Managerial choice in the Championship

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]That''s just silly, Herman. Of course no-one was there sitting in on the interviews.But we all know how the media works on this, and I can only remember Mackay''s name being mentioned as in the frame (plus, in a half-hearted way, Lennon) . Are you seriously suggesting that , if there had, as you suggest, been a deluge of applicants, that at least one or two names would not have spilt out into the combined might of the local and national media.The overriding impression is that The Smiths'' heart was set, for some reason , on Adams from the start. Unless , of course you can supply some evidence to the contrary........[/quote]Reggie, the overriding impression, based on the evidence of the reports of the two journalists who have an inside track on what is happening at Carrow Road, was that the directors had their hearts set on Mackay, rather than Adams. Hence - more evidence - the admission very early on in that Radio Norfolk interview about the latter''s inexperience. That Mackay was probably offered the job, at least informally but that he played hard to get because he believed - correctly -  he would get offered a Premier League job. Hence - more evidence - the early statement from the directors that they hoped to make an announcement very soon and then the later rather embarrassing statement that things were taking just a bit longer than they had hoped. Ie, they were still trying, unsuccessfully, to persuade Mackay. Only when it became plain he didn''t want to come did they turn to Adams.If the directors had wanted Adams all along they could have appointed him straight away, and they would hardly have gone on the radio and talked about his lack of experience. All the evidence is Mackay was the first choice.As to your idea that we needed to advertise the job, really? There is a worldwide football grapevine. I very much doubt there was any need to spend money on an advert. The notion that because not many names came publicly into the frame it meant we hadn''t attracted many applicants doesn''t hold up.The club is very tight-knit in terms of publicity. Only what it wants to get out normally gets out. And because we are off the beaten track in terms of football we don''t have hordes of national reporters covering us. This is why there are only probably a couple (Dennis and Wyett) who get inside information.  There could have been many interested parties (as well as Zola, whose name was mentioned as being keen) without a word getting into the press.

[A Load of Squit 5,135]

Pulis left Palace just before the start of this season (August) he wasn''t available.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Purple - but why should we "leave aside" Lennon when he was clearly the obvious candidate. Indeed I know via some "friend of a friend" stuff (which others on here would no doubt pour scorn upon but which I trust) that Lennon was expecting to get the Norwich job but then had no further contact from us. He had publicallyinficated he wanted it and had quit Celtic. He was also linked with our job heavily when Hughton got it so someone we perhaps had sniffed around previously.

Of the other managers I can''t recall the timing of Pulis''s departure from Palace but he was available around the time. Presumably Warnock was also available. Off the top of my head others available were Sherwood, Steve Clarke, Malky and maybe Glen Hoddle and that''s before you look at those in work at the time and who we could well have attracted had we seriously tried. I don''t believe Adams was set for the job from the outset. I think the delay and then very sudden announcement indicates something else perhaps fell through but then there was still plenty of time to find a decent manager rather than immediately put Adams in charge on a three year contract. The clarity of decision making and the announcements at the time frankly suggested to me that the board (and certain individuals thereon) had lost the plot. I''m not sure they have found it again since.[/quote]Jim. because he still represented a big gamble. You can argue less of a gamble than Adams but still a gamble. I repeat, if Lennon was so obvious then how come all those other Championship clubs, including ones he would have jumped at the chance of managing such as Forest or Cardiff, passed? Not to mention PL clubs such as Palace. What is happening now (and I don''t accuse you or Highland of this) is that there is some hindsight judgment going on, with Lennon being touted as obvious (even though objectively he still isn''t) when it wasn''t so at the time. And Adams is being condemned as a failure when objectively that hasn''t been proved either.Of those alternative names you mention, Pulis presumably was waiting for a PL job, and has got one. Mackay we wanted but like Pulis thought us below his station in life. Would you really have been happy with Warnock, or Hoddle, who has been out of management for years now? Clarke''s one go at managment, as opposed to coaching, saw him sacked. Sherwood is an interesting name, but the Lennon argument applies to him. How come, if he looked so promising at Spurs, none of those other Championship clubs took the bait?I agree with you that Adams was a gamble, and that we should have done everything we could to get a talented experienced manager (which is why after Reading at home I decided we should now try to get Rosler in to work with Phelan). All we differ on is that you seem to think there was a good choice of such, and I don''t. The directors are not idiots. If after Mackay fell out of the running there had been someone else out there who was available, wanted the job and had a record of success they would have gone for him. Despite the myth, their record of making external appointments is good.

[ZLF 271]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Getting the right guy in the right place at the right time is still a lottery.

[/quote]

 

This is absolutely the case.     Its the same with transfers,   you never know which will work or fail and the clubs situation can either help or hinder that.

 

Lambert was still a gamble which came off perfectly.      Adams appoint just a higher risk gamble.     The higher risk the appointment should come an implicit acceptance that there is more likelihood of a quicker sacking if things dont progress as anticipated.  

 

 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]That''s just silly, Herman. Of course no-one was there sitting in on the interviews.But we all know how the media works on this, and I can only remember Mackay''s name being mentioned as in the frame (plus, in a half-hearted way, Lennon) . Are you seriously suggesting that , if there had, as you suggest, been a deluge of applicants, that at least one or two names would not have spilt out into the combined might of the local and national media.The overriding impression is that The Smiths'' heart was set, for some reason , on Adams from the start. Unless , of course you can supply some evidence to the contrary........[/quote]Reggie, the overriding impression, based on the evidence of the reports of the two journalists who have an inside track on what is happening at Carrow Road, was that the directors had their hearts set on Mackay, rather than Adams. Hence - more evidence - the admission very early on in that Radio Norfolk interview about the latter''s inexperience. That Mackay was probably offered the job, at least informally but that he played hard to get because he believed - correctly -  he would get offered a Premier League job. Hence - more evidence - the early statement from the directors that they hoped to make an announcement very soon and then the later rather embarrassing statement that things were taking just a bit longer than they had hoped. Ie, they were still trying, unsuccessfully, to persuade Mackay. Only when it became plain he didn''t want to come did they turn to Adams.If the directors had wanted Adams all along they could have appointed him straight away, and they would hardly have gone on the radio and talked about his lack of experience. All the evidence is Mackay was the first choice.As to your idea that we needed to advertise the job, really? There is a worldwide football grapevine. I very much doubt there was any need to spend money on an advert. The notion that because not many names came publicly into the frame it meant we hadn''t attracted many applicants doesn''t hold up.The club is very tight-knit in terms of publicity. Only what it wants to get out normally gets out. And because we are off the beaten track in terms of football we don''t have hordes of national reporters covering us. This is why there are only probably a couple (Dennis and Wyett) who get inside information.  There could have been many interested parties (as well as Zola, whose name was mentioned as being keen) without a word getting into the press.[/quote]Your first paragraph is fair, Purple. Perhaps what I should have written (what I meant) was ''heart set on Adams after Mackay dropped out of the running.''As for the rest, well you rather back up my point. I''m sure that there was no need to advertise the job fully, as I''m confident that there was no shortage of people interested in it. I don''t know how you get the idea that I think otherwise as I was clear.But whether that interest was pursued (eg interviewed) is a different matter altogether, and , with respect, something you do not know about any more than I do.  Clearly this club does not get the media coverage that Man U City, Arsenal, Chelsea get , but there is always some reasonably detailed background coverage, and I maintain that if there had been some movement we''d have known about it , as we do with transfer rumours.So....my hunch is that there really was not much effort put in to any candidate other than Adams. Clearly I cannot prove that any more than you can prove that there was.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"]I''m still waiting for Reggie to put forward his "minimum acceptable standard" for club performance. Maybe he could follow that with a Supporter''s Charter, or a Magna Carta for Bedwetters.[/quote]Dear oh dear BBB, you really are being unimaginably dim.I''ve made it  abundantly clear what MY view of a minimum acceptable standard is for the club right now, and a few others have opined similarly.Just to reiterate (and hopefully you''ll get it this time)..... My view is that for us to, before the turn of the year, to be effectively out of the running for an automatic promotion place, is an unacceptable standard.  QED  to my mind a minimum acceptable standard is that we should be garnering enough points to remain at the very least in the running for a top two spot till about March) . I''ve never said that we should certainly be in the top 2 come May, but at least be in with a shout till near the end.  My prediction is that we are falling some way short of that.Now.....firstly, do you understand that fairly simple train of thought ?And, secondly will you answer my question on the same subject ? I can see why you''d want to wriggle out of it, as you are trying to, but, YES or NO, in your opinion has the club''s progress this season been up to the standard you expected ? Not too taxing a concept to grasp, surely ?

[Newton 0]

Purple someone needs to pop your Delia bubble (r u on the payroll at Carrow Road) ?

I wont list all the rubbish u spout but attempting to compare the shambolic recent managerial appointsments @ Norwich with Notts Forrest is laughable and then to claim that appointing Lennon would only have been slightly less of a higher risk than appointng Adams - beggers belief

It is the boards role to recruit managers not ours - we will never be made aware of who was or was not approached - or how far the search actually got but consider this the only names mentioned at the time were unemployed (no compo to be paid another Delia failing)

Can u please expand on this wild statement:-

If after Mackay fell out of the running there had been someone else out there who was available, wanted the job and had a record of success they would have gone for him.  - How do u know there was or was not anyone else in the running ?

Despite the myth, their record of making external appointments is good - Can u expand on this amazing claim or r u just excluding all the home grown bloomers ie Grant, Gunn, Adams etc ?

The majority of supporters are not stupid and I do not know one person (accept perhaps u) who truly believes Adams was the best man for the job , in fact it would of taken an almighty search to find anybody worse .
Take people for mugs then do not be surprised when they rebel

Sack Adams and u will have instant unity. keep him and the rifts within the supporters will only get bigger, until we eventually turn on what many of us already see as the cause of ouur problems - Delia

I pray we go up or make a good fist of failing - otherwise it could well turn nasty at Carrow Road in May

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]That''s just silly, Herman. Of course no-one was there sitting in on the interviews.But we all know how the media works on this, and I can only remember Mackay''s name being mentioned as in the frame (plus, in a half-hearted way, Lennon) . Are you seriously suggesting that , if there had, as you suggest, been a deluge of applicants, that at least one or two names would not have spilt out into the combined might of the local and national media.The overriding impression is that The Smiths'' heart was set, for some reason , on Adams from the start. Unless , of course you can supply some evidence to the contrary........[/quote]Reggie, the overriding impression, based on the evidence of the reports of the two journalists who have an inside track on what is happening at Carrow Road, was that the directors had their hearts set on Mackay, rather than Adams. Hence - more evidence - the admission very early on in that Radio Norfolk interview about the latter''s inexperience. That Mackay was probably offered the job, at least informally but that he played hard to get because he believed - correctly -  he would get offered a Premier League job. Hence - more evidence - the early statement from the directors that they hoped to make an announcement very soon and then the later rather embarrassing statement that things were taking just a bit longer than they had hoped. Ie, they were still trying, unsuccessfully, to persuade Mackay. Only when it became plain he didn''t want to come did they turn to Adams.If the directors had wanted Adams all along they could have appointed him straight away, and they would hardly have gone on the radio and talked about his lack of experience. All the evidence is Mackay was the first choice.As to your idea that we needed to advertise the job, really? There is a worldwide football grapevine. I very much doubt there was any need to spend money on an advert. The notion that because not many names came publicly into the frame it meant we hadn''t attracted many applicants doesn''t hold up.The club is very tight-knit in terms of publicity. Only what it wants to get out normally gets out. And because we are off the beaten track in terms of football we don''t have hordes of national reporters covering us. This is why there are only probably a couple (Dennis and Wyett) who get inside information.  There could have been many interested parties (as well as Zola, whose name was mentioned as being keen) without a word getting into the press.[/quote]Your first paragraph is fair, Purple. Perhaps what I should have written (what I meant) was ''heart set on Adams after Mackay dropped out of the running.''As for the rest, well you rather back up my point. I''m sure that there was no need to advertise the job fully, as I''m confident that there was no shortage of people interested in it. I don''t know how you get the idea that I think otherwise as I was clear.But whether that interest was pursued (eg interviewed) is a different matter altogether, and , with respect, something you do not know about any more than I do.  Clearly this club does not get the media coverage that Man U City, Arsenal, Chelsea get , but there is always some reasonably detailed background coverage, and I maintain that if there had been some movement we''d have known about it , as we do with transfer rumours.So....my hunch is that there really was not much effort put in to any candidate other than Adams. Clearly I cannot prove that any more than you can prove that there was.[/quote]Reggie, it depends what you mean by "much effort".

The one name, other than Mackay and Adams, I saw mentioned as definitely wanting

the job was Zola (the tabloid stuff I saw about Lennon was not at all authoritative and disappeared before your eyes if read carefully). Now if I had been a director I would have pretty

quickly rejected Zola as a candidate, based on his poor track record. I

would not have put much effort at all into that. Truthfully, in May,

would you as a director have voted for Zola?You are right that

neither of us knows, but there may well have been any number of similar

candidates who got rejected for the same basic reason, that their

records didn''t measure up.This was the point of my OP, to

illustrate, by means of Forest over many years and by way of our current

Championship rivals, that it is fantasy to believe we had a wide choice

of obviously qualified (by that I mean nailed on at least for the top

six and probably better) candidates.The evidence of that is that

the only name now being touted as "obvious" is Lennon, on the basis

that he has managed to get something decent out of a Bolton side that

was absurdly under-performing. And that could just be new-manager

bounce.

[Len 74]

This looks like another daft thread which is attempting to justify the appointment of someone with no experience and paint a rosy picture by selectively comparing us with a whole host of poorly run clubs.I''ll start by stating that I think that the quality regarding football and tactics in this country is mostly very poor. At least the poorness of the tactical side of things seems to be quite widely accepted from reading Parma Ham''s threads. Other related aspects of football in this country such as the medical side and fitness side are lacking when compared to foreign (especially Italian) clubs, but that''s another subject.The point is that many clubs don''t fulfill their potentials, but implying that we''re doing well if we selectively compare ourselves to them is in my opinion pure folly and will get us nowhere. Any business or organisation looking for success ought to be comparing themselves to successful entities if they want to judge their performance. In Norwich''s case there are comparatively few really successful clubs of a similar size, but trying to argue that we''re doing well by saying we''re just a bit better than the mass of poor performers is ridiculous, especially when there is so much potential to improve. We might not have benefactors, but that doesn''t mean that we can''t improve the functioning of what we have, avoid obvious mistakes and make wiser choices. If we can get better by doing things differently to other clubs then we should have courage to change instead of remaining at their level.For various reasons there seems to be a dearth of decent managers and quality coaching in British football, and consequently a comparatively poor non-PL club will have an even harder job finding a good manager. If this is the case, and if there is a lack of available domestic candidates, then why aren''t Norwich making it their business to look at foreign managers? It''s not like we''re a small Icelandic club miles from continental Europe, this is something that is realistic and within Norwich''s means. If a big building firm is looking for skilled builders amid a nationwide shortage then they''re at least going to look abroad for skilled labour before accepting a load of cowboys. It''s almost certainly the case that the club are afraid to change and will just fall back to the same old proceedures when it comes to recruitment of a new manager. The tale of a Europe-wide search seemed to be for the purposes of giving the impression that the club knew what it was doing, rather than actually doing it.Lots of foreign coaches have worked in this country. But the kind of attitude that sees

foreign coaches as a risk seems to me to be similar to the old view of foreign players, that they

don''t understand or won''t be able to deal with the rough and tumble of

British football. The OP seems to characterise foreign managers as a "leap into the

unknown", but I think this is a rather parochial and old fashioned view as more and more foreign coaches have worked in England. Foreign used to equate to fancy, lightweight or just plain strange, but

just as this attitude has lessened regarding players it has also begun to lessen

with regard to managers. Related to this is that it used to be thought that there weren''t many good foreign players and there''s still the same attitude regarding foreign managers. With both managers and players there were many keen to point out bad foreign examples as a reason to stick to tried and trusted Brits. The club ought to be trying to lessen the "unknown" by truely getting to know the European managerial market instead of pretending to do so.Another point is why did we give Neil Adams a long term contract if we have no idea how good he will prove to be? If few domestic candidates were available then it would have been preferable to give him the job on an extended caretaker basis until a suitable candidate became available. We could then have offered him the prospect of becoming assistant to a permanent appointment and gone for someone like Rosler after he was sacked by Wigan. But now we''re lumbered with our former U18s coach whom the board doesn''t want to sack due to the potential for losing face.Longer term it''s right that we''re aiming at producing our own managers, but we weren''t well stocked with experience after Hughton left. Rather than focussing purely on the form book of a manager (as the OP does), we perhaps ought to look at the quality of the football produced and whether it''s consistent with the long term football plans of the club. Otherwise we''re constantly chopping and changing style and potentially conflicting styles are played at youth and senior levels, leading to inconsistency and lack of fluency (and the youth players getting less of a chance).A stable playing style is one of the potential advantages gained by a club which produces it''s own managers, but this shouldn''t be at the expense of giving the job to someone with no senior managerial experience. What we''ve done is tried to run before we can walk and we should have sought an experienced appointment with Adams as his number two. If there wasn''t a domestic candidate that could play to the planned style,

then a European manager who can play it is preferable to putting a

dinosaur like Mackay or a rookie like Adams in the job. The current Watford manager

(someone who has also played in this country) seems to be the sort of experienced candidate we ought to be have been looking at instead of

going for an out and out gamble.To sum up, if there is a shortage of managerial talent in this

country then the club ought to be looking abroad. If we truly didn''t

have many domestic choices and were willing to gamble, then

why didn''t we gamble on getting in a European coach with experience? Why

the rush to appoint Adams permanently? Instead of focusing on other poorly run clubs and accepting the status quo, we ought to look at Swansea as an example picking a manager to play to a particular style and perhaps look at how Watford have recruited a reasonably good foreign manager when faced with a dearth of domestic talent. The club ought to cast aside its fear of change and be a bit more proactive and ambitious.The argument that we''re doing comparatively well, when all we are really

doing is comparing ourselves to a mass of mediocrity, is a fallacy. The debate often seems to have been restricted to assumptions about there having to be a domestic appointment, having to appoint someone inexperienced on a permanent basis (even if they lack ability or experience) and having to appoint purely based on the form book. Outside of these restrictions there are solutions instead of little old Norwich type excuses.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Purple, I''m glad to see that like me, you are someone who has the guts to answer a simple question civilly (unlike several on here), so thanks for that. So, no, I would not have championed Zola either, for much the same reasons as you state.I''m afraid  with appointments I''ve seen over the course of my professional (non football) life, numerous examples of where a key appointment has been made in a company on the whim of a top mover and shaker on the board, often because he/she is that individual''s pet project. The company invariably goes through the motions of advertising the post and effecting a recruitment process, but everyone knows that it''s a done deal and Mr/Ms X is a shoo in. Once Malky ruled himself out back in May, then I''m afraid that my belief is that this sort of thing was going on at Carrow Rd.Until someone comes up with any plausible explanations, I''ll continue to believe that.  I''m afraid that I simply cannot see how Adams ticked enough boxes to come out as standout candidate after this alleged ''trawl round Europe''.

[ellis206 0]

The fact is, ANY managerial appointment is a risk.

Do some of you remember the uproar when we appointed Lambert? It wasn''t greatly received by a lot of people on here.

Whilst it maybe true that we would have had more chance with an experienced manager, you only need to look at the top of the league, Bournemouth, who, yeah thats right, appointed a youth manager to manage the club and they are now flying.

 

Unfortunately fans expect instant success these days and those who have been around longer realise that this is a very tough league to get out of, even with more resources than other clubs, Bolton, Wigan, Fulham, Cardiff, Boro etc are just a few that back this fact up.

 

Interesting question for all the Adams outters, would you have taken Hughton back? Bearing in mind he has a fantastic championship record and did an incredible job getting the crisis club Birmingham in to the playoffs alongside a Europa league campaign which notoriously effects premier league clubs form (look at Everton now).

 

Bottom line is, no manager gurantees promotion and Adams has spent 20 years with the club and has earnt his right to have a chance after the incredible job he did with the youth team (like Eddie Howe) and is obviously very highly rated within the club.

 

Maybe some need to try and be more positive and help the team over the line, still a long way to go and I very much believe we will finish in at least the playoffs, but not if there is negativity around the place again which played a big part in our relegation last season.

 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

You make some reasonable points, ellis, but I''m not sure whether your Eddie Howe/Bournemouth analogy is one of them. Totally different scenario, not least in timescale. When he first emerged Howe was at a slightly upward small lower league club . Not one who''d just been relegated from the PL. And don''t forget he''s had a stint at Burnley in between his two at Dean Court.In different circumstances, then I''d agree that Hughton might have done good job for us in the champ. Trouble was, he was damaged goods by the time we were headed there, and the relationship was poisoned. Certainly a ''Hughton type'' manager would have fitted the bill back in May far more than Adams did, given the board''s stated aim of making a swift return to the Prem.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]Purple, I''m glad to see that like me, you are someone who has the guts to answer a simple question civilly (unlike several on here), so thanks for that. So, no, I would not have championed Zola either, for much the same reasons as you state.I''m afraid  with appointments I''ve seen over the course of my professional (non football) life, numerous examples of where a key appointment has been made in a company on the whim of a top mover and shaker on the board, often because he/she is that individual''s pet project. The company invariably goes through the motions of advertising the post and effecting a recruitment process, but everyone knows that it''s a done deal and Mr/Ms X is a shoo in. Once Malky ruled himself out back in May, then I''m afraid that my belief is that this sort of thing was going on at Carrow Rd.Until someone comes up with any plausible explanations, I''ll continue to believe that.  I''m afraid that I simply cannot see how Adams ticked enough boxes to come out as standout candidate after this alleged ''trawl round Europe''.[/quote]Reggie, I think we have debated this enough, and actually I don''t think we are that far apart. As far as your second para is concerned, that is an interesting point, but I would see it rather differently. Not that what happened was on a whim or a pet project, but that there is within companies (I am talking from personal experience about business generally here) a tendency to favour an internal candidate rather than an outsider because the former is much more a known quantity. So that once Mackay (to an extent a known quantity) fell out of the running Adams'' stock rose compared with that of whoever else might have been in the frame. In other words his "known-ness" made up to an extent for his lack of experience.No one seriously thinks he was the stand-out candidate. That was just PR guff that always gets said. What would you have had Bowkett say? That Adams looked like the best option from a not very appetising bunch?! If you look at what Bowkett said there is a key line there:“And the things we were looking for, as well as experience, is some of

the basic things such as coaching skills, leadership, vision hard work, a

progressive attitude, hunger for the job and the commitment to do it

the Norwich way and Neil easily come top of that in terms of those

various attributes.”In other words some possible candidates the directors might have wanted did want the job, or not badly enough.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="tenpenny"]

Lots of foreign coaches have worked in this country. But the kind of attitude that sees

foreign coaches as a risk seems to me to be similar to the old view of foreign players, that they

don''t understand or won''t be able to deal with the rough and tumble of

British football. The OP seems to characterise foreign managers as a "leap into the

unknown", but I think this is a rather parochial and old fashioned view as more and more foreign coaches have worked in England. Foreign used to equate to fancy, lightweight or just plain strange, but

just as this attitude has lessened regarding players it has also begun to lessen

with regard to managers. Related to this is that it used to be thought that there weren''t many good foreign players and there''s still the same attitude regarding foreign managers. With both managers and players there were many keen to point out bad foreign examples as a reason to stick to tried and trusted Brits. The club ought to be trying to lessen the "unknown" by truely getting to know the European managerial market instead of pretending to do so.[/quote]I will restrict myself to answering this point. I am probably not the best person to accuse of parochialism as far as football is concerned. I have been following world football since the very early 1960s, decades before it became fashionable. Consequently I have always regarded the English game as seriously lacking in terms of technique and coaching and have long advocated overseas input to improve standards over the long run.But as far as hiring overseas coaches is concerned, unless it is one from the very top rank, such as Mourinho or Ancelotti or van Gaal, who by definition would be out of our league, it is a leap in the dark. And one that a club in our position, needing short-term success, can hardly afford to take. Some lower-ranked overseas managers have come in and done a good job (such as Karanka at Middlesbrough) but others have been total disasters.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]And Nige, by the way, your defintion of

a ''balanced poster'' is bizarrely arrogant, even by your own lamentable standards

. I did not realise that it was obligatory to post every day with the same

monotonous regularity as you do. By your definition, then people (and there are

many of us) who have other pressing committments and only post when a new issue

has cropped up that demands comment are ''unbalanced''. And I notice that  you

have yet again sidestepped the perfectly simple ''acceptabilty'' question I posed

to you (and Bor) yesterday .We can only  deduce that this failure is so as not

to incriminate yourself . and it''s no good trying to wriggle out of it by saying

that you ''don''t understand'' the concept of acceptability. Surely a man like you

who seems to have an opinion on pretty much everything must have one on whether,

thus far, you''ve found the club''s progress satisfactory ?[/quote]

 

No Reggie. Only you would be so shallow as to judge people by post count ofr post regularity.

 

 

My point was about only posting in certain circumstances. This has nothing to do with count or amount. New issues will, by definition be positive and negative events. It is my view that an unbalanced poster, such as yourself, would be motivated by either positive or negative where as a balanced poster, even if they post just once a year, would be motivated by both.

 

 

So if you take this season as a yardstick.. 1. We started off well. 2. It turned to crap. 3. We picked up. 4. We had a set back.

 

 

Now my unbalanced poster would post exclusively in 1 & 3 or 2 & 4. Ring any bells yet? Or is it all just down to coincidence...

 

 

[JF 694]

Just think it''s more a case of people are likely to post more often when things are not going well as it''s a way to let of steam. It''s that simple.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="whoareyou"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Is that why Tim Sherwood turned down WBA in the summer? Was he just holding out to be offered the Norwich job? We can only catch fish in the pond our line is in...[/quote]

You have a very defeatist attitude, NN. And very little ambition.Its a similar sort of vision from the board at the time that saw us end up in League One, IMHO.[/quote]

 

There''s enough people on here know me personally so I don''t need to worry about the odd Keyboard Kate who tries to attack my character with ill informed insults. But just so you are left in no doubt I have achieved a lot in my life through having the total opposite of those attributes.

 

Now back to topic, if you are going to believe that everyone was available to the board before they appointed Adams then hanging your hat on Sherwood shows a distinct lack of ambition on your part.

 

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Another fundamentally good point PC and ironically one which brings the two sides of the argument fairly close together.

The Directors are indeed personal and - if you like - parochial about Norwich City. They are fan owners, with a penchant for the evangelical and keen to find a vision to believe in.

As with many companies - and certainly your own - they didn''t just want somebody who wanted to manage a good club, they wanted somebody who wanted to manage Norwich City.

Not only is this approach endearing, genuine and a little different, it runs counter to much of which is bad in football. Appointing an unknown based on familiarity to a multi-million pound business would be a huge gamble, but Neil is - and always was - a direct, driven and well-qualified man who has something about him. He is exactly the kind of character that would indeed take the chance to "manage upwards" and kill for the job once the opportunity arose (see pre-season thread "why Neil Adams is the exception to the rule").

It was not a crazy left-field gamble, and while many in football were surprised when he actually got it, I don''t think any were surprised that he headed into management and was able to persuade directors to give him a chance.

Many, many a career had begun with an opportunist move, where other options either failed to materialise, inspire or self-destructed.

Let us not forget that not only did he fit the parameters that AB identified, he was doing the job itself. Performing the role, literally managing the situation, ranks above a half-decent interview..

Relegated clubs typically suffer a hangover period of readjustment. Received football wisdom is that this healing and recalibration process takes time or doesn''t happen at all. Relegated clubs are not a dream gig on the managerial circuit, regardless what passionate fans may understandably believe...

Parma

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="JF"]Just think it''s more a case of people are likely to post more often when things are not going well as it''s a way to let of steam. It''s that simple.[/quote]

 

But why? We love the club don''t we? To support is a positive isn''t it? Would you just comment to let off steam in other aspects of your life?

 

 

[Newton 0]

 

Purple what u talking about ??????

U r correct u have no more experience than anyone else with regard to the selection of Foreign Managers & have most of us not followed world football (what does that mean by the way ?)

In 1966 when we won the world cup- in your view we were seriously lacking in terms of technique & coaching (your words not mine) - R u for real ? - I thought we were at the forefront with attacking wing backs but obviously not in your view - what was that idiot Ramsey doing back then - what a fool ?

If this is yet another lame attempt to support Delias choice of Adams it will not & does not hold water ( Adams was not a massive leap in the dark then  in your view? )

As I have previously stated (and u have chosen to ignore the question)  I cant think of a worse appointment than Adams - can u ?

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="ellis206"]

The fact is, ANY managerial appointment is a risk.

Do some of you remember the uproar when we appointed Lambert? It wasn''t greatly received by a lot of people on here.

Whilst it maybe true that we would have had more chance with an experienced manager, you only need to look at the top of the league, Bournemouth, who, yeah thats right, appointed a youth manager to manage the club and they are now flying.

 

Unfortunately fans expect instant success these days and those who have been around longer realise that this is a very tough league to get out of, even with more resources than other clubs, Bolton, Wigan, Fulham, Cardiff, Boro etc are just a few that back this fact up.

 

Interesting question for all the Adams outters, would you have taken Hughton back? Bearing in mind he has a fantastic championship record and did an incredible job getting the crisis club Birmingham in to the playoffs alongside a Europa league campaign which notoriously effects premier league clubs form (look at Everton now).

 

Bottom line is, no manager gurantees promotion and Adams has spent 20 years with the club and has earnt his right to have a chance after the incredible job he did with the youth team (like Eddie Howe) and is obviously very highly rated within the club.

 

Maybe some need to try and be more positive and help the team over the line, still a long way to go and I very much believe we will finish in at least the playoffs, but not if there is negativity around the place again which played a big part in our relegation last season.

 

[/quote]

I tend to agree with you that we need to be more positive (although i find it hard since I am so frustrated at what i see unfolding). However, regardless of whether one might disagree over whether Adams was a risk worth taking one thing I could not disagree with you on more is that Adams deserved this job. He most certainly did not. This is one of the top 25 managerial jobs in the country and he did absolutely nothing to "deserve" getting it. He was an ok player who has made a good living out of our club one way or another for a long period of time. The club and we owe him nothing, let alone the huge payday he is now getting whilst ruining our promotion chances and possibly setting the club back several years.

I would also query whether he did an "incredible job" with the youth team as claimed. Yes he did a reasonable job, seemed popular with the players and they won the FA Youth Cup which is to his credit but league wise not sure the job he did was quite so "incredible" and also I''m not sure whether he had any involvement in recruiting the players who won us the FA Youth Cup or simply benefited from being the coach of a good batch who came through the system.

Howe may have been a youth team coach in the past but he has been manager for several years including a stint elsewhere from which he no doubt learnt a lot. Bournemouth are now benefiting from his talent allied to the experience he has gained. he is where Adams will be in about 5 years time.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Jim, was my explaination about your Rays Funds task clear as day or clear as mud?

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Jim, was my explaination about your Rays Funds task clear as day or clear as mud?

 

 

[/quote]

Clear thanks Nutty, I will log in next week and fulfil my duty! look forward to it.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="JF"]Just think it''s more a case of people are likely to post more often when things are not going well as it''s a way to let of steam. It''s that simple.[/quote]

 

But why? We love the club don''t we? To support is a positive isn''t it? Would you just comment to let off steam in other aspects of your life?

 

 

[/quote]Erm...yes, actually. Isn''t that what message boards are all about ? Commenting on subjects that you feel strongly about, both positive and negative. You are one of those people who just post endlessly on any old subject however ill informed or ill qualified to comment on it you are. If I do not feel strongly about something I don''t post. Simple as. Time is another constraining factor. Obviously you are blessed with endless free hours to bang on on here about nearly every subject/thread under the sun. Good luck to you, but some of us are not so lucky.Nige, not everything in life is positive or a positive spin can be put on it . When we won at Wigan and v Hudds, I complemented the club on the results. But, as JF says, it''s hard to keep harping on about a couple of good results. Far more cathartic to chew the fat and make suggestions when things are not going so well. Because sh*t happens.....As a general point I cannot see why you and a few others feel that the debate over Adams is representative of ''not supporting the club''. Get used to the fact that, as with Hughton, this debate will rumble on and on until it reaches a natural conclusion. I  for one hope that conclusion involves us being promoted back to the PL, so all you lot will be able to say to us, the doubters, ''told you so''. But, from where I''m standing , the jury is at the very least out as to whether the conclusion to this will be a happy one.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]Just to reiterate (and hopefully you''ll get it this time)..... My view is that for us to, before the turn of the year, to be effectively out of the running for an automatic promotion place, is an unacceptable standard.  QED  to my mind a minimum acceptable standard is that we should be garnering enough points to remain at the very least in the running for a top two spot till about March) . I''ve never said that we should certainly be in the top 2 come May, but at least be in with a shout till near the end.  My prediction is that we are falling some way short of that.[/quote]Right, well there we are.Personally, I am slightly disappointed by where we find ourselves and would like us to have a few more points, but I don''t think we''re massively off the pace and neither do I think we are "out of the running for an automatic promotion place".Our current position is a concern rather than a full blown crisis.  Now, some might prefer it to be a full blown crisis as it would hasten Adams''s departure and provide easy ammo to fire at the board, but we are where we are (seventh, joint 2nd highest scorers, 3 points off a playoff place) and I don''t see where we are as below a "minimum acceptable standard".I remain optimistic that Phelan and Adams will get us firing and propel us up the table.Hopefully that is enough of a straight answer for you.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"][quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]Just to reiterate (and hopefully you''ll get it this time)..... My view is that for us to, before the turn of the year, to be effectively out of the running for an automatic promotion place, is an unacceptable standard.  QED  to my mind a minimum acceptable standard is that we should be garnering enough points to remain at the very least in the running for a top two spot till about March) . I''ve never said that we should certainly be in the top 2 come May, but at least be in with a shout till near the end.  My prediction is that we are falling some way short of that.[/quote]Right, well there we are.Personally, I am slightly disappointed by where we find ourselves and would like us to have a few more points, but I don''t think we''re massively off the pace and neither do I think we are "out of the running for an automatic promotion place".Our current position is a concern rather than a full blown crisis.  Now, some might prefer it to be a full blown crisis as it would hasten Adams''s departure and provide easy ammo to fire at the board, but we are where we are (seventh, joint 2nd highest scorers, 3 points off a playoff place) and I don''t see where we are as below a "minimum acceptable standard".I remain optimistic that Phelan and Adams will get us firing and propel us up the table.Hopefully that is enough of a straight answer for you.[/quote]Hallelujah. There we are . It wasn''t that difficult, as it , BBB ? You''ve said nothing there that could not have been said over 24 hours ago and without all the smoke and mirrors clever dick stuff.That''s your view and good luck to you. I too hope that you are right. As for propelling us up the table  , well we shall see . I think we could be ''propelled'' up one place and just scrape into the play offs. Anything better will, as I said yesterday , require a large improvement from us and bad runs from 3 of Bournemouth, Scummers, Derby and Middlesborough. May happen, but lets put it this way, I''m not going to be paying a visit to the bookies with my Xmas bonus to wager a bet on it.

[Indy 3,284]

I love this type of long winded post...no offence Purple you have raised some valid arguements but from a narrow window.

Every single appointment is a gamble with every potential manager bieng given the job after an interview process.....most of the time without seeing at first hand what this manager can do for us.

It''s about the right man to fit the team and club....Pardew is for me very unlucky that the daft Newcastle fans would rather have Roeder back against the fantastic job Pardew has done.

Adams was no fans first choice but if believed was the boards first choice. Time will tell if he is the right fit now he has experience in the form of Phelan in his management team. Hope so, I have nothing but admiration for his love of this club and what he did with the youth team.

Liverpool always promoted within for their managers through the late 70''s and into the 80''s when they went away from this it went pear shaped for them and no manager including Houlier was ever a success.

Unlike others I don''t think Lennon would have been the right fit for this club or board nor would any ambitious manager, we are just not set up in that manner, we are a moderate sized family club with a board who are content with some success but priority is always on money and survival financially.....we just don''t have the funds nor the board whom takw high risk with our club. Credit to them.

Without a change in ownership we will always be restricted by who we can attract and out of those who best suit our club set up and board. They own the club and have the final say. To that part i wish them luck as pointed out not many managers are ever succsessful at this level.....every club has gone through no end of managers experienced and some connected to each club with minimal experience.

In reality we should be happy to have a manager who will stick by us and a management team who have experience and given enogh time to get the their team together will get us up. Might not be this season but we have huge potential in youth set up and players here that are more than good enough.

Lets give it another years before we cry out for a change again, lets stick by the manager he''s learning and has a great team around him.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Indy"].

Lets give it another years before we cry out for a change again, lets stick by the manager he''s learning and has a great team around him.[/quote]That''s going to be the 64k dollar question, Indy. If we not only fail to get automatic promotion, but also fail to make the play offs, then do you think that there will be a majority of fans and board members who take a view such as that? I''m not saying that in a slanted way. Genuine question as to your assessment re the tolerance levels at the club.

[whoareyou? 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="whoareyou"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Is that why Tim Sherwood turned down WBA in the summer? Was he just holding out to be offered the Norwich job? We can only catch fish in the pond our line is in...[/quote]

You have a very defeatist attitude, NN. And very little ambition.Its a similar sort of vision from the board at the time that saw us end up in League One, IMHO.[/quote]

 

There''s enough people on here know me personally so I don''t need to worry about the odd Keyboard Kate who tries to attack my character with ill informed insults. But just so you are left in no doubt I have achieved a lot in my life through having the total opposite of those attributes.

 

Now back to topic, if you are going to believe that everyone was available to the board before they appointed Adams then hanging your hat on Sherwood shows a distinct lack of ambition on your part.

 

 

[/quote]

I was referring to your views on who should be City manager and nothing to do with your personal life to which I know nothing about and would not comment on anyway.

Strikes me that we still have a hardcore who are happy to accept the quaint little old Norwich label that the owners love to perpetuate and which is totally out of place in the modern game.

[Indy 3,284]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="Indy"].

Lets give it another years before we cry out for a change again, lets stick by the manager he''s learning and has a great team around him.[/quote]That''s going to be the 64k dollar question, Indy. If we not only fail to get automatic promotion, but also fail to make the play offs, then do you think that there will be a majority of fans and board members who take a view such as that? I''m not saying that in a slanted way. Genuine question as to your assessment re the tolerance levels at the club.[/quote]

I hope that we would all agree that another change would only leelad to yet more unstable chabges in the team and club.

I believe Adams has to be given his full 3 year term to get back into the prem.

I''m bieng pragmatic as I''m not the usual type to stick by the board as I believe in continious improvement and the only way to achieve this in our club is consistancy in manager......Adams needs 2 years as a minimum and we need to accept this is a tough league lets stick by Adams and his team instead of yet another gamble on some managewho will need time!

Just my opinion now and I will stick by this.