Let's Be Practical

[Binky 0]

Any strategy must be deliverable. IMO, some of the

desires expressed in anger on this board do not reflect reality - as Huckerby

declares, it''s no good Delia & Co stepping aside until someone with money

pops up.  I would like to see:

 

1. a clear, declared intent by the Board to step

down and handover control. This within a maximum definite time scale of say, 4

yrs  - and much sooner if at all possible. That may be longer than many on here

would like but the shareholders will want time to try to find someone on the

right terms rather than perform a fire scale. It would at least be progress of

sorts: the Board must realise the club is worth

much less now - and any sale price has to be lower as a result. (Perhaps

the majority shareholders could exchange their

voting rights and shares for long term low cost debt but which could be subject

to higher payments if certain milestone objectives were achieved - eg

promotion)

 

2. in any event an immediate (ie this

summer) recruitment of new blood onto the Board and preferably someone with the

right experience to scrutinise any decisions that affect the development of the

footballing side of the club

 

3. a new CEO - subject to severance costs (Sorry Mr

D). I have never met him and don''t doubt he is very bright - in fact if he

applied for the job now probably most of his current detractors would  be happy

to see him appointed. But he (much more so than Bryan Gunn IMO) is substantially

tainted by the club''s present state. Perhaps if I was privy to the brief he had

been given these past few years I might seel he was just following orders. But

as CEO he could and should have questioned Roeder''s handling of the club''s key

assets (eg Hucks, Lappin, Cureton, the Fans, the Backroom staff and Loanees

generally) without being accused of interfering with team selection. A new

CEO would be a simple way of emphasising to the outside world and the world

within, that change is coming.

 

4. re-appointment of (at least some of) Team Gunn.

Mistakes were made but given what they inherited and the short time they had to

work in the transfer market, they got a lot of key decisions right IMO. No, they

may not be the best we could get but my concern is that more upheaval could be

counter-productive and given the available budget, would not guarantee the

club''s revival. (OK, having seen Crooky play I am biased - an aristocrat at

passing and I just can''t believe he won''t be anything but very good for the

club). I would however qualify their appointment by making it dependent on

results coming in.

 

5. a new and strong recruit for the role of team

captain. Not sure that Stefanovich is the man even if fit. Has to be a really

solid and effective player - not a niggly, clumsy or dirty player - and a true

leader (no offence to Doherty - or even Fotheringham intended).

 

6. Acceptance by some posters on this message board

that if big changes are likely to cost big money, it will mean big risk with a

direct impact on the player budget.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

You''ve spoken the most sense I''ve seen on this forum for along time!

[timncfc 0]

Good post but dont think we could wait 4 years, will be playing Acle utd in 4 years the way thing are going.

[city-till-i-die 7]

[quote user="timncfc"]Good post but dont think we could wait 4 years, will be playing Acle utd in 4 years the way thing are going.[/quote]i used to get thrashed by them when i was playing under 10s 11s 12s.....15-0 or we might get the odd goal....lol

[timncfc 0]

[quote user="city-till-i-die"][quote user="timncfc"]Good post but dont think we could wait 4 years, will be playing Acle utd in 4 years the way thing are going.[/quote]i used to get thrashed by them when i was playing under 10s 11s 12s.....15-0 or we might get the odd goal....lol[/quote]

Yeah me too, they always seemed so big, under 13s that looked 25.lol

[Yellow Rider 0]

Good post Binky - in fact a very good post.

I have mixed views on Gunn, I did''nt back his appointment at all back in January and was steaming when I heard the news but for him to now be vilified to the extent he is is ridiculous. I agree that most (if not all) of the Gunn,  Crook, Butters team should be retained.

HOWEVER, the absolute priority is my view is that The Smiths LEAVE THE BOARD IMMEDIATELY. They do NOT HAVE to sell their shares - for precedent see Jimmy Jones in 1995, he retained his 19% shareholding for sometime after resigning from the Board       

[Binky 0]

[quote user="Yellow Rider"]

Good post Binky - in fact a very good post.

I have mixed views on Gunn, I did''nt back his appointment at all back in January and was steaming when I heard the news but for him to now be vilified to the extent he is is ridiculous. I agree that most (if not all) of the Gunn,  Crook, Butters team should be retained.

HOWEVER, the absolute priority is my view is that The Smiths LEAVE THE BOARD IMMEDIATELY. They do NOT HAVE to sell their shares - for precedent see Jimmy Jones in 1995, he retained his 19% shareholding for sometime after resigning from the Board       

[/quote]Whilst I understand what your sentiments (and you are quite right about the sale of the shares of course), I think that is extremely unlikely to happen. Even if they are sick to the teeth of the whole thing now and just want out (and no, I don''t believe that to be the case) - they have to assign control to someone. In theory that could be you and me  (I''m broke by the way) - and with all the best intentions we too could make a complete hash of things. Would the Smiths then get blamed for our failings too? I suspect so. And any feelings of failure would be multiplied many times. So even if they reach the stage of writing off any immediate chance to recoup their not insignificant investment - and I''m not saying they have yet - they still need some kind of assurance the new "owner" can take the club forward. And I''m afraid Delia was not wrong when she said post-Charlton it''s all about money now. Without it, Alex Ferguson himself would struggle. I think to expect their departure come what may within 2- 4 years however is reasonable and would become more likely to occur as each month of League1 goes by. That should just about ensure we are not playing Acle by then...

[Superflash 0]

Well said Mr.Binky. I''d like to add on some of your points if I may

[quote user="Binky"]

1. a clear, declared intent by the Board to step

down and handover control. This within a maximum definite time scale of say, 4

yrs  - and much sooner if at all possible. That may be longer than many on here

would like but the shareholders will want time to try to find someone on the

right terms rather than perform a fire scale. It would at least be progress of

sorts: the Board must realise the club is worth

much less now - and any sale price has to be lower as a result. (Perhaps

the majority shareholders could exchange their

voting rights and shares for long term low cost debt but which could be subject

to higher payments if certain milestone objectives were achieved - eg

promotion) [/quote]Excellent suggestion. Two things which might slow the process down a bit though would be the current financial climate and City''s league positions during this period. If things can at least be stabilised on the pitch then this target should be reachable. I''m no financial expert but from what I can gather this recession will eventually die down a bit and thus this should see more parties start to take an interest.

 

[quote]3. a new CEO - subject to severance costs (Sorry Mr

D). I have never met him and don''t doubt he is very bright - in fact if he

applied for the job now probably most of his current detractors would  be happy

to see him appointed. But he (much more so than Bryan Gunn IMO) is substantially

tainted by the club''s present state. Perhaps if I was privy to the brief he had

been given these past few years I might seel he was just following orders. But

as CEO he could and should have questioned Roeder''s handling of the club''s key

assets (eg Hucks, Lappin, Cureton, the Fans, the Backroom staff and Loanees

generally) without being accused of interfering with team selection. A new

CEO would be a simple way of emphasising to the outside world and the world

within, that change is coming.[/quote]Indeed. With regard to the playing side I think that it is important that whomever the manager may be he must have complete control over the playing side and have no interference. We''ve seen this happen at other clubs and it''s led to chaos in the media. In Doncaster''s case if he did interfere previously he''d become even more of a hate figure then he is now if he spoke his mind about any player except Darren Huckerby.

 

[quote]4. re-appointment of (at least some of) Team Gunn.

Mistakes were made but given what they inherited and the short time they had to

work in the transfer market, they got a lot of key decisions right IMO. No, they

may not be the best we could get but my concern is that more upheaval could be

counter-productive and given the available budget, would not guarantee the

club''s revival. (OK, having seen Crooky play I am biased - an aristocrat at

passing and I just can''t believe he won''t be anything but very good for the

club). I would however qualify their appointment by making it dependent on

results coming in.[/quote]Personally I''m not sure Gunn as the actual manager is not the best of choices. Certainly Butterworth and Crook have a lot to offer in the long term, but I think Gunn should step aside and make room for a man in the mould of Jim Gannon. Young, hungry yet with experience in the lower levels. Gunn can certainly stay on the books in my opinion and he''ll always have a place at the club in one way or another which is the least he deserves for his contributions. But just not as manager/head coach.

 

[quote]5. a new and strong recruit for the role of team

captain. Not sure that Stefanovich is the man even if fit. Has to be a really

solid and effective player - not a niggly, clumsy or dirty player - and a true

leader (no offence to Doherty - or even Fotheringham intended).[/quote]Agreed. Who would you appoint as skipper? Personally if we can get hold of him I''d give the armband to Alan Lee.

[city-till-i-die 7]

[quote user="timncfc"]

[quote user="city-till-i-die"][quote user="timncfc"]Good post but dont think we could wait 4 years, will be playing Acle utd in 4 years the way thing are going.[/quote]i used to get thrashed by them when i was playing under 10s 11s 12s.....15-0 or we might get the odd goal....lol[/quote]

Yeah me too, they always seemed so big, under 13s that looked 25.lol

[/quote]lol

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Binky"]

4. re-appointment of (at least some of) Team Gunn. Mistakes were made but given what they inherited and the short time they had to work in the transfer market, they got a lot of key decisions right IMO. No, they may not be the best we could get but my concern is that more upheaval could be counter-productive and given the available budget, would not guarantee the club''s revival. (OK, having seen Crooky play I am biased - an aristocrat at passing and I just can''t believe he won''t be anything but very good for the club). I would however qualify their appointment by making it dependent on results coming in.

 

.

[/quote]

Perfectly sensible post, Binky - but the above bit I simply cannot fathom. We''re in no position to dictate terms to any prospective manager, any of whom will want their own coaching staff, and stand or fall by those around them as well as results. Maybe they''d be happy to keep Crook and Butterworth on, maybe they wouldn''t; but it''s not up to the club to tell them either way! Meaning it''s all of Team Gunn, or none of it; and retaining them would mean retaining a manager with no qualifications to do the job whatever.

I''ll be frank: I''m as qualified to be a brain surgeon as Bryan Gunn is to be Norwich City manager. He''s had his chance, with players he signed or was involved in the recruitment of as Head of Recruitment: the one thing we appointed him in order to do was motivate them, and what followed were two of the most shameful no-shows in living memory. He has no tactical understanding at all, and stands on the touchline like a rabbit in the headlights during the game. His inability to improve us actually calls into question what good Crook or Butterworth have done too: it''s remarkable how few have commented on their responsibility.

Last night, I think this club briefly glimpsed the precipice before turning back in the nick of time. Leaving such a man in charge as we head into a horrible league in which passing, attractive football almost never works and with no money to spend would be tantamount to suicide - and it''s not "counter-productive" to want a manager who''s actually qualified to be one!

[Binky 0]

Superflash  "Personally if we can get hold of him I''d give the armband to Alan Lee" & ."it is important that whomever the manager may be he must have complete control over the playing side"...

Lee I think  has the experience and temperament to be captain and I

think he will still be on our books come August. But maybe I''m old

fashioned (no, I am old fashioned) - but I just think the captain is

more effective playing from the middle or back line not the front line.As

regards non-interference with team selection (goes without saying) - a

CEO has to ensure a company''s assets are utilised to their full effect.

If Huckerby had to be sold, Roeder should have been compelled to alow

him to say a proper farewell - that''s just managing your customers''

expectations. Were adequate replacements lined up before the likes of

Brown or Strahavka was diposed of? (Remember Russell at centre

forward?). Was Lappin''s bauishment to the youth team training really

the best way to cut the club''s losses on him etc etc Thrre is a big

difference between interfering with a manager''s right to manage and

allowing same manager to rip the heart out of the club both materially

and in spirit. But in reality, that abrogation of responsibility does

not just fall on Mr D.

[O.T.B.C 0]

Good post. Makes sense.

[Binky 0]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Binky"]

4. re-appointment of (at least some of) Team Gunn. Mistakes were made but given what they inherited and the short time they had to work in the transfer market, they got a lot of key decisions right IMO. No, they may not be the best we could get but my concern is that more upheaval could be counter-productive and given the available budget, would not guarantee the club''s revival. (OK, having seen Crooky play I am biased - an aristocrat at passing and I just can''t believe he won''t be anything but very good for the club). I would however qualify their appointment by making it dependent on results coming in.

 

.

[/quote]

Perfectly sensible post, Binky - but the above bit I simply cannot fathom. We''re in no position to dictate terms to any prospective manager, any of whom will want their own coaching staff, and stand or fall by those around them as well as results. Maybe they''d be happy to keep Crook and Butterworth on, maybe they wouldn''t; but it''s not up to the club to tell them either way! Meaning it''s all of Team Gunn, or none of it; and retaining them would mean retaining a manager with no qualifications to do the job whatever.

I''ll be frank: I''m as qualified to be a brain surgeon as Bryan Gunn is to be Norwich City manager. He''s had his chance, with players he signed or was involved in the recruitment of as Head of Recruitment: the one thing we appointed him in order to do was motivate them, and what followed were two of the most shameful no-shows in living memory. He has no tactical understanding at all, and stands on the touchline like a rabbit in the headlights during the game. His inability to improve us actually calls into question what good Crook or Butterworth have done too: it''s remarkable how few have commented on their responsibility.

Last night, I think this club briefly glimpsed the precipice before turning back in the nick of time. Leaving such a man in charge as we head into a horrible league in which passing, attractive football almost never works and with no money to spend would be tantamount to suicide - and it''s not "counter-productive" to want a manager who''s actually qualified to be one!

[/quote]We''re in no position to dictate terms to any prospective managerOf course not BF - but the manager could be anyone of the Team Gunn 3. You are entitled to your view on Gunny - and you may well be right. I suppose I''m saying that I haven''t seen enough of him yet to dismiss him. (Unlike Roeder: I would say that having watched him during his reign as Norwich manager,  "I''m as qualified to be a brain surgeon as Glenn Roeder is to be Norwich City manager"). I thought the Gunn appointment was right at the time.They did make some good decisions - Shackell/Cureton (if only to stop him scoring any more for Barnsley)/Fotheringham/McDonald/Mooney/ Gow & Lee.  As you say, tactics were another matter. Sadly I think there is no quick fix for success next season no matter who the manager - and rather than risk another experienced Glenn Roeder disaster and all its associated finacial cost which we can ill afford; I for one would give them about ten weeks of next season to show they can do the business. Or else.

[Binky 0]

Apologies for the font size jumble - and the typos - failing eyesight!!

[Henry VIII 0]

[quote user="Binky"][quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Binky"]

4. re-appointment of (at least some of) Team Gunn. Mistakes were made but given what they inherited and the short time they had to work in the transfer market, they got a lot of key decisions right IMO. No, they may not be the best we could get but my concern is that more upheaval could be counter-productive and given the available budget, would not guarantee the club''s revival. (OK, having seen Crooky play I am biased - an aristocrat at passing and I just can''t believe he won''t be anything but very good for the club). I would however qualify their appointment by making it dependent on results coming in.

 

.

[/quote]

Perfectly sensible post, Binky - but the above bit I simply cannot fathom. We''re in no position to dictate terms to any prospective manager, any of whom will want their own coaching staff, and stand or fall by those around them as well as results. Maybe they''d be happy to keep Crook and Butterworth on, maybe they wouldn''t; but it''s not up to the club to tell them either way! Meaning it''s all of Team Gunn, or none of it; and retaining them would mean retaining a manager with no qualifications to do the job whatever.

I''ll be frank: I''m as qualified to be a brain surgeon as Bryan Gunn is to be Norwich City manager. He''s had his chance, with players he signed or was involved in the recruitment of as Head of Recruitment: the one thing we appointed him in order to do was motivate them, and what followed were two of the most shameful no-shows in living memory. He has no tactical understanding at all, and stands on the touchline like a rabbit in the headlights during the game. His inability to improve us actually calls into question what good Crook or Butterworth have done too: it''s remarkable how few have commented on their responsibility.

Last night, I think this club briefly glimpsed the precipice before turning back in the nick of time. Leaving such a man in charge as we head into a horrible league in which passing, attractive football almost never works and with no money to spend would be tantamount to suicide - and it''s not "counter-productive" to want a manager who''s actually qualified to be one!

[/quote]We''re in no position to dictate terms to any prospective managerOf course not BF - but the manager could be anyone of the Team Gunn 3. You are entitled to your view on Gunny - and you may well be right. I suppose I''m saying that I haven''t seen enough of him yet to dismiss him. (Unlike Roeder: I would say that having watched him during his reign as Norwich manager,  "I''m as qualified to be a brain surgeon as Glenn Roeder is to be Norwich City manager"). I thought the Gunn appointment was right at the time.They did make some good decisions - Shackell/Cureton (if only to stop him scoring any more for Barnsley)/Fotheringham/McDonald/Mooney/ Gow & Lee.  As you say, tactics were another matter. Sadly I think there is no quick fix for success next season no matter who the manager - and rather than risk another experienced Glenn Roeder disaster and all its associated finacial cost which we can ill afford; I for one would give them about ten weeks of next season to show they can do the business. Or else.[/quote]Cor don''t break the fence binky, say what you really feel!

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Binky"] Sadly I think there is no quick fix for success next season no matter who the manager - and rather than risk another experienced Glenn Roeder disaster and all its associated finacial cost which we can ill afford; I for one would give them about ten weeks of next season to show they can do the business. Or else.
[/quote]

Which, with respect, is also crackers. Managers need their own preseason and to be able to sign their own players: your plan would involve us having to change tack mid-stream yet again, and cost even more money in terms of paying them off rather than make a clean break now. You''d give them ten weeks? Talk about being damned with faint praise. And if that all those in favour of Gunn''s appointment have got... well.

It also blows my mind how people just dismiss his lack of any tactical knowledge as though it somehow doesn''t matter. Whoever the manager is, we need him to enter next season with a carefully thought out plan based on real knowledge of the division. Gunn can''t come up with such a plan because he has no knowledge of the division - and as far as I can see, his managerial strategy essentially involves him looking at the players and pointing to his heart and club badge. That''s it - and that''s never, ever going to cut it in professional football nowadays.

[. 0]

Disappointing......

I thought this was going to be about putting up a shelf or something.........

[N]