PurpleCanary 5,578 Posted May 9, 2014 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 majorityshareholders is a huge competitive advantage and I’m glad they’re here because theyare 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
morty 0 Posted May 9, 2014 Hmmm, I''m not sure if this stands up against Waveny''s opinion[;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dubai Mark 0 Posted May 9, 2014 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
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted May 9, 2014 There wasn''t a 7-1 moment, but there was a 7-0 moment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
# 0 Posted May 9, 2014 [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
Dubai Mark 0 Posted May 9, 2014 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
morty 0 Posted May 9, 2014 [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
king canary 7,650 Posted May 9, 2014 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
Kirkstall Yellow 0 Posted May 9, 2014 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
havemyhowsonit 0 Posted May 9, 2014 [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 jimmyThe Colchester game maybe?Or slightly off topic blackburn? 94? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,578 Posted May 12, 2014 [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 Posted May 12, 2014 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
Bradwell canary 109 Posted May 12, 2014 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
PurpleCanary 5,578 Posted May 17, 2014 [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
# 0 Posted May 17, 2014 [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
Newton 0 Posted May 17, 2014 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 monthsGrant (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 shamblesThe 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 dismissedThe last 2 were proper appointments one did & the other did not work outPlease 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