Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
canarytim

Mick Dennis- Where is your objectivity

Recommended Posts

[quote user="no. 6"]People saying they respect Mr Dennis for coming on here and defending his views is a bit silly when he''s run away as soon as the questions got vaguely difficult for him. Especially when his reason is "waaah people are being mean to me" - if one''s viewpoint is robust then the tone of one''s opponents shouldn''t matter, only the content of their arguments.[/quote]The fact is that Mr Dennis could write 10,000 unpaid words on here and all he''d get in return is more of the same - people are generally too entrenched to see the other persons'' side.  Why would you do that when you can get paid for a column ?  Mr Carrow hasn''t moved his viewpoint since 2004, I can''t see how a couple of hundred words from Mick Dennis would change his mind, no offence intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"]The fact is that Mr Dennis could write 10,000 unpaid words on here and all he''d get in return is more of the same - people are generally too entrenched to see the other persons'' side.  Why would you do that when you can get paid for a column ?  Mr Carrow hasn''t moved his viewpoint since 2004, I can''t see how a couple of hundred words from Mick Dennis would change his mind, no offence intended.[/quote]Thats just as true of Mr Dennis as it is Mr Carrow. Also, Mr Carrow is a reasonable person, I''m sure if someone provided him with evidence to the contrary, quoting from the accounts where applicable, that he would change his mind. The simple fact is, that in 4 years, no-one has been able to dent his hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, its not necessarily about changing the mind of your opponent, there are plenty of posters and lurkers who might be on the fence about these issues, and running away when the going gets tough isn''t going to persuade them that Mr Dennis''s arguments are correct - quite the opposite I imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="no. 6"]Also, its not necessarily about changing the mind of your opponent, there are plenty of posters and lurkers who might be on the fence about these issues, and running away when the going gets tough isn''t going to persuade them that Mr Dennis''s arguments are correct - quite the opposite I imagine.
[/quote]

What are Mr Dennis''s arguments and why aren''t they correct?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="no. 6"][quote user="blahblahblah"]The fact is that Mr Dennis could write 10,000 unpaid words on here and all he''d get in return is more of the same - people are generally too entrenched to see the other persons'' side.  Why would you do that when you can get paid for a column ?  Mr Carrow hasn''t moved his viewpoint since 2004, I can''t see how a couple of hundred words from Mick Dennis would change his mind, no offence intended.[/quote]Thats just as true of Mr Dennis as it is Mr Carrow. Also, Mr Carrow is a reasonable person, I''m sure if someone provided him with evidence to the contrary, quoting from the accounts where applicable, that he would change his mind. The simple fact is, that in 4 years, no-one has been able to dent his hypothesis.[/quote]I wouldn''t call his a hypothesis, merely a position.  He doesn''t think we should spend outside of the team, and that''s his choice.  I happen to think that attempting to grow businesses, and money through profit in those businesses alongside the football to attempt to support it is no bad thing.  Other clubs do it, why shouldn''t we ?  The alternative is to support a team like Crystal Palace.  They really are one blonde strop away from non-existence.  The only problem seems to be that those businesses don''t seem to have been very successful.  But with a new CEO looking to bring funds in, we should hopefully see improvement, both on and off pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]What are Mr Dennis''s arguments and why aren''t they correct?[/quote]His arguments are anything and everything he''s put forward in his columns which are falsifiable. I''m not necessarily saying they aren''t correct, I''m simply saying that by running away and not defending his views against his detractors, especially with such weak justification, isn''t going to persuade anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="no. 6"]Also, its not necessarily about changing the mind of your opponent, there are plenty of posters and lurkers who might be on the fence about these issues, and running away when the going gets tough isn''t going to persuade them that Mr Dennis''s arguments are correct - quite the opposite I imagine.[/quote]Seriously - when a thread has hit page 9, you can be pretty certain that the only people who are still viewing it are the people who are entrenched in the argument. [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="no. 6"][quote user="nutty nigel"]What are Mr Dennis''s arguments and why aren''t they correct?[/quote]

His arguments are anything and everything he''s put forward in his columns which are falsifiable.

I''m not necessarily saying they aren''t correct, I''m simply saying that by running away and not defending his views against his detractors, especially with such weak justification, isn''t going to persuade anyone.
[/quote]

Well, I guess that brings us nicely back to the difference between a columnist and a reporter. Some fans will enjoy Mick Dennis and others will enjoy Richard Balls. Depends on your view point. I could take issue with both at times.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="mr carra"]

Mr Carrow,

 

What is your obsession with playing budget as a % of total income - this is such a totally and utterly meaningless statistic that it makes me doubt everything else you say..

For example, take 2 clubs:

 

Club A generates £5m income from football activities and has no other activities so it can spend £5m on its playing budget and still break even.

 

Club B also generates £5m income from football activities but also has other non-football commercial activites that cost £5m but generate income of £6m.  This means it can spend £6m on it''s playing budget while still breaking even.

Club B is clearly doing a better job, because it has generated an extra £1m for its playing budget but by your spurious measure it is doing worse, because its playing budget is 55% of its income (£6m/£11m) while Club A''s is 100% (£5m/£5m).

 

 

[/quote]

It`s a fair point mr carra and i do understand it, but whether you take a percentage figure or an overall figure it paints the same picture.  We could afford to spend £1.9m out of £19m income on our team, Preston could afford £5m out of £8.5m.  If any board supporters can come up with figures from comparable clubs which look as bad as ours i`d be very interested and it would seriously strengthen their argument.  If not, maybe we should ask questions about the deeper issues rather than being fobbed off with entirely dishonest codswollop about how all our money goes on player wages? 

Just to remind you, up until about five years ago we were being told that we needed 16k crowds to break even- now we make huge losses (particularly taking into account the transfer profits) with crowds of 24k.  Our non-player wage costs rose from £12.5m to £17.5m on promotion to the Prem and have stayed at that level ever since.  Do these things paint a picture of a well-run club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"]I wouldn''t call his a hypothesis, merely a position.[/quote]Of course its a hypothesis, I don''t want to put words in his mouth and I''m sure he''ll be along later to clarify, but it seems to me that his hypothesis is "Overspending on non-football parts of the business has been detrimental to the footballing side". This is a falsifiable statement, therefore it is a hypothesis - one can look into the accounts, and the results of the footballing side to determine whether or not the statement has enough evidence to back it up, in which case we can provisionally say the hypothesis is true, or if contrary evidence is found, we can say it has been falsified.[quote]He doesn''t think we should spend outside of the team, and that''s his choice. [/quote]This is a total strawman, he''s never said that. [quote]I happen to think that attempting to grow businesses, and money through profit in those businesses alongside the football to attempt to support it is no bad thing.  Other clubs do it, why shouldn''t we ?  [/quote]The question is one of extent, not a binary choice. He and others think that we have spent too much in both time and money, on projects that have ended up either being subsidised by the team or taking away money that could be spent on the team (this particular point may be more TFA''s position than Mr Carrow''s to be fair).[quote]The only problem seems to be that those businesses don''t seem to have been very successful.[/quote]This is exactly his point, they haven''t been successful.[quote]But with a new CEO looking to bring funds in, we should hopefully see improvement, both on and off pitch.[/quote]Agreed, but that doesn''t wipe clean the mistakes of the past which are still affecting us today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Carrow,

Thanks for your reply.  Not sure Preston is an ideal example because  I thought they were being heavily subsidised (I might be wrong), but doubtless there are others.

 

One unfortunate thing is that there isn''t quite as much detail as I''d like in the accounts - non-player wages is a large and rather general category and I''d like to know in more detail how it is made up.  Does it include the manager, coaches for the academy etc, and if so how much of it relates to them?

 

I''m hopeful that if there are a lot of unncessary non-playing wages being incurred (and since I don''t know what they are being incurred for I''m in no position to tell) the new directors (given their reputation) will be able to identify them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]This is exactly his point, they haven''t been successful.[/quote]But that doesn''t necessarily mean that it was wrong to try. [quote]The question is one of extent, not a binary choice. He and others think that we have spent too much

in both time and money, on projects that have ended up either being

subsidised by the team or taking away money that could be spent on the

team (this particular point may be more TFA''s position than Mr Carrow''s

to be fair)[/quote]So who are you to determine how much is too much ?  Do you have cash-flow forecasts available to you ?  Could you honestly say that at the time the decisions were made, that you would have done anything dramatically different ?  And if so, at what point ?This brings me back to my suspicion that there is a small, but organised single issue group of posters who post around this subject and very little else in the mistaken belief that it can bring pressure to bear in the club (I''ll give you a clue here, league positions cause change, little else).  Everything you have said, about lurkers, floating voters if you will, makes me think that you believe this.  In fact, the more I read of you no. 6, the more I question your objectivity [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"]But that doesn''t necessarily mean that it was wrong to try. [/quote]Correct. It does however mean that every time the lie that player wages are our main financial worry gets peddled out, that it should be shot down - non player wages and debt repayments are a much larger worry, and they are a direct result of failed off the field ventures.[quote]So who are you to determine how much is too much ?  Do you have cash-flow forecasts available to you ?[/quote]For me, too much is when it starts to cut into the player budget, I only have the season before last''s accounts, so I am unable to tell you when exactly that happened (over to you Mr Carrow?).Personally I have nothing against off the field ventures that are using any disposable income we may have, unfortunately we have very little of that. The Jarrold stand loan for example, I have no problem with, because a) we needed that new stand, and b) the money could not have gone towards anything else.[quote]Could you honestly say that at the time the decisions were made, that you would have done anything dramatically different ?  And if so, at what point ?[/quote]Good question, and I''d like to see Mr Carrow, TFA, Buckethead et al answer this as well. I don''t, and didn''t at the time, have all the facts on hand that the Norwich City board had, so it is difficult for me to answer, but I can safely say that I wouldn''t have employed quite so many non footballing staff, wouldn''t have increased the debt to buy more land, and wouldn''t have refurbished those offices / restaurants and bars.In short, I most likely wouldn''t have spent / loaned money to pay for unnecessary ventures, leaving what I would imagine is just the new stand and the access road.[quote]This brings me back to my suspicion that there is a small, but organised single issue group of posters who post around this subject and very little else in the mistaken belief that it can bring pressure to bear in the club (I''ll give you a clue here, league positions cause change, little else).  Everything you have said, about lurkers, floating voters if you will, makes me think that you believe this.[/quote]This is pretty ridiculous, and about as paranoid as those people who claim anyone defending the board is Neil Doncaster in disguise.I can''t speak for anyone else, but organised is not something that can be levelled at me. I won''t deny that I would like a change of ownership at the club, and yes, I do feel that bringing financial mismanagement to light could persuade other people to feel the same way - after all, it was what persuaded me that the current incumbents are not right for the job. However I really don''t see what this non-sequiter has to do with the veracity of the claims made by those posters.[quote]In fact, the more I read of you no. 6, the more I question your objectivity [:)][/quote]What is this meant to mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]This is pretty ridiculous, and about as paranoid as those people who

claim anyone defending the board is Neil Doncaster in disguise.[/quote]I speak as somebody who was once Neil Doncaster, so can see your point here.  However, there are some on here who seem to post exclusively about this subject, to the point that they could be on a business forum - except that most businesses would not accept this amount of constant criticism on a public message board I would imagine.  Try it with an American company and see how long you go before you get cease and desist letters.  A friend of mine got one for putting a website up with less than flattering (but honest) images depicting how a girls'' toy attempted to enforce role models on women, she got a cease and desist letter within a month.I would say, from reading this thread, that you are as much in Mr Carrows'' camp as you claim Mick Dennis to be in Delia and Michaels, so if it is fair game to doubt Micks'' objectivity, surely it''s fair game to do the same at the other end of the conversation.  Any conversation that would take place between the two parties would only result in a head-banging session, irresistable object, unstoppable force and all that palaver. On that basis I would say that Mick was right to bow out when he did, because we''ve all seen these threads spiral into their 25th page before, and nobody posting ever really changes'' their mind, and everybody gets hurt and upset over what we think he meant when he said that, which is actually not what he really meant when he said it - the perils of text without voices.  In other words - The bloke has a living to earn through words, so why give them away for nothing if they''re not appreciated ?

Share this post


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

you honestly say that at the time the decisions were made, that you

would have done anything dramatically different ?  And if so, at what

point ?[/quote][quote user="you"]Good

question, and I''d like to see Mr Carrow, TFA, Buckethead et al answer

this as well. I don''t, and didn''t at the time, have all the facts on

hand that the Norwich City board had, so it is difficult for me to

answer, but I can safely say that I wouldn''t have employed quite so

many non footballing staff, wouldn''t have increased the debt to buy

more land, and wouldn''t have refurbished those offices / restaurants

and bars.In short, I most likely wouldn''t have spent / loaned money to pay for unnecessary ventures, leaving what I would imagine is just the new stand and the access road.[/quote]Well, I for one would have been perfectly happy with that, as the savings might have freed up cash to spend on getting, for example, Lita / A.N. Other striker to sign permanently, although I think the money loaned for refurbs would not have been available for players anyway, as banks won''t loan for that purpose.  But we can''t change the past.  The new CEO has said he wants to get as much money as possible together for the team, and I''m happy to back him.  So much of this seems to be about Doomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who backs this women now is not a city fan but a celeb fan imo, she has brought this club to its knees, Div 3 we are now in, in case some of you including Mick Dennis have not noticed our worst position for near 50 yrs, its a bloody disgrace and i will never forgive her for it. I listen to talk sport and Dennis spouts more garbage than Parry imo but our fans love no mark celebs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right - perhaps this thread has ran out of steam and migrated away from the original point. As such I will stop posting on this matter for now.

However, please do not discriminate those of us that can read a balance sheet as wanabee business analysts. Speaking for myself, I am fan and I care passionately about our club. I am fed up watching us decline, which I believe is largely, but not wholly, due to the way that the club has been managed. This is not about whether Mr Carrow has a camp or is right, its about our current plight - thats why it is such a sore point. Incidentally, if Mr Dennis could at least ackinowledge the existence of these feelings, he would get a much less hard time on this board.

Clearly, we will not always agree and I fully recognise the subjectivity of each individuals views - but please dont confuse deep concern about the finances of the club with some kind of cranky agenda as this issue and our on pitch performance are directly, if not wholly, linked.

Furthermore, within the wide range of subjects that get posted on this baord, there is plenty of room for a whole range of subjects. I choose to avoid many of the more irrelevent subjects, but fully respect everyone''s right to contribute. What I really dislike is anyone who actively participates in (rather than ignoring) a free discussion and then implies that seemingly implies that people should not be posting.

I am sure that this is not what you meant, but you do have the right to ignore the debate if it is not to your liking. Anyway, I have hopefully made my point and it is now over and out from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"]I would say, from reading this thread, that you are as much in Mr Carrows'' camp as you claim Mick Dennis to be in Delia and Michaels[/quote]I''ve not claimed that. All I want to see is Mick Dennis having to defend his views like any other poster on here, rather than scuttling off like a whiny little child.I am in Mr Carrow''s camp in the same way I''m in astronomy''s camp over astrology''s, or evolution''s camp over creationism, because one side has provided objective facts and figures to back up their claims, and the other has provided none. If you want to say that our off the field ventures have been a success, then provide some evidence to show that.[quote]so if it is fair game to doubt Micks'' objectivity, surely it''s fair game to do the same at the other end of the conversation.[/quote]Sure, if you have any evidence that I, or anyone else is Mr Carrow''s personal mate, or gets free lunches from Mr Carrow, or tickets in Mr Carrow''s directors box, or if I''d complained that Mr Carrow and his family were getting too much abuse, you might have a point.[quote]Any conversation that would take place between the two parties would only result in a head-banging session, irresistable object, unstoppable force and all that palaver. On that basis I would say that Mick was right to bow out when he did, because we''ve all seen these threads spiral into their 25th page before, and nobody posting ever really changes'' their mind[/quote]This is not true, I would change my mind in an instant if anyone could provide a reasonable counter argument using facts and figures quoted from the accounts. I dare say that is true of every other ''member'' of our apparent single issue group.In fact, earlier in this very thread Mr Carrow did half the work for you and said that if anyone can find another club with a similar meagre percentage of income used for the football budget, that it would strengthen your argument.[quote]The bloke has a living to earn through words, so why give them away for nothing if they''re not appreciated ?[/quote]Because otherwise it makes it look like he cannot back up his earlier words with anything close to a coherant argument? He either should have stayed away alltogether, or be prepared to back himself up. Being a journalist doesn''t give you a ''get out of criticism free'' card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Clearly, we will not always agree and I fully recognise the

subjectivity of each individuals views - but please dont confuse deep

concern about the finances of the club with some kind of cranky agenda

as this issue and our on pitch performance are directly, if not wholly,

linked.[/quote]But where are the usual suspects when it comes to discussing tactics, who should be in the first 11 of a Saturday, or the merits of the loan system ?  As I''ve said before we did not budget for relegation last season, we ended up getting relegated mainly because of Roeders'' over-reliance on loans, and partly because of personnel issues between manager and players.  I would agree however that if some money had been saved then we might not have needed as many loan players.[quote]What I really dislike is anyone who actively participates in (rather

than ignoring) a free discussion and then implies that seemingly

implies that people should not be posting.[/quote]I''m sorry if it came across this way - who shouldn''t be posting ?  I was just trying to point out the double standard.  Mr Carrow says that Mr Dennis "purports to be a supporter" because he is seen as too close to the club.  But Mr Carrow posts almost exclusively about finances, and hasn''t been to anywhere like the number of games that Mr Dennis has paid for because of his self-imposed boycott.  I can see why Mr Dennis would choose not to engage in a lengthy discussion which would inevitably be fruitless, as neither would agree with the other.As far as I am concerned, I am happy for people to post about anything they like.  That''s what moderators are for after all.  I suppose I over did the "secret agenda" thing a bit though, which was more to crowbar in the objectivity switch gag than anything else...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]I am in Mr Carrow''s camp in the same way I''m in astronomy''s camp over

astrology''s, or evolution''s camp over creationism, because one side has

provided objective facts and figures to back up their claims, and the

other has provided none. If you want to say that our off the field

ventures have been a success, then provide some evidence to show that.[/quote]Crikey, now Mr Carrow is Darwin ?  Superb [:)]  I can''t say that all off field ventures have been a success.  I can say that it was right to try to make money through other means, as most football clubs are reliant upon the generosity of their owners, and if something ITV-Digital / Setanta-like happens to Sky, then most of them are screwed.  Do you see how we can both be right ?  Good isn''t it ?  Somewhere in the middle lies the path that the club should be taking.[quote]Because otherwise it makes it look like he cannot back up his earlier

words with anything close to a coherant argument? He either should have

stayed away alltogether, or be prepared to back himself up[/quote]For what purpose ?  So that he can claim victory ?  What''s the point ?  He has made his point, drawn a line under it, you can make yours.  It''s a free world after all.[quote]This is not true, I would change my mind in an instant if anyone could

provide a reasonable counter argument using facts and figures quoted

from the accounts. I dare say that is true of every other ''member'' of

our apparent single issue group.[/quote]What''s your preferred line-up for Saturday ?  Cody and Holt up front, do you think ? [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"]I can''t say that all off field ventures have been a success.  I can say that it was right to try to make money through other means, as most football clubs are reliant upon the generosity of their owners, and if something ITV-Digital / Setanta-like happens to Sky, then most of them are screwed.[/quote]Surely with our increased debt as a result of off the field ventures, we will now be even more screwed when the Sky bubble bursts? Why can''t we make money the way we used to? By buying and developing players cheap and then selling them on for profit - Cody is a good start, there is no way that if/when he leaves it will be for less than we paid for him. I don''t know this for a fact, but I would be willing to bet the profit we made on Dean Ashton is more than any off the field venture has produced in their entire lifetimes.[quote]Do you see how we can both be right ?  Good isn''t it ?  Somewhere in the middle lies the path that the club should be taking.[/quote]I always knew you were a fan of the good ole'' strawman fallacy, but now it appears you are fond of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation]argument to moderation[/url] too.[quote]For what purpose ?  So that he can claim victory ?  What''s the point ?  He has made his point, drawn a line under it, you can make yours.  It''s a free world after all.[/quote]Because he''s a journalist, its meant to be his job to report things accurately, and it seems to me he''d rather live in ignorance that have his views challenged, which is frankly, pretty pathetic. Being proved wrong shouldn''t be a slight against a person unless their ego is too large to accept it, when my views are proved false I simply change them, and then I am right.[quote]What''s your preferred line-up for Saturday ?  Cody and Holt up front, do you think ? [;)][/quote]Without a doubt, now if only our central defence had enough depth to drop The Doc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I have no problem with the community stuff per se blah, i simply have a major problem that the `08 accounts showed that we had become a club with a £19m income which could scarcely afford a professional football team- perhaps someone could find a few examples of other clubs who had an affordable playing budget of 10% or less of their income in that year?  It would certainly strengthen their argument.  I also have a problem with the fact that the clubs majority shareholders seem bemused and bewildered by the position we are in.  Just who has been making the strategic decisions in recent years?

It seems that Mick does not want to debate these points because i said he "purports" to support the club.  Well i`m sorry but his stance has come across to me as that no matter how many mistakes are made and no matter how far we fall, he will support the majority shareholders.  That is putting two individuals above the good of the club in my eyes, and i don`t see what is unfair or unreasonable in saying so.

[/quote]

Thats a reasonable position Mr. Carrow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Desert Fox"]

Not many clubs would continually spin msitruths to its fans such as every year since we left the prem "the manager will be given all the proceeds of transfers to reinvest in the team". The accounts quite clearly show that every year we make a big profit on transfers and that our wage bill is not growing (to counter the claim that it is all getting spent on wages instead).

I can see why the club has had to do it, but the what really sticks in my throat is that the club has attempted to continually con its customer base. This can only end in tears at some point.

[/quote]

Isn''t this the difference between an intention and financial reality though ?  I don''t think that we were told that every year.  We were probably told that in the season after the Premiership, I grant you.  [/quote]

What was the comment about the Earnshaw and Etuhu transfer money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="no. 6"]People saying they respect Mr Dennis for coming on here and defending his views is a bit silly when he''s run away as soon as the questions got vaguely difficult for him. Especially when his reason is "waaah people are being mean to me" - if one''s viewpoint is robust then the tone of one''s opponents shouldn''t matter, only the content of their arguments.
[/quote]

Good point.

Share this post


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

Mr Carrow,

Thanks for your reply.  Not sure Preston is an ideal example because  I thought they were being heavily subsidised (I might be wrong), but doubtless there are others.

[/quote]

But the near £10m difference between the clubs related to their cost base which is a different issue from how that is funded, i.e from gate money, TV., sponsorship, directors loans etc.

Share this post


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

[quote user="canaryfan68"]Having read Mick Dennis''s posts I have to make a few points which I find never seem to get answered. Firstly. I feel that the behavior of some should be aimed in MD''s direction if they are not happy with him than anyone in his crowd. The objectivity I am looking for is how this so well run club keeps on getting it so wrong! The managerial appointments have been so comedic it begs belief. The waisted money on loan signings and the dependence on them again was scandulous. There are the events when Gunn was appointed,did they not learn from their previous appointments. Whilst you mention Mrs Gunn and the look on her face after saturday,how is that down to NCFC supporters. To be appointed manager with no previous experience doesn''t happen in too many well paid jobs. (apart from MP''s) I wish at times Mick could see how the fans see it,especially the last few years when their has been little ambition to get the best person to manage this club and then the fans have to deal with the inept appointments. Lastly I want to say its good to have different viewpoints but sometimes its good to consider it from different perspectives rather than think that somebody who doesn''t agree with you is some kind of muppet or a worsedescription.[/quote]

If Gunny gets booted out you lot won''t be agreed on who is "the best person to manage this club" if the recent track record is anything to go on.

So if you lot can''t agree why should they be any better?

[:|]

[/quote]

Camuldonum....I agree that we will not all agree with the next managerial appointment and rightly so, but two out of our last three have had no managerial experience. That to me sums this club up, and no I don''t want to see Gunn get the boot (he wasn''t my choice either) but you can not agree he was the best man for the job seeing the position we were in when he was appointed. We needed someone with experience,after all we hear that you get what you pay for and that is exactly why we are now in League 1.

I find it hard with the demise of this club that you turn round and see no fault with how this club is run. The table never lies at the end of the season and the fact that we have been in the bottom 3 in two years of the last four and come close aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]By buying and developing players cheap and then selling them on for

profit - Cody is a good start, there is no way that if/when he leaves

it will be for less than we paid for him.[/quote]No reason at all - in fact with this Troy fella signing up, there''s every chance that this kind of thins is now part of the policy.  But it is harder than it used to be, players get swallowed up by the Premiership behemoth squads now, and at stupidly young ages too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canaryfan68"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

[quote user="canaryfan68"]Having read Mick Dennis''s posts I have to make a few points which I find never seem to get answered. Firstly. I feel that the behavior of some should be aimed in MD''s direction if they are not happy with him than anyone in his crowd. The objectivity I am looking for is how this so well run club keeps on getting it so wrong! The managerial appointments have been so comedic it begs belief. The waisted money on loan signings and the dependence on them again was scandulous. There are the events when Gunn was appointed,did they not learn from their previous appointments. Whilst you mention Mrs Gunn and the look on her face after saturday,how is that down to NCFC supporters. To be appointed manager with no previous experience doesn''t happen in too many well paid jobs. (apart from MP''s) I wish at times Mick could see how the fans see it,especially the last few years when their has been little ambition to get the best person to manage this club and then the fans have to deal with the inept appointments. Lastly I want to say its good to have different viewpoints but sometimes its good to consider it from different perspectives rather than think that somebody who doesn''t agree with you is some kind of muppet or a worsedescription.[/quote]

If Gunny gets booted out you lot won''t be agreed on who is "the best person to manage this club" if the recent track record is anything to go on.

So if you lot can''t agree why should they be any better?

[:|]

[/quote] Camuldonum....I agree that we will not all agree with the next managerial appointment and rightly so, but two out of our last three have had no managerial experience. That to me sums this club up, and no I don''t want to see Gunn get the boot (he wasn''t my choice either) but you can not agree he was the best man for the job seeing the position we were in when he was appointed. We needed someone with experience,after all we hear that you get what you pay for and that is exactly why we are now in League 1. I find it hard with the demise of this club that you turn round and see no fault with how this club is run. The table never lies at the end of the season and the fact that we have been in the bottom 3 in two years of the last four and come close aswell.[/quote]

At the end of the day - and I believe this applies to every club - it doesn''t matter who is appointed inasmuch as the incoming Manager cannot guarantee success.

Football is the only business I know where you have the ridiculous situation of a business choosing from a list of people who have mostly been fired from the same job by someone else for not being good or successful enough.

No other business works like this.  If you want someone for the top job you head hunt someone currently successful, whack their money and conditions up and hey presto!

Butterworth has good experience of League One but if it was left to the fans of a club to appoint a Manager there would never be one because they would still be arguing about it!

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...