No one else wanted the job

[Yellowhammer 95]

That was while the decision took so long sorry but he was last choice , it''s gunn all over again , hope I am wrong but got a feeling he will play the houghton way

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

God how depressing is it. Your right nobody wanted to manage us.

Bryan gunn, again.

[CanaryOne 0]

p Goreham just said on the radio they did not even speak to Lennon . They have meant to appoint this clown all along .

[Bury Green 0]

Just when you think you''ve seen it all and that surely they couldn''t be so stupid again you get this farce.

Why did it take them a fortnight to come up with this, they obviously weren''t waiting for the likes of Lennon to become available.

It seems to me that there is now a fundamental shift in the Board, this type of Keystone Cops decision making wouldn''t have seen the light of day three or so years ago.

Anybody can make a mistake but only a fool......... oh hold on a minute, they just have.

[Canary Poirot 1]

[quote user="72season"]That was while the decision took so long sorry but he was last choice , it''s gunn all over again , hope I am wrong but got a feeling he will play the houghton way[/quote]

If he plays the Hughton way 4-2-3-1 then I''ll be calling for his head pretty early. I never want to see a Norwich team play that formation ever again. It''s drab, boring, defensive and relies on us scoring from set pieces as we''re not good enough to score from open play with that formation.

[KeiranShikari_2 0]

Zola did.

[Dr Zeuss 0]

Is it really that surprising? Surely some off what Delia said was "complex" could, just could, have been something to do with who would and wouldn''t be happy to work with a "technical director".

We understand why the manger cannot in future be entrusted with record levels of spending and all the other paraphernalia that shifts the focus from "winning matches" to quote McNally, so consequently there was always going to be reluctance by many so called eligible candidates, to work in that regime. Not surprising then that Adams is the man Whois happy to take the job, question is, who will the tech director be????? No bookies odds on that one!

[GrantsMoustache 0]

Yes they did, Zola did.

I doubt they even talked to Lennon or Malky, the board have planned to appoint Adams all along and have taken us on a bit of a ride.

[CanaryOne 0]

I doubt anybody gives a monkeys who the Technical Director is , we wanted a manager and got the booby prize .

[Mr Brownstone 0]

I can''t seriously imagine the board wasted 2 weeks at such a crucial and turbulent time if they''d planned on appointing Adams from day 1. That would be extremely reckless when there''s a squad full of unsettled players.

We were either rejected (most likely) or Adams impressed more than the other candidates.

[White stuff 0]

One thing we do know is if the board has got it wrong again and we struggle in the championship I''m sure the board will have to think about their future.

One thing I will say is I''m glad it''s Adams rather then Malky.

[GrantsMoustache 0]

We don''t know who the candidates were.

[Absent Friend 0]

One thing this certainly not is "Bryan Gunn again".

Gunn had relatively little coaching behind him, he had also been in charge of the first team for something like 4 months having very little effect on them after his first Giggs-like game.

Adams has on the other hand at least shown consistently over a couple of years the ability to blend together a group of players into a very successful unit that outsmarted - in Everton and Chelsea - two of the best academies in the country. The impact of his work is also reflected in the success of the U21s this year in achieving the position they did.

Bryan Gunn never came anywhere near that.

Yes, Adams was working with inexperienced teenagers not hard-bitten pros. For that reason the Board''s decision is certainly something of a gamble. But they have observed him at close quarters for several years so one thing for sure is that they know his strengths and weaknesses.

But as the topic heading suggests Adams does want the job - perhaps one reason for appointing him was that he showed more passion and desire for it than anyone else.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Perhaps, he was prepared to work with a DOF and some of the others weren''t.......nod nod wink wink!

[CanaryOne 0]

[quote user="Jenkins"]Perhaps, he was prepared to work with a DOF and some of the others weren''t.......nod nod wink wink![/quote]We never spoke to Lennon who was the best candidate by a mile , yeah Adams will be Delias little yes man lapdog thats all shes bothered about . Crowd will turn on them very early next season lets hope its as success and rids the club of a disease thats killing it .

[andyc24_uk 79]

Given the comments about ''difficulties'' and the timing of the announcement, I suspect this has more to do with Lennon''s resignation from Celtic. I dont think he was ever interested in us, however I do think MacKay was our first choice and Lennon''s resignation spurred him on to apply for the Celtic job and withdraw from the race for ours. Adams plus an experienced Technical Director was then the Plan B. I''ll be sticking a few quid on MacKay to Celtic for sure!

[Yellow Shirt 17]

With the right team around him Adams will be a very good manager for NCFC.I would love to see Hoddle as Technical Director and Culverhouse as Assistant Manager.

[CJ 1]

What is so depressing is overnight not only have we gone from playing the likes of Man Utd and Chelsea to more mundane matches such as Watford and Millwall we now are not attractive enough to even bring in an experienced manager at this level!

Boy will that Little Norwich City tag come home to roost. The tractor boys will be laughing all the way to six points this season if Adams isn''t gone by Xmas

[canarybubbles 2,200]

Even if we assume that Lennon and Mackay turned it down, and that for some reason Zola wasn''t seen as up to scratch, why did the search stop there? Were the Board really so limited in imagination that they couldn''t think beyond these names? How much is McNally paid? A million. Tell you what, Norwich, I will do the job for a quarter of that and I will come up with the same list of names. You''ll save 750,000 and still come up with the same decisions.

[Salopian 1]

We don''t know that no one else wanted the job.

Some may have been rejected because of what was discovered in interview, or from expert advisers.

Some may have turned down because they made excessive demands, or rejected the new management structure.

We all assumed that the longer than expected process somehow meant that we were struggling to persuade leading contenders to take up the job. Perhaps we were right, but it could be due to the time needed to scrutinise all candidates we had sought or had applied of their own initiative, and expose the applications to expert judgement. It could be due also to having to arrange interviews/tours for the short-listed candidates, or giving them time to go home and discuss with wives and families, etc.

At the end of the day, one or more may have rejected us, and out of the Premiership we are not the attractive proposition we were, but of the remainder one or more was rejected as not being as good as Adams.

Time will tell how good the decision was, but may not reveal how many of our preferred choices rejected us.

[Newton 0]

To claim no one else wanted the job is absolute C##P

 

What is this based on, no one wanted to manage a football club with no external debt, prem standard players and an income of £50M plus where the average in the champs is probably half that

 

Get real people - too many on here have there brains in the wrong place (they sit on them)

 

We drew the shortlist up, was the post advertised or did we invite people to apply - I would suggest it was the latter

[Indy_Bones 444]

[quote user="Canary Poirot"]

If he plays 4-2-3-1 then I''ll be calling for his head pretty early. I never want to see a Norwich team play that formation ever again. It''s drab, boring, defensive and relies on us scoring from set pieces as we''re not good enough to score from open play with that formation.[/quote]Except that like almost any formation, it''s as defensive or attacking as the manager chooses to make it.Take Liverpool for example, you have Gerrard and Lucas/Allen as the defensive 2, with Sterling, Suarez, Henderson as the 3 and Sturridge as the 1 and THEN tell me it''s a defensive formation...They used pace, passing and attacking play to make that type of formation work perfectly well, whereas Hughton went defensive, told the wingers to slow play/focus on defence, played the wrong balls for the front man/men and generally made a perfectly normal (and frequently used) formation seem overly negative.If we lined up with Tettey and Fer as the defensive 2, Pilks, Redmond and Howson as the 3 and RvW/Hooper as the 1, but played fast, attacking play, looking to provide quick through balls and good link up with RvW then it could be fantastic.It''s all about HOW you play, rather than the barebones formation numbers...