Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlyBlyBabes

9 managers in less than 11 years

Recommended Posts

As I count it.

Walker, Rioch, Hamilton, Worthington, Hunter, Grant, Duffy, Roeder, Gunn

You check.

A main key to the whole sorry issue if you ask me.

Will they soon make it 10?

They? Well now.................

OTBC

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunter and Duffy''s inclusions are, of course, daft. I do hope they make it ten - except everything we know about them should tell us they''ll just get it wrong. Again.

A lot of nonsense is talked about continuity or its lack of being key to whether a club succeeds or fails. Of course we want continuity - but only if you appoint the right manager in the first place! Do we think Arsenal would''ve persisted with Wenger had he failed in his first two or three seasons? Do we think with football the way it is now, Man Utd would persist with a manager who endured Ferguson''s first four years of mediocrity? No, on both counts. They''ve persisted with them because (albeit belatedly in Fergie''s case) they''ve been successful.

The continuity excuse is trotted out by those who seem to think any manager, no matter how poor or ill qualified, should be maintained regardless - yet if they''re poor and ill qualified, chances are they''ll just take you ever further downwards. Meanwhile, the powers that aren''t at NCFC sacked Walker prematurely, treated Rioch disgracefully, made four ludicrous appointments in Hamilton, Grant, Roeder and Gunn, and left the one man who enjoyed success under them for a time in charge miles too long. Can you believe we''ve not appointed a manager with a decent track record since 1998?! And people wonder why we are where we are.

That''s the Norwich City board I''m afraid. Whenever faced with a decision which should be glaringly obvious, they do the opposite. Or to put it another way: they never miss an opportunity...  to miss an opportunity.

Share this post


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

Hunter and Duffy''s inclusions are, of course, daft. I do hope they make it ten - except everything we know about them should tell us they''ll just get it wrong. Again.

A lot of nonsense is talked about continuity or its lack of being key to whether a club succeeds or fails. Of course we want continuity - but only if you appoint the right manager in the first place! Do we think Arsenal would''ve persisted with Wenger had he failed in his first two or three seasons? Do we think with football the way it is now, Man Utd would persist with a manager who endured Ferguson''s first four years of mediocrity? No, on both counts. They''ve persisted with them because (albeit belatedly in Fergie''s case) they''ve been successful.

The continuity excuse is trotted out by those who seem to think any manager, no matter how poor or ill qualified, should be maintained regardless - yet if they''re poor and ill qualified, chances are they''ll just take you ever further downwards. Meanwhile, the powers that aren''t at NCFC sacked Walker prematurely, treated Rioch disgracefully, made four ludicrous appointments in Hamilton, Grant, Roeder and Gunn, and left the one man who enjoyed success under them for a time in charge miles too long. Can you believe we''ve not appointed a manager with a decent track record since 1998?! And people wonder why we are where we are.

That''s the Norwich City board I''m afraid. Whenever faced with a decision which should be glaringly obvious, they do the opposite. Or to put it another way: they never miss an opportunity...  to miss an opportunity.

Spot on Sir, well said and put.

[/quote]

Share this post


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

Hunter and Duffy''s inclusions are, of course, daft. I do hope they make it ten - except everything we know about them should tell us they''ll just get it wrong. Again.

A lot of nonsense is talked about continuity or its lack of being key to whether a club succeeds or fails. Of course we want continuity - but only if you appoint the right manager in the first place! Do we think Arsenal would''ve persisted with Wenger had he failed in his first two or three seasons? Do we think with football the way it is now, Man Utd would persist with a manager who endured Ferguson''s first four years of mediocrity? No, on both counts. They''ve persisted with them because (albeit belatedly in Fergie''s case) they''ve been successful.

The continuity excuse is trotted out by those who seem to think any manager, no matter how poor or ill qualified, should be maintained regardless - yet if they''re poor and ill qualified, chances are they''ll just take you ever further downwards. Meanwhile, the powers that aren''t at NCFC sacked Walker prematurely, treated Rioch disgracefully, made four ludicrous appointments in Hamilton, Grant, Roeder and Gunn, and left the one man who enjoyed success under them for a time in charge miles too long. Can you believe we''ve not appointed a manager with a decent track record since 1998?! And people wonder why we are where we are.

That''s the Norwich City board I''m afraid. Whenever faced with a decision which should be glaringly obvious, they do the opposite. Or to put it another way: they never miss an opportunity...  to miss an opportunity.

[/quote]

Spot on big fella, the board are scared to invest and thats why they get Yes managers! They simply havent got the funds to back a half decent manager!!!!What has our club become!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be much nonsense talked about continuity but there is also some sense in the idea because unless you give any Manager the chance to build up a squad over a reasonable length of time you risk the chain reaction that Norwich (and hundreds of other clubs over the years) have experienced and are still experiencing.  I say two full seasons is the minimum time but that is a matter of opinion, of course.

Grant arrived, made all his changes (most of them deemed unsuccessful) and then lumbered Roeder with them.  Roeder made his changes, many not inspiring to the fans on here, and went on to lumber Gunn with them.  Roeder talked about his three year plan which is fine if you are going to be around for three years but as it has turned out he isn''t.  As well as costing any club a fortune in offloading players the "new man" does not like you have absolutely no chance - unless you are remarkably lucky - in getting any sort of consistent team used to playing as a unit, still the best chance of clubs (famous or otherwise) at least spending season after season without being haunted by the fear of relegation.  For success you probably need a bit of luck on top of that but consistency is still the base, in my view.

Curbishley said the other day that between you, Charlton and Southampton you had got through 21 managers in five years (including the temps) and this season, between you, had fielded 111 players.  I have no idea if his figures are right but if they are it certainly does not seem helpful in the "consistency" and "unit" stakes if that model is correct.  We can all speak about the ugly football of both Stoke and Hull but, for a time at least, it has got them where they want to be: we could be unkind and say they kicked their way out of a division with the hoofball take-no-prisoners approach that they adopted.  But we cannot argue that it didn''t work.

And had it worked for you Roeder would not have been a problem, his "arrogance" and delightful habit of "telling it like it is" would have been subsumed  by a good push up the table this season, perhaps even in or in the running for the playoffs.  Indeed, he might even have become a "no nonsense" character.  Clough told it like it was (and smacked a few fans, literally, and privately held many of those adoring followers in general contempt as "know nothing plonkers") but because he was successful he merely turned into a legend.  What a thin line it is!

Two full seasons is  the minimum mark for me but, of course, that is merely an opinion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When they appoint Gunn as manager full time, they will have to think again after the first, straight, 10 defeats, see us stranded at the bottom of League One!   

Share this post


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

There may be much nonsense talked about continuity but there is also some sense in the idea because unless you give any Manager the chance to build up a squad over a reasonable length of time you risk the chain reaction that Norwich (and hundreds of other clubs over the years) have experienced and are still experiencing.  I say two full seasons is the minimum time but that is a matter of opinion, of course.

Grant arrived, made all his changes (most of them deemed unsuccessful) and then lumbered Roeder with them.  Roeder made his changes, many not inspiring to the fans on here, and went on to lumber Gunn with them.  Roeder talked about his three year plan which is fine if you are going to be around for three years but as it has turned out he isn''t.  As well as costing any club a fortune in offloading players the "new man" does not like you have absolutely no chance - unless you are remarkably lucky - in getting any sort of consistent team used to playing as a unit, still the best chance of clubs (famous or otherwise) at least spending season after season without being haunted by the fear of relegation.  For success you probably need a bit of luck on top of that but consistency is still the base, in my view.

Curbishley said the other day that between you, Charlton and Southampton you had got through 21 managers in five years (including the temps) and this season, between you, had fielded 111 players.  I have no idea if his figures are right but if they are it certainly does not seem helpful in the "consistency" and "unit" stakes if that model is correct.  We can all speak about the ugly football of both Stoke and Hull but, for a time at least, it has got them where they want to be: we could be unkind and say they kicked their way out of a division with the hoofball take-no-prisoners approach that they adopted.  But we cannot argue that it didn''t work.

And had it worked for you Roeder would not have been a problem, his "arrogance" and delightful habit of "telling it like it is" would have been subsumed  by a good push up the table this season, perhaps even in or in the running for the playoffs.  Indeed, he might even have become a "no nonsense" character.  Clough told it like it was (and smacked a few fans, literally, and privately held many of those adoring followers in general contempt as "know nothing plonkers") but because he was successful he merely turned into a legend.  What a thin line it is!

Two full seasons is  the minimum mark for me but, of course, that is merely an opinion. 

 

[/quote]

I don''t entirely disagree, Cam. When Grant was appointed in Oct ''06, I felt he had until Xmas ''08 to show he was making real progress; and May ''10 to get us up. The trouble was we were going down with him in charge - as he himself recognised when stepping down with dignity, something I''ll always give him credit for. Relegation is so catastrophic in financial terms that clubs can''t afford to mess around with a clearly failing manager. It was the same with Roeder: his prior record foretold that he''d make a short-term impact before getting horribly found out in his second year, which is precisely what happened. The slump under him actually started in the final ten or twelve games of last season, and just continued this: and he was so arrogant he lost the support of the board, fans and dressing room.

It''s ironic: I''ve always wanted a nasty bastard to become Norwich boss, because someone like that could cut through the complacency and really change the entire club''s mentality for the better. That''s what Ron Saunders did for us in the early 70s; what Nigel Worthington (albeit, he was never a nasty bastard) did to an extent when he took over; and also what I expect Roy Keane to do at Ipswich. But that nasty bastard has to be a decent manager too: and Roeder palpably was not, not just here, but with West Ham, Watford and Gillingham too. Every time a club changes its manager, it has to start afresh again: as you say, it costs big bucks to pay off the previous incumbent and bring in new players and a new coaching staff; and takes considerable time to turn things round. But if you''re heading down, what do you do? Which is what makes the appointment in the first place so important.

You''re a Lincoln fan. If Lincoln''s manager took you down to the Blue Square Premier, would you stick with him? If you then struggled in the BSP, would you still stick with him? But that could all happen within the two year minimum you''ve stated: which is why the whole "continuity" thing is just not that simple. The right appointment and continuity are the key here - and even then, if the manager passes his sell by date, you have to act. Ipswich did in George Burley''s case; we didn''t in Worthington''s case. And look where it got us.

Share this post


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

There may be much nonsense talked about continuity but there is also some sense in the idea because unless you give any Manager the chance to build up a squad over a reasonable length of time you risk the chain reaction that Norwich (and hundreds of other clubs over the years) have experienced and are still experiencing.  I say two full seasons is the minimum time but that is a matter of opinion, of course.

Grant arrived, made all his changes (most of them deemed unsuccessful) and then lumbered Roeder with them.  Roeder made his changes, many not inspiring to the fans on here, and went on to lumber Gunn with them.  Roeder talked about his three year plan which is fine if you are going to be around for three years but as it has turned out he isn''t.  As well as costing any club a fortune in offloading players the "new man" does not like you have absolutely no chance - unless you are remarkably lucky - in getting any sort of consistent team used to playing as a unit, still the best chance of clubs (famous or otherwise) at least spending season after season without being haunted by the fear of relegation.  For success you probably need a bit of luck on top of that but consistency is still the base, in my view.

Curbishley said the other day that between you, Charlton and Southampton you had got through 21 managers in five years (including the temps) and this season, between you, had fielded 111 players.  I have no idea if his figures are right but if they are it certainly does not seem helpful in the "consistency" and "unit" stakes if that model is correct.  We can all speak about the ugly football of both Stoke and Hull but, for a time at least, it has got them where they want to be: we could be unkind and say they kicked their way out of a division with the hoofball take-no-prisoners approach that they adopted.  But we cannot argue that it didn''t work.

And had it worked for you Roeder would not have been a problem, his "arrogance" and delightful habit of "telling it like it is" would have been subsumed  by a good push up the table this season, perhaps even in or in the running for the playoffs.  Indeed, he might even have become a "no nonsense" character.  Clough told it like it was (and smacked a few fans, literally, and privately held many of those adoring followers in general contempt as "know nothing plonkers") but because he was successful he merely turned into a legend.  What a thin line it is!

Two full seasons is  the minimum mark for me but, of course, that is merely an opinion. 

 

[/quote]

I don''t entirely disagree, Cam. When Grant was appointed in Oct ''06, I felt he had until Xmas ''08 to show he was making real progress; and May ''10 to get us up. The trouble was we were going down with him in charge - as he himself recognised when stepping down with dignity, something I''ll always give him credit for. Relegation is so catastrophic in financial terms that clubs can''t afford to mess around with a clearly failing manager. It was the same with Roeder: his prior record foretold that he''d make a short-term impact before getting horribly found out in his second year, which is precisely what happened. The slump under him actually started in the final ten or twelve games of last season, and just continued this: and he was so arrogant he lost the support of the board, fans and dressing room.

It''s ironic: I''ve always wanted a nasty bastard to become Norwich boss, because someone like that could cut through the complacency and really change the entire club''s mentality for the better. That''s what Ron Saunders did for us in the early 70s; what Nigel Worthington (albeit, he was never a nasty bastard) did to an extent when he took over; and also what I expect Roy Keane to do at Ipswich. But that nasty bastard has to be a decent manager too: and Roeder palpably was not, not just here, but with West Ham, Watford and Gillingham too. Every time a club changes its manager, it has to start afresh again: as you say, it costs big bucks to pay off the previous incumbent and bring in new players and a new coaching staff; and takes considerable time to turn things round. But if you''re heading down, what do you do? Which is what makes the appointment in the first place so important.

You''re a Lincoln fan. If Lincoln''s manager took you down to the Blue Square Premier, would you stick with him? If you then struggled in the BSP, would you still stick with him? But that could all happen within the two year minimum you''ve stated: which is why the whole "continuity" thing is just not that simple. The right appointment and continuity are the key here - and even then, if the manager passes his sell by date, you have to act. Ipswich did in George Burley''s case; we didn''t in Worthington''s case. And look where it got us.

[/quote]

If the board are never going to invest in there managers properly then they are always going to fail, I think worthington did run his course, and the club were right to let him go, but the fact is if he had more money would it have been a different story........... we will never know!!!!, but mistakes don''t seem to be seen, they contiue to follow up there mangerial appointmets with more mistakes. Not learning from Grant they employee Gunn, and like wise with roeder!! Because there lack of money to invest we have seen them appoint the cheaper option.Our managers dont even seem to do the basic''s right, like investing in the youth set up, Norwich has always been a club that sells players to reinvest, this has happened, but the money being gobbled by the new stand!  Know we are in the situation where we have no players to sell, no money to invest and a team full of loanee''s......What a mess....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

There may be much nonsense talked about continuity but there is also some sense in the idea because unless you give any Manager the chance to build up a squad over a reasonable length of time you risk the chain reaction that Norwich (and hundreds of other clubs over the years) have experienced and are still experiencing.  I say two full seasons is the minimum time but that is a matter of opinion, of course.

Grant arrived, made all his changes (most of them deemed unsuccessful) and then lumbered Roeder with them.  Roeder made his changes, many not inspiring to the fans on here, and went on to lumber Gunn with them.  Roeder talked about his three year plan which is fine if you are going to be around for three years but as it has turned out he isn''t.  As well as costing any club a fortune in offloading players the "new man" does not like you have absolutely no chance - unless you are remarkably lucky - in getting any sort of consistent team used to playing as a unit, still the best chance of clubs (famous or otherwise) at least spending season after season without being haunted by the fear of relegation.  For success you probably need a bit of luck on top of that but consistency is still the base, in my view.

Curbishley said the other day that between you, Charlton and Southampton you had got through 21 managers in five years (including the temps) and this season, between you, had fielded 111 players.  I have no idea if his figures are right but if they are it certainly does not seem helpful in the "consistency" and "unit" stakes if that model is correct.  We can all speak about the ugly football of both Stoke and Hull but, for a time at least, it has got them where they want to be: we could be unkind and say they kicked their way out of a division with the hoofball take-no-prisoners approach that they adopted.  But we cannot argue that it didn''t work.

And had it worked for you Roeder would not have been a problem, his "arrogance" and delightful habit of "telling it like it is" would have been subsumed  by a good push up the table this season, perhaps even in or in the running for the playoffs.  Indeed, he might even have become a "no nonsense" character.  Clough told it like it was (and smacked a few fans, literally, and privately held many of those adoring followers in general contempt as "know nothing plonkers") but because he was successful he merely turned into a legend.  What a thin line it is!

Two full seasons is  the minimum mark for me but, of course, that is merely an opinion. 

 

[/quote]

I don''t entirely disagree, Cam. When Grant was appointed in Oct ''06, I felt he had until Xmas ''08 to show he was making real progress; and May ''10 to get us up. The trouble was we were going down with him in charge - as he himself recognised when stepping down with dignity, something I''ll always give him credit for. Relegation is so catastrophic in financial terms that clubs can''t afford to mess around with a clearly failing manager. It was the same with Roeder: his prior record foretold that he''d make a short-term impact before getting horribly found out in his second year, which is precisely what happened. The slump under him actually started in the final ten or twelve games of last season, and just continued this: and he was so arrogant he lost the support of the board, fans and dressing room.

It''s ironic: I''ve always wanted a nasty bastard to become Norwich boss, because someone like that could cut through the complacency and really change the entire club''s mentality for the better. That''s what Ron Saunders did for us in the early 70s; what Nigel Worthington (albeit, he was never a nasty bastard) did to an extent when he took over; and also what I expect Roy Keane to do at Ipswich. But that nasty bastard has to be a decent manager too: and Roeder palpably was not, not just here, but with West Ham, Watford and Gillingham too. Every time a club changes its manager, it has to start afresh again: as you say, it costs big bucks to pay off the previous incumbent and bring in new players and a new coaching staff; and takes considerable time to turn things round. But if you''re heading down, what do you do? Which is what makes the appointment in the first place so important.

You''re a Lincoln fan. If Lincoln''s manager took you down to the Blue Square Premier, would you stick with him? If you then struggled in the BSP, would you still stick with him? But that could all happen within the two year minimum you''ve stated: which is why the whole "continuity" thing is just not that simple. The right appointment and continuity are the key here - and even then, if the manager passes his sell by date, you have to act. Ipswich did in George Burley''s case; we didn''t in Worthington''s case. And look where it got us.

[/quote]

The answer to the Lincoln question is amazing, I''m afraid, and completely skewes all our arguments.  We were sent out of the FL (first club to be relegated to the Conference) by the delightfully eccentric Colin Murphy then managing Stockport - Colin had been our Manager for seven years, one of our best ever. Only the Graham Taylor in pre-turnip days matches him.  His programme notes are now worldwide collector''s items - surreal is the closest I can get to it.  Good amateur, never played pro as a player.  One of his signings was some bloke called John Fashanu. 

That season he then quit Stockport so we rehired him as Blue Square manager and he got us back up first time, although it was so much easier in those days and stayed for a couple more seasons after that: a major contender in the "funny old game" competitions. 

Whether or not Gunny hangs on I do not know - he said today it was his "destiny" to be your Manager - but whoever gets it, if not him, I think everyone also has to hope whoever it is can stick around for a while.

Share this post


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

The answer to the Lincoln question is amazing, I''m afraid, and completely skewes all our arguments.  We were sent out of the FL (first club to be relegated to the Conference) by the delightfully eccentric Colin Murphy then managing Stockport - Colin had been our Manager for seven years, one of our best ever. Only the Graham Taylor in pre-turnip days matches him.  His programme notes are now worldwide collector''s items - surreal is the closest I can get to it.  Good amateur, never played pro as a player.  One of his signings was some bloke called John Fashanu. 

That season he then quit Stockport so we rehired him as Blue Square manager and he got us back up first time, although it was so much easier in those days and stayed for a couple more seasons after that: a major contender in the "funny old game" competitions. 

Whether or not Gunny hangs on I do not know - he said today it was his "destiny" to be your Manager - but whoever gets it, if not him, I think everyone also has to hope whoever it is can stick around for a while.

[/quote]

I remember Lincoln''s relegation well, Cam. All the media focus was on Burnley, who unbelievably seemed all set to disappear out of the league; meanwhile, Torquay only stayed up thanks to a dog running on to the pitch and biting an opposing player, leading to several minutes of injury time in which they scored! No-one seemed to notice what happened to the Imps: it must''ve been awful. Lincoln''s one season in the Conference was also Wealdstone''s last: the Stones being the local non-league club I followed as a kid. Tim Allman still does now. Wealdstone won the non-league double in 1985; so I was at Wembley in 1992, cheering on Witton Albion in the vain hope they stopped Colchester emulating them!

Lincoln also had a hooligan element attaching themselves to the club back then, didn''t they?

Share this post


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

The answer to the Lincoln question is amazing, I''m afraid, and completely skewes all our arguments.  We were sent out of the FL (first club to be relegated to the Conference) by the delightfully eccentric Colin Murphy then managing Stockport - Colin had been our Manager for seven years, one of our best ever. Only the Graham Taylor in pre-turnip days matches him.  His programme notes are now worldwide collector''s items - surreal is the closest I can get to it.  Good amateur, never played pro as a player.  One of his signings was some bloke called John Fashanu. 

That season he then quit Stockport so we rehired him as Blue Square manager and he got us back up first time, although it was so much easier in those days and stayed for a couple more seasons after that: a major contender in the "funny old game" competitions. 

Whether or not Gunny hangs on I do not know - he said today it was his "destiny" to be your Manager - but whoever gets it, if not him, I think everyone also has to hope whoever it is can stick around for a while.

[/quote]

I remember Lincoln''s relegation well, Cam. All the media focus was on Burnley, who unbelievably seemed all set to disappear out of the league; meanwhile, Torquay only stayed up thanks to a dog running on to the pitch and biting an opposing player, leading to several minutes of injury time in which they scored! No-one seemed to notice what happened to the Imps: it must''ve been awful. Lincoln''s one season in the Conference was also Wealdstone''s last: the Stones being the local non-league club I followed as a kid. Tim Allman still does now. Wealdstone won the non-league double in 1985; so I was at Wembley in 1992, cheering on Witton Albion in the vain hope they stopped Colchester emulating them!

Lincoln also had a hooligan element attaching themselves to the club back then, didn''t they?

[/quote]

We had a couple of the (then) obligatory "firms" yes - Transit Elite was one, I think.  Like the rest of Imps it was never really massive but there was a celebrated punch up with Grimsby which started in the High Street and carried on to Brayford with quite a lot of people ending up in the water.  All gone - the worst you are going to get on anything approaching an "organised" scale is a few mouthy teens in the Co-op Stand.  I think everyone has been ground down by results over the years.[;)]

Share this post


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

The answer to the Lincoln question is amazing, I''m afraid, and completely skewes all our arguments.  We were sent out of the FL (first club to be relegated to the Conference) by the delightfully eccentric Colin Murphy then managing Stockport - Colin had been our Manager for seven years, one of our best ever. Only the Graham Taylor in pre-turnip days matches him.  His programme notes are now worldwide collector''s items - surreal is the closest I can get to it.  Good amateur, never played pro as a player.  One of his signings was some bloke called John Fashanu. 

That season he then quit Stockport so we rehired him as Blue Square manager and he got us back up first time, although it was so much easier in those days and stayed for a couple more seasons after that: a major contender in the "funny old game" competitions. 

Whether or not Gunny hangs on I do not know - he said today it was his "destiny" to be your Manager - but whoever gets it, if not him, I think everyone also has to hope whoever it is can stick around for a while.

[/quote]

I remember Lincoln''s relegation well, Cam. All the media focus was on Burnley, who unbelievably seemed all set to disappear out of the league; meanwhile, Torquay only stayed up thanks to a dog running on to the pitch and biting an opposing player, leading to several minutes of injury time in which they scored! No-one seemed to notice what happened to the Imps: it must''ve been awful. Lincoln''s one season in the Conference was also Wealdstone''s last: the Stones being the local non-league club I followed as a kid. Tim Allman still does now. Wealdstone won the non-league double in 1985; so I was at Wembley in 1992, cheering on Witton Albion in the vain hope they stopped Colchester emulating them!

Lincoln also had a hooligan element attaching themselves to the club back then, didn''t they?

[/quote]

We had a couple of the (then) obligatory "firms" yes - Transit Elite was one, I think.  Like the rest of Imps it was never really massive but there was a celebrated punch up with Grimsby which started in the High Street and carried on to Brayford with quite a lot of people ending up in the water.  All gone - the worst you are going to get on anything approaching an "organised" scale is a few mouthy teens in the Co-op Stand.  **I think everyone has been ground down by results over the years.[;)]

[/quote]

**And I suspect that this is starting to happen to NCFC.

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To take it off on a tangent,when we were looking to replace Roeder Dave Stringer commented that perhaps we shouldn''t look too far away the direction of Keith Webb....now with those ideas being floated around the NCFC thinktank it comes no surprise our current predicament or the appointment of Gunn as manager of NCFC.

 

Share this post


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

There may be much nonsense talked about continuity but there is also some sense in the idea because unless you give any Manager the chance to build up a squad over a reasonable length of time you risk the chain reaction that Norwich (and hundreds of other clubs over the years) have experienced and are still experiencing.  I say two full seasons is the minimum time but that is a matter of opinion, of course.

Grant arrived, made all his changes (most of them deemed unsuccessful) and then lumbered Roeder with them.  Roeder made his changes, many not inspiring to the fans on here, and went on to lumber Gunn with them.  Roeder talked about his three year plan which is fine if you are going to be around for three years but as it has turned out he isn''t.  As well as costing any club a fortune in offloading players the "new man" does not like you have absolutely no chance - unless you are remarkably lucky - in getting any sort of consistent team used to playing as a unit, still the best chance of clubs (famous or otherwise) at least spending season after season without being haunted by the fear of relegation.  For success you probably need a bit of luck on top of that but consistency is still the base, in my view.

Curbishley said the other day that between you, Charlton and Southampton you had got through 21 managers in five years (including the temps) and this season, between you, had fielded 111 players.  I have no idea if his figures are right but if they are it certainly does not seem helpful in the "consistency" and "unit" stakes if that model is correct.  We can all speak about the ugly football of both Stoke and Hull but, for a time at least, it has got them where they want to be: we could be unkind and say they kicked their way out of a division with the hoofball take-no-prisoners approach that they adopted.  But we cannot argue that it didn''t work.

And had it worked for you Roeder would not have been a problem, his "arrogance" and delightful habit of "telling it like it is" would have been subsumed  by a good push up the table this season, perhaps even in or in the running for the playoffs.  Indeed, he might even have become a "no nonsense" character.  Clough told it like it was (and smacked a few fans, literally, and privately held many of those adoring followers in general contempt as "know nothing plonkers") but because he was successful he merely turned into a legend.  What a thin line it is!

Two full seasons is  the minimum mark for me but, of course, that is merely an opinion. 

 

[/quote]

Cut the Wordiness, we simply haven''t had an extremely good football manager since Martin O''Neil - Worthington is ok, but he took a liberal screwing from the Board, and the rest had CV''s that''ve read like Braille to the average person with 20/20 vision.And that is the part that really f*cking bugs me - why do people (such as you & nutty nigel etc) with supposed clarity of vision who can see the whole picture, still persist on attempting to join the dots?

Share this post


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

There may be much nonsense talked about continuity but there is also some sense in the idea because unless you give any Manager the chance to build up a squad over a reasonable length of time you risk the chain reaction that Norwich (and hundreds of other clubs over the years) have experienced and are still experiencing.  I say two full seasons is the minimum time but that is a matter of opinion, of course.

Grant arrived, made all his changes (most of them deemed unsuccessful) and then lumbered Roeder with them.  Roeder made his changes, many not inspiring to the fans on here, and went on to lumber Gunn with them.  Roeder talked about his three year plan which is fine if you are going to be around for three years but as it has turned out he isn''t.  As well as costing any club a fortune in offloading players the "new man" does not like you have absolutely no chance - unless you are remarkably lucky - in getting any sort of consistent team used to playing as a unit, still the best chance of clubs (famous or otherwise) at least spending season after season without being haunted by the fear of relegation.  For success you probably need a bit of luck on top of that but consistency is still the base, in my view.

Curbishley said the other day that between you, Charlton and Southampton you had got through 21 managers in five years (including the temps) and this season, between you, had fielded 111 players.  I have no idea if his figures are right but if they are it certainly does not seem helpful in the "consistency" and "unit" stakes if that model is correct.  We can all speak about the ugly football of both Stoke and Hull but, for a time at least, it has got them where they want to be: we could be unkind and say they kicked their way out of a division with the hoofball take-no-prisoners approach that they adopted.  But we cannot argue that it didn''t work.

And had it worked for you Roeder would not have been a problem, his "arrogance" and delightful habit of "telling it like it is" would have been subsumed  by a good push up the table this season, perhaps even in or in the running for the playoffs.  Indeed, he might even have become a "no nonsense" character.  Clough told it like it was (and smacked a few fans, literally, and privately held many of those adoring followers in general contempt as "know nothing plonkers") but because he was successful he merely turned into a legend.  What a thin line it is!

Two full seasons is  the minimum mark for me but, of course, that is merely an opinion. 

[/quote]

Cut the Wordiness, we simply haven''t had an extremely good football manager since Martin O''Neil - Worthington is ok, but he took a liberal screwing from the Board, and the rest had CV''s that''ve read like Braille to the average person with 20/20 vision.

And that is the part that really f*cking bugs me - why do people (such as you & nutty nigel etc) with supposed clarity of vision who can see the whole picture, still persist on attempting to join the dots?

[/quote]

There, that any better?

One suspects that he thinks The Times has a better chance of surviving the recession than The Star, and is hence using us for practice.

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

There may be much nonsense talked about continuity but there is also some sense in the idea because unless you give any Manager the chance to build up a squad over a reasonable length of time you risk the chain reaction that Norwich (and hundreds of other clubs over the years) have experienced and are still experiencing.  I say two full seasons is the minimum time but that is a matter of opinion, of course.

Grant arrived, made all his changes (most of them deemed unsuccessful) and then lumbered Roeder with them.  Roeder made his changes, many not inspiring to the fans on here, and went on to lumber Gunn with them.  Roeder talked about his three year plan which is fine if you are going to be around for three years but as it has turned out he isn''t.  As well as costing any club a fortune in offloading players the "new man" does not like you have absolutely no chance - unless you are remarkably lucky - in getting any sort of consistent team used to playing as a unit, still the best chance of clubs (famous or otherwise) at least spending season after season without being haunted by the fear of relegation.  For success you probably need a bit of luck on top of that but consistency is still the base, in my view.

Curbishley said the other day that between you, Charlton and Southampton you had got through 21 managers in five years (including the temps) and this season, between you, had fielded 111 players.  I have no idea if his figures are right but if they are it certainly does not seem helpful in the "consistency" and "unit" stakes if that model is correct.  We can all speak about the ugly football of both Stoke and Hull but, for a time at least, it has got them where they want to be: we could be unkind and say they kicked their way out of a division with the hoofball take-no-prisoners approach that they adopted.  But we cannot argue that it didn''t work.

And had it worked for you Roeder would not have been a problem, his "arrogance" and delightful habit of "telling it like it is" would have been subsumed  by a good push up the table this season, perhaps even in or in the running for the playoffs.  Indeed, he might even have become a "no nonsense" character.  Clough told it like it was (and smacked a few fans, literally, and privately held many of those adoring followers in general contempt as "know nothing plonkers") but because he was successful he merely turned into a legend.  What a thin line it is!

Two full seasons is  the minimum mark for me but, of course, that is merely an opinion. 

 

[/quote]

I don''t entirely disagree, Cam. When Grant was appointed in Oct ''06, I felt he had until Xmas ''08 to show he was making real progress; and May ''10 to get us up. The trouble was we were going down with him in charge - as he himself recognised when stepping down with dignity, something I''ll always give him credit for. Relegation is so catastrophic in financial terms that clubs can''t afford to mess around with a clearly failing manager. It was the same with Roeder: his prior record foretold that he''d make a short-term impact before getting horribly found out in his second year, which is precisely what happened. The slump under him actually started in the final ten or twelve games of last season, and just continued this: and he was so arrogant he lost the support of the board, fans and dressing room.

It''s ironic: I''ve always wanted a nasty bastard to become Norwich boss, because someone like that could cut through the complacency and really change the entire club''s mentality for the better. That''s what Ron Saunders did for us in the early 70s; what Nigel Worthington (albeit, he was never a nasty bastard) did to an extent when he took over; and also what I expect Roy Keane to do at Ipswich. But that nasty bastard has to be a decent manager too: and Roeder palpably was not, not just here, but with West Ham, Watford and Gillingham too. Every time a club changes its manager, it has to start afresh again: as you say, it costs big bucks to pay off the previous incumbent and bring in new players and a new coaching staff; and takes considerable time to turn things round. But if you''re heading down, what do you do? Which is what makes the appointment in the first place so important.

You''re a Lincoln fan. If Lincoln''s manager took you down to the Blue Square Premier, would you stick with him? If you then struggled in the BSP, would you still stick with him? But that could all happen within the two year minimum you''ve stated: which is why the whole "continuity" thing is just not that simple. The right appointment and continuity are the key here - and even then, if the manager passes his sell by date, you have to act. Ipswich did in George Burley''s case; we didn''t in Worthington''s case. And look where it got us.

[/quote]

If the board are never going to invest in there managers properly then they are always going to fail, I think worthington did run his course, and the club were right to let him go, but the fact is if he had more money would it have been a different story........... we will never know!!!!, but mistakes don''t seem to be seen, they contiue to follow up there mangerial appointmets with more mistakes. Not learning from Grant they employee Gunn, and like wise with roeder!! Because there lack of money to invest we have seen them appoint the cheaper option.Our managers dont even seem to do the basic''s right, like investing in the youth set up, Norwich has always been a club that sells players to reinvest, this has happened, but the money being gobbled by the new stand!  Know we are in the situation where we have no players to sell, no money to invest and a team full of loanee''s......What a mess.................... [/quote]You make it sound so easy. The answer to all your problems revolve around the fact that managers do not have money to spend. We simply do not have money to spend and going for the cheap option is our only option. Every now and again you get a manager who can spend money wisely ie Worthy. Unfortunately us - along with Saints and Charlton - are now examples of the results of employing a succession of cheap managers without the knowledge for a bargain.

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...