Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yellow hammer

Can the Board sell the Club over the Heads of the Owners?

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Lambert is King"]Unless I misunderstood I thought that McNally was saying that we had one chance to get out of league 1 or administration it was. I also got the impression that when most fans took the rebate it meant that the money had to be found or it would have been administration last autumn. [/quote]

Its the £2.5m a year holiday from servicing the debts that saved this club.

Dont forget the rebate was being used for transfers if you remember the public statements. Given Gunns record re transfers I think the fans who took their rebate got it right. Would you want another £650k wasted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We must not forget that shortly after the Charlton debacle, that not only Delia and Hubby Micky were saying that ''things must change'' whilst contemplating the future sat down by the Thames.....

.....But that also Delia''s Nephew Tom was also in attendance.....He surely, must also deserve some credit and applause?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial thread from Yellow Hammer described the situation that is occurring at Liverpool, a club that is having all sorts of difficulties both off and on the pitch currently. Yellow Hammer then quite reasonably floats the notion that if any ruling goes against Hicks and Gillett it could have future repercussions up and down the land. Is it really necessary for the usual suspects to engage in speculation about what occurred with Norwich City 18 months ago, speculation that has already been done to death on numerous threads in the past.

Norwich City are doing okay at the moment. Even you, Cherub, have said your expectation of Norwich punching its weight is to be competing in the top six of the Championship. We are not the club going through what Liverpool is, so why not give it a rest and enjoy our current situation. You know, after reading the thread reviewing some of the past memories of Norwich City FC ( particularly the memories of the players of past decades ) I personally find it sad that some fans have to look for the opportunity to turn over old stones with nothing other than sheer speculation. I can''t recall whether it was Ricardo who said it but, whoever it was, was correct in stating we spent time in earlier days enjoying the players and what occurred on the pitch (good and bad ), paying little attention to other matters. I realise idle speculation seems to be a way of life today but, speaking for myself, I''m glad I enjoyed the time that I did without the level of spitefulness I believe exists today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T and others may like to remind themselves of the fans feelings at the time:

 

01/06/2009, 2:56 PM

Hairy Canary is not online. Last active: 30/09/2010 11:30:40 Hairy Canary



Not Ranked
Joined on 04/01/2005
Norwich
Posts 615

Re: Rebate

Reply Quote

Well Steveo, seeings as you''ve asked so nicely, here goes.

a)    I''ve never complained that the club doesn''t have enough money, in fact our turnover in league 1 will dwarf most of our opponents. However I do resent the fact that for years we have wasted what we have, caused by the board appointing poor managers who have then signed poor players. I am not prepared to put more cash in for them to carry on doing the same.

b)   When Doncaster and Mumby went we were promised radical change. Since then the same manager and backroom staff have been appointed and no new blood has come onto the board. If nothing changes we will carry on in the same downward spiral.

c)   We are in League 1. I cant see why supporters, many of whome struggle to pay for their season ticket, should pay championship prices. Have no doubt the standard next year will be very average.

d)   I used to have a wonderful feeling about NCFC - I felt I belonged and was part of it. That feeling is much less now. This is partly due to all the loan players from other clubs coming in who I cant identify with but it is also because I am being taken for granted by the board. The pretence that they would listen to fans views before appointing the manager was the final straw for me. To appoint Gunn the day before the fans meeting was like putting two fingers up. And then to follow that by sending out letters saying that the cash from 18,000 season tickets was not enough so please give us some more!

To sum up, I dont trust the board with the extra cash, they dont deserve it and I feel my club wont improve until the changes they promised take place. This is my way of letting them know that I want that change and to be honest I think they are staggeringly lucky that 18,000 people have signed up at all.

Share this post


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

The initial thread from Yellow Hammer described the situation that is occurring at Liverpool, a club that is having all sorts of difficulties both off and on the pitch currently. Yellow Hammer then quite reasonably floats the notion that if any ruling goes against Hicks and Gillett it could have future repercussions up and down the land. Is it really necessary for the usual suspects to engage in speculation about what occurred with Norwich City 18 months ago, speculation that has already been done to death on numerous threads in the past.

Norwich City are doing okay at the moment. Even you, Cherub, have said your expectation of Norwich punching its weight is to be competing in the top six of the Championship. We are not the club going through what Liverpool is, so why not give it a rest and enjoy our current situation. You know, after reading the thread reviewing some of the past memories of Norwich City FC ( particularly the memories of the players of past decades ) I personally find it sad that some fans have to look for the opportunity to turn over old stones with nothing other than sheer speculation. I can''t recall whether it was Ricardo who said it but, whoever it was, was correct in stating we spent time in earlier days enjoying the players and what occurred on the pitch (good and bad ), paying little attention to other matters. I realise idle speculation seems to be a way of life today but, speaking for myself, I''m glad I enjoyed the time that I did without the level of spitefulness I believe exists today. 

[/quote]

But only a couple of weeks ago McNally moved the goal posts by admitting that we were on the brink of administration last autumn and we spent money we did not have as we had 1 chance to get promotion - that is not speculation. I do not see why anyone with the rule changes coming in over the next three years would want to buy a football club. You will no longer be able to invest your personal wealth in the club you will only be able to spend a % of your turn over on wages, hence why McNally has said we must get promoted in this time frame.  

Share this post


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

You know, after reading the thread reviewing some of the past memories of Norwich City FC ( particularly the memories of the players of past decades ) I personally find it sad that some fans have to look for the opportunity to turn over old stones with nothing other than sheer speculation. I can''t recall whether it was Ricardo who said it but, whoever it was, was correct in stating we spent time in earlier days enjoying the players and what occurred on the pitch (good and bad ), paying little attention to other matters. I realise idle speculation seems to be a way of life today but, speaking for myself, I''m glad I enjoyed the time that I did without the level of spitefulness I believe exists today. 

[/quote]

It was me who said it Yankee. But I was talking about the youngsters like I was in those days. Youngsters today hanker after rich owners when all we ever wanted was players. We neither knew nor cared where the money came from for transfers and running the club. Nowadays the youngsters dream of an Abramovch buying their club and what that would mean in terms of players. I bet youngsters in Liverpool were excited when they heard that Gillette and Hicks were coming. But that''s for another day.

 

The level of spitefulness was always there throughout the time I have been a fan. Managers, Chairmen and even players are turned on as the disappointment of lack of success bites. The most spiteful of all my time as a fan was back in those days I was referring to, the chanting towards Geoffrey Watling in the 60''s. His crime was that we were mid-table in the Second Division and everytime we had a player who could score goals he was sold. His punishment was some of the most disgraceful chanting I have heard at a football match. This wasn''t kids though, this was grown men with angry faces chanting "zigger zigger zigger watling is a *****r, tanker tanker tanker Watling is a *****r"! That''s pretty spiteful in my book even if he was guilty of the crime!

 

Those angry men would be in their 60s & 70s now I guess. And they are probably being spiteful to the present owners while extolling the virtues of Geoffrey Watling who was the salt of the earth and saved their club for them twice!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 this was grown men with angry faces chanting "zigger zigger zigger watling is a *****r, tanker tanker tanker Watling is a *****r"! That''s pretty spiteful in my book even if he was guilty of the crime!

The number of times you have quoted that Nutty (and this is not a go) it must have left one hell of an impression on a young lad.

As much as the chants against Chase or Worthy or even refs these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
more about the liverpool fiasco in the papers today and it looks like it might be heading to the court room. Liverpool have got till next friday to pay creditors too apparently or the debts will be called in and the 9 point deduction will be applied.they probably wont go down, but its a caution for ANY football club.. be they Liverpool, Chelsea, Norwich or a tiny non league side.. manage your club badly and suffer the consequences.it would be hilarious if Liverpool did go down. "Big 4" my backside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall the owners had more than just talked about change before the NCISA meeting. The Chairman and CEO had resigned and the owners had announced the rebate scheme to put more money into the club to support the promotion bid which helped fund the purchase of Holt so it is not just with the benefit of hindsight that the rebate decision was made by NCISA and its supporters. I don''t think anyone was convinced with the Gunn appointment but a short-term contract arrangement did make sense in the context of the the planned Board changes. Promotion was backed by a new management team appointed by the owners and more funding from the owners which was already in progress before the meeting,together with a pro-active Group of Associate Directors with a postitive action plan and the subsequent appointment by that mgmt team of lambert together with fans not taking the rebate and the continued amazing support of other fans. Anyone who thinks that a temper tantrum call to reduce the funding available to support promotion when change was already in progress is frankly just bizarre and delusional and based on emotional feelings rather than a rational analysis of the situation. As I said I have nothing against the NCISA and its supporters per se but I thought the call on this matter to not support increased funding was destructive when the club was down rather than providing positive constructive support for the club which was required at the time.

Share this post


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

 this was grown men with angry faces chanting "zigger zigger zigger watling is a *****r, tanker tanker tanker Watling is a *****r"! That''s pretty spiteful in my book even if he was guilty of the crime!

The number of times you have quoted that Nutty (and this is not a go) it must have left one hell of an impression on a young lad.

As much as the chants against Chase or Worthy or even refs these days?

[/quote]

It did leave an impression on me and I remember us kids repeating it at school and having it explained to me at home. It didn''t make sense after that. Not many of the older fans on here seem to remember it. Some have said it didn''t happen others just don''t remember it. If you put it in the search facility on this messageboard others have referenced it too.

Sometimes I think fans a lot of older fans on here stopped going to games in the 60''s and came back in the early 90''s. Only a few, like Ricardo, seem to remember the intervening years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]As I recall the owners had more than just talked about change before the NCISA meeting. The Chairman and CEO had resigned and the owners had announced the rebate scheme to put more money into the club to support the promotion bid which helped fund the purchase of Holt so it is not just with the benefit of hindsight that the rebate decision was made by NCISA and its supporters. I don''t think anyone was convinced with the Gunn appointment but a short-term contract arrangement did make sense in the context of the the planned Board changes. Promotion was backed by a new management team appointed by the owners and more funding from the owners which was already in progress before the meeting,together with a pro-active Group of Associate Directors with a postitive action plan and the subsequent appointment by that mgmt team of lambert together with fans not taking the rebate and the continued amazing support of other fans. Anyone who thinks that a temper tantrum call to reduce the funding available to support promotion when change was already in progress is frankly just bizarre and delusional and based on emotional feelings rather than a rational analysis of the situation. As I said I have nothing against the NCISA and its supporters per se but I thought the call on this matter to not support increased funding was destructive when the club was down rather than providing positive constructive support for the club which was required at the time.[/quote]

I believe we actually got promoted T see the rebate money was not needed.

Associate Directors action plan that was listened to,that''s a new one to contemplate and shows how desperate certain people were having ignored all advice beforhand.

Yes the fans have been and continue to be amazing. I just hope that the present management team do not take that to much for granted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently we got Holt and Fraser on a free and they were playing for the sheer fun of it? Are you seriously suggesting the money from the owners and the rebates did not help facilitate the promotion budget?

Clearly, the associate directors were not listened to by the previous Board but they sought to make constructive suggestions and ended up on the new Board whereas the NCISA sought to be distructive and are largely ignored as a result. 

Share this post


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

So apparently we got Holt and Fraser on a free and they were playing for the sheer fun of it? Are you seriously suggesting the money from the owners and the rebates did not help facilitate the promotion budget?

Clearly, the associate directors were not listened to by the previous Board but they sought to make constructive suggestions and ended up on the new Board whereas the NCISA sought to be distructive and are largely ignored as a result. 

[/quote]

They were paid for without the rebate money that was paid back were they not?

Again NCISA did NOT seek to be destructive ,(donating over £32000 to the club is destructive?) just voice the opinion of the majority of it''s members. Is that not what they should do?

So lets’ see, a management team that had increased debt by a minimum of 383%, had reduced the asset value by selling the legacy of land left by Chase

Had made a series of disastrous decisions relating to management appointments ,taken the team to the lowest point in 50 years and the brink of administration and  just reappointed a total failure of a manager.

The bulk of that “team” required further support from its hard pressed clients, that support in the form of the management team breaking an agreed contract.

Or do you lay the total blame on Munby and Doncaster. (The second being an employee of that management team)

I think that company’s clients were well within their rights to be sceptical don’t you.

Thank heavens that the last throw of the dice came good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It beggars belief that anyone can defend the appointment of Bryan Gunn.  It was 13th May and the new season was nearly 3 months away.  There was absolutely no need to appoint ANYONE at that particular time.  It made no sense at all.

 

Share this post


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

The initial thread from Yellow Hammer described the situation that is occurring at Liverpool, a club that is having all sorts of difficulties both off and on the pitch currently. Yellow Hammer then quite reasonably floats the notion that if any ruling goes against Hicks and Gillett it could have future repercussions up and down the land. Is it really necessary for the usual suspects to engage in speculation about what occurred with Norwich City 18 months ago, speculation that has already been done to death on numerous threads in the past.

Norwich City are doing okay at the moment. Even you, Cherub, have said your expectation of Norwich punching its weight is to be competing in the top six of the Championship. We are not the club going through what Liverpool is, so why not give it a rest and enjoy our current situation. You know, after reading the thread reviewing some of the past memories of Norwich City FC ( particularly the memories of the players of past decades ) I personally find it sad that some fans have to look for the opportunity to turn over old stones with nothing other than sheer speculation. I can''t recall whether it was Ricardo who said it but, whoever it was, was correct in stating we spent time in earlier days enjoying the players and what occurred on the pitch (good and bad ), paying little attention to other matters. I realise idle speculation seems to be a way of life today but, speaking for myself, I''m glad I enjoyed the time that I did without the level of spitefulness I believe exists today. 

[/quote]

lol irony

Paragraph 1: Yankee wants to move on from 18 months ago

Paragraph 2: Yankee wants to go back to 50 years ago

[8-)]

 

Share this post


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

The initial thread from Yellow Hammer described the situation that is occurring at Liverpool, a club that is having all sorts of difficulties both off and on the pitch currently. Yellow Hammer then quite reasonably floats the notion that if any ruling goes against Hicks and Gillett it could have future repercussions up and down the land. Is it really necessary for the usual suspects to engage in speculation about what occurred with Norwich City 18 months ago, speculation that has already been done to death on numerous threads in the past.

Norwich City are doing okay at the moment. Even you, Cherub, have said your expectation of Norwich punching its weight is to be competing in the top six of the Championship. We are not the club going through what Liverpool is, so why not give it a rest and enjoy our current situation. You know, after reading the thread reviewing some of the past memories of Norwich City FC ( particularly the memories of the players of past decades ) I personally find it sad that some fans have to look for the opportunity to turn over old stones with nothing other than sheer speculation. I can''t recall whether it was Ricardo who said it but, whoever it was, was correct in stating we spent time in earlier days enjoying the players and what occurred on the pitch (good and bad ), paying little attention to other matters. I realise idle speculation seems to be a way of life today but, speaking for myself, I''m glad I enjoyed the time that I did without the level of spitefulness I believe exists today. 

[/quote]

Well said, it is all very sad that these characters spent their time arguing about failure. Now at our highest point since the promotion season they rake it up and try to argue about success. Seems to me that the reasons for both are the same!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The initial thread from Yellow Hammer described the situation that is occurring at Liverpool, a club that is having all sorts of difficulties both off and on the pitch currently. Yellow Hammer then quite reasonably floats the notion that if any ruling goes against Hicks and Gillett it could have future repercussions up and down the land. Is it really necessary for the usual suspects to engage in speculation about what occurred with Norwich City 18 months ago, speculation that has already been done to death on numerous threads in the past.

Norwich City are doing okay at the moment. Even you, Cherub, have said your expectation of Norwich punching its weight is to be competing in the top six of the Championship. We are not the club going through what Liverpool is, so why not give it a rest and enjoy our current situation. You know, after reading the thread reviewing some of the past memories of Norwich City FC ( particularly the memories of the players of past decades ) I personally find it sad that some fans have to look for the opportunity to turn over old stones with nothing other than sheer speculation. I can''t recall whether it was Ricardo who said it but, whoever it was, was correct in stating we spent time in earlier days enjoying the players and what occurred on the pitch (good and bad ), paying little attention to other matters. I realise idle speculation seems to be a way of life today but, speaking for myself, I''m glad I enjoyed the time that I did without the level of spitefulness I believe exists today. 

[/quote]

lol irony

Paragraph 1: Yankee wants to move on from 18 months ago

Paragraph 2: Yankee wants to go back to 50 years ago

[8-)]

[/quote]

Cherub, as you grasped for irony did you allow the point to slip though your fingers? I prefer to focus on happy football memories whereas you appear to dwell on negative ones. I truly hope, for your sake, that you don''t apply this to your broader memories of life.

Share this post


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

The initial thread from Yellow Hammer described the situation that is occurring at Liverpool, a club that is having all sorts of difficulties both off and on the pitch currently. Yellow Hammer then quite reasonably floats the notion that if any ruling goes against Hicks and Gillett it could have future repercussions up and down the land. Is it really necessary for the usual suspects to engage in speculation about what occurred with Norwich City 18 months ago, speculation that has already been done to death on numerous threads in the past.

Norwich City are doing okay at the moment. Even you, Cherub, have said your expectation of Norwich punching its weight is to be competing in the top six of the Championship. We are not the club going through what Liverpool is, so why not give it a rest and enjoy our current situation. You know, after reading the thread reviewing some of the past memories of Norwich City FC ( particularly the memories of the players of past decades ) I personally find it sad that some fans have to look for the opportunity to turn over old stones with nothing other than sheer speculation. I can''t recall whether it was Ricardo who said it but, whoever it was, was correct in stating we spent time in earlier days enjoying the players and what occurred on the pitch (good and bad ), paying little attention to other matters. I realise idle speculation seems to be a way of life today but, speaking for myself, I''m glad I enjoyed the time that I did without the level of spitefulness I believe exists today. 

[/quote]

lol irony

Paragraph 1: Yankee wants to move on from 18 months ago

Paragraph 2: Yankee wants to go back to 50 years ago

[8-)]

[/quote]

Cherub, as you grasped for irony did you allow the point to slip though your fingers? I prefer to focus on happy football memories whereas you appear to dwell on negative ones. I truly hope, for your sake, that you don''t apply this to your broader memories of life.

[/quote]

With my head in the sand

And my ar*se in the air

I contemplate my happiness

While Cluck checks my rear![:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through this thread I find it incredible that I am the poster who''s accused of posting contrived nonsense unworthy of debate. Mind you that was by the most ill-informed poster I have ever known on this site so it''s not going to bother me.

The way I see it we were very angry back in May 2009. We had just been relegated. NCISA arranged a Public Meeting at St Andrews Hall that was welcomed and attended by hundreds of fans both NCISA members and non-members. After our relegation but before this meeting took place Munby and Doncaster resigned and Bryan Gunn was appointed as manager for the next season. The resignations rather took the wind out of the fans angry sails because there''s no doubt in my mind that Doncaster would have been the head the fans would have called for at that meeting. But the appointment of Gunn angered most fans who didn''t see a way forward under his management. I personally voted to take the rebate on my season ticket, a rebate offered by the club when we signed up earlier in the year. I also voted that Bryan Gunn was the wrong choice as manager. And I finally voted no confidence in the board that remained to run the club. As I said at the time we effectively didn''t have a board to run the club so how could I have confidence. That''s pretty much where we were as we headed out of St Andrews Hall. There was no further plan of action and I like many feared for the future of the club. Criticisms of NISCA members and other fans who felt that way is oh so wide of the mark. To use hindsight to make a case for us being wrong is unfair in the extreme.

However, we do have the benefit of hindsight to look back now. And with that hindsight I can say with complete honesty that the way I would have taken the club forward from that day was wrong and the way the owners took the club forward was right. Doncaster and Munby to go - correct decision. Gunn to be appointed manager immediately - correct decision. Leave team Gunn to assemble a squad while new executive management is found - correct decision. Appoint McNally as CE and persuade Bowkett to become Chairman - correct decision. So come the start of the season in August we had a squad to play and executive managers to manage. Hand over the running of the club to those executive managers, sit back and enjoy winning the league - correct decision.

Smith & Jones are often described as well meaning amateurs on these boards. I just think it''s a good job it was the well meaning amateur club owners who took those decisions and not the well meaning amateur message board posters.

Now to those who say that I am defending the indefensible and to those who say I write contrived nonsense that''s not worthy of debate, and to those who say I defend my idols I would like to ask the following two questions.

Why is it that most managerial changes (sackings) take place in the first four months of the season and the least in May/June?

If you feel that the decisions Smith & Jones made were wrong what would you have done instead?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is of my personal opinion, that maybe Mr Doncaster, regardless of the success or failure for NCFC to survive in the Championship - was probably or more than likely, seeking pastures new.....anyway.

Mr Munby wasn''t looking ''too chipper'' and probably his release/removal from the rigours and pressures from his tenure as our Club Chairman....Was probably a wise decision.....

Regarding our majority shareholding duo? It was maybe their ''last chance saloon''.....and they were fully aware, that it was ultimately make or break for them both - to preserve, retain and continue to maintain their control over the club.....

And fortunately, the rest, is now history.....(Till, the next time).....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree with most of that nutty, but everyone i know connected with the club tells me that D+M were outvoted when it came to replacing Gunn with Lambert.  Gunn was the man they wanted to back for that season.  What turned the club around was the fact that D+M (to their credit) allowed a situation whereby they could be outvoted.  Let`s hope it remains that way......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see we are back to criticizing purely based on speculation. If D&M were so convinced Gunn was the long-term solution then why did he and his mgmt team only get short-term contracts as evidenced that it only cost 100k to remove the lot of them? Hey but as usual why let facts get in the way. One thing is clear the NCISA voting to reduce the funds available to the club did absolutely nothing to help the turnaround of the club which was already in motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Agree with most of that nutty, but everyone i know connected with the club tells me that D+M were outvoted when it came to replacing Gunn with Lambert.  Gunn was the man they wanted to back for that season.  What turned the club around was the fact that D+M (to their credit) allowed a situation whereby they could be outvoted.  Let`s hope it remains that way......[/quote]

Let or had no choice?

When the ship is sinking you turn to the man who knows how the lefeboats work.

At least they recognised that fact.

Interesting split:- The 2 Michaels and Delia (The originals) + Fry   V   Bowkett, Mr Anonymous and McNally

                                          Most of the shares                                                Only very few shares

 

I wonder which way a serious vote would go?

Share this post


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

I see we are back to criticizing purely based on speculation. If D&M were so convinced Gunn was the long-term solution then why did he and his mgmt team only get short-term contracts as evidenced that it only cost 100k to remove the lot of them? Hey but as usual why let facts get in the way. One thing is clear the NCISA voting to reduce the funds available to the club did absolutely nothing to help the turnaround of the club which was already in motion.

[/quote]

Talking of facts T the vote was of all in attendence at St Andrews Hall of which only a  minority % were NCISA members.

Plus a very large % took the PROMISED contractual rebate their decision taken outside any meeting. I would like to think NCISA had that sort of influence (in the future it might) but at that time......... People took their money because THEY wanted to.

So on one hand we have a few hundred NCISA members and on the other the thousands that took THEIR money. Good old democracy.

Also I believe Crook did have a longer contract. So it was just Gunn and Butterworth who were treated badly then! Allowed to spend most of the budget as well, that was short sighted by someone. Can''t think that was good long term planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Agree with most of that nutty, but everyone i know connected with the club tells me that D+M were outvoted when it came to replacing Gunn with Lambert.  Gunn was the man they wanted to back for that season.  What turned the club around was the fact that D+M (to their credit) allowed a situation whereby they could be outvoted.  Let`s hope it remains that way......[/quote]

That may very well be so Mr Carrow but was it ever any different? Who do you suppose voted to employ Roeder and proceed with the "cleverer than the rest" loan policy?

 

Share this post


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

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Agree with most of that nutty, but everyone i know connected with the club tells me that D+M were outvoted when it came to replacing Gunn with Lambert.  Gunn was the man they wanted to back for that season.  What turned the club around was the fact that D+M (to their credit) allowed a situation whereby they could be outvoted.  Let`s hope it remains that way......[/quote]

Let or had no choice?

When the ship is sinking you turn to the man who knows how the lefeboats work.

At least they recognised that fact.

Interesting split:- The 2 Michaels and Delia (The originals) + Fry   V   Bowkett, Mr Anonymous and McNally

                                          Most of the shares                                                Only very few shares

 

I wonder which way a serious vote would go?

[/quote]---TB, S&J certainly had a choice over whether or not to give up their

boardroom majority. To quote a much-praised[;)][:P][;)] website from last yearThe owners could have kept the staus quo, or made some changes of personnel that did not alter the balance of power. Instead they sacked two of their supporters and installed three newcomers, deliberately ending what had effectively been their built-in majority. More than that, they appointed newcomers to the figurehead positionn of chairman and the crucial position of chief executive. At a stroke Snith and Jones - who understand how boardrooms work - created a situation in which they could be out-voted 4-2 on every major issue.Being

outvoted (or out-argued?) on Gunn was at some point in that season was

then not inevitable but perfectly possible. Of course whether the

appointment of Fry was a move to restore a majority (4-3 in this case)

is not without interest. Too little hard information (which is to say

none) to go on at the moment.As to your question of how a vote

would go on a major issue, that actually brings us back to the OP. THE

major issue for us is majority investment. IF we did receive a takeover

proposal that split the board on old guard/new guard lines that would

lead to interesting times. However I can see no similarities between the

position at Liverpool and ours.

I''ve said in the past that S&J bear an enormous responsibility,

because the decision as to whom to sell to will probably be the most

significant in the club''s history. But that responsibility now also

rests with Bowkett and McNally. They would have to be absolutely sure of

the viability of an offer before recommending it to the board. A responsibility to concentrate the mind.

Share this post


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

Also I believe Crook did have a longer contract. So it was just Gunn and Butterworth who were treated badly then! Allowed to spend most of the budget as well, that was short sighted by someone. Can''t think that was good long term planning.

[/quote]

No wonder you didn''t answer my two questions[:)]

The reason that most managerial changes through sackings are in Aug, Sept & early Oct is because of the restrictions now imposed by the transfer windows. By the time May comes many summer deals are well on the way to being complete. I would imagine Grant Holt negotiations were already well underway before we were relegated. The reason some of these deals are not completed until July and in the Prem case sometimes late August is because the players and their agents are still considering many offers and in the case of the greedy ones they are chasing the top dollar!

So if, as you obviously still believe and I believed at the time that Smith & Jones should have put the cart before the horse and changed the manager before the board, we would have put all those deals at risk or even scuppered them. By the time a new manager had been appointed he would have been at the back of the queue for any deals. Gunn not only managed to keep players like Wes at the club, he brought back Martin and Spillane and made some decent signings. He made a mistake on a few too, the biggest mistake being the ''keeper, but that was put right in the loan market.

Now what would you have done differently in early May 2009?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst out of context to debate of whether we are similar to the bindippers and the role of board etc the most confusing point is actually in the title.  The major issue is the deadline for the repayment of the loan to RBS.  This loan was enetended under conditions so RBS to a charge on the clubAs in any situation if a loan that cannot be repaid then those that made the loan can pursue any way to recover the money including selling the club.  It is much in the same way that when you buy a house with a mortgage the lender in nearly every case can take the house back if you default on payments.  You may of course offer alternatives but it is up to them to protect their money. 

Share this post


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

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Agree with most of that nutty, but everyone i know connected with the club tells me that D+M were outvoted when it came to replacing Gunn with Lambert.  Gunn was the man they wanted to back for that season.  What turned the club around was the fact that D+M (to their credit) allowed a situation whereby they could be outvoted.  Let`s hope it remains that way......[/quote]

That may very well be so Mr Carrow but was it ever any different? Who do you suppose voted to employ Roeder and proceed with the "cleverer than the rest" loan policy?

 

[/quote]

I`ve never heard anything other than it was unanimous.  My point is that if they hadn`t allowed a situation whereby they didn`t always get their own way we`d have been stuck with Gunn for the season.  They deserve credit for that situation, but they don`t deserve any credit for the decision which turned the club around because they were against it.

Share this post


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

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Agree with most of that nutty, but everyone i know connected with the club tells me that D+M were outvoted when it came to replacing Gunn with Lambert.  Gunn was the man they wanted to back for that season.  What turned the club around was the fact that D+M (to their credit) allowed a situation whereby they could be outvoted.  Let`s hope it remains that way......[/quote]

That may very well be so Mr Carrow but was it ever any different? Who do you suppose voted to employ Roeder and proceed with the "cleverer than the rest" loan policy?

 

[/quote]

I`ve never heard anything other than it was unanimous.  My point is that if they hadn`t allowed a situation whereby they didn`t always get their own way we`d have been stuck with Gunn for the season.  They deserve credit for that situation, but they don`t deserve any credit for the decision which turned the club around because they were against it.

[/quote]

I disagree entirely but it''s pointless going over the same thing over again. It is my view that Bowkett, Phillips and McNally have no more or less say in the running of the club than Munby, the Turners and Doncaster. Your view is different.

 

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...