Bryan Gunn, Costa del Colney and the spineless way out

[ron obvious 1,495]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]...........Munby''s pulling a fast one on behalf of this apology for a board of directors.  I''ve worked for him for two years and know first-hand he''s a master of spin.  Charming, calculating, ruthless...........

[/quote]In what capacity?This is indeed a revelation. Presumably you have had dealings with messrs. Gunn & Crook as well? Very worrying news.

[Mister Chops 7]

I hope you do say "I told you so," really.Roeder ruined this club from last summer.  He kept us in the Championship last season, hardly ruining us.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Mister Chops"]...........Munby''s pulling a fast one on behalf of this apology for a board of directors.  I''ve worked for him for two years and know first-hand he''s a master of spin.  Charming, calculating, ruthless...........

[/quote]In what capacity?This is indeed a revelation. Presumably you have had dealings with messrs. Gunn & Crook as well? Very worrying news.

[/quote]He has a full-time job other than Chairman of NCFC, you know.

[ron obvious 1,495]

And you have personal knowledge of Gunn & crook as well? To have such a low opinion of their character?

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="ron obvious"]And you have personal knowledge of Gunn & crook as well? To have such a low opinion of their character?[/quote]I have no opinion of their character.  I hear they''re nice, decent people.I do have an opinion on the fact Gunn has zero managerial experience, Deehan''s a failed NCFC manager, and Crook has been a minor player in Australasia, that hotbed of league footballing talent... and the last time we tried an untested manager, it was the Peter Grant era...

[singing canary 0]

so australia didnt beat england then ..

and didnt japan do fairly well in the world cup...

gunns worked with and under that many managers over 22 years, he would be a idiot not to have any idea.

you cant compair grant to gunn , apart from the are both scottish.

noone has ever passed a ball like crooky in a norwich shirt, i would say that a major trainning boast in the squad.

 

[ron obvious 1,495]

This is a sad day for the football club.  It is the day we turned our

back on ambition and embraced local mediocrity.  For years now,

Doncaster and Delia have been bleating about "affordable family

football."  This is what we''re going to get.  Nice little Norwich City

with Nice little Bryan "I used to be Sheriff" Gunn in charge, that nice

Ian "gis a fag" Crook as coach and John "I''m eighty-nine years old"

Deehan as chief scout and management mentor.  "Hey Bryan .... when I

was boss, I did this.  Don''t do that."  Great insight.I f they are nice, decent people, then they must by default be simpletons, since only simpletons would have such little self-awareness to realise their inadequacies for the job.Simpletons it is then.

[singing canary 0]

you would make a great pundit ...have you a crystal ball..??

your the simpleton. you dont know what your talking about , you havent even a valid point!

 

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="ron obvious"]
And you have personal knowledge of Gunn & crook as well? To have such a low opinion of their character?

[/quote]

I have no opinion of their character.  I hear they''re nice, decent people.

I do have an opinion on the fact Gunn has zero managerial experience, Deehan''s a failed NCFC manager, and Crook has been a minor player in Australasia, that hotbed of league footballing talent... and the last time we tried an untested manager, it was the Peter Grant era...

[/quote]

 

Why don''t you just give it a flipping rest ? Wait until the end of the season and either admit that you were wrong or enjoy your moment of vindication and exclaim to anybody who will listen  "I told you so".

[singing canary 0]

its disgusting ,  writting him off before he even starts , he has done more for this club than most,

you should be ashamed of yourself ....

he didnt fail on saturday , 4-0 .... thats  the biggest win of the season in his first match beats roeders in a game ...

his tactics wernt zero experience then were they , we normally have a player sent off , or concede a penalty ,

thats one up on a man with experience from running a big club like newcastle !!!!

 

[John Boubepo 0]

Its the character of the man which makes a good manager not experience.Grant didn''t fail because he had no experience as manager, he failed because he was a complete plonkerRoeder failed even more so because he was a bigger plonkerTake a look at Norwich''s 3 most successful managers - Ken Brown and Dave Stringer had no managerial experience, Mike Walker had less than 12 months as manager at Colchester

[ron obvious 1,495]

[quote user="singing canary"]

you would make a great pundit ...have you a crystal ball..??

your the simpleton. you dont know what your talking about , you havent even a valid point!

 

[/quote]Sorry, was that aimed at me?Perhaps I was being too obscure. I arrived at this conclusion using Mr. Chops'' assumptions.Now who do you think I would consider to have the greater knowledge? Bryan Gunn or Mr. Chops?Do you really think I agreed with his assessment?And no, I don''t believe for one second that Bryan Gunn is simple, or daft. Or an anus-licking yes-man for that matter.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="John Boubepo"]Its the character of the man which makes a good manager not experience.Grant didn''t fail because he had no experience as manager, he failed because he was a complete plonkerRoeder failed even more so because he was a bigger plonkerTake a look at Norwich''s 3 most successful managers - Ken Brown and Dave Stringer had no managerial experience, Mike Walker had less than 12 months as manager at Colchester

[/quote]true - but unless we can get a defence that can stop goals, and an attack that can score them, we will continue to be unsuccessful...will gunny and co get the funds they need to bring experienced men in at this level to do the job in hand??? - without it, even fergie would struggle imo/// 

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]

 If this appointment succeeds - and of course, I hope it does succeed - [/quote]Really - I have never seen much evidence of this.[quote user="Mister Chops"]

then kudos to the risk takers.  [/quote]Which one was the candidate without risk?[quote user="Mister Chops"]But I am queasy at the way it has been spun into a "fans appointment" [/quote]And you accuse THEM of spinning?As pointed out to you earlier the fans appointment headline was the EDP and not what was said. There were several factors mentioned in the interview - but hey, why bother with the truth if it doesn''t fit your theories? Just change the facts ....[quote user="Mister Chops"]

Meanwhile, the next time the board suggest they are "prudent," add Gunn''s name alongside Grant''s - two anything but prudent gambles.[/quote]

Again - Which one was the candidate without risk? Given a list of proven failures with no obvious affection for the club, why is the decision so bad that you have to come on here and continually moan about an appointment before he has had a chance to prove himself. You may prove to be correct who knows? Well whoopee, I hope it gives you great satisfaction! If that is the case, please come back and gloat to your hearts content. In the meantime, let the rest of us get on with getting behind our team and supporting it in its hour of need.

[Norfolkn Good 0]

Chops

You may be right, maybe not.

Personnally, I think that a management team with the players behind them and the fans on board is enough in this division.

The "legends" will do us proud. Hope over reality maybe...I don''t think so.

Biggest obsticle is negative mood hoovers like you - give them a chance. At least I''m spared from the "Ince Out", "Bouthroyd Out" chants that would have followed them. If this fails, it''s straight to "board out" as no-ones going to blame Gunny, Chippy, Dixie, Butterworth(?). Win Win really.

Bring it on - I''m looking forward to the ride!

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="John Boubepo"]Its the character of the man which makes a good manager not experience.Grant didn''t fail because he had no experience as manager, he failed because he was a complete plonkerRoeder failed even more so because he was a bigger plonkerTake a look at Norwich''s 3 most successful managers - Ken Brown and Dave Stringer had no managerial experience, Mike Walker had less than 12 months as manager at Colchester

[/quote]With respect, John Boupepo, leaving aside the fact that I don''t remotely agree with your list of our most successful three managers (for starters you''ve left out Archie Macaulay, Ron Saunders and John Bond), you''re missing the point.Even taking your list, Ken Brown had been an assistant manager, and Dave Stringer had been youth team coach (winning the FA Youth Cup) and reserve team manager. They both had coaching and managerial experience, albeit below the first-team level. They knew what they were doing when they were promoted.The point that I and other people are making about Gunn is that he has no managerial or coaching experience whatsoever.Put simply, the man in charge of our struggle against relegation has never done anything like this before.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

Sorry! John Boubepo...

[Robert Ketts Yellow Army 15]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]When Peter Grant was sacked, we rightly were angry about the perceived easy life of our footballing professionals.  "Costa del Colney", as it was tagged, was a place where footballers could pick up thousands of pounds a week for doing very little work in return.  They had it easy.  The establishment, under Worthy, then Grant, was cosy and unchallenging.  Change was needed.

We got change in the form of Roeder.  He kicked out the lazy ones and kept us up.  To be fair, he made some poor decisions along the way but he kept us up and improved the squad.  Bye Murray, Strihavka, Brellier. Hello Bell, Hoolahan, Clingan.

But then Roeder was rude to a few people and revealed himself to be an arrogant fool who had lost the confidence of the players.  After the shambles of the ''59ers tribute match, which looked more like a bunch of strangers in retro kit struggling to identify each other, Roeder was fired.

And now the Board had a big decision to make.  Experience?  Proven ability to deliver results?  Nope.  Ignoring the fact that Forrest Gump could have taken over from Roeder and the team would still have beaten Barnsley, they turn to the temporary custodian of the manager''s position, and once legendary goalkeeper, Bryan Gunn.  Recalling Crook and Deehan in the bargain.

What a weak, short-sighted and spineless gamble.

"Prudence with ambition," Doncaster repeatedly said.  What is prudent or ambitious about gambling our championship survival on an untried, untested manager?

What is prudent or ambitious about the knee-jerk reaction which says that "Roeder annoyed people so let''s get someone in who everyone likes?"

What is prudent or ambitious about appointing a management team which consists of some Australian coaching, a failed ex-Norwich City manager and a man whose career path is "Sheriff of Norwich.... head of Player Recruitment.... er.... Norwich City manager"?

Nothing prudent.   Nothing ambitious.  It is desperation from the board, pure and simple, and Gunny is the main fall guy.  No experience despite 10 years in a cosy backroom club job.  Welcome back Costa del Colney.

"We need someone who understands the club," they say.  "We need a local."  Is this the League of Gentlemen?  Apart from Dario Gradi, only local to Crewe because he''s been there since 10AD, who else can you name from the "local club for local people" school of footballing philosophy?

This is a sad day for the football club.  It is the day we turned our back on ambition and embraced local mediocrity.  For years now, Doncaster and Delia have been bleating about "affordable family football."  This is what we''re going to get.  Nice little Norwich City with Nice little Bryan "I used to be Sheriff" Gunn in charge, that nice Ian "gis a fag" Crook as coach and John "I''m eighty-nine years old" Deehan as chief scout and management mentor.  "Hey Bryan .... when I was boss, I did this.  Don''t do that."  Great insight.

Welcome back, Costa del Colney.  Welcome back the arm round the shoulder, "don''t worry lads, you did your best" school of management.  Christ, I want to vomit at this pathetic abdication of responsibilities by the board supposedly in place to promote the best interests of this football club. 

Of course I will back this management team, and I hope they stuff every single word I''ve typed here back down my throat as we win half of our remaining games, finish 14th and prepare for a decent 2009-10 in the Championship.  But I''d be lying if I said I wasn''t extremely worried about the likelihood of League One next season, and I maintain that this is no time for a novice.  Once more, this spineless excuse for a Board of Directors have once more let this fine club down and they must be held accountable.  Shame on you, Munby.  Shame on you, Doncaster.  Alas, Smith and Jones.  Once more you have failed every single one of us, the "fans who own the club," as you so blithely put it.

Good luck Bryan, but don''t say you weren''t warned.  This will not be easy.

[/quote]

 

Surely you must know Norwich have little-to-no money so why would you expect a big name signing?

A little realism might help you cope with some of life''s disappointments

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="John Boubepo"]Its the character of the man which makes a good manager not experience.Grant didn''t fail because he had no experience as manager, he failed because he was a complete plonkerRoeder failed even more so because he was a bigger plonkerTake a look at Norwich''s 3 most successful managers - Ken Brown and Dave Stringer had no managerial experience, Mike Walker had less than 12 months as manager at Colchester

[/quote]With respect, John Boupepo, leaving aside the fact that I don''t remotely agree with your list of our most successful three managers (for starters you''ve left out Archie Macaulay, Ron Saunders and John Bond), you''re missing the point.Even taking your list, Ken Brown had been an assistant manager, and Dave Stringer had been youth team coach (winning the FA Youth Cup) and reserve team manager. They both had coaching and managerial experience, albeit below the first-team level. They knew what they were doing when they were promoted.The point that I and other people are making about Gunn is that he has no managerial or coaching experience whatsoever.Put simply, the man in charge of our struggle against relegation has never done anything like this before.[/quote]Ah good old Archie Macaulay, if I remember correctly his only managerial experience before taking over Norwich was at Guildford City, [bit like managing Blofield FC] John Bond had 3 years at Bournemouth and Ron Saunders 3 years in total at Yeovil Town and Oxford. Ken Brown, Mike Walker and Dave Stringer had one years experience between the 3 of them.So in real terms if you take Norwich''s 6 most successful managers of all time, they only really had 7 years of [lowly] managerial experience between all of them before they turned their hand at being Norwich City''s boss!

[jetstream 0]

That''s still more than 90 minutes!

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="jetstream"]That''s still more than 90 minutes![/quote]90 minutes more than Dave Stringer or Ken Brown!

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Badger"]You may prove to be correct who knows? Well whoopee, I hope it gives you great satisfaction! If that is the case, please come back and gloat to your hearts content. In the meantime, let the rest of us get on with getting behind our team and supporting it in its hour of need.

[/quote]Please don''t debate like a child.  This "you can''t support the club if you ask questions" attitude is pathetic.I will be behind the team on Tuesday and for the rest of the season.  I supported the team post-Worthy, post-Grant and now post-Roeder.  That''s a lot of "hours of need".  Will I renew my season ticket?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  I''m getting tired of the continual mediocrity we pay to put up with.  Maybe Gunn will turn it round for us, but then he has the same squad as Roeder.  We''ll see.My support for the team is not in question, nor should it be questioned.  My support for the decision making processes of our leaders is certainly not 100%, far from 100% in fact.  I don''t understand why questioning their choice and their motives makes me somehow anti-club.  I''ll let you explain that to me.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="ron obvious"]This is a sad day for the football club.  It is the day we turned our

back on ambition and embraced local mediocrity.  For years now,

Doncaster and Delia have been bleating about "affordable family

football."  This is what we''re going to get.  Nice little Norwich City

with Nice little Bryan "I used to be Sheriff" Gunn in charge, that nice

Ian "gis a fag" Crook as coach and John "I''m eighty-nine years old"

Deehan as chief scout and management mentor.  "Hey Bryan .... when I

was boss, I did this.  Don''t do that."  Great insight.I f they are nice, decent people, then they must by default be simpletons, since only simpletons would have such little self-awareness to realise their inadequacies for the job.Simpletons it is then.[/quote]That''s a very cynical view.  Perhaps they''re prepared to roll their sleeves up and pitch in for the club they hold great affection for.  I have no problem with that.  I simply question whether they are the best candidates for the job - but time will tell.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]Please don''t debate like a child.  This "you can''t support the club if you ask questions" attitude is pathetic.I will be behind the team on Tuesday and for the rest of the season.  I supported the team post-Worthy, post-Grant and now post-Roeder.  That''s a lot of "hours of need".  Will I renew my season ticket?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  I''m getting tired of the continual mediocrity we pay to put up with.  Maybe Gunn will turn it round for us, but then he has the same squad as Roeder.  We''ll see.My support for the team is not in question, nor should it be questioned.  My support for the decision making processes of our leaders is certainly not 100%, far from 100% in fact.  I don''t understand why questioning their choice and their motives makes me somehow anti-club.  I''ll let you explain that to me.[/quote]

If you were genuinely interested in debate you would reply to the questions that were made in response to your points  - which you have failed to do (repeatedly).If you were genuine in you questions you would not repeat "assumptions" that have proven to be false.If you really wanted a mature dialogue you would not caricature the arguments of those that question you.You have failed on all these counts and a number of others. You feign hurt and bewilderment, when your disingenuous "spinning" of your case betrays your blind prejudice against the club and those that disagree, or even question you.There are many on here that have questionned the actions of the club (occasionally myself included), but often they show a willingness to engage in a reasoned discussion which (to me) has proved genuinely informative. Yours do not fit into this category. You write what is simply a more literate version of the deranged hate mail of some of the “less considered” posters.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="Mister Chops"]Please don''t debate like a child.  This "you can''t support the club if you ask questions" attitude is pathetic.I will be behind the team on Tuesday and for the rest of the season.  I supported the team post-Worthy, post-Grant and now post-Roeder.  That''s a lot of "hours of need".  Will I renew my season ticket?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  I''m getting tired of the continual mediocrity we pay to put up with.  Maybe Gunn will turn it round for us, but then he has the same squad as Roeder.  We''ll see.My support for the team is not in question, nor should it be questioned.  My support for the decision making processes of our leaders is certainly not 100%, far from 100% in fact.  I don''t understand why questioning their choice and their motives makes me somehow anti-club.  I''ll let you explain that to me.[/quote]

If you were genuinely interested in debate you would reply to the questions that were made in response to your points  - which you have failed to do (repeatedly).If you were genuine in you questions you would not repeat "assumptions" that have proven to be false.If you really wanted a mature dialogue you would not caricature the arguments of those that question you.You have failed on all these counts and a number of others. You feign hurt and bewilderment, when your disingenuous "spinning" of your case betrays your blind prejudice against the club and those that disagree, or even question you.There are many on here that have questionned the actions of the club (occasionally myself included), but often they show a willingness to engage in a reasoned discussion which (to me) has proved genuinely informative. Yours do not fit into this category. You write what is simply a more literate version of the deranged hate mail of some of the “less considered” posters.[/quote]Blimey, aren''t we the two early birds.  Show me a case to answer, and I''ll answer it.  Marshmallow bloke, did you say?  Hold on...

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="Mister Chops"]

 If this appointment succeeds - and of course, I hope it does succeed - [/quote]Really - I have never seen much evidence of this.[/quote]Believe me, if this goes tits up I will be as angry and disappointed as any other City fan.  Not with Bryan Gunn as I have no reason to believe he will do anything other than try his best.  I will be angry at the abdication of responsibility by our board in selecting a wholly inexperienced "nice guy" candidate as if they have learned nothing from Grant''s era.[quote user="Badger"][quote user="Mister Chops"]

then kudos to the risk takers.  [/quote]Which one was the candidate without risk?[/quote]Clearly all candidates carry a degree of risk. Crossing the road, leaving the house, everything carries a degree of risk.  My point is, in my view, that it is far riskier to appoint someone without any managerial experience than it is to appoint someone who has two or three years of managerial experience and fully understands the size and task of the job.  We are all guessing how much Bryan Gunn (a) knows about management and (b) has experience of management.  The truth is, none of us know.  I may be taking a glass half-empty position, you may be taking the glass half-full position.  I''m not actually sure what your position on this is, so hopefully you will enlighten me.  It cannot be argued that Gunn''s appointment is not shot through with risk, both for his reputation and the club''s future.

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="Mister Chops"]But I am queasy at the way it has been spun into a "fans appointment" [/quote]And you accuse THEM of spinning?As pointed out to you earlier the fans appointment headline was the EDP and not what was said. There were several factors mentioned in the interview - but hey, why bother with the truth if it doesn''t fit your theories? Just change the facts ....[/quote]It was the headline and the first three paragraphs, as pointed out to you earlier - I assume you missed the tenure of that post.  It is very unlikely - and of course I cannot prove this - that the story would have been run had the substantial body of what was said not confirmed those first two paragraphs.[quote user="Badger"][quote user="Mister Chops"]

Meanwhile, the next time the board suggest they are "prudent," add Gunn''s name alongside Grant''s - two anything but prudent gambles.[/quote]

Again - Which one was the candidate without risk? Given a list of proven failures with no obvious affection for the club, why is the decision so bad that you have to come on here and continually moan about an appointment before he has had a chance to prove himself. You may prove to be correct who knows? Well whoopee, I hope it gives you great satisfaction! If that is the case, please come back and gloat to your hearts content. In the meantime, let the rest of us get on with getting behind our team and supporting it in its hour of need.

[/quote]I''ve discussed things with you before and I''m sorry you had to end on such a cheap shot.  I will take no pleasure in the failure of the team.  I am 100% behind the team and I will support the new management team.  My reservations - no, my anger - is placed higher up at the latest display of boardroom incompetence.Does that answer your points?  What''s your position, by the way - pro-Gunn?  A sound appointment?  Rather than attacking the poster (classic Republican tactics), why not air your view on things?

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMonkey"]

Mister Chops,

You make some excellent points and make them well. Sadly, though, I think you base some of your opinions on assumptions.

[quote]Ignoring the fact that Forrest Gump could have taken over from Roeder and the team would still have beaten Barnsley[/quote]

I, for one, don''t agree with this at all. Yes, as always, managerial changes do tend to bring with it a change in form. Look at Spurs, and Forest. Still, we can''t cheapen the achievement of last Saturday as down to that momentum. The performance was excellent - as good as we''ve seen - the players confidence was high when before it was rock bottom and we looked a more cohesive, capable unit. I don''t think we can claim that all on the momentum.

[quote]What a weak, short-sighted and spineless gamble.[/quote]

Taking on any manager involves a gamble. Aidy Boothroyd was my choice, but I conceed he would have been a gamble because his team was built around height and strength. Would he have been able to manage a team completely opposite to this? Not sure. Paul Ince is as arrogant as they come; and at a time where we needed someone to nurture confidence, he''d have been a gamble as well. I could go on, but I think the point is made.

[quote]Nothing prudent.   Nothing ambitious.  It is desperation from the board, pure and simple, and Gunny is the main fall guy.  No experience despite 10 years in a cosy backroom club job.  Welcome back Costa del Colney.[/quote]

Again, assumption. "Costa del Colney" is, I sincerely hope, gone never to be returned. Under Grant, we were clearly not fit enough to compete and I hope Gunny knows that.

[quote]This is a sad day for the football club.  It is the day we turned our back on ambition and embraced local mediocrity.  For years now, Doncaster and Delia have been bleating about "affordable family football."  This is what we''re going to get.  Nice little Norwich City with Nice little Bryan "I used to be Sheriff" Gunn in charge, that nice Ian "gis a fag" Crook as coach and John "I''m eighty-nine years old" Deehan as chief scout and management mentor.  "Hey Bryan .... when I was boss, I did this.  Don''t do that."  Great insight.[/quote]

Again, assumption. We simply don''t know what kind of manager Bryan will be. And for what it''s worth, I''d rather have him surrounded by people with various levels of experience than have no experience around him at all.

[quote]Welcome back, Costa del Colney.  Welcome back the arm round the shoulder, "don''t worry lads, you did your best" school of management.[/quote]

Again, assumption.

I, too, am underwhelmed by the choice made by the board. If we were comfortably mid-table, with a bit of cash behind us, I might understand this. But we''re a team dangerously close to oblivion - relegation to league one would be a catastrophe and we''ve gone for an option with no experience of this situation whatsoever. We need badly to turn our fortunes around. Not to take a gamble on an inexperienced manager.

But equally, it''s happened now and I think it''s foolish to criticise the manager for practices he may not even adopt. We need to give him a chance on every level.

So, as you say Mr Chops, best of luck Bryan Gunn. Let''s hope you can keep us in this league. Because if not, I fear for the very safety of our football club.

[/quote]Sorry I missed this post earlier.  I''m replying slightly later than I should have.  I''ve based an awful lot of things on assumptions, but so has everyone assuming this is going to work out.  We just don''t know. On Forrest Gump and the Barnsley performance - I thought we were poor and nervous in the first half against Barnsley.  I will credit Gunn for sending the team out 2nd half with much more purpose and belief - I had got quite used to Roeder''s team coming out 2nd half and falling apart.  Yes, the team played well.  Southampton will show if it was a "post-Roeder bounce", or whether Gunn''s apparent softly-softly approach is going to pay off.  I feel judging Gunn''s impact on 90 minutes of football is extremely hard to do, however.I appreciate all managerial appointments are a gamble.  Equally, managers stay at clubs too long sometimes and lose their commanding position.  Boothroyd did remarkably with Watford before taking them down again and then a mediocre 3rd season, but his record is really no worse than Worthington''s and we would have at least selected a manager who has proven to have good years in him - Gunn is a blank piece of paper, for better, for worse.I read somewhere that Munby has not denied we had Ince as first choice, and that we offered the job to Ince and he turned us down.  Clearly this will not become public domain, but it suggests Gunn wasn''t the first choice of the board either.  So at what point was the "yellow and green" criteria invented?The "costa del colney" stuff is based on several articles referencing the need to make the players happy, to make it fun, the arm round the shoulder rather than the Sgt Major bit.  I assume it will be cosy, I have no way of knowing this.

I could have writen this para of your post:

"I, too, am underwhelmed by the choice made by the board. If we were

comfortably mid-table, with a bit of cash behind us, I might understand

this. But we''re a team dangerously close to oblivion - relegation to

league one would be a catastrophe and we''ve gone for an option with no

experience of this situation whatsoever. We need badly to turn our

fortunes around. Not to take a gamble on an inexperienced manager."

Enough on this now.  I''m going to get behind the team and see what happens.  If it doesn''t work out, there will be no "I told you so", only sadness.  I love this club, and I really feel it''s being run terribly poorly, and this makes me angry.  I could put this down as an inspired gamble but given their track record of Hamilton, Worthy, Grant, Roeder, can you see why I can''t?

[Mello Yello 2,273]

I wonder if Ron Obvious is a blood relative of ''MadDan'' or ''Ralph Wright?''

[Badger 0]

No sorry it doesn''t really answer my points.[quote user="Mister Chops"]But I am queasy at the way it has been spun into a "fans appointment"[/quote][quote user="Badger"]And you accuse THEM of spinning?As pointed out to you earlier the fans appointment headline was the EDP and not what was said. There were several factors mentioned in the interview - but hey, why bother with the truth if it doesn''t fit your theories? Just change the facts ....[/quote][quote user="Mister Chops"]It was the headline and the first three paragraphs, as pointed out to you earlier - I assume you missed the tenure of that post.  It is very unlikely - and of course I cannot prove this - that the story would have been run had the substantial body of what was said not confirmed those first two paragraphs.[/quote]Again you miss the point – the article was written by the EDP based upon an interview. They chose the headline and indeed what to put into the article. There were several other factors mentioned, the EDP chose to give them less prominence because it didn’t fit their headline. The reason that your interpretation of the EDP article is so important is because it is the basis of you “spineless” statement [quote user="Mister Chops"]That''s why it''s a spineless appointment - they can''t even be straight with us about the reasons for hiring Gunn. [/quote]They simply never said that the appointment was purely about fan power, which you either didn’t realise because you had not read the article or you chose to ignore because it didn’t fit what you wanted to say.

They simply never said that the appointment was purely about fan power, which you either didn’t realise because you had not read the article or you chose to ignore because it didn’t fit what you wanted to say.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Badger"]No sorry it doesn''t really answer my points.[quote user="Mister Chops"]But I am queasy at the way it has been spun into a "fans appointment"[/quote][quote user="Badger"]And you accuse THEM of spinning?As pointed out to you earlier the fans appointment headline was the EDP and not what was said. There were several factors mentioned in the interview - but hey, why bother with the truth if it doesn''t fit your theories? Just change the facts ....[/quote][quote user="Mister Chops"]It was the headline and the first three paragraphs, as pointed out to you earlier - I assume you missed the tenure of that post.  It is very unlikely - and of course I cannot prove this - that the story would have been run had the substantial body of what was said not confirmed those first two paragraphs.[/quote]Again you miss the point – the article was written by the EDP based upon an interview. They chose the headline and indeed what to put into the article. There were several other factors mentioned, the EDP chose to give them less prominence because it didn’t fit their headline. The reason that your interpretation of the EDP article is so important is because it is the basis of you “spineless” statement[/quote]Or did they choose the headline because it fitted this part of the article?

"The people have spoken - and according to Canaries chairman Roger Munby, the club listened.It

was fan power which was behind the exit of Glenn Roeder as

communications between the terraces and the dug-out broke down - and it

was fan power which helped City''s directors decide that Bryan Gunn

would be the ideal replacement. As Gunn stood on the touchline on

Saturday, the roars of the Carrow Road crowd were swinging the votes

firmly in his favour.“It was very helpful background - clearly

it all went the right way, the result,” admitted Munby. “I must say

that the connection between the team and the supporters through looking

at Bryan and the figure he cast standing calmly on the touchline - that

body language was very important to us as well, but the overall effect

on Saturday clearly encouraged us.“The fans of course are the

enduring component of a football club, they give it continuity. You

have got to realise that they are setting an agenda at the same time.

If we can create that from a management and a coaching point of view it

would be brilliant.“Football clubs don''t all have the capacity

that we have got to listen carefully and to front up when things need

to be fronted up to. The supporters have played both a role of, ''time''s

up'' for the previous regime and, ''this could be a powerful candidate

for the new''."

No outline of your own position, I see.  Care to share?