Supporters groups meeting with the new Board

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="USAcanary"]

The very start of our downfall was actually the promotion year we WON the championship.............

[/quote]

The start of our downfall was the year before the promotion year, when we borrowed a huge shedload of money.  As is now only too clear, we can''t afford to pay it back and have a successful football team as well.  But the financial consequences took a year or two to kick in, during which time we got promotion. 

So why did we borrow so much to spend on non-football related areas?  Because the majority shareholders were looking for alternative sources of income that wouldn''t involve attracting new investors into NCFC who might threaten their stranglehold over the club.  They have, as you say, put a lot of their own money in, but they''ve done this because for them the alternative - losing absolute control - is worse.  No one''s made them do it. 

The real root of our downfall is, and has always been, the majority shareholders'' determination to hang on to control of the club at all costs - including football success.  It affects every big decision that the club makes.  Specific moneymaking ideas such as land speculation probably did come from our late unlamented Chief Exec, but he was only working to the brief he was given.

 

[Yellow Rider 0]

[quote user="LQ"][quote user="crafty canary"]Why should anyone be surprised to think that siomethings may not have changed? Why should they? The owners that led us to where we are today are still the owners. We can hope that our new CE is more football results focussed than the Doomster and he and Gunny appear to have performed remarkably well this close season. However the real power lies where it always has for the past 13 years or so. If the battered trout doesn''t have a crystal ball re managerial appointments the least she can do is recognise her atrocious record in that area and keep her nose out of the process next time around. Some seem happy to think all is well and let''s hope they are right. on the otherhand perhaps they don''t need a suntan as their noses are brown enough already?[/quote]

Ooooh - get you!

Do you have claws to go with your handbag?

It''s pathetic comments like this that make me wonder why I bother.

Have fun congratulating yourself on such a great post.


[/quote]

Whats'' your problem Lisa, Crafty Canary is spot on with his comments and many others feel the same way.

The Cook .......''knows nothing about football'' (her very own words from the Radio Norfolk interview back in ''96 when she joined the Board). My God, how profound that statement turned out to be! IF her and Mr. Cook are still intent on retaining real control over decision making and strategy then why should anything change.

They should both have resigned from the Board.

Clearly relegation to the Third Division for the first time in 50 years and the tripling of club debt mean nothing to them when it comes to clinging onto power.  

Crafty''s post is not ''pathetic'' Lisa, he tells it how it is and he''s dead right.

[USAcanary 0]

Ther comes a point when all the finger pointing is just a waste of time............

It should all be about how can we make the club successful going forward..............

Those who think Delia is some kind of "Evil Darth Vader" type character seem to have forgotten that they have appointed people like Bowkett who were very critical of the way the club was being run.

McNally, based on his reputation is a man of principal. 

Surely a person so "evil" and "conspiring" would have appointed yes men in positions of power.........Oh!

Its ironic that a few of Delias staunchest detractors probably give her far too much credit........

The fact is mistakes have been made because Delia/MWJ are pretty naive and gave too much power/financial control to people like Doncaster and Mumby............

There comes a point where you have to stop the blubbing and move on. Trying to make things better in the future.

Anyone claiming the current board has not backed Gunn is living in a dream world.

 

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="USAcanary"]

Ther comes a point when all the finger pointing is just a waste of time............

It should all be about how can we make the club successful going forward..............

Those who think Delia is some kind of "Evil Darth Vader" type character seem to have forgotten that they have appointed people like Bowkett who were very critical of the way the club was being run.

McNally, based on his reputation is a man of principal. 

Surely a person so "evil" and "conspiring" would have appointed yes men in positions of power.........Oh!

Its ironic that a few of Delias staunchest detractors probably give her far too much credit........

The fact is mistakes have been made because Delia/MWJ are pretty naive and gave too much power/financial control to people like Doncaster and Mumby............

There comes a point where you have to stop the blubbing and move on. Trying to make things better in the future.

Anyone claiming the current board has not backed Gunn is living in a dream world.

 

 

[/quote]

Taking your points one at a time.

Highlighting major errors is never a waste of time. Only when proof that those mistakes cannot be made again can respite be given.

Everyone wants the club succesful moving forward but that needs the removal asap of the root cause of the failure.

Bowkett.The best place to put a poacher is in the gamekeepers cottage. It''s very difficult to critisize from within the circle.

You obviously know more about McNally than most. Proof of his ability and principals may be apparent over time.The jury is still out.

You do not become multi millionairs within the media industry by being naive.

Control freaks maybe.

Doncaster was an employee and therefore SHOULD have been controlled by the board. Bad management. Just like saying they were not aware of the Roeder effect!

Roger Munby(please note spelling of name) was the only true interpretor between the board and the fans in general. I await with interest as to who will now fill that role.

Blubbing as you call it ,over what has happened to our club, well lets see how this coming season pans out before we totally hide the tissues.

The board have backed Gunn, well if they hadn''t after appointing him against the wishes of the majority of fans well that would have been incredible.

I will await the accounts to see how much they have actually backed him with (given the rebate) and sales of players.

Lets not forget we ARE in the third division and not get too carried away!

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="USAcanary"]

Ther comes a point when all the finger pointing is just a waste of time............

It should all be about how can we make the club successful going forward..............

Those who think Delia is some kind of "Evil Darth Vader" type character seem to have forgotten that they have appointed people like Bowkett who were very critical of the way the club was being run.

McNally, based on his reputation is a man of principal. 

Surely a person so "evil" and "conspiring" would have appointed yes men in positions of power.........Oh!

Its ironic that a few of Delias staunchest detractors probably give her far too much credit........

The fact is mistakes have been made because Delia/MWJ are pretty naive and gave too much power/financial control to people like Doncaster and Mumby............

There comes a point where you have to stop the blubbing and move on. Trying to make things better in the future.

Anyone claiming the current board has not backed Gunn is living in a dream world.

 

 

[/quote]

Taking your points one at a time.

Highlighting major errors is never a waste of time. Only when proof that those mistakes cannot be made again can respite be given.

Everyone wants the club succesful moving forward but that needs the removal asap of the root cause of the failure.

Bowkett.The best place to put a poacher is in the gamekeepers cottage. It''s very difficult to critisize from within the circle.

You obviously know more about McNally than most. Proof of his ability and principals may be apparent over time.The jury is still out.

You do not become multi millionairs within the media industry by being naive.

Control freaks maybe.

Doncaster was an employee and therefore SHOULD have been controlled by the board. Bad management. Just like saying they were not aware of the Roeder effect!

Roger Munby(please note spelling of name) was the only true interpretor between the board and the fans in general. I await with interest as to who will now fill that role.

Blubbing as you call it ,over what has happened to our club, well lets see how this coming season pans out before we totally hide the tissues.

The board have backed Gunn, well if they hadn''t after appointing him against the wishes of the majority of fans well that would have been incredible.

I will await the accounts to see how much they have actually backed him with (given the rebate) and sales of players.

Lets not forget we ARE in the third division and not get too carried away!

[/quote]

 

In my youth you spent the best part of 10 years in the Third Division (South) and once finished rock bottom so that you had to go cap in hand to The Blazers and asked to be readmitted to the Football League (no relegation then) and everyone duly voted to allow you back into the Football League.

I have asked the question before and got no answer so I''ll try it again.

Whose fault was that at the time?

[Camuldonum 0]

Roger Munby(please note spelling of name) was the only true interpretor between the board and the fans in general. I await with interest as to who will now fill that role.

It''s interpreter while we are talking about spelling.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Does anyone know how this McNally chap got the job? Is someone responsible for his appointment or was he sent by God to take on the ignorant and stupid club owners?

[/quote]

Nutty, you''re not suggesting the knowledgeable Sister Wendy just had more exposure than she could take of Delia and sent for help?

[/quote]

Sister Wendy!! I never considered that[:O] Maybe McNally was found wandering around the Carmelite Monastry at Quidenham and Sisters Rachael and Wendy took him to Delia

[A]

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="USAcanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Reading through all of this (thanks for posting you anointed few[:P] ) I was taken aback by McNally saying 7 out of 10 managerial appointments are successful. But then I guess it''s dependent on what people class as successful. The measuring stick for our club, at least how opinions on here read to me, would be top 6 Championship or better. That being the case only Worthington of the managers appointed by this board has been successful which is well below McNallys 70%. To put it into perspective Coventry City have had at least half a dozen managers since their relegation in 2001 and have never managed a top 6 finish. And a quick look at clubs up and down the land not matching their supporters expectations rather confirms my view that McNallys 70% is rather high unless his idea of successful is very different to the beliefs held on here. If we somehow manage to return to the Championship this season will Gunns appointment be deemed successful? After all we would only be returning to where we were when he took over.

 

I believe appointing managers is an absolute nightmare. I am quite happy that it appears the board are finally going back to producing a team and hopefully appointing from within. Peter Grant and Glen Roeder were huge expensive mistakes and none of their men were left to carry on beyond them. I hope that a new dynasty has been formed and the next manager of Norwich City is Butterworth or Crook.

 

When Roeder and Grant were appointed we were told that the board had taken advice from some very well respected footballing people. Now unless that advice was ignored they were quite obviously "led up the garden path". Although it''s true that the buck stops at the top, and advice or not they have to take responsibility for those failures, what more could they have done?

 

They have just appointed a new CE. Most of you seem to be impressed. I wonder what the success rate is for CE''s and what is used to measure that success.

[/quote]

I am going to partially disagree with some of the points of your post..........

Ultimately virtually every single manager is a failure because the sack is certain...........

But I will actually contend that Glenn Roeder was NOT a failure on some levels........

Firstly he came into a disaster of a club/squad and managed to turn it around and keep us up when it looked like we were down. (That''s not a failure!)

Secondly any assertion that he was an EXPENSIVE mistake are totally totally false...........

If you look at his transfer dealings he actually sold FAR more than he spent............even if you don''t include Clingan.

The high wages were not Roeders fault....... they were part of wage structure in place at the club since the Prem season. (a major part of our downfall)

His biggest mistakes were his arrogance and going to the loan market in the second season after being successful in the first season.

His arrogance totally lost the majority of fans which no manager can survive.

It was amazing how he went from savior to villian so quickly.

 

[/quote]

I agree with much of what you say USA but I still believe Roeder was an expensive mistake. I wasn''t just referring to his dealings in the transfer market although it''s fair to say that loan signings like Sibierski were expensive mistakes. However, as I pointed out in that part of my post, he left very little behind when he was sacked. There was seemingly no real structure and we were relegated. That''s expensive! Grant and Roeder took this club down. Grant, with backing from the board, brought the standard of player down by a division and Roeder, along with the board, thought he could be cleverer than the rest by spending huge amounts of money on loan players. Two successive failures and no legacy. It''s interesting that many fans are happy to make excuses for both of them and yet the last manager to leave a decent legacy in his wake is till much maligned on here.

I agree that Glen Roeder wasn''t a failure in his first season because he kept us up and that was how success would have been measured for him that season. But he subsequently took us to a lower point the following season so has to be a failure.

Going back to the point I was making - I am still totally baffled by McNallys apparent claims that 70% of managerial appointments are succesful. In fact I agree more with Delia''s crystal ball comments[:O]

 

[USAcanary 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="USAcanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Reading through all of this (thanks for posting you anointed few[:P] ) I was taken aback by McNally saying 7 out of 10 managerial appointments are successful. But then I guess it''s dependent on what people class as successful. The measuring stick for our club, at least how opinions on here read to me, would be top 6 Championship or better. That being the case only Worthington of the managers appointed by this board has been successful which is well below McNallys 70%. To put it into perspective Coventry City have had at least half a dozen managers since their relegation in 2001 and have never managed a top 6 finish. And a quick look at clubs up and down the land not matching their supporters expectations rather confirms my view that McNallys 70% is rather high unless his idea of successful is very different to the beliefs held on here. If we somehow manage to return to the Championship this season will Gunns appointment be deemed successful? After all we would only be returning to where we were when he took over.

 

I believe appointing managers is an absolute nightmare. I am quite happy that it appears the board are finally going back to producing a team and hopefully appointing from within. Peter Grant and Glen Roeder were huge expensive mistakes and none of their men were left to carry on beyond them. I hope that a new dynasty has been formed and the next manager of Norwich City is Butterworth or Crook.

 

When Roeder and Grant were appointed we were told that the board had taken advice from some very well respected footballing people. Now unless that advice was ignored they were quite obviously "led up the garden path". Although it''s true that the buck stops at the top, and advice or not they have to take responsibility for those failures, what more could they have done?

 

They have just appointed a new CE. Most of you seem to be impressed. I wonder what the success rate is for CE''s and what is used to measure that success.

[/quote]

I am going to partially disagree with some of the points of your post..........

Ultimately virtually every single manager is a failure because the sack is certain...........

But I will actually contend that Glenn Roeder was NOT a failure on some levels........

Firstly he came into a disaster of a club/squad and managed to turn it around and keep us up when it looked like we were down. (That''s not a failure!)

Secondly any assertion that he was an EXPENSIVE mistake are totally totally false...........

If you look at his transfer dealings he actually sold FAR more than he spent............even if you don''t include Clingan.

The high wages were not Roeders fault....... they were part of wage structure in place at the club since the Prem season. (a major part of our downfall)

His biggest mistakes were his arrogance and going to the loan market in the second season after being successful in the first season.

His arrogance totally lost the majority of fans which no manager can survive.

It was amazing how he went from savior to villian so quickly.

 

[/quote]

I agree with much of what you say USA but I still believe Roeder was an expensive mistake. I wasn''t just referring to his dealings in the transfer market although it''s fair to say that loan signings like Sibierski were expensive mistakes. However, as I pointed out in that part of my post, he left very little behind when he was sacked. There was seemingly no real structure and we were relegated. That''s expensive! Grant and Roeder took this club down. Grant, with backing from the board, brought the standard of player down by a division and Roeder, along with the board, thought he could be cleverer than the rest by spending huge amounts of money on loan players. Two successive failures and no legacy. It''s interesting that many fans are happy to make excuses for both of them and yet the last manager to leave a decent legacy in his wake is till much maligned on here.

I agree that Glen Roeder wasn''t a failure in his first season because he kept us up and that was how success would have been measured for him that season. But he subsequently took us to a lower point the following season so has to be a failure.

Going back to the point I was making - I am still totally baffled by McNallys apparent claims that 70% of managerial appointments are succesful. In fact I agree more with Delia''s crystal ball comments[:O]

 

[/quote]

I will say I agree it sounds way too high but it''s all about context...................The context of what "success" is...........

As an example Hull or Burnley would be thought of as highly succesful this year if they finished one place above relegation.........

Either us or Leeds would be considered failures if we finished 7th in LG 1

Virtually every manager finishes on some kind of failure which leads to the sack.......

The problem with "success" is only a few teams can achieve promotion, most are thought of as failure.

Although some teams such as Scunthorpe or Doncaster are more than happy to retain championship status.

Even saying that I would think the vast majority of "managerial stints" would be deemed failures.

Obviously any early success makes a "managerial stint" longer than average.

 

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="USAcanary"]

Ther comes a point when all the finger pointing is just a waste of time............

It should all be about how can we make the club successful going forward..............

Those who think Delia is some kind of "Evil Darth Vader" type character seem to have forgotten that they have appointed people like Bowkett who were very critical of the way the club was being run.

McNally, based on his reputation is a man of principal. 

Surely a person so "evil" and "conspiring" would have appointed yes men in positions of power.........Oh!

Its ironic that a few of Delias staunchest detractors probably give her far too much credit........

The fact is mistakes have been made because Delia/MWJ are pretty naive and gave too much power/financial control to people like Doncaster and Mumby............

There comes a point where you have to stop the blubbing and move on. Trying to make things better in the future.

Anyone claiming the current board has not backed Gunn is living in a dream world.

 

 

[/quote]

Taking your points one at a time.

Highlighting major errors is never a waste of time. Only when proof that those mistakes cannot be made again can respite be given.

Everyone wants the club succesful moving forward but that needs the removal asap of the root cause of the failure.

Bowkett.The best place to put a poacher is in the gamekeepers cottage. It''s very difficult to critisize from within the circle.

You obviously know more about McNally than most. Proof of his ability and principals may be apparent over time.The jury is still out.

You do not become multi millionairs within the media industry by being naive.

Control freaks maybe.

Doncaster was an employee and therefore SHOULD have been controlled by the board. Bad management. Just like saying they were not aware of the Roeder effect!

Roger Munby(please note spelling of name) was the only true interpretor between the board and the fans in general. I await with interest as to who will now fill that role.

Blubbing as you call it ,over what has happened to our club, well lets see how this coming season pans out before we totally hide the tissues.

The board have backed Gunn, well if they hadn''t after appointing him against the wishes of the majority of fans well that would have been incredible.

I will await the accounts to see how much they have actually backed him with (given the rebate) and sales of players.

Lets not forget we ARE in the third division and not get too carried away!

[/quote]

 

In my youth you spent the best part of 10 years in the Third Division (South) and once finished rock bottom so that you had to go cap in hand to The Blazers and asked to be readmitted to the Football League (no relegation then) and everyone duly voted to allow you back into the Football League.

I have asked the question before and got no answer so I''ll try it again.

Whose fault was that at the time?

[/quote]

Everybody has to start somewhere, that was where we started.

We progressed through hard work to get to a decent level (you would not be used to that).

So I attach no blame to those people running the club at that stage.

Cam when you are slateing someone I thought as a journo you would understand getting the name at least correct.

Spelling in general has always been poor in most papers, I am not brilliant myself as I type  quickly and do not always proof read it.

Well Done[*] I really have missed your sarcasm

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Yellow Rider"][quote user="Desert Fox"]

LQ,

"Thank goodness the focus from pretty much everyone present, fans and Board, was on the future and where we go from here rather than harking back over old ground. Lessons have most certainly been learned"

Although the football side of things has progressed better than I had expected, I am far from convinced that lessons have been learned about the non-football side of things and I can fully undertstand why the Board would not want to debate these with the fans.

"Lets focus on the future" is the typical rallying cry of a policticians who are desperate to avoid any menaingful debate about their mistakes. Unfortunately, soem transpraency about these is a fundemanetal part of the healing process, however painful this may be, and not something to be swept under the carpet. However, I doubt this will be the case and the Board are desperately hoping that we make a good start to the season so that any interest in this other matters is gradually forgotten about.

 

[/quote] I agree Desert Fox. The last thing The Cook wanted to deal with was serious questions probing her involvement in major decisions going right backto that fateful summer of ''98! Fact is that her and her husband have been responsible (as owners) for a tripling of the clubs debt and relegation to the Third Division for the first time in 50 years!!

For her to say last night (apparently) that ....''I didn''t reaLise how bad things had got under GR'' just shows her hopelessely out of touch she remains with the fooball side of her little empire.

The Cook should have had the decency to resign from the Board after the Charlton humiliation. She could do what she likes with her shares. Unless she and Mr Smith have delegated all decision making to the other directors I remain very sceptical.[/quote]

Spot on!

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="LQ"]
I have a predilection towards giving people a chance, innocent until proven guilty and all that. That''s what McNally, Bowkett and Phillips will get from me - a chance to prove they can change things rather than assuming they can''t. But that''s me.

[/quote]

So what are your views regarding the Stowmarket Two and Foulger who have taken this club to Division 3 (old money) for the first time in fifty years?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="LQ"]
 I''m not interested in platitudes and niceties. So what if MWJ says "we can''t sell the land we have"? Isn''t that just honest?
[/quote]

While they are at it, they can explain to the fans that we have £6.4m (to 31/5/2008) already tied up in the ex LSE, ex Norwich City Council etc. land. In addition there is an annual intrest bill for the £2.5m loan and we are on a two year cycle for arrangement fees. Both funded by the playing side of the business.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Tim Allman"]

Q3 was from Peter Wolsey of the Norwich City Shareholders Association who spoke very passionately about NCFC and asked: (1) Would the wage bill be more than £3million, and (2) How would the board "Manage/Control the Manager".

From my recall Peter Wolsey was well informed, was critical for the reasons for the debt, and was very knowledgeable about the accounts for the last five years. I wouldn''t have expected David McNally to have the same level of detail and history after six weeks as CEO.

[/quote]

I would expect DM. to have a good grasp of this seasons budget and the question about the wage bill related to this season.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

LQ stated:
I have a predilection towards giving people a chance, innocent until proven guilty and all that. That''s what McNally, Bowkett and Phillips will get from me - a chance to prove they can change things rather than assuming they can''t. But that''s me.
----------------

TFA stated:

So what are your views regarding the Stowmarket Two and Foulger who have taken this club to Division 3 (old money) for the first time in fifty years?

---------------

Time for LQ. to respond, don''t you think?

[LQ 0]

I didn''t see your question.I think they too realised enough was enough and made appropriate changes at Board level.

[Norfolk Dumpling 14]

I''m sure that LQ can speak for herself. however many of us hold the same view as her and that farce of a match on Saturday does not mean that one needs to change our view on the new members of the Board.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Norfolk Dumpling"]I''m sure that LQ can speak for herself. however many of us hold the same view as her and that farce of a match on Saturday does not mean that one needs to change our view on the new members of the Board.[/quote]

But the question didn''t relate to the new members of the board. May I suggest you have another look at the question ( afew posts back).

[Norfolk Dumpling 14]

Noted.