Another view from afar

[Barry Brockes 145]

I''ve been puzzled since the new Chairman and CEO were appointed as to the rationale behind it. You only have to look at their CVs and hear them speak to realise they are not typical ''Smith and Jones people''. The two of them are used to getting their own way come hell or high water. So, what was the thinking behind their appointments? Did Smith and Jones innocently think they could still make all the key decisions unchallenged? Have they at long last realised that the Club needs to develop some testicles and are happy to let the new Board make decisions on an objective basis? Is it a combination of the above or neither? Intriguing and oh to have been a fly on the wall at that board meeting.

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "][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. 

 

[/quote]

Not sure about Munby but Doncaster was not sacked.  It was certainly suggested (we believe) that it would be nice if he "stepped down" and on being guaranteed "the nice" duly did so.

We also have a suspicion this end that Doomy was already in the frame for the Scottish job at the time or at least on the shortlist.

In the spirit of Private Eye: trebles all round.[;)]

About the rest of it cannot say.

[waggers 0]

This is probably the most sensible thread I have read since Friday afternoon. Wish it was always like this!

Cam, I hope you don''t mind me asking but which publication do you write for? I''m quite interested in reading anything covered by the caveat in your intro to this post.

[Camuldonum 0]

[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]

As Joe would say: "I cannot comment on your suggestion that it was ''absolutely stupid''"

Totally pre-planned and....errr... executed.

Think about it Nutty dear.  If whoever wanted him out had left it till then and sacked him on the back of a 4-0 away win at Yeovil and, let us say, a similar scoreline at Exeter (for argument purposes only) what on earth would people say?

This was a want him out and sod the consequences decision.  We know them when we see them.[:)]

With the sod the consequences decision comes the subsequent consequences of course.  Which is what I was trying to get at, I think.

And no one knows about those.  Not anyone, including Mr McNally.

Funny old game.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

In that case the board meeting should have been last Saturday at 5 and the announcement at 6[O]

Some folk would have shouted "knee-jerk" but that''s better than "absolutely stupid". If the new manager is a success but misses out on something by 2 points or less I hope they are reminded about this weekend.

 

[Camuldonum 0]

PS: Watch out for:

"The Board were unanimous in their approval of (select name) as the new Manager of Norwich City.  (Select name)  has an excellent record in football despite the fact that he has been out of work for months and we feel confident that he is the person to take our club forward.  He has a fine record of achievement and we are all confident that (select name) is the person who will restore Norwich City into a higher league of football.  He shares with the Board our complete committment to take our promotion out of this God Awful League (sorry, that should read League One) as his absolute priority.

"We are confident that the appointment of (select name) will lead to a new chapter in the history of our club and once again restore (select name, oops that should reach Norwich City) to a place in the football structure which reflects the support and loyalty of supporters who are second to none.

"We look forward to a new and invigorating chapter in the history of our club."

You read it here first, sadly.[+o(]

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "][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?

 

[/quote]

Why question me?

Util you have some proper evidence to suggest that McNally has done anything except follow orders I suggest that yes you have been manipulated and fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

If new majority investment is brought in during the next few months and it is shown that McNally is behind this, then and only then will you receive an apology from me.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

PS: Watch out for:

"The Board were unanimous in their approval of (select name) as the new Manager of Norwich City.  (Select name)  has an excellent record in football despite the fact that he has been out of work for months and we feel confident that he is the person to take our club forward.  He has a fine record of achievement and we are all confident that (select name) is the person who will restore Norwich City into a higher league of football.  He shares with the Board our complete committment to take our promotion out of this God Awful League (sorry, that should read League One) as his absolute priority.

"We are confident that the appointment of (select name) will lead to a new chapter in the history of our club and once again restore (select name, oops that should reach Norwich City) to a place in the football structure which reflects the support and loyalty of supporters who are second to none.

"We look forward to a new and invigorating chapter in the history of our club."

You read it here first, sadly.[+o(]

[/quote]

haha nice one Cam... [;)]

It is just so predictable isn''t it???

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

In that case the board meeting should have been last Saturday at 5 and the announcement at 6[O]

Some folk would have shouted "knee-jerk" but that''s better than "absolutely stupid". If the new manager is a success but misses out on something by 2 points or less I hope they are reminded about this weekend.

 

[/quote]

Look on the bright side of life.  If a new bloke comes in and it doesn''t quite work out people will be able to blame both the old Board and the new Board!

Sort of related but I wonder how many Pink Un'' posters (or just casual observers from afar) bet on Everton 1 Arsenal 6 as a scoreline on an opening day of a season?

"Any suggestion that a decision taken by Norwich City is absolutely stupid is, as you know, only media speculation and you know our policy is never to offer a comment on such speculation."[;)]

It''s sort of funny this end but it''s also sort of pathetic and sad as well.

Anyway in the spirit of the thing: in McNally you trust.[:|]

 

[Bexley 0]

As a relative newcomer can someone tell me please who Cam is & what his / her job that gives him an insight?

Thanks

[Excited Canary 19]

He is a Col U & Lincoln City fan who is a journalist, who likes to post on these boards...

[Bexley 0]

[quote user="Norwich"]He is a Col U & Lincoln City fan who is a journalist, who likes to post on these boards...[/quote]

Thanks. Journalist for whom?

[Felixfan 53]

[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]

Mcnally has not been appointed to the board.

[Mark Smith 0]

Yes he has. At the same time when we got the other two new board members.

[Felixfan 53]

[quote user="Mark Smith"]Yes he has. At the same time when we got the other two new board members.[/quote]

Evidence?

[Bury Yellow 2]

Hang on Felixfan. Have i missed something? The last I heard he had been appointed to the board about three or so weeks ago.

Do you know something we don''t?

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[url]http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1711631,00.html[/url]

[Felixfan 53]

I stand corrected.

[Bury Yellow 2]

No Probs mate. Just got a bit worried that''s all.

His appointment on the board was a crucial decision to swing the balance of power to the newcomers

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

Go to Bed Bury Yellow. You have been drinking . I can always tell.

[Bury Yellow 2]

If you were to shave that beard off you would look so much younger. It aint right for a girl to look like that

[Camuldonum 0]

http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1711631,00.html

Do me a favour, guv.[:|]

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1711631,00.html

Do me a favour, guv.[:|]

[/quote]Emmmm........considering that Bowkett turned B&P from a manufacturing company into Morrisons car park just think what he can do with all the tangible assetts.

[Camuldonum 0]

PS: Of course it could have been 3-2 with an abstention.

That is still unanimous given that one opted out of saying either way and decided not to vote either way.[;)]

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Camuldonum"]

http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1711631,00.html

Do me a favour, guv.[:|]

[/quote]

Emmmm........considering that Bowkett turned B&P from a manufacturing company into Morrisons car park just think what he can do with all the tangible assetts.
[/quote]

I certainly hope these aren''t tangible fixed assets like what Sven''s backers are planning for Notts County with their casino plan.................[+o(]

PS: Jolly good luck to all with the plans for a casino in Nottingham.

[canary cherub 1]

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

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?

[/quote]

Why question me?

Util you have some proper evidence to suggest that McNally has done anything except follow orders I suggest that yes you have been manipulated and fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

If new majority investment is brought in during the next few months and it is shown that McNally is behind this, then and only then will you receive an apology from me.

[/quote]

No one is above question, even you.

It depends what you mean by "proper" evidence.  I can''t prove it, but it seems pretty obvious that D&M weren''t in favour of Gunn''s sacking and Camul''s post pretty well backs it up.  There are other posts which go into more detail about the potential effect of McNally''s appointment to the board on the balance of power in the boardroom, but the point is that he almost certainly took a stand against his new employers or at the very least didn''t actively support them.

The issue of "new majority investment" is entirely irrelevant to this thread, but should it arrive it''s equally irrelevant who''s behind it, whether it''s McNally or not.  I think you know that perfectly well and you''re just trying to march backwards from the stance you have taken.  We all get it wrong sometimes Smudger, even you.  The difference is that most of us are more interested in getting at the truth than in being right.

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

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

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?

[/quote]

Why question me?

Util you have some proper evidence to suggest that McNally has done anything except follow orders I suggest that yes you have been manipulated and fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

If new majority investment is brought in during the next few months and it is shown that McNally is behind this, then and only then will you receive an apology from me.

[/quote]

No one is above question, even you.

It depends what you mean by "proper" evidence.  I can''t prove it, but it seems pretty obvious that D&M weren''t in favour of Gunn''s sacking and Camul''s post pretty well backs it up.  There are other posts which go into more detail about the potential effect of McNally''s appointment to the board on the balance of power in the boardroom, but the point is that he almost certainly took a stand against his new employers or at the very least didn''t actively support them.

The issue of "new majority investment" is entirely irrelevant to this thread, but should it arrive it''s equally irrelevant who''s behind it, whether it''s McNally or not.  I think you know that perfectly well and you''re just trying to march backwards from the stance you have taken.  We all get it wrong sometimes Smudger, even you.  The difference is that most of us are more interested in getting at the truth than in being right.

 

[/quote]

Ah, the truth, the truth. Let''s all get to the truth. Mummy says, ".Little Johnny doesn''t seem as perky as normal." Daddy says, "Leave him alone. He''s experiencing growing pains." The doctor say, "Give him this tonic twice a day and he will be right as rain." Little Johnny says, "I feel fine." What''s the truth?

You have gone, in no time flat, full circle in your assessment of where the main problem was at Carrow Road, with apologies thrown in for your judgemental error. You are now drifting back to your favourite territory, i.e. conspiracy theories. I wonder what it would be like if you were on the Board?

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

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

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?

[/quote]

Why question me?

Util you have some proper evidence to suggest that McNally has done anything except follow orders I suggest that yes you have been manipulated and fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

If new majority investment is brought in during the next few months and it is shown that McNally is behind this, then and only then will you receive an apology from me.

[/quote]

No one is above question, even you.

It depends what you mean by "proper" evidence.  I can''t prove it, but it seems pretty obvious that D&M weren''t in favour of Gunn''s sacking and Camul''s post pretty well backs it up.  There are other posts which go into more detail about the potential effect of McNally''s appointment to the board on the balance of power in the boardroom, but the point is that he almost certainly took a stand against his new employers or at the very least didn''t actively support them.

The issue of "new majority investment" is entirely irrelevant to this thread, but should it arrive it''s equally irrelevant who''s behind it, whether it''s McNally or not.  I think you know that perfectly well and you''re just trying to march backwards from the stance you have taken.  We all get it wrong sometimes Smudger, even you.  The difference is that most of us are more interested in getting at the truth than in being right.

 

[/quote]

Again CC, I see little in this post of yours or any other post on this thread to suggest that there is any evidence out there to support either of our claims right now.

While you have chosen to accept the arguement put forward by many, I choose to suggest that Smith and Jones were wise to this and that the majority are now once again dancing to their tune.

Of course only time will tell what may come of this, but I would not be surprsied to see McNally given his marching orders prior to next season getting underway in yet another effort by Smith & Jones to appease the restless fans.

Will you hold all of this wonderful new board of ours EQUALLY ACCOUNTABLE if they fail?  After all, it was a UNANINMOUS decision wasn''t it???  [:^)]

[They need to EARN the right to play us 0]

"Robins is a good young chap but he''s never managed outside League Two"

Ah the never failing pig-ignorance of the average Oink ''Un poster!

[Juggler 7]

Isn''t it normal at Board Meetings that the Chairman only has a casting vote to be used if the other directors are equally split. If so, either Foulger sided with the other two or abstained.