I thought they gave him two games?

[Honest Joe 0]

To pull it around....So why sack him on one?

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

[quote user="Honest Joe"]To pull it around....So why sack him on one?[/quote]Take it you didnt go today??Quite simply, if your job''s on the line, you put in more than the shambles that was apparent tonight.

[Tom NCFC 0]

Cause we lost 4 - 1 at home, thats a very good reason!

Also they sacked him now cause we have a 2 week international break and that''s 2 weeks we need to find a replacement

Great call by the board!

[canary cherub 1]

Yes I know.  The world of football has taken note.  Prospective managers beware.

[Hairy Canary 704]

You obviously did''nt go to that unbelievable shambles this afternoon then! It was plain for the whole crowd to see that the players (with a couple of high profile exceptions) wanted him gone. When that happens there''s no other choice.

[USAcanary 0]

[quote user="Honest Joe"]To pull it around....So why sack him on one?
[/quote]

They didnt say that, you need to re-read the statement.

Who cares lets move on, we need to win some games.

[Norphilwich 0]

Did you not watch the last game.....Doubt it because had you have seen that you will not be saying "I thought they gave him two games?"

[no1canary 0]

no he only got the 2nd game if he could manage a win this game! they arent going to let him have the QPR game, and say im sorry we''re going to sack you whatever happens because you lost against Burnley.

there was no way he could manage norwich city ever again after today.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="Honest Joe"]To pull it around....So why sack him on one?
[/quote]

What they actually said was....

"We are determined to achieve success at Norwich City, and to that end we expect this situation to be rectified at our next home game on Sunday and at our next away game. We rely on our manager and squad to do this not only on behalf of our supporters but for the long-term future of the club.”

Sadly for Nigel the situation was not rectified at the next home game so he fell at the first hurdle.   Perhaps it is because I''m a lawyer but the wording is clear.   It may appear to say he''s got two games but it actually requires him to turn it round in both of them,

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Norphilwich"]Did you not watch the last game.....Doubt it because had you have seen that you will not be saying "I thought they gave him two games?"[/quote]

They did give him two games.  They didn''t stick to it. 

It matters because it shows they don''t know how to run a football club.  It matters because it was so public that the whole of football has taken note.  It matters because we want to attract a new manager who can fufil the club''s potential., at a time when West Brom and Leeds are ahead of us in the pecking order.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Just goes to emphasise what a stupid statement it was.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

[quote user="Honest Joe"]To pull it around....So why sack him on one?
[/quote]

What they actually said was....

"We are determined to achieve success at Norwich City, and to that end we expect this situation to be rectified at our next home game on Sunday and at our next away game. We rely on our manager and squad to do this not only on behalf of our supporters but for the long-term future of the club.”

Sadly for Nigel the situation was not rectified at the next home game so he fell at the first hurdle.   Perhaps it is because I''m a lawyer but the wording is clear.   It may appear to say he''s got two games but it actually requires him to turn it round in both of them,

[/quote]

You''re spot on Cambridge.  It all hinges on the word "and".  I actually feel physically sick.  Nigel, you''re well out of it mate. 

The real issue though it why they made it public.  Contrast with Macclesfield, who also sacked their manager today.  They just went ahead and did it.  Delia & Co take note, that''s how you deal with these matters.

 

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="mystic megson"]

[quote user="Norphilwich"]Did you not watch the last game.....Doubt it because had you have seen that you will not be saying "I thought they gave him two games?"[/quote]

They did give him two games.  They didn''t stick to it. 

It matters because it shows they don''t know how to run a football club.  It matters because it was so public that the whole of football has taken note.  It matters because we want to attract a new manager who can fufil the club''s potential., at a time when West Brom and Leeds are ahead of us in the pecking order.

[/quote]

You are simply wrong.  see my post above which crossed with yours.

[Norphilwich 0]

Mystic megson I know they gave him the two games but they knew full well that if the team did not perform in one of the games it was going happen. If that statement did not give him a reason to get the players to perform for him we all new that the writing was on the wall. It now also gives us two weeks with no game to find the right man for the job......

[canary cherub 1]

More crossing of posts and I think we''re in agreement now.

As posted above, my main concern is why it had to be so public. And why a public statement should be so ambiguous. 

They went to extreme lengths to try and wriggle out of paying him off but they didn''t succeed, and I for one am bloody glad.  They may yet find that there is a further price to be paid, in terms of player goodwill and attracting a new manager.  What happens if the board lose the dressing room?

I just don''t feel that this club belongs to me anymore.  

[Syteanric 1]

Phil is Right.. the statement said they wanted improvement within he next 2 games.. WITHIN means either of the 2 games.not just the 2nd one

jas :)

[JJ 0]

Let''s be honest.  Once the second goal went in, he was a dead man walking.

 

[Darlo dumplin’ 0]

We lost 6-0 at Fulham, for those of there it was painful, we failed after 46 games last season to even make the playoffs, and after 10 games this season we are 17th in the league, only 2 points from the relegation zone. How much goodwill do you extend to a manager? 

Everyone has to go sometime (even Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher before him) and frankly on performances he should have been sacked after 10 games in our premiership season. His transfers have generally been questionable, with a few notable exceptions, and his tactics and team selection in crucial games have defied logic and usually failed.

So what is it, you dont want to belong to a club that is that tolerant of a manager?

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="mystic megson"]

More crossing of posts and I think we''re in agreement now.

As posted above, my main concern is why it had to be so public. And why a public statement should be so ambiguous. 

They went to extreme lengths to try and wriggle out of paying him off but they didn''t succeed, and I for one am bloody glad.  They may yet find that there is a further price to be paid, in terms of player goodwill and attracting a new manager.  What happens if the board lose the dressing room?

I just don''t feel that this club belongs to me anymore.  

[/quote]

Respect Mystic.  I was in a rush with the last post which reads more tetchily than I intended.  Sorry my friend.

As you rightly noted, it is all down to the "and" and as you say it has been a strange week.  When I advise Clients how to sack people fairly, I''ve never come up with anything like this

[Fat Barman 0]

[quote user="mystic megson"]  What happens if the board lose the dressing room?

I just don''t feel that this club belongs to me anymore.  

[/quote]Ask Villa what a Boardroom and Dressing room split is like!Your last sentence is what prompted me to reply - I feel sure you''ve put your finger on a problem that a lot of us are feeling.We have been put in a strange position by our Directors and, perhaps, we shouldn''t be getting complacent because they bowed to the inevitable. The worry is that they haven''t learnt anything from this whole debacle. The fans need a proper voice.The obvious route should be the NCST (supporters trust) - they have been trying to amass shares (anyone know how they''ve done so far?) and share ownership is the way to make the Board listen to concerns of fans. It''s been said recently that NCST are overly supportive of the Directors, when they should have closer links with fans than they do with the boardroom - I suggest that''s because we''ve not used the Trust effectively.The Trust is democratic - one member one vote - and the joining fee is small, why haven''t more fans taken advantage of the opportunity to get more invoved in decisions which affect our club? If more of us join the Trust, they will be able to buy more shares and have a greater impact at Board level - we all gain because we get more control over what direction the Trust is led.Supporters Trusts were set up to give fans a greater say in how their clubs are run - in some cases they now control the clubs they are connected with. I don''t say we''re in a position to buy a majority shareholding, but we have only ourselves to blame if we ignore the opportunity to help steer our club to a better future. I don''t feel as if the club belongs to me either, mystic megson, I''m thinking it''s about time I tried to help reclaim it!

[gazzathegreat 0]

Good Luck Nigel - sorry about how it ended - another messy break-up (women are rubbish at this sort of thing!)

Your post about the Trust is good FBM, but the signature is way off beam, one too many Old Peculiars  lol  messy break ups....are you one of my exs?   God forbid! 

[canary cherub 1]

Cheers FB.  I''m a member of the Supporters Trust but not an active one.  They do keep an extremely low profile, and that''s something I''m not happy about. 

I''m also a shareholder in my own right and have been chipping away for some time.  I''ve just reread a letter I wrote in December 2005, commenting on the smallness of the squad(!), that I did not feel we were equipped for a realistic promotion push, and wondering what had happened to the parachute money.  When I suggested that they had not given the manager 100% backing, I got a very tetchy "how dare you suggest such a thing" reply!

I wrote to the board again about two weeks ago asking whether they would include in the next Annual Report the amount of profit from the catering project that actually goes to the club.  I thought it was a straightforward question, requiring a simple yes or no answer.  I am still awaiting any kind of response.  I will persist until I get one.

Turning Worthy''s sacking into a public execution really is the last straw.  It''s not the Norwich way of doing things.

[Fat Barman 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]

Good Luck Nigel - sorry about how it ended - another messy break-up (women are rubbish at this sort of thing!)

Your post about the Trust is good FBM, but the signature is way off beam, one too many Old Peculiars  lol  messy break ups....are you one of my exs?   God forbid! 

[/quote]Not so fortunate GTG - never dated a fellow traveller down Carrow Road. Please note, signature amended!Do you think this Trust business is worth examining on a thread of its own? I think we should let emotions cool a bit (and the thread count slow down!) before looking at the options, but I stand ready to be corrected - maybe now is the time to try and grab everyones attention?