Mick Dennis how much does he know ?

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Mick Dennis"]OK. That was a 140 character summary. I knew they weren''t sacking Tues night or Weds, as some assumed or hoped, after Craven (good word) Cottage. Their position, as I understand it, is as elaborated in my post on this thread.

And lest anyone doubts, I fervently hope we win tomorrow and v Newcastle and that CH survives, thrives and stays for a decade.

That might be a minority view, I concede.

I am learning the hard way that Tweets taken out of context can be misleading!

In answer to a tweet saying the atmosphere v Hull might be fraught, I Tweeted: "I agree fans prob" or some such, in the context of the conversation. Before I knew it, there was a storm of protest saying I was blaming the fans for our current lack of wins. I''m not that brave or daft, although I did think someone could have Rubin last Sat at Goodison and closed down fracking Gareth Barry.[/quote]

You''d make a good politician Mick... or bad one depending which way you look at it.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

As I said Mick, I fully appreciate how the 140 character limit can make it difficult to get your point across, hence my asking for clarification. Thanks for giving it.

Not sure you''re in the minority there actually, I think most of us would like to see Chris turn it around and make a success out of it, he''s the perfect figure head for a respectable family club like ours, it''s just that many of us have run out of faith that''s going to happen.

I''d love to be proved wrong however and hope that starts tomorrow.

[Branston Pickle 3,651]

To be fair, people do seem far too ready to ignore context when reading/quoting others nowadays, and will read (at times deliberately) things into them that aren''t there. I took the tweets after the game on Tuesday to mean they wouldn''t be sacking CH ''now'' (ie this week) rather than ''never''. Twitter is meant to be informal, so you can''t really expect people to pore over every word and compose perfect prose each tweet.

[vlad666 203]

Personally I don''t like how he comes off. Very condescending. Also if you state that you know inside info then change your mind you''re open to ridicule.

[Buster Douglas 0]

[quote user="vlad666"]Personally I don''t like how he comes off. Very condescending. Also if you state that you know inside info then change your mind you''re open to ridicule.[/quote]

He speaks very highly of you though!!!!

[BOO 0]

Thanks for that post Mick, people are always going to spin a tweet to suit their agenda.

There are lots of clubs in the same boat as us, and I am sure thieir CEO''s, Board and fans have the same fears, concerns, axes to grind as we see here. The difference this season is that very point however, it''s not just us, it''s a big group of similar clubs in the same position, the succesfull ones will be those that best manage the situation and make the right decisions, that doesn''t automatically mean sacking the boss.

[William Darby 0]

Context is just an excuse for dropping a bollockk. 

The tweet clearly says, "City won''t sack CH"

 And the says today "I haven''t said City won''t sack CH".

Mick isn''t that naive not to finish the tweet with "City won''t sack CH on a knee jerk reaction"  (or similar)

[the bristol nest 0]

The fella responded to the post. Let''s leave it at that.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

So if I post "It''s not going to rain"[ip]

 

Do I have to sit you down and explain that it may actually rain another day[st] [um]

 

 

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Vanwink"]Thanks for that post Mick, people are always going to spin a tweet to suit their agenda.

There are lots of clubs in the same boat as us, and I am sure thieir CEO''s, Board and fans have the same fears, concerns, axes to grind as we see here. The difference this season is that very point however, it''s not just us, it''s a big group of similar clubs in the same position, the succesfull ones will be those that best manage the situation and make the right decisions, that doesn''t automatically mean sacking the boss.[/quote]No, there aren''t. This line is being trotted out pretty regularly on here, and has been so again by Mick above. It''s nonsense, and is just the latest excuse/piece of apologia for the current mess.The bottom 6 now have been the bottom 6 for the vast bulk of the season. These are the clubs in the mire. I''d be astonished if anyone outside that group are relegated; and would ask all posters on here to name their three for the drop. I bet, by some strange miracle, those between 10th and 14th at present don''t figure in almost anyone''s group.Of those outside the bottom six, while it might be theoretically possible for Hull to collapse, it won''t happen. They''re no Blackpool, 10/11; in fact, they''re massively more like Norwich, 11/12. Too solid, too happy, too well managed, too good at getting results in the games that most matter. They''ll be fine. So will Stoke, who have improved this season; and now that they''ve changed managers (are you listening, NCFC board), so will the superbly run, marvellously stable West Brom.Villa, where Mick was on Monday? Yes, their fans are in an increasing state of mutiny, and Lambert''s becoming increasingly desperate; but they''re still too good to go down, and their board will make a change if things get much worse. And while Swansea are only a point above us, the idea that they - with their quality and their teamplay - could go down is ridiculous. It might happen next season if their gradual decline continues; hardly this one though.The bottom 6 are the clubs in the mire; relegation will be decided amongst this group. And of those, we''ve already chucked far too many points away in the games that really count to be remotely confident, and we have a run-in from hell. The absolute, total lack of anything different in our performances all season long - anything resembling an X-factor - means we''re as unlikely to take something from the elite clubs as almost anyone in the division: Palace maybe only excepted.My minimum target for the halfway mark was 22 points; 24 to feel comfortable. We missed the target by three (that''s the damage caused by the Fulham game); and 2 games past halfway, we''re still two points below it. This isn''t some "oh, we only need a win, and we''ll be cruising in mid-table" scenario at all; we''re in very serious trouble, and it''s simple self-delusion to act as though ten other clubs are in the same boat. They''re not.My three for the drop, incidentally? Palace, Fulham... and either Cardiff or Norwich, depending entirely on whether Tan''s impact there causes an implosion or not.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="vlad666"]Personally I don''t like how he comes off. Very condescending. Also if you state that you know inside info then change your mind you''re open to ridicule.[/quote]

This is where I''m coming from, with the sack tweet. (not ridicule but up for question).  If you tweet you''re with the CE & Owner and then tweet about not sacking. How can you then moan about being taken out of context?  

Seriously, Mick was talking to them and then chose to spunk it over twitter, what did he expect?

That''s why imo, he loves stirring it up.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

So if I post "It''s not going to rain"[ip]

 

Do I have to sit you down and explain that it may actually rain another day[st] [um]

 

 

[/quote]

Obviously it does rather depend if you''re getting your info directing from the weather gods standing next to you.  And volunteering broadcasting their intentions with our without permission.  

[......and Smith must score. 1,339]

Thanks for the replies Mick.Ever wish you''d chosen a different career ? [;)]

[BOO 0]

Bigfella, we are 21 games into the season and there are six clubs, mid to low table, separated by three points.

I could wear your theory if we had only played a few games, but not after 21, the points can only be seen as a true reflection of the way the teams have played and the results they have got. That''s it, you can try to spin all you like, we have all played everyone once and all six are within 3 points. Those are the facts, anything more than that is opinion and conjecture.

[Monty13 2,231]

Mick did Hoolahan said he would like to leave to anyone to your knowledge?

I just find it a bit bizarre that everyone likes to say we have not received a written transfer request, why so specific?

Doesn''t exactly discount the idea that Wes has walked into an office at CR and indicated verbally to someone he wants to leave.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Vanwink"]Bigfella, we are 21 games into the season and there are six clubs, mid to low table, separated by three points.

I could wear your theory if we had only played a few games, but not after 21, the points can only be seen as a true reflection of the way the teams have played and the results they have got. That''s it, you can try to spin all you like, we have all played everyone once and all six are within 3 points. Those are the facts, anything more than that is opinion and conjecture.[/quote]So how odd that none of the clubs between 10th and 14th are being talked about as in serious danger of relegation - but then, that''s probably because they''re not.The excuses being trotted out right now, after fully 13 months of absolute rubbish, are all part of the complacency, laziness and general negativity which is like this club''s default mechanism. The Norwich disease. Baseball coming towards us, baseball coming towards us... but whereas others would respond and take action, we wait for it to hit us square between the eyeballs. And as we lie there on the floor, we murmur something about "bad luck" "not being able to compete", and that "no-one could''ve seen this coming". Many of us know precisely what''s coming if the board don''t get off their backsides and act. It''s up to them now. All the hard work of the last 4 years is in peril if they don''t.

[Monty13 2,231]

*has not did!

[morty 0]

"The Norwich disease"Seriously?

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="morty"]"The Norwich disease"Seriously?[/quote]Yes, absolutely.What''s the flipside of being a nice, family, community oriented, often hugely admired club? It''s that that niceness becomes too nice at times; a strength turns into a major weakness.If, at any point in the last 30 years, you''d have told me that most of the clubs in danger of relegation would change their manager, but two would not, I''d have responded: "I bet Norwich are one of the exceptions". It''s us; it''s how we always bloody do things. Fiddling while Rome burns.

[morty 0]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="morty"]"The Norwich disease"Seriously?[/quote]Yes, absolutely.What''s the flipside of being a nice, family, community oriented, often hugely admired club? It''s that that niceness becomes too nice at times; a strength turns into a major weakness.If, at any point in the last 30 years, you''d have told me that most of the clubs in danger of relegation would change their manager, but two would not, I''d have responded: "I bet Norwich are one of the exceptions". It''s us; it''s how we always bloody do things. Fiddling while Rome burns.[/quote]Well I guess we''ll see at the end of the season just how much difference changing their manager made.None of them are exactly romping up the league.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="morty"]Well I guess we''ll see at the end of the season just how much difference changing their manager made.None of them are exactly romping up the league.[/quote]It''s worked for Sunderland and Palace: in fact, it''s transformed the chances of both. Both were dead and buried before they made their changes.Jury''s out at Fulham, but I''d say they''ve improved slightly: and their fans are certainly happy to be rid of Jol. Ditto West Brom and Clarke. Solksjaer''s only had one league game at Cardiff: no idea what''ll happen there, but goodness knows, he comes with a tremendous reputation. Already won away to Newcastle in the Cup too: could we do that? And that leaves Norwich and West Ham: the latter''s fans are livid that Allardyce is still there; and Norwich fans are increasingly heading towards mutiny too.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

west ham have played without a striker ( well cole ) for most of the season now have carroll back so I imagine they will improve also my get another in the window

[BOO 0]

Bigfella wrote

"The excuses being trotted out right now, after fully 13 months of absolute rubbish, are all part of the complacency, laziness and general negativity which is like this club''s default mechanism. The Norwich disease. Baseball coming towards us, baseball coming towards us... but whereas others would respond and take action, we wait for it to hit us square between the eyeballs. And as we lie there on the floor, we murmur something about "bad luck" "not being able to compete", and that "no-one could''ve seen this coming".

Many of us know precisely what''s coming if the board don''t get off their backsides and act. It''s up to them now. All the hard work of the last 4 years is in peril if they don''t."

"all the hard work of the last four years". I presume you are referring to the success of the last four years Bigfella?

Who do you think is responsible for that and why have you lost faith in those people to do what''s right for the club?

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Vanwink"]"all the hard work of the last four years". I presume you are referring to the success of the last four years Bigfella?

Who do you think is responsible for that and why have you lost faith in those people to do what''s right for the club?[/quote]1. Because half the board have form - tons and tons of it - for getting it very, very, very wrong.2. Because I am astonished that Hughton is still in place. Genuinely astonished.What was it most of us thought during the summer given the way last season had tailed off? Hughton deserved 10-12 games to show if he''d learnt the lessons and could kick on; and if he couldn''t, McNally would act. Because that''s what McNally does, right? Strong, decisive, no nonsense, no messing around.So we had 10-12 games - and we struggled. Villa at home was the first real sign of trouble; then came the appalling double-header in Manchester, which followed ridiculous claims of a "moral victory" against Cardiff. A game in which we''d "battered them", apparently; yet actually, rarely looked like scoring, and dropped 2 oh-so valuable points.That should''ve been that. Then one game v West Ham - in which we were on the ropes for an hour against short-handed opposition - was allowed to paper over the cracks. It shouldn''t have been. Hughton should''ve been gone by then. And along we have drifted ever since, with the Fulham defeat at home an absolute disaster, and Tuesday night a complete disgrace.That''s 4 chances they''ve had to get rid of him now; four occasions when he should''ve gone, but didn''t. And now, we face another West Ham scenario, 11 games further on into the season: we must win. We have to win. Yet winning won''t suddenly mean Hughton''s the man, even though the board will no doubt treat it as such.They''ve allowed this season to drift almost entirely out of control. It''s 2005/6 all over again. I can hardly believe it given McNally and Bowkett are here now - but it is. Typical Norwich.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Vanwink"]"all the hard work of the last four years". I presume you are referring to the success of the last four years Bigfella?

Who do you think is responsible for that and why have you lost faith in those people to do what''s right for the club?[/quote]1. Because half the board have form - tons and tons of it - for getting it very, very, very wrong.2. Because I am astonished that Hughton is still in place. Genuinely astonished.What was it most of us thought during the summer given the way last season had tailed off? Hughton deserved 10-12 games to show if he''d learnt the lessons and could kick on; and if he couldn''t, McNally would act. Because that''s what McNally does, right? Strong, decisive, no nonsense, no messing around.So we had 10-12 games - and we struggled. Villa at home was the first real sign of trouble; then came the appalling double-header in Manchester, which followed ridiculous claims of a "moral victory" against Cardiff. A game in which we''d "battered them", apparently; yet actually, rarely looked like scoring, and dropped 2 oh-so valuable points.That should''ve been that. Then one game v West Ham - in which we were on the ropes for an hour against short-handed opposition - was allowed to paper over the cracks. It shouldn''t have been. Hughton should''ve been gone by then. And along we have drifted ever since, with the Fulham defeat at home an absolute disaster, and Tuesday night a complete disgrace.That''s 4 chances they''ve had to get rid of him now; four occasions when he should''ve gone, but didn''t. And now, we face another West Ham scenario, 11 games further on into the season: we must win. We have to win. Yet winning won''t suddenly mean Hughton''s the man, even though the board will no doubt treat it as such.They''ve allowed this season to drift almost entirely out of control. It''s 2005/6 all over again. I can hardly believe it given McNally and Bowkett are here now - but it is. Typical Norwich. [/quote]I may be missing it in that post, but I can''t actually see which specific game it is you are saying was the last straw, the game after which you as a director would have proposed a motion calling for Hughton to be dismissed.That is the test. Any fan can slag off the board over this, and throw in a litany of games, without having and responsibility, but you have to put yourself in the position of someone with that responsibility and who has to justify their view to the other directors and to the fans. So which game was it?I know when I wanted him gone. It was the tactical ineptitude of the West Ham game that convinced me. But there is a world of difference between an idiot fan idly wanting and a director needing to be certain about a massive decision. I couldn''t posibly have argued to the board then that Hughton should be sacked.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

Dear me, the word in italics is "...sl*g off the board..." with the asterisk being an "a". How strange.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]I may be missing it in that post, but I can''t actually see which specific game it is you are saying was the last straw, the game after which you as a director would have proposed a motion calling for Hughton to be dismissed.That is the test. Any fan can slag off the board over this, and throw in a litany of games, without having and responsibility, but you have to put yourself in the position of someone with that responsibility and who has to justify their view to the other directors and to the fans. So which game was it?I know when I wanted him gone. It was the tactical ineptitude of the West Ham game that convinced me. But there is a world of difference between an idiot fan idly wanting and a director needing to be certain about a massive decision. I couldn''t posibly have argued to the board then that Hughton should be sacked.[/quote]I''d have started sharpening my metaphorical axe after the Villa game.I''d have swung it after the 0-7 at Citeh.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]I may be missing it in that post, but I can''t actually see which specific game it is you are saying was the last straw, the game after which you as a director would have proposed a motion calling for Hughton to be dismissed.That is the test. Any fan can slag off the board over this, and throw in a litany of games, without having and responsibility, but you have to put yourself in the position of someone with that responsibility and who has to justify their view to the other directors and to the fans. So which game was it?I know when I wanted him gone. It was the tactical ineptitude of the West Ham game that convinced me. But there is a world of difference between an idiot fan idly wanting and a director needing to be certain about a massive decision. I couldn''t posibly have argued to the board then that Hughton should be sacked.[/quote]I''d have started sharpening my metaphorical axe after the Villa game.I''d have swung it after the 0-7 at Citeh.[/quote]Except that your chances at that point in the season of convincing any of the other directors - even the most brutal - of voting for your proposition would have been zero. Your hand would have been the only one raised in the boardroom. And you would have looked a chump. Moreover you would have lost any credibility if later on, when you had a better case, you tried again.I am as much a Hughton Outer as you, but there has never been a point in the season when I could have put forward an overwhelming case for his dismissal. This is why it has drifted. Why we are in the pickle we''re in. Nothing to do with nonsense about the board having gone soft. Just the way the season has unfolded.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Except that your chances at that point in the season of convincing any of the other directors - even the most brutal - of voting for your proposition would have been zero. Your hand would have been the only one raised in the boardroom. And you would have looked a chump. Moreover you would have lost any credibility if later on, when you had a better case, you tried again.I am as much a Hughton Outer as you, but there has never been a point in the season when I could have put forward an overwhelming case for his dismissal. This is why it has drifted. Why we are in the pickle we''re in. Nothing to do with nonsense about the board having gone soft. Just the way the season has unfolded.[/quote]What? After a display of abject, total surrender; following on from another against genuinely vulnerable opponents, who''ve since gone on to prove that again and again at Old Trafford; following on from a 0-0 draw against relegation strugglers in which straws were clutched en masse, only for the next 2 and two thirds performances to expose that as so much wishful thinking? My reaction to the Cardiff game wasn''t one of encouragement at all. It was "nowhere near good enough - we can''t afford not to beat these teams". Then I took the two displays in Manchester as ample evidence that Hughton had no clue how to turn things round - so it''d have been bye-bye.Yes, Citeh are world class, especially at home. But we were a joke; a spineless embarrassment, and it was crying out for a change.More fundamentally, my argument is this. This hasn''t always been about results; and it should never, ever have been a question of "are we in the bottom 3 or not?" We spent a lot of money in the summer; this season was supposed to be about upgrading into comfortable mid-table and becoming an established Premier League club. Instead, the evidence throughout has been that Hughton has no idea how to make the best of those new signings, and that we''re actually heading in the other direction.Poor performances, poor results, no value for money and no sign of anything fundamentally changing. That''s a casus belli. West Brom have been extremely well run for over a decade now: they don''t make kneejerk decisions. Yet they saw the writing on the wall with Di Matteo, so they rightly got rid; then they saw the writing on the wall with Clarke, so they rightly got rid of him too. On neither occasion were they in the bottom 3 when they did so; on neither occasion was it after some apocalyptic result either (regarding which, the mind boggles: do you need us to lose 10-0 to Sodbury Mechanicals before deciding there''s an overwhelming argument for getting rid).West Brom, who stole a march on us in 2005 and have remained a year or two ahead of us ever since, don''t pussyfoot around when all their hard work is threatened. We have. Go figure.

[pyjamas 0]

You see, why should the fate of the manager depend on the results of any single match?

It shouldn''t. The manager should have clear performance targets (in points) to meet throughout the season - check-points at which the performances up to that time are evaluated.

I agree that there is no one match which has "broken the camel''s back" so to speak. Nevertheless, if we consider results collectively, it is quite easy to make a case for Hughton''s dismissal.

I would hate to think that the board are using NCFC exclusively for their own personal enrichment, and once the club has been asset stripped on relegation, they will swan off to some tax haven.

I can''t think of any other reason for Hughton''s continuing employment other than that the board simply don''t care.