Is this reflective of Message Board opinion?

[Badger 0]

http://www.norwich.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=166092

[Herman 11,136]

Hmmmm...the timing defiitely!!

[Tim Allman 1]

What''s the betting that only three people voted in the poll as the results were -

Yes - 33%
No - 67%

For the record, I''m not surprised at the decision, but the timing has staggered me.

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Badger"]

http://www.norwich.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=166092


[/quote]

 

I find that quite incredible. While it may be justifiable to question the timing (although I''ll reserve judgement until the whole picture unfolds) I can''t believe that a majority think he should have stayed. Either there are a lot of hypocrites out there or we have some very stupid fans.

[William Darby 0]

more like Town fans swaying the vote

[Creative Midfielder 2,203]

Well the timing was clearly bizarre, I would think most would agree with that.

As to the decision itself - there have been a lot of doubts from the very start as to whether Bryan was right for the job. But the stupidity of allowing him to bring in such a large group of players only to sack him two games in is pretty breathtaking.

On this board Delia will, of course, cope most of the flak but for the majority of supporters it is McNally that emerges from this with episode looking like a plank.

Certainly a very inauspicious start to what may turn out to be a very short City career, unless he can turn it round with a truly stupendous appointment.

[matt crowhurst 0]

All i know is that on the live game link yesterday that Pete and Co expertly do every week for us there was a similar vote on there and the last i saw, about 5 mins from the end of the game, the vote was 48% agreed with the sacking and 52% didnt and i would have thought a few more people would have voted. Pete any chance of final stats on this vote: how many voted and final vote?

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="Badger"]http://www.norwich.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=166092

[/quote]

 

I find that quite incredible. While it may be justifiable to question the timing (although I''ll reserve judgement until the whole picture unfolds) I can''t believe that a majority think he should have stayed. Either there are a lot of hypocrites out there or we have some very stupid fans.

[/quote]"The general consensus of opinion on the forum

was that the timing of the decision was dubious to say the least, but

the majority of those voting in the poll believe getting rid was the

wrong thing to do."Even if you don''t support the choice of manager, it cannot really be thought of as sensible to let him spend most/ all of the player budget, give him one game and then sack him - presumably with compo! I''d have thought that in these circumstances a stance of "I thought the appointment was wrong and I think the sacking was wrong too" is a reasonable one. I would hate it if Boothroyd were appointed but I''d think it wrong if he were to be sacked in September!For my own part, I am one of a very small group (of one, judging by the message boards) that given the chance he could have done a good job. But I''ll have to let that go now...

[Disturbed 0]

[quote user="Badger"]

http://www.norwich.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=166092


[/quote]

 

The simple answer to your question is yes.

We lost 1 game - big deal.

He should have been give 6 to 10 games before this.

Its a disgrace that he was sacked.

The same when Roder was sacked - discracefull timing and utterly shambolic end to the season.

[Bury Yellow 2]

I just don''t get this.

One more time for those who remain ignorant of the facts. Bowkett and McNally were not on the board when the stupid decision was made to make Gunn Manager in the close season. As there were only three board members at the time (Munby and Doomy had just left) guess who made that momentous decision?

We now have members on the board who actually know how to run a business and can outvote the majority shareholders.

They did not want Gunn, saw what was going on and made their decision. The timing is not that peculiar because there is never a ''good'' time.

I would have thought we owe the board a big thankyou for taking prompt action.

Now then, we don''t know what will happen in the next 48 hours or so and we are not privvy to what has been going on. McNally has stated the new man must be capable of getting us promotion. Gunn would never have been able to achieve that and surely anybody who witnessed the Reading, Charlton, Colchester and Exeter games would have to agree.

Interesting times and all you ''keep the faithers'' better get use to our club re-joining the fold of the professionals after a long time as little old Norwich.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]I just don''t get this. One more time for those who remain ignorant of the facts. Bowkett and McNally were not on the board when the stupid decision was made to make Gunn Manager in the close season. As there were only three board members at the time (Munby and Doomy had just left) guess who made that momentous decision? We now have members on the board who actually know how to run a business and can outvote the majority shareholders. They did not want Gunn, saw what was going on and made their decision. The timing is not that peculiar because there is never a ''good'' time. I would have thought we owe the board a big thankyou for taking prompt action. Now then, we don''t know what will happen in the next 48 hours or so and we are not privvy to what has been going on. McNally has stated the new man must be capable of getting us promotion. Gunn would never have been able to achieve that and surely anybody who witnessed the Reading, Charlton, Colchester and Exeter games would have to agree. Interesting times and all you ''keep the faithers'' better get use to our club re-joining the fold of the professionals after a long time as little old Norwich.[/quote]

 

Spot on BY. I wonder how many of those trotting out the "he should have been given more time" line would have been screaming for his dismissal when we were 10 games in with about 8 points to our name? The new man will now have virtually a season to get us back on track, rather than three quarters.

[Badger 0]

Bury Yellow - he said yesterdy that the decision was based on 7 months not last week, which I agree implies that it was last year''s record rather than this year''s which caused the decision - ie he had already made up his mind. But if this is the case why not sack him before he has spent all the player money - it would surely have made more sense. Did he bottle it then or did the Colchester result have more impact that he admits too? (Alternatively was it a prolonged boardroom struggle which he has only just won? )

[Mark Smith 0]

McNally has only recently joined the board. Before that he would have had no influence/power in sacking Gunn just as CE. Also, you have to remember that it is still a joint decision and all board members would need to be convinced that it was the right thing to do. Judging by the opinions just on here, he probably didn''t find it easy, and so the game last week was probably the ammunition he needed to give him the boot.

People forget that Gunn was appointed after one successful game. I like the symmetry that he was sacked for one disaster of a game (or at least that''s how it''s perceived by most people with short term memories).

[Yellow Shirt 17]

[quote user="Badger"]Bury Yellow - he said yesterdy that the decision was based on 7 months not last week, which I agree implies that it was last year''s record rather than this year''s which caused the decision - ie he had already made up his mind. But if this is the case why not sack him before he has spent all the player money - it would surely have made more sense. Did he bottle it then or did the Colchester result have more impact that he admits too? (Alternatively was it a prolonged boardroom struggle which he has only just won? )[/quote]As Gunn had been given the job before McNally joined the board, he was surely obliged to give him a last chance to prove himself. 7-1 just meant that chance didn''t need to go on.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Mark Smith"]McNally has only recently joined the board. Before that he would have had no influence/power in sacking Gunn just as CE. Also, you have to remember that it is still a joint decision and all board members would need to be convinced that it was the right thing to do. Judging by the opinions just on here, he probably didn''t find it easy, and so the game last week was probably the ammunition he needed to give him the boot.

People forget that Gunn was appointed after one successful game. I like the symmetry that he was sacked for one disaster of a game (or at least that''s how it''s perceived by most people with short term memories).[/quote]Yes, I''d forgotten that he joined the board later.

[GoldenNugget 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]I just don''t get this. One more time for those who remain ignorant of the facts. Bowkett and McNally were not on the board when the stupid decision was made to make Gunn Manager in the close season. As there were only three board members at the time (Munby and Doomy had just left) guess who made that momentous decision? We now have members on the board who actually know how to run a business and can outvote the majority shareholders. They did not want Gunn, saw what was going on and made their decision. The timing is not that peculiar because there is never a ''good'' time. I would have thought we owe the board a big thankyou for taking prompt action. Now then, we don''t know what will happen in the next 48 hours or so and we are not privvy to what has been going on. McNally has stated the new man must be capable of getting us promotion. Gunn would never have been able to achieve that and surely anybody who witnessed the Reading, Charlton, Colchester and Exeter games would have to agree. Interesting times and all you ''keep the faithers'' better get use to our club re-joining the fold of the professionals after a long time as little old Norwich.[/quote]

 

Spot on BY. I wonder how many of those trotting out the "he should have been given more time" line would have been screaming for his dismissal when we were 10 games in with about 8 points to our name? The new man will now have virtually a season to get us back on track, rather than three quarters.

[/quote]It''s so strange that everything seems to be assumptions to make their point. There are those fans that understood the bigger picture, that last season he didn''t have the team to do anything with, and now after assembling his team he has lost one game and helf a 50% win record. It speaks volumes for our board that they made the decision before making the moves higher up. The timing is peculiar and you sound like David MxNallys puppet, Sunday morning after the Colchester game, that''s a good time, gives player 2-3 days to process the information and get their heads straight. It also gives them a week to find a suitable replacement. Not all fans were calling for Gunns head. I love how you presume that big old David McNally will fly in and rescue this club, in time I fear that you and a lot of other people will realise that the grass is not always greener.

[Mark Smith 0]

Why do I get the feeling that the much vaunted ''timing'' situation just has arbitrary reasons behind it. Something like they had a pre-scheduled meeting on the Thursday and just decided then. I don''t suppose that satisfies people who want a juicier explanation.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Mark Smith"]Why do I get the feeling that the much vaunted ''timing'' situation just has arbitrary reasons behind it. Something like they had a pre-scheduled meeting on the Thursday and just decided then. I don''t suppose that satisfies people who want a juicier explanation.[/quote]Still a bit strange though - you are so worried about that manager and the last result but you don''t meet to discuss it for 5 days!You could be right though - I don''t know -  but if you are, it doesn''t reflect particularly well upon them.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="Tim Allman"]

What''s the betting that only three people voted in the poll as the results were -

Yes - 33%
No - 67%

For the record, I''m not surprised at the decision, but the timing has staggered me.

 

[/quote]

 

You aren''t alone, knocked me sideways.

[O.T.B.C 1]

I thought that they would give him another 6-8 games, then no sign of any change or improvement, he would have been given the boot. But I was litterally gobsmacked and speachless, to those who know me at work, they were confused by my silence.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="Mark Smith"]Why do I get the feeling that the much vaunted ''timing'' situation just has arbitrary reasons behind it. Something like they had a pre-scheduled meeting on the Thursday and just decided then. I don''t suppose that satisfies people who want a juicier explanation.[/quote]

Still a bit strange though - you are so worried about that manager and the last result but you don''t meet to discuss it for 5 days!

You could be right though - I don''t know -  but if you are, it doesn''t reflect particularly well upon them.
[/quote]

Could have been some kind of contractual wrangle with Gunn?  I bet he was totally shocked and angry and probably in the mood to dig his heels in as much as possible....