Can anyone explain the thinking?

[Yellow Shirt 17]

When we hired Lambert he did not have an amazing record but was considered the right kind of person and mentality for the club.This was obviously correct.When it came to finding someone to continue the work started the board decided that the perfect person would be a polar opposite.WTF?

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="Yellow Shirt"]When we hired Lambert he did not have an amazing record but was considered the right kind of person and mentality for the club.This was obviously correct.When it came to finding someone to continue the work started the board decided that the perfect person would be a polar opposite.WTF?

[/quote]

I could try and explain what the board are thinking, but would have a job to explain you''re thinking.   Polar opposites?? 

[Yellow Shirt 17]

Yep.Cagey personality, stays apart from training, hard, determined, attacking Lambert vs Open, Friendly, active coach, defensive, cautious Hughton.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Yellow Shirt"]When we hired Lambert he did not have an amazing record but was considered the right kind of person and mentality for the club.This was obviously correct.When it came to finding someone to continue the work started the board decided that the perfect person would be a polar opposite.WTF?

[/quote]Hiring Lambert was only a correct decision in hindsight, and it may or may not have been for the reasons you suggest (rumours at the time* suggest we wanted Nigel Adkins as our first choice).That aside, and accepting your premise, the thinking is explainable:The board were looking for the candidate with the best credentials of getting the best out of the current squad, spending money wisely in bringing in new players, and building a side that could achieve Premier League survival in order for the club to be debt-free.They felt Hughton was that person.  I have yet to see anyone suggest a better candidate.  (In my view, the people who say "Holloway" are exactly the sort of people who belong there.)

* My Football Writer website as one example

[Yellow Shirt 17]

Totally agree re: Holloway. Think he''s great fun but wouldn''t be too excited about him managing here.I just don''t see how anyone can have really looked into it and seen that Hughton was right for NCFC unless he completely misrepresented what he intended to do at interview.If we are to believe that he is doing what he intends then he is the wrong guy and a bad choice. If he is just being ignored by the playing staff then he is the wrong guy and a bad choice.

[Mister Chops 7]

I would have thought the board were seeking a calming, stabilising influence who would keep us safe without necessarily achieving anything else (remembering that staying up is an achievement).He may yet be that person; it is very early to judge.  The signs are mixed, at best - we were great against Spurs, average against QPR, Newcastle and West Ham, dire against Fulham and Liverpool.  I would have hoped for more points by now but it''s way too early to judge.

[Waveney Canary 0]

McNally new lambert via the Celtic connection so had an idea what he was getting

[Yellow Shirt 17]

I was not at the Newcastle game but watched on TV and from that I''d say that the claim we were average was generous- I commented at the time that I felt the commentary was being generous too.I felt we avoided a thrashing only by virtue of playing what looked a below average Newcastle team.

[paul moy 235]

I think McNally wanted a ''YES'' man and got rid of the ''NO'' man.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="paul moy"]I think McNally wanted a ''YES'' man and got rid of the ''NO'' man.[/quote]Who would you have recruited, and why?

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="paul moy"]I think McNally wanted a ''YES'' man and got rid of the ''NO'' man.[/quote]

Who would you have recruited, and why?

[/quote]

I would have offered Lambert and his staff a much improved contract after a successful season and money to spend. Then no new recruitment risk would have been necessary.  

[Highland Canary 76]

Hughton was my number one choice - I guess what this board are increasingly exercised about are understanding the signings and lack if them in certain areas, team selections, tactics and substitutions - pretty much everything !

[fleckfan 0]

Vaughn out and Kane in...just cant understand that one!

[Herman 9,779]

[quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="paul moy"]I think McNally wanted a ''YES'' man and got rid of the ''NO'' man.[/quote]

Who would you have recruited, and why?

[/quote]

I would have offered Lambert and his staff a much improved contract after a successful season and money to spend. Then no new recruitment risk would have been necessary.  

[/quote]

I got the feeling that Lambert would have been off no matter how much we offered him.

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]

I would have offered Lambert and his staff a much improved contract after a successful season and money to spend. Then no new recruitment risk would have been necessary.  

[/quote]

"And Alice looked through the glass and saw a wonderland where money grows on trees and managers fall out of the sky"

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Herman "][quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="paul moy"]I think McNally wanted a ''YES'' man and got rid of the ''NO'' man.[/quote]

Who would you have recruited, and why?

[/quote]

I would have offered Lambert and his staff a much improved contract after a successful season and money to spend. Then no new recruitment risk would have been necessary.  

[/quote]

I got the feeling that Lambert would have been off no matter how much we offered him.

[/quote]

I don''t think so, but why was an offer not made anyway, because I don''t think it was, and it may have worked. The result is what we have now and this will cost us a lot more IMO. It does appear to me though that Lambert was not wanted enough. Complacency perhaps, or as I say, McNally wanted a ''YES'' man.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="paul moy"]

I would have offered Lambert and his staff a much improved contract after a successful season and money to spend. Then no new recruitment risk would have been necessary.  

[/quote]




"And Alice looked through the glass and saw a wonderland where money grows on trees and managers fall out of the sky"




[/quote]

Aha... so Hughton was for free ?  He was an expensive replacement as we had to pay compensation + a top salary.  

 

[Herman 9,779]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Herman "][quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="paul moy"]I think McNally wanted a ''YES'' man and got rid of the ''NO'' man.[/quote]

Who would you have recruited, and why?

[/quote]

I would have offered Lambert and his staff a much improved contract after a successful season and money to spend. Then no new recruitment risk would have been necessary.  

[/quote]

I got the feeling that Lambert would have been off no matter how much we offered him.

[/quote]

I don''t think so, but why was an offer not made anyway, because I don''t think it was, and it may have worked. The result is what we have now and this will cost us a lot more IMO. It does appear to me though that Lambert was not wanted enough. Complacency perhaps, or as I say, McNally wanted a ''YES'' man.

[/quote]

It''s all just opinions in the end isn''t it.Nobody knows for sure if an offer was made or if Lambert wanted out.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Herman "][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Herman "][quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="paul moy"]I think McNally wanted a ''YES'' man and got rid of the ''NO'' man.[/quote]

Who would you have recruited, and why?

[/quote]

I would have offered Lambert and his staff a much improved contract after a successful season and money to spend. Then no new recruitment risk would have been necessary.  

[/quote]

I got the feeling that Lambert would have been off no matter how much we offered him.

[/quote]

I don''t think so, but why was an offer not made anyway, because I don''t think it was, and it may have worked. The result is what we have now and this will cost us a lot more IMO. It does appear to me though that Lambert was not wanted enough. Complacency perhaps, or as I say, McNally wanted a ''YES'' man.

[/quote]

It''s all just opinions in the end isn''t it.Nobody knows for sure if an offer was made or if Lambert wanted out.

[/quote]

Indeed, but a sideways move seems very strange so it may not have been his preferred choice.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Herman "][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Herman "][quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="paul moy"]I think McNally wanted a ''YES'' man and got rid of the ''NO'' man.[/quote]Who would you have recruited, and why?[/quote]

I would have offered Lambert and his staff a much improved contract after a successful season and money to spend. Then no new recruitment risk would have been necessary.  

[/quote]

I got the feeling that Lambert would have been off no matter how much we offered him.

[/quote]

I don''t think so, but why was an offer not made anyway, because I don''t think it was, and it may have worked. The result is what we have now and this will cost us a lot more IMO. It does appear to me though that Lambert was not wanted enough. Complacency perhaps, or as I say, McNally wanted a ''YES'' man.

[/quote]

It''s all just opinions in the end isn''t it.Nobody knows for sure if an offer was made or if Lambert wanted out.

[/quote]

Indeed, but a sideways move seems very strange so it may not have been his preferred choice.

[/quote]With the greatest of respect to our club, suggesting moving from Norwich to Aston Villa was a sideways move is somewhat disrespectful.