Credit to the PLAYERS for the last two results

[Branston Pickle 3,634]

The team has stayed largely the same, the tactics not that different - so how does this constitute a ''rebellion'' in the ranks?

[Monty13 2,229]

I''m sorry I fully agree that the cancelling of the POTS dinner and comments heard from McNally were indications that the board were unhappy with the way our season was heading, it would be worrying if they weren''t, and they may have expressed so to the manager in more forthright terms.

I can also believe that if the players were frustrated with what''s being asked of them that they have voiced that to the manager.

I find both of those things plausible and believable, though I have seen no hard evidence that they have actually happened.

What I don''t believe is that Hughton and his background team have drilled and set up for two games the way they wanted to, and the players have gone out and ignored that game plan and have done what they like.

That is what has been suggested in the op "the players stood up to hughton, and took matters into their own hands before the west brom game". If that has actually happened I expect Hughton to be sacked.

"Or maybe wonder why someone like Matt Juler would chose to post on that thread" Well maybe Matt would like to comment on this thread, because I have gone back and read that thread and respect his opinion that he would like to see a new manager, but his post in no way endorses the point of the OP, and was posted before the comment by JayNCFC you mention.

[lake district canary 4,531]

I can say about my boss -  I don''t like the way he wants me to do something - and yes, I mean it, but it doesn''t mean I don''t respect him, appreciate he is in the position of responsibility and that I will act accordingly.    Equally I can go to my boss and suggest to him a way I feel I could do better - its part of my responsibility in that organisation to take responsibility and suggest things that could improve my performance/effectiveness.

All this subvertive cr*p one or two are reporting is things they have "heard" from others.   Probably some truth in the words they have "heard" but they are putting 2 + 2 and coming up with  7.      Like I said - gossip and conspiracy theories. 

[KeelansGlove 0]

You obviously missed the game against Newcastle, hands down most gutless display I ever saw.

[Mister Chops 7]

When Norwich scored their third goal against West Brom, the players ran to Hughton and celebrated with him.  Were they doing this ironically?  Were they celebrating with him to say "we don''t respect you or like the way you set us up to play, and we want you to leave?" Well done if so, it was a masterpiece of understated irony.Or maybe a few people here are talking their usual grade A b*ll*cks.

[Bws Cat 0]

Oh shush now and quit your bellyaching. No doubt these little whispers of discontent purely exist to simply destroy all feelings of joy on the forum.

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

It''s pleasing that most on here refuse to rise to such tripe. Both the management and the players have to accept responsibility for the drop in form early this year, just as both can accept credit for the improvement from Reading onwards. I still feel that there will be a better balance between defense and attack next year and more consistent results as well.

[Bill 1,788]

"All this subvertive cr*p one or two are reporting is things they

have "heard" from others.   Probably some truth in the words they have

"heard" but they are putting 2 + 2 and coming up with  7.      Like I

said - gossip and conspiracy theories".

The one talking crap is you, as you have no idea or knowledge of what I have been and by who either. For my part I am not coming up with anything, merely passing on what I have been told. There is more, but not for now.What I would say to you LDC is that you get your head out of the your yellow and green backside and ask yourself why players like Holt and Snodgrass have been talking about this, and why the media have been pursuing this story. More so when it is the local media (Radio Norfolk) who have far, far more need of NCFC than they do of any ''Jeffs'', who they would have known what he was going to say in advance, or more importantly used the ''tape loop'' to stop him (and them) broadcasting what is to all intents and purposes a possible libelous claim.But then if you want to believe that someone who has been a staunch defender of the club on here and has had numerous run ins with those who regularly attacked the club would stand by some ''gossip'' they have heard in a bar or something, and further spin it into something more ... (for what ?) then there is little else I can add.Time will tell.

[morty 0]

City 1st, I honestly think you''re a bit mental.

[Monty13 2,229]

"There is more, but not for now." ..."Time will tell."

Come on then, if you know some anonymous insight into the club pass it on, few I suspect know who you are or care and know one is asking for you to confirm your source.

Tell us what you think you know, and as you say, time will tell if you are right.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="City1st"]

The one talking crap is you, as you have no idea or knowledge of what I have been and by who either. For my part I am not coming up with anything, merely passing on what I have been told. There is more, but not for now.[/quote]

 

I can''t imagine anyone having a problem with that. Trust is important. Of course, trust has to work both  ways. For posters to give City1st the trust he demands when he (assuming it is a "he") resorts to promises about future confirmations means he has to give them trust in return. That is self-evident. Plainly Ccity1st will from now on have to take on trust pretty much anything any poster says about pretty much anything, no matter how seemingly absurd, provided they do the cyberspace equivalent of tapping their nose as if to say "If only you knew what I do..."

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Is it not beyond the realms of possibility that, in the midst of a poor run dragging us into the relegation battle, there MAY have been some kind of team meeting during which some of the more senior players MAY have expressed a view that they would like to be able to play a slightly more attacking style of play and that Hughton MAY have listened to those concerns and allowed them to do so? Indeed, it could even be seen as a sign of good management IF that happened and he was prepared to take their views on board and allow them to do so in the last few games.

That all sounds far more plausible to me that some sort of player rebellion, particularly as the rumoured leader of said rebellion (in the rumour on here I saw) was actually re-instated to the team for the game against WBA - hardly the act of a manager looking to quash a rebellion by said player and others.

I think there may well have been some form of discussion amongst the players.management in the aftermath of the awful Stoke performance in particular but i cannot believe that players have openly ignored Hughton''s orders and kept their places in the team. i think its probably a combination of maybe Hughton taking their views on board, the need to beat WBA meaning we had to go for it anyway and playing two teams who weren''t massively interested. The good news is, however, that it has worked so hopefully hughton has seen from the last 2 games how to get the best out of this squad of players, taken on board that they prefer to play more offensively and therefore may allow them to do so more often next season. If that''s the case then everyone is a winner.

[BOO 0]

I think that may be nearer the truth Jim, I do know that the players were not happy with the way they were being asked to play, form the horses mouth, but I have no idea how this manifested itself, what is absolutely clear is that there seems to have been a transformation in our performances for the last two games.

Whatever has changed and for whatever reason, lets see it again next season!

[Silver Canary 7]

If the suggestion that the players stood up to the manager and took matters into their own hands and that "they don''t have faith in the manager" then I would expect the Board to sack CH without delay and I will be looking out for that announcement shortly. However, if it''s not true then it''s a really malicious bit of muck stirring and does no credit to those peddling it.  Inevitably, some players will be less happy playing for one manager or in one system rather than another - but that''s true at most clubs. If they are truly unhappy and see no chance it will get better they will put in a transfer request. Time will tell - we should see some evidence very soon.Good points by Jim Smith. I would have expected that Hughton and McNally would have regular meetings and McN would have made it very clear (at points throughout the season) what he and the Board felt about progress, performance etc. I expect Hughton would listen. Ditto Hughton would listen to players - but ultimately come to his own decisions based on all the info and experience / knowledge that he has. He will have learned a lot this year - most managers are constantly learning - and the last few games will have given him an insight into some different sides to his players. Of course we should be proud of our players. It''s a very tough league and they have given their all - and been successful. Performances overall have been mixed but they have given us some great moments again. The fact is that they have taken us to nearly halfway up the top league in England (and supposedly the top league in Europe). Not bad. Next season will be another tough battle but we should be in a better position to go forward.

[ref89 0]

Agree with this. It is pathetic how even when proven to be pant wetting, negative twats, some people would rather cling to stupid stories to try and somehow prove they are still right.[quote user="Jan van Chopsburg"]When Norwich scored their third goal against West Brom, the players ran to Hughton and celebrated with him.  Were they doing this ironically?  Were they celebrating with him to say "we don''t respect you or like the way you set us up to play, and we want you to leave?" Well done if so, it was a masterpiece of understated irony.Or maybe a few people here are talking their usual grade A b*ll*cks.[/quote]

[ZLF 271]

Simply we wont ever know.

 

However I too have heard this and other unsubstantiated gossip, which may or may not support the odd goings on over the last couple of weeks,  no lap of honour then having one against WBA,  delayed POTS announcement and cancelled players end of season meal that suggests not all is as united and rosy at the club as we may think.   Or it could all be 2+5=5.

 

As I said we wont ever know - so conjecture away in the knowledge that neither side of the argument can be confident of being right!

 

 

 

[ThorpeCanary 71]

Cancelling the lap of honour because had we have lost to WBA, what sort of reception do you honestly think the players would have got?

Same with the end of season meal and POTS - tense affairs

I think Mcnally replied to someone who asked about the comments regardind the board getting involved with the tactics, which Mcnally said was rubbish.

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="ThorpeCanary"]Cancelling the lap of honour because had we have lost to WBA, what sort of reception do you honestly think the players would have got?

Same with the end of season meal and POTS - tense affairs

I think Mcnally replied to someone who asked about the comments regardind the board getting involved with the tactics, which Mcnally said was rubbish.[/quote]

Exactly - and if this was true I think Hughton would be getting the sack. His position would be totally untenable going forwards.

[Loopzilla 1]

[quote user="morty"]City 1st, I honestly think you''re a bit mental.[/quote]

[:D] ...I think this generally is the considered opinion.

 

In all seriousness though, if there was any suggestion that CH had lost the dressing room then you wouldn''t expect him to be here much longer. Perhaps this is one of those "Chinese whispers" that has grown and grown from a routine team discussion amongst players and coaches to a full scale mutiny as some put it. There may be an element of truth there somewhere as the rumour doesn''t seem to want to go away...I suppose we''ll soon know if Hughton is show the exit. 

[Joanna Grey 0]

Pilks and Howson mentioned being allowed to play with freedom for the MC match but that was probably because we had nothing to play for (apart from a few million in prize money).

[NorwichMick 0]

[quote user="Ricky"]I think that may be nearer the truth Jim, I do know that the players were not happy with the way they were being asked to play, form the horses mouth, but I have no idea how this manifested itself, what is absolutely clear is that there seems to have been a transformation in our performances for the last two games.

Whatever has changed and for whatever reason, lets see it again next season![/quote]

We played two teams who had noting to play for and for once our front line took there chances. This cannot be called a transformation just a bit of luck for us to be playing these sides under this scenario.

As for the OP........ Bilge....

[morty 0]

Joanna Grey said :-

Pilks and Howson mentioned being allowed to play with freedom for the MC match but that was probably because we had nothing to play for (apart from a few million in prize money).

This is what stuns me about people here, rather than see the patently obvious reason you have stated above, it makes more sense in their head to believe some ridiculous rumour.

Idiots.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="morty"]Joanna Grey said :-

Pilks and Howson mentioned being allowed to play with freedom for the MC match but that was probably because we had nothing to play for (apart from a few million in prize money).

This is what stuns me about people here, rather than see the patently obvious reason you have stated above, it makes more sense in their head to believe some ridiculous rumour.

Idiots.[/quote]

Pilks said "The pressure was off and we played with a lot more freedom today".

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="morty"]Joanna Grey said :-

Pilks and Howson mentioned being allowed to play with freedom for the MC match but that was probably because we had nothing to play for (apart from a few million in prize money).

This is what stuns me about people here, rather than see the patently obvious reason you have stated above, it makes more sense in their head to believe some ridiculous rumour.

Idiots.[/quote]

Pilks said "The pressure was off and we played with a lot more freedom today".[/quote]So based on that, we also had nothing to play for which shows that the Man City result was even better than we think it is...... 

[SwindonCanary 455]

Not really bothered about how we got there, over the last two games, but I hope it continues next season.

[Bill 1,788]

dearie, dear me

we have a consensus ... or not as it would seem as the various believers in all their varied shapes and forms (and logins) cannot agree whether I am a binner or a pantwetter or even just mentalnothing happened ... or maybe it did, as we now have "there MAY have been some kind of team meeting during which some of the

more senior players MAY have expressed a view that they would like to be

able to play a slightly more attacking style of play and that Hughton

MAY have listened to those concerns and allowed them to do so? "this conjucture however painfully wrested has now moved to   "I do know that the players were not happy with the way they were being asked to play, form the horses mouth"  curiously though a claim that pretty much outlines who has said this,as  in '' the horses mouth'' (player or coach) has not had the  requirement to name his source ..............hmmmmm, why might that be I wonder ?so there we have it, even though the story has reached beyond the media,  for some whose proximity to the club may not stretch much further that their computer screen they may well have to accept that this is the most they will know ......

.................... for now

[morty 0]

Case rested.

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

IMO, this is all idle speculation without any substance whatsoever.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="City1st"]dearie, dear me


we have a consensus ... or not as it would seem as the various believers in all their varied shapes and forms (and logins) cannot agree whether I am a binner or a pantwetter or even just mental

nothing happened ... or maybe it did, as we now have "there MAY have been some kind of team meeting during which some of the more senior players MAY have expressed a view that they would like to be able to play a slightly more attacking style of play and that Hughton MAY have listened to those concerns and allowed them to do so? "

this conjucture however painfully wrested has now moved to   "I do know that the players were not happy with the way they were being asked to play, form the horses mouth" 

curiously though a claim that pretty much outlines who has said this,as  in '' the horses mouth'' (player or coach) has not had the  requirement to name his source ..............hmmmmm, why might that be I wonder ?

so there we have it, even though the story has reached beyond the media,  for some whose proximity to the club may not stretch much further that their computer screen they may well have to accept that this is the most they will know ......




.................... for now


[/quote]

That''ll be you then.