We have a puppet manager!

[Wiz 0]

If todays Sun is to believed.

 

Apparently the Steve Foley move was blocked by the board and Foley is quoted as embarressed and hurt.

 

If this is true, Adams has been undermined on day1!

[splutcho 173]

Wiz, either stay on here under your own name or leave.

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="splutcho"]Wiz, either stay on here under your own name or leave.[/quote]

 

For the umpteenth time Mr Splutcho I am NOT Mr Wiz.[:@]

[splutcho 173]

That''s exactly what a certain wizard would say ;)

[Wiz 0]

I have found this quote via a binners site:

 

http://www.twtd.co.uk/ipswich-town-news/25243/foley-norwich-board-vetoed-appointment

[Katie Borkins 1]

Morning Wiz.

I''m just off to Primark so I will see if puppet manager is out today.

[im spartacus canary 0]

well if that is the case good on the board for giving him a bit of guidance [:D]

[Katie Borkins 1]

Nope, looks like the rain has put him off.

Glenn Hoddle is still available so all is not lost.

[ROKERITE 0]

[quote user="Jimbo Canary"]If todays Sun is to believed.

Apparently the Steve Foley move was blocked by the board and Foley is quoted as embarressed and hurt.

If this is true, Adams has been undermined on day1![/quote]

I found this story concerning. I think Adams is a good appointment but if he wanted Foley, then no matter the reaction of supporters, he should be backed by the board in his choice.

Of course there might no truth in the newspaper story.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,421]

[quote user="Jimbo Canary"]

I have found this quote via a binners site:

 

http://www.twtd.co.uk/ipswich-town-news/25243/foley-norwich-board-vetoed-appointment

[/quote]

 

If this is true, it makes a bad position worse.

1. Why the hell would Adams want SF?

2. Why would NA speak to Foley without Board approval?  

3. Did the board agree and then change their minds?  

 

The whole situation, with the ever changing job spec of the DOF/TD , is beyond ridiculous.

[Molly Windley 76]

“I’m devastated and embarrassed for myself and Neil,” Foley told The Sun. “I couldn’t believe this was happening, especially that they would undermine Neil on his first day.”Surely the position of first team coach was brought up at the interview stage with NL, its such a vital position.Very strange.

[Dubai Mark 0]

Well if its in The Sun it must be true.

Lets not read anything into it, try and avoid such negative subject titles...... and give our new manager a chance.

[Ivan Easter 0]

Am I right in saying that Adams will have no say in any new players coming in as well?

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]Nope, looks like the rain has put him off. Glenn Hoddle is still available so all is not lost.[/quote]

 

The same article says Adams wants Joe Royle as TD, what do you say on that Mr Bor.

[ROKERITE 0]

It is to be hoped that it is just The Sun and Ipswich Town supporters stirring it, but if the quotes are genuine then it is disgraceful.

The Board have taken a lot of flak, unfairly in my view, over the last few days; but if they have blocked the new manager''s choice on the day of his appointment then they deserve the utmost criticism.

As you say, give the new manager a chance. That means allowing him to choose his backroom staff without interference.

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="EGGY "]Am I right in saying that Adams will have no say in any new players coming in as well?[/quote]

 

Crikey Mr Eggy, if that is the case he should walk.

[Highland Canary 76]

The whole appointment is ridiculous if the ambition is to return to the PL. For that experience, contacts, and independence of mind and action were essential criteria. However, if the ambition is simply to try to avoid further relegation than the approach makes some sense. Presumably, that''s what year 1 of the corporate plan is all about.

[Katie Borkins 1]

Wouldn''t mind Joe Royle as DoF, cracking goalscorer and the sort of player we need now.

[Two penneth 0]

Even if true, puppet manager is putting it a bit strong. We don''t know all or even any of the facts.it does seem unhelpful however.

[ZLF 271]

if this is true, and the direct quotes adds some credibility, people are right to question the boards interference but the bigger concern is adams judgement in making contact in the first place.

in the case who is not pleased that the board intervened???

[splutcho 173]

If true, I''m kind of pleased they intervened.

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]if this is true, and the direct quotes adds some credibility, people are right to question the boards interference but the bigger concern is adams judgement in making contact in the first place. in the case who is not pleased that the board intervened???[/quote]

 

Yes Mr Zipper in that respect you are right, but that still leaves the issue of who''s pulling the stings? Is Adams the manager or is it in reality the board.

[ROKERITE 0]

I''d have hoped anybody who believes managers should manage and boards should let them get on with it.

Whatever supporters might feel about the merits, and lack of them, of Steve Foley, if Adams believed he was the man he wanted alongside him then the board had a duty to back him on that, whatever the reaction of the fans.

[Guest]

Does anybody really think that during interviews, Adams didn''t reveal who his backroom staff would be? He wasn''t applying for a newspaper round!

Mackay and any other applicant would have introduced his package also. That is why it does take a bit of time regarding availability etc.

Any board would want to know who was coming in and how much it was going to cost.

This is just a good attempt at a wind up.

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Does anybody really think that during interviews, Adams didn''t reveal who his backroom staff would be? He wasn''t applying for a newspaper round! Mackay and any other applicant would have introduced his package also. That is why it does take a bit of time regarding availability etc. Any board would want to know who was coming in and how much it was going to cost. This is just a good attempt at a wind up.[/quote]

 

I assure you it is not Mr KG, it is a very genuine fear that Adams actions, transfers etc will be dictated by the board and this new “football committee”

And McNally will be sitting on that!

[paul moy 235]

Perhaps blocked because Culverhouse is now available ?

[Year of the tiger 52]

[quote user="EGGY "]Am I right in saying that Adams will have no say in any new players coming in as well?[/quote]

No this was stressed in the press conference that Adams decides players he wants to bring in

[Herman 9,698]

More stirring from Wiz ??

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Jimbo Canary"]Foley is quoted as embarressed and hurt.[/quote]I have often scoffed those who have accused Jimbo of being Wiz. However, the mis-spelling of the word highlighted above is the way Wiz has ALWAYS spelled it in the past and added to the fact Wiz has disappeared and Jimbo has suddenly re-appeared, I am now convinced they are one and the same. Many posters in the past have been banned and re-registered in different names but characteristics like this have always given them away. The difference this time is Wiz wasn''t banned, he just had another hissy fit and flounced off just as he often does.The only question in my mind now is ....WHY?

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Jimbo Canary"]Foley is quoted as embarressed and hurt.[/quote]

I have often scoffed those who have accused Jimbo of being Wiz. However, the mis-spelling of the word highlighted above is the way Wiz has ALWAYS spelled it in the past and added to the fact Wiz has disappeared and Jimbo has suddenly re-appeared, I am now convinced they are one and the same.

Many posters in the past have been banned and re-registered in different names but characteristics like this have always given them away. The difference this time is Wiz wasn''t banned, he just had another hissy fit and flounced off just as he often does.

The only question in my mind now is ....WHY?


[/quote]

 

I have seen these silly antics before on other forums, false and wrong accusations by ''Sherlock''s who wish to take the subject ''off topic'' for their own agenda''s.

Suffice to say Mr L, you are wrong, I do play such games and had this forum an ''ignore'' button you would be on it, my apologies to Mr Wizz for this nonsense.