Straight down the line article from Mick Dennis

[dean 0]

Bet he''s crying into his cornflakes.

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/468954/Chris-Hughton-given-the-chop-by-Norwich-after-deflating-West-Brom-defeat

[morty 0]

[quote user="dean"]Bet he''s crying into his cornflakes.

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/468954/Chris-Hughton-given-the-chop-by-Norwich-after-deflating-West-Brom-defeat[/quote]By the tone of your OP I''ll presume you wanted Hughton gone.You have got what you want, so why keep stirring, and keeping the petty feuds going?He wrote a well balanced article, I don''t see what your issue is.

[dean 0]

No issue.

Just saying I bet it pained him to write it.

[Canary Willo 0]

It should pain us all Dean, its our club and we should not want anyone to fail...

 

Its not a decision that should be met with glee, for some its the right, some the wrong, decision, only time will tell. But there are no winners and losers in this, even though I believe it is the right decision and something that should have happened at the turn of the year.

 

 

[Waveney Canary 0]

Part of the healing process has to be the inners like Morty and LDC to accept they got it spectacularly wrong.

Only from truth will come healing.

So I call on all the inners to search your conscious and accept the situation. Learn from your error and let''s all move on

[morty 0]

[quote user="Waveney Canary"]Part of the healing process has to be the inners like Morty and LDC to accept they got it spectacularly wrong.

Only from truth will come healing.

So I call on all the inners to search your conscious and accept the situation. Learn from your error and let''s all move on[/quote][:)]

[canarybubbles 1,914]

Oh, come on - why would we want some kind of mea culpa from people who stood by CH? He was probably the right person for 2012-13, bringing some stability to the club after losing Lambert. He was almost certainly wrong for 2013-14, but no one could have been sure about that.

It''s the future that matters, not the past. Let''s just hope it gets off to a great start on Saturday.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

A fair article. I wonder if anyone who was at the away fans party can now confirm some of the comments about what was said there.

A massive gamble by the board. My guess is that they feel Hughton still being manager would have made the team nervy whereas a change could release the shackles. Let''s face it - our season comes down to the next game, a win and we''re safe, even a draw leaves us with a good chance. After Saturday I can see why the board would feel we have a better chance with NA in charge.

But talk about squeaky bum time!

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]A fair article. I wonder if anyone who was at the away fans party can now confirm some of the comments about what was said there.

A massive gamble by the board. My guess is that they feel Hughton still being manager would have made the team nervy whereas a change could release the shackles. Let''s face it - our season comes down to the next game, a win and we''re safe, even a draw leaves us with a good chance. After Saturday I can see why the board would feel we have a better chance with NA in charge.

But talk about squeaky bum time![/quote]The interesting line is about a dead-cat bounce (a phrase I may have been guilty of introducing to this messageboard a while ago):The ‘party’ is an annual function in which the club thank supporters who have travelled to at least ten away games. This year it was more like a funeral - yet Hughton and his coaches attended, along with all the first team players and the Norwich board. At that stage, the decision to axe him had not been taken. But there were whispered conversations going on between the directors and the expression ‘dead cat bounce’ was used in several of those conversations. Chairman Alan Bowkett was not at the match or the party, however, and it was after he was consulted later in the evening that the decision was made.It does suggest there is effectively a one-match strategy here. And it might also indicate that even if Adams does keep us up on the back of a dead-cat bounce the permanent job will go to someone more experienced.

[Bury Green 0]

Not accurate though, the Chairman was indeed at the game as we followed him out of the ground.

Unsurprisingly he had a face like thunder and a look in his eye that would melt the timid.

What this does all hint at is a shift in the power base in the clubs Boardroom, four years ago I''d wager Bowkett and McNally had a free hand to pretty much do all that was necessary.

Free from debt and the machinations of various stakeholders it all seems to me that the power has once more swung back to the joint majority shareholders.

It''ll be interesting to see how much longer the Chairman remains in his roll, I''d have a sporting £10 he leaves them to get on with it in the very near future.

[danielsroundabout 9]

[quote user="Waveney Canary"]Part of the healing process has to be the inners like Morty and LDC to accept they got it spectacularly wrong.

Only from truth will come healing.

So I call on all the inners to search your conscious and accept the situation. Learn from your error and let''s all move on[/quote]

Your interest is clearly not in Norwich City, more in screaming "I was right, you were wrong" at the top of your voice. Should have left that childishness behind years ago.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Bury Green"]Not accurate though, the Chairman was indeed at the game as we followed him out of the ground.

Unsurprisingly he had a face like thunder and a look in his eye that would melt the timid.

What this does all hint at is a shift in the power base in the clubs Boardroom, four years ago I''d wager Bowkett and McNally had a free hand to pretty much do all that was necessary.

Free from debt and the machinations of various stakeholders it all seems to me that the power has once more swung back to the joint majority shareholders.

It''ll be interesting to see how much longer the Chairman remains in his roll, I''d have a sporting £10 he leaves them to get on with it in the very near future.[/quote]I mentioned here some months ago (and othere have more recently) that business interests in Italy meant Bowkett might step down as chairman or even leave the board. Nothing to do with any split that you seem to have dreamed up without anything resembling evidence.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

I thought this was mentioned at the agm where Bowkett felt his workwith the finances was done and he would be spending more time on other business interests. The impression I got was that he''d have happily stepped down but had been persuaded to stay.

 

 

[# 0]

[quote user="Waveney Canary"]Part of the healing process has to be the inners like Morty and LDC to accept they got it spectacularly wrong. Only from truth will come healing. So I call on all the inners to search your conscious and accept the situation. Learn from your error and let''s all move on[/quote]

 

Huzzah again.[Y]

[Bury Green 0]

Purple, the Chairman had considerable business before and during his tenure as the clubs Chairman and yes I''m very much aware of what he said at the last AGM, from memory he suggested his son very much wanted him involved with the club.

Dennis has, for me at least, always resembled Blackadder''s Lord Percy, very keen to bow and scrape around the feet of the joint majority shareholders, let us not forget his behaviour around the time of Roeder''s departure?

Given the events of the last twenty four hours does this really seem like the same decision making process that sent McNally down the M4 to send Gunn home, the acquisition of Paul Lambert''s services and subsequent treatment of the poor old Col Who''s Chairman?

Not really, of course Bowketts principle goal of financial security has been achieved. We are of course all eternally grateful that the club now finds itself in such a wonderfully healthy condition, my point remains that this last twenty four hours has none of the traits we have come to love from the Chairman and Chief Executive.

How so?

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Certainly different but then again Gunn wasn''t their appointment. Hughton they described as the best in class manager and most certainly was their man. Perhaps he was more of a yes man than Lambert who I think Bowkett described as the most difficult person he''d ever worked with. I think it was Matt Juler who came on here and hinted Wynnie wanted Hughton out at the end of last season. Interesting...

 

 

[Crafty Canary 495]

A well balanced article from the club''s mouthpiece. I find it interesting that he refers to some in the boardroom wanting CH out last November. Perhaps the rumour that MWJ wanted him out was not so far wide of the mark.

[Yobocop 1,094]

I have it on good authority mick is more of a weetabix man

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Bury Green"]Purple, the Chairman had considerable business before and during his tenure as the clubs Chairman and yes I''m very much aware of what he said at the last AGM, from memory he suggested his son very much wanted him involved with the club.

Dennis has, for me at least, always resembled Blackadder''s Lord Percy, very keen to bow and scrape around the feet of the joint majority shareholders, let us not forget his behaviour around the time of Roeder''s departure?

Given the events of the last twenty four hours does this really seem like the same decision making process that sent McNally down the M4 to send Gunn home, the acquisition of Paul Lambert''s services and subsequent treatment of the poor old Col Who''s Chairman?

Not really, of course Bowketts principle goal of financial security has been achieved. We are of course all eternally grateful that the club now finds itself in such a wonderfully healthy condition, my point remains that this last twenty four hours has none of the traits we have come to love from the Chairman and Chief Executive.

How so?[/quote]Come on, Bury, we both know you were trying to set up a scenario in which you could claim, when Bowkett left, that it was because of some boardroom split over Hughton! That was the reason I mentioned the Italy stuff, which I heard about and posted some time before the AGM.As to the more serious point of what has been going on in the boardroom since the new regime took over, I have very little inside knowledge on that, but I do have a bit of general knowledge of how boardrooms operate. Essentially there have been two phases. The first encompassed those early events you describe, when Bowkett and McNally came in, with the intention to be the polar opposite of the old regime of Munby and Doncaster.Circumstances - particularly Gunn''s obvious incompetence - enabled them to make very bold decisions. They get full credit for making them, but in a sense they were easy decisions. It was a very black and white universe for a while.Since then, and this goes back way further than just the last 24 hours, we have had the second phase of much more ordinary footballing life, in which the decisions have been far less clearcut, such as who to choose as Lambert''s successor, and this very messy season, exemplified by the Hughton Question. Your contrast between the early decisiveness and the more recent seeming lack of it is easily explained by the very different circumstances.It is possible there has been the kind of boardroom split at which you vaguely hint, with Bowkett and McNally having been pushing for months for Hughton to be axed, and Smith and Jones digging in their heels. It is much more likely that, as I argued all along, there was never a moment when it became obvious Hughton would have to go. And that Bowkett and/or McNally were either never able to make a strong enougb case or even weren''t arguing for sacking at all. For all we know either or both might have been defending Hughton.

[ricardo 7,328]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bury Green"]Purple, the Chairman had considerable business before and during his tenure as the clubs Chairman and yes I''m very much aware of what he said at the last AGM, from memory he suggested his son very much wanted him involved with the club.

Dennis has, for me at least, always resembled Blackadder''s Lord Percy, very keen to bow and scrape around the feet of the joint majority shareholders, let us not forget his behaviour around the time of Roeder''s departure?

Given the events of the last twenty four hours does this really seem like the same decision making process that sent McNally down the M4 to send Gunn home, the acquisition of Paul Lambert''s services and subsequent treatment of the poor old Col Who''s Chairman?

Not really, of course Bowketts principle goal of financial security has been achieved. We are of course all eternally grateful that the club now finds itself in such a wonderfully healthy condition, my point remains that this last twenty four hours has none of the traits we have come to love from the Chairman and Chief Executive.

How so?[/quote]

It is much more likely that, as I argued all along, there was never a moment when it became obvious Hughton would have to go. And that Bowkett and/or McNally were either never able to make a strong enougb case or even weren''t arguing for sacking at all. For all we know either or both might have been defending Hughton.[/quote]I bow to your superior knowledge of what goes on in the Boardroom Purple, but that conclusion was pretty much the same as the one I drew. I have no idea if there was a split Boardroom but I would have thought even the dimmest Board member would have seen which way the wind was blowing at 4.45pm on Saturday.The only surprise was that they took so long over the decision that I was beginning to think I''d called it wrong.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bury Green"]Purple, the Chairman had considerable business before and during his tenure as the clubs Chairman and yes I''m very much aware of what he said at the last AGM, from memory he suggested his son very much wanted him involved with the club.

Dennis has, for me at least, always resembled Blackadder''s Lord Percy, very keen to bow and scrape around the feet of the joint majority shareholders, let us not forget his behaviour around the time of Roeder''s departure?

Given the events of the last twenty four hours does this really seem like the same decision making process that sent McNally down the M4 to send Gunn home, the acquisition of Paul Lambert''s services and subsequent treatment of the poor old Col Who''s Chairman?

Not really, of course Bowketts principle goal of financial security has been achieved. We are of course all eternally grateful that the club now finds itself in such a wonderfully healthy condition, my point remains that this last twenty four hours has none of the traits we have come to love from the Chairman and Chief Executive.

How so?[/quote]

It is much more likely that, as I argued all along, there was never a moment when it became obvious Hughton would have to go. And that Bowkett and/or McNally were either never able to make a strong enougb case or even weren''t arguing for sacking at all. For all we know either or both might have been defending Hughton.[/quote]I bow to your superior knowledge of what goes on in the Boardroom Purple, but that conclusion was pretty much the same as the one I drew. I have no idea if there was a split Boardroom but I would have thought even the dimmest Board member would have seen which way the wind was blowing at 4.45pm on Saturday.The only surprise was that they took so long over the decision that I was beginning to think I''d called it wrong.[/quote]Boardrooms generally, ricardo, although the odd straw from Carrow Road floats past my balcony from time to time! Of course there may have been some deep rift in the board, but the more likely explanation is indeed that there was never, until now, an obvious moment.I can pretty guarantee that if you had taken seven posters from this message-board in the summer and put them in a room once a month through the season if there ever was any unanimity it would have been for Hughton to be kept on. There would never have been unanimity on sacking him.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Wiz"][quote user="Waveney Canary"]Part of the healing process has to be the inners like Morty and LDC to accept they got it spectacularly wrong. Only from truth will come healing. So I call on all the inners to search your conscious and accept the situation. Learn from your error and let''s all move on[/quote]

 

Huzzah again.[Y][/quote]

Ha!  The "Lowestoft Massive" in harmony once again. [:)]

Suffolk Simpletons! [:S]

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Crafty Canary"]A well balanced article from the club''s mouthpiece. I find it interesting that he refers to some in the boardroom wanting CH out last November. Perhaps the rumour that MWJ wanted him out was not so far wide of the mark.[/quote]

 

That''s the thing with rumours. There''s often some basis for them. So if Matt was right then Wynnies view obviously wasn''t the majority. I wonder if he''s given the others a bit of the old "I told you so"[:O]

 

 

[Icecream Snow 761]

Based on comments in previous interviews, I can well believe Delia was unlikely to push him out, if only from the experiences with Rioch, Walker etc

[ricardo 7,328]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bury Green"]Purple, the Chairman had considerable business before and during his tenure as the clubs Chairman and yes I''m very much aware of what he said at the last AGM, from memory he suggested his son very much wanted him involved with the club.

Dennis has, for me at least, always resembled Blackadder''s Lord Percy, very keen to bow and scrape around the feet of the joint majority shareholders, let us not forget his behaviour around the time of Roeder''s departure?

Given the events of the last twenty four hours does this really seem like the same decision making process that sent McNally down the M4 to send Gunn home, the acquisition of Paul Lambert''s services and subsequent treatment of the poor old Col Who''s Chairman?

Not really, of course Bowketts principle goal of financial security has been achieved. We are of course all eternally grateful that the club now finds itself in such a wonderfully healthy condition, my point remains that this last twenty four hours has none of the traits we have come to love from the Chairman and Chief Executive.

How so?[/quote]

It is much more likely that, as I argued all along, there was never a moment when it became obvious Hughton would have to go. And that Bowkett and/or McNally were either never able to make a strong enougb case or even weren''t arguing for sacking at all. For all we know either or both might have been defending Hughton.[/quote]I bow to your superior knowledge of what goes on in the Boardroom Purple, but that conclusion was pretty much the same as the one I drew. I have no idea if there was a split Boardroom but I would have thought even the dimmest Board member would have seen which way the wind was blowing at 4.45pm on Saturday.The only surprise was that they took so long over the decision that I was beginning to think I''d called it wrong.[/quote]Boardrooms generally, ricardo, although the odd straw from Carrow Road floats past my balcony from time to time! Of course there may have been some deep rift in the board, but the more likely explanation is indeed that there was never, until now, an obvious moment.I can pretty guarantee that if you had taken seven posters from this message-board in the summer and put them in a room once a month through the season if there ever was any unanimity it would have been for Hughton to be kept on. There would never have been unanimity on sacking him.[/quote]Yes I think that''s right.Critical mass wasn''t achieved until Saturday afternoon. It struck me as being a "Worthy/Burnley" moment as indeed it must have to thousands of others. Once you''ve seen it you know what''s coming next.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bury Green"]Purple, the Chairman had considerable business before and during his tenure as the clubs Chairman and yes I''m very much aware of what he said at the last AGM, from memory he suggested his son very much wanted him involved with the club.

Dennis has, for me at least, always resembled Blackadder''s Lord Percy, very keen to bow and scrape around the feet of the joint majority shareholders, let us not forget his behaviour around the time of Roeder''s departure?

Given the events of the last twenty four hours does this really seem like the same decision making process that sent McNally down the M4 to send Gunn home, the acquisition of Paul Lambert''s services and subsequent treatment of the poor old Col Who''s Chairman?

Not really, of course Bowketts principle goal of financial security has been achieved. We are of course all eternally grateful that the club now finds itself in such a wonderfully healthy condition, my point remains that this last twenty four hours has none of the traits we have come to love from the Chairman and Chief Executive.

How so?[/quote]Come on, Bury, we both know you were trying to set up a scenario in which you could claim, when Bowkett left, that it was because of some boardroom split over Hughton! That was the reason I mentioned the Italy stuff, which I heard about and posted some time before the AGM.As to the more serious point of what has been going on in the boardroom since the new regime took over, I have very little inside knowledge on that, but I do have a bit of general knowledge of how boardrooms operate. Essentially there have been two phases. The first encompassed those early events you describe, when Bowkett and McNally came in, with the intention to be the polar opposite of the old regime of Munby and Doncaster.Circumstances - particularly Gunn''s obvious incompetence - enabled them to make very bold decisions. They get full credit for making them, but in a sense they were easy decisions. It was a very black and white universe for a while.Since then, and this goes back way further than just the last 24 hours, we have had the second phase of much more ordinary footballing life, in which the decisions have been far less clearcut, such as who to choose as Lambert''s successor, and this very messy season, exemplified by the Hughton Question. Your contrast between the early decisiveness and the more recent seeming lack of it is easily explained by the very different circumstances.It is possible there has been the kind of boardroom split at which you vaguely hint, with Bowkett and McNally having been pushing for months for Hughton to be axed, and Smith and Jones digging in their heels. It is much more likely that, as I argued all along, there was never a moment when it became obvious Hughton would have to go. And that Bowkett and/or McNally were either never able to make a strong enougb case or even weren''t arguing for sacking at all. For all we know either or both might have been defending Hughton.[/quote]Two complementary pieces of evidence suggesting the later explanation is much more likely. Today you have McNally, publicly and without equivocation, accepting responsibility for the situation we are in. No hint at all that he had been forced to go along with a decison (keeping Hughton until now) with which he disagreed. And now Mick Dennis (whatever you think of him he does have an inside track of what is going on) saying clearly McNally had been an Inner:Delia and her husband, Michael Wynn Jones, were with chief executive

David McNally. The three of them had backed the manager all season in

the face of growing discontent among supporters.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,075]

Well written article. Perhaps Lineker should have cast a glance before opening his big ill-informed mouth...