AGM

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Jim, however you keep rephrasing the question I don''t think you will get a different answer. This is the football clubs agm not an extension of this message board. Surely the board will totally back their manager and his appointment. To do otherwise would be like hanging him out to dry. As a shareholder I would be extremely unhappy if they used the agm to start doubting Adams or his credentials.

Move forward 12 months and if this season went wrong and they made a change later on they will admit to getting it wrong. I believe you are after your pound of flesh too early and maybe my canary call suggestiin has legs :)

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I am after my pound of flesh I guess nutty. I also do not expect them to say anything other than as you suggest and do not expect to get my pound of flesh tonight, I would, however, like it if it was made abundantly clear to the board through the tone and line of questioning that the vast majority of shareholders think their decision was extremely dubious because if they think we back/support the decision they have taken (and that is a different think to supporting the manager whilst he''s in place) then in my view that will make them less likely to act swiftly to rectify it if (or when) they need to.

Will that happen - who knows? Maybe the majority of shareholders did think appointing Adams was a good decision and I am out of touch with general opinion on this one!

[ricardo 7,328]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

 Maybe the majority of shareholders did think appointing Adams was a good decision and I am out of touch with general opinion on this one![/quote]

We won''t know until his reign has finished. A couple of months ago he was the best thing since sliced bread but opinions change with events.If he is still here at the end of the season it will be because results have improved and we have achieved promotion.In that case he will have been a good appointment.I''ll let you know my opinion come May.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Well I don''t doubt that if you make a statement to that the effect you''ll get some supportive noises from the floor. Not from the board though and Ibelieve tthat''s right. As a bingo calling bog cleaner I was never responsible for many staff but those I was responsible for would not have been hung out to dry at a public meeting.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Well I don''t doubt that if you make a statement to that the effect you''ll get some supportive noises from the floor. Not from the board though and Ibelieve tthat''s right. As a bingo calling bog cleaner I was never responsible for many staff but those I was responsible for would not have been hung out to dry at a public meeting.[/quote]

Added to which she wouldn''t half have given you hell when she got you home[:D]

[CANARYKING 634]

Memo to anyone who is going, can those of us who can''t for any reason, please can we have a non political report of what was said on both sides. Here''s hoping.

[ricardo 7,328]

[quote user="CANARYKING"]Memo to anyone who is going, can those of us who can''t for any reason, please can we have a non political report of what was said on both sides. Here''s hoping.[/quote]

Have I ever let you down?My report will be ASAP.

[Sussexyellow 55]

Ricardo - Look forward to reading your report.

Jim - I think we are making the same point in reality. I am sure Nutty and Purple are right, because the board must back up there decision. So the reply will be that he was the best candidate at the time. However it must have been obvious that Neil did not match up to the person specification re experience. In which case there is always an option not to appoint and start the search again, it is always disappointing to do this but I have certainly had to do on occasions in my career. But the answer will be that they did not think that they would do any better if they trawled again, and that they risked losing the candidate that they had if they did!

However the board must be accountable to the shareholders for their decisions and the AGM is the opportunity to challenge those decisions. Hopefully an opportunity that will be taken.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Well I don''t doubt that if you make a statement to that the effect you''ll get some supportive noises from the floor. Not from the board though and Ibelieve tthat''s right. As a bingo calling bog cleaner I was never responsible for many staff but those I was responsible for would not have been hung out to dry at a public meeting.[/quote]

Added to which she wouldn''t half have given you hell when she got you home[:D]

[/quote]

 

I think you have the roles of myself and Mrs nutty mixed up Butler...

 

[:)]

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"] However the board must be accountable to the

shareholders for their decisions and the AGM is the opportunity to challenge

those decisions. Hopefully an opportunity that will be taken.[/quote]

 

But the board are not accountable for something that''s not yet happened. This is the point I totally disagree with. While Neil Adams is the manager the board will see him as our best option to get the best possible outcome from the season. Some shareholders might not agree with that, and can say so, but the board cannot be accountable until there''s something to be accountable for. If they believe we can get promoted with Adams and you or Jim believe we can''t we just have a disagreement of views. There''s nothing for either side to be accountable for. And to be honest, while Adams is our manager, the best chance of getting promotion is to back him and support him.

 

 

At last season''s AGM they were bullish about us avoiding relegation. We''d soon be in mid-table mediocrity was the phrase they used I seem to remember. Now the shareholders can hold them accountable for that because we were relegated. And no doubt someone will. But the board have admitted getting it wrong now anyway.

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"] However the board must be accountable to the

shareholders for their decisions and the AGM is the opportunity to challenge

those decisions. Hopefully an opportunity that will be taken.[/quote]

 

But the board are not accountable for something that''s not yet happened. This is the point I totally disagree with. While Neil Adams is the manager the board will see him as our best option to get the best possible outcome from the season. Some shareholders might not agree with that, and can say so, but the board cannot be accountable until there''s something to be accountable for. If they believe we can get promoted with Adams and you or Jim believe we can''t we just have a disagreement of views. There''s nothing for either side to be accountable for. And to be honest, while Adams is our manager, the best chance of getting promotion is to back him and support him.

 

 

At last season''s AGM they were bullish about us avoiding relegation. We''d soon be in mid-table mediocrity was the phrase they used I seem to remember. Now the shareholders can hold them accountable for that because we were relegated. And no doubt someone will. But the board have admitted getting it wrong now anyway.

 

 

[/quote]

I disagree to a degree Nutty. Adams has already made a hash of this season. Whilst we can still get promoted its going to be far, far harder to do so now than it really could or should have been.

Ultimately though you are right, I have a disagreement of views with the board because I will not accept that under any circumstances Neil Adams was genuinely the best or outstanding option for the job. If he was the best candidate on the shortlist then whoever put the shortlist together did not do their job properly. In my view someone else may have originally been first choice but i also think someone (or possibly some people) on that board wanted to give Neil the job.

[Cheap Cheap Cheap Canaries 0]

I think Delia wanted Adams to have that job from the moment she saw the kids lift the FA youth cup , nobody else however qualified had a hope in hell .If Adams was the standout candidate the question must be what the hell were we looking for .

[ca 1]

Good to catch up with some friends at the AGM tonight , wont report on the proceedings as that''s Ricardo''s job !

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"] However the board must be accountable to the

shareholders for their decisions and the AGM is the opportunity to challenge

those decisions. Hopefully an opportunity that will be taken.[/quote]

 

But the board are not accountable for something that''s not yet happened.

This is the point I totally disagree with. While Neil Adams is the manager the

board will see him as our best option to get the best possible outcome from the

season. Some shareholders might not agree with that, and can say so, but the

board cannot be accountable until there''s something to be accountable for. If

they believe we can get promoted with Adams and you or Jim believe we can''t we

just have a disagreement of views. There''s nothing for either side to be

accountable for. And to be honest, while Adams is our manager, the best chance

of getting promotion is to back him and support him.

 

 

At last season''s AGM they were bullish about us avoiding relegation. We''d

soon be in mid-table mediocrity was the phrase they used I seem to remember. Now

the shareholders can hold them accountable for that because we were relegated.

And no doubt someone will. But the board have admitted getting it wrong now

anyway.

 

 

[/quote] I disagree to a degree Nutty. Adams has already made a hash

of this season. Whilst we can still get promoted its going to be far, far harder

to do so now than it really could or should have been. Ultimately though you are

right, I have a disagreement of views with the board because I will not accept

that under any circumstances Neil Adams was genuinely the best or outstanding

option for the job. If he was the best candidate on the shortlist then whoever

put the shortlist together did not do their job properly. In my view someone

else may have originally been first choice but i also think someone (or possibly

some people) on that board wanted to give Neil the job.[/quote]

 

Well now we finally get to the nitty gritty Jim. You''re a firm believer of

"them and us". You don''t believe anything that comes from the club unless it

fits in with your prejudiced view of what you think went on. You''re not alone

and it doesn''t make you a bad person however it''s a million miles away from my

view of the club and the people who run it. I wonder how you''d fare if you

supported a club like the one up the road where dishonesty is second nature and

community is a group of people to rip off.

 

 

Surprisingly Delia wasn''t asked a question tonight. First time that''s

happened in my memory.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="cityangel"]Good to catch up with some friends at the AGM tonight , wont report on the proceedings as that''s Ricardo''s job ![/quote]

 

Likewise[Y]

 

I think I may have Ricardo worked out too[;)]

 

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="cityangel"]Good to catch up with some friends at the AGM tonight , wont report on the proceedings as that''s Ricardo''s job ![/quote]

 

Likewise[Y]

 

I think I may have Ricardo worked out too[;)]

 

 

[/quote]

 

Whereas I have much more trivial matters to contend with.....such as wondering why the "wink" icon only results in a perplexed look. It''s just not on, is it?

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"] However the board must be accountable to the

shareholders for their decisions and the AGM is the opportunity to challenge

those decisions. Hopefully an opportunity that will be taken.[/quote]

 

But the board are not accountable for something that''s not yet happened.

This is the point I totally disagree with. While Neil Adams is the manager the

board will see him as our best option to get the best possible outcome from the

season. Some shareholders might not agree with that, and can say so, but the

board cannot be accountable until there''s something to be accountable for. If

they believe we can get promoted with Adams and you or Jim believe we can''t we

just have a disagreement of views. There''s nothing for either side to be

accountable for. And to be honest, while Adams is our manager, the best chance

of getting promotion is to back him and support him.

 

 

At last season''s AGM they were bullish about us avoiding relegation. We''d

soon be in mid-table mediocrity was the phrase they used I seem to remember. Now

the shareholders can hold them accountable for that because we were relegated.

And no doubt someone will. But the board have admitted getting it wrong now

anyway.

 

 

[/quote] I disagree to a degree Nutty. Adams has already made a hash

of this season. Whilst we can still get promoted its going to be far, far harder

to do so now than it really could or should have been. Ultimately though you are

right, I have a disagreement of views with the board because I will not accept

that under any circumstances Neil Adams was genuinely the best or outstanding

option for the job. If he was the best candidate on the shortlist then whoever

put the shortlist together did not do their job properly. In my view someone

else may have originally been first choice but i also think someone (or possibly

some people) on that board wanted to give Neil the job.[/quote]

 

Well now we finally get to the nitty gritty Jim. You''re a firm believer of

"them and us". You don''t believe anything that comes from the club unless it

fits in with your prejudiced view of what you think went on. You''re not alone

and it doesn''t make you a bad person however it''s a million miles away from my

view of the club and the people who run it. I wonder how you''d fare if you

supported a club like the one up the road where dishonesty is second nature and

community is a group of people to rip off.

 

 

Surprisingly Delia wasn''t asked a question tonight. First time that''s

happened in my memory.

 

 

[/quote]

Not at all Nutty. I have a lot of time for most of our board and accept they are more "us" than many clubs of our stature. I believe most of what they say.

However, I don''t blindly accept everything they say no. They can also be stubborn and defensive. As you have already alluded to they are/were never likely to depart from the "he was the outstanding candidate for the job" line even if that''s not their view now. If what they were saying was vaguely plausible then I might believe it but its not, its simply not plausible and despite your staunch defend the board at all costs attitude i don;t believe that deep down you think its a credible claim either. They may well have thought "he''s got potential and it could well work but its a bit of a risk" but they should not treat the fans like fools by claiming to have scoured Europe and secured the best candidate.

That said maybe we are fools. i find the fact that there appears to have been more questioning of the role of an unpaid director than the decision to appoint/retain Adams to be quite baffling.

[Sussexyellow 55]

Nutty - I do not think that you need to get into the "something that''s not happened yet" yet scenario before accountabilty kicks in. If performance indicators are going the wrong way then these should be challenged.

If we tranfer the situation to a more typical commercial setting then it could be said that the last quarters results showed a sharp decline in a market where there was no obvious reason for it to have happened. Competitors are now doing better than us and there are no indicators that the trend is about to change. No reason why shareholders at an AGM should not question that decline. It is a fundamental check and balance on the board.

Where I would agree we are getting it wrong is that we are not challenging performance, we have taken it on ourselves to identify the reason for the less than desired performance and sought to challenge that. However this is where you need to take it back to football and the answer being normally an underperforming football management team.

For the record Nutty I have never disagreed with your view that the board would do other than back their appointment. It would be absolutely wrong for them not to do so. But where I agree with Jim is that the shareholders role is to question the board and they should exercise that right.

I also do back the team and manager. My heart wants Neil to succeed but my head keeps saying other things!

[TIL 1010 4,717]

[quote user="cityangel"]Good to catch up with some friends at the AGM tonight

[/quote]

And it was lovely to snuggle up on the seat next to you angel. [ip][A][{]

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"] However the board must be accountable to the

shareholders for their decisions and the AGM is the opportunity to challenge

those decisions. Hopefully an opportunity that will be taken.[/quote]

 

But the board are not accountable for something that''s not yet happened.

This is the point I totally disagree with. While Neil Adams is the manager the

board will see him as our best option to get the best possible outcome from the

season. Some shareholders might not agree with that, and can say so, but the

board cannot be accountable until there''s something to be accountable for. If

they believe we can get promoted with Adams and you or Jim believe we can''t we

just have a disagreement of views. There''s nothing for either side to be

accountable for. And to be honest, while Adams is our manager, the best chance

of getting promotion is to back him and support him.

 

 

At last season''s AGM they were bullish about us avoiding relegation. We''d

soon be in mid-table mediocrity was the phrase they used I seem to remember. Now

the shareholders can hold them accountable for that because we were relegated.

And no doubt someone will. But the board have admitted getting it wrong now

anyway.

 

 

[/quote] I disagree to a degree Nutty. Adams has already made a hash

of this season. Whilst we can still get promoted its going to be far, far harder

to do so now than it really could or should have been. Ultimately though you are

right, I have a disagreement of views with the board because I will not accept

that under any circumstances Neil Adams was genuinely the best or outstanding

option for the job. If he was the best candidate on the shortlist then whoever

put the shortlist together did not do their job properly. In my view someone

else may have originally been first choice but i also think someone (or possibly

some people) on that board wanted to give Neil the job.[/quote]

 

Well now we finally get to the nitty gritty Jim. You''re a firm believer of

"them and us". You don''t believe anything that comes from the club unless it

fits in with your prejudiced view of what you think went on. You''re not alone

and it doesn''t make you a bad person however it''s a million miles away from my

view of the club and the people who run it. I wonder how you''d fare if you

supported a club like the one up the road where dishonesty is second nature and

community is a group of people to rip off.

 

 

Surprisingly Delia wasn''t asked a question tonight. First time that''s

happened in my memory.

 

 

[/quote]

Not at all Nutty. I have a lot of time for most of our board and accept they are more "us" than many clubs of our stature. I believe most of what they say.

However, I don''t blindly accept everything they say no. They can also be stubborn and defensive. As you have already alluded to they are/were never likely to depart from the "he was the outstanding candidate for the job" line even if that''s not their view now. If what they were saying was vaguely plausible then I might believe it but its not, its simply not plausible and despite your staunch defend the board at all costs attitude i don;t believe that deep down you think its a credible claim either. They may well have thought "he''s got potential and it could well work but its a bit of a risk" but they should not treat the fans like fools by claiming to have scoured Europe and secured the best candidate.

That said maybe we are fools. i find the fact that there appears to have been more questioning of the role of an unpaid director than the decision to appoint/retain Adams to be quite baffling.[/quote]

 

Well I think a bit of context is needed here. The Stephen Fry issue was part of the AGM business where as questioning the appointment of Adams relates more to the current season and was mostly covered in the Q&A at the end.

 

I''m not sure what the actual claim was when we appointed Adams but I think McNally referred to him as "the outstanding candidate". And yes that was a surprise to me. My "staunch defence of the board at all costs attitude" must come from not believing conspiracy theories, with no factual justification whatsoever, born from individual prejudices. For example is there even a smidgeon of fact behind your claims that "someone (or possibly some people) on that board wanted to give Neil the job." Again last night we were left in no doubt that the executive directors run the club and it was them who recomended Adams to the board.And it was them who constantly reviewed and made the decisions about the previous manager last season. And that''s how it should be. The great irony is that if shareholders believe that the executive board are incompetent then it will take some powerful ones to voice concerns. As Mr Bowkett did re Doncaster and Munby. I wonder if there''s a Mr Bowkett up for challenging Mr Bowkett at the moment....

 

 

 

                  

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"]Nutty - I do not think that you need to get into the "something that''s not happened yet" yet scenario before accountabilty kicks in. If performance indicators are going the wrong way then these should be challenged.

If we tranfer the situation to a more typical commercial setting then it could be said that the last quarters results showed a sharp decline in a market where there was no obvious reason for it to have happened. Competitors are now doing better than us and there are no indicators that the trend is about to change. No reason why shareholders at an AGM should not question that decline. It is a fundamental check and balance on the board.

Where I would agree we are getting it wrong is that we are not challenging performance, we have taken it on ourselves to identify the reason for the less than desired performance and sought to challenge that. However this is where you need to take it back to football and the answer being normally an underperforming football management team.

For the record Nutty I have never disagreed with your view that the board would do other than back their appointment. It would be absolutely wrong for them not to do so. But where I agree with Jim is that the shareholders role is to question the board and they should exercise that right.

I also do back the team and manager. My heart wants Neil to succeed but my head keeps saying other things![/quote]

 

Indeed Sussex. But the AGM was primarily to discuss last season''s performance. There were no facts for this season in the annual report bar a few post balance sheet events. Where we are extremely lucky at Norwich is that we get the chance to question the directors and the football manager at these and other events. That''s not the case at many other clubs and certainly wasn''t always the case at our club.

 

If disappointment in performances on the pitch is normally down to underperforming football management team then that must explain why the management teams get changed so often. What it doesn''t explain is why the subsequent team then appointed rarely make a huge difference. Do you honestly believe that we are already at the point where we need to tear it all up and start again?

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"]Nutty - I do not think that you need to get into the "something that''s not happened yet" yet scenario before accountabilty kicks in. If performance indicators are going the wrong way then these should be challenged.

If we tranfer the situation to a more typical commercial setting then it could be said that the last quarters results showed a sharp decline in a market where there was no obvious reason for it to have happened. Competitors are now doing better than us and there are no indicators that the trend is about to change. No reason why shareholders at an AGM should not question that decline. It is a fundamental check and balance on the board.

Where I would agree we are getting it wrong is that we are not challenging performance, we have taken it on ourselves to identify the reason for the less than desired performance and sought to challenge that. However this is where you need to take it back to football and the answer being normally an underperforming football management team.

For the record Nutty I have never disagreed with your view that the board would do other than back their appointment. It would be absolutely wrong for them not to do so. But where I agree with Jim is that the shareholders role is to question the board and they should exercise that right.

I also do back the team and manager. My heart wants Neil to succeed but my head keeps saying other things![/quote]If it was a "more typical commercial setting" then you would not count up the pie sales between 3.10pm - 3.40pm then conclude that pie sales are failing. You talk of "no obvious reason", and here is the rub. Most of us do not know what is going on behind the scenes to cause this problem. The removal of Mark Robson suggests there is not the complancy you might be suggesting.As to the performance it is not as bad as some would have. A couple of goals here and there over the past 9 games and we would be on target.What may well be a cause is an adjusting to Championship play. An adjustment that was needed when we first went up to the PL. You will notice that clubs relegated from the PL are not exactly walking the league, despite their extra parachute payments.At the moment what is needing is that killer attitude - something that was all too obvious last time we were in the Championship. 

[lake district canary 4,530]

[quote user="City1st"]As to the performance it is not as bad as some would have. A couple of goals here and there over the past 9 games and we would be on target.  What may well be a cause is an adjusting to Championship play.[/quote]

Can''t quite believe the complacency in that attitude.  Where was that kind of leeway last season?   Oh no, that was a different manager, an outsider.  Now we have "one of our own" in its, "its ok lads, a goal or two here or there and we''ll be there or thereabouts".  Truly staggering. Well I hate to disappoint you City 1st, but whatever goals we score when we do score them, the opposition is doing it too, a bit too much. That is only going to send us down the table not up.   "Adjusting to Championship play"  is a cop out too.   The Adams appointment was on the grounds that we would be pushing for promotion this season, not floundering mid table, defending like wet lettuces and dropping points left right and centre.

All this is of course redeemable if Phelan has some influence over things, but the buck should stop with the manager and the board if he doesn''t have the desired effect.  At the moment I see players playing with no intelligence.  Midfielders over committing at every stage through a match.  Runners not being tracked.  Now I blame the players for some of that, but their directions come from the manager - or is Adams different to Hughton in that respect?  Phelan has a lot to do.....or is it Adams......

[Bill 1,788]

to be honest I can''t be ars ed to reply

[lake district canary 4,530]

[quote user="City1st"]to be honest I can''t be ars ed to reply[/quote]Maybe because what I said is pretty near the truth.    We witnessed the coming of Adams with positivity at first at the end of last season - the board''s doing because they didn''t sack Hughton at the right time or stick with him to the end of the season.  We then had the saga of Adams full time appointment, the disrespect shown by at least one player, Royle going, now Robson going, a team that doesn''t appear to know how to be streetwise and the season more than a third gone.  

I''m rather irritated by some of the self-satisfied noises on here - its almost as if people think they have got their nice comfortable club back, "hey, we''ll be alright boys, we''re in the championship with nice friendly Mr Adams in charge and that nice fella McNally pulling the strings."  I find the whole thing rather parochial tbh - I suspect some of our players from elsewhere do too.   We have a fantastic club with strong community traditions - but that should not affect the football team.  That should be business like and streetwise.   That''s what Lambert brought to the table.   You can all sit down at the AGM and soak up the excuses and the  PR psycho-babble, but it doesn''t change the fact that Adams has failed to get a team together that can challenge this season.  He and Phelan had better sort it out quick, otherwise this season will quickly become a write-off - and the board will rapidly find they have nowhere to hide.

[Mickdundee 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="City1st"]to be honest I can''t be ars ed to reply[/quote]Maybe because what I said is pretty near the truth.    We witnessed the coming of Adams with positivity at first at the end of last season - the board''s doing because they didn''t sack Hughton at the right time or stick with him to the end of the season.  We then had the saga of Adams full time appointment, the disrespect shown by at least one player, Royle going, now Robson going, a team that doesn''t appear to know how to be streetwise and the season more than a third gone.  

I''m rather irritated by some of the self-satisfied noises on here - its almost as if people think they have got their nice comfortable club back, "hey, we''ll be alright boys, we''re in the championship with nice friendly Mr Adams in charge and that nice fella McNally pulling the strings."  I find the whole thing rather parochial tbh - I suspect some of our players from elsewhere do too.   We have a fantastic club with strong community traditions - but that should not affect the football team.  That should be business like and streetwise.   That''s what Lambert brought to the table.   You can all sit down at the AGM and soak up the excuses and the  PR psycho-babble, but it doesn''t change the fact that Adams has failed to get a team together that can challenge this season.  He and Phelan had better sort it out quick, otherwise this season will quickly become a write-off - and the board will rapidly find they have nowhere to hide.

[/quote]

Agree with all this except adams should be gone and a proper manager installed from outside of the club preferably, so they''re not burdened down with any of this norwich way nonsense

[Bill 1,788]

"Agree with all this except adams should be gone and a proper manager

installed from outside of the club preferably, so they''re not burdened

down with any of this norwich way nonsense"we did previously - Hughton

[Mickdundee 0]

And I''ve no doubt he''d be doing a better job than adams if he was still here, what was it our 6 th highest league position ever? I''ve absolutely no doubt that''s beyond neyull

[Bill 1,788]

and 1st in the manager who produced the most dire football I have seen at Carrow Rroadand most likely equal 1st with Roeder, as the most disliked manager ever at the club

[Mickdundee 0]

Adams beats him hands down for me, hang on he''s not a manager is he?

I honestly don''t hold much stock in the dire football card it''s not any better now is it only at a worse level, football is first and foremost a results business, I''d take a dire win over any kind of loss any day of the week, and if that dire football gives us the best chance of a win then so be it.