Time to get behind Gunn?

[PhatCanary 0]

A bit of time patches?

HE HAD 19 GAMES!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus Christ he failed miserably in his attempt to keep us up,he is not good enough to manage this club!

[chicken 0]

[quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Smudger"]

Lets all be happy clappy morons and not back our beliefs... lol

Just how we got in to this fine mess in the first place... [:$]

[/quote]Whose beliefs?One thing I would like to ask - who thinks that having Gunn removed as manager would achieve anything? If the problem lays at the feet of the board or with certain members of the board then why snipe off the people they select to put in a position? They will just choose the next person anyway.A large number of supporters had had enough of Worthington and campaigned for him to go even if he was the most successful manager we had had since Chase went. Whether I agree with that or not it certainly didn''t move us forward - at least we had players that could pass a ball with Worthington. Three seasons and three managers later - and people really believe that having a new manager appointed is a guarantee to work when it is the same people making the decisions?Sheep you may call us Smudger but I am not going to protest for the removal of someone that will make little or no difference especially when there is very little that you can blame Gunn for in reality. Do you blame him - I don''t. I blame two managers prior to him that have come here and have been given more money than any other managers in seasons past and still have failed.So go and protest against a proud man Smudger - I am afraid I have bigger fish to fry. I want answers and answers we will not get from him. Blood spilt to quench the thirst of the mindless mob it would be.[/quote]

Worthington removed the reserve matches and refused to acknowledge our youth players, only playing them under extreme pressure and ruining the confidence! Worthington at the time to us 6 point  a drift at the bottom of the league! so no worthington should have stayed and if any thing he was kept on far to long! As for Gunn im sure no Norwich fan is protesting for him to leave , but he is one off the reason why we are in the position we are in, he was roedents cheif scout and he has to take blame for 19 games and 5 wins, how blind do u have to be to see his appointment is poor...i just hope he pulls this one out of the bag![/quote]I didn''t mean it to come across as a pro-Worthington post - all I was trying to point out was that we had a manager who was pretty proven in regards to bargain buys with the likes of Francis, Holt, McKenzie and Drury and to some extent Safri and Etuhu - who after relegation was seemingly only given money that was made from the sales of our own players (Ashton and Green) and then he is replaced by Grant who was untried and untested and yet given millions to spend. Worthington was only given enough money in his last summer to sign Croft for £600k. Grant bought Strihavka for £750k plus more if we had kept him, Brown for £300k, Marshall for around £800k and other players such as the "judge" who would have come in on good wages along with Fotheringham who was also paid good money, Cureton for £800k, Russell for £410k.Do you see where I am going? The managers may well have made misstakes but the biggest misstakes of all have been made at the board level - why call for a managers head when the evidence suggests that they are only likely to invest in another maybe-man who we will end up calling for his head again? Do we want to break the cycle or just forefill it?

[xxxx 0]

Gunn had so many no shows in those 19 matches its unbelievable he was given the job , lets face it he always had the job and was lying through his teeth at fans who questioned him on the subject on radio Norfolk , then a couple of hours later he is unveiled 24 hours before Smith knew he was going to get a massive thumbs down at the NCISA meeting. That sums this club up , a big who cares about the supporters vote from Smith and her Hubby , all we want is your money.

[PhatCanary 0]

[quote user="Gunns NO Legend"]Gunn had so many no shows in those 19 matches its unbelievable he was given the job , lets face it he always had the job and was lying through his teeth at fans who questioned him on the subject on radio Norfolk , then a couple of hours later he is unveiled 24 hours before Smith knew he was going to get a massive thumbs down at the NCISA meeting. That sums this club up , a big who cares about the supporters vote from Smith and her Hubby , all we want is your money.
[/quote]

Spot on!!!!

[chicken 0]

[quote user="PhatCanary"]

[quote user="Gunns NO Legend"]Gunn had so many no shows in those 19 matches its unbelievable he was given the job , lets face it he always had the job and was lying through his teeth at fans who questioned him on the subject on radio Norfolk , then a couple of hours later he is unveiled 24 hours before Smith knew he was going to get a massive thumbs down at the NCISA meeting. That sums this club up , a big who cares about the supporters vote from Smith and her Hubby , all we want is your money.[/quote]

Spot on!!!!

[/quote]So as I said - why go for him if it is those above him that are really the problem?

[xxxx 0]

Because the man claims to love the club , he knows he is not the man for the job , all he had to do was say no thanks i am out of my depth Delia . Instead he started a cringeworthy campaign to be given the job , what he gets now he more than deserves.

[PhatCanary 0]

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="PhatCanary"]

[quote user="Gunns NO Legend"]Gunn had so many no shows in those 19 matches its unbelievable he was given the job , lets face it he always had the job and was lying through his teeth at fans who questioned him on the subject on radio Norfolk , then a couple of hours later he is unveiled 24 hours before Smith knew he was going to get a massive thumbs down at the NCISA meeting. That sums this club up , a big who cares about the supporters vote from Smith and her Hubby , all we want is your money.
[/quote]

Spot on!!!!

[/quote]

So as I said - why go for him if it is those above him that are really the problem?
[/quote]

I did go for those above,when i got of my backside and protested against her at the open day but Gunn should not of took the job on,if he loves this club so much why put it''s future at risk pretending to be a manager?

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Patches OHoolahan"]

I was not at all happy at the appointment of Mr Gunn, however I think it would be naive to hope for his removal as manager until the board are gone, and even then I think he will be given time depending on how he has done and the personality of the new board- it wouldn''t look good to sack a club legend if we were top of League One.

[/quote]Won''t happen because if the board go, he will go.Bryan GunnP19 W5 D5 L9  win% 26.4He had lots of time and he did nothing with it.  Waste of space.  Sack him.

[Badger 0]

19 games.If that is all we give a manager to make a side his own, we will never get anywhere.

[xxxx 0]

By all means give a manager longer than 19 games , Gunn im afraid is not and never will be a manager , he had 19 games to prove he had something about him . He was and everybody knows this worse than useless .

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Patches OHoolahan"]

I was not at all happy at the appointment of Mr Gunn, however I think it would be naive to hope for his removal as manager until the board are gone, and even then I think he will be given time depending on how he has done and the personality of the new board- it wouldn''t look good to sack a club legend if we were top of League One.

[/quote]Won''t happen because if the board go, he will go.Bryan GunnP19 W5 D5 L9  win% 26.4He had lots of time and he did nothing with it.  Waste of space.  Sack him.[/quote]So again why Gunn. Surely if getting the current leadership out will altimately end with Gunn going as well why go for him.As for what others have said - I would not hold anything against gunn for wanting to get the club out of where it is. I also do not blame Gunn for the results that we had over the last 19 games of the season. As I have said elsewhere some of the players reacted and others did not, on the whole the players he brought in were an improvement on what we already had or at least provided us with some alternatives.Shackell, Gow, Mooney, Lee and MacDonald - all good signings in my view for our predicament at that point in time. Mooney scored 3 in nine appearences and compared to Lita''s 7 in 16 it isn''t that far off is it? Of the players that were here - Hoolahan started to look the player we all thought he could be, Semi started to look like a player full stop. The others that disappointed were mainly our own in the form of Fotheringham and Patty.Sure you may have been able to turn some more of those around but at the end of the day our squad was too weak. It came down to the last few games and those that had slugged their guts out for the entire season like Clingan seemed to have nothing left to give or like Marshall and Croft had already left in the back of their minds at least.I am not saying that he had no part to play - I just think that it would have taken one heck of a manager to come in and turn it around with the players we had in at the time that Gunn took over. Remember he had only 8 days to make any permanent signings.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Badger"]19 games.If that is all we give a manager to make a side his own, we will never get anywhere. [/quote]For his first 19 games, he has the worst managerial statistics of any manager in the last 15 years, including Hamilton and Grant.  He is a professional "nice bloke" reeking of the boardroom and the cosy fraternity of Colney, and he is patently not the right man for the job.  Anyone who plays Jason Shackell at left back should immediately be banned from professional management.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Badger"]19 games.If that is all we give a manager to make a side his own, we will never get anywhere. [/quote]For his first 19 games, he has the worst managerial statistics of any manager in the last 15 years, including Hamilton and Grant.  He is a professional "nice bloke" reeking of the boardroom and the cosy fraternity of Colney, and he is patently not the right man for the job.  Anyone who plays Jason Shackell at left back should immediately be banned from professional management.[/quote]That''s right he should. For playing a left footed player at left back due to injuries to other players. Scary that.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

Is Simon Lappin a figment of my imagination? Oh and apparently Bertrand wasn''t actually injured at all but that''s been discussed before.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Badger"]


I think he needs the chance to build his own team and develop its tactics and ethos. Let''s be honest, he didn''t really get a chance to do this last season. He inherited a very thin squad, which he had to supplement with a variety of loan signings. It was hardly "his" team.


[/quote]

Badger, I seem to be in a "this is water under the bridge but..." mode today. Perhaps because I can see a bridge with water running under it!

Anyway, the problem with that argument is Bill Davies. Davies took over Forest only a game or so before Gunn took over Norwich. Forest were in the relegation zone, with a thin squad. We were above the relegation zone with a thin squad. If there was time enough for Davies to get Forest out of the bottom three there was time enough for Gunn to keep us out.[/quote]

I don''t claim to be an expert on this, but I would have judged their squad to be stronger than ours - I''d certainly have swapped frontlines.But he certainly did a good job for them (as he has generally done for other sides too - was he ever on our radar?)
[/quote]

Really?  I don''t remember any City fans claiming that Forest had a stronger squad than ours at the start of last season.

[O.T.B.C 0]

I would have Shacks over Lappin at left back any day of the week. Lappin proved before, that he was not good enough there. Where is report or alleged reports of Bertrand not injured? I have not seen any.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="The Chirp"]oh dear....

Look their squad had better players but weren''t playing as a team... Davies got them playing as a team and the standard of their players came through... this is simple stuff to bat back and forth...

Roeder''s norwich lost 3-2 at home to Forest remember... With Forest scoring both our goals.


[/quote]

Roeders Norwich also beat Forest away... [:$]

I don''t remember you or any other City fan claiming that Forest would finish above us at the start of last season.

You get behind Gunny lot really are making yourselves out to look utter mugs!!!

[Patches OHoolahan 0]

To be fair I thought/hoped at the start of the season that Norwich would just about be in the hunt for 6th place, and I believed that Forest would be in a similar position if not better. I realise I was wrong, but I still think that they had a strong squad, the likes of Earnshaw, Tyson, Garner, Cole and later Blackstock scream goals at this level, despite their initial failings. The main difference between the two was investment in permanent players, which Forest has due to their ambition and a wealthy backer. Norwich had neither of these really.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Patches OHoolahan"]

I was not at all happy at the appointment of Mr Gunn, however I think it would be naive to hope for his removal as manager until the board are gone, and even then I think he will be given time depending on how he has done and the personality of the new board- it wouldn''t look good to sack a club legend if we were top of League One.

[/quote]

Won''t happen because if the board go, he will go.

Bryan Gunn

P19 W5 D5 L9  win% 26.4

He had lots of time and he did nothing with it.  Waste of space.  Sack him.
[/quote]

So again why Gunn. Surely if getting the current leadership out will altimately end with Gunn going as well why go for him.

As for what others have said - I would not hold anything against gunn for wanting to get the club out of where it is. I also do not blame Gunn for the results that we had over the last 19 games of the season. As I have said elsewhere some of the players reacted and others did not, on the whole the players he brought in were an improvement on what we already had or at least provided us with some alternatives.

Shackell, Gow, Mooney, Lee and MacDonald - all good signings in my view for our predicament at that point in time. Mooney scored 3 in nine appearences and compared to Lita''s 7 in 16 it isn''t that far off is it? Of the players that were here - Hoolahan started to look the player we all thought he could be, Semi started to look like a player full stop. The others that disappointed were mainly our own in the form of Fotheringham and Patty.

Sure you may have been able to turn some more of those around but at the end of the day our squad was too weak. It came down to the last few games and those that had slugged their guts out for the entire season like Clingan seemed to have nothing left to give or like Marshall and Croft had already left in the back of their minds at least.

I am not saying that he had no part to play - I just think that it would have taken one heck of a manager to come in and turn it around with the players we had in at the time that Gunn took over. Remember he had only 8 days to make any permanent signings.
[/quote]

Dear Chicken,

Who said that anybody was targetting Gunn... of course you are right that he should not be public enemy number one... that is of course saved for the cook.

However, to say that he should not be criticised and that all fans should get behind him is quite frankly laughable.

[Patches OHoolahan 0]

Norwich actually played well to beat Forest away, in the final matches of Calderwood''s regime, however by the time we played them at home, Roeder''s reign was coming to an end, and I think circumstances prevailed in both cases.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Patches OHoolahan"]To be fair I thought/hoped at the start of the season that Norwich would just about be in the hunt for 6th place, and I believed that Forest would be in a similar position if not better. I realise I was wrong, but I still think that they had a strong squad, the likes of Earnshaw, Tyson, Garner, Cole and later Blackstock scream goals at this level, despite their initial failings. The main difference between the two was investment in permanent players, which Forest has due to their ambition and a wealthy backer. Norwich had neither of these really.[/quote]

Fair enough, I knew that both of us would struggle.

Forest may have had some reasonable talent up front on the books, but their midfield and defence shouted out that they were always going to be in difficulty at the wrong end of the table.

[Clever Farke 64]

The manager debate is a red herring anyway and plays into the boards hands. They are very clever that way. Sure back him or boo him if you like. I am indifferent. They will only get some other poor puppet to take the flak for their ineptitude. There will be continual decline until the people running this club into the ground are ousted.

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

[quote user="supercol"]

I was not happy about his appointment either, but you are right we need to now get behind the team , after all we are all Norwich City supporters. I get the impression that ceratin people on here cannot wait for him to fail so they can have another whinge. I cannot stand the idiots who say things like "Dont buy any merchandise from the club shop" or "Dont get behind the team, its just what the board want" what do they expect us to do ? Will they be happy if nobody goes to matches or buys anything from the club shop and the club suffers ? They make snide remarks from the sidelines , probably never go near Carrow Road, they are imbeciles.

[/quote]

Supercol, this sounds to much like PR spin. Do you work for NCFC ?

I can assure you that many posters on who are fed up to the back teeth with those in charge at Carrow Road have probably seen more City matches than you''ve had hot dinners.

For some insane reason I''ve renewed my season ticket but they know what they can do when they start wailing about needing to keep the rebate. They''re not having mine. And I certainly won''t be spending £40 or whatever it is on some new shirt.

You know as well as everyone else that Bryan Gunn was the cheap option. Yes, we all love him and if or when it all goes t*ts up for him I''ll be sad but he does look a little out of his depth as a manager. You can bet your bottom dollar that if it does go wrong the present Board - if they''re still here of course - will do their best to hang him out to dry to get themselves off the hook.

I''m confident that most City fans aren''t that gullible....

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="PhatCanary"]

A bit of time patches?

HE HAD 19 GAMES!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus Christ he failed miserably in his attempt to keep us up,he is not good enough to manage this club!

[/quote]

Says it all for me, thanks Phat.[Y]

[supercol 0]

No, I don''t work for NCFC, it is not spin.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Smudger"]However, to say that he should not be criticised and that all fans should get behind him is quite frankly laughable.[/quote]Does that mean you will be resigning from NCISA in view of their statement? You surely can''t remain a member of an organisation who''s views are totally opposed to yours?

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Smudger"]However, to say that he should not be criticised and that all fans should get behind him is quite frankly laughable.[/quote]Does that mean you will be resigning from NCISA in view of their statement? You surely can''t remain a member of an organisation who''s views are totally opposed to yours?[/quote]

I would resign if I was on the committee Lapp.

I am a member and am paid up for at least another year, so I may attend some of their meetings in order to see what is said.

Their views are not totally opposed to mine Lapp or the other 500 in St Andrews Hall that night.... that is my whole point... why word what they had to say about Gunn in their last press release in such a way to keep the happy clappies happy when as far as I know only 7 out of 500 at St Andrews and no committee members are in favour of the Gunn appointment.

A weak press release to appease both camps when there was a clear favouring for one side of the debate and a more strongly worded press release.

If Tilly would like to buy me a bag of pork scratchings for my 20% rebate for early renewal next time I see him in the pub then I will promise to stay away from NCISA meetings if they do not decide to get yet firmer still with Gunny and those who have given him the job in the first place... [;)]

[Old Yellow And Green Boy 0]

seems fairly reasonable attitude...............................

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Patches OHoolahan"]

I was not at all happy at the appointment of Mr Gunn, however I think it would be naive to hope for his removal as manager until the board are gone, and even then I think he will be given time depending on how he has done and the personality of the new board- it wouldn''t look good to sack a club legend if we were top of League One.

[/quote]Won''t happen because if the board go, he will go.Bryan GunnP19 W5 D5 L9  win% 26.4He had lots of time and he did nothing with it.  Waste of space.  Sack him.[/quote]So again why Gunn. Surely if getting the current leadership out will altimately end with Gunn going as well why go for him.As for what others have said - I would not hold anything against gunn for wanting to get the club out of where it is. I also do not blame Gunn for the results that we had over the last 19 games of the season. As I have said elsewhere some of the players reacted and others did not, on the whole the players he brought in were an improvement on what we already had or at least provided us with some alternatives.Shackell, Gow, Mooney, Lee and MacDonald - all good signings in my view for our predicament at that point in time. Mooney scored 3 in nine appearences and compared to Lita''s 7 in 16 it isn''t that far off is it? Of the players that were here - Hoolahan started to look the player we all thought he could be, Semi started to look like a player full stop. The others that disappointed were mainly our own in the form of Fotheringham and Patty.Sure you may have been able to turn some more of those around but at the end of the day our squad was too weak. It came down to the last few games and those that had slugged their guts out for the entire season like Clingan seemed to have nothing left to give or like Marshall and Croft had already left in the back of their minds at least.I am not saying that he had no part to play - I just think that it would have taken one heck of a manager to come in and turn it around with the players we had in at the time that Gunn took over. Remember he had only 8 days to make any permanent signings.[/quote]

Dear Chicken,

Who said that anybody was targetting Gunn... of course you are right that he should not be public enemy number one... that is of course saved for the cook.

However, to say that he should not be criticised and that all fans should get behind him is quite frankly laughable.

[/quote]Swish, swash, forward, lunge and back.Whilst you make a good point I am afraid it misses its mark - at no point do I issue a rallying call to get behind Gunn and give him all we have got (actually saying it like that sounds rather dodgy!). What I have sasked is that why are people are less willing to give him a chance than they have been with the last two managers and yet so far in terms of signings he has arguably done better?I have then suggested that he is becoming the fall guy for the board and at the end of the day asking for his removal or suggesting that we should have had a different manager would not change our predicament and would not nessisarily lead to an improvement in results or in the direction of the club.If there is anyone to blame for all of this it is the current board - not just ''the cook'' she is joint majority shareholder that surely means her partner has a say? And the other board members who could quite easily step forward and undermine anyone who is becoming a failing point of the club. Gunn is an almost pointless target in this respect - it would just lead to yet another manager who the players may or may not like, another cheap alternative manager (unless you are delusioned to think otherwise) and yet more angry fans. The problem is we could go through risky but cheap option managers until we find another Worthington but we could be conference by then - and that is the whole reason why it has to come back to the board. They offered or kept Gunn in the job.Don''t blame him for taking it. It was my dream as kid and a young adult to play for Norwich, as time goes on you realise what kind of a dream that is - now being a bit older and putting together my own team if I was offered the managers job by pure fluke I would bite their hands off. That is just how Gunn is, he bleeds yellow and green - you would never have to ask him twice, you would always no what the answer would be.

[Badger 0]

What is undeniable is that Gunn''s initial record is poor and that he has made some mistakes. Personally, I don''t think that it is right to judge anyone on their performance with someone else''s team (such as it was) without really giving them the chance to do things "their way."Even if you disagree with all of the above, I still don''t see what there is to gain in not getting behind Gunn. Why go at all if you want him to fail - it just doesn''t make sense to me?