Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Buh

McNally Confirms

Recommended Posts

All players have relegation clauses and we are under no pressure to sell.

Also hints at a director of football.

Also confirms he won''t leave, so unlucky to the idiots that want him to go, get back to your pig farming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who are these "idiots who want him to go"?You seem to be trying to start arguments with hypothetical opinions.It''s the internet version of a man who can start an argument in an empty room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Pink''Un:

 

"Norwich City’s chief executive has said a failure to strengthen the squad during last summer’s transfer reason was a key reason for the club’s eventual relegation from the Premiership.

City’s return to the Championship was confirmed yesterday after the club finished in 18th place in the table.

In an interview with BBC Radio Norfolk, broadcast this morning, David McNally said despite making record signings last summer, they had failed to strengthen the squad, as had happened in previous years.

Mr NcNally he would remain at Carrow Road.

He said: “If I thought for one moment that me leaving would help this football club I would not hesitate. I care too much about Norwich City, having been here five years and invested at lot of time and effort in this great club. I love this club.”

Speaking of his possible departure, he added: “I don’t think that’s in the best interests of the club at the moment.”

He said he was gutted, disappointed, deeply frustrated and embarrassed by Norwich’s exit from top-flight football, and admitted that, with the benefit of hindsight, supporters who called for the removal of Chris Hughton as manager earlier in the season may have been right.

Mr McNally said Hughton had deserved the chance to lead the club this season, having finished 11th in the Premiership last year.

The chief executive said Norwich City’s new manager will be in place within a week, and the board would strengthen its football management structure.

He said the board had a shortlist of possible managers and has talked to some people already.

He described Neil Adams as a “credible contender” and a manager of the future, having been handed a “poisoned chalice” with five games of the season left."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also basically confirms Adams won''t be manager when he says he''s one for the future. Interesting that he mentioned a potential manager already at a club. Maybe Lennon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/20140512-david-mcnally-seven-topics-1546177.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how much of the statement is just lip service to the fan/media but It''s good positive stuff. I''m glad McNally has acknowledged that there were failures, especially in the transfer windows and that these will be addressed. Also liked the hint of there being a director of football coming in as well as a 1st team coach. Also glad that''s not fallen on his sword and taken the cowards way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me one of the biggest attributes to his interview is that the board as a whole recognise mistakes were made and in ''hindsight'' supporters were right - and not just over the Hughton saga, but transfers too - quite a damning indictment.

Would imagine that''s Ewan Chester on his way.

McNally is a big man to front the problems head on, and is the man to take us forward again, and for sure those ''mistakes'' he speaks of a unlikely to reoccur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About time McNally and the Board showed some contrition and returned to having a little humility towards the supporters.

The Club used to show the fans respect and not the opposition. This was reversed in the last two years and needs to revert back. The same is required from manager and players as a whole. Russell Martin and Neil Adams have lead on this and we need to clear out those who haven''t got it in them.

At least the tone is being got back on track which is a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bad news just keeps on coming. He screwed away the biggest transfer budget in our history, accepts he got it badly wrong re Hughton and appoints a radio commentator as manager and after all that he wants to carry on.

Couple that with the fact he hacked off the Messiah so much he had to go and people want him to stay. God help us next season.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="River end canary"]

The bad news just keeps on coming. He screwed away the biggest transfer budget in our history, accepts he got it badly wrong re Hughton and appoints a radio commentator as manager and after all that he wants to carry on.

Couple that with the fact he hacked off the Messiah so much he had to go and people want him to stay. God help us next season.

 

[/quote]

Hi Waveney : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also said there are no sweet-heart clauses in any player’s contracts, so “we are under no pressure whatsoever to sell anybody”.

 

Whats a ''sweet-heart clause''?   Is this a relegation release clause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, aren''t you a complete moron.[quote user="River end canary"]

The bad news just keeps on coming. He screwed away the biggest transfer budget in our history, accepts he got it badly wrong re Hughton and appoints a radio commentator as manager and after all that he wants to carry on.

Couple that with the fact he hacked off the Messiah so much he had to go and people want him to stay. God help us next season.

 

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

He also said there are no sweet-heart clauses in any player’s contracts, so “we are under no pressure whatsoever to sell anybody”.

 

Whats a ''sweet-heart clause''?   Is this a relegation release clause?

[/quote]Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RUDOLPH HUCKER wrote the following post at 12/05/2014 8:49 AM:

"About time McNally and the Board showed some contrition and returned to having a little humility towards the supporters.

The Club used to show the fans respect and not the opposition. This was reversed in the last two years and needs to revert back. The same is required from manager and players as a whole. Russell Martin and Neil Adams have lead on this and we need to clear out those who haven''t got it in them.

At least the tone is being got back on track which is a good start. "

Another load of anti-club shit from the binner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The club performed overpar last few seasons and on par this season. To blame any one individual in a collective sport is utterly ridiculous as anyone who has participated in a group activity would know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]The club performed overpar last few seasons and on par this season. To blame any one individual in a collective sport is utterly ridiculous as anyone who has participated in a group activity would know.[/quote]

 

Do you not believe that hierarchical structures exist then? Anybody who has worked in one would know that this means doing what the person in charge of you says, not what you feel like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Buh - Good news. I''m surprised that all the players have relegation wage-drop clauses, but glad they do. It means we shouldn''t have to jettison too many to cut the wage bill.

But in terms of not having to sell anyone - I would imagine we won''t stand in the way of a decent cash offer for Snodgrass or Ruddy if they ask to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m not overly surprised about the relegation wage drops or the lack of relegation release clauses. That sounds fairly standard nowadays and like something about which McNally would be very much switched on. We may want to ship some players out, and may receive offers which are "too good to refuse", but now we have more control over how much they do go for.

Ultimately, he''s bang on about not strengthening the squad. Of course relegation comes down to a whole host of factors, and the manager''s tactics didn''t help the strikers. But all of our strikers have missed some absolute sitters this season. RVW and Hooper scored 7(?) between them, and - even when we weren''t playing in a way which "suits them" - they had chances this season to get 15-20 between them. They didn''t take them. Had we spent the money on two strikers who had scored those extra 10 or so fairly easy chances, we''d probably have stayed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some very interesting and positive comments from McNally.

He''s a credit to this football club.

I''m not too sure we need a director of football though. After all, we didn''t have one during our recent ''good years''.

I agree that some of the work load needs to be shared but not when it comes to potential signings and scouting. That needs to be done by a trusted scouting team which includes the new manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that some are surprised at the content of the statement, for me it just confirms pretty much what I already thought / knew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, he''s bang on about not strengthening the squad. Of course relegation comes down to a whole host of factors, and the manager''s tactics didn''t help the strikers. But all of our strikers have missed some absolute sitters this season. RVW and Hooper scored 7(?) between them, and - even when we weren''t playing in a way which "suits them" - they had chances this season to get 15-20 between them. They didn''t take them. Had we spent the money on two strikers who had scored those extra 10 or so fairly easy chances, we''d probably have stayed up.

We didn''t play to either of these two strengths or most of our squads strengths for that matter.

How did you come to the conclusion that RVW and Hooper missed 10 ''sitters'' each this season? Care to state which games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McNally is a good man. I''m glad he isn''t resigning, we need him to help us get back in the Premiership.

OK so mistakes were made which are very costly for the club and he has admitted that, but we are all human, we all make mistakes. He isn''t the only one to be blamed for this and I take my hat off to him for coming out and making that statement. It couldn''t have been easy. Lets hope the club learn from the mistakes that have been made and firstly make the right choice for manager and coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One part of his statement I am particularly interested in is this bit regarding a bit of a shake up of the management staff structure:

"We’ll strengthen the structure so we’re not at the mercy of a manager on all things to do with our future. We will look at how we can ensure that if we do need to strengthen, then that’s what we do."

What are people''s thoughts on the exact meaning of this?

To me, the first sentence could be implying that somehow the managers have had too much power (in the board''s eyes).

The second sentence to me seems to be implying that the board will now act to sign players, even if the manager doesn''t believe it is necessary.

If it does mean what I have suggested it means, does this suggest that McNally/The Board wanted to do things differently in the last transfer window, and weren''t that happy with Hughton''s decisions? McNally has said we got it very wrong in the summer. I think this does suggest that perhaps he could see a problem with the signings - either that we''d signed the wrong players, or that we hadn''t signed enough (perhaps that elusive AM or big striker?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure about your maths lharman - 7 to 15/20 is not 10 each. It would be 8-13 between them (so 4-6.5 each). And there are a whole host of games where we have hit shots wide or straight at the keeper where they should have scored. We have had a few "wonder saves" against us as well, but a decent striker would have smashed it home and left the keeper with no chance.

Like I said, we may not have played to their strengths, but they each had four or five (at least) extremely good chances this season ("sitters" for a premier league class striker) where the style of our play didn''t matter at all. Yes, had we played to their strengths they may have had more chances, but we had the lowest conversion ratio in the division - so we were creating some chances and not finishing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Aggy"]Not sure about your maths lharman - 7 to 15/20 is not 10 each. It would be 8-13 between them (so 4-6.5 each). And there are a whole host of games where we have hit shots wide or straight at the keeper where they should have scored. We have had a few "wonder saves" against us as well, but a decent striker would have smashed it home and left the keeper with no chance.

Like I said, we may not have played to their strengths, but they each had four or five (at least) extremely good chances this season ("sitters" for a premier league class striker) where the style of our play didn''t matter at all. Yes, had we played to their strengths they may have had more chances, but we had the lowest conversion ratio in the division - so we were creating some chances and not finishing them.[/quote]

It''s math not maths!

You stated 15-20. I used the higher end. 20 goals divided by 2 to me is 10 goals each.

Using lower end, 15 divided by 2 is 7.5 each!

You say there''s been a host of games where they hit shots wide or straight at the keeper. Would you call these ''sitters'' or could they have been half chances? There is a very big difference.

In your next paragraph you state they each had four or five good chances. These chances would still have only given them a goal tally of Hooper 11, RVW 6. Still nowhere near enough.

Either way you look at it we didn''t create enough chances and that means we didn''t play to the strikers or the whole squads strengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignoring the rather petulant semantic debate, let''s again repeat what I''ve already said.

Yes, 15-20. Correct. However, they scored 7 between them already. So 15-20 minus 7 = 8-13 further goals required. 8-13 between the two of them is another 4-6.5 each. Agreed?

I would call them sitters for premiership strikers. We''re talking about 6-12 yards out with some but not great pressure on them. There have been four or five of those for each of those two strikers this season - probably more for RVW.

Had those two finished with 17 between them this season, as opposed to 7, we would have stayed up. I fully believe that it would have been enough.

I would agree that we didn''t create enough chances, but we did have some very good chances which the strikers and attacking midfielders were unable to convert. Take Cardiff as the best example - 40 shots was it, let''s say even three quarters of those were "half chances" or worse, that''s still 10 fairly good chances, yet we didn''t score any.

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...