IF.......

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

Paul Jewell gets the job (i dont for one moment think he will) would the Deliar and Board bashing stop?

[Hog 0]

only if he gets the financial backing he is bound to demand, otherwise I can see another Martin O''Neill situation, with Jewell leaving after the Board suddenly go back on previous promises!

 

so probably no to your question

[p.g.tips 0]

yes

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

No!

The whole reason why a number of fans are criticising the Board and the majority shareholders that pull the strings, is over the way that the club is run and the strategy of it.

In isolation the appointment of Peter Grant was a mistake, OK that happens.

The decision to let Aidie Bothroyd go, or David Williams, the decision to appoint an inexperienced lawyer to Chief Executive, the decision to appoint an inexperienced accountant as Chief Operations Officer, the details of the hotel deal, the financing of the Jarrold stand, the refusal to issue enough new shares, the refusal to dilute their own controlling interest, the oversight of new Sky revenues when fixing Earnshaw''s release level, the failure to release funds for players at the right time, the banning of fans at Colney, the wasting of money on hairbrained schemes to raise money (like two people stood outside the shop selling flags), the constant monitoring of this board yet failure to listen, the increased wages for executives when we got promoted yet failure to reduce them we got relegated, etc etc

These aren''t just one off mistakes it''s a catalogue of errors that would have led to dismissal or resignation in any normal business.

[Temp the Revelator 0]

the financing of the Jarrold stand

I''m not being funny or trying to start an argument, but could you elaborate on this point?  I''m not sure I understand what the problem was with the financing of the Jarrold Stand?  I''m curious, this might be something I''m missing.

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="C.T "]Paul Jewell gets the job (i dont for one moment think he will) would the Deliar and Board bashing stop?[/quote] Only if the Ambition with Prudence changed to give FOOTBALL a chance at the FOOTBALL club.

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[Syteanric 1]

no! jewell will take the board and the fans for a monkey!!!

 He wont have any intention of sticking around here and anyone who thinks he does needs their head testing. He will be looking to move to a bigger club as soon as one presents itself!

 He''d keep us up and be gone in June leaving us to appoint some no hoper and end up right back in square 1.

 He might get a little bit of backing but when he walks into a premiership job in the summer someones got to pick up the pieces.. like i said elsewhere.. we are just a shop window for him shoul dhe get the job!

jas :)

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="smileyface"]

No!

The whole reason why a number of fans are criticising the Board and the majority shareholders that pull the strings, is over the way that the club is run and the strategy of it.

In isolation the appointment of Peter Grant was a mistake, OK that happens.

The decision to let Aidie Bothroyd go, or David Williams, the decision to appoint an inexperienced lawyer to Chief Executive, the decision to appoint an inexperienced accountant as Chief Operations Officer, the details of the hotel deal, the financing of the Jarrold stand, the refusal to issue enough new shares, the refusal to dilute their own controlling interest, the oversight of new Sky revenues when fixing Earnshaw''s release level, the failure to release funds for players at the right time, the banning of fans at Colney, the wasting of money on hairbrained schemes to raise money (like two people stood outside the shop selling flags), the constant monitoring of this board yet failure to listen, the increased wages for executives when we got promoted yet failure to reduce them we got relegated, etc etc

These aren''t just one off mistakes it''s a catalogue of errors that would have led to dismissal or resignation in any normal business.

[/quote]

13 months ago the only thing that was different from your list was the Colney ban and yet the only protest was to get rid of the manager. Are you now saying he was the wrong target?

 

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

To take the two points addressed at me in (as is the vogue on TV) no particular order ....

For those who have either met me or debated on message boards the qualities of our directors in terms of their decision making you will know that I have long been critical of them.  Yes nothing much has changed, although I would argue that what has changed is the spin and public statements. Certainly as far as our majority shareholders are concerned they do in the words of the EDP, adopt a bunker mentality.

So should the manager have been the target of the Worthy Out campaign? Yes as that was the major issue at the time and the one that had universal support. The man had gone well past his "best before" date and apparently the Board needed the fans to make their views clear. Apart from message board humourists I don''t know anyone that would say that he shouldn''t have been sacked.

 

To the other point "the problems of financing the Jarrold stand", the issue for far too many businesses is the millstone that inappropriate gearing (borrowing of money) gives them. In typical fashion NCFC put off for far too long the decision to do something about the old South Stand.  It then became a matter of extreme urgency and rushed in at the wrong time, to the wrong design and too high a net cost (after sponsorship which was paltry!!).  This led to a financial loan package that is onerous to the club and that would not have been undertaken by a business like Britvic, Premier Foods or Aviva. What I mean by that is that large companies with skilled professionals would not have ended up with that deal, but "little old Norwich" managed it. We are now well placed to spend large amounts of well needed cash in repayments (including interest) each year.  There is a grave danger that the stadium will undermine the club as has been the case with some other non-premiership clubs.

I am prepared to be corrected but no one has done so to date and that includes asking those at the club.

[Temp the Revelator 0]

Thanks for your response face, I am no expert in accounting or finances but do understand gearing.  I suspect there may be more to it than meets the eye; particularly in terms of the timing of replacing the stand.  Food for thought, however.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]So should the manager have been the target of the Worthy Out campaign?

Yes as that was the major issue at the time and the one that had

universal support.[/quote]There is no disputing that NW had had enough of trying to keep it together, it showed through the players, who at the end of the day got him and many of themselves removed from the club through their attitude in no-shows away from home.  However, if Worthington had been able to use the money raised from parachute payments to sign the likes of Steve Howard, who was Derbys'' player of the year last season, and no doubt others, would there have been the support for your campaign ?  If the board had supported the manager more fully, maybe we''d have managed a play-off place like Southampton and Palace, or better.  So yes, they are culpable.As for the stadium, could you define what was "wrong" about the timing and design ?  I can''t argue with the cost side because some clubs build whole stadiums for double what that stand is costing.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote] He might get a little bit of backing but when he walks into a

premiership job in the summer someones got to pick up the pieces.. like

i said elsewhere.. we are just a shop window for him shoul dhe get the

job[/quote]Right now jas, we''re a shop window for any manager.  If you can turn this around, then you''re going to be snapped up by a Premiership club.