Fuglestad 0 Posted August 16, 2009 I have mentioned this on other threads, but is anybody else worried about the precedent the club has now set. Say we appoint a new manager and his first game is at home, and we lose, say 3-1, then lose our next two? Surely he would have to be fired. Or do we go with "it isn''t his side, let''s see what he can do once he''s got his own splayers in" and wait till January? Then sack him if he loses the first game in February?Obviously your opinions will be different based on how famous the manager is, but how long does the next one get? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Forever Norwich 0 Posted August 16, 2009 Let''s wait and see who it is but i think it is about time we gave a manager a lengthy time not force every manager we appoint of the door cause its getting stupid now and who ever we appoint next we need to stay with them for a whole season i feel to see what he can do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sideshow Tim 110 Posted August 16, 2009 Sack him, keep them coming through the revolving Carrow Road doors The law of averages say that we have to get a good one eventually!Seriously though, this time the choice of manager simply has to be right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
if I promise to behave 0 Posted August 16, 2009 I agree that we should give the next manager time. This would depend on their having a good track record; but if we got someone like Robbins, Tilson, Adkins or Coppell (I can dream!), then I would not be opposed to their getting 2 or 3 seasons to turn the club around. If that happened, however, we would all have to show patience, and that goes for Pink un posters as well.(I can dream!) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wizard 0 Posted August 16, 2009 Gunn got 20 games and a relegation, any new guy deserves 3 months at least. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fuglestad 0 Posted August 16, 2009 [quote user="First Wizard"]Gunn got 20 games and a relegation, any new guy deserves 3 months at least.[/quote]Depends how you look at it. In my eyes he got offered a one year deal in the summer, and got two games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canary cherub 1 Posted August 16, 2009 [quote user="Fuglestad"][quote user="First Wizard"]Gunn got 20 games and a relegation, any new guy deserves 3 months at least.[/quote]Depends how you look at it. In my eyes he got offered a one year deal in the summer, and got two games. [/quote]So relegation had absolutely nothing to do with him . . . oh right [:S] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby 0 Posted August 16, 2009 [quote user="First Wizard"]Gunn got 20 games and a relegation, any new guy deserves 3 months at least.[/quote]Depending on whether you like him that is wiz. 3 losses in a row and you''ll be calling for his head regardless, after the board of course who you will blame for having the audacity to employ another crap manager. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Disturbed 0 Posted August 16, 2009 dont fire manegers if they dont win its the players fault not the manegers[li] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wizard 0 Posted August 16, 2009 [quote user="Scooby"][quote user="First Wizard"]Gunn got 20 games and a relegation, any new guy deserves 3 months at least.[/quote]Depending on whether you like him that is wiz. 3 losses in a row and you''ll be calling for his head regardless, after the board of course who you will blame for having the audacity to employ another crap manager.[/quote]I''ll concede Scooby, it does depend to a degree who we get, ie Hasselbonk, Crook or Butters and its the open season! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canary cherub 1 Posted August 16, 2009 [quote user="Disturbed"]dont fire manegers if they dont win its the players fault not the manegers[li][/quote]The logical outcome of that line of argument is that we don''t need a manager at all . . . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CANARY CHARGE 0 Posted August 16, 2009 [quote user="Fuglestad"]I have mentioned this on other threads, but is anybody else worried about the precedent the club has now set. Say we appoint a new manager and his first game is at home, and we lose, say 3-1, then lose our next two? Surely he would have to be fired. Or do we go with "it isn''t his side, let''s see what he can do once he''s got his own splayers in" and wait till January? Then sack him if he loses the first game in February?Obviously your opinions will be different based on how famous the manager is, but how long does the next one get? [/quote]Jesus!!! Gunn had 19 games to save relegation, first competitive game his team lose 7-1. Should have gone last season! strange timing right decision! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bury Yellow 2 Posted August 16, 2009 I must admit to getting a bit annoyed about all this Gunn defending.The bloke got re appointed in the close season by a half cocked board comprising of Mr Foulger and the Smith Jones.As Wiz states he had 20 plus games. Most people in the game thought his appointment was farcical in the first place.We may have been a laughing stock prior to Friday afternoon but i think the professional game is hoping that the real Norwich (of pre Delia) may be back. Goodbye parochial little Norwich Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SNAP 0 Posted August 16, 2009 Your arguement only holds water if you assume that Gunn was a football club manager. He wasn''t. He was a stop gap put in place by The Suffolks as a blatent attempt to deflect the fans anger at the situation we fond ourselves in. Reappointing him was as much about cheap options and the fact that his two sidekicks had one year contracts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites