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

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[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]

As a business-minded chap T, imagine a board had taken over a FTSE 100 company and presided over it falling into the FTSE 250, then the FTSE 350 with debts racking up and a history of employing poor personnel (who cost a fortune to remove) and spending cash speculating in areas away from it`s core business that the board have no experience in.

How do you think long-suffering shareholders would react if those same people asked them to cough up in a rights issue to keep the company afloat??

[T 190]

The Board room under the curretn owners has always been one member one vote so NN is correct.

I''m afraid Butler completely misses the point by saying that the vote represented the view so f theose present or that people were entitled to take the rebate. Both points are entirely correct. However my point, was I do not believe the vote reached the correct decision at the time given that changes already announced and new funding  being made available and with the benefit of hindsight I definately don''t think the call was right. It was kicking the club when it was down rather than helping it recover. It seems NCISA has difficulty even understanding the point let alone accepting it as NN indicated which suggests it will be difficult to change from an angry protest group to a representatative supporters group. Each decision should be taken on its merits rather than a blind criticism or support for the owners and mgmt.

 For instance while I totally disagree with the rebate decision I agree with the NCISA on its 16 to 21 ticket pricing policy. In theory in order to maximize revenue each individual ticket holder should be charged the maximum amoun they are willing to pay be it one pound or one hundred pounds which is why kids for a quid and box packages both make sense. In practice the theory is too difficult to implement which is why organisations offer discounts for different age groups based on their ability to play and therefore full prices for 16 to 21 don''t make economic sense for the individuals or the club.

 

[T 190]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][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]

As a business-minded chap T, imagine a board had taken over a FTSE 100 company and presided over it falling into the FTSE 250, then the FTSE 350 with debts racking up and a history of employing poor personnel (who cost a fortune to remove) and spending cash speculating in areas away from it`s core business that the board have no experience in.

How do you think long-suffering shareholders would react if those same people asked them to cough up in a rights issue to keep the company afloat??

[/quote]

I dont have to imagine. I know the situation all to well.  The owners change the mgmt which is exactly what the club did. If they hadn''t I would not have purchased shares in the club at the time.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]How do you think long-suffering shareholders would react if those same people asked them to cough up in a rights issue to keep the company afloat??[/quote]I think I know the answer to this one........

Would it be....er....

SACK THE BOARD!!![:@][:@][:@]

[;)]

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][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.

 

[/quote]

Either they were outvoted or they weren`t nutty, and you seemed to accept that they were in your earlier reply ("that may very well be so Mr Carrow").  Gunn was under contract for the season and it`s accepted wisdom that they didn`t want him to be sacked.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][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]

As a business-minded chap T, imagine a board had taken over a FTSE 100 company and presided over it falling into the FTSE 250, then the FTSE 350 with debts racking up and a history of employing poor personnel (who cost a fortune to remove) and spending cash speculating in areas away from it`s core business that the board have no experience in.

How do you think long-suffering shareholders would react if those same people asked them to cough up in a rights issue to keep the company afloat??

[/quote]

I dont have to imagine. I know the situation all to well.  The owners change the mgmt which is exactly what the club did. If they hadn''t I would not have purchased shares in the club at the time.

[/quote]

Well i seem to remember that they re-appointed the same management which got us relegated T!!  At least you`ll have the accounts now so you`ll be informed for a change.....

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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.

 

[/quote]

Either they were outvoted or they weren`t nutty, and you seemed to accept that they were in your earlier reply ("that may very well be so Mr Carrow").  Gunn was under contract for the season and it`s accepted wisdom that they didn`t want him to be sacked.

[/quote]

As always you miss the point Mr C! Regardless of which way the owners may or may not have voted makes no difference to anybody except those who have an agenda to ensure that every bad decision is their fault and every good decision is in spite of them.

They appoint people to run the club. There is no differnce between the influence of Munby Turners Doncaster than Bowkett Phillips and McNally. There is just this stubborness not to recognise the difference between owning the club and running it.

At the end of the day if you want to believe "the buck stops with Smith & Jones" then you have to do it consistently. My points on this thread were that when the owners were left without and executive board members they made a pretty good job of running the show. Didn''t they?

 

[T 190]

Basic business '' 1:

 

D+MWJ + Foulger equals owners

Mumby + Doncaster + Bowkett +McNally = mgmt i.e. authorisied to make contractual decisions on behalf of the club

Gunn + Lambert etc = employees

[YankeeCanary 0]

Above all else ( for me ) what this thread brings to the surface is what a disappointing decision NCISA has made in "allowing" someone who is incompetent to take the reins of an association supposedly in place as a supporters group of Norwich City FC. Not being able to spell correctlyand unable to put together well structured input is one thing. To dwell on the negatives of the club at a time when the club appears to have directionally righted itself shows this incompetent boob up for what he really is. For goodness sake Butler ( Chris ) or whatever your name is, either go and get some proper training as to how the job should be done or stick to what you are qualified for, the Joke thread.  

[T 190]

Somewhat harsh although if the NCISA could acknowledge that the owners made a good decision to appoint Bowkett and McNally that would suggest they have some grasp on reality to represent supporters rather than just being the relics of a Chase out protest group.

[Mello Yello 2,280]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Above all else ( for me ) what this thread brings to the surface is what a disappointing decision NCISA has made in "allowing" someone who is incompetent to take the reins of an association supposedly in place as a supporters group of Norwich City FC. Not being able to spell correctlyand unable to put together well structured input is one thing. To dwell on the negatives of the club at a time when the club appears to have directionally righted itself shows this incompetent boob up for what he really is. For goodness sake Butler ( Chris ) or whatever your name is, either go and get some proper training as to how the job should be done or stick to what you are qualified for, the Joke thread.  

[/quote]

Is correctlyand actually one word?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

As usual nutty, i could turn all those points round and apply them to yourself.  I have already stated plenty of times how much credit they deserve for appointing a strong critic in Bowkett and allowing a situation where they could be outvoted, so i am being entirely consistant.  I am not, however, going to give them credit for a decision they were against! 

They gave Gunn a contract when they could have appointed him caretaker until the board issues were resolved, and they didn`t want him sacked.  Therefore it`s logical and consistant to conclude that they saw Gunn as "the man" for that season.

As for your boardroom "influence" argument- very simplistic.  It`s possible to be a board member with absolutely no influence if you are in a minority of one on every decision.  The poaching of Lambert was a very "un-Norwich" thing to happen and wouldn`t have happened under the old board, and that is probably the best proof that the "new" board who have been critical of the old on several occasions have thankfully been calling the shots.

[Bradwell Yellow 0]

If this was to happen and the Liverpool chairman could effectively overthrow the owners... Think of the dangerous precedent that this creates. Will cause more harm than good, let them be the next Leeds. The players will show their true colours if they slump into administration.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

Basic business '' 1:

 

D+MWJ + Foulger equals owners

Mumby + Doncaster + Bowkett +McNally = mgmt i.e. authorisied to make contractual decisions on behalf of the club

Gunn + Lambert etc = employees

[/quote]

It does seem quite strange that you wouldn`t hear a bad word said against the old board T, yet now you`re saying you bought some shares because they changed it!  If that isn`t a clear u-turn i don`t know what is.......

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

They gave Gunn a contract when they could have appointed him caretaker until the board issues were resolved, and they didn`t want him sacked.  Therefore it`s logical and consistant to conclude that they saw Gunn as "the man" for that season.

[/quote]

And that just goes to show how your single mindedness skews your thinking to such an extent it''s illogical. Because what you are trying to make us believe while you flounder quite obviously out of your depth, is that Grant Holt, Chris Martin and Wes Hoolahan, to name just three, would have commited themselves to play for a club being managed by a caretaker who would most likely be gone before the season started.

Thank God the well meaning amateurs calling the shots were Smith & Jones and not you.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Nutty, had D+M voted to replace Gunn then your stance would have some logic.  They didn`t- and even you don`t seem to be arguing any different.  What that means, logically, is that had your well-meaning amateurs still been calling the shots we`d have kept Gunn.  Do you think we`d have gone up under Gunn nutty?  You are one of these people who form an opinion and then desperately try to shape and twist real events to prove that opinion right.  As such, you lecturing others on "skewed thinking" and "single-mindedness" is absolutely laughable [:D].

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

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?

 

[/quote]---

There''s this situation in chess called zugswang, where you have to move, and

any move you make will be a mistake. That was how we were placed. There wasn''t

an ideal way out.Nutty, the problem with your solution (which looks

ideal from the way it turned out) is that it involved re-appointing a lousy

(non-) manager. You can''t get away from that. And your solution only worked

because of an accident of history. We lost 7-1, giving McNally the perfect

psychological moment to move against Gunn. If we had, say, drawn that game, or

even lost narrowly, and then got a few half-decent results, McNally wouldn''t

have had the chance.

 

But you ask what SHOULD have happened. A fair question:1. Having got

rid of Munby and Doncaster early in May, you pull out all the stops to find a

replacement chief executive with football experience, and hope to find such a

paragon within a month.2. You sack Gunn and advertise for a replacement.

In the meantime you might keep on Ian Crook, say, to talk to the players and

particularly those whose contracts are running out, to try to persuade those you

think any new manager might want to keep to hold fire on their plans. Bear in

mind that contracts run from July 1, so players can''t move before then if you

don''t want them to. There was always some truth in the Doncaster maxim about

transfers not taking place in June.

3. You (this is the remaining board members) draw up a shortlist of

potential managers, getting them to list the players they would want to keep,

those they would let go, and those they would like to sign. This shortlist is

finished by the end of May.

 

4. Your new chief executive with football experience arrives in early June.

In fact McNally arrived on June 12. You and your new chief executive then

reinterview the potential mangers and make decision. If the new CEO wants to

throw a new name into the mix, that''s fine. Either way you appoint a new man

quickly.

 

5. The new manager then has only a week or two before people''s contracts run

out on July 1, but he should be able to hit the ground running, having already

sized up the squad and his targets from a distance.

It is not ideal, because the new chairman would not be in place (based on the

timescale that actually happened with us). And the new manager would be pushed

for time, and might miss out on some targets.The advantages are that we

would have a manager the board AND the chief executive (with football

experience) wanted. And the manager would have the players (not all, perhaps,

but most) that he wanted. There would not have to be the costly winnowing out

process that Lambert went through, sorting out the Gunn wheat (only Holt of his

acquistions started against Bristol City) from the Gunn chaff.

[. 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][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]

As a business-minded chap T, imagine a board had taken over a FTSE 100 company and presided over it falling into the FTSE 250, then the FTSE 350 with debts racking up and a history of employing poor personnel (who cost a fortune to remove) and spending cash speculating in areas away from it`s core business that the board have no experience in.

How do you think long-suffering shareholders would react if those same people asked them to cough up in a rights issue to keep the company afloat??

[/quote]Unfortunately many of the club''s supporters on here are equally as naive and ''ostrich-like'' as Smith and her old man........You''re totally correct that in the business world S + J would have been thrown to the lions years before they took us down to Division Three. Even more sadly however... I doubt if any other club''s supporters in the land would have been so submissive and pathetic in letting them get away with it. Not one worthwhile protest... and childish ridicule for those who suggested it.In my view the support is just as guilty as the perpetrators by sitting on their hands while the giggly celebrity sprinkled her stardust all around.

[Tim Allman 1]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

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?

[/quote]

I rarely contribute to these message board debates, normally just content to sit back and read the comments and stories, but NN’s brilliant post has finally tempted me out, a bit like a mouse being tempted out to nibble a piece of cheese; just hope a trap is not waiting for me.

So NN’s post is brilliant, but for what reason? Has he finally worked it all out or have the facts been brilliantly twisted round and presented as plausible?

Norwich City got lucky when they appointed Worthington and since his departure (a year too late) City have had a series of managers, each one turning out to be even worse than his predecessor. This was some achievement given the fact that we were told at the Capital Canaries Q&A a few years ago that there was a 70% chance of the new manger really improving things. I should qualify this statement slightly as I cannot recall if we were told for how long, although it could be argued that all our new managers gave the club a temporary lift.

So with the board getting themselves into a deeper and deeper hole with a series of botched managerial appointments and relegation to League 1, when would they work out that it was finally time to stop digging? Certainly not with Gunny who proved in the second game of his managerial career in the 2-2 draw with Southampton that he really didn’t have much idea of tactics. City were getting ripped apart down the right hand side, the game was crying out for a change which didn’t come until we had surrendered a two goal lead.

The old board certainly hadn’t stopped digging when they gave Crook and Butterworth contracts into the 2009/10 season but only appointed Gunny until the end of the 2008/09 season. I wrote a diplomatic article in the Capital Canaries PinkUn Column here, http://www.capitalcanaries.co.uk/index.php?page=24-01-2009-can-he-save-us . which is now on the Caps site, about his appointment in January 2009.

So what about NN’s post that the correct course of action was taken at the end of the season?

Sacking Munby and Doncaster the previous weekend had to be done; their time was up. On a personal level I was sorry to see Roger leave as he has always been a good supporter of the Capital Canaries over the years.

As regards Gunny, perhaps the old board realised that they had to stop digging as the whole hole (sorry) was about to cave in on them. Perhaps no other manager would have taken the city job, appointed by two thirds of a lame duck board, to run a team in crisis knowing that he would have a new boss in a month or so. The new manager may well have had to work with the current coaching staff; maybe a condition of joining? All we had left was Gunny, the faithful old retainer, and last man standing.

So after this, the remaining board members might have worked out it would been an act of even more supreme folly (a strange phase but I’ll go with it) if an only just quorate board had appointed a brand new manager with no Chief Exec to report to. (David McNally did not start at City 22^nd June and Bowkett and Phillips joined the board a couple of weeks later)

Sometimes doing nothing is the best course of action. In this case there wasn’t a great more damage the old board could have done.

But mentioning the series of catastrophic decisions made as to how the old board had got themselves into the “nothing left to do” situation needs to be said.

And giving them credit for finally getting one decision right, i.e. doing nothing, seems more than a little generous in my opinion.

As regards the course of action taken over the summer, I don’t think McNally and Bowkett had any choice but to stick with Gunny given the hand dealt them by the old board. McNally stated at a “select” fans forum in July 2009 that his first priority was to help Gunny get a squad together for the new season with the finances second on the list. At the time McNally joined I think he said we might have had less than a dozen or so senior pros on our books.

In reality could McNally have gone in on Day 1 and shown Gunny the door? Unlikely as it he was not yet appointed to the board and even less unlikely given his statement at the forum about our lack of players and his immediate priorities. And Gunny had by that time signed three new players. A new manager would have only delayed getting City getting a squad together.

As an aside I did ask a question to the Board in the fans forum about the appointment of a new manager in case it did not work out for Gunny. The question was more directed at McNally as Sanchez had been appointed on his watch at Fulham, but was immediately pounced upon by our majority owners and it was obvious they were still huge supporters of Gunny. I received a much more measured and thoughtful response from McNally.

When McNally had the chance, luckily very early on in the season, he acted decisively when he had the authority and the mandate to do so, an approach we had not seen at City for a while.

I’ll end with one more thought on this. After the “correct course of action” in retaining Gunny’s services, it is entirely possible that City could have started with a couple of wins,a few draws and some losses and meandered along with Gunny in charge, and only dispensed with his services after it was too late to save the season. City could have been marooned in League 1 for a few years, and given the statements made by McNally on the finances this would have been disastrous.

Of course this didn’t happen so we’ll never know what really would have come about.

I think we got lucky last season. Very lucky. Not because of the decision of old board to keep Gunny, but in spite of it.

 

[T 190]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="T"]

Basic business '' 1:

 

D+MWJ + Foulger equals owners

Mumby + Doncaster + Bowkett +McNally = mgmt i.e. authorisied to make contractual decisions on behalf of the club

Gunn + Lambert etc = employees

[/quote]

It does seem quite strange that you wouldn`t hear a bad word said against the old board T, yet now you`re saying you bought some shares because they changed it!  If that isn`t a clear u-turn i don`t know what is.......

[/quote]

I have always advocated sound long term economic decisions over short term unsustainable expenditure if that is what you mean but I would have thought you would have finally grasped this point after the global cxonomic crisis and the financial difficulties of numerous football clubs who have spent money on players they could not afford.

 

Meanwhile I hope you and Tangie are enjoying sitting on those new long term tangible fixed assets the new management team have spent money on. Now there is a U-turn!

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Bowkett!

You''re a ''figurehead''.

Watch out.

OTBC

[T 190]

[quote user="Tim Allman"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

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?

[/quote]

I rarely contribute to these message board debates, normally just content to sit back and read the comments and stories, but NN’s brilliant post has finally tempted me out, a bit like a mouse being tempted out to nibble a piece of cheese; just hope a trap is not waiting for me.

So NN’s post is brilliant, but for what reason? Has he finally worked it all out or have the facts been brilliantly twisted round and presented as plausible?

Norwich City got lucky when they appointed Worthington and since his departure (a year too late) City have had a series of managers, each one turning out to be even worse than his predecessor. This was some achievement given the fact that we were told at the Capital Canaries Q&A a few years ago that there was a 70% chance of the new manger really improving things. I should qualify this statement slightly as I cannot recall if we were told for how long, although it could be argued that all our new managers gave the club a temporary lift.

So with the board getting themselves into a deeper and deeper hole with a series of botched managerial appointments and relegation to League 1, when would they work out that it was finally time to stop digging? Certainly not with Gunny who proved in the second game of his managerial career in the 2-2 draw with Southampton that he really didn’t have much idea of tactics. City were getting ripped apart down the right hand side, the game was crying out for a change which didn’t come until we had surrendered a two goal lead.

The old board certainly hadn’t stopped digging when they gave Crook and Butterworth contracts into the 2009/10 season but only appointed Gunny until the end of the 2008/09 season. I wrote a diplomatic article in the Capital Canaries PinkUn Column here, http://www.capitalcanaries.co.uk/index.php?page=24-01-2009-can-he-save-us . which is now on the Caps site, about his appointment in January 2009.

So what about NN’s post that the correct course of action was taken at the end of the season?

Sacking Munby and Doncaster the previous weekend had to be done; their time was up. On a personal level I was sorry to see Roger leave as he has always been a good supporter of the Capital Canaries over the years.

As regards Gunny, perhaps the old board realised that they had to stop digging as the whole hole (sorry) was about to cave in on them. Perhaps no other manager would have taken the city job, appointed by two thirds of a lame duck board, to run a team in crisis knowing that he would have a new boss in a month or so. The new manager may well have had to work with the current coaching staff; maybe a condition of joining? All we had left was Gunny, the faithful old retainer, and last man standing.

So after this, the remaining board members might have worked out it would been an act of even more supreme folly (a strange phase but I’ll go with it) if an only just quorate board had appointed a brand new manager with no Chief Exec to report to. (David McNally did not start at City 22^nd June and Bowkett and Phillips joined the board a couple of weeks later)

Sometimes doing nothing is the best course of action. In this case there wasn’t a great more damage the old board could have done.

But mentioning the series of catastrophic decisions made as to how the old board had got themselves into the “nothing left to do” situation needs to be said.

And giving them credit for finally getting one decision right, i.e. doing nothing, seems more than a little generous in my opinion.

As regards the course of action taken over the summer, I don’t think McNally and Bowkett had any choice but to stick with Gunny given the hand dealt them by the old board. McNally stated at a “select” fans forum in July 2009 that his first priority was to help Gunny get a squad together for the new season with the finances second on the list. At the time McNally joined I think he said we might have had less than a dozen or so senior pros on our books.

In reality could McNally have gone in on Day 1 and shown Gunny the door? Unlikely as it he was not yet appointed to the board and even less unlikely given his statement at the forum about our lack of players and his immediate priorities. And Gunny had by that time signed three new players. A new manager would have only delayed getting City getting a squad together.

As an aside I did ask a question to the Board in the fans forum about the appointment of a new manager in case it did not work out for Gunny. The question was more directed at McNally as Sanchez had been appointed on his watch at Fulham, but was immediately pounced upon by our majority owners and it was obvious they were still huge supporters of Gunny. I received a much more measured and thoughtful response from McNally.

When McNally had the chance, luckily very early on in the season, he acted decisively when he had the authority and the mandate to do so, an approach we had not seen at City for a while.

I’ll end with one more thought on this. After the “correct course of action” in retaining Gunny’s services, it is entirely possible that City could have started with a couple of wins,a few draws and some losses and meandered along with Gunny in charge, and only dispensed with his services after it was too late to save the season. City could have been marooned in League 1 for a few years, and given the statements made by McNally on the finances this would have been disastrous.

Of course this didn’t happen so we’ll never know what really would have come about.

I think we got lucky last season. Very lucky. Not because of the decision of old board to keep Gunny, but in spite of it.

 

[/quote]

So in summary promotion to the premiership and play-off finals and the appointment of Bowkett and McNally were just down to luck whilst the performaance of the mangers and the players that led to relegation were purely down to the owners.

That really is a warped view of reality. The only rational explanation of this distorted view of the world is that there is really some really sad bitter twisted people out there who can only be envious of people who through their own industry are substantially more successful than themselves. If these people hate the owners who have put so much more money, time and effort into the club then they ever have or will then what are we to think of these pathethic individuals?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="T"]

Basic business '' 1:

 

D+MWJ + Foulger equals owners

Mumby + Doncaster + Bowkett +McNally = mgmt i.e. authorisied to make contractual decisions on behalf of the club

Gunn + Lambert etc = employees

[/quote]

It does seem quite strange that you wouldn`t hear a bad word said against the old board T, yet now you`re saying you bought some shares because they changed it!  If that isn`t a clear u-turn i don`t know what is.......

[/quote]

I have always advocated sound long term economic decisions over short term unsustainable expenditure if that is what you mean but I would have thought you would have finally grasped this point after the global cxonomic crisis and the financial difficulties of numerous football clubs who have spent money on players they could not afford.

 

Meanwhile I hope you and Tangie are enjoying sitting on those new long term tangible fixed assets the new management team have spent money on. Now there is a U-turn!

[/quote]

The club reversed a spiral of decline by doing what you always argued against T- showing ambition by going out and grabbing their man (rather than rifling through the rejects bin) and backing him with hard cash.  I know you`ll never grasp it, but our experience proved what i`ve always said- that not showing enough ambition on the football side is just as dangerous as showing too much.  Of course, there is a happy medium, but i wouldn`t expect you to understand such nuances.

Never have said that all fixed asset spend is bad T (never was against the Jarrold, but i think the infill should have waited), so a bit of a desperate and childish attempt to try to imply that i have.  As long as the manager is fully backed and we are not reliant on fire-sales of our best players year-on-year to cover idiotic spending off the pitch, then if a little is left over for some extra seats- all well and good.

[. 0]

So much ''personal'' tripe......Smith and Co. took City to a 50 year low and we are simply back to square one......The cook and her cronies got very lucky indeed.... as did the weak spirited support who clung to her apron strings. This isn''t over by a long way yet and I feel Smith will eventually get her way and wreck our once fine club before she moves on......

[T 190]

pure comedy Mr C

hard cash - you mean yet more funding from the owners as they have continually provided over the years together with the rebate cash - and I think you will find Lambert basically got enough money for the Fraser loan and that was it. The cash as Bowkett said has always been there - it has just been badly spent by the managers chosen by the board. We have always been reliant on selling players and cash injections from the owners just like the majority of football clubs.

And yes I do apprciate the nuances of  Miller + Modigliano, CAPM, NPVs, decision theory and probability theory but you clearly do not have a basic understanding of finance.

[T 190]

[quote user="Cluckbert Chase"]So much ''personal'' tripe......

Smith and Co. took City to a 50 year low and we are simply back to square one......

The cook and her cronies got very lucky indeed.... as did the weak spirited support who clung to her apron strings. This isn''t over by a long way yet and I feel Smith will eventually get her way and wreck our once fine club before she moves on......
[/quote]

 

Isn''t about time the nurse game him his medication for the evening?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

pure comedy Mr C

hard cash - you mean yet more funding from the owners as they have continually provided over the years together with the rebate cash - and I think you will find Lambert basically got enough money for the Fraser loan and that was it. The cash as Bowkett said has always been there - it has just been badly spent by the managers chosen by the board. We have always been reliant on selling players and cash injections from the owners just like the majority of football clubs.

And yes I do apprciate the nuances of  Miller + Modigliano, CAPM, NPVs, decision theory and probability theory but you clearly do not have a basic understanding of finance.

[/quote]

No, i mean "We are here to win football matches, not build a property portfolio" as stated by our Chairman.  A Chairman who, incidently, was highly critical of the policies of the previous regime which you backed to the hilt.  So now you want to laud him and back him with your cash, whilst still absolving the previous regime any blame in our demise which, as stated recently, almost ended with us in administration?!  Gunn was backed with hard cash, as was Lambert in signing Forster, Johnson, McNamee.  Where are all these player sales we are "reliant" on T?  Time to grasp reality i`m afraid.

I`m sure you know loads about those things.  You know bugger all about football though......

[Tim Allman 1]

Oh dear, I’m sorry I touched a nerve there T. I did find your response and assumptions bizarre.

You know as well as I do the owners of the club are decent people who have backed NCFC with their hard earned cash but on their watch we have had some very poor decisions with regard to managerial appointments over the years. The one manager with a decent pedigree we appointed pre Lambert was Bruce Rioch who resigned only to be replaced by Bryan Hamilton. Worthington was a cheap option who worked out fantastically for Norwich. After he turned the team round he was backed with the ITV Digital Cash and more, and three years later, at a crucial time he was backed with funds and achieved promotion to the Premiership.

If the Board get the managerial appointment right, most of the time things will be ok. We may not win every week, but if the supporters see that he’s getting the best from the players for the majority of the time we’ll be happy. In the Fans Forum I referred to earlier one of the attendees (maybe one of the NSCT or Shareholders association) said he had spoken to Neil Doncaster at length about serious problems between the squad and Roeder that he had heard first hand. This appeared to be news to most of the NCFC attendees that evening!

NCFC was in complete disarray at the end of the 2008/09 season and had been in a downward spiral since relegation from the Premiership. We had been relegated to League 1 in the most humiliating circumstances at Charlton and if it couldn’t get any worse lost 1-7 in the first game of the 2009/10 season.

I don’t hate the owners at all, nor am I envious of them as you have incorrectly assumed. I don’t dispute that the owners have put more time, money and effort into the club that I or many other supporters have, but sometimes working hard needs to be complemented with working effectively.

In June 2009 NCFC got some new board members in, we actually went and found manager as opposed to waiting for one to come to us, and the club is suddenly kicked into action.

Would this have happened under the old regime, firstly sacking Gunny after the 1-7 and secondly head-hunting a young ambitious manager?

I’d call that working effectively.

 

[. 0]

[quote user="T"]

[quote user="Cluckbert Chase"]So much ''personal'' tripe......Smith and Co. took City to a 50 year low and we are simply back to square one......The cook and her cronies got very lucky indeed.... as did the weak spirited support who clung to her apron strings. This isn''t over by a long way yet and I feel Smith will eventually get her way and wreck our once fine club before she moves on......[/quote]

 

Isn''t about time the nurse game him his medication for the evening?

[/quote]What nurse game would that be then?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[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 [/quote]

Thats why Gunn was reappointed one day before the PUBLIC meeting facilitated by NCISA.

BTW. The Chairman and CEO were reported in the local media as having a change of role......nothing as explicit as the usual words used when directors leave a directorship of a PLC e.g., their position has been terminated immediately.  In the end Roger Munbys form 288b was dated 26/6/2009 and Neil Doncasters form 288b was dated 20/7/2009......way after the public meeting.