Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Superflash

My theories behind the Gunn appointment

Recommended Posts

I believe it comes down to one of these two scenanrios.

1) The board had no interest from other managerial candidates. To some it may seem like an attractive position, big crowds and a big club for League 1 and all that jazz. But with all the uncertainty about the future of the board and the lack of finance for which to bring in any players it would probably seem suicidal to some to take on such a job.

2) There was simply no money to bring in anyone else even if the board wanted to! It''s quite understandable that many managers wouldn''t want to take a pay cut in the current recession if they can help it and we''d almost certainly have to make them take a cut in wages from their previous employers, whether they''d been sacked or left or whatever.

So yeah...like it or lump it, Gunn may have pretty much been the only option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they should approach other people and see if they are interested. I get the feeling again they are being reactive rather than proactive. I don''t believe that Norwich is not an attractive prospect for lower league managers (or players come to that). I think we needed to make the most of that while we are new to League One, as there will come a point when we are just another League One club. But newly relegated, big crowds, good stadium and facilities - I think there are plenty of managers who would love to be part of that.

The money thing could well be true - but could we really offer less in wages than a club like Rotherham or Stockport? I doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We know 1) was not the case as both Tony Adams and Paul Ince for certain and maybe others as well enquired about the vacant position shortly after the final game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a source for that?

That''s not meant as a "that''s rubbish" type statement by the way, I''m interested to see where it came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nolegs"]I think we are probably totally borassic lint.....option 2
[/quote]

 

Well, well, well, I never knew that before - boracic lint = skint. I looked it up and came across the historical fact that London''s nickname was "Cockney" ! :

The interpretation of the word Cockney, is, a young person coaxed or conquered, made wanton; or a nestle cock, delicately bred and brought up, so as, when arrived a man''s estate, to be unable to bear the least hardship. Whatever may be the origin of this appellation, we learn from the following verses, attributed to Hugh Bigot, Earl of Norfolk, that it was in use. in the time of king Henry II.

Was I in my castle at Bungay,
Fast by the river Waveney,
I would not care for the king of Cockney;

i.e. the king of London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well as we already know, many candidates have been interested in the past but were turned away without interview. So its not reason 1.No money?  Well, consider that despite the blatant lies from the board (yes lies, sue me if its not true), we were told that the three wise men were in charge until the end of the season.  What we were not told is that at least on, and probably two, had much longer contracts, and Gunn had a nod as well.So there is a third reason:They simply did not bother to consider any other option than to give Gunn and CO the jobs regardless of how last season panned out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There might have been interest, but that''d soon stop once they see the board for how rubbish they actually are. But if they weren''t in place and someone else was in charge that actually has a clue I''m sure they''d be interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ACE"]Well as we already know, many candidates have been interested in the past but were turned away without interview. So its not reason 1.

No money?  Well, consider that despite the blatant lies from the board (yes lies, sue me if its not true), we were told that the three wise men were in charge until the end of the season.  What we were not told is that at least on, and probably two, had much longer contracts, and Gunn had a nod as well.

So there is a third reason:

They simply did not bother to consider any other option than to give Gunn and CO the jobs regardless of how last season panned out.
[/quote]

I cant beleive our own board would have jus given him the job regardless of the failings of last year, especially as how 99% of the fans dont want him there. its got to be because of the money situation. Wev had debts round our necks for several years now and with the recession everything is on a budget.

I know the situation is bad at the moment but there is no way option 1 is realistic. Norwich is a well respected club, with top facilties, a big stadium and a large fan base. Were currently underacheiving so a new manager coming in has a lot less to loose that if they went for an established club (except relegation to L2).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think we are an unattractive employer for managers at all and simply dont by into this what credible manager would risk their reputation by joining the inept canaries clap trap. 

We have a solid reputation,  large fan base and wold attract a mix of candidates,  many of whom are far better fits than gunn.

Its a mistaken cheap option lacking ambition - simple as.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s money pure and simple. The fools made no attempt to advertise the job and certainly interviewed no other candidates except  the three wise monkeys. I can''t believe that the 15th best supported club in the land would have had any shortage of interest if the job had been thrown open to all managerial candidates. We are potentially a Premiership club, and would still be if it hadn''t been for the deluded cook and her unambitious, inept cohorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. Why did no-one apply? Well probably because technically Gunn has never left as manager. It''s a money thing for sure. Despite this, Gunn leading us to League One stagnancy or worse, will harm the club financially more than appointing a proper manager would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They (Delia et al) had no intention and no desire of doing anything other than maintaining their cosy little comfort zone, continuing to surround themselves with people willing to kow tow and be content to bob in her wake, thus maintaining their clique and making sure that their day to day roles are undemanding and spent as little monachs, surveying their little fiefdom.There was no chance of anyone who might have been interested in the job even being acknowledged, let alone interviewed. How can they have seen all of these people ("high calibre" and "surprising" we were told each time), interviewed them and still decided that the best on offer were Grant, Roeder and now Gunn. You can bet whatever you like Delia will have surrounded herself by the best and employed the very best avaialble to her as she vuilt her media and writing career, what a shame she won''t do that for her hobby.No money and sometimes I even think they prefer it that way.

Share this post


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

I believe it comes down to one of these two scenanrios.

1) The board had no interest from other managerial candidates. To some it may seem like an attractive position, big crowds and a big club for League 1 and all that jazz. But with all the uncertainty about the future of the board and the lack of finance for which to bring in any players it would probably seem suicidal to some to take on such a job.

2) There was simply no money to bring in anyone else even if the board wanted to! It''s quite understandable that many managers wouldn''t want to take a pay cut in the current recession if they can help it and we''d almost certainly have to make them take a cut in wages from their previous employers, whether they''d been sacked or left or whatever.

So yeah...like it or lump it, Gunn may have pretty much been the only option.

[/quote]So you''re saying that managers sat at home unemployed with no income wouldn''t want to come and manage Norwich because there''s no money?

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...