Trouble with Webber

[slaphead 17]

The trouble with Webber he  was a big mouth and he has personal views on what he really thinks about our players, he had too much power. The Stowmarket 2 gave him a free range to run the club as and how he liked.He will never ever get a club or  company to have as his play thing again.He had a multi £ business basically given to him the entire time he was here. Without laying a penny piece to have as a toy do as he liked.Mrs Webber is the same.You going to fall for the old chestnut see does not brief the old man on goings on of the cluds business. He should hold his head in shame .

 

[Mengo 852]

1. He had a big mouth .  true

2. To much power  . Yes for sure.

3. He was actually told   he could do what he liked, but there was no money.

4. He won't get another opportunity like he was given here . Anywhere else. True.

5. It's a very strange situation and the owners ,must feel let down and embarrassed by the reckless actions of a person who was after all, obviously not trustworthy. 

[slaphead 17]

Well put Mengo.

[Yobocop 1,444]

1 hour ago, slaphead said:

The trouble with Webber he  was a big mouth and he has personal views on what he really thinks about our players, he had too much power. The Stowmarket 2 gave him a free range to run the club as and how he liked.He will never ever get a club or  company to have as his play thing again.He had a multi £ business basically given to him the entire time he was here. Without laying a penny piece to have as a toy do as he liked.Mrs Webber is the same.You going to fall for the old chestnut see does not brief the old man on goings on of the cluds business. He should hold his head in shame .

 

That was literally his job 

you don’t know what Zoe WARD does for the club do you? 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 974]

He must really have wanted to get out of the Stoke job somehow, don't know if he had to go quite this nuclear. He could have just said "Stoke is smelly, full of druggies, and your pottery is overrated".

[Midlands Yellow 4,682]

6 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

He must really have wanted to get out of the Stoke job somehow, don't know if he had to go quite this nuclear. He could have just said "Stoke is smelly, full of druggies, and your pottery is overrated".

And Oatcakes are crap. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,620]

14 hours ago, Yobocop said:

That was literally his job 

you don’t know what Zoe WARD does for the club do you? 

She's Zoe Webber professionally now:

https://www.canaries.co.uk/club/board-and-executive

She made the switch from Ward to Webber a year or so ago, I believe.

[Yobocop 1,444]

1 hour ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

She's Zoe Webber professionally now:

https://www.canaries.co.uk/club/board-and-executive

She made the switch from Ward to Webber a year or so ago, I believe.

Ah fair enough so not a stick to beat her with anymore then 

cheers for clarifying 

[chicken 3,087]

22 hours ago, slaphead said:

1) The trouble with Webber he  was a big mouth and he has personal views on what he really thinks about our players,

2) he had too much power.

3) The Stowmarket 2 gave him a free range to run the club as and how he liked.He will never ever get a club or  company to have as his play thing again.

4) He had a multi £ business basically given to him the entire time he was here. Without laying a penny piece to have as a toy do as he liked.Mrs Webber is the same.You going to fall for the old chestnut see does not brief the old man on goings on of the cluds business. He should hold his head in shame .

1: Not sure "big mouth" is the right insult here, clearly doesn't word things very well and the way he speaks with conviction doesn't help him here. Equally, in many ways it was his job to have views on players, we were literally told such time and time again. Such as when they were interested in a player, they wanted to find out what their attitude was like, whether they would fit in with the group of players we had mentality wise. The view he expressed over the weekend was more about what he felt he had done for players - I believe he tried to boost his own profile but instead shot it in both feet.

2) No. This bit is categorically incorrect. He was appointed as the sporting director and he fore filled that brief. Is it a powerful position? Yes. But take a look around the world at similar positions and who has held them etc. In some ways, he's actually less powerful than managers we have had because they don't control everything that goes on, they oversee it. Managers we have had in the past, such as Alex Neil, are front and centre, coaching, managing, setting targets and signing players - the only caveat is how much the chief exec/board will allow them to spend in wages and signing fees. Sometimes players are sold from under their feet too... but that was more Chase's style.

3) It's "free reign" as in, to reign over. Free range is chickens... Again, it is the role of the sporting director and again, managers did it before. He may well never get another position as good as he has had with us again, but it won't be because of the lack of success he has had with us, it will, unfortunately, be because of the liability his mouth appears to be. Like it or hate it, without him we probably would have not had Farke and the two promotions - possibly more.

4) This bit makes very little sense at all. And it's "hang his head in shame" not "hold". 

[essex canary 623]

A great female opinion from @slapheadwho sums it up very concisely. Love the moniker. Rather than hang my head in shame I will slap some heads on the free range.

Edited March 25 by essex canary

[slaphead 17]

Chicken you are a pratt. 

[essex canary 623]

5 minutes ago, slaphead said:

Chicken you are a pratt. 

We are supposed to be on our best behaviour but every sympathy with you, it is very very challenging at times.

[canarybubbles 2,199]

8 hours ago, chicken said:

It's "free reign" as in, to reign over. Free range is chickens...

Actually, the expression is 'free rein'. It comes from riding a horse, where you loosen the rein in your hands if you want the horse to go more quickly. It has nothing to do with royalty although this is a common error.

Usually I wouldn't dream of correcting someone in this way but I made an exception in your case since you so clearly intended to sneer at the poster you were replying to by pointing out how much more educated you were.

As for 'free range', we all make mistakes. One of the most serious ones is lack of basic manners.

Edited March 26 by canarybubbles

[essex canary 623]

2 hours ago, canarybubbles said:

Actually, the expression is 'free rein'. It comes from riding a horse, where you loosen the rein in your hands if you want the horse to go more quickly. It has nothing to do with royalty although this is a common error.

Usually I wouldn't dream of correcting someone in this way but I made an exception in your case since you so clearly intended to sneer at the poster you were replying to by pointing out how much more educated you were.

As for 'free range', we all make mistakes. One of the most serious ones is lack of basic manners.

Bird brain (I didn't mean you)

Edited March 26 by essex canary

[......and Smith must score. 1,599]

17 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

And Oatcakes are crap. 

Had a couple at Longton Rugby Club before the game.  Never tried them before ( I don’t get out much ).

They’re OK with all the fillings and probably grow on you but wouldn’t want them every day.

[essex canary 623]

It is when the bird brains are earning 7 figure sums for their households that the problems emerge or for that matter leading the nation.

Edited March 26 by essex canary

[essex canary 623]

20 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

He must really have wanted to get out of the Stoke job somehow, don't know if he had to go quite this nuclear. He could have just said "Stoke is smelly, full of druggies, and your pottery is overrated".

Or 'Zoe doesn't fancy Port Vale'

[chicken 3,087]

8 hours ago, canarybubbles said:

Actually, the expression is 'free rein'. It comes from riding a horse, where you loosen the rein in your hands if you want the horse to go more quickly. It has nothing to do with royalty although this is a common error.

Usually I wouldn't dream of correcting someone in this way but I made an exception in your case since you so clearly intended to sneer at the poster you were replying to by pointing out how much more educated you were.

As for 'free range', we all make mistakes. One of the most serious ones is lack of basic manners.

Wasn't sneering at all... however, I accept I am wrong in this instance. None of us are perfect.

I do feel, though, that if people do want to criticise something for being imperfect, there should at least be tollerance for some imperfection.

Thank you for highlighting that, genuinely, hence my response to your post.

The weirdest thing is this wave of low post count posters who don't appear to be big fans of the club who are seemingly going unchallenged. Reminds me of the wave of social media accounts that suddenly appeared on the build up to the EU referendum.

[chicken 3,087]

5 hours ago, essex canary said:

It is when the bird brains are earning 7 figure sums for their households that the problems emerge or for that matter leading the nation.

You've been merrily reporting members of this forum for bullying yet you have trolled, baited and harassed many for disagreeing with you and explaining the flaws, politely, in your views.

On top of that you merrily insult the club including non board members such as other AD's, the fan committee etc. This has included quite personal attacks on Zoe for no evidencial reason, to the degree that other posters have pointed out how misogynistic your language was.

 

Edited March 26 by chicken

[TIL 1010 5,246]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

You've been merrily reporting members of this forum for bullying yet you have trolled, baited and harassed many for disagreeing with you and explaining the flaws, politely, in your views.

On top of that you merrily insult the club including non board members such as other AD's, the fan committee etc. This has included quite personal attacks on Zoe for no evidencial reason, to the degree that other posters have pointed out how misogynistic your language was.

 

Very well put but no doubt it breaches the essex code of conduct that must be adhered to.

[essex canary 623]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

You've been merrily reporting members of this forum for bullying yet you have trolled, baited and harassed many for disagreeing with you and explaining the flaws, politely, in your views.

On top of that you merrily insult the club including non board members such as other AD's, the fan committee etc. This has included quite personal attacks on Zoe for no evidencial reason, to the degree that other posters have pointed out how misogynistic your language was.

 

Very misogynistic to believe that Boris was a naff PM whereas Theresa was in context a very good one. Am I permitted to comment on Liz?

[TIL 1010 5,246]

25 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Very misogynistic to believe that Boris was a naff PM whereas Theresa was in context a very good one. Am I permitted to comment on Liz?

I am sure i speak for the whole forum when i say we would rather you not comment on anything on here.

[chicken 3,087]

22 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Very misogynistic to believe that Boris was a naff PM whereas Theresa was in context a very good one. Am I permitted to comment on Liz?

Irrelevant difflection. Also very easy to say after the fact. Poor line of defense which still doesn't address that you are a serial complainer who seemingly complains about not getting their own way.

No one around here is ever going to look kindly on someone trying to rip the club off and then take it to the ombudsmen to waste other people's time and money. Nor report long time regular posters for, at the base of it, calling you out and getting fed up of you turning every thread into being about you, including tagging in people who have nothing to do with a thread just to try and gaslight them.

As I have said before. It's quite frankly, pathetic.

Seriously old chap, get some help.

[City Stand Ultra 43]

2 hours ago, chicken said:

Wasn't sneering at all... however, I accept I am wrong in this instance. None of us are perfect.

I do feel, though, that if people do want to criticise something for being imperfect, there should at least be tollerance for some imperfection.

Thank you for highlighting that, genuinely, hence my response to your post.

The weirdest thing is this wave of low post count posters who don't appear to be big fans of the club who are seemingly going unchallenged. Reminds me of the wave of social media accounts that suddenly appeared on the build up to the EU referendum.

what is your issue with "low post counts". it's about quality not quantity

You have racked up 5.5k and I'm still waiting for the first one to provide any insight (albeit I freely admit i havent bothered to go back and read the first 5k).  That's a hell of a lot of your and (others) time wasted....

[essex canary 623]

3 hours ago, chicken said:

Irrelevant difflection. Also very easy to say after the fact. Poor line of defense which still doesn't address that you are a serial complainer who seemingly complains about not getting their own way.

No one around here is ever going to look kindly on someone trying to rip the club off and then take it to the ombudsmen to waste other people's time and money. Nor report long time regular posters for, at the base of it, calling you out and getting fed up of you turning every thread into being about you, including tagging in people who have nothing to do with a thread just to try and gaslight them.

As I have said before. It's quite frankly, pathetic.

Seriously old chap, get some help.

From someone who works in a caring profession and refers to someone as 'twisted' on here amongst other foul adjectives. 

24 hours later another poster (female) calls you a 'pratt'.

You can press the 'Report' button on me if you wish but I doubt the Ref will uphold it as there is a huge difference between such abuse on your part and accountability issues for those in the public eye on mine. Note also the vitriol aimed at Head Coaches on the part of many on here which has never been a pasttime of mine.

Perhaps also note that the 'indirect discrimination' reference in the Ombudsman Report (section 13) was concerning the defence of females.

Edited March 26 by essex canary

[littleyellowbirdie 3,140]

Webber had too much power, but we should have a CEO again...

[Mengo 852]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Webber had too much power, but we should have a CEO again...

Correct. ( And he couldn't quite handle the power he was GIFTED by the owners. 

 

Edited March 26 by Mengo

[littleyellowbirdie 3,140]

4 minutes ago, Mengo said:

Correct. ( And he couldn't quite handle the power he was GIFTED by the owners. 

 

Webber did not have absolute authority; a CEO does. I'm completely at a loss how anyone can protest against Webber having too much power and also wanting to reinstate the position of CEO.

[S_81 1,102]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Webber did not have absolute authority; a CEO does. I'm completely at a loss how anyone can protest against Webber having too much power and also wanting to reinstate the position of CEO.

I don’t disagree, but the governance / ownership should be capable of holding Webber’s role to account. The characters / relationships involved failed to, however. 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,140]

Just now, S_81 said:

I don’t disagree, but the governance / ownership should be capable of holding Webber’s role to account. The characters / relationships involved failed to, however. 

The main issue seems to be that those he was accountable to were satisfied, ; a section of the fan base seems to take exception to that, but that's not being unaccountable.