Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dion Dublin=Legend

CROOK GIVEN 18 MONTH CONTRACT!

Recommended Posts

Is it just me or did anyone else think that the Gunn/Butterworth/Crook team were all on contracts until the end of the season? Turns out Crooky got an 18-month deal:

http://www.pinkun.com/content/ncfc/story.aspx?brand=PINKUNOnline&category=Norwich&tBrand=PinkUnOnline&tCategory=Norwich&itemid=NOED12%20May%202009%2010%3A12%3A18%3A800

So if the board makes the right decision and decides to get an experienced League One manager in for next season we face having to pay off yet another contract! [:@]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''d be interesting to look back and pull up one of the stories...because i''m pretty sure we were told they all had contracts until the end of the season? I might be wrong though..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the same.

I find this particularly annoying/interesting as I thought the reason why Aidy Boothroyd wouldn''t come was because he was only offered a contract until the end of the season?!

All rumour of course - and lies and spin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that they will re-shuffle the pack if they get a new manager in. Or it could be that someone like Aidy would be happy to have him as part of the backroom team. Aidy had Malky at Watford and there is nothing saying that he wouldnt work with Crook.Failing that Crook could be offered a role in the accedemy perhaps. I don''t think there is that much of a big deal. These guys are not on a lot of money - a pay off isn''t going to be a lot. I just hope they get it sorted out and soon.I think Aidy is the way forward - good with the youngsters and probably still knows some of them, knows how to put a competetive team together and knows success and is probably wanting to prove all doubters wrong. He took over at Watford when they were about to do what we just did, get him in and NOW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They definitely said they were all contracted until the end of the season. I have heard butterworth is also going nowhere. I guess it makes sense if you think they wuit their previous jobs and moved here but it does not fit with what we were all told!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dion Dublin=Legend,

Not to pour petrol onto your fire but would you have given up a 3 year contract in a much easier job in the sun to just come here for a 6 month contract and the love of Norwich City?

Why cut your nose off to spite your face!

Even Mr Huckerby coming back will make sure his families security is protected first regardless of what has been printed in the press over the last few days  regarding him returning, we must understand only in the world of football these things happen!

I understand your frustration but i''m sure Crooky will be part of any setup the cronies at board level appoint, i''m reasonably confident the amount of independant voices which are setting up meetings will make sure that the board does not keep its head in the sand any longer.

OTBC since 1969

R.I.P. Dad 1939-2008

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is starting to stink!

It makes me wonder just how long Gunn and Butters were really given?  [img]http://carrowroad.net/carrow1/Smileys/new/steam.gif[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trawled about a bit and came up with this:

NORWICH City are today delighted to confirm the appointment of three Canary legends to take charge of the Club until the summer, led by new Manager Bryan Gunn.

from the official site dated 21 Jan (a wednesday as it happens)

No problems with Crook at all - but why can''t we have some honesty/clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="spm2866"]

Dion Dublin=Legend,

Not to pour petrol onto your fire but would you have given up a 3 year contract in a much easier job in the sun to just come here for a 6 month contract and the love of Norwich City?

Why cut your nose off to spite your face!

Even Mr Huckerby coming back will make sure his families security is protected first regardless of what has been printed in the press over the last few days  regarding him returning, we must understand only in the world of football these things happen!

I understand your frustration but i''m sure Crooky will be part of any setup the cronies at board level appoint, i''m reasonably confident the amount of independant voices which are setting up meetings will make sure that the board does not keep its head in the sand any longer.

OTBC since 1969

R.I.P. Dad 1939-2008

 

[/quote]

 

I thinkw e would all share the view that Crook was unlikely to leave Australia and come back here for 3 months but thats not the point really is it? the point is we were told this was an interim arrangement until the end of the season. If Crook has a contract til May 2010 does that mean butterworth and Gunn do to? If thats the case then either the decision has already been made that they are all staying on or we will have to pay compensation to get rid of them. Would anjew manager want to work with Crook and Butterworth in his back room team?

Also who has made the decision to sell Marshall to Cardiff when we don''t have a manager? Or do we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought they only said Gunn was  contracted to end of season and just let everyone assume it applied to the others. Always thought it would be unlikely that Butts would give up a secure job for just 3 months. Personally I would be happy for the two Ians to stay with a more experienced manger in charge, if that were feasible. Robins did play with Crooky & Butts after all. At least thatway they know that Semi Rusty etc should never wear a City shirt again and won''t take half a season to find it out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Whats a right winger"]Thought they only said Gunn was  contracted to end of season and just let everyone assume it applied to the others. Always thought it would be unlikely that Butts would give up a secure job for just 3 months. Personally I would be happy for the two Ians to stay with a more experienced manger in charge, if that were feasible. Robins did play with Crooky & Butts after all. At least thatway they know that Semi Rusty etc should never wear a City shirt again and won''t take half a season to find it out[/quote]

 

They said they were all appointed "until the summer."

To me its simple - they all stay or they all go. You cannot expect a new manager to have his staff imposed upon him and IMHO any attempt to do so would make it less likely they would join.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Whats a right winger"]Thought they only said Gunn was  contracted to end of season and just let everyone assume it applied to the others. Always thought it would be unlikely that Butts would give up a secure job for just 3 months. Personally I would be happy for the two Ians to stay with a more experienced manger in charge, if that were feasible. Robins did play with Crooky & Butts after all. At least thatway they know that Semi Rusty etc should never wear a City shirt again and won''t take half a season to find it out[/quote]

 

I''ve had a quick look back over the club statements released when Crook & Butterworth joined, and there''s no mention on either about the length of their contracts. However, I think it''s extremely unusual for backroom staff to have longer contracts than the manager. When you think about it it''s downright bizarre.

My understanding/assumption when the Ians joined was that they''d both taken a significant risk in leaving secure jobs on the basis that retaining Championship status would secure them a longer contract in a better paid job at a higher profile club. I''ve got nothing against either of them, but the fact is that Team Gunn failed. If a new manager would like to keep them then that''s fine but that shouldn''t be for the board to decide.

Share this post


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

[quote user="Whats a right winger"]Thought they only said Gunn was  contracted to end of season and just let everyone assume it applied to the others. Always thought it would be unlikely that Butts would give up a secure job for just 3 months. Personally I would be happy for the two Ians to stay with a more experienced manger in charge, if that were feasible. Robins did play with Crooky & Butts after all. At least thatway they know that Semi Rusty etc should never wear a City shirt again and won''t take half a season to find it out[/quote]

 

They said they were all appointed "until the summer."

To me its simple - they all stay or they all go. You cannot expect a new manager to have his staff imposed upon him and IMHO any attempt to do so would make it less likely they would join.

[/quote]

To me it''s simple. If Gunn stays they will all probably stay. If a new manager takes over he will choose who stays. Gunns contract was surely only to the end of the season. Bruce Rioch appointed Doug Livermore as his number two. Worthy was quite happy for him to still be there throughout his tenure. It''s called continuity and is something this club has lacked since 2006.

 

Share this post


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

[quote user="Whats a right winger"]Thought they only said Gunn was  contracted to end of season and just let everyone assume it applied to the others. Always thought it would be unlikely that Butts would give up a secure job for just 3 months. Personally I would be happy for the two Ians to stay with a more experienced manger in charge, if that were feasible. Robins did play with Crooky & Butts after all. At least thatway they know that Semi Rusty etc should never wear a City shirt again and won''t take half a season to find it out[/quote]

 

They said they were all appointed "until the summer."

To me its simple - they all stay or they all go. You cannot expect a new manager to have his staff imposed upon him and IMHO any attempt to do so would make it less likely they would join.

[/quote]

To me it''s simple. If Gunn stays they will all probably stay. If a new manager takes over he will choose who stays. Gunns contract was surely only to the end of the season. Bruce Rioch appointed Doug Livermore as his number two. Worthy was quite happy for him to still be there throughout his tenure. It''s called continuity and is something this club has lacked since 2006.

 

[/quote]

I''m all for continuity Nutty, but if a new manager takes over then his backroom team should be his call, no-one else''s. By giving Crook a longer contract than Gunn we''re in a position where if we appoint a new manager we may end up having to pay compensation to Crook, but not to Gunn. Tell me where the sense is in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it''s worth here''s the whole clip from the official site.

This is what the club wanted us to believe then. As for now - it''s anyone''s guess.

GUNN NAMED NEW NORWICH BOSS

Posted on: Wed 21 Jan 2009

NORWICH City are today delighted to confirm the appointment of three Canary legends to take charge of the Club until the summer, led by new Manager Bryan Gunn.

Gunn, who steered the team to a thumping 4-0 win over Barnsley at Carrow Road on Saturday, steps up from his current role as Head of Player Recruitment and will be joined by Ian Crook as First Team Coach and John Deehan as Chief Scout.

Having made his breakthrough into the professional ranks at Aberdeen under now Manchester United Manager Sir Alex Ferguson, ''Gunny'' made 477 appearances for City after moving south of the border in a £100,000 switch in 1986.

Article continues

Advertisement

His appearances total makes him the fourth-highest in Canary history behind Kevin Keelan, Ron Ashman and Dave Stringer.

After a brief stint with Hibernian he hung up his boots in 1999 and returned to work behind the scenes at Carrow Road as Sponsorship Sales Manager and Community Ambassador, even having the honour of a year as Sheriff of Norwich during that time before a switch back to the coaching staff in February 2007.

Speaking exclusively to canaries.co.uk, Gunn commented: "I''m a very proud man!

"I thought Saturday was an amazing experience and to be given the opportunity to re-live an experience like that whetted my appetite and left me with a serious decision to make about approaching the Board for the full-time position. That decision - with the 100 per cent backing of my family - was a very easy one to make.

"I have been very fortunate during my 22-year long association with this Club to have held a variety of roles - but this is the pinnacle.

"There is still a very difficult job to be done this season, but having witnessed the reaction of the players and, as importantly the crowd, on Saturday, we now have a great opportunity to move forward with the momentum gained against Barnsley when we face Southampton at Carrow Road next Tuesday.

"I am delighted to be able to announce the appointments of two other Carrow Road heroes to my backroom team.

"Ian Crook will join as First Team Coach and I know the players will enjoy working with him and enjoy his training methods. ''Chippy'' was a fantastic creative midfielder and I''m sure his innovative ideas will help us in the way we want to play the game.

"John Deehan as Chief Scout brings something very important to the table - huge knowledge and experience of the game. ''Dixie'' will take over the role I previously held and will be invaluable, particularly in the short term, to me in my new role."

Expressing their delight at the triple appointment and their belief that the new team holds the right blend of rock-solid Canary connections plus playing, coaching and management experience, joint majority shareholders Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones commented: "A Norwich City with Gunny, Chippy and Dixie and the supporters right behind them and the players is a very exciting prospect between now and the summer.

"As supporters ourselves we feel whatever green and yellow blood is made of, theirs and ours are of the same."

Today''s announcement is a move which takes the Club firmly back to its Canary roots, with the three having clocked up a total of 1,094 games for Norwich City as players. The trio have 714 appearances in the top flight of English football under their belts and are all members of the Norwich City Hall of Fame.

Ian Crook has most recently been High Performance Manager of the Newcastle Jets in Australia''s A-League and has extensive senior coaching experience in both Japan and Australia.

Speaking from Australia as he prepared to return to Norfolk, he said: "This is something that I dreamed of years ago. To have this opportunity now, after all that time, is mind-blowing. For me, Norwich is the pinnacle of my coaching career.

"Bryan and I had a good relationship as team-mates. I know the huge esteem he is held in and I''m looking forward to working for him and getting the Club back to where it belongs."

In the shape of former strike ace John Deehan, who bagged 70 goals in 199 games for the Club, the Canaries have a man back on board who was part of arguably City''s most successful management team ever.

As assistant to Mike Walker between 1992 and 1994, Deehan helped to manage a team which, with Gunn as a commanding presence in goal and Ian Crook pulling the strings in midfield, finished third in the inaugural season of the Premiership and went on to become the only British team ever to beat Bayern Munich at home in European cup competitions.

Deehan later went on to replace Mike Walker as Norwich Manager for 72 games between January 1994 and July 1995 and then managed Wigan Athletic for 157 games between 1995 and 1998.

Speaking to canaries.co.uk he said: "I''m thrilled to be coming back to the Club and renewing acquaintances with Bryan and Ian, to support them in their roles. Norwich City is renowned as a great club with a great stadium - a stadium that we will turn back into a fortress. Bryan has a great opportunity in front of him. And supporters have a huge part to play in achieving the goal we all want."

Bryan Gunn and John Deehan will be at Carrow Road for a press conference this morning while Ian Crook is currently in Australia and is making his way back to Norfolk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly I do remember this being talked about at the time - people put it down to him not dropping a long term contract and moving from Oz for just three months.Secondly I think that if another manager didn''t want him in place you would see him moved into another position - much like Gunn. Crook would perhaps go and help out with the accademy.Thirdly - Someone like Aidy Boothroyd / Mark Robins would possibly keep him in the back room team anyway.Either way I don''t think any of those three guys are on mega bucks so I shouldn''t worry as much about that. I worry more about the decision on the manager because unless we have someone soon we will start to miss out on the bargin deals that could build a good team for next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Dion DublinLegend"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

[quote user="Whats a right winger"]Thought they only said Gunn was  contracted to end of season and just let everyone assume it applied to the others. Always thought it would be unlikely that Butts would give up a secure job for just 3 months. Personally I would be happy for the two Ians to stay with a more experienced manger in charge, if that were feasible. Robins did play with Crooky & Butts after all. At least thatway they know that Semi Rusty etc should never wear a City shirt again and won''t take half a season to find it out[/quote]

 

They said they were all appointed "until the summer."

To me its simple - they all stay or they all go. You cannot expect a new manager to have his staff imposed upon him and IMHO any attempt to do so would make it less likely they would join.

[/quote]

To me it''s simple. If Gunn stays they will all probably stay. If a new manager takes over he will choose who stays. Gunns contract was surely only to the end of the season. Bruce Rioch appointed Doug Livermore as his number two. Worthy was quite happy for him to still be there throughout his tenure. It''s called continuity and is something this club has lacked since 2006.

 

[/quote]

I''m all for continuity Nutty, but if a new manager takes over then his backroom team should be his call, no-one else''s. By giving Crook a longer contract than Gunn we''re in a position where if we appoint a new manager we may end up having to pay compensation to Crook, but not to Gunn. Tell me where the sense is in that.

[/quote]

That''s exactly what you got. Gunn chose Crook and Butterworth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Dion DublinLegend"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

[quote user="Whats a right winger"]Thought they only said Gunn was  contracted to end of season and just let everyone assume it applied to the others. Always thought it would be unlikely that Butts would give up a secure job for just 3 months. Personally I would be happy for the two Ians to stay with a more experienced manger in charge, if that were feasible. Robins did play with Crooky & Butts after all. At least thatway they know that Semi Rusty etc should never wear a City shirt again and won''t take half a season to find it out[/quote]

 

They said they were all appointed "until the summer."

To me its simple - they all stay or they all go. You cannot expect a new manager to have his staff imposed upon him and IMHO any attempt to do so would make it less likely they would join.

[/quote]

To me it''s simple. If Gunn stays they will all probably stay. If a new manager takes over he will choose who stays. Gunns contract was surely only to the end of the season. Bruce Rioch appointed Doug Livermore as his number two. Worthy was quite happy for him to still be there throughout his tenure. It''s called continuity and is something this club has lacked since 2006.

 

[/quote]

I''m all for continuity Nutty, but if a new manager takes over then his backroom team should be his call, no-one else''s. By giving Crook a longer contract than Gunn we''re in a position where if we appoint a new manager we may end up having to pay compensation to Crook, but not to Gunn. Tell me where the sense is in that.

[/quote]

That''s exactly what you got. Gunn chose Crook and Butterworth.

[/quote]

But why give Crook a longer contract than the other two? I''m not usually keen on conspiracy theories but there''s clearly more going on here than meets the eye. Jas and Robbie''s theory that Crook is the heir to the throne makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


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

[quote user="Whats a right winger"]Thought they only said Gunn was  contracted to end of season and just let everyone assume it applied to the others. Always thought it would be unlikely that Butts would give up a secure job for just 3 months. Personally I would be happy for the two Ians to stay with a more experienced manger in charge, if that were feasible. Robins did play with Crooky & Butts after all. At least thatway they know that Semi Rusty etc should never wear a City shirt again and won''t take half a season to find it out[/quote]

 

They said they were all appointed "until the summer."

To me its simple - they all stay or they all go. You cannot expect a new manager to have his staff imposed upon him and IMHO any attempt to do so would make it less likely they would join.

[/quote]

To me it''s simple. If Gunn stays they will all probably stay. If a new manager takes over he will choose who stays. Gunns contract was surely only to the end of the season. Bruce Rioch appointed Doug Livermore as his number two. Worthy was quite happy for him to still be there throughout his tenure. It''s called continuity and is something this club has lacked since 2006.

 

[/quote]

 

Its called  tieing your hands because if we bring in a new manager who doesn''t want them we presumably have to pay off 2 more members of the coaching staff. You tell me if that means its more or less likely that our manager will be Gunn next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dion, I always felt that out of the two Butterworth was the heir to the throne. But you could be right.

But the point being made here is surely that Gunn shouldn''t have been allowed to appoint who he wanted yet the new manager should. If Gunn wasn''t allowed to appoint anyone who didn''t want to sign up for more than 3 months the choice wouldn''t have been great would it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or could it be Crook wasn''t happy to return to the UK without some job security - and an 18 month contract was always agreed with him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

Its called  tieing your hands because if we bring in a new manager who doesn''t want them we presumably have to pay off 2 more members of the coaching staff. You tell me if that means its more or less likely that our manager will be Gunn next season.

[/quote]

See my reply to Dion Jim.

We''ve been here before with Worthy. Pulling apart every decision made regardless. Who do you think Gunn could have got here for 3 months?

 

Share this post


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

Its called  tieing your hands because if we bring in a new manager who doesn''t want them we presumably have to pay off 2 more members of the coaching staff. You tell me if that means its more or less likely that our manager will be Gunn next season.

[/quote]

See my reply to Dion Jim.

We''ve been here before with Worthy. Pulling apart every decision made regardless. Who do you think Gunn could have got here for 3 months?

 

[/quote]

I don''t think anyone should have been here for 3 months. I think we should have appointed a proper manager on a deal for at least 2 years with the financial terms heavily incentivising him to keep us up - i.e. Mr Boothroyd if you think you have what it takes to keep us up then prove it. However as I understand it several more high profile and established managers were not interested in coming in "just until the end of the season" so we ended up with Gunn.

To then give Crook an 18 month contract is idiotic. its not like he''s a world cup winning manager or super coach whose presence was so essential to us we had to lure him at all costs. if Crook is on this deal i bet butterworth is as well. it all smacks of the fact they have been working on the basis that "team Gunn" would be in place for this season whatever happened. i suspect the only reason there may be any doubt over that now is the reaction of the fans!

What gets me though is not so much that decision - its the fact that we were all very clearly led to believe that this was all just "until the summer" and that in the summer we would be able to look afresh at things. Call it what you want but its spin at the very, very least.

Unless we can find a new manager willing to work with the existing coaching staff we now either have to stick with Gunn or waste more money paying them all off again at a time when we really can''t afford to be doing that!

Share this post


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

Dion, I always felt that out of the two Butterworth was the heir to the throne. But you could be right.

But the point being made here is surely that Gunn shouldn''t have been allowed to appoint who he wanted yet the new manager should. If Gunn wasn''t allowed to appoint anyone who didn''t want to sign up for more than 3 months the choice wouldn''t have been great would it?

[/quote]

I don''t agree Nutty. I think a lot of coaches would have been tempted to join on a short-term basis (and no doubt enjoy a significant pay rise) on the proviso that if the club retained its status they would be rewarded with a longer term contract. I don''t think either Crook or Butterworth were in a position to dictate terms to the club about the length of their contract.

I thought that the whole point of giving Gunn (and we assumed the rest of Team Gunn) short-term contracts was so that the club could part ways with whoever it wanted to in the summer if we were relegated, thereby limiting the risk of giving the job to an inexperienced management team. Now it transpires that that''s not the case, and to me this just another example of boardroom spin and failure to make astute decisions in regard to the hiring and firing of personnel.

Share this post


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

Dion, I always felt that out of the two Butterworth was the heir to the throne. But you could be right.

But the point being made here is surely that Gunn shouldn''t have been allowed to appoint who he wanted yet the new manager should. If Gunn wasn''t allowed to appoint anyone who didn''t want to sign up for more than 3 months the choice wouldn''t have been great would it?

[/quote]

I don''t agree Nutty. I think a lot of coaches would have been tempted to join on a short-term basis (and no doubt enjoy a significant pay rise) on the proviso that if the club retained its status they would be rewarded with a longer term contract. I don''t think either Crook or Butterworth were in a position to dictate terms to the club about the length of their contract.

I thought that the whole point of giving Gunn (and we assumed the rest of Team Gunn) short-term contracts was so that the club could part ways with whoever it wanted to in the summer if we were relegated, thereby limiting the risk of giving the job to an inexperienced management team. Now it transpires that that''s not the case, and to me this just another example of boardroom spin and failure to make astute decisions in regard to the hiring and firing of personnel.

[/quote]

But the point I am making is that having given Gunn the job they let him choose his staff. Are you saying they should have told him he had to have only people who were prepared to commit for 3 months. If they''d done that at the time there would have been an outcry. This is a case of looking at decisions made then based on what we know now.

 

 

Share this post


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

I don''t think anyone should have been here for 3 months. I think we should have appointed a proper manager on a deal for at least 2 years with the financial terms heavily incentivising him to keep us up - i.e. Mr Boothroyd if you think you have what it takes to keep us up then prove it. However as I understand it several more high profile and established managers were not interested in coming in "just until the end of the season" so we ended up with Gunn.

To then give Crook an 18 month contract is idiotic. its not like he''s a world cup winning manager or super coach whose presence was so essential to us we had to lure him at all costs. if Crook is on this deal i bet butterworth is as well. it all smacks of the fact they have been working on the basis that "team Gunn" would be in place for this season whatever happened. i suspect the only reason there may be any doubt over that now is the reaction of the fans!

What gets me though is not so much that decision - its the fact that we were all very clearly led to believe that this was all just "until the summer" and that in the summer we would be able to look afresh at things. Call it what you want but its spin at the very, very least.

Unless we can find a new manager willing to work with the existing coaching staff we now either have to stick with Gunn or waste more money paying them all off again at a time when we really can''t afford to be doing that!

[/quote]

Fine. Maybe we shouldn''t have given the job to Gunn, he clearly wasn''t up to it. But thats not what we are discussing here. Your point that we should have dictated who Gunn chose to work with is double standards. Yes if we have to now sack Crook and Butterworth then we have to pay compensation but that''s football I''m afraid.

I wouldn''t be at all surprised if Butterworth gets the job. I don''t know how that would work out. It could work though. You wouldn''t tell me the other day who you would have chosen to replace Worthy. Well I can tell you that the favourites among the heavy posters on here were Burley, Bowen, Crook, Newell and Holloway.

I have another question Jim. Hand on heart mate when Hamilton was sacked would you have given the job to Worthy and when Stringer stood down would you have given the job to Mike Walker? My answer to both these questions is no. I was wrong both times. You see there is no real selection purposes for getting the manager right. Or if there is nobody has found it yet.

 

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...