.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

26 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Just read my discourse over the past five or six years. The Board comprises the 52% majority joint largest shareholderand their nephew who is their publicly deemed benficiary, the second largest shareholder and the Executive Director. So who represents the minority shareholders, or indeed the average supporter? If NCFC is a community club someone has to be on the board to represent their interests as well - that is good governance. Any advice and decisions taken by the Board in the absence of such a person therefore is a governance issue. 

I know you are trying to wind me up LYB. So, please explain why the current lack of an independent board member representing the interests of minority shareholders and the supporters of a "community" football club but still a plc is not a governance issue? 

Genuinely not trying to wind you up; I promise.

The problem I have with all of the talk of governance is this: The only decisions that fans are really interested in is what players will be signed and whether the manager will be sacked. Some may take interest to a greater or lesser extent in the possibility of the club becoming insolvent. Apart from the accounts, pretty much all of it is something you can't have any transparency over because you'll be telling all your competition what you're doing. Competitive sport and transparency are an anathema.

Then again, when things on pitch are going well, people lose interest in these sorts of topics.

Equally, I don't think you can equate shares and community meaningfully in this context since far too many actual fans of the club who take a genuine interest in the club's fortunes and support it through maybe season tickets, casual tickets, TV subscriptions, streaming subscriptions, or merchandise.

Smith and Jones are genuine fans of the club who bought in for the right reasons. Their interests are no different to minority shareholders, which is to see the club do well on the football pitch. As such, the notion of a community representative seems redundant. Not only that, but you then raise the question of how you appoint community representatives, which opens the door to appealing to populist ideas to win votes, which don't necessarily equate to what good corporate governance might favour. On the other hand, minority shareholders can say what they want to say at the AGM's anyway can't they?

The problem all around is impatience. Stuart Webber is leaving so why didn't he leave yesterday? Smith and Jones are stepping back and Attanassio is investing, so why didn't it happen yesterday? People should chill out a bit and take a leaf out of Ricardo and Nutty's book and enjoy the rollercoaster for what it is.

 

Edited January 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[The Real Buh 3,492]

He who controls the Delia Bitty controls the universe!!

Edited January 8 by The Real Buh

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Genuinely not trying to wind you up; I promise.

The problem I have with all of the talk of governance is this: The only decisions that fans are really interested in is what players will be signed and whether the manager will be sacked. Some may take interest to a greater or lesser extent in the possibility of the club becoming insolvent. Apart from the accounts, pretty much all of it is something you can't have any transparency over because you'll be telling all your competition what you're doing. Competitive sport and transparency are an anathema.

Then again, when things on pitch are going well, people lose interest in these sorts of topics.

Equally, I don't think you can equate shares and community meaningfully in this context since far too many actual fans of the club who take a genuine interest in the club's fortunes and support it through maybe season tickets, casual tickets, TV subscriptions, streaming subscriptions, or merchandise.

Smith and Jones are genuine fans of the club who bought in for the right reasons. Their interests are no different to minority shareholders, which is to see the club do well on the football pitch. As such, the notion of a community representative seems redundant. Not only that, but you then raise the question of how you appoint community representatives, which opens the door to appealing to populist ideas to win votes, which don't necessarily equate to what good corporate governance might favour. On the other hand, minority shareholders can say what they want to say at the AGM's anyway can't they?

The problem all around is impatience. Stuart Webber is leaving so why didn't he leave yesterday? Smith and Jones are stepping back and Attanassio is investing, so why didn't it happen yesterday? People should chill out a bit and take a leaf out of Ricardo and Nutty's book and enjoy the rollercoaster for what it is.

 

Quite right, let’s let next season be as great as this one with that school of thought. You must be on a wind up? 

[shefcanary 2,503]

4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I think what they communicated at the AGM interviews was far more than I expected or in fact could be reasonably expected. Unfortunately it's a shame that it's hardly reported. Michael Bailey is a huge loss in this regard.

Great, one question done. Its a weak local press that is the issue, I can probably agree on that to a point, they don't have to work too hard to maintain a relatively positive press! But Bailey not reporting on it is partly to do with them restricting his access to them, although I recognise he does have a new role at the Athletic.

Now, just for the record.

Do you think the Board is working effectively?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

2 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Quite right, let’s let next season be as great as this one with that school of thought. You must be on a wind up? 

There's already been enough change at executive and ownership level this season to presume that next season will be different to this season somehow regarding how the club is run. Mid-season, at this moment, we literally have no information to work with though as to what bearing that has on what happens on the pitch, which underlines my point that all this nonsense is all about impatience and irrationality, not governance.

Edited January 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,312]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Who says anything about relying on it? What evidence have you got that anyone's relying on advice from Stuart Webber in the running of the club?

That’s the point, the opportunity is there.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

1 minute ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

That’s the point, the opportunity is there.

But what if, in reality, they're taking advice from the Dalai Lama?

[Indy 3,341]

22 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Nutty can never answer a question, he just gives 5 back. 

That’s what good politicians do! They can say nothing in fifty pages and cut one line out of a post to derail any debate or criticism of the current majority shareholders! That’s a fact which they still appear not to accept! Until it’s all officially rubber stamped there’s not much change in ownership of this club, just the MA buying shares from Foulger!

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,312]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

But what if, in reality, they're taking advice from the Dalai Lama?

That would make sense with Webber climbing Everest…

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

1 minute ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

That would make sense with Webber climbing Everest…

Blimey. What if they're taking advice from ChatGPT? I hope they've at least bought a subscription for the latest version.

Edited January 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

9 hours ago, Indy said:

Is it official yet?

Indy, it really doesn’t have to be publicly official to be the reality!

[shefcanary 2,503]

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Their interests are no different to minority shareholders, which is to see the club do well on the football pitch. As such, the notion of a community representative seems redundant.

Without it however we have no indeprndent confirmation that they do want to see the club do well on the pitch. It might be facetious, but some on here are convinced they do not want to get promoted to the EPL. 

As for an independent community representative, just because it is difficult to achieve, is no reason not to pursue it (ask @PurpleCanary for his views on this). It is good governance.

However, ultimately that should be academic as Attanasio will control the club.

As for speed of change, I accept that is the main issue to most, they are bored by what they are seeing. The gift remains there for the current Board to effect that, but the EFL ruling seems to be a block as much as personality issues. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

1 minute ago, shefcanary said:

Without it however we have no indeprndent confirmation that they do want to see the club do well on the pitch. It might be facetious, but some on here are convinced they do not want to get promoted to the EPL.

Isn't that somewhat undermined by the number of times we've been promoted in the last 10 years?

[Indy 3,341]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

Indy, it really doesn’t have to be publicly official to be the reality!

Is that Webber being involved or MA being in charge?

If you mean MA, then Where is he? Has he installed his man into the board? Has he implemented his staff to oversee the strategy, accountability and set demands as his other ownership of the Brewers? If that’s the case and it’s changed I missed that change! As far as I can see the club still has majority shareholders in MWJ & Delia? When this officially changes I will then concede that MA will need to be the point of responsibility to the fan’s criticism as much as the other board members!

[shefcanary 2,503]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Isn't that somewhat undermined by the number of times we've been promoted in the last 10 years?

Agreed, but like the supporters are tired of current action on the pitch, some conjecture they are tired of the trying to compete in the EPL. Total **** probably but without evidence who knows?

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,312]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Blimey. What if they're taking advice from ChatGPT?

More likely Delia takes a bottle of sherry down to Conley for advice from Soccerbot.

[shefcanary 2,503]

Just now, Indy said:

Is that Webber being involved or MA being in charge?

If you mean MA, then Where is he? Has he installed his man into the board? Has he implemented his staff to oversee the strategy, accountability and set demands as his other ownership of the Brewers? If that’s the case and it’s changed I missed that change! As far as I can see the club still has majority shareholders in MWJ & Delia? When this officially changes I will then concede that MA will need to be the point of responsibility to the fan’s criticism as much as the other board members!

Indy, formally MA cannot do any of what you have suggested until the EFL authorise him as a valid Director or Owner. However the lack of evidence emerging from a trustworthy source doesn't allow us to reach a conclusion as to whether he is asserting control. My belief is he won't until clearance is given, but I may be wrong on that.

[Sufyellow 242]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Hell no! If he is really running it then he really has got the unaccountability people claimed he had but didn't while he was here!

What this thread boils down to is that some people who have decided that Webber is totally useless and/or on a personal mission to destroy Norwich City can't stomach the idea that the bulk of the club's hierarchy, right down to the players, clearly think they're wrong.

And sounds like anyone who thought they were right got moved on. I believe it was said when farke was sacked Webber asked the senior players what they thought the week before. Just think asking Hanley,  Gibson , McLean and krul,  not a single one was premier league quality. Not surprising they backed Webber.  

[essex canary 515]

16 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

 I don't think you can equate shares and community meaningfully in this context since far too many actual fans of the club who take a genuine interest in the club's fortunes and support it through maybe season tickets, casual tickets, TV subscriptions, streaming subscriptions, or merchandise.

Minority shareholders can say what they want to say at the AGM's anyway can't they?

 

 

Part of the reason why shareholding and community can't be equated meaningfully is that there has been no concerted effort to update shareholdings in the last 20 years resulting in a huge ageist imbalance.

In a sense minority shareholders can't say what they like because they get time guillotined then when items are pursued in writing we are ignored. For example this time round I wanted to pursue the potential for the Canaries Trust to be a more prominent representative of the 20% and query the economics of running with 6,000 plus shareholders when several hundred can't be identified. This wasn't facilitated.

Interesting that Bridget mentioned an effective Associate Directors Group at Ipswich. Despite being an AD at NCFC, I an not involved because I won't accept the principle of inheritors being treated as second class citizens which they insist upon whilst running the share register inefficiently in not reflecting shareholdings in the one log in system.

 

[Indy 3,341]

15 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Indy, formally MA cannot do any of what you have suggested until the EFL authorise him as a valid Director or Owner. However the lack of evidence emerging from a trustworthy source doesn't allow us to reach a conclusion as to whether he is asserting control. My belief is he won't until clearance is given, but I may be wrong on that.

That’s why I can’t get why those who are so resistant to change from the cure owners keep trying to convince us MA is running the show! He isn’t if he was those changes would be started! 

[nutty nigel 7,656]

25 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Great, one question done. Its a weak local press that is the issue, I can probably agree on that to a point, they don't have to work too hard to maintain a relatively positive press! But Bailey not reporting on it is partly to do with them restricting his access to them, although I recognise he does have a new role at the Athletic.

Now, just for the record.

Do you think the Board is working effectively?

You're becoming a 'pound shop Midlands' now.

I didn't say a weak local press was the issue. I told you why I thought the board had communicated more than could be expected. In my previous post I pointed out why I thought that.

I think realistically they could have just said they were waiting for EFL confirmation. And that's what many believe despite what the board communicated. I believe the reason for that is it's not been reported. And the reason for that is it wouldn't generate clicks. 

How do I know if the board is working effectively? How would you know? It's still aunties and nephew's and husbands and wives from you. And that is just prejudice.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,312]

Ultimately, regardless of your view, the fact this subject is being debated so much arguably shows how much ambiguity there is around the current structure and leadership at the club.

It isn’t clear, and it should be. Change is happening though, which is positive. I just hope the clubs future messaging is better, and more transparent.

Edited January 8 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[nutty nigel 7,656]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

That’s why I can’t get why those who are so resistant to change from the cure owners keep trying to convince us MA is running the show! He isn’t if he was those changes would be started! 

But that makes Attanasio a liar. It's a bit early for that.