Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gazzathegreat

Adam Aiken in the EDP - good summary

Recommended Posts

City board must face tough questions

ADAM AIKEN - A VIEW FROM THE STAND

Last night''s departure of Peter Grant was the right one.

I take no pleasure in saying that because I was a strong supporter of his from the day he got the job.

His passion was undoubted, and I felt sure that his enthusiasm would transfer itself to his squad and lift the players from the depths they''d sunk to under Nigel Worthington.

And just a few short weeks ago, I felt he had done a good job in getting rid of some of the poorer players who had been in the underachieving squads of the past couple of seasons, and he was slowly building a side that could get us towards the top of the league.

But Grant has also had plenty of self-inflicted problems, and four days ago in this column I mentioned the fact that more often than not he seemed to find someone else to blame when things went wrong.

The players, the fans, the referee, the media . . . It was only a matter of time before those with whom he had crossed swords became too many in number and too much of an obstacle for his continued occupation of the hotseat.

Some fans never took to him, but many of those who were initially prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt would have been among those who chanted ''Grant out'' at the end of the disgrace that was our televised defeat at QPR on Monday night.

Meanwhile, the lack of public support for the manager from the board was deafening. It''s possible that various board members were stung by criticism of their actions towards the end of the Worthington era and didn''t want to make the same mistake of publicly backing an unpopular manager. That''s understandable, but it hardly augured well for Grant''s job security.

And - most importantly - he seemed to have lost the confidence of the players.

The performances of the vast majority of them on Monday were unforgivable. With the notable exceptions of David Marshall and Dion Dublin, they should hang their heads in shame.

We pay our money and therefore have the right to express our feelings, but players do not have that luxury. They are employees who should do the job that they are paid handsomely to do. It is not for them to pick and choose when they can be bothered to put in the effort on behalf of their manager and the fans. They were a disgrace.

But it''s a fact of life in football that player-power can win the day, and if (as many are suggesting) the team had lost confidence in their manager, it was right for Grant to call it a day. Things would have got even worse if he''d stayed.

However, the problems at our club run far deeper than that. This isn''t a problem that starts and finishes in the manager''s office.

The past 12 months haven''t been some aberration in what has otherwise been a rosy few years. Grant''s appointment was just the latest failure by the board.

His is just the most recent name in a depressingly long list of poor decisions made by this regime since it took over more than a decade ago.

Mike Walker''s second spell at the club wasn''t a total success, but sacking him after two 5-0 home victories was a sign of the crass bad management that has become a hallmark of the board.

That decision was made even dirtier by the fact that he had sat next to a number of board members at the club''s annual open day just before he was given the push, publicly defending the very people who had already decided to stab him in the back.

The ensuing dream team (and, yes, I am being sarcastic) of Bruce Rioch and Bryan Hamilton was also a disaster, with Rioch eventually walking out in frustration and Hamilton then taking over as manager in his own right.

That heralded a dreadful spell, with the clueless Hamilton receiving a ridiculous amount of support from certain people in the boardroom who lapped up his every word, while virtually all the fans - whipped up into a frenzy by the beastly media, don''t forget - expressed growing concern at what was happening on the pitch.

(Meanwhile, off the pitch there was the gloriously inept decision to make Bob Cooper club chairman. What a joke that turned out to be.)

After Hamilton, the appointment of Nigel Worthington worked for a while, and we''ll never forget the magical promotion season he gave us - helped, to be fair, by some inspired investing and gambling by the board.

But we were out of our depth in the top flight and came crashing down after that humiliating defeat at Fulham in the final day of the season.

Some people called for a new manager at that point. A few months later, many more of us realised that something needed to be done, but we were dismissed as being nothing more than troublemakers while we looked on helplessly as our team got worse and worse.

The seeds for the unacceptable situation we find ourselves in today were sown during that year and a bit of inaction.

And then we arrived at Grant''s appointment - and what has now been shown to be another bad decision.

My stance might appear to be hypocritical. On the one hand, I backed the appointment of Grant and - like the board did - I thought he was the answer to our prayers. On the other hand, I''m now criticising the board for another poor appointment.

But I''m not on the board. I don''t appoint managers. It''s not my responsibility to get it right.

I just pay my money, like thousands of other people do, to watch football. If my views are wrong, they''re wrong, but they don''t have any lasting effect other than annoying a few over-sensitive sorts who can''t handle a bit of criticism.

It''s an entirely different story for the board. They may be fans, too, but they are also custodians of our club, and it''s their job to get things right.

Unfortunately, it''s gone wrong a lot more often than it''s gone right, and it''s time some tough questions were asked of those at the top.

If I were one of those who did have a seat on the board and if I had been involved in the catalogue of failed appointments, I''d be seriously considering my own position right now - and mulling over whether I should stand aside and let someone else make the next appointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see that at least one person at Archant can see the bigger picture of what has happened at our club under the current regime. To be fair Richard Balls latest effort is pretty good too.

I still think that not enough attention has been paid to what happened in the season after relegation-selling £10million+ worth of players but (bar £2.9million on Earnshaw) spending peanuts on useless never-have-beens. Remember Charlton in midfield? Henderson at right-wing for most of the season? No target man after Ashton left? The approach to team-strengthening was an utter disgrace in that year and it set in place the decline we are witnessing today. Over two seasons in which the club received £14.2million in parachute payments the club made a profit of over £4million in the transfer market.

The club have budgeted for failure and what have we got.....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Good to see that at least one person at Archant can see the bigger picture of what has happened at our club under the current regime. To be fair Richard Balls latest effort is pretty good too.

I still think that not enough attention has been paid to what happened in the season after relegation-selling £10million+ worth of players but (bar £2.9million on Earnshaw) spending peanuts on useless never-have-beens. Remember Charlton in midfield? Henderson at right-wing for most of the season? No target man after Ashton left? The approach to team-strengthening was an utter disgrace in that year and it set in place the decline we are witnessing today. Over two seasons in which the club received £14.2million in parachute payments the club made a profit of over £4million in the transfer market.

The club have budgeted for failure and what have we got.....?

[/quote]

Worse was that when we got promoted we failed to sign a decent target man until the January transfer window. Roberts had gone, Svensson was way off the pace and if we had competed for Crouch properly (instead of offering some derisory bid) we''d still be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Svensson was injured, but he was one of the ones in the Premiership season that wasnt looking to show themselves off to other clubs.

Who thinks we should try to get him back?

PS I never really noticed that we didnt buy a striker for the Prem, WTF was Worthington thinking? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Bucketman"]

Svensson was injured, but he was one of the ones in the Premiership season that wasnt looking to show themselves off to other clubs.

Who thinks we should try to get him back?

PS I never really noticed that we didnt buy a striker for the Prem, WTF was Worthington thinking? 

[/quote]He wasn''t given the money for a striker until January.Worthy became such a hate-figure that people still think the club''s downfall from our Prem season was all his fault, when the board gave him nothing to work with until it was far too late

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I have a habit of not concentrating enough, I didnt notice that he wasnt given the money. Good point

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree Gazza, great article by Adam Aiken, goes to show hes his own man and not in anyones pocket!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a good summary or is it what we want to hear?

I believe the first part is a good fair summary from a columnist who is obviously a City fan. I agree that the Grant leaving was right for the club and I also have been a strong supporter of Grant since he got the job. Adam Aitkens assessment of Peter Grant and his last weeks at the club is much the same as mine. Grant was honest and maybe his honesty was his downfall. I hope he learns from this and comes back to be successful elsewhere.

But Adam Aitken, I can’t accept the second part of this article as anything more than removing pieces from the past to fit a point you are trying to make even though it distorts the true picture. In the last week we have read loads on this message board about Mike Walker being sacked after two 5-0 home wins but those wins came on the back of the worst run of results during the tenure of this board. We had gone 14 games without a win and in fact by the second week in April we hadn’t won since January and had 46 points from 42 games leaving us just 3 points off relegation. To put this into perspective last season at the same time we had 56 points from 42 games. That season there were real REAL fears of relegation. During those three months without a win we also had the embarrassment of a 5-0 defeat at Portaloo Road. So you see we did end the season with two 5-0 home wins and a 1-0 away win but that can’t hide what went on before. There seems so many double standards in all of this. Back in the spring of 2006 the Worthy Out movement was in full cry and yet we won six home games on the bounce, it’s strange how Walkers 14 games without a win in 1998 seems now to be far more acceptable than those six home wins under Worthington.

I don’t believe we had a catalogue of failed managerial appointments at all. I believe that Rioch and Hamilton was a mistake, Rioch on his own just maybe would have worked. The big mistake at that time was probably the appointment of Bob the Grocer as Chairman. I believe he was thick as thieves with Hamilton who was the worst manager in my time as a fan by a mile! One of my happiest and proudest days as a fan was standing in the family enclosure at piswich with my daughter celebrating that 2-0 win and Iwans 2 goals, telling my daughter to savour every second. Little did I realise what that performance and result would mean in the long term! So Hamilton a mistake twice but for Rioch the jury is out. The next appointment was Worthington. There is no way that was a mistake. 2000 to 2005 was one big adventure and we loved it. Yes even the Premier season! How many people remember that we went into the Fulham game outside the relegation places with our future totally in our own hands. I guess with hindsight maybe that was the time for Worthy to go but I didn’t think so at the time and neither did most people. I just can’t accept that Nigel Worthington was a failed appointment, we had at least 5 good years with him as manager. Peter Grant has to go down as a failed appointment even though we all desperately wanted it to work out. So, four managers, two failed appointments, one jury out and one success.

I believe selecting a manager can be a lottery. If people compare our boards record against others they will perhaps be more forgiving. During his time at Portsmouth and now Leicester, roughly the same time as we are considering our boards record, Mandaric has appointed 9 managers. His catalogue of failure reads Tony Pulis, Steve Claridge, Graham Rix, Velimir Zajel, Alain Perrin, Nigel Worthington and Martin Allen. The jury is out on Gary Megson and his one success is Harry Redknapp. Many other clubs have a far worse record than us over the last ten years and the same journeymen managers popping up for a stint at each of them.

Now before I get accused of being Delia’s cousin or an apologist for the board, I do believe mistakes have been made. I believe that we should have made more money available to the manager at the start of the premiership season in order to sign either Peter Crouch or Dean Ashton. I also believe that having backed Worthington to stay in 2006 they should have backed him with money to make a serious attempt to sign Rob Hulse or Steve Howard. It was obvious that the lesson hadn’t been learned. Off the field investment is fine and possibly in years to come we will reap the benefit of this but for now this board surely have not got the balance right. This is what needs to be addressed because changing the manager will not be cheap and funds have to be made available to the new manager in January. Whether it’s Smith and Jones or the Turners if they get this wrong relegation is a real possibility.

What concerns me is that I don’t want to see the same situation with the board as we had with Worthington where every action was criticised and by the end it was virtuallyby a hate campaign against him. I am quite happy for the board to be held accountable for mistakes that are made but going back through history and choosing which parts to use as a stick to beat them is unfair.

Believe it or not I still believe we are all on the same side!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutty - think that is appears to be a pretty fair assessment. Hope what ever happens things improve - spoils my saturday when we lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting view from Adam but are his comments made a jounalist or as a fan. I took the piece as being written by him as a fan and therefore removing the important part which is those tough questions actually being asked of the board.

I may be hair splitting a little here but what media follow up is intended from this article or is it the case that there will be none at all.

Clearly the board will not need to answer what has not been asked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="maninyellowslacks"]

An interesting view from Adam but are his comments made a jounalist or as a fan. I took the piece as being written by him as a fan and therefore removing the important part which is those tough questions actually being asked of the board.

I may be hair splitting a little here but what media follow up is intended from this article or is it the case that there will be none at all.

Clearly the board will not need to answer what has not been asked

[/quote]

I took it to be comments by a fan rather than a piece by a journalist too. I believe the board do have awkward questions to answer about their financial policies and lack of investment into the football team since promotion in 2004. Yes I know I could go to the AGM and ask those questions but I am not really qualified to do so and would much rather talk about football. I would have thought Adam Aiken would be an ideal person to ask the board challenging questions about their financial policies.

As I said in my post, I believe that the board should be accountable for lack of investment in the football team. But I don''t believe we should go down the Worthy Out route of finding fault with every decision made over the last ten years.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Aiken is substantially right.

Nutty is quite wrong. He has this amazing template that he jauls out of his back pocket and applies to all posts critical of the NCFC board and, in particular, the majority owners.

It''s time for DWJ and MWJ to up sticks, sell and move on into retirement.They''ve lost whatever little focus and nous that they ever had and become the main problem.

Time to sell to Peter Callum (or his ilk). If they won''t, then I recommend that he launches a hostile takeover - the time is now. (Provided that he promises to keep his cousins at much further than arms length).

It''s all become just too comfy and homely. We need a tougher more hard-nosed approach.

Adam, you are correct. Hope you are you flying a kite for PeterCallum? Preparing the ground? 

Keep up the good work.

OTBC - we need to mind the danger!

P.S. Welcome back Nutty. we missed you and your template there for a few days!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Is this a good summary or is it what we want to hear?

I believe the first part is a good fair summary from a columnist who is obviously a City fan. I agree that the Grant leaving was right for the club and I also have been a strong supporter of Grant since he got the job. Adam Aitkens assessment of Peter Grant and his last weeks at the club is much the same as mine. Grant was honest and maybe his honesty was his downfall. I hope he learns from this and comes back to be successful elsewhere.

But Adam Aitken, I can’t accept the second part of this article as anything more than removing pieces from the past to fit a point you are trying to make even though it distorts the true picture. In the last week we have read loads on this message board about Mike Walker being sacked after two 5-0 home wins but those wins came on the back of the worst run of results during the tenure of this board. We had gone 14 games without a win and in fact by the second week in April we hadn’t won since January and had 46 points from 42 games leaving us just 3 points off relegation. To put this into perspective last season at the same time we had 56 points from 42 games. That season there were real REAL fears of relegation. During those three months without a win we also had the embarrassment of a 5-0 defeat at Portaloo Road. So you see we did end the season with two 5-0 home wins and a 1-0 away win but that can’t hide what went on before. There seems so many double standards in all of this. Back in the spring of 2006 the Worthy Out movement was in full cry and yet we won six home games on the bounce, it’s strange how Walkers 14 games without a win in 1998 seems now to be far more acceptable than those six home wins under Worthington.

I don’t believe we had a catalogue of failed managerial appointments at all. I believe that Rioch and Hamilton was a mistake, Rioch on his own just maybe would have worked. The big mistake at that time was probably the appointment of Bob the Grocer as Chairman. I believe he was thick as thieves with Hamilton who was the worst manager in my time as a fan by a mile! One of my happiest and proudest days as a fan was standing in the family enclosure at piswich with my daughter celebrating that 2-0 win and Iwans 2 goals, telling my daughter to savour every second. Little did I realise what that performance and result would mean in the long term! So Hamilton a mistake twice but for Rioch the jury is out. The next appointment was Worthington. There is no way that was a mistake. 2000 to 2005 was one big adventure and we loved it. Yes even the Premier season! How many people remember that we went into the Fulham game outside the relegation places with our future totally in our own hands. I guess with hindsight maybe that was the time for Worthy to go but I didn’t think so at the time and neither did most people. I just can’t accept that Nigel Worthington was a failed appointment, we had at least 5 good years with him as manager. Peter Grant has to go down as a failed appointment even though we all desperately wanted it to work out. So, four managers, two failed appointments, one jury out and one success.

I believe selecting a manager can be a lottery. If people compare our boards record against others they will perhaps be more forgiving. During his time at Portsmouth and now Leicester, roughly the same time as we are considering our boards record, Mandaric has appointed 9 managers. His catalogue of failure reads Tony Pulis, Steve Claridge, Graham Rix, Velimir Zajel, Alain Perrin, Nigel Worthington and Martin Allen. The jury is out on Gary Megson and his one success is Harry Redknapp. Many other clubs have a far worse record than us over the last ten years and the same journeymen managers popping up for a stint at each of them.

Now before I get accused of being Delia’s cousin or an apologist for the board, I do believe mistakes have been made. I believe that we should have made more money available to the manager at the start of the premiership season in order to sign either Peter Crouch or Dean Ashton. I also believe that having backed Worthington to stay in 2006 they should have backed him with money to make a serious attempt to sign Rob Hulse or Steve Howard. It was obvious that the lesson hadn’t been learned. Off the field investment is fine and possibly in years to come we will reap the benefit of this but for now this board surely have not got the balance right. This is what needs to be addressed because changing the manager will not be cheap and funds have to be made available to the new manager in January. Whether it’s Smith and Jones or the Turners if they get this wrong relegation is a real possibility.

What concerns me is that I don’t want to see the same situation with the board as we had with Worthington where every action was criticised and by the end it was virtuallyby a hate campaign against him. I am quite happy for the board to be held accountable for mistakes that are made but going back through history and choosing which parts to use as a stick to beat them is unfair.

Believe it or not I still believe we are all on the same side!

 

[/quote]

And you will be second out of the door Mr Munby......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutty has written a good, balanced post although I disagree on a couple of key things.

  1. ''For Rioch the jury is out'' - the issue there is that, again, certain members of the Board ''meddled'' in football affairs. Ricoh had an outstanding track record as manager yet was shamefully treated by Smith and Cooper who deprived him of funds and then, mysteriously, lavished them on Hamilton. I wonder why? That episode is another in the list of failures by the Board.
  2. Worthington - I agree that from 2000-2005 he was NOT a failed appointment. I personally never really wanted him or agreed with him as manager but he was successful in that period of that there is no doubt. However, you miss the point. The fans complaint is not that Worthy was ''a failed appointment'' as you put it but that the Board totally dodged the hard decision for the best part of 12 months before fan pressure and appalling performances became over bearing - AGAIN, another mistake by the Board.  

Walker - I agree with you, the performances throughout the 1997-1998 season were poor and too many people look back on ''all things Walker'' as the golden days (Wizard for one) BUT my view is that he should have been given the nod to carry on for the last year of his contract on the basis of promising young players coming on the scene (Bellamy, Llewelyn etc.) and those two thumping home wins that took us comfortably to safety. One again my understanding of the main reason for the Walker sacking was that he stood up to Smith about the decision to bring in a crowd of sports scientists, fitness gurus etc.who were given access to the teams training routines and schedules.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Is this a good summary or is it what we want to hear?

I believe the first part is a good fair summary from a columnist who is obviously a City fan. I agree that the Grant leaving was right for the club and I also have been a strong supporter of Grant since he got the job. Adam Aitkens assessment of Peter Grant and his last weeks at the club is much the same as mine. Grant was honest and maybe his honesty was his downfall. I hope he learns from this and comes back to be successful elsewhere.

But Adam Aitken, I can’t accept the second part of this article as anything more than removing pieces from the past to fit a point you are trying to make even though it distorts the true picture. In the last week we have read loads on this message board about Mike Walker being sacked after two 5-0 home wins but those wins came on the back of the worst run of results during the tenure of this board. We had gone 14 games without a win and in fact by the second week in April we hadn’t won since January and had 46 points from 42 games leaving us just 3 points off relegation. To put this into perspective last season at the same time we had 56 points from 42 games. That season there were real REAL fears of relegation. During those three months without a win we also had the embarrassment of a 5-0 defeat at Portaloo Road. So you see we did end the season with two 5-0 home wins and a 1-0 away win but that can’t hide what went on before. There seems so many double standards in all of this. Back in the spring of 2006 the Worthy Out movement was in full cry and yet we won six home games on the bounce, it’s strange how Walkers 14 games without a win in 1998 seems now to be far more acceptable than those six home wins under Worthington.

I don’t believe we had a catalogue of failed managerial appointments at all. I believe that Rioch and Hamilton was a mistake, Rioch on his own just maybe would have worked. The big mistake at that time was probably the appointment of Bob the Grocer as Chairman. I believe he was thick as thieves with Hamilton who was the worst manager in my time as a fan by a mile! One of my happiest and proudest days as a fan was standing in the family enclosure at piswich with my daughter celebrating that 2-0 win and Iwans 2 goals, telling my daughter to savour every second. Little did I realise what that performance and result would mean in the long term! So Hamilton a mistake twice but for Rioch the jury is out. The next appointment was Worthington. There is no way that was a mistake. 2000 to 2005 was one big adventure and we loved it. Yes even the Premier season! How many people remember that we went into the Fulham game outside the relegation places with our future totally in our own hands. I guess with hindsight maybe that was the time for Worthy to go but I didn’t think so at the time and neither did most people. I just can’t accept that Nigel Worthington was a failed appointment, we had at least 5 good years with him as manager. Peter Grant has to go down as a failed appointment even though we all desperately wanted it to work out. So, four managers, two failed appointments, one jury out and one success.

I believe selecting a manager can be a lottery. If people compare our boards record against others they will perhaps be more forgiving. During his time at Portsmouth and now Leicester, roughly the same time as we are considering our boards record, Mandaric has appointed 9 managers. His catalogue of failure reads Tony Pulis, Steve Claridge, Graham Rix, Velimir Zajel, Alain Perrin, Nigel Worthington and Martin Allen. The jury is out on Gary Megson and his one success is Harry Redknapp. Many other clubs have a far worse record than us over the last ten years and the same journeymen managers popping up for a stint at each of them.

Now before I get accused of being Delia’s cousin or an apologist for the board, I do believe mistakes have been made. I believe that we should have made more money available to the manager at the start of the premiership season in order to sign either Peter Crouch or Dean Ashton. I also believe that having backed Worthington to stay in 2006 they should have backed him with money to make a serious attempt to sign Rob Hulse or Steve Howard. It was obvious that the lesson hadn’t been learned. Off the field investment is fine and possibly in years to come we will reap the benefit of this but for now this board surely have not got the balance right. This is what needs to be addressed because changing the manager will not be cheap and funds have to be made available to the new manager in January. Whether it’s Smith and Jones or the Turners if they get this wrong relegation is a real possibility.

What concerns me is that I don’t want to see the same situation with the board as we had with Worthington where every action was criticised and by the end it was virtuallyby a hate campaign against him. I am quite happy for the board to be held accountable for mistakes that are made but going back through history and choosing which parts to use as a stick to beat them is unfair.

Believe it or not I still believe we are all on the same side!

 

[/quote]

Nutty,

Milan Mandaric must have done something to upset you, as you seem to mention him in every other post!

The issue with Nigel Worthington is not that he was a poor appointment by the board, he brought us promotion, after all, but that it was a poor sacking. In other words, he was sacked far too late, having split the fans into divisive camps which lingers on today (even your post references ''Worthy Out''), poisoned the atmosphere at Carra rud, and encouraged player power(which eventually tipped him and his successor out of office).

Bruce Rioch, if you remember, left claiming the board had no ambition. He may have been a good appointment but he obviously didn''t rate the qualities of our board and left of his own accord (as have Hunter, Boothroyd, Web and even one kid from the acadamy buying out his own contract). So that makes every managerial reign to be ultimtely a failure on the board''s part - sacking our most successful manager, failure to keep the solid, experienced guy, failure to release NW after he''d run out of ideas, failure in signing two basket cases (BH/PG).

Now you reckon that "going back through history and choosing which parts to use as a stick to beat them is unfair."

But that is exactly what your post does.Mike Walker, Grocer Bob, Rioch, Hamilton, Crouch, Ashton, Hulse, Howard - all names dragged up from selective parts of our history. And you claim they''re mistakes (either by signing them or failing to sign them), with the exception of Rioch, whom you are unsure about.

Nutty, you end up by saying that the board hasn''t got the balance right in its off-field investments. Well done, many of us agree with you. We also see it as a big mistake, one that has dragged the club down to the relegation zone by allocating money to build roads instead of a football team. Of course we''re being selective. There have been some good judgements made over the past ten years. But selecting the good ones and comparing them with bad judgements, then the bad outweigh the good by a country mile.

I think your choice of the word "unfair" is not want you meant - really you mean it is uncomfortable. You seem to know how to wield a stick yourself, Nutty, but your from your position of sitting on the fence you find it all pretty uncomfortable.

YH

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Adam Aiken is substantially right.

Nutty is quite wrong. He has this amazing template that he jauls out of his back pocket and applies to all posts critical of the NCFC board and, in particular, the majority owners.

It''s time for DWJ and MWJ to up sticks, sell and move on into retirement.They''ve lost whatever little focus and nous that they ever had and become the main problem.

Time to sell to Peter Callum (or his ilk). If they won''t, then I recommend that he launches a hostile takeover - the time is now. (Provided that he promises to keep his cousins at much further than arms length).

It''s all become just too comfy and homely. We need a tougher more hard-nosed approach.

Adam, you are correct. Hope you are you flying a kite for PeterCallum? Preparing the ground? 

[/quote]

BBB, so nutty is wrong because his template is different from yours. You are way off beam here and caught up with the excitement of the possibility of change being in the air. The antipathy shown to D&W generally is really quite blinkered. As fans they put their money where their mouths are when the club was desparate and there have been good times. Equally it has all gone terribly pear shaped & blunders have been made. There is nothing on the table at the moment that would guarantee any improvement. Callum could be an answer, but even he says he doesn''t have the cash or time while running Towergate. If he did it via Callum Venture capital it would be a nightmare that would make you dream of Robert Chase (i.e. normal process: borrow money, buy company, get comapny to borrow money to repay the first borrowing, sell assets to clear down debt, sell on company minus assets). We could get the right manager or they could cock it up again and that applies to anyone else unless something fundamentally changes financially. Whether they stay or go is quite irrelevant without that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Rioch was a very good manager in my opinion. It was difficult for him when every match he had his 4 or 5 best players embroiled in transfer speculation. It wasn''t like now when it only happened during august and january. Every week it seemed to get worse as he looked more and more desperately to find replacements to fit the holes left by the board selling him out. Rioch was/is a very good manager. He is a hero at boro and bolton and he did a very good job at arsenal. At norwich he was never given the backing and had no chance of ever acheiving anything like success. Stupidly they gave money to hamilton who was a complete pillock.2. I was never really a big fan of worthy from day one and held my suspsitions that he rode his luck with injuries etc. However you cannot argue against the fact that we got promoted and were a country mile the best team during that season. However I did feel that during the play-off and sandwich season we rode our luck. Worthy, was again sold out by the board. He made it clear in the summer of the prem season he wanted strikers and was told that he wasn''t allowed to spend the money on luring ashton or crouch or the other targets he was after. In the end the board realised if we didn''t get a striker we were relegated but alas it was too late.3. Fulham was a disaster and I felt during the prem and after worthys tactical decisions were becoming hit and miss. However I feel the board didn''t help. When we got relegated we let ashton (gone in jan), svennson, jonson, bently, edworthy, francis, mulryne, holt etc. all go. Now some would say mulryne and holt were past it, perhaps the prem was too big a step up but they WERE very good division 1 players and got us up no question. Nobody could argue that holt didn''t boss the midfield like some of the greats of old. Worthy had little chance of making things happen did he really? He had lost the core of his squad and not given the chance to hold onto these players and get/keep loanees like bently and others who surely could have got us up. It was short-sightedness in the end as we finished 8th, if we had kept a decent squad and not fire-sold like we have done in the past we COULD have done it.Just my 2 cents, throw it back at me if you want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Is this a good summary or is it what we want to hear?

........... but going back through history and choosing which parts to use as a stick to beat them is unfair.

Believe it or not I still believe we are all on the same side[/quote]

A brilliant analysis nutty. The only thing I''d add is to condemn Aiken''s glib acceptance that "player power will always win out". Let''s not forget that it was player power that relegated us from the Premiership (at Fulham), and is on the way to doing the same this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="maninyellowslacks"]

An interesting view from Adam but are his comments made a jounalist or as a fan. I took the piece as being written by him as a fan and therefore removing the important part which is those tough questions actually being asked of the board.

I may be hair splitting a little here but what media follow up is intended from this article or is it the case that there will be none at all.

Clearly the board will not need to answer what has not been asked

[/quote]

The column was written by me as a fan, not as a journalist. Although my day-job is as a journalist, I deliberately steer clear of writing any objective news stories on the club.

There has been a deliberate separation of the sports reporters and the likes of Steve, Richard and me, who write opinionated columns as opposed to factual stories. In that light, my column this week was not part of a wider campaign that will necessarily be followed up by my colleagues.

Having said that, the sports writers on the EDP and the EEN may indeed ask the same questions of the board - and nothing stops other fans and shareholders asking the same questions at next week''s annual meeting, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yellowhammer

Milan Mandaric has done nothing to upset me, I use that example because the point I was trying to make was that appointing a manager is not an exact science and in my view there is no formula in getting the right man. Some managers fall into place at the right time with the right players at the right club, just as Worthy did here. But those are few and far between , in most cases it doesn''t work and that''s why the longest serving manager in the Championship is Cotterill at Burnley. He''s been there since June 2004.

So lets forget the Mandaric example and look at this century''s managers at other Championship clubs who are in a similar position to us. Palace: Sacked Coppell then Alan Smith, Steve Kember, Steve Bruce, Terry Bullivant, Trevor Francis, Iain Dowie, Peter Taylor and now Neil Warnock. Southampton: Effectively sacked Dave Jones and then Glen Hoddle, Gordon Strachan, Paul Sturrock, Steve Wigley, Harry Redknapp and now George Burley. Coventry: Sacked Strachan and then Roland Nillson, Trevor Peake, Gary McAllister, Eric Black, Peter Reid, Mickey Adams and now Iain Dowie. Leicester: sacked Peter Taylor and then Dave Bassett, Micky Adams, Craig Levein, Rob Kelly, Nigel Worthington, Martin Allen and now Gary Megson. Wolves: Sacked Colin Lee and then John Ward, Dave Jones, Glen Hoddle and now Mick McCarthey. Yellow hammer I will leave you to decide if there is any catalogue of failure there.

You make a lot of assumptions about people who have left the club just as people made assumptions about Nigel Worthington during his last year here. Now I can tell you that Aidy Boothroyd rated Worthy but I can''t tell you if he left our club because of lack of ambition from the board. If you know that he did then say so here, if not then it''s this attitude that my original post was a stand against. Nigel Worthington should have been judged on results and his terrible away record but the hate campaign against him went much further. Just as I believe this board should be judged on their inability to provide proper funds to give the football manager a realistic chance of surviving in the Premier League or being competitive in the Championship. Just finding any old stick to beat them with in my opinion just muddies the waters. Criticising them for sacking Mike Walker after two 5-0 home wins is crazy. No manager since, not Hamilton not Grant and not even Worthy in the Premiership went 14 games without a win which was Walkers record before those wins. I was disappointed he was sacked, I didn''t even agree with his sacking, but like I say given that record the board don’t really have a case to answer on the Walker issue. In my view they do have a case to answer for not finding the right balance with their investments. Why not concentrate on that.

Unfair or uncomfortable? The hate campaign against Nigel Worthington was both. If we go the same way against the board it will be both too. When I see people treated unfairly I get uncomfortable. Maybe you don''t.

Oh... and I still believe we are all on the same side.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...