Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Waveney Canary

The board got it badly wrong

Recommended Posts

[quote user="CanaryOne"][quote user="morty"][quote user="CanaryOne"][quote user="morty"]All very easy with hindsight though, isn''t it?Not one person on here predicted we''d lost at home to West Brom, so I should imagine the board felt pretty much the same, and had we won that game we would have been all but safe. Hughton would have done just about enough to limp over the line, and they would have sacked him at the end of the season.

[/quote]Hindsight ? you could be as blind as a bat and still see we had been utter 5hite for a season and a half . The only reasons people wanted to keep him is because he was seen as a nice little man .[/quote]Rubbish.Like I said, no one predicted we would lose to West Brom, unless you want to claim you did perhaps?Ah, the nice man argument, yes, well played. You truly are a master debator[Y]

[/quote]I claimed we were going down all season , while you were just coming out with your tired old pant wetter 5hit , master debater ? maybe not but then i am not a master (unt like you .[/quote]Well done on being right, enjoy your moral high ground[Y]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="JF"]I wouldn''t bother entering into a conversation with Nutty, Mr Brownstone. Nutty could start an arguement in a empty phone box![/quote]

 

Well that may be true JF. But in this case there''s no doubt that you, Bury and Brownie are incapable of debating any of the points I''ve made. All the three of you have done is make personal remarks about me. I put that down to an ignorance of the subject being discussed. If the boot was on the other foot wouldn''t you?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was obvious to most fans that things were bad but, apparently not to the board. These last four games haven''t been a secret. We should''ve made sure we were safe by now. It didnt happen and now we are going down :( it would''ve only needed a fee more points, but there you go.

I''ve supported my club for 35 years since I was 11 (you do the maths :) ) and its such a shame as it was so avoidable :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yellow Bird"]It was obvious to most fans that things were bad but, apparently not to the board. These last four games haven''t been a secret. We should''ve made sure we were safe by now. It didnt happen and now we are going down :( it would''ve only needed a fee more points, but there you go.

I''ve supported my club for 35 years since I was 11 (you do the maths :) ) and its such a shame as it was so avoidable :([/quote]How many great seasons have you seen, and how many bad ones?You have been watching football long enough to know it isn''t an exact science.As McNally stated, right up until we lost at home to West Brom, Chris Hughton was fulfilling his remit, and we were not in the relegation zone.As I have previously said, right up until that point of the West Brom game I suspect the board thought Hughton would do just about enough, and would have very likely sacked him at the end of the season. For every Sunderland, who were succesful after sacking their manager, I shall give you a Cardiff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutty, by failing to read the posts correctly you''ve once again grabbed the sh*tty end of the stick, and as usual refused to let go of it.

You''ve taken my reply to the post about how many times McNally has bottled firing Hughton (which evidently you didn''t read) out of context, and then repeatedly refused to accept my repeated explanations of what my intention was.

You haven''t really made any points other than some ramblings that we''re really nothing to do with my point, which once again to summarise was IT IS UNFAIR TO BLAME INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS FOR OUR CURRENT SITUATION BECAUSE NONE OF US KNOW WHAT WENT ON. I''m sure you''d actually agree with that if you''d put down the sh*ty end of that stick you grabbed hold of.

There is no debating to be had with you I''m afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr Brownstone"]I think the real question is how many times was it proposed to the board that Hughton be removed before a majority agreed?[/quote]

 

Again. This is what you said Brownie. I asked you who proposed it to the board and you said you didn''t know. In fact if I understand it correctly you are now saying that rather than not knowing how many times it happened you don''t even know if it happened at all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see nothing to argue in his statement there Nutty. All he is asking was how many times had Hughtons position been discussed at board level before it was decided to sack him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again thank you Nutty, but I am still aware of what I wrote.

I think you need to start reading what people actually write, rather than attempting to read between the lines and getting yourself in a muddle.

I don''t know if it was proposed last season, in November, in January, March or even at all until the aftermath of the WBA defeat, or who by. How would I? I''d be interested to know though.

As I''ve tried to explain to you so, so many times, that it why I feel it was unfair to single out McNally for bottling the decision to sack him, because we don''t know if he tried and was outvoted, or if he was in fact behind him 100%.

We might never know, but we might get an indication by whether he''s still here next season.

I''m getting very very bored of saying the same thing to you over and over and over and over again, so do us both a favour, read the thread again and if you STILL don''t get it don''t bother replying because I really can''t be bothered to explain it to you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Making Plans"]I wonder how many times this season McNally

thought about getting rid of Hughton & then bottled it.Some of those

dreadful away days must have made him seriously consider it often.You just

got the feeling that it was always "just one more game" but in the end, one more

game quickly became one more game too many[/quote]

 

[quote user="Mr Brownstone"]I think the real question is how many times was

it proposed to the board that Hughton be removed before a majority

agreed?[/quote]
 
 
Brownie, I still don''t see where it makes a difference. MP is quite clear that he thinks McNally considered it and then bottled it. Which is a crude way of saying what Pauls said in his informed post. You seem to think differently and you''re quite clearly suggesting that this wasn''t the case and that someone, I assume the executive directors, had continually proposed sacking Hughton to the full board who had continually not agreed.
 
 
Now I will remain good natured and patient however many insults you, JF or Bury send my way. Perhaps you''d now show me the same courtesy.
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m quite clearly suggesting nothing whatsoever Nutty, that''s just you, as usual, reading what you want to read rather than what is written.

I''ve explained to you what I meant on multiple occasions, yet you still refuse to acknowledge it, I''m not going to do it again or waste any more of time trying to have any sort of conversation with you because it''s ultimately pointless because you do not listen to what is being said, not just on this thread either, the board is littered with examples.

Perhaps you''d find people a little less abusive if you didn''t continually rile people up by ignoring what they''ve written and assuming that you know better about what they think than they do, it is arrogant in the extreme and directly provokes the reaction you are complaining about.

I''ll leave you to have the last word by probably quoting my op in this thread again and completely ignoring what I''ve written above throughout the thread, I won''t reply again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr Brownstone"]I''m quite clearly suggesting nothing whatsoever Nutty, that''s just you, as usual, reading what you want to read rather than what is written.

I''ve explained to you what I meant on multiple occasions, yet you still refuse to acknowledge it, I''m not going to do it again or waste any more of time trying to have any sort of conversation with you because it''s ultimately pointless because you do not listen to what is being said, not just on this thread either, the board is littered with examples.

Perhaps you''d find people a little less abusive if you didn''t continually rile people up by ignoring what they''ve written and assuming that you know better about what they think than they do, it is arrogant in the extreme and directly provokes the reaction you are complaining about.

I''ll leave you to have the last word by probably quoting my op in this thread again and completely ignoring what I''ve written above throughout the thread, I won''t reply again.[/quote]Mr B, you don''t mind if I have a go?! What you posted was:"I think the real question is how many times was it proposed to the board that Hughton be removed before a majority agreed?"What that is assuming is that it certainly was proposed to the board that Hughton be sacked before it finally happened; the only question is how many times. You may not have meant it that way, but that is how it reads. And you went on to explain you were asking this question in general defence of McNally:"...a tad presumptuous to assume it''s all McNally''s fault. Just pointing

out that even if he hypothetically wanted to replace Hughton in December

he wouldn''t be able to make that decision on his own."You may not have noticed but what has been going on here over the last few days is a rather desperate campaign by a few virulently anti-Smith and Jones posters to claim, in one case by imagining a boardroom-vote scenario that couldn''t have happened, that McNally (and possibly others) wanted Hughton out but kept being thwarted by the owners. Your post, whether you meant it or not, adds to this myth that is trying to be created.I know Mick Dennis is not universally loved, but he does know, almost certainly better than any poster here, what goes on in the boardroom. And he says, as a fact, that Smith and Jones AND McNally were all backing Hughton until the WBA game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple, what I was trying to say is that Hughton''s future would have almost certainly been discussed multiple times at board level before they finally acted. I was trying to say that it is unfair to attempt to apportion blame to one individual board member for this not happening sooner, because no one knows for sure what went on. The only thing we can be certain of is this season has been a collective failure, from board level, to the coaching staff, to the players. No attempt whatsoever to further any myth at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr Brownstone"]Purple, what I was trying to say is that Hughton''s future would have almost certainly been discussed multiple times at board level before they finally acted. I was trying to say that it is unfair to attempt to apportion blame to one individual board member for this not happening sooner, because no one knows for sure what went on. The only thing we can be certain of is this season has been a collective failure, from board level, to the coaching staff, to the players. No attempt whatsoever to further any myth at all.[/quote]Mr B, fair enough. I am sure it was discussed informally throughout the season. It would be astonishing if it wasn''t. But that is a long way from formal proposals being voted down.For what it is worth my suspicion, based on the odd straw in the wind, is that the board was not totally united behind Hughton. But only in that one out of the seven had doubts earlier on this season. Which, again, would hardly be surprising. And that is a long way from what is undoubtedly an attempt going on here from some posters (not you) to shift all the blame on to the owners. If on a seven-person board of directors the two owners, the CEO and at least one (and possibly both)  out of the chairman and the vice-chairman are for keeping a manager then that is hardly some chasm of a split. That is just one person out of seven having a different view to that of the other six.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McN is a consumate policitician when it comes to PR , and much of what you hear from the board via him is Campbell-esque in it''s delivery. A very well paid CEO tends to toe the party line , at least when delivering the message.

 

In private, I would frankly be amazed if McN didnt suggest a change earlier. To sit on his hands just isn''t his style , as has been played out several times before, not least at Fulham.  

 

I am not at all convinced McN will be here next year . I suspect a public falling on his sword might occur, with a nicely lucrative job lined up behind the scenes. I believe his stock is still high. His bonuses have been substantial and I cant imagine him being happy / willing or even able to take such a huge hit in his salary.

 

I can''t wait to hear what he says at the end of season dinner, that is if I can bear to go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus Christ, everyone else gets it nutty! I became strangely entrigued with this thread, and you keep dancing with Mr Brownstone, he''s been explaining and you won''t leave him alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"]As McNally stated, right up until we lost at home to West Brom, Chris Hughton was fulfilling his remit, and we were not in the relegation zone.[/quote]What an incredibly stupid remit, especially given our final four fixtures.[quote user="morty"]For every Sunderland, who were succesful after sacking their manager, I shall give you a Cardiff.[/quote]A Cardiff who were doing very well for a newly promoted side, until a crazy owner decided he knew best.  Not a good example at all I am afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"]All very easy with hindsight though, isn''t it?[/quote]The hindsight argument just doesn''t wash.  Plenty could see our football was going backwards at a great pace, and the inevitable to conclusion to this.  Sadly for us those earning the massive wages to make these decisions could not.It will be interesting to see what level of bonus McNally claims this year, given his failure to keep the club in the Premier League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lowlyfendweller"]Jesus Christ, everyone else gets it nutty! I became strangely entrigued with this thread, and you keep dancing with Mr Brownstone, he''s been explaining and you won''t leave him alone.[/quote]

 

Well it doesn''t appear everyone else buddy. Perhaps you''d have a go at explaining as you get it so well. The only dancing that I can see going on here is Brownie round his original statement. Whatever people views a bit of honesty wouldn''t go amiss.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wba was the critical game, the fans were nervous, the players did not show and the manager decided to go with wes on the left and 2 up front.

Swansea, west brom and fulham, nil points, nil goals scored, nil creativity massive advantage lost to rivals who each gained 3 points on us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t actually think the board got it wrong - it was the difficulty they had in persuading one female cook (at Xmas) that it was time for a change.

Embarrassingly for her, she changed her mind when it was far too late having been shown projected forecasts by an irate CEO and Chairman just what the cost of relegation was to not only the club, but the region.

When you are majority shareholder you can do as you wish, and she did. And it has cost us and her integrity, dearly!

And it isn''t for the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City 2nd"]I don''t actually think the board got it wrong - it was the difficulty they had in persuading one female cook (at Xmas) that it was time for a change.

Embarrassingly for her, she changed her mind when it was far too late having been shown projected forecasts by an irate CEO and Chairman just what the cost of relegation was to not only the club, but the region.

When you are majority shareholder you can do as you wish, and she did. And it has cost us and her integrity, dearly!

And it isn''t for the first time.[/quote]

There you go again, City 2nd, making sweeping statements you can''t back up - or can you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lowlyfendweller"]Jesus Christ, everyone else gets it nutty! I became strangely entrigued with this thread, and you keep dancing with Mr Brownstone, he''s been explaining and you won''t leave him alone.[/quote]I used to post a little, but a little wouldn''t do it, so a little got more and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well put, Foghorn.

Unfortunately it''s directed at a dim bulb who thinks he''s never been wrong, and despite working for weeks at a time thousands of miles from home, has suddenly become xenophobic. Hypocrites are stupid that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lake district canary wrote the following post at 2014-05-04 5:01 PM:

There you go again, City 2nd, making sweeping statements you can''t back up - or can you?

You are the entity who knows it all LDC, which you force on everyone on this board should they disagree with you. Like I said, just LIKE YOU, a certain person couldn''t make their mind up, and when they did it was far too late.

And no, I''m not going to back anything up to you, I don''t have to but I trust my source far more than your immortal words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City 2nd"]lake district canary wrote the following post at 2014-05-04 5:01 PM:

There you go again, City 2nd, making sweeping statements you can''t back up - or can you?

You are the entity who knows it all LDC, which you force on everyone on this board should they disagree with you. Like I said, just LIKE YOU, a certain person couldn''t make their mind up, and when they did it was far too late.

And no, I''m not going to back anything up to you, I don''t have to but I trust my source far more than your immortal words.[/quote]

If you are going to write a post like you did, reporting something as if it is exactly how it happened, you only have credibility if you can back it up, otherwise you are wasting your time.    As for making my mind up, I had made my mind up and was  certain the board had decided to keep the manager to the end of the season.    That they didn''t makes them look to me as if they lost their nerve, gave in to fan pressure and left us on a last chance saloon scenario.   That looks like weakness to me, so we actually may be in agreement - but you blame Delia - I blame the board as a whole.  If by some chance you are right and it was all down to DS, then that is something else - but you offer no proof or substantiate your statement - just as you couldn''t when reporting on your conversation with McNally.   So go on then - how do you know that DS is the one who was holding up the sacking? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lake district canary wrote the following post at 2014-05-04 6:00 PM:

City 2nd wrote:

lake district canary wrote the following post at 2014-05-04 5:01 PM: There you go again, City 2nd, making sweeping statements you can''t back up - or can you?

You are the entity who knows it all LDC, which you force on everyone on this board should they disagree with you. Like I said, just LIKE YOU, a certain person couldn''t make their mind up, and when they did it was far too late. And no, I''m not going to back anything up to you, I don''t have to but I trust my source far more than your immortal words.

If you are going to write a post like you did, reporting something as if it is exactly how it happened, you only have credibility if you can back it up, otherwise you are wasting your time. As for making my mind up, I had made my mind up and was certain the board had decided to keep the manager to the end of the season. That they didn''t makes them look to me as if they lost their nerve, gave in to fan pressure and left us on a last chance saloon scenario. That looks like weakness to me, so we actually may be in agreement - but you blame Delia - I blame the board as a whole. If by some chance you are right and it was all down to DS, then that is something else - but you offer no proof or substantiate your statement - just as you couldn''t when reporting on your conversation with McNally. So go on then - how do you know that DS is the one who was holding up the sacking?

No LDC, my post indicates that a source close to the club who I will not identify blames Delia. Not me. You, and I quote, blame the board as a whole. YOU blame the board. Not me, and I dont blame Delia. What I do aspire to is that the tactics and game plans used by a poor manager who had a poor set of players has overseen our decline, and I blame no one else. And yes, I reported on a meeting I had with Mr McNally in February as you well know. And what I suggested would happen did. Like you I thought that would be at the end of the season. It wasn''t. Since the sacking I have spoken with the CEO again. I understand why to was done, and that was footballing reasons. And it was the correct decision full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you depose the entire board when two of them are majority shareholders? Are you proposing a forced sale, perhaps by government decree? Even if they were willing to step down, they might want to to take their money, that is sell at a high price (because there is now no external debt).

Do we have another buyer lined up? Yet another Asian billionaire, who might want to change the colours or name?

The Board may be at fault, and may have overridden McN when he wanted to sack the last manager, but they also did well in saving the club from all sorts of trouble over many years. So, are they not entitled to show a little bit of human frailty, especially as things went so well for us that we finished in the Premiership before we had planned and before we had signed enough good players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The board is full of different opinions as many of you search for a scapegoat. Opinions are just that and can''t be wrong. However if you make up stuff to support that opinion then it''s dishonest to say the least.

 

When Walker was appointed for the second time Delia and MWJ were only minor shareholders on Watling''s board. It wasn''t until December 1997 that he sold his majority shareholding to them. So the first appointment of their era was Rioch. They have since presided over quite a succesful period for the club. 4 seasons of PL football, a play-off final, a Championship win, a League one champs win, another automatic promotion to the PL and 2 relegations. Or 3 if we go down on this occasion. If that''s failure then what about the other clubs some of whom have had massive investment yet haven''t come close to achieving what they have.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There just doesn''t seem to be any long term planning regarding senior managerial/coaching appointments or any real contingency for when things don''t go to plan.After all these years we''ve ended up with the first team having to be taken over by our youth coach and a somewhat inexperienced backroom staff. The academy is a bright spot, but we shouldn''t be in this position after having sacked the first team manager and coaches.

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  

×