Monty13 2,736 Posted June 2, 2014 I know some people are just going to reply with yes and a snarky comment but I actually think this is up for debate.A similar route was taken with Gunn and his team but the quality of the individuals (especially Gunn) recruited was far more questionable and in hindsight was going to result in failure.It''s also important to note that this a different situation in recruitment, from the start the Board have pushed the need to shake up the backroom staff, that they wanted a TD and they wanted the Manager to concentrate on managing and coaching the first team and for that team to play a certain way.That was always going to put off potential candidates and is probably the reason, more than any other imo, why we have ended up with Adams.It looks like two things were decided from that decision to appoint Adams. Adams wanted his number 2 back (Holt), thats a reasonable request for any manager to want their own guy helping them. The board wanted a more experienced individual involved, hence the appointment of Royle. Personally I don''t think that Royle would have been on the cards had Mckay or Lennon had been in the role.I can''t see the TD being a big name, in fact I''d question the appointment personally if it was, as the board are very much describing a forward thinking Sports Scientist.The director of recruitment will be an interesting one to see who we get. That''s an important one to get right after basically blaming Chester for last summer.Personally what''s happening is following a logical path, you may not be happy we didn''t go for an experienced manager with his own team, but imo, by defining the criteria of TD and playstyle before appointing they were always going to struggle to get an experienced head to agree to that.This has to be allowed to play out because potentially it''s a sound principle. We need to look at clubs like Swansea in particular and learn why they stayed up consistently and why we dropped. They have adopted a consistent style of play and have now maintained it through Martinez, Rodgers, Laudrup and Monk. And if Swansea were prepared to replace their big name manager with someone that was still playing less than 12 months earlier, why are we so negative about our youth coach?If he has the ability he has it, lets wait and see.I don''t have blind faith, I know this could go wrong, but Adams is making all the right noises for me. Royle is a coup, Everton were desperate to add him to their backroom staff and Holt is just the logical choice, whether he was a Norwich player or not.Was I happy about Adams being chosen? I wasn''t excited before it happened, but the more I hear the more I like the vision of where the club wants to be. We''ve had 2 years of negativity and I don''t see that happening from the team being put together. Theres the chance this structure may set us up for future success, and imo, the chance of failing is no worse than with Lennon, Mckay or Zola.The choice has been made, it''s Adams and the other appointments are just logical imo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,816 Posted June 2, 2014 "The board wanted a more experienced individual involved, hence the appointment of Royle."This appt could be to do with Adams way of thinking as much as the board''s - he knows Royle well - and we probably wouldn''t have got him if he did not respect Adams'' abilities either. It could be that this was a no brainer from everyone''s point of view and can only be a good thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted June 2, 2014 [quote user="lake district canary"]"The board wanted a more experienced individual involved, hence the appointment of Royle."This appt could be to do with Adams way of thinking as much as the board''s - he knows Royle well - and we probably wouldn''t have got him if he did not respect Adams'' abilities either. It could be that this was a no brainer from everyone''s point of view and can only be a good thing. [/quote]Acccording to this:http://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/ipswich-town/bring_on_derby_day_former_ipswich_town_boss_joe_royle_gives_his_first_interview_after_joining_norwich_city_as_a_football_consultant_1_3625604Adams himself called Royal and asked him to take up his current consulting role. It sounds very much like the was Adams idea and the board agreed with him Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Monty13 2,736 Posted June 2, 2014 Thats a fair point, I do wonder whether the older head was a board stipulation and Royle was just Adams suggestion and first choice? It''s the board after all paying his wages and he does mention McNally in that interview saying Adams and McNally came to him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 2, 2014 I don''t think the Gunn comparison holds up with the current recruits. Adams seems to be the only questionable appointment but at least we now have his replacement (Royle) lined up ready. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 944 Posted June 2, 2014 I''m not entirely sure that Adams is the right man - that''s where I have a big problem with everything going on. I agree entirely with this idea of departmentalising aspects of the management team and letting the "manager" and his coaching staff focus entirely on the on-field performances and the necessary coaching to improve those performances. I just don''t think Adams was the man to build that structure up around.HOWEVER, what I will say is that once the board have made that decision, they have to do the right things to try and make it work out. Royle seems like a very sensible appointment. It seems that his role will is a glorified assistant manager''s role without actually getting involved in the coaching. So he discusses things like tactics and managing the players with the manager, but doesn''t get his tracksuit bottoms on and join in with the 5 a side sessions. Fine. He is part of Adams'' coaching staff and it makes complete sense to bring in someone who knows Adams well.For me though, other roles outside of this coaching staff - so the new role of technical director and the recruitment director (or whatever those roles will actually be called) should not be Adams'' men. They should be stand alone, so that if Adams gets sacked halfway through the season, they won''t go with him. They''ll still be here, working towards that "philosophy" of football the board wants and it will only be a matter of bringing in a new coaching team to focus on the on-field aspects. As long as that is the case, I''ll be happy with the process.I suppose - to be fair to the board - when you''re first starting out with this sort of restructuring process, it might be hard to get a manager in who will be happy with everything that''s going on. As such, Adams might be a decent shout. In many ways, even if he does fail miserably and get sacked in December, at least he will have had the right "philosophy", the right footballing goals of bringing through the youth and playing attacking football, that allow us to build the rest of this management structure around. At least I assume it is on those goals that he has been hired. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Jenkins 0 Posted June 2, 2014 Neil is a clever bloke and certainly is not some sort of big ego.He will know exactly what he needs to help him on his role and will not to to arrogant to admit that he will need help, and Im sure the board will help provide that for him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 2, 2014 I don''t go along with the idea that the board are always getting it wrong.They have made some howlers of course. But we have just spent three years in the Prem, admittedly the fayre served up in the last two seasons wasn''t to most tastes.In the last 12 years we have had three promotions, four relegations and a play off final.That is excitement in one form or another. And maybe that is our place in football. Not quite up to it for the Prem but too good for the Championship. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
# 0 Posted June 3, 2014 YES totally wrong. ...........again! Too many chiefs this time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duncan Edwards 2,424 Posted June 3, 2014 [quote user="Wiz"]YES totally wrong. ...........again! Too many chiefs this time.[/quote] Can''t believe you passed up a "too many cooks spoiling the broth..." gag to have a pop at Delia. Presumably the Chiefs comment is apt because the club is run by "cowboys", or am I giving you too much credit? Either way, you''re still an annoying *. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted June 3, 2014 we don''t know yet if they''re getting it wrong. It may turn out to be a masterstroke of an appointment along the lines of Pocchitino at Southampton, or he may be shot and we end up losing in the playoffs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dubai Mark 0 Posted June 3, 2014 A good OP that certainly gets you thinking about the bigger picture.As for "too many chiefs"......I tend to disagree, because a club of our size with ambitions needs a decent size management and coaching set-up. Perhaps one of CH''s mistakes was that he didnt have enough support and specialism in his management team. I am personally a fan of seeing more specialised coaches appointed for defence and attack particularly, like Harry has with Joe Jordan, Kevin Bond and others around him, really makes sense.......even WestHam have now appointed an attacking coach. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
# 0 Posted June 3, 2014 [quote user="Pauls Ferry"][quote user="Wiz"] YES totally wrong. ...........again! Too many chiefs this time.[/quote] Can''t believe you passed up a "too many cooks spoiling the broth..." gag to have a pop at Delia. Presumably the Chiefs comment is apt because the club is run by "cowboys", or am I giving you too much credit? Either way, you''re still an annoying *. [/quote] As you seem a bit slow its was meant in context as too many football people advising (interfering?) in the managers decisions. Savy? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
