Can we trust Zoe

[MC_NCFC 67]

And her judgement?

It’s clear she’s not the greatest judge of character and I’m not sure she’s made enough good calls whilst at Norwich. 
Do we need a total clear out?

[Hucks6 169]

No got a big ego like him

[chicken 2,627]

Probably should be pointed out that this is now the third thread on this topic... it's almost like there is no Norwich game this weekend or something? And a bunch of low post accounts pop up.

If you are saying "not the greatest judge of character" is about Stuart, then perhaps. I've worked with some amazing people who are brilliant at their job whilst being the victims of domestic abuse - don't be so quick, or so harsh, to judge.

You clearly don't know what "calls" she has made so criticising those probably needs more research on your part to do so.

Someone really aught to have a chat with Stuart though, he's currently doing a great job of shooting his career in both feet... it's looking like a strong possibility that National League is where he may have to rebuild his career from.

[ridgeman 131]

26 minutes ago, MC_NCFC said:

And her judgement?

It’s clear she’s not the greatest judge of character and I’m not sure she’s made enough good calls whilst at Norwich. 
Do we need a total clear out?

Not a bad idea, let’s start afresh and move forward.

 

[essex canary 497]

Just when I was recommending Zoe for Port Vale.

[chicken 2,627]

58 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Just when I was recommending Zoe for Port Vale.

And I was recommending you for one of those island caretaker positions in Scotland where the internet is mysteriously absent and the most reliable form of communication is by carrier Puffin... 

[essex canary 497]

Just now, chicken said:

And I was recommending you for one of those island caretaker positions in Scotland where the internet is mysteriously absent and the most reliable form of communication is by carrier Puffin... 

The feeling is mutual. The Board should delegate the Club Statement to you as you seem to be on all the multiple threads.

As for Stu to the National League, just remember I called it first when spotting him at King's Lynn last August BH Monday.

[chicken 2,627]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The feeling is mutual. The Board should delegate the Club Statement to you as you seem to be on all the multiple threads.

As for Stu to the National League, just remember I called it first when spotting him at King's Lynn last August BH Monday.

It's not mutual by the way. I pity you. You're all bent up and twisted, obsessed with how much you think your shares are worth, then suggest that being a "community" club means servicing your shares better than anyone else's which includes moaning when you think they have sold their shares undervalue which could devalue your shares. Somehow it then becomes the ED's fault. Something about not understanding that "life" generally means the lifetime of the person in question in all bar the Emirates Airways membership scheme or something...

You have had more than enough fair responses from people who have been more than respectful of you. Something that cannot be said of the way you treat others on here. You are "putting it politely" cantankerous, contemptuous and ignorant.

[essex canary 497]

29 minutes ago, chicken said:

It's not mutual by the way. I pity you. You're all bent up and twisted, obsessed with how much you think your shares are worth, then suggest that being a "community" club means servicing your shares better than anyone else's which includes moaning when you think they have sold their shares undervalue which could devalue your shares. Somehow it then becomes the ED's fault. Something about not understanding that "life" generally means the lifetime of the person in question in all bar the Emirates Airways membership scheme or something...

You have had more than enough fair responses from people who have been more than respectful of you. Something that cannot be said of the way you treat others on here. You are "putting it politely" cantankerous, contemptuous and ignorant.

Reported to the adjudicator as an offensive post.

I doubt that you can sight any postings I have made directed at any one individual using adjectives such as 'bent up and twisted' "cantankerous' 'contemptuous and ignorant'.

Boys can be boys - fine but that is unacceptable.

Edited March 24 by essex canary

[Yobocop 1,099]

I don’t see why we wouldn’t? 

she is constantly hounded on here because of who she’s married too, her personal life is not her professional life and she is not guilty by association 

[Yobocop 1,099]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Reported to the adjudicator as an offensive post.

I doubt that you can sight any postings I have made directed at any one individual using adjectives such as 'bent up and twisted' "cantankerous' 'contemptuous and ignorant'.

Boys can be boys - fine but that is unacceptable.

Im not sure if you’re any of those Essex because whenever I try and have a conversation with you, your response either makes no sense or is extremely cryptic. 

if you communicated with people better on here I think you’d have more joy 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,288]

I mean, people can defend it and look for all the positives they want, but ultimately, having any connections to Webber isn’t great PR, let alone having a director married to the prat.

It’s always been my belief, Stuart’s influence, not matter how small, will always be present whilst Zoe is at the club.

Nowhere else would this PR ****show happen! 

Edited March 25 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[Greavsy 2,415]

7 hours ago, essex canary said:

Reported to the adjudicator as an offensive post.

I doubt that you can sight any postings I have made directed at any one individual using adjectives such as 'bent up and twisted' "cantankerous' 'contemptuous and ignorant'.

Boys can be boys - fine but that is unacceptable.

Essex.

We don't agree in a lot of things , but you are entitled to post as you wish and present your views, (which you have done repeatedly) as is everyone else theirs.

However you seem to be more triggered by responses recently, and I'd respectfully suggest you take some time out from here and maybe online in general (not knowing what other sites you frequent) for a short while, for your own sake.

[Nuff Said 5,146]

7 hours ago, Yobocop said:

Im not sure if you’re any of those Essex because whenever I try and have a conversation with you, your response either makes no sense or is extremely cryptic. 

if you communicated with people better on here I think you’d have more joy 

I think most of us would prefer he didn’t communicate at all. Having seen him now report Chicken, who is one of the more considered posters on here, even if not always in agreement with everyone, I am going to block Essex. I suggest everyone considers doing the same. If we don’t engage with him, maybe he will finally get bored and go away.

[king canary 7,609]

This sort of stuff makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

Zoe is her own person. The constant need to hold her responsible for her husbands action is at best unfair and at worst misogynistic. 

It would be a different case if Webber had parachuted in his wife with no relevant experience to a cushy job but she worked here before him and has an extensive career in football. The club should have been smarter about how they have structured the club and the oversight but that isn't her fault.

Whether she is the right person for the job she holds is entirely unrelated to her husband's inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

[Robert N. LiM 4,392]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

This sort of stuff makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

Zoe is her own person. The constant need to hold her responsible for her husbands action is at best unfair and at worst misogynistic. 

It would be a different case if Webber had parachuted in his wife with no relevant experience to a cushy job but she worked here before him and has an extensive career in football. The club should have been smarter about how they have structured the club and the oversight but that isn't her fault.

Whether she is the right person for the job she holds is entirely unrelated to her husband's inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

This. 100%

[Nuff Said 5,146]

1 hour ago, Greavsy said:

Essex.

We don't agree in a lot of things , but you are entitled to post as you wish and present your views, (which you have done repeatedly) as is everyone else theirs.

However you seem to be more triggered by responses recently, and I'd respectfully suggest you take some time out from here and maybe online in general (not knowing what other sites you frequent) for a short while, for your own sake.

I would argue no one is entitled to post as they wish, if they participate in this online community, they ought to behave in a way that is positive for the community. Essex constantly repeats the same views, despite having little (often no) support for these views), antagonises many other posters and clutters up threads with messages that add nothing to debates other then irritation for other posters.

I’m not going to suggest a ban, but I do think everyone who finds him a negative presence should try and ignore him in the hope he gets bored and shuts up. It will probably be fruitless though!

[Nuff Said 5,146]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

This sort of stuff makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

Zoe is her own person. The constant need to hold her responsible for her husbands action is at best unfair and at worst misogynistic. 

It would be a different case if Webber had parachuted in his wife with no relevant experience to a cushy job but she worked here before him and has an extensive career in football. The club should have been smarter about how they have structured the club and the oversight but that isn't her fault.

Whether she is the right person for the job she holds is entirely unrelated to her husband's inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

Agreed, it’s lazy and quite possibly misogynistic as you say,

[Greavsy 2,415]

Just now, Nuff Said said:

I would argue no one is entitled to post as they wish, if they participate in this online community, they ought to behave in a way that is positive for the community. Essex constantly repeats the same views, despite having little (often no) support for these views), antagonises many other posters and clutters up threads with messages that add nothing to debates other then irritation for other posters.

I’m not going to suggest a ban, but I do think everyone who finds him a negative presence should try and ignore him in the hope he gets bored and shuts up. It will probably be fruitless though!

Agreed, and that is what the.block / ignore function is for, so it's almost self regulating as such.

As long as people show respect and decency there should be no need for bans or moderation. 

[king canary 7,609]

15 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I would argue no one is entitled to post as they wish, if they participate in this online community, they ought to behave in a way that is positive for the community. Essex constantly repeats the same views, despite having little (often no) support for these views), antagonises many other posters and clutters up threads with messages that add nothing to debates other then irritation for other posters.

I’m not going to suggest a ban, but I do think everyone who finds him a negative presence should try and ignore him in the hope he gets bored and shuts up. It will probably be fruitless though!

The problem is twofold- firstly Essex is clearly so convinced of the righteousness of his cause that nobody can talk him out of it (heck the ombudsman told him he didn't have a case and he still won't drop it). Secondly there are a few on here who love poking him and winding him up hence why it never dies. Tale as old as time on here.

[Capt. Pants 4,250]

I don't see where the issue is really. As long as she does her job, all well and good. It's really down to her whether NCFC and the rather negative view supporters have of her husband is the right environment for her.

As an aside, I see these petty squabbles are back on the Pinkun again. It improved for a while after Connor's comments and warning, but here we go again.

[Robert N. LiM 4,392]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

The problem is twofold- firstly Essex is clearly so convinced of the righteousness of his cause that nobody can talk him out of it (heck the ombudsman told him he didn't have a case and he still won't drop it). Secondly there are a few on here who love poking him and winding him up hence why it never dies. Tale as old as time on here.

You seem to be typing my posts for me this morning

Edited March 25 by Robert N. LiM

[norwich canary 73]

Being married to a racist and bang average at her job , she should do the decent thing and resign 

[essex canary 497]

3 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Essex.

We don't agree in a lot of things , but you are entitled to post as you wish and present your views, (which you have done repeatedly) as is everyone else theirs.

However you seem to be more triggered by responses recently, and I'd respectfully suggest you take some time out from here and maybe online in general (not knowing what other sites you frequent) for a short while, for your own sake.

Thanks Greavsy.

That is an entirely sensible post.

I won't be hounded out but being a little lower key for a while is not a bad idea. The last week has been just ridiculous.

I think I have been very tolerant with reactions on here including to you but the straw did break the camels back with a couple of posters on here this weekend and quite simply in football parlance they are guilty of red card offences though in fairness one of them is radically, radically worse than the other.

To be honest maybe I have come across as a little harsh on Zoe because the problem is wider than that and all Board Members should take responsibility for the absurd situation including the fact that Zoe's skills come across as more football oriented rather than fan liaison oriented. In a sense I believe my real issue dates back further but 2011 rather than 2002.

The declaration yesterday about the old supporters Trust is another example where the Club simply should have done better down the years. Women's football could have done better if they didn't leave dormant shares in the Club for so long.

[Jim Smith 2,322]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

This sort of stuff makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

Zoe is her own person. The constant need to hold her responsible for her husbands action is at best unfair and at worst misogynistic. 

It would be a different case if Webber had parachuted in his wife with no relevant experience to a cushy job but she worked here before him and has an extensive career in football. The club should have been smarter about how they have structured the club and the oversight but that isn't her fault.

Whether she is the right person for the job she holds is entirely unrelated to her husband's inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

I agree and we obviously can’t blame her for his stupid comments.

That said, it’s moments like this that call for leadership (and others in recent times) that beg the question as to whether another executive employee or perhaps chairperson is needed at the club both for corporate governance but also for the public facing elements of the role. Rightly or wrongly I very much get the impression that Zoe is more used to and comfortable operating behind the scenes. 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,288]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

This sort of stuff makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

Zoe is her own person. The constant need to hold her responsible for her husbands action is at best unfair and at worst misogynistic. 

It would be a different case if Webber had parachuted in his wife with no relevant experience to a cushy job but she worked here before him and has an extensive career in football. The club should have been smarter about how they have structured the club and the oversight but that isn't her fault.

Whether she is the right person for the job she holds is entirely unrelated to her husband's inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but it’s not how the world works. 

Being married and having that connection puts the club under unnecessary scrutiny. And when Stuart Webber opens his mouth in public, that connection helps drag the club through the mud with him too. 

It’s not a great situation and probably harsh on Zoe. But the club and Webbers knew all this, when they decided to get cozy. 

[Davidlingfield 63]

3 hours ago, king canary said:

This sort of stuff makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

Zoe is her own person. The constant need to hold her responsible for her husbands action is at best unfair and at worst misogynistic. 

It would be a different case if Webber had parachuted in his wife with no relevant experience to a cushy job but she worked here before him and has an extensive career in football. The club should have been smarter about how they have structured the club and the oversight but that isn't her fault.

Whether she is the right person for the job she holds is entirely unrelated to her husband's inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

Except that Zoe absolutely was parachuted in after Stuart. She had previously worked as a consultant under McNally but hadn’t been at the Club for a year when she was employed after Stuart had joined.

[MC_NCFC 67]

3 hours ago, king canary said:

This sort of stuff makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

Zoe is her own person. The constant need to hold her responsible for her husbands action is at best unfair and at worst misogynistic. 

It would be a different case if Webber had parachuted in his wife with no relevant experience to a cushy job but she worked here before him and has an extensive career in football. The club should have been smarter about how they have structured the club and the oversight but that isn't her fault.

Whether she is the right person for the job she holds is entirely unrelated to her husband's inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

Completely disagree. If it was the other way round and Zoe kept running her mouth and Stuart was in her position, I’d question Stuart’s decision making.

[Google Bot 3,278]

7 minutes ago, Davidlingfield said:

She had previously worked as a consultant under McNally but hadn’t been at the Club for a year when she was employed after Stuart had joined.

Isn't that because she was on maternity leave?

[Yobocop 1,099]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

This sort of stuff makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

Zoe is her own person. The constant need to hold her responsible for her husbands action is at best unfair and at worst misogynistic. 

It would be a different case if Webber had parachuted in his wife with no relevant experience to a cushy job but she worked here before him and has an extensive career in football. The club should have been smarter about how they have structured the club and the oversight but that isn't her fault.

Whether she is the right person for the job she holds is entirely unrelated to her husband's inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

Superbly put 

as I quite often say she is guilty by association and those who dislike her call her Zoe Webber when that isn’t her professional name 

Edited March 25 by Yobocop