Will the boards pre season decision cost us dear?

[Shack Attack 0]

It seems to be almost accepted that Delia & Co kept back money from NW at the start of the season, just in case they needed to replace him with a new man (I seem to recall a post on here not so long ago regarding the NCISA meeting where Delia told people to expect a flurry of transfer activity now PG had been appointed). This has obviously now happened, but the problem of course is that the squad is smaller than last season and to say it looks stretched is an understatement.

My opinion is that the board should have backed or sacked NW in pre-season rather than the halfway house stance they appear to have adopted and that their indicision could cost us dear. The opening of the transfer window is around two months away and if our injury situation does not improve soon we could easily find ourselves with too much to do to have a chance of making the play-offs.

The only thing we can do in the meantime is bring in loans which may prove more difficult than some people think what with other teams already having sent the players they deem surplus to requirements out on loan and possibly having similar injury/suspension problems to us.

The decision regarding NW''s future in pre season was a huge one, possibly one of the most important in our recent history, and by doing nothing the board hung Worthy out to dry and could have also made Peter Grant''s job near impossible.

[komakino 282]

Good words Mr Shack.

The clubs decision to hold on to Worthington beyond last season was a major mistake that may take a long time to rectify. The board and Nigel has taken this club down so far that Grant faces an almost impossible job. The situation in hand would appeal to very few managers and Grant should be applauded for trying to turn this around.

I warned Doomcaster last season the implications if Worthington was kept on into this season. I said that some of the players wouldn''t play for him which would lead to a match which was so bad they would have to sack him [i.e Burnley] and that a new manager would have a uphill task.

If the board [i.e Delia] had of sacked Worthington at the end of last season, a new man could have been appointed, had time to assess the situation and done some wheeling and dealing in the summer to balance and improve the squad - but this was too sensible for Delia to contemplate.

The reason why we are in this mess is simple. Delia tried to do things on the cheap and her lack of skills and over sentimentality towards Nigel is now costing us dear. Keeping Worthington and bringing in Hunter was a budget measure and a naive one which IMO was always going to fail.

This board needs to change because they are not footballing people and never will be. They just don''t seem to understand - they should be pro-active, but they aren''t really even re-active. Amateurs running a professional outfit.

[canary cherub 1]

Should they have either backed him or sacked him?  Yes of course, it''s a no-brainer.

The reason why they didn''t has less to do with sentimentality than with the underhand, counterproductive and  immoral practice known as "constructive dismissal" imo.  It plagues the world of business and politics.  I''ve witnessed it at close quarters myself and am pretty sure I can recognise it when I see it. 

It involves making it impossible for the incumbent to do his/her job properly by, for example, withholding funds and obstructing decisions, in the hope that they will walk away rather than risk damaging their career.  Once embarked upon it becomes a power struggle, and in the meantime the organisation goes to hell on a handcart.  Exactly how long it went on at CR, and why, remains a mystery.  The "two games" statement prior to a televised match was pretty obviously a last desperate attempt to get him to walk rather than risk public humiliation.

How bloody stupid can you get?  Anyone could have told them that NW would never submit to that sort of pressure.  And if I can spot it, you can be pretty sure that the rest of the football world will have done too . . .

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="mystic megson"]

Should they have either backed him or sacked him?  Yes of course, it''s a no-brainer.

The reason why they didn''t has less to do with sentimentality than with the underhand, counterproductive and  immoral practice known as "constructive dismissal" imo.  It plagues the world of business and politics.  I''ve witnessed it at close quarters myself and am pretty sure I can recognise it when I see it. 

It involves making it impossible for the incumbent to do his/her job properly by, for example, withholding funds and obstructing decisions, in the hope that they will walk away rather than risk damaging their career.  Once embarked upon it becomes a power struggle, and in the meantime the organisation goes to hell on a handcart.  Exactly how long it went on at CR, and why, remains a mystery.  The "two games" statement prior to a televised match was pretty obviously a last desperate attempt to get him to walk rather than risk public humiliation.

How bloody stupid can you get?  Anyone could have told them that NW would never submit to that sort of pressure.  And if I can spot it, you can be pretty sure that the rest of the football world will have done too . . .

[/quote]

Superb post again Mystic.  I however feel that NW should have been replaced during the Premiership season when all could see he was struggling. Few Boards would have thrown away the chance to stay at the top for the sake of prudence and thrift....but that is the mentality we have upstairs at Carrow Road.

For Delia the Premiership was all about a cash injection.....and not alot to do with ambition for the fans. We were ''little old Norwich'' then.....and we are ''even littler Norwich'' now. Next stop ''also ran''..........

[whoareyou? 0]

[quote user="mystic megson"]

Should they have either backed him or sacked him?  Yes of course, it''s a no-brainer.

The reason why they didn''t has less to do with sentimentality than with the underhand, counterproductive and  immoral practice known as "constructive dismissal" imo.  It plagues the world of business and politics.  I''ve witnessed it at close quarters myself and am pretty sure I can recognise it when I see it. 

It involves making it impossible for the incumbent to do his/her job properly by, for example, withholding funds and obstructing decisions, in the hope that they will walk away rather than risk damaging their career.  Once embarked upon it becomes a power struggle, and in the meantime the organisation goes to hell on a handcart.  Exactly how long it went on at CR, and why, remains a mystery.  The "two games" statement prior to a televised match was pretty obviously a last desperate attempt to get him to walk rather than risk public humiliation.

How bloody stupid can you get?  Anyone could have told them that NW would never submit to that sort of pressure.  And if I can spot it, you can be pretty sure that the rest of the football world will have done too . . .

[/quote]

Except wasn''t he on a one year rolling contract? if that is the case i understood the club could have said they were not renewing his contract for the next year and it would have cost us nothing!

[canary cherub 1]

whoareyou? it means, as I understand it, that at any given moment he was due a year''s notice.  In other words, he either had to stay for a year and work his notice, or if they wanted rid straight away he was entitled to a year''s salary . . .

When this issue arose last season, the EDP researched the other Championship clubs and found there were four or five with managers on a one year rolling contract (Wolves were one of them as I recall), with others on fixed term contracts ranging from about 18 months to fours years.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

This is generally a thread I agree with although the subject has been done before.

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]

It seems to be almost accepted that Delia & Co kept back money from NW at the start of the season,

[/quote]

How does the up to two million agreed for Cotterill fit in with the above statement?

 

[FilletTheFishWife . 0]

Please don''t remind us of the Cotterill / McKenzie farce....and there should be a damn sight more than 2M about.....for spending on more than one player.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="A load of squit"][quote user="Shack Attack"]

It seems to be almost accepted that Delia & Co kept back money from NW at the start of the season,

[/quote]

How does the up to two million agreed for Cotterill fit in with the above statement?

 

[/quote]

I was talking about pre-season, surely the Cotterill fee was agreed after we had sold Green and were about to sell McKenzie. The "up to £2milion" was just the money brought in from these tranfers wasn''t it?

Doesn''t account for the rest of the money brought in from transfers out, parachute payments etc. does it.