Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PurpleCanary

SMITH AND JONES - THE DEFENCE

Recommended Posts

I was accused recently of "long-winded prattle posts". Damned right,

City2nd. And here is another such. With relegation it seems a good time

to assess how Smith and Jones have done, owning and running the club.They

joined the board in 1996 but didn''t become owners until 1997. Their

first full season in charge was 1998-99, so they have had 16 seasons at

the helm. At random I took six clubs we will be playing in the

Championship, all of them as big or bigger than Norwich City, and

compared their records. My usual glamorous assistant has not been

available to check these figures but I think they are correct, and

certainly they are instructive, even with the odd inaccuracy. We have

had one season in the 3rd tier, 11 in the 2nd and four in the 1st.Ipswich Town: two in the 1st tier and 14 in the 2nd.Nottingham Forest: one in the 1st tier and 15 outside (including time in the 3rd).Wolves: four in the 1st tier and 12 in the 2nd.Leeds United: six in the 1st tier and 10 outside (including time in the 3rd).Sheffield Wednesday: two in the 1st tier and 14 outside (including time in the 3rd).Birmingham City: seven in the 1st tier and nine in the 2nd.Given

our natural place in the football pecking order (a complicated subject,

because that has changed over the years but since S&J arrived I

would put it at having wavered around in the 20th-30th area with a bit

of leeway either side) and given the advantages of size and finance

enjoyed by those other clubs (some with the supposed benefit of very

wealthy owners) our record is arguably better than we have any right to

expect. Birmingham was a slight surprise, but fans of, for example,

Forest and Wednesday (two markedly bigger clubs) would kill for 16

seasons such as we have had.2) Managerial policy. One poster

said S&J have had a strategy of chooing from within. The accusation

of doing it on the cheap. Not true. Of their eight full-time

appointments five (Rioch, Grant, Roeder, Lambert and Hughton) were all

outsider. Only Hamilton, Worthington and Gunn II were insiders. The

temporary Gunn I and Adams were insiders, but such choices tend of

necessity to be so. Adams may get the job full-time (although I doubt

it) but it would not be the norm.3) The choice of managers. The

"Their record is mainly awful accusation". We do not get to pick from

the top tier (the geniuses who always do well) or the second tier (those

who have proved themselves in the top flight and are ready to move to a

top-six club). We scrabble around in the bran tub that is the third

tier of managerial talent. Those with very spotty track records, those

succesful lower down, coaches who might - or might not - make the leap

to manager, those who have never managed in England etc etc etc.With

that in mind S&J''s track record is, again, perfectly respectable.

Rioch, for example, was an excellent choice. We did vey well to attract

him. It didn''t work in the sense we didn''t get promoted, but that

doesn''t invalidate the choice. As the statistics above for other clubs

indicate, to regard an NCFC manager as a failure for not getting

promoted to the top flight flies in the face of what our natural

position is and how our rivals have performed. Take Forest. The last 15

seasons outside the top flight, and another one coming. In that time

they have had 15 managers, and their latest choice is Stuart Pearce,

whose record is far from encouraging.The one serious managerial

mistake that has to be held against S&J is a negative one - not

sacking Worthington in the summer of 2006. That ushered in an era of

short-term from which we only recovered with the sacking of Gunn and the

arrival of Lambert.4) Choice of CEOs. The "When S&J are in

charge it all goes belly up and we only do well when they sit at home

and play Scrabble" argument. If any good has come of this miserable

season it is a more realistic view of David McNally. His astute handling

of the unique opportunity presented by the 7-1 led some fans to think

everyone would be that simple and dealt with that well. The truth is

that running a football club  is usually a messy, uncertain business in

which there are no clear-cut solutions. "Events, dear boy." That is what

happened this season. There never was a 7-1 moment around which

everyone could agree it was time to act and that the action was obvious.It

only slowly became apparent that Hughton was, despite the financial

circumstances being the most auspicious of our three years in the

Premier League, simply managing less well this season than last. So that

a relegation about which there was absolutely nothing financially

inevitable started to look more and more possible. I won''t unnecessarily

lengthen this post with the statistics, on-field and off-field, but

they all bear that out. But it was only with the West Brom defeat that

relegation became probable. Even a draw then would have given us a

chance this Sunday. Hence the very late decision, and the appearance -

for some - of a mistake.I can cyber-sense a few "Possibly, but

McNally is a thousand times better than that blithering idiot

Doncaster!" Well, no, actually. Doncaster''s first four years as CEO

2001-05 were  entirely successful and easily compare with McNally''s.

There wasn''t the one spectacular coup (ie a Gunn/Lambert) but a host of

admirable decisions and actions - coping with ITV Digital, not 

overburdening the club with debt by too large a rebuild of the South

Stand, ditto by not going for an expensive corner infill, serious

ambition in the transfer market with Huckerby+Crounch+Harper and then

Huckerby+Svensson+Mackenzie. And no avoidable mistake. No fruitless

media bans, for example.It went pear-shaped later on, mainly

because of that delay in sacking Worthington, which exacerbated the

problem of the debt, but if we are being even-handed then the criticism

being levelled at McNally ((in my view unfair, as explained above) is

also that he dithered and should not have gone on supporting Hughton, as

he did, until the West Brom game.If all this looks like a defence of Smith and Jones, then, yes, that is what it is. I didn''t need McNally to tell me that:"Having Delia and Michael as the majority

shareholders is a huge competitive advantage and I’m glad they’re here because they

are very good at running a football club.”
But sometimes it needs repeating, with a bit of factual evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, I''m not sure if this stands up against Waveny''s opinion[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally dont think they need defending, but what an excellent post, made me feel all warm inside and backs up my feelings about the overall situation compared to other similar clubs, thanks PC  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dubai Mark"]I personally dont think they need defending, but what an excellent post, made me feel all warm inside and backs up my feelings about the overall situation compared to other similar clubs, thanks PC  [/quote]

 

Little old Norwich is safe and sound in the ''She Cook'' and OP''s hands.

 

Pitiful.[:@]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought you would choke on your porridge (All Bran?) when you read the OP Wiz, definately guaranteed to get a reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="Dubai Mark"]I personally dont think they need defending, but what an excellent post, made me feel all warm inside and backs up my feelings about the overall situation compared to other similar clubs, thanks PC  [/quote]

 

Little old Norwich is safe and sound in the ''She Cook'' and OP''s hands.

 

Pitiful.[:@]

[/quote]
Your beautifully written and well thought out opinion has me totally convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good post re S&J but I do think you do McNally a bit of a disservice. There has been a a notable change in mentality from the club in the transfer market which feels like it''s driven by him- I''m not talking the likes of RVW or Fer but more like spending 7 figures on Andrew Surman in our first year in the Championship, plucking players like Howson from Leeds, while with Doncaster I used to dread the twice yearly EDP column entitled ''Why Norwich Won''t be Spending Big this Transfer Window.''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting read.

I personally feel that McNally had been after Hughton for a while and that it was the rest of the board that required convincing.

I am certain that with him in charge for next season we will stand a far greater chance of getting a shot at promotion than if he resigns. (he wont get sacked.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]There wasn''t a 7-1 moment, but there was a 7-0 moment.[/quote]

You haven''t been a fan long then jimmy

The Colchester game maybe?

Or slightly off topic blackburn? 94?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

4) Choice of CEOs. The "When S&J are in

charge it all goes belly up and we only do well when they sit at home

and play Scrabble" argument. If any good has come of this miserable

season it is a more realistic view of David McNally. His astute handling

of the unique opportunity presented by the 7-1 led some fans to think

everyone would be that simple and dealt with that well. The truth is

that running a football club  is usually a messy, uncertain business in

which there are no clear-cut solutions. "Events, dear boy." That is what

happened this season. There never was a 7-1 moment around which

everyone could agree it was time to act and that the action was obvious.It

only slowly became apparent that Hughton was, despite the financial

circumstances being the most auspicious of our three years in the

Premier League, simply managing less well this season than last. So that

a relegation about which there was absolutely nothing financially

inevitable started to look more and more possible.
I won''t unnecessarily

lengthen this post with the statistics, on-field and off-field, but

they all bear that out. But it was only with the West Brom defeat that

relegation became probable. Even a draw then would have given us a

chance this Sunday. Hence the very late decision, and the appearance -

for some - of a mistake.[/quote]McNally''s comments today validate that statement of what should be the bl**ding obvious. Hughton''s managerial failings this season were a

serious factor in a relegation that was in no sense financially

inevitable. McNally is sharing out the responsibility and taking some

for himself but when he admits perhaps Hughton should have been sacked

earlier then he is clearly including the ex-manager in the list of the

guilty.And at the same time - significantly - the CEO does not

blame any supposed lack of money. Not a mention of finance making

relegation unavoidable. On the contrary, he bemoans the misuse of a

record transfer pot! Neatly consigning the singular notion that Hughton

was somehow blameless in all this to the dustbin of history.In a

club that does not  - yet - have a director of football then the

recommendations to the board on whom to sign have to come from the manager, to fit

his tactical plans. It can''t work any other way. So when McNally says we

got last summer''s transfer window "so horribly wrong" - by failing to

strengthen the squad despite spending record amounts - that has to be

laid mainly at Hughton''s door.It doesn''t take a genius to

imagine McNally has particularly in mind the £8.5m thrown away on van

Wolfswinkel. A total waste either because RvW just isn''t any good, or

the way we played just didn''t suit him, or some combination of the two.

Whichever way, Hughton is damned. Not to mention spending £14m

or more on two strikers who apparently couldn''t be played together...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
While I accept the board has made some howlers, and in the last few weeks as well, I don''t see why they come under so much criticism from posters.

Running a football club isn''t the same as a company. The shareholders only barrack you at the AGM in business but in football is at least every home game. And the fans, as non executive shareholders of the club, can''t agree on forums about who should be bought and sold and who should be managing them.

The board, for all its failings, and they are numerous, is an easy target. And some people ought to rejoice in who that board is rather than keep moaning about them when they don''t have the capabilities themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A great and very well thought out post.I for one would rather have these two as majority shareholders, than some rich Russian or Arab, or American come to think of it, who would treat our club as a plaything. Lerner has just put Villa up for sale, which proves how fickle overseas owners can be. If the Chelsea or Man City owners decided to sell, what state would those clubs be left in.

It should be a matter of pride that we have owners who do actually love our club, and clearly unconditional love at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

2) Managerial policy. One poster

said S&J have had a strategy of chooing from within. The accusation

of doing it on the cheap. Not true. Of their eight full-time

appointments five (Rioch, Grant, Roeder, Lambert and Hughton) were all

outsiders. Only Hamilton, Worthington and Gunn II were insiders. The

temporary Gunn I and Adams were insiders, but such choices tend of

necessity to be so. Adams may get the job full-time (although I doubt

it) but it would not be the norm.

[/quote]This seems the right moment to bump this bit of myth-busting. As to now, we are still within McNally''s "within a week", which - depending on your interpretation - either goes as far as including tomorrow or Monday. So far there has been no delay. But if there is the likeliest explanation is that McNally was underestimating the problem of filling two posts at the same time - that of manager and that of director of football - and making certain the two choices knew and were happy with their respective roles and could work together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bradwell canary"]A great and very well thought out post.I for one would rather have these two as majority shareholders, than some rich Russian or Arab, or American come to think of it, who would treat our club as a plaything. Lerner has just put Villa up for sale, which proves how fickle overseas owners can be. If the Chelsea or Man City owners decided to sell, what state would those clubs be left in. It should be a matter of pride that we have owners who do actually love our club, and clearly unconditional love at that.[/quote]

 

Perish the thought that we might still be in the Premier and an FA cup final like Hull.

 

Smith suffocates City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have rose tinted glasses. How many of the above were employed elsewhere at the time they were appointed, the last 2 and of course the disaster known as Grant (coach at West Ham).

Lets look at it in more depth.

They stumbled on Worthington (our Assistant Manager) who took over when the previous manager was sacked. Delia & Co constantly belittled us in the Premier League and delayed sacking him by at least 6 months

Grant (coach at West Ham)was known to them from his playing career at the club, had no managerial experience or no idea when he was with us,and jumped before he was pushed.

On what basis was Roder (out of work at the time) employed and then allowed to sell our best players to waste the transfer fees on loans. Did the board really agree to that strategy - what a shambles

The appointment of Gunn - a cheap option, someone who had no coaching badges was a joke and sadly he had to move away from the area after he was dismissed

The last 2 were proper appointments one did & the other did not work out

Please do not give Delia & hubby any credit for the last 2 as I have no doubt they merely rubber stamped the appointments - nothing else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...