Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Camuldonum

Another view from afar

Recommended Posts

Just some observations on the events of last Friday and a little bit of speculation involving (I hope) a reasonably independent view.  It comes with the caveat that we still have a commercial interest in aspects of the BG story and are not going to publish anything which could prejudice that.
 
It is quite clear this end that the sacking of Bryan Gunn did not emanate directly from Delia Smith or Michael Wynne-Jones and we have good reasons for saying that he had their support to the very end so it is clear this end that the decision to remove him was the result of pressure applied from the remaining Gang of Four and that they would ultimately be outvoted.  What the impetus was - or if there was a main driver of the impetus or an outright leader of The Gang of Four - is not clear.
 
I do not think too much should be read into the "unanimous decision."  Unless a newly constituted set of directors (particularly of a PLC) wish to indicate to the world that there has been a Boardroom rift they would be wise to make sure it is a unanimous decision and announced as such.  Boardroom rifts are not, of course, at all uncommon and neither are any usually "advertised" except in crisis situations when the "end is near."  Or so has been my experience.  I am sure that it turned out unanimous because, on this occasion, the view of Delia and Michael was not going to prevail.
 
That Gunny did not see it coming we can say with authority.  Late on Thursday evening he was talking to an old mate, a fellow manager and was remarkably upbeat and confident that after some very good training sessions Norwich were in with a real chance of getting a win at Exeter and continuing their fresh start into the season.  We also believe that the purpose of the phone call was another loan in to Norwich from a higher league before the transfer season closes.
 
The same confidence was still apparent very early on Friday morning.  We were very lucky to know about his sacking very early on (purely by chance, I have to say, and not through any investigative skill) and spoke to several players with whom we have had very good relationships in the past.  I think it fair to say that "shocked and stunned" would be a good phrase to describe the overall reaction and also that there was some anger as well.  It''s a brutal business as all know and there wasn''t much finesse about this operation.  There was no option to depart gracefully, that we can say.
 
Whether any of that spilled over into what turned out to be a somewhat lack lustre performance (based entirely on watching part of the second half of the match) cannot be said but all who have played football will know it certainly does not fall into the category of "ideal preparation" particularly after what had been a couple of "happy days" after the Yeovil win.
 
As an aside on the game itself - and bearing in mind I only saw bits of it - I think I can see where you are currently going a little bit wrong.  It is not a major fault - merely part of the League One "learning process" which hopefully you will quickly adapt to.  In the bits of the Exeter game that I saw you were for ever standing off the ball, letting them play whenever they were in possession, as if to say: "Now what are you going to do with it."  That''s not a good idea in League One, particularly against a side like Exeter with no real major talent (no offence, Exeter) but with a determined work rate.  The trick against those sides - and you will meet many more - is to get the ball off them as quick as you can.  You were not doing that in the bits that I saw. 
 
There has been a lot of speculation that BG''s removal might be linked to a dressing room bust up at the Colchester game.  I honestly don''t think this one is a starter.  There were words exchanged but I think it has to be kept in context.  As anyone who has played football will also know there is hardly likely to be a general round of "Unlucky, lads" when you are slumped in the home dressing room at half time, mentally blaming each other, and 5-0 down. 
 
If it was a public fire it did not get beyond: "One appliance, hose reel jet.  Some smoke damage" and certainly did not fall into: "Make pumps five!" 
 
Also there has been some speculation that Crook''s absence from the Yeovil game was somehow linked to the background bust up.  That is a complete non starter.  Crook''s job is to look after the reserves and try to blend more youngsters in the big step up and it was absolutely agreed before the start of the season that he would not be asked to attend away games, viewed as too disruptive to his day to day bread and butter work. 
 
He did of course turn up at Exeter after BG''s departure but that was an emergency call (made, we believe, on Thursday).  It is supposition this end but we wonder if that  indicates that the final decision to end BG''s reign was not taken until Thursday.  Whether Crooky was told the reason he was going West we do not know.

So that just leaves the aftermath! Tricky one this, and potentially very dangerous in my opinion.  Being a very old cynic who has heard this stuff a thousand times before I really can''t buy into the "Our goal this season remains unchanged" as anything significant.  Of course you want promotion, who doesn''t? 

That McNally may have said it with more urgency than Neil - I''m putting on my popping down to Sainsbury''s voice - Doncaster carries no more weight this end.  Aside, possibly,  from the new Kings Lynn manager give or take a few more games no one is going to come out and say: "We''ve got no ******* chance - rubbish players."

All the promotion stuff is just from The Standard Book Of Football Phrases (Revised Edition) and they, and us, know most of it off by heart. 

The trick is in achieving what is promised and neither McNally or Doncaster could guarantee that - and neither will any manager you hire in the future.  And here''s one of the problems: how long is the "new results driven Norwich" going to give that new man?  If you are the wrong side of the playoffs by, say, January is that curtains again and a fresh start? Not only do all supporters have to ponder that but so does the new man you eventually hire.

Gunny was only on a contract until the end of this season - anyone coming in, my bet, is going to want at least a two year deal I would have thought.  I''ve seen it suggested that Norwich might be regarded as a poisoned chalice and while I think that is probably not so at the moment I also think you aren''t far away from it - probably just this next appointment. If he''s out of the door before this season ends then I think you will find it hard to attract Managers in the future, save the lower league hopefuls which is probably where you don''t really want to be.

I''m not going to join in the speculation frenzy because we''re no better informed this end than you lot and most of the candidates mentioned are creditable in different ways - although none outstandingly successful aside perhaps from Steve Coppell.  Whether he''d drop into League One is, I think debatable.  He certainly didn''t enjoy his return to the Championship and the last we heard was determined to make the best of his time away from the game (apart from previous success in football he has substantial business interests outside it) and was last known in America and Canada on a Grand Tour with the family he has hardly seen for the past few years.  I think ultimately it could be a Premier League club that will come calling for him.

Robins is a good young chap but he''s never managed outside League Two and if you thought League One was a culture shock - there''s no comparison.  Also he will come with a huge bill attached.  He is one year into a four year contract which offers amazing stability in this game and he''s certainly not one likely to relish a step up "until the end of the season to see if it works out."  Also you will need to ask Millers for permission to even talk to him - something you had not by Friday afternoon asked, according to the club.

Boothroyd may be the bookies favourite but, as already reported, you had not by yesterday approached him either.  He claims he was not approached during the Roeder out saga and Malkey is still laughing about the reports linking him as part of a "dream team."  Boothroyd ended up a bit of a mess at Watford but to be fair to him some very good players were sold from under him and he should have walked long before he did.

Whoever wins the job will have a tough ask ahead.  The downside of the decision to get rid of BG at this stage is that his successor is stuck with 12 players not of his choosing and all of us who have followed football for any time all know that isn''t always a dream start for the new man. If new investment were to come in that could change things, of course. 

But, as things stand, at least some of your new recruits joined specifically because of Gunn, his character and his personality and they will, I am sure, be left feeling bemused and probably uncertain.  Of course they are all professional footballers and must simply get on with the task ahead but a few of them are human as well and they will be unsettled for at least a while.  Another tricky job for the new man coming in.

I very strongly believe that Gunn was instrumental in at last getting The Hooligan to play where he should have played from the start and in persuading him to stay and I can confidently state that The Hooligan has been under immense pressure to ply his trade elsewhere not least for a fact which is probably understandably a little overlooked.  He was, at least for a while, on the fringe of the Republic of Ireland squad, putting in one good performance for the B team at least, but if the new RoI manager keeps to his word that is now currently a world beyond him.  The Manager has said several times now that he will not consider for selection any player at below Championship level.  At least Clingan was told by Nige that staying would not affect his selection for the NI squad - no such assurance for Wes, sadly, unless there is a sudden change of heart.

Those less cynical than I will perhaps take comfort from the "new dynamic approach" instead of Doncaster''s "musings".  You have to hope as all supporters do on such occasions that you "hit the ground running" (another delightful cliche trotted out all over Britain) because if the new man should stumble or fall it might be Mr McNally left holding the hissing grenade.

Whatever your many and varied complaints about the club and the administration of football over the past few years you must all certainly admit that there''s never a dull moment.  Clearly the new regime don''t believe in dull moments either but they, like you, have no idea what is going to happen either: that''s the problem isn''t it?   No guarantees at all and you can tick off as many boxes  as you want.

"Our goal this season remains unchanged.  We want to be promoted and the next Manager will have that as his Number One priority."

The last three Managers started out along those lines, at least in theory.  And look what happened to them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very interesting read as usual Cam, cheers for that.

I agree that the onus is very much on McNally now. If the next incumbent doesn''t start well, the ''I told you so'' brigade will be out in force with regards to the possibly hasty Gunn sacking. And the Norwich fans are notoriously cynical with regards to the board so one more blunder and we could have a revolt on our hands...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheers Cam, useful stuff.I don''t know if you''ve heard the "promotion or admin" rumour doing the rounds, which might explain the timing and apparent ruthlessness behind the sacking.  It would also seem that if McNally brings someone in, and they fail, then McNally himself will be fatally weakened if, as you suggest, the majority shareholders were railroaded into a "unanimous" decision.  But we shall see.Sorry to see you sold Patuela (sp?), by the way.  All romantic stories end up soiled by money, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Camuldonum"]Just some observations on the events of last Friday and a little bit of speculation involving (I hope) a reasonably independent view.  It comes with the caveat that we still have a commercial interest in aspects of the BG story and are not going to publish anything which could prejudice that.
 
It is quite clear this end that the sacking of Bryan Gunn did not emanate directly from Delia Smith or Michael Wynne-Jones and we have good reasons for saying that he had their support to the very end so it is clear this end that the decision to remove him was the result of pressure applied from the remaining Gang of Four and that they would ultimately be outvoted.  What the impetus was - or if there was a main driver of the impetus or an outright leader of The Gang of Four - is not clear.
 
I do not think too much should be read into the "unanimous decision."  Unless a newly constituted set of directors (particularly of a PLC) wish to indicate to the world that there has been a Boardroom rift they would be wise to make sure it is a unanimous decision and announced as such.  Boardroom rifts are not, of course, at all uncommon and neither are any usually "advertised" except in crisis situations when the "end is near."  Or so has been my experience.  I am sure that it turned out unanimous because, on this occasion, the view of Delia and Michael was not going to prevail.
 
That Gunny did not see it coming we can say with authority.  Late on Thursday evening he was talking to an old mate, a fellow manager and was remarkably upbeat and confident that after some very good training sessions Norwich were in with a real chance of getting a win at Exeter and continuing their fresh start into the season.  We also believe that the purpose of the phone call was another loan in to Norwich from a higher league before the transfer season closes.
 
The same confidence was still apparent very early on Friday morning.  We were very lucky to know about his sacking very early on (purely by chance, I have to say, and not through any investigative skill) and spoke to several players with whom we have had very good relationships in the past.  I think it fair to say that "shocked and stunned" would be a good phrase to describe the overall reaction and also that there was some anger as well.  It''s a brutal business as all know and there wasn''t much finesse about this operation.  There was no option to depart gracefully, that we can say.
 
Whether any of that spilled over into what turned out to be a somewhat lack lustre performance (based entirely on watching part of the second half of the match) cannot be said but all who have played football will know it certainly does not fall into the category of "ideal preparation" particularly after what had been a couple of "happy days" after the Yeovil win.
 
As an aside on the game itself - and bearing in mind I only saw bits of it - I think I can see where you are currently going a little bit wrong.  It is not a major fault - merely part of the League One "learning process" which hopefully you will quickly adapt to.  In the bits of the Exeter game that I saw you were for ever standing off the ball, letting them play whenever they were in possession, as if to say: "Now what are you going to do with it."  That''s not a good idea in League One, particularly against a side like Exeter with no real major talent (no offence, Exeter) but with a determined work rate.  The trick against those sides - and you will meet many more - is to get the ball off them as quick as you can.  You were not doing that in the bits that I saw. 
 
There has been a lot of speculation that BG''s removal might be linked to a dressing room bust up at the Colchester game.  I honestly don''t think this one is a starter.  There were words exchanged but I think it has to be kept in context.  As anyone who has played football will also know there is hardly likely to be a general round of "Unlucky, lads" when you are slumped in the home dressing room at half time, mentally blaming each other, and 5-0 down. 
 
If it was a public fire it did not get beyond: "One appliance, hose reel jet.  Some smoke damage" and certainly did not fall into: "Make pumps five!" 
 
Also there has been some speculation that Crook''s absence from the Yeovil game was somehow linked to the background bust up.  That is a complete non starter.  Crook''s job is to look after the reserves and try to blend more youngsters in the big step up and it was absolutely agreed before the start of the season that he would not be asked to attend away games, viewed as too disruptive to his day to day bread and butter work. 
 
He did of course turn up at Exeter after BG''s departure but that was an emergency call (made, we believe, on Thursday).  It is supposition this end but we wonder if that  indicates that the final decision to end BG''s reign was not taken until Thursday.  Whether Crooky was told the reason he was going West we do not know.

So that just leaves the aftermath! Tricky one this, and potentially very dangerous in my opinion.  Being a very old cynic who has heard this stuff a thousand times before I really can''t buy into the "Our goal this season remains unchanged" as anything significant.  Of course you want promotion, who doesn''t? 

That McNally may have said it with more urgency than Neil - I''m putting on my popping down to Sainsbury''s voice - Doncaster carries no more weight this end.  Aside, possibly,  from the new Kings Lynn manager give or take a few more games no one is going to come out and say: "We''ve got no ******* chance - rubbish players."

All the promotion stuff is just from The Standard Book Of Football Phrases (Revised Edition) and they, and us, know most of it off by heart. 

The trick is in achieving what is promised and neither McNally or Doncaster could guarantee that - and neither will any manager you hire in the future.  And here''s one of the problems: how long is the "new results driven Norwich" going to give that new man?  If you are the wrong side of the playoffs by, say, January is that curtains again and a fresh start? Not only do all supporters have to ponder that but so does the new man you eventually hire.

Gunny was only on a contract until the end of this season - anyone coming in, my bet, is going to want at least a two year deal I would have thought.  I''ve seen it suggested that Norwich might be regarded as a poisoned chalice and while I think that is probably not so at the moment I also think you aren''t far away from it - probably just this next appointment. If he''s out of the door before this season ends then I think you will find it hard to attract Managers in the future, save the lower league hopefuls which is probably where you don''t really want to be.

I''m not going to join in the speculation frenzy because we''re no better informed this end than you lot and most of the candidates mentioned are creditable in different ways - although none outstandingly successful aside perhaps from Steve Coppell.  Whether he''d drop into League One is, I think debatable.  He certainly didn''t enjoy his return to the Championship and the last we heard was determined to make the best of his time away from the game (apart from previous success in football he has substantial business interests outside it) and was last known in America and Canada on a Grand Tour with the family he has hardly seen for the past few years.  I think ultimately it could be a Premier League club that will come calling for him.

Robins is a good young chap but he''s never managed outside League Two and if you thought League One was a culture shock - there''s no comparison.  Also he will come with a huge bill attached.  He is one year into a four year contract which offers amazing stability in this game and he''s certainly not one likely to relish a step up "until the end of the season to see if it works out."  Also you will need to ask Millers for permission to even talk to him - something you had not by Friday afternoon asked, according to the club.

Boothroyd may be the bookies favourite but, as already reported, you had not by yesterday approached him either.  He claims he was not approached during the Roeder out saga and Malkey is still laughing about the reports linking him as part of a "dream team."  Boothroyd ended up a bit of a mess at Watford but to be fair to him some very good players were sold from under him and he should have walked long before he did.

Whoever wins the job will have a tough ask ahead.  The downside of the decision to get rid of BG at this stage is that his successor is stuck with 12 players not of his choosing and all of us who have followed football for any time all know that isn''t always a dream start for the new man. If new investment were to come in that could change things, of course. 

But, as things stand, at least some of your new recruits joined specifically because of Gunn, his character and his personality and they will, I am sure, be left feeling bemused and probably uncertain.  Of course they are all professional footballers and must simply get on with the task ahead but a few of them are human as well and they will be unsettled for at least a while.  Another tricky job for the new man coming in.

I very strongly believe that Gunn was instrumental in at last getting The Hooligan to play where he should have played from the start and in persuading him to stay and I can confidently state that The Hooligan has been under immense pressure to ply his trade elsewhere not least for a fact which is probably understandably a little overlooked.  He was, at least for a while, on the fringe of the Republic of Ireland squad, putting in one good performance for the B team at least, but if the new RoI manager keeps to his word that is now currently a world beyond him.  The Manager has said several times now that he will not consider for selection any player at below Championship level.  At least Clingan was told by Nige that staying would not affect his selection for the NI squad - no such assurance for Wes, sadly, unless there is a sudden change of heart.

Those less cynical than I will perhaps take comfort from the "new dynamic approach" instead of Doncaster''s "musings".  You have to hope as all supporters do on such occasions that you "hit the ground running" (another delightful cliche trotted out all over Britain) because if the new man should stumble or fall it might be Mr McNally left holding the hissing grenade.

Whatever your many and varied complaints about the club and the administration of football over the past few years you must all certainly admit that there''s never a dull moment.  Clearly the new regime don''t believe in dull moments either but they, like you, have no idea what is going to happen either: that''s the problem isn''t it?   No guarantees at all and you can tick off as many boxes  as you want.

"Our goal this season remains unchanged.  We want to be promoted and the next Manager will have that as his Number One priority."

The last three Managers started out along those lines, at least in theory.  And look what happened to them![/quote]

My point exactly Cam and do we know that there is definitely a story behind all of this, other than another well planned diversion tactic from our devious duo???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Cam - an execellent read, though no mention of what may or may not have happened at Yeovil with regard to the team selection, which is where I think the tipping point occurred. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

 
That Gunny did not see it coming we can say with authority.   
 
if the new man should stumble or fall it might be Mr McNally left holding the hissing grenade.

"Our goal this season remains unchanged.  We want to be promoted and the next Manager will have that as his Number One priority."
The last three Managers started out along those lines, at least in theory.  And look what happened to them![/quote]

Thanks for that Camul.

To pick out three points.  Of course Gunny didn''t see it coming.  He thought that because he was a ''legend'' and Delia''s favourite he was unsackable, and that was part of the problem.

As far as the "hissing grenade" is concerned, it would make a refreshing change for someone at this club to take responsibility when things go wrong instead of resorting to Neil''s Bumper Book of Lame Excuses.  Most CEOs would accept it as an occupational hazard and I''ve no reason to think McNally is any exception.  But there''s more to it than that.  He''s also a member of the board and - assuming your account of the boardroom split is accurate - by siding with the new boys against the majority shareholders he must know that he''s potentially risking his job.  If we''ve got a risk addict instead of a risk phobic in the Chief Exec''s office now, well in an ideal world I''d prefer a happy medium but give me the former over the latter every time. 

I agree that having promotion as our objective is just what you''d normally expect them to say.  But the point is that for years at NCFC we''ve never had any stated objective of any kind, but any number of reasons why "We can''t compete" with the likes of Burnley.  McNally seems the sort who''d rather stick his head down a blocked lavatory that say "We can''t compete" or anything of the kind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.

They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.
[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

Share this post


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

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.

They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.
[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

[/quote]

Don''t worry CC... the devious duo understand you and the mentality of most City fans perfectly... [:$]

Share this post


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

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.

They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.
[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

[/quote]

Don''t worry CC... the devious duo understand you and the mentality of most City fans perfectly... [:$]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.

They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.
[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

[/quote]

Don''t worry CC... the devious duo understand you and the mentality of most City fans perfectly... [:$]

[/quote]

So good he had to post it twice . . . [:S]

Go on then O wise one, enlighten us . . .

 

Share this post


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

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

[/quote]Canary Cherub, for starters one of the fascinating aspects of Cam''s report, assuming it is true (and it explains the timing of the decision, as it happens) is that Foulger must have voted for Gunn to be sacked, along with the new people.But as to your main point, there is one explanation that fits all the hard facts. That is that S&J are not quite the control freaks some fans assume them to be, that they knew the board needed beefing up, that they knew it needed to be more independently-minded, and that they were prepared to live with that.They may well not have expected to be out-voted so soon, but it was an inevitable possibility as soon as they decided on those three appointments, and they had to have known that.

Share this post


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

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.

They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.
[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

[/quote]

Well maybe he was employed for "football reasons"  and maybe they agreed with our long held belief that there should be a "football man" on the board. Smith&Jones have always maintained that boardroom decisions are taken as one man one vote and not by shareholdings. We now can believe this is true which will give people plenty of food for thought over other contentious issues including Cullum and the Turners.

Cam - I''d be interested to know more about the timing. I have suspicions that their hand could have been forced by the news leaking out. Is it possible that original intentions were to make it public after the squad returned home from Exeter?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.

They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.
[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

[/quote]

Don''t worry CC... the devious duo understand you and the mentality of most City fans perfectly... [:$]

[/quote]

So good he had to post it twice . . . [:S]

Go on then O wise one, enlighten us . . .

 

[/quote]

haha the damn server.

The response from the majority is so predictable and I would not be in the slightest surprised if it was just what they were hoping for.

Are you going to blame McNally if the new manager doesn''t succeed, or will you blame all of the board members that made this decision equally?  Will you give the new manager more time than what you would if you thought that it was Delia & Michael''s choice?  Has it not occured to you that absolutely nothing maybe going on behind the scenes and that maybe certain people are "cleverer" than you give them credit for?

Seems to me that yet again for the next 20 games or so (maybe more), the devious duo have the majority exactly where they want them.

If things go wrong then it will be McNally and the new board members doing, if we succeed then Smith & Jones will take credit for employing these people anyway (after all they could sack them if they didn''t agree with them right now anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.

They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.
[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

[/quote]

Well maybe he was employed for "football reasons"  and maybe they agreed with our long held belief that there should be a "football man" on the board. Smith&Jones have always maintained that boardroom decisions are taken as one man one vote and not by shareholdings. We now can believe this is true which will give people plenty of food for thought over other contentious issues including Cullum and the Turners.

Cam - I''d be interested to know more about the timing. I have suspicions that their hand could have been forced by the news leaking out. Is it possible that original intentions were to make it public after the squad returned home from Exeter?

 

[/quote]

oh dear oh dear, give me strength... yet more somebody reading a story in to where there is no news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.

They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.
[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

[/quote]

Canary Cherub, for starters one of the fascinating aspects of Cam''s report, assuming it is true (and it explains the timing of the decision, as it happens) is that Foulger must have voted for Gunn to be sacked, along with the new people.

But as to your main point, there is one explanation that fits all the hard facts. That is that S&J are not quite the control freaks some fans assume them to be, that they knew the board needed beefing up, that they knew it needed to be more independently-minded, and that they were prepared to live with that.

They may well not have expected to be out-voted so soon, but it was an inevitable possibility as soon as they decided on those three appointments, and they had to have known that.

[/quote]

I see where you''re coming from Purple, but it doesn''t quite fit all the hard facts.  It doesn''t explain why D&M reappointed Gunn & Co instead of involving the new board members.  Didn''t they think it important that the manager''s appointment was sanctioned by the whole board?  It was a disastrous, elementary error of judgement which set up the situation in which we now find ourselves.

 

Share this post


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

oh dear oh dear, give me strength... yet more somebody reading a story in to where there is no news.

[/quote]

Smudger, maybe the reason why the Good Lord didn''t give you strength was that he didn''t consider you would know what to do with it[I]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.

They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.
[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

[/quote]

Don''t worry CC... the devious duo understand you and the mentality of most City fans perfectly... [:$]

[/quote]

So good he had to post it twice . . . [:S]

Go on then O wise one, enlighten us . . .

 

[/quote]

haha the damn server.

The response from the majority is so predictable and I would not be in the slightest surprised if it was just what they were hoping for.

Are you going to blame McNally if the new manager doesn''t succeed, or will you blame all of the board members that made this decision equally?  Will you give the new manager more time than what you would if you thought that it was Delia & Michael''s choice?  Has it not occured to you that absolutely nothing maybe going on behind the scenes and that maybe certain people are "cleverer" than you give them credit for?

Seems to me that yet again for the next 20 games or so (maybe more), the devious duo have the majority exactly where they want them.

If things go wrong then it will be McNally and the new board members doing, if we succeed then Smith & Jones will take credit for employing these people anyway (after all they could sack them if they didn''t agree with them right now anyway).

[/quote]

I question your assumption that because "the majority" are behind McNally, therefore they must be being manipulated in some devious way.

Have you considered the possibility that the balance of power has shifted to such an extent that "the majority" are now on the right side of the fence?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

[/quote]

Well maybe he was employed for "football reasons"  and maybe they agreed with our long held belief that there should be a "football man" on the board. Smith&Jones have always maintained that boardroom decisions are taken as one man one vote and not by shareholdings. We now can believe this is true which will give people plenty of food for thought over other contentious issues including Cullum and the Turners.

Cam - I''d be interested to know more about the timing. I have suspicions that their hand could have been forced by the news leaking out. Is it possible that original intentions were to make it public after the squad returned home from Exeter?

 

[/quote]Yes... perhaps.  But here''s another thing.  If the decision was made for "football reasons", why would you even tell the players one day before a league match?  It must have affected their performance, collectively and, in the case of the new signings, individually.  So even bringing the public announcement forward raises questions about the timing of the private announcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Canary Cherub, for starters one of the fascinating aspects of Cam''s report, assuming it is true (and it explains the timing of the decision, as it happens) is that Foulger must have voted for Gunn to be sacked, along with the new people.

[/quote]

Not necessarily, if it was 3-3 wouldn''t the Chairman have the casting vote? 

 

Share this post


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

I see where you''re coming from Purple, but it doesn''t quite fit all the hard facts.  It doesn''t explain why D&M reappointed Gunn & Co instead of involving the new board members.  Didn''t they think it important that the manager''s appointment was sanctioned by the whole board?  It was a disastrous, elementary error of judgement which set up the situation in which we now find ourselves.

 

[/quote]Except that the bone-headed decision to re-appoint Gunn (against which I argued strenuously in public and in private) was taken by the old guard Gang of Three some time before the new people appeared on the scene.At that point S&J may not have known who was coming in, or when, and may well have thought a decision needed to be made, to enable Gunn to get on with the job. Perhaps they wanted it to be a  fait accompli. I don''t know.But I come back to my main point. If S&J had wanted a quiet life in the boardroom, with everyone agreeing with them, they would not have sacked two of their supporters and brought in three such as Phillips, Bowkett and McNally. S&J can now be out-voted 4-2 on every major issue up to and including a recommendation to shareholders to accept a takeover offer.I repeat. They understand the way boardrooms work. They knew they were potentially changing the balance of power.They went ahead and did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="canary cherub "]

I see where you''re coming from Purple, but it doesn''t quite fit all the hard facts.  It doesn''t explain why D&M reappointed Gunn & Co instead of involving the new board members.  Didn''t they think it important that the manager''s appointment was sanctioned by the whole board?  It was a disastrous, elementary error of judgement which set up the situation in which we now find ourselves.

 

[/quote]


But I come back to my main point. If S&J had wanted a quiet life in the boardroom, with everyone agreeing with them, they would not have sacked two of their supporters and brought in three such as Phillips, Bowkett and McNally. S&J can now be out-voted 4-2 on every major issue up to and including a recommendation to shareholders to accept a takeover offer.

I repeat. They understand the way boardrooms work. They knew they were potentially changing the balance of power.They went ahead and did it.[/quote]

In my view they sacked (if that''s what happened) Munby and Doncaster following calls from fans for the whole board to resign, to try and take the heat off themselves.

According to the club''s constitution the board has to have 5 members (with 4 to make a quorum) so they had to appoint two more, but with MF they could still outvote them.  It''s the addition of McNally which seems to be the crucial factor, and that''s what really interests me.  Whose idea was it?  Did they think that because he''s an employee he wouldn''t risk his job by voting against them? 

There is no reason why Gunn had to be reappointed so quickly, and in fact most of his signings were made after Bowkett and Phillips arrived.  If D&M really do understand how boardrooms work, why on earth didn''t they make unanimity over the managerial appointment their no.1 priority?  It seems such an elementary error. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Thanks, Cam. The only point I would make is that S&J are not complete fools when it comes to the way boardrooms work.

They had to know that by sacking Munby and Doncaster and going to a six-person board with three new and seemingly independently-minded directors they were creating a situation in which they might well be outvoted on a major issue.
[/quote]

I know, that''s what puzzles me greatly.  The addition of McNally to the board looks like the crucial factor which tipped the balance of power.  I''m not aware of any reason why the CEO has to be on the board, unless it''s something to do with our change of status to a PLC in 2002.  So why on earth did they agree to it if they didn''t have to?  Lulled into complacency by years of submissiveness by Doncaster?  I really don''t understand it.

 

[/quote]

Well maybe he was employed for "football reasons"  and maybe they agreed with our long held belief that there should be a "football man" on the board. Smith&Jones have always maintained that boardroom decisions are taken as one man one vote and not by shareholdings. We now can believe this is true which will give people plenty of food for thought over other contentious issues including Cullum and the Turners.

Cam - I''d be interested to know more about the timing. I have suspicions that their hand could have been forced by the news leaking out. Is it possible that original intentions were to make it public after the squad returned home from Exeter?

 

[/quote]

No.  Crooky was told to go to Exeter on Thursday.  As stated in the post we do not know if he was told why.

Some of you might have wondered why your "Manager" would not have present at the game perhaps, particularly the travelling faithful (great turnout, it''s a sod to get to).  After the denounement was pronounced he was told to leave the training ground at Exeter University and did so.

 

Being a cynical old git I would suggest  the delay in the pronouncement your end was McNally and Joe -"is not available to take your call" - Ferrari taking time to concoct something regarding the departed Manager.  (I''m sorry, that should read "paying tribute to").  [:P]

I could go on but I can''t at this stage.  But Friday it was and always was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.. I just wondered because it happening the day before the second of two games which were being prepared for away from Colney is absolutely stupid.

The point I was making about it "being leaked" and forcing their hand was the board decision prior to telling Gunn. Of course they couldn''t have kept it quiet having sacked him! I just wondered if the original plan was to sack him when the squad returned but their decision somehow got out and forced their hands.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is spot on purple.

I think fundamentally delia & michael have realised that as much as they love NCFC they demonstrably don''t know how to run a football club and so have brought in some talent that does.

Although this means they may get outvoted on every major issue ultimately they realise that having independent, quality people at the helm is in their personal financial interest (ie safeguarding the value of their investment in the club) and of course their interest as fans.

As you say, had they not had this epiphany they could simply have hired another yes-man who would simply have implemented their ideas (like only employing people who have a history with and ''understand'' the club - which in mcnally''s words is ''totally irrelevant'').

I don''t know when they had this epiphany but mcnally''s appointment (along with the other new board members) and the retaining of Keith Harris demonstrates they want to step back from executive decision making and let someone more capable take the reins...

Share this post


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

OK.. I just wondered because it happening the day before the second of two games which were being prepared for away from Colney is absolutely stupid.

The point I was making about it "being leaked" and forcing their hand was the board decision prior to telling Gunn. Of course they couldn''t have kept it quiet having sacked him! I just wondered if the original plan was to sack him when the squad returned but their decision somehow got out and forced their hands.

 

[/quote]

 

That''s the only explanation that makes any sense based on what we know. Clearly the correct answer to McNally''s rhetorical question about "the best time to sack a manager" had to be "straight after a game" as this would allow the maximum time to calm things down. This suggests that either:

1. The decision had not been made by Tuesday night

2. The decision had been made but not enacted and announced.

The first one makes no sense given that we won 4-0 and played reasonably well, therefore I would have the go with the second one.

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...