Why Hughton was appointed (possibly) -

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

From WOTB -

 

"

I heard a GREAT story today about the appointment of Hughton

Came from someone who doesn''t much care for football but who is related to a person who has been someone at Carrow Road.

Anyway, as oart of the appointment process, the Board used a scoring system to assess the suitability of three candidates. Hughton came last. But Delia really liked him and pulled rank. So he was appointed despite not being the most suitable candidate.

No idea who the other two were.

"

http://www.wrathofthebarclay.co.uk/interactive/board/message.php?pid=2217845

[lowlyfendweller 0]

It pays to be nice then.

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

From WOTB -

 

"

I heard a GREAT story today about the appointment of Hughton

Came from someone who doesn''t much care for football but who is related to a person who has been someone at Carrow Road.Anyway, as oart of the appointment process, the Board used a scoring system to assess the suitability of three candidates. Hughton came last. But Delia really liked him and pulled rank. So he was appointed despite not being the most suitable candidate.No idea who the other two were.

"

http://www.wrathofthebarclay.co.uk/interactive/board/message.php?pid=2217845

[/quote]The other two were "The Puppet Man" and "1p5wich Kenny".

[Bill 1,788]

I presume this unnamed person was sat in on the meeting (s)

[blahblahblah 2]

I''m sure I heard similar about Peter grant in the past too. I wouldn''t put too much credence into this.

[Nuff Said 5,960]

Which fits in nicely with the public statements from McNally that Hughton had been the backup plan for some time, since Lambert''s previous "wobble." Not.

[PurpleCanary 6,384]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]I''m sure I heard similar about Peter grant in the past too. I wouldn''t put too much credence into this.[/quote]I wouldn''t put ANY credence in this. As far as Grant being chosen, what was said afterwards was that he had come prepared with a comprehensive dossier on the squad, assessing its strengths and weakness, and how to go about improving it, and that was what impressed the directors. Sadly theory doesn''t always translate into practice.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

There''s absolutely zero chance that McNally would stand for this, he''d have resigned immediately.

[Buster Douglas 0]

^^^^^^^^^ Mr B.

Totally agree and more BS by a troll!!!

[CanaryOne 0]

Appointment bit sounds far fetched but i could well believe we are hanging onto him because he''s a nice man , we have seen it before with Worthington . Lets be honest his record is abysmal and anywhere else he would have been long sacked , why oh why have we kept him when so many could see where this was going ?

[whoareyou? 0]

Abysmal? What a stupid comment. His record could be better but its hardly abysmal.I do wonder sometimes about what is really behind some of this vitriol aimed at Chris Hughton.

[JF 694]

What would you consider Abysmal? Under his leadership we have taken the biggest defeat in our top flight history and also hold the record of only PL team to go out of the FA cup against non league opposition. Add to that several other thrashings along the way including the debut 5-0 at Fulham and the inability to score more than one in a game ( has only happened twice this season) and a defence that waves the white flag at the first sing of pressure. Maybe Abysmal is harsh but it certainly is very, very poor.

[T 191]

I just hope this ridiculous unpleasant abuse really is just stupidity.

[Barossa 0]

I can''t believe some people are taking this thread seriously

[blahblahblah 2]

" i could well believe we are hanging onto him because he''s a nice man ...why oh why have we kept him when so many could see where this was going ? "

Rather than just making stuff up CanaryOne, why not stick with facts ?

"Lets be honest his record is abysmal and anywhere else he would have been long sacked "

His record is very similar to Paul Lamberts at Villa. Lambert is still in a job. Laudrup is also still in his job, with a similar record at Swansea.

Speaking of facts, here are some more reasons that aren''t made up as to why Hughton is still in his job.

It seems pretty clear from McNally that relegation is the cut-off point for the manager. Norwich haven''t been in the bottom 3, to my recollection, all season.

There are 10 teams in the same boat as us, who all win about 1 game in every 4, and all average about 1 point per game. Distraction from the task at hand will cost points. But I tell you what, let''s all get our banners out and have a go at the players at home, take their minds off the job, that''ll help.

We have one of the smallest budgets in the league, so anything above where we are is over-achievement. Survival equals success.

We aren''t relegated yet, and digging out the pitchforks and torches before we are is admitting defeat.

We don''t have a god given right to be in the top 10 of the "bestest league in the world", while setting the league on fire with glorious attacking football. For every Southampton that gets to mid-table with flowing attacking football, there is a Blackpool that gets relegated by trying to do the same.

Getting a new manager in won''t neccesarily result in safety. Pulis at Palace, Poyet at Sunderland have done well to turn their teams around. But what about Meulensteen at Fulham ?

It is too late this season to change manager. December would have been the time to change, and for whatever reason, it was considered unneccesary at the time.

[blahblahblah 2]

My apologies Purple. What I am saying is that I remember a previous rumour put about, at the time that Grant was appointed. I assumed that was made up too.

[SwindonCanary 457]

And I believe that Delia, because of her previous appointments, on this occasion decided to once again leave it to the McNally team as they did with Lambert and Hughton was there first choice !

[T 191]

It''s just getting silly now with people desperately making comments completely out of context to abuse the mgr with out looking at the big picture. They don''t impress anyone - just make themselves look ridiculous with their incoherent arguments. Its reminiscent of the Delia out nonsense from people who''ve been made to look the obnoxious fools that they are. Man C have spent 700m in recent years just on transfer fees. Some people need to get real.

[blahblahblah 2]

Now then T, you know what will happen if you come in here with a bit of common sense :-)...

[nutty nigel 7,902]

It''ll be Delia next! (Whatever happened to that thread) [;)]

 

 

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

No, sorry, abysmal is a pretty accurate summation of Hoots ability as a manager. He''s worse than poor old Gunny, who was dismissed with very little fanfare (I have no axe to grind with that decision, though). He''s clueless and out of his depth. Ditch the boring old sod now!

[PurpleCanary 6,384]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]My apologies Purple. What I am saying is that I remember a previous rumour put about, at the time that Grant was appointed. I assumed that was made up too.[/quote]No need to apologise triple blah! I really only posted to explain what was the (highly plausible) reason for Grant being chosen. I would be amazed if anyone here (I can''t speak for Wrath of the Barclay) thought for a moment there was any truth in what looks like an absurd story about Delia.

[Bill 1,788]

" Norwich haven''t been in the bottom 3, to my recollection, all season."I believe we were early on in the seasonunfortunately the one main problem the apologists consistently avoid is the harm Hughton is doing to the squadwe are told that all he has to do is avoid relegation and all is ok - something that is in contradiction to the thoughts of the board as expressed by Bowkettwe are now suffering the legacy of season 12/13 .... and more worryingly we will further suffer similar problems in 14/15players are not developing under Hughton''s flawed tactics, in fact they seem t be going backwards ..... something that some may well see their career is best suited elsewhereHoolahan doesn''t strike me as a loose cannon - the evidence is slowly coming to the surface

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

The board came out and admitted the errors with the Grant appointment, so it is really that far fetched that the majority shareholder and director would have a say on the appointment of the manager from a shortlist of 3?

 

Do shareholders and directors have no say whatsoever and is the appointment made by 1 person alone (the CEO) in isolation?  Which seems to be what the vast majority on here believe!  Deary me!!!

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

 so it is really that far fetched that the majority shareholder and director would have a say on the appointment of the manager from a shortlist of 3?

 [/quote]

but is is not ''a say'' that is being suggested

it is the decision - and one that supposedly overrode the decision of the rest of the board

the implications of that should tell you why this is fantasist nonsense

[PurpleCanary 6,384]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

The board came out and admitted the errors with the Grant appointment, so it is really that far fetched that the majority shareholder and director would have a say on the appointment of the manager from a shortlist of 3?

 

Do shareholders and directors have no say whatsoever and is the appointment made by 1 person alone (the CEO) in isolation?  Which seems to be what the vast majority on here believe!  Deary me!!!

[/quote]Of course not. On the contrary I have long argued that McNally, though important, is only one voice. That his powers have been overemphasised by posters.But this absurd "story" was saying something quite different. That Delia had overruled everyone else and gone for the worst candidate out of three just because she thought he was nice.

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

The board came out and admitted the errors with the Grant appointment, so it is really that far fetched that the majority shareholder and director would have a say on the appointment of the manager from a shortlist of 3?

 

Do shareholders and directors have no say whatsoever and is the appointment made by 1 person alone (the CEO) in isolation?  Which seems to be what the vast majority on here believe!  Deary me!!!

[/quote]

Of course not. On the contrary I have long argued that McNally, though important, is only one voice. That his powers have been overemphasised by posters.

But this absurd "story" was saying something quite different. That Delia had overruled everyone else and gone for the worst candidate out of three just because she thought he was nice.
[/quote]

 

Let''s put this ''story'' into the context of what actually happened.  We had a not so nice manager, who although extremely successful, threatened to leave, fell out with some board members and did indeed in the end walk out on the club.

 

After all of the uncertainty (and who knows what additional things we don''t know), the divisons (Lambert and Bowkett not speaking etc), the board or perhaps Delia and/or other board members felt it an important criteria when looking at the shortlist to go with the person who would be the least hassle, least likely to cause problems, least likely to threaten to walk out, cause or continue unrest/problems behind the scenes etc etc and therefore hopefully bring a period of stability and longevity (as much as is possible) with regards the management of the football club.

 

I am far from suggesting that this was the only criteria, but don''t forget that this was a shortlist of 3 and the importance of the above could have been weighted fairly heavily by one or some board members in conjunction with any scoring system.  The person who scored the highest, may have been more of a Lambert type and perhaps one or some board members were feeling a bit ''once bitten, twice shy''?

 

Is it really that far fetched a fairy tale?[:^)]

[Molly Windley 76]

Can I be the first to say that our next manager (insert name here) is totally useless and the board made a huge mistake in appointing him and that everyone that called for (insert name here) to get the job was wrong and its all your fault.

Now I can I refer back to this point when the wheels fall off which makes me a better person and judge of all footballing matters than all of you.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

The board came out and admitted the errors with the Grant appointment, so it is really that far fetched that the majority shareholder and director would have a say on the appointment of the manager from a shortlist of 3?

 

Do shareholders and directors have no say whatsoever and is the appointment made by 1 person alone (the CEO) in isolation?  Which seems to be what the vast majority on here believe!  Deary me!!!

[/quote]Of course not. On the contrary I have long argued that McNally, though important, is only one voice. That his powers have been overemphasised by posters.But this absurd "story" was saying something quite different. That Delia had overruled everyone else and gone for the worst candidate out of three just because she thought he was nice.[/quote]

 

Let''s put this ''story'' into the context of what actually happened.  We had a not so nice manager, who although extremely successful, threatened to leave, fell out with some board members and did indeed in the end walk out on the club.

 

After all of the uncertainty (and who knows what additional things we don''t know), the divisons (Lambert and Bowkett not speaking etc), the board or perhaps Delia and/or other board members felt it an important criteria when looking at the shortlist to go with the person who would be the least hassle, least likely to cause problems, least likely to threaten to walk out, cause or continue unrest/problems behind the scenes etc etc and therefore hopefully bring a period of stability and longevity (as much as is possible) with regards the management of the football club.

 

I am far from suggesting that this was the only criteria, but don''t forget that this was a shortlist of 3 and the importance of the above could have been weighted fairly heavily by one or some board members in conjunction with any scoring system.  The person who scored the highest, may have been more of a Lambert type and perhaps one or some board members were feeling a bit ''once bitten, twice shy''?

 

Is it really that far fetched a fairy tale?[:^)]

[/quote]yesif only because the first paragraph is innaccurate, but mainly because it is absurd to suggest that Delia Smith would be able to override the rest of the board on such a trivial point  - or would attempt to eitherthe other flaw in your story is that you have now included board members who previously were supposedly not for Hughton''s appointmentI would stop digging if I were you

ps welcome Phil and Ted, such fine thoughts - what a shame you have not thought fit to post on here before and have waited all these years

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

The board came out and admitted the errors with the Grant appointment, so it is really that far fetched that the majority shareholder and director would have a say on the appointment of the manager from a shortlist of 3?

 

Do shareholders and directors have no say whatsoever and is the appointment made by 1 person alone (the CEO) in isolation?  Which seems to be what the vast majority on here believe!  Deary me!!!

[/quote]

Of course not. On the contrary I have long argued that McNally, though important, is only one voice. That his powers have been overemphasised by posters.

But this absurd "story" was saying something quite different. That Delia had overruled everyone else and gone for the worst candidate out of three just because she thought he was nice.
[/quote]

 

Let''s put this ''story'' into the context of what actually happened.  We had a not so nice manager, who although extremely successful, threatened to leave, fell out with some board members and did indeed in the end walk out on the club.

 

After all of the uncertainty (and who knows what additional things we don''t know), the divisons (Lambert and Bowkett not speaking etc), the board or perhaps Delia and/or other board members felt it an important criteria when looking at the shortlist to go with the person who would be the least hassle, least likely to cause problems, least likely to threaten to walk out, cause or continue unrest/problems behind the scenes etc etc and therefore hopefully bring a period of stability and longevity (as much as is possible) with regards the management of the football club.

 

I am far from suggesting that this was the only criteria, but don''t forget that this was a shortlist of 3 and the importance of the above could have been weighted fairly heavily by one or some board members in conjunction with any scoring system.  The person who scored the highest, may have been more of a Lambert type and perhaps one or some board members were feeling a bit ''once bitten, twice shy''?

 

Is it really that far fetched a fairy tale?[:^)]

[/quote]

yes

if only because the first paragraph is innaccurate, but mainly because it is absurd to suggest that Delia Smith would be able to override the rest of the board on such a trivial point  - or would attempt to either

the other flaw in your story is that you have now included board members who previously were supposedly not for Hughton''s appointment

I would stop digging if I were you




ps welcome Phil and Ted, such fine thoughts - what a shame you have not thought fit to post on here before and have waited all these years



[/quote]

 

1 - the first paragraph is not inaccurate

 

2 - it is not my story

 

3 - I am not digging

 

4 - "a trivial point"!?

 

5 - The above ''story'' would fit with some of the claims from the ''McNally for the axe'' thread on here and others