Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
danielsroundabout

Fate Worse Than Death

Recommended Posts

Like the high wages paid to the Manager of Needham Market?

Mind you I have learned something, I didn''t even know they had a team until this week...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it have been an easier task for Neil Adams if he was given the role in January to keep us in the top flight........rather than appointing him towards the latter of our damp squib campaign, then been given the task of attempting to get us back into the top flight......?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mello Yello"]Would it have been an easier task for Neil Adams if he was given the role in January to keep us in the top flight........rather than appointing him towards the latter of our damp squib campaign, then been given the task of attempting to get us back into the top flight......?[/quote]A question many of us are asking MY.But, as usual, there are some on here who dismiss those of us who ask it as either troublemakers or simpletons .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="Mello Yello"]Would it have been an easier task for Neil Adams if he was given the role in January to keep us in the top flight........rather than appointing him towards the latter of our damp squib campaign, then been given the task of attempting to get us back into the top flight......?[/quote]A question many of us are asking MY.But, as usual, there are some on here who dismiss those of us who ask it as either troublemakers or simpletons .[/quote]

Really? I''ve not seen that.  The reason why Adams would not have been deemed suitable in January is quite simple.  In January we would have needed a manager for half a season, of proven experience, to replace a manager who - now lets be fair - was doing just enough to get enough results to hold on to his job.  Adams was only called in with five games to go to have an instant effect on a demoralised team and a last resort to replace manager who appeared in his last two or three games in charge, to have run out of ideas. That was not the case in January - the team were still functioning - albeit in fits and starts. 

As someone else said, different time, different circumstances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="Mello Yello"]Would it have been an easier task for Neil Adams if he was given the role in January to keep us in the top flight........rather than appointing him towards the latter of our damp squib campaign, then been given the task of attempting to get us back into the top flight......?[/quote]A question many of us are asking MY.But, as usual, there are some on here who dismiss those of us who ask it as either troublemakers or simpletons .[/quote]

Really? I''ve not seen that. 

 [/quote]

So being called ''idiots'', as seen in another of today''s threads does not qualify thus then LDC ?Sorry, do not follow your logic re the January v May situation. The board have openly admitted to looking at firing CH in January...hardly the ringing endorsement of a team that was ''still functioning'', I''d say. The remaining question appears to revolve round the fact that, allegedly, there were no suitable candidates to replace him . Yet, a matter of weeks later one is found, as caretaker, within the ranks of the club. Then a few weeks later still, the same individual is offered the job on a permanent basis. Apart from the obvious fact that we are now operating in a lower league, I cannot really see why the circumstances/time are SO different. The dramatis personae are the same, the club is the same and the attitude of the fans is the same. So, what is changed ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The change in divisions is a massive change. But what else has changed? The board''s knowledge of Neil Adams certainly seems to have changed. They say they were impressed by his management both on and off the pitch during the last 5 games. That''s a big change. A smaller change is that he now has those 5 games and associated management experience.

Maybe a more relevant question would be what changed between January and April.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]The change in divisions is a massive change. But what else has changed? The board''s knowledge of Neil Adams certainly seems to have changed. They say they were impressed by his management both on and off the pitch during the last 5 games. That''s a big change. A smaller change is that he now has those 5 games and associated management experience.

Maybe a more relevant question would be what changed between January and April.[/quote]I think that is the nub of the question, Nigel . Nobody would deny that the Prem to Champ is huge change, and, in a nutshell, Adams may have been considered not up to Prem management but IS up to Champ standard. Who knows ?But what some of us are trying to get to grips with is why was NA ''not available''  in Jan, but mysteriously was in April ?As one with his ear to the ground, have you any theories as to this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well until I mentioned it on my last post I haven''t seen that question asked. As is well documented I wouldn''t have made that change in April with or without hindsight. The big difference as far as the board were concerned was the reaction after the WBA defeat. There hadn''t been that reraction in January. WBA was the straw thet broke the camels back in Carrow Road and I imagine the board felt we''d have more chance of making a united effort over those last five games with Hughton gone. That''s only a guess and it''s also something I don''t agree with. Although I suppose going 1-0 down at Fulham would have got a far worse reaction had Hughton still been there. In the end it made no difference.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well until I mentioned it on my last post I haven''t seen that question asked. As is well documented I wouldn''t have made that change in April with or without hindsight. The big difference as far as the board were concerned was the reaction after the WBA defeat. There hadn''t been that reraction in January. WBA was the straw thet broke the camels back in Carrow Road and I imagine the board felt we''d have more chance of making a united effort over those last five games with Hughton gone. That''s only a guess and it''s also something I don''t agree with. Although I suppose going 1-0 down at Fulham would have got a far worse reaction had Hughton still been there. In the end it made no difference.

 

 

[/quote]Well that''s fair enough Nige. Your views on Hughton''s removal are indeed well documented, as are mine. Both have validity. Whether we''d have stayed up with Hughton in situ has been debated ad nauseam, and something we''ll never know the answer to.But you are not, with respect addressing the root of this particular question...ie why was Adams not considered to be ''available'' in Jan, but was in April ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was my question so obviously I don''t know the answer. The only thing that changed as far as I could see was what I already said. Hughton had lost the fans in the stadium. That hadn''t happened in January. So I can only assume that was why the change was made. Just to repeat my own belief which is that the only time I''d change a manager in the second half of the season would be if he''d lost the dressing room. Hughton hadn''t. This thing about losing the fans seems to be a price we pay for so many season tickets. In the old days they just wouldn''t turn up.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well until I mentioned it on my last post I haven''t seen that question asked. As is well documented I wouldn''t have made that change in April with or without hindsight. The big difference as far as the board were concerned was the reaction after the WBA defeat. There hadn''t been that reraction in January. WBA was the straw thet broke the camels back in Carrow Road and I imagine the board felt we''d have more chance of making a united effort over those last five games with Hughton gone. That''s only a guess and it''s also something I don''t agree with. Although I suppose going 1-0 down at Fulham would have got a far worse reaction had Hughton still been there. In the end it made no difference.

 

 

[/quote]Well that''s fair enough Nige. Your views on Hughton''s removal are indeed well documented, as are mine. Both have validity. Whether we''d have stayed up with Hughton in situ has been debated ad nauseam, and something we''ll never know the answer to.But you are not, with respect addressing the root of this particular question...ie why was Adams not considered to be ''available'' in Jan, but was in April ?[/quote]I think the radio interview answered that. Although the board had doubts about Hughton (and based on Bowkett''s comments going back nearly to the start of the season) he was still doing just about well enough in points terms to look a better bet than a totally untried youth team coach. A view with which I would agree. He did look a better bet.As to April, and installing Adams then, the West Brom game was just one of those watershed moments, when it becomes obvious something cannot be allowed to carry on, even if the decision isn''t necessarily logical.And as for Adams now getting the job he could have been given in January, the truth almost certainly is that if Mackay hadn''t had other options then he and not Adams would be the manager now and there wouldn''t be this kind of apparent conundrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]And as for Adams now getting the job he could have been given in January, the truth almost certainly is that if Mackay hadn''t had other options then he and not Adams would be the manager now and there wouldn''t be this kind of apparent conundrum.[/quote]Well, I''m afraid that I am very much in agreement with you on this Purple. I''m sure that the board will never admit it, but I too have little doubt that NA was not the first choice. That was Malky. And, once he effectively turned them down, they panicked and Adams''s appointment was the result. As you say, I''m certain that if things had gone according to plan, the board would not have had this awkward question. But, of course, we''ll never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]And as for Adams now getting the job he could have been given in January, the truth almost certainly is that if Mackay hadn''t had other options then he and not Adams would be the manager now and there wouldn''t be this kind of apparent conundrum.[/quote]Well, I''m afraid that I am very much in agreement with you on this Purple. I''m sure that the board will never admit it, but I too have little doubt that NA was not the first choice. That was Malky. And, once he effectively turned them down, they panicked and Adams''s appointment was the result. As you say, I''m certain that if things had gone according to plan, the board would not have had this awkward question. But, of course, we''ll never know.[/quote]Why do you say ''panicked''?  Just because you can''t appoint what most people believe is the first option it isn''t panicking to select one of the others, I''ve been on recruitment panels where we''ve selected the candidates in preferencial order but for various reasons not appointed the primary candidate, thats why you interview more than one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well until I mentioned it on my last post I haven''t seen that question asked. As is well documented I wouldn''t have made that change in April with or without hindsight. The big difference as far as the board were concerned was the reaction after the WBA defeat. There hadn''t been that reraction in January. WBA was the straw thet broke the camels back in Carrow Road and I imagine the board felt we''d have more chance of making a united effort over those last five games with Hughton gone. That''s only a guess and it''s also something I don''t agree with. Although I suppose going 1-0 down at Fulham would have got a far worse reaction had Hughton still been there. In the end it made no difference.

 

 

[/quote]

Well that''s fair enough Nige. Your views on Hughton''s removal are indeed well documented, as are mine. Both have validity. Whether we''d have stayed up with Hughton in situ has been debated ad nauseam, and something we''ll never know the answer to.

But you are not, with respect addressing the root of this particular question...ie why was Adams not considered to be ''available'' in Jan, but was in April ?
[/quote]

I think the radio interview answered that. Although the board had doubts about Hughton (and based on Bowkett''s comments going back nearly to the start of the season) he was still doing just about well enough in points terms to look a better bet than a totally untried youth team coach. A view with which I would agree. He did look a better bet.

As to April, and installing Adams then, the West Brom game was just one of those watershed moments, when it becomes obvious something cannot be allowed to carry on, even if the decision isn''t necessarily logical.

And as for Adams now getting the job he could have been given in January, the truth almost certainly is that if Mackay hadn''t had other options then he and not Adams would be the manager now and there wouldn''t be this kind of apparent conundrum.

[/quote]

 

At the end of season dinner, I felt that the words spoken were largely from the heart with the exception of Bowketts speech. As he said as he put on his reading glasses he would read verbatim as he wanted to get it right. There was more than a little inference that the blame lay at the door of Hughton.

 

McNally was more relaxed and without notes. He spoke about the need for a TD , which on the night I interpreted more as a Footballing Director, but this has changed. McN said that they had discussed matters at Christmas , and as they had a “habit” of winning home games there was enough home points available to stay up.

 

When Delia was interviewed , I felt she spoke naturally and she said “I would ask all of the supporters in the room if we had changed CH , WHO would we go for? “.

I make these points as  the radio interview has a slightly different slant, and was certainly more polished.

I believe that Adams was never even on the radar in January. I think events after the West Brom game threw him forward , I think the board had every confidence that we would beat West Brom, and when we didn’t we had a role of the dice against Fulham. There was no time to consider an alternative given the proximity of the Fulham game.

 

As I said before, at the Dinner , Adams was most certainly in the frame; Delia cheered the mention of his name when she could. Malky I’m sure was considered , but the idea of Adams and the TD had by now taken hold. Malky may well have wanted to keep his powder dry, but equally I suspect the idea of Adams cost + TD had become favourable, and it could easily have been the package that put Malky off.

 

As for looking all over Europe , I think that should be taken with a bolder rather than a pinch of salt. Yes you can ask an agent to look anywhere , but the budget will be key to the search.

 

I think the board has settled on Adams some time before the announcement.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]And as for Adams now getting the job he could have been given in January, the truth almost certainly is that if Mackay hadn''t had other options then he and not Adams would be the manager now and there wouldn''t be this kind of apparent conundrum.[/quote]Well, I''m afraid that I am very much in agreement with you on this Purple. I''m sure that the board will never admit it, but I too have little doubt that NA was not the first choice. That was Malky. And, once he effectively turned them down, they panicked and Adams''s appointment was the result. As you say, I''m certain that if things had gone according to plan, the board would not have had this awkward question. But, of course, we''ll never know.[/quote]

 

Too many ifs and buts creeping in to this. Let''s go back to the facts we do know one of which is that Neil Adams was at very worst third choice for the job. That being the case the questions are still relevant.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]And as for Adams now getting the job he could have been given in January, the truth almost certainly is that if Mackay hadn''t had other options then he and not Adams would be the manager now and there wouldn''t be this kind of apparent conundrum.[/quote]Well, I''m afraid that I am very much in agreement with you on this Purple. I''m sure that the board will never admit it, but I too have little doubt that NA was not the first choice. That was Malky. And, once he effectively turned them down, they panicked and Adams''s appointment was the result. As you say, I''m certain that if things had gone according to plan, the board would not have had this awkward question. But, of course, we''ll never know.[/quote]Not sure it was panic, Reggie. Once Mackay - who was the only candidate without a serious question-mark against him - played hard to get then the board were left with, as far as one can tell, only candidates with drawbacks. Zola''s record is one of failure; Lennon has never managed in a serious league; Sherwood is still effectively untried as a manager, and Adams ditto only more so. Of those, if I had been in the boardroom with a vote, I probably would only have gone for Sherwood ahead of Adams. The board could have delayed and seen if Mackay found his options had evaporated, but that might have been a wasted wait.The truth about this bl**dy awful season is not that Smith and Jones have done a Stepford Wives on Bowkett and McNally and replaced them with "little Norwich" yes-men clones. But that reality has bitten. After four years in which there were some easy decisions, the directors have been faced with situations in which there wasn''t an obviously right answer. It has looked like a muddle because that is what real football life often is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, "panic" may or may not be overstating the case, Purps. There is no doubt that, perhaps a a result of pressure from places such as this very messageboard, they put some sort of artificial time frame on an appointment, and aired it in public. Once that timeframe had expired without an appointment, they were always going to be under even more pressure.Malky''s refusal to play ball upped the ante even more. That''s what I meant by "panic".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]Well, "panic" may or may not be overstating the case, Purps. There is no doubt that, perhaps a a result of pressure from places such as this very messageboard, they put some sort of artificial time frame on an appointment, and aired it in public. Once that timeframe had expired without an appointment, they were always going to be under even more pressure.

Malky''s refusal to play ball upped the ante even more. That''s what I meant by "panic".
[/quote]

 

I don''t know what you mean by "artificial", Reggie, but what I am curious about is why the board put a time frame on the appointment at all and then made it public. ( Surely there was no time pressure if they truly were conducting a broader search ). I''m certain they had their reasons for doing so, and would love to know what they were. The one that seems to make the most sense is that Malky was asked if he would accept the appointment if it was offered to him ( I''m sure this is the usual way it is put ), but he asked for more time than the board were comfortable with to consider what was on offer. The board knew only too well what other logical moves he might be considering and , playing their version of hardball, decided to tell him they would be making an appointment within a week and they would need a quick decision from him. They then went public to reinforce that position. In other words they played poker to get their man and the cards didn''t play out the way they wanted. They then needed to save face not only with their other options but also with the Norwich fans so, after a few days delay they offered the job to Neil Adams. I hope I''m wrong about this but I suspect I''m not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought we''d simply appointed the best candidate in Europe who, entirely coincidently, happened to be at the club as youth team coach. In reality,I think there are likely to be significant elements of truth in both Yankee''s and Reggie''s suggestions.

Share this post


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

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]Well, "panic" may or may not be overstating the case, Purps. There is no doubt that, perhaps a a result of pressure from places such as this very messageboard, they put some sort of artificial time frame on an appointment, and aired it in public. Once that timeframe had expired without an appointment, they were always going to be under even more pressure.Malky''s refusal to play ball upped the ante even more. That''s what I meant by "panic".[/quote]

 

I don''t know what you mean by "artificial", Reggie, but what I am curious about is why the board put a time frame on the appointment at all and then made it public. ( Surely there was no time pressure if they truly were conducting a broader search ). I''m certain they had their reasons for doing so, and would love to know what they were. The one that seems to make the most sense is that Malky was asked if he would accept the appointment if it was offered to him ( I''m sure this is the usual way it is put ), but he asked for more time than the board were comfortable with to consider what was on offer. The board knew only too well what other logical moves he might be considering and , playing their version of hardball, decided to tell him they would be making an appointment within a week and they would need a quick decision from him. They then went public to reinforce that position. In other words they played poker to get their man and the cards didn''t play out the way they wanted. They then needed to save face not only with their other options but also with the Norwich fans so, after a few days delay they offered the job to Neil Adams. I hope I''m wrong about this but I suspect I''m not. 

[/quote]I think you''ve answered your own question in your very fair analysis, YC. Just to be clear, when anyone puts a publicly announced ''fixed date'' deadline for an appointment such as this ,it is essentially an artificial one. The board  put it around that they were exercising due diligence in their choice, so surely the logical conclusion to that would to be to make an appointment when ALL avenues had been fully explored, whenever that may be...not just some arbitrary date plucked from the calendar ?Clearly they had rather assumed that Malky would be compliant in this, but when it transpired otherwise, the need for a quick appointment became paramount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe one day we will find out, all these theories are plausible but who knows.

One aspect of this surely was the respect the Board have for Neil, your theories seem to assume that Neil is a patient bystander in the process and could be left on a shelf to be picked off as a choice of very last resort.

I dont actually see it that way, I think that Neil was seen as one very good candidate, otherwise whatever corner we had allegedly painted ourselves onto, he would not have been appointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jenkins"]Maybe one day we will find out, all these theories are plausible but who knows. One aspect of this surely was the respect the Board have for Neil, your theories seem to assume that Neil is a patient bystander in the process and could be left on a shelf to be picked off as a choice of very last resort. I dont actually see it that way, I think that Neil was seen as one very good candidate, otherwise whatever corner we had allegedly painted ourselves onto, he would not have been appointed.[/quote]

 

Jenkins, that''s not what my theory was assuming. Neil may very well have been a "good candidate" on the list but he would not have been the driving force for the Board to go public on a quick timeline, would he? He was already on staff and not likely to be aggressively pursuing something elsewhere. So if the board had a good candidate on their list already on staff and also wanted to exercise due diligence and scour Europe for other potential candidates there would have been no reason to publicize a quick timeline. Surely we can all agree with the logic of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m not sure I do agree with that Yankee. You seem to be assuming that the recruitment process began very recently. That is far from the case, the process of looking for possible targets will have been going on for several months and what we witnessed was the final part of the process. The due diligence had already been done, we were at the end game.

Now I''m not saying thats what happened because I don''t know, there are many scenarios, but I certainly don''t think we "can all agree with your logic" you may well have got the timeline wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jenkins, you''re getting caught up with assumptions about what I am assuming.

I don''t have any difficulty with you challenging my logic but you should, at least, include in that challenge some logic of your own. What you do, on the other hand is assert that the search for possible targets will have been going on for many months and that what we witnessed was the "end game." However, in your next paragraph you state you are not saying your first assertion is what happened because you don''t know. Of course none of us posting here knows which is why my first post on the matter stated precisely that; "I would love to know what really happened." I did not assume anything regarding which time period encompassed the search. I simply questioned the motivation for the Board making public a short deadline date of a week if they did not need to. I then gave a possible scenario that would have accounted for that. Why do you think they gave a short deadline if they already had on staff a candidate high on their list?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had completed their search and were down to 2 or three candidates any one of whom would fit their requirements.

They were confident that the final negotiations with these were nearing a close and wanted to give something to the fans who were desperate for information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To my mind there is no "assuming" going on by anybody here. With the info we''ve been privy to, all we can do is have hunches, opinions and attitudes. There''s no right or wrong about this, unless (and this is about as likely as Nigel Farage putting Nick Clegg on his Christmas card list) the board actually come out and give a page by page account as to what''s gone on re the managerial appointments at CR over the last few months.But I wonder one simple thing. The board, and many people on here (most recently Jenkins this afternoon) have said that NA is a good candidate, the right man for the job, excellent manager material etc etc. So if that is the case why has his name never been mentioned (as far as we are aware) on any other club''s candidate list when managerial opportunities have come knocking ? OK, there was never any likelihood that he''d exactly be a shoo-in for a Champ, let alone Prem vacancy, but you''d have thought that an ''outstanding '' candidate like this might just have caught the eye of a Lge One or Lge Two club looking for a new boss over the last eighteen months ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me clarify Reggie, our board will have had a person specification for the the ideal individual to become our next manager.

Now none of us have seen that, I imagine, but whatever was on it there is no doubt that Neil ticked a whole lot of boxes. He would not have been appointed if he had not.

Other clubs will have their own idea of what they are looking for in a manger, that spec may be very different to ours, but for what WE were looking for Neil fitted the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jenkins"]Let me clarify Reggie, our board will have had a person specification for the the ideal individual to become our next manager.

Now none of us have seen that, I imagine, but whatever was on it there is no doubt that Neil ticked a whole lot of boxes. He would not have been appointed if he had not.

Other clubs will have their own idea of what they are looking for in a manger, that spec may be very different to ours, but for what WE were looking for Neil fitted the bill.[/quote]So are you suggesting, Jenkins that of all the Lge One, Lge Two and even Conference teams looking for a new boss over the last year or so, Neil Adams did not tick enough boxes to  at least be considered as a potential candidate  for even a small number of them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt he was on the market Reggie, perhaps he could see what a mess Hughton was in and biding his time. Do you know if he had been approached by other clubs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I don''t know but just maybe his personal life meant he had no wish to move away from the area for anything other than a big job, which in fairness, was unlikely to be offered.

People always assume that people in the game are like chess pieces and can be moved around upon a whim.

They are commodities of course, but not everyone of them, especially someone in his late 40''s with a good job in an area he obviously likes from choice, is prepared to be bought and sold.

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...