SMITH & JONES - THE 15-YEAR VERDICT

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]I don''t think it was ever established publicly whether South had been been guilty of anything serious in the awarding of the contract to Carters (with whom, from very dim memory, he had a family connection???) [/quote]

Sir Arthur,himself a widower married the widow of Bob Carter who became Lady Mary.

[/quote]

 

Thank you for that, John. I thought that was the case but wasn''t sure enough to say so.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

[quote user="The Butler"]

My sentiments exactly PC!

Excellent and yes I can remember my Dad giving me some change to throw into the blanket, (health and safety would love that!).

Every era has had it''s good and bad times (some worse than others) BUT all go to make the club what it is today.

AND thanks Nutty it was a reminder of a few Greats sadly no longer with us.

[/quote]

 

TB, the way I heard the story your dad tried to throw YOU into the blanket...[:P]

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="The Butler"]

My sentiments exactly PC!

Excellent and yes I can remember my Dad giving me some change to throw into the blanket, (health and safety would love that!).

Every era has had it''s good and bad times (some worse than others) BUT all go to make the club what it is today.

AND thanks Nutty it was a reminder of a few Greats sadly no longer with us.

[/quote]

 

TB, the way I heard the story your dad tried to throw YOU into the blanket...[:P]

 

[/quote]

Like a lot on here PC completely without foundation![:)]

If he had the old boys carrying the blanket would have staggered a bit!

[nutty nigel 7,649]

Let''s go back to that blanket which is only a small part of the story.

In 1957 the club was on the verge of folding up. The Eastern Daily Press had paid the wages for a week to buy a little time and Arthur South who was Lord Mayor of Norwich called a meeting of local businessmen. He wouldn''t let anyone leave the room until the club had been saved. Many of those present brought shares and local businesses also came to the club''s aid . This was the basis from which South and Watling paved the way into  the modern era and first division football.

 

The fans, as so often is the case, weren''t always on board. After the euphoria of the ''59 cup run and promotion to the Second Division the club remained in mid-table for  a few seasons and popular players were sold. We had the disgraceful "zigger zagger" anti Watling chants from The Barclay. Even during Ron Saunders first seasons there was discontent as we remained mid-table. Everything was fine again upon promotion but Watling resigned in 1973 amidst more discontent. I don''t remember any ill-feeling between Watling and South when Sir Arthur took his place. In fact I remember South publicly stating "we want Watling in" when there were car stickers and the like to get him out. Of course later Watling served as Vice-Chairman on Sir Athurs board.

 

However there was plenty of ill-feeling when Sir Arthur was chased out in 1985. The ill-feeling was predominantly between South and Chases ally Jimmy Jones. Jones resigned from the board in protest over the new stand contract being awarded to a building firm he didn''t favour and one with which Sir Arthur had personal links. South had quite correctly withdrawn from the voting because of this link but it emerged there had been procedural errors at the meeting apparently involving proxy voting. Rob Hadgrafts excellent book "Norwich City The Modern Era" goes on to say that although these errors were acknowledged and subsequently corrected, it was enough for Jones with a 20% sharehoding to propose a vote of no confidence in the board. The board decided discretion was the better part of valour and resigned  en bloc. An emergency board was put in place until a new seven-man board could be created. The book goes on to say that a small core of shareholders then tried to prevent Jones getting back on the new board but were comfortably outvoted in a secret ballot. The new set up comprised Messrs Chase (Chairman), Abbs, Lockwood, Munby, Paterson, Scholes and Jones. The whole messy saga represented a victory for Jones over Sir Arthur and was viewed by many as more of a personality clash than a dispute purely over the re-building plans.

 

The departure of the old board, particularly Sir Arthur and Geoffrey Watling, was a sad turn of events given their marvelous service over a thirty year period.

[Katie Borkins 1]

I''m going to make some popcorn and settle in for the afternoon... [pi]

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

 

However there was plenty of ill-feeling when Sir Arthur was chased out in 1985. The ill-feeling was predominantly between South and Chases ally Jimmy Jones. Jones resigned from the board in protest over the new stand contract being awarded to a building firm he didn''t favour and one with which Sir Arthur had personal links. South had quite correctly withdrawn from the voting because of this link but it emerged there had been procedural errors at the meeting apparently involving proxy voting. Rob Hadgrafts excellent book "Norwich City The Modern Era" goes on to say that although these errors were acknowledged and subsequently corrected, it was enough for Jones with a 20% sharehoding to propose a vote of no confidence in the board. The board decided discretion was the better part of valour and resigned  en bloc. An emergency board was put in place until a new seven-man board could be created. The book goes on to say that a small core of shareholders then tried to prevent Jones getting back on the new board but were comfortably outvoted in a secret ballot. The new set up comprised Messrs Chase (Chairman), Abbs, Lockwood, Munby, Paterson, Scholes and Jones. The whole messy saga represented a victory for Jones over Sir Arthur and was viewed by many as more of a personality clash than a dispute purely over the re-building plans.

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Thanks for fleshing the story out, nutty. My very faint memory was indeed that any errors to do with the awarding of the contract were superficial and procedural rather than the result of South trying to rig the decision. What I had forgotten was that Jimmy Jones was, at least publicly, the prime mover, although of course it was his ally, Chase, who became chairman. Thanks also for pointing me in the direction of that Hadgraft book.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Doubt it Boro, there''s a few protaganists who''d prefer this to drop like a stone now.[/quote]

What?

I post agreeing with PC and again you kick off!

Then have the demerity to accuse me.

Soory readers this has been going on for 9 months or more started by your very own Nutty and gang for their own ends.

I don''t want to bore anyone with this childish playground bullying attempts by.........

Please read my post and see if you can find any adverse comments.

[/quote]

 

Well, that''s your problem right there, TB. Agreeing with me puts you in a minority of two straight away...[;)]

 

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

The latest posts from Butler and Babes are just more examples of how their type react to having to confront facts.

 

I post my own views and where possible I back them with references. I have never posted as part of a gang. It was Purple who brought this issue back on the board, not me.

 

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

But this rather sad episode does rather cut the ground from under the argument that Chase himself was hard down by in 1996 when he quit. Even if the conspiracy theorists are right and he was the victim of some deeply Machiavellian plot he could hardly complain. That was how he''d gained power in the first place.

[/quote]

 

I just put some more meat on the bones.

 

Over to you Butler/Babes/Tangie/Cluck - you''re the posters on this thread who''d rather rewrite history than look it up....

 

 

[/quote]

I repeat, for the hard of reading, WHAT HAVE I POSTED? Not someone else you are trying to tag me with.

Don''t refer to things NOT WRITTEN by me.

9 months and still going on. Sad!

[/quote]

 

I have to say, TB, you do seem (for once...[;)]) totally blameless.

[YankeeCanary 0]

You know, when you get older and your memory starts to fade, it becomes very difficult to follow a thread like this. It''s kind of like being lost in a deep forest and trying to find your way back home. You''re pretty sure you''re heading in the right direction but the rock you were sure was there an hour ago has disappeared, and so you start to question your judgement. All very disconcerting.

[Desert Fox 0]

Indeed - some of those ''rocks'' have disappeared in the last half hour. Perhaps not so much disconcerting but rather inevitably predicatble.

[nutty nigel 7,649]

You could have written the script for this. As soon as there''s a factual post on this subject the usual posters kick in with "Nutty and gang ", "childish playground bullying", "lunatic cavalry" and the like. It''s a well rehearsed attempt to derail the thread from the facts being posted.

 

I''ve learned my lesson and won''t get involved in the crap.

 

Posters such as Purple are an asset to this board. The history of our club, including the boardroom history, is of great interest to many of us. If it''s of no interest to anyone then why read it or post on it? The thread title is self-explanitary.

 

I will go back to my factual post which was in reply to the Butlers call on this thread for posts with foundation. I fail to see what was wrong with it. It gave foundation to the excellent posts made by Purple. At the end I asked The Butler to give foundation to Purples other point about the way Smith & Jones came into the club. I didn''t invite The Butler onj to the thread. He was already here. I just invited him to add some substance to his claims that there was a conspiracy between Barcays Bank and Smith&Jones that he has spoken of and posted about before.

[quote user="The Butler"]

People still do not believe that the whole Chase situation was manipulated by a bank and our present "owners".

[/quote]

http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun/cs/forums/1479445/ShowPost.aspx

 

Now let''s see if we can carry on with this thread without all the ridiculous Bully Boy crap. And those who have no interest in taking part could perhaps leave it alone and stop pulling Pete''s chain. There''s probably another 70 odd threads on the front page. There must be something to interest everyone.

 

Over to you the Butler...

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

Nutty,

"Now let''s see if we can carry on with this thread without all the ridiculous Bully Boy crap. And those who have no interest in taking part could perhaps leave it alone and stop pulling Pete''s chain. There''s probably another 70 odd threads on the front page. There must be something to interest everyone."

Now then Nutty, I''m not sure who Pete''s chain pullers are that you are referring to, however, just on the off chance that you were including me in the group I must say that my earlier comments were absolutely genuine. Surely all of the threads are there for everyone''s enjoyment, whether they are "taking part" as you call it or reading from a distance. Therefore, when things disappear as one is in midst of digesting it tends to become a little confusing. Please note, I''m not being critical of anyone here. Simply stating another one of those pesky facts.

[nutty nigel 7,649]

Of course I didn''t mean you Yankee. It was a general comment made from my view that Pete is too busy to sit here reading all the posts.

 

If I had meant anyone I would have said. I''m not shy you know....

 

I agree with your post[Y]

[Desert Fox 0]

For the record,  I have not "pulled Pete''s chain" either - perhaps Pete is capable of independent thought and perhaps he only deletes post which are unreasonable.

[nutty nigel 7,649]

Before this thread is taken off topic yet again...

 

It was a general comment made from my view that Pete is too busy to sit here reading all the posts.

 

Had I have meant you Dezza I''d have said. I''m not shy yoiu know...

 

Now why don''t you take part in the thread instead of the moderation?

[The Butler 0]

One extracted line from a 7 page thread.

Why not post in full all the other relevant comments I made?(even from that one thread)

2008, 4 years ago and only in April last year did you decide to raise it. Strange I wonder why......

No....because that would not be what the past 9 months is about would it.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,649]

I did better than that Butler. I posted a link to the whole thread.

 

Now that line was relevant because that meant that you could put some meat on Purple''s bones so to speak.

 

So why not bite the bullet and take part in the thread instead of trying to drag it off topic. This could still be a decent thread if you just took part instead of disrupting it.

 

[Desert Fox 0]

Ok Nutty -let’s try to have a sensible debate.

Focusing simply on the points that Purple raised at the start of the thread, I would make a number of observations.

1. DS and MWJ are not what I would call experienced business people and I think many of the mistakes that they made stem from this source. This should not be confused with them being successful in the field that they operate in (i.e. publishing). I don’t doubt for one minute that they are well meaning and have put a lot of their own money at risk, but just because they are better than some alternatives (e.g. Venky''s etc) it should not be forgotten that we escaped from a very dangerous place by the skin of our teeth. As far I can see, there has never been any recognition of why this position arose, although thankfully, there is every sign that the owners realised that they had better leave the detailed running of the club to professionals. This is the really important to thing to focus upon going forwards.

2. Forget about voting numbers, the reality of the near administration meant that Bowkett and McNally effectively had the opportunity to force the owners hands on a number of issues, of which sacking Gunn was the highest profile. It has been noticeable how much lower Delia''s profile has been this time round. Stephen Fry has proved useful in deflecting attention.

3. I thought that the way Doncaster ran the club had a big part to play in us nearly going into administration. I would like to say more about what I really thought about this guy and his approach to dealing with supporters, but I wouldn’t want Pete to have to delete my post. Let’s just say I don’t think that many of his statements lacked integrity, on more than one occasion.

4. Purple is glossing over just how much of a disaster our non-totalling investments were. The land development plans and other capex projects were more than just LSE land and these nearly brought the club down. Also, we fundamentally adopted the wrong strategy when last in the Prem re the balance between capex and team investment. The delay in signing Ashton cost us dearly. Again, there is no hard evidence about the summer deal, but I have spoken to enough credible people to, lets say, take with a massive pinch of salt what we were told on this subject. Again, looking forward, the new regime has clearly learned from their mistakes.

5. Nobody on here knows how successful the hotel will ever be because the club does produce segmental accounts, but my gut feeling is that it will turn out to be the wrong deal in time. Can I substantiate this? No. Can anyone argue the other way? Yes. Are they likely to be able to share any supporting material on this site? Probably never. Again, there is no point looking backwards as this is a done deal and we will have to honour the deal.

I could go on and on with at least another twenty points about various aspects of the original post. But you know what, I am getting bored of typing and will leave it at that.

We are unlikely to agree about many of the issues about the past. Let me sum up by saying that I believe that DS and MWJ have made a lot of mistakes and must have got pretty scared by how much of  a car crash we nearly became. But from this near disaster, we have clearly learnt many lessons which are being adhered to. So, I am happy so long as this learning stays in place. This is the key issue and I really see no point dragging up the past again and again - this would only really matter if lessons had not been learnt.

So having said that let''s have a sensible debate, I am not sure that I do want to debat anything now if that makes sense.

 

[nutty nigel 7,649]

Dezza...

 

1. The way I see it Smith & Jones are very experienced football owners. They have always brought in others to run their football club. It''s not just now that they are backing the executive directors. They have always backed them. If there is a criticism then it''s that they probably backed them for too long. However you can''t really criticise the appointments they made. Doncaster and Munby were responsible for taking the club from the play off season through to the Premier League from which we only got relegated on the very last day. Before Doncaster they backed Bob Cooper as he took the club from the bottom of the Championship to the play offs. Hindsight shows that in that time mistakes were made by the executive directors. Notably the appointment of Hamilton. But that was eventually put right with Worthy’s appointment and from when Watling sold to S&J the club was on a continual upward curve until 2005. This was gradual and not the phenomenal rise we’ve seen in the last 3 years but that truly is the exception.

 

2. I see no evidence that the owners hands are being forced in the way you suggest. In fact Bowkett himself states the opposite.

 

3. It’s not rocket science. The way the club is run has the whole part to play over it’s successes and failures. As I said earlier Doncasters reign was not one of total failure. He had equally as much success.

 

4. Rather than bring the club down S&J’s appointments of McNally and Bowkett have turned the club around. I don’t know what basis you have for the club nearly being brought down but I would suggest that it being turned around without any major investment means we weren’t that close. That is a matter of opinion though and I’d be interested in any facts you have to the contrary.

 

5. The hotel cost nothing and has an income. If a corner infill had been built instead I reckon the cost would have put us over the edge. I reckon the hotel is a huge fuss about nothing much. In the future the only way to significantly increase capacity in a cost effective way would be a new City stand or a second tier to the existing one.

　

Makes perfect sense to me about debating. I enjoy this thread because I try to build a picture of what actually happened. Which is why I like all Purples threads. His opinions are based on reality. I guess you just want to have an opinion on what happened. There’s nothing wrong with that either.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Ok Nutty -let’s try to have a sensible debate.

Focusing simply on the points that Purple raised at the start of the thread, I would make a number of observations.

1. DS and MWJ are not what I would call experienced business people and I think many of the mistakes that they made stem from this source. This should not be confused with them being successful in the field that they operate in (i.e. publishing). I don’t doubt for one minute that they are well meaning and have put a lot of their own money at risk, but just because they are better than some alternatives (e.g. Venky''s etc) it should not be forgotten that we escaped from a very dangerous place by the skin of our teeth. As far I can see, there has never been any recognition of why this position arose, although thankfully, there is every sign that the owners realised that they had better leave the detailed running of the club to professionals. This is the really important to thing to focus upon going forwards.

2. Forget about voting numbers, the reality of the near administration meant that Bowkett and McNally effectively had the opportunity to force the owners hands on a number of issues, of which sacking Gunn was the highest profile. It has been noticeable how much lower Delia''s profile has been this time round. Stephen Fry has proved useful in deflecting attention.

3. I thought that the way Doncaster ran the club had a big part to play in us nearly going into administration. I would like to say more about what I really thought about this guy and his approach to dealing with supporters, but I wouldn’t want Pete to have to delete my post. Let’s just say I don’t think that many of his statements lacked integrity, on more than one occasion.

4. Purple is glossing over just how much of a disaster our non-totalling investments were. The land development plans and other capex projects were more than just LSE land and these nearly brought the club down. Also, we fundamentally adopted the wrong strategy when last in the Prem re the balance between capex and team investment. The delay in signing Ashton cost us dearly. Again, there is no hard evidence about the summer deal, but I have spoken to enough credible people to, lets say, take with a massive pinch of salt what we were told on this subject. Again, looking forward, the new regime has clearly learned from their mistakes.

5. Nobody on here knows how successful the hotel will ever be because the club does produce segmental accounts, but my gut feeling is that it will turn out to be the wrong deal in time. Can I substantiate this? No. Can anyone argue the other way? Yes. Are they likely to be able to share any supporting material on this site? Probably never. Again, there is no point looking backwards as this is a done deal and we will have to honour the deal.

I could go on and on with at least another twenty points about various aspects of the original post. But you know what, I am getting bored of typing and will leave it at that.

We are unlikely to agree about many of the issues about the past. Let me sum up by saying that I believe that DS and MWJ have made a lot of mistakes and must have got pretty scared by how much of  a car crash we nearly became. But from this near disaster, we have clearly learnt many lessons which are being adhered to. So, I am happy so long as this learning stays in place. This is the key issue and I really see no point dragging up the past again and again - this would only really matter if lessons had not been learnt.

So having said that let''s have a sensible debate, I am not sure that I do want to debat anything now if that makes sense.

 

[/quote]

 

Desert Fox, since you got bored I''m not sure whether you want a reply or not! On the assumption you do, and thanks for taking the time to post, you won''t mind if I reply in turn. My post went into considerable detail to support my arguments. Your reply not only ignores my factually-based arguments but relies almost exclusively on assertion noticeably not backed up by facts.

 

"DS and MWJ are not what I would call experienced business people and I think many of the mistakes that they made stem from this source."

 

Actually MWJ is certainly an experienced businessman who knows his way around business generally and football in particular (Peter Cullum discovered that) but which mistakes stem from what you regard as this lack of experience?

 

"Forget about voting numbers, the reality of the near administration meant that Bowkett and McNally effectively had the opportunity to force the owners hands on a number of issues, of which sacking Gunn was the highest profile."

 

Which issues? Probably the sacking of Gunn; I would agree with that. But which others? The arrival of Fry has almost certainly strengthened Smith and Jones''s hand in the boardroom.

 

"I thought that the way Doncaster ran the club had a big part to play in us nearly going into administration."

 

How? Enumerate the ways.

 

"Purple is glossing over just how much of a disaster our non-totalling investments were. The land development plans and other capex projects were more than just LSE land and these nearly brought the club down."

 

So which were they, these others, apart from the LSE land, and the Community Infill, which I also mention?

 

"We fundamentally adopted the wrong strategy when last in the Prem re the balance between capex and team investment. The delay in signing Ashton cost us dearly. Again, there is no hard evidence about the summer deal, but I have spoken to enough credible people to, lets say, take with a massive pinch of salt what we were told on this subject."

 

You need to make the case for this. I have argued - again using hard facts - that there is no evidence the money was there that summer for Ashton. Indeed you admit that.

 

I don''t post this antagonistically. I said at the outset, and meant it, that I would be happy to revise my original post in the light of new information or arguments. But it needs to be factually-based argument. Mere assertion doesn''t cut it.

[robert_rosario 0]

very good analysis and yes S&J made some mistakes - to start with every managerial appointments were highly unsound to a greater or lesser degree! But one simple fact remains - they only ever had the City''s best interests at heart and we are so lucky they held their nerve and we are where we are. The story has a happy ending - bordering on the miraculous. But they were lucky to pull it off with no evidence in the previous years that we would ever be where where we are now. But then as Gary Player once said, laced with irony, "the more I practice the luckier I get"! So yes - they may well have been out of their depth but through luck or judgement we came through - and so we have an enormous amount to thank them for. I for one would chip in for a statue!