AGM

[Jim Smith 2,322]

[quote user="cityangel"]It always makes me smile how the people who moan the loudest never seem to turn up at the agm or fans forums but yet expect others to ask all their burning questions for them. [/quote]

If that''s a reference to me Cityangel I consistently attended the AGM when I lived in Norwich (and indeed have done on a couple of occasions since) and have attended many fans forums over the years. However, as I now live a 3 hour drive from Carrow Road and more importantly it is also my son''s birthday tomorrow I will not be able to moan in person this time. I only hope, therefore, that a few of my fellow moaners will be present and not the usual fawning sycophants who used to inhabit the front row when i used to be able to attend.

[ca 1]

Wasn''t aimed at any individual Jim, just a general comment as loads of people are suggesting what questions should be asked but as is usual the people who have the most to say on message boards never turn up at the events.

p.s. I''ve never sat on the front row [;)] and yes I''ve asked my own questions in the past

[city4eva 213]

[quote user="cityangel"]Wasn''t aimed at any individual Jim, just a general comment as loads of people are suggesting what questions should be asked but as is usual the people who have the most to say on message boards never turn up at the events.

p.s. I''ve never sat on the front row [;)] and yes I''ve asked my own questions in the past

[/quote]do you want a medal

[ca 1]

[quote user="city4eva"][quote user="cityangel"]Wasn''t aimed at any individual Jim, just a general comment as loads of people are suggesting what questions should be asked but as is usual the people who have the most to say on message boards never turn up at the events.

p.s. I''ve never sat on the front row [;)] and yes I''ve asked my own questions in the past

[/quote]do you want a medal[/quote]

Yes please [:)]

[Crafty Canary 496]

The AGM will give the board the chance to clarify their appointment search. Clearly they meant that their reviews of the different European markets identified that there were no radio commentators who knew more about football than NA.

[morty 0]

Whatever happens, some people will whinge, and some will say " oh right, fair enough".

I could almost name who will be in each group, now.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="morty"]Whatever happens, some people will whinge, and some will say " oh right, fair enough".

I could almost name who will be in each group, now.[/quote]Go on thenyou know you want to.[:D]

[nutty nigel 7,539]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Good question but the answer will be that they assessed the qualities of all the candidates available and Adams was the stand out appointment.[/quote]

I''m sure that will be the answer Nutty but its really a rhetorical question isn''t it.[/quote]

 

Yes it is but it''s one they must be fully expecting. Just imagine if they gave a different answer though. Imagine if they said "Adams wasn''t the best candidate but we appointed him anyway so yah boo sucks..."

 

I think we should have a Canary Call Special immediately after the AGM. Rob Butler can field the phonecalls with maybe Roger Munby in the Adrian Forbes seat. And Chris Goreham can stand in the foyer to ask Bowkett and McNally searching questions on the way out.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,539]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Good question but the answer will be that they assessed the qualities of all the candidates available and Adams was the stand out appointment.[/quote]

I''m sure that will be the answer Nutty but its really a rhetorical question isn''t it.[/quote]

 

Yes it is but it''s one they must be fully expecting. Just imagine if they gave a different answer though. Imagine if they said "Adams wasn''t the best candidate but we appointed him anyway so yah boo sucks..."

 

I think we should have a Canary Call Special immediately after the AGM. Rob Butler can field the phonecalls with maybe Roger Munby in the Adrian Forbes seat. And Chris Goreham can stand in the foyer to ask Bowkett and McNally searching questions on the way out.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Good question but the answer will be that they assessed the qualities of all the candidates available and Adams was the stand out appointment.[/quote]That may be the response, nutty, but that would leave unanswered the real point of the question, which is why they had originally been looking at choosing someone experienced but ended up with the polar opposite, particularly given how the previous examples of Grant and Gunn went.The directors have not and will not confirm who else they talked to but I very much doubt they are in a position to flat out deny that originally Mackay was either first choice or first among equals and that Adams only moved up the list when Mackay dropped out.Based on all the reports from those few journalists who do have a bit of an inside track on events at Carrow Road and what was said in that Radio Norfolk interview, including mentioning Adams'' inexperience, this is what I think happened:Mackay was very much the first choice and was probably offered the job informally. He prevaricated because he suspected, rightly as it turned out, that he would get offered a job in the Premier League. Either the board kept on for a while trying to convince Mackay, or they decided to cut their losses and look elsewhere. Either way, this would explain why the process took longer than the board had indicated, which again was acknowledged in the interview. I suspect the intention had been for the decision to have been made before the interview took place.Once Mackay had ruled himself out, either actively or passively, the directors looked at the experienced alternatives and didn''t much like what they saw. Such as Zola, with a record of failure, or Garcia, with a so-so first season at Brighton - both potential recipes for mid-table - or the gamble of the untried Lennon. So Adams starts to look more attractive. He is hardly much more of a gamble than Lennon and might - like Lennon - be a success, or he might be a failure. But better a gamble who might come off than pretty much guaranteeing mid-table obscurity with a the likes of Zola.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

I agree Purple. By the time of that radio Norfolk interview something had changed. McNally was by then extolling the virtues of Adams and it was Delia who was showing concerns over lack of experience. The bookies were still giving double figure odds about Adams at that time so it seems someone else was in the frame.

However the board quite rightly wouldn''t comment about this even if its true. No names will be mentioned and they are right to back their man. It would be totally wrong for them to even hint he may have been second choice.

According to the board Adams was the best candidate available and what would be the point of them not appointing the best man.

A good conspiracy fromelsewhere on here would be Phelan being the original choice only to find he was unavailable til November.....

[Highland Canary 76]

Adams was no doubt the cheapest option. It remains beyond my understanding why we didn''t appoint a manager who had at least managed before. With a £50 million business, I would have expected that to be an essential criterion for appointment. I remain of the view that had Lennon or Warnock been appointed we would be looking upwards to the PL rather than, at best, treading water or, at worse, looking over our shoulders.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Adams was no doubt the cheapest option.[/quote]By your reasoning, Brown, Stringer and Walker were all ''the cheapest options''. They didn''t work out too badly though did they?

[Highland Canary 76]

In relative terms, before the Sky money, football was a much more even business. Fail one season and promotion was still possible the next. The gulf between the have and have nots in the Championship is now vast. Fail this season, the squad will unwind and, once again, we''lll be stuck in the Championship for years. That''s why we didn''t have the luxtury to gamble on inexperience. That''s why the most important signing of the Summer should have been an experienced manager.

[TIL 1010 4,750]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="gabba"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="gabba"] Sadly these events seem to attract those that think the board is doing a fantastic job

[/quote]

These events attract shareholders garbage and it is plainly obvious you know absolutely jack shite about what goes on at annual general meetings.

[/quote]
Since the club has been taken over by media luvvies and corporate spivs that''s exactly the sort of thing to expect at an AGM. When you look at the Norwich City Supporters Trust and see it being headed by the likes of Dick Menace and various other hard core happy clappers then you''d have to ask questions about the reach of the club''s PR machine. However I wouldn''t expect a deadbeat plod to understand these sorts of things, especially if they''re happy with the status quo.
[/quote]

Well  now garbage if you think I am happy with the status quo there will obviously be no point in me going tomorrow night so how would you like to attend in my place as my proxy then you can say your piece.

Just e-mail me your details and I will get in touch with the club to arrange it for you.

[/quote]

I have heard nothing so maybe garbage has changed his username again.

Cityangel had it spot on.

 

[Sussexyellow 55]

Purple as you rightly indicate the appointment must have been seen as a "gamble" or at least high risk. I think it needs to be challenged whether when running a major business whether such risks can be justified.

Yes he may have been the best candidate still available and as NN points out this will be the response. But if he still does not meet the person specification which surely must have required a significant amount of experience then there was still an option not to appoint.

It was still early after the end of the previous season, it may have been desirable but certainly not vital that a quick appointment was made. Time was available to do a further search. So a follow up question might be why wasn''t this option pursued?

[Ashwood 24]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Highland Canary"]Adams was no doubt the cheapest option.[/quote]By your reasoning, Brown, Stringer and Walker were all ''the cheapest options''. They didn''t work out too badly though did they?[/quote]

I think you will find that the world of football has moved on in the last 10 - 15 years lappinitup

[Ashwood 24]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Highland Canary"]Adams was no doubt the cheapest option.[/quote]By your reasoning, Brown, Stringer and Walker were all ''the cheapest options''. They didn''t work out too badly though did they?[/quote]

I think you will find that the world of football has moved on in the last 10 - 15 years lappinitup

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Ashwood"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Highland Canary"]Adams was no doubt the cheapest option.[/quote]By your reasoning, Brown, Stringer and Walker were all ''the cheapest options''. They didn''t work out too badly though did they?[/quote]

I think you will find that the world of football has moved on in the last 10 - 15 years lappinitup[/quote]So you think those three would have failed if they had stepped up now rather than then?

[nutty nigel 7,539]

Sussex, the board must be fully aware of Adams lack of experience. They were aware of it in the summer before the appointment was made. Delia flagged it up as a concern. But they still made the appointment and must have known they''d be judged on it. Despite that they still maintained that Adams was the stand out candidate at the time the appointment was made. Surely any question they are asked will get the same response.

I guess someone could ask them if, with hindsight, they still believe he was the stand out candidate. But I''m sure the answer will be yes. Any other answer would be wrong even if they thought it privately.

I''m happy that the board stand by their man and are trying to givehim every chance to succeed. I''d hate to see them stab him in the back at the AGM. If the time arrives where they believe a change is necessary I hope they do the deed and announce it in adignified manner.

[Bury Green 0]

Ah yes Nigel but let''s not forget it has been known for the manager to turn on the Shareholders, let''s never forget the ever charming Roedent came out with "When were you last England manager?"

It could be an interesting night and who knows,we may even get a "You tell us what to do?"

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Sussexyellow"]Purple as you rightly indicate the appointment must have been seen as a "gamble" or at least high risk. I think it needs to be challenged whether when running a major business whether such risks can be justified.

Yes he may have been the best candidate still available and as NN points out this will be the response. But if he still does not meet the person specification which surely must have required a significant amount of experience then there was still an option not to appoint.

It was still early after the end of the previous season, it may have been desirable but certainly not vital that a quick appointment was made. Time was available to do a further search. So a follow up question might be why wasn''t this option pursued?[/quote]Sussex, I think the problem was that the directors didn''t like the possible alternatives who did have experience. They all looked very mid-table. One poster is now saying we should have appointed Warnock rather than Adams! That makes sense if you look at the position now we seem to be on the slide. That Warnock, with all his experience, would probably be doing better than Adams has turned out to be doing. But that was not the argument back in May. Then it was whether Adams might turn out to be better than the mid-table alternatives, such as Warnock or Zola.If Eddie  Howe or Rosler had been available I assume the board would have gone for them like a shot, either ahead of Mackay, or after Mackay fell out of contention. And I would have gone for Rosler now, rather than hope either that Phelan would make a diference on the training field, or step up as manager. But the appointment of Phelan has probably ruled out that option.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

Yes Greeno every AGM has its highlights. Maybe Mr Bowkett will be wearing a fur coat and no knickers? Who knows, but it would be fun if one of you doubters suggested to him that searching all over Europe was a load of piffle....

:)

[vos 155]

I will be surprised if there are any fireworks tonight. Last year Hughton was wide open for some strong criticism but so far as I can recall hardly a word was made against him. He and the Board had an easy ride.

Tonight we will see another long presentation explaining how well they have done financially albeit that this was purely due to an excellent manager we had a couple of years ago. Alan Bowkett is an experienced tough operator and although he invites questions he is fairly forthright and I expect the usual Norfolk reticence will prevail. I wonder who will be brave enough to remind him that sitting with Neil Adams on his appointment at a Press Conference, Alan Bowkett said he was exactly the type of manager we were after !!!

[mrs miggins 0]

main things I would like to know:

-will bassong play for us again

-january transfer window-we can''t lose any players, we need to add (LM and CB if indeed Bassong isn''t coming back)

-managers position- where the board are at

[Buh 0]

A soundbite from an executive will be jumped on by the minority vocal-yokels and repeated over and over again until you beg for release.

[? 0]

Buh do shut up!

[Jim Smith 2,322]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Sussex, the board must be fully aware of Adams lack of experience. They were aware of it in the summer before the appointment was made. Delia flagged it up as a concern. But they still made the appointment and must have known they''d be judged on it. Despite that they still maintained that Adams was the stand out candidate at the time the appointment was made. Surely any question they are asked will get the same response.

I guess someone could ask them if, with hindsight, they still believe he was the stand out candidate. But I''m sure the answer will be yes. Any other answer would be wrong even if they thought it privately.

I''m happy that the board stand by their man and are trying to givehim every chance to succeed. I''d hate to see them stab him in the back at the AGM. If the time arrives where they believe a change is necessary I hope they do the deed and announce it in adignified manner.[/quote]

Nutty the question really therefore must be based on what criteria/in what universe can Adams have been considered to be the "stand out candidate" given that based on all objective or statistical criteria he must have been the worst candidate in the running for the job given that he had no prior experience other than his caretaker spell during which time he did not win a single match. The only basis upon which he could have been concluded to be the "stand out candidate" is in the minds of the decision takers taking a subjective judgment. Of course any job appointment will have an element of subjective judgment or "gut feeling" about it, often based on how interviews go but as we know this board has been stung on that front before! I simply find it hard to envisage ANY scenario at all where it can be credibly claimed that Neil Adams was the best candidate available or who we could get for that job.

I really hope someone asks about Lennon. he was a free agent by the time we appointed Adams, he had given several indications he was up for our job and there is no credible argument that can be put forward to say he is/was not a much stronger candidate than Neil Adams. But we are supposed to believe that following a Europe wide search he was not ever seriously under consideration for our job. it really does not make any sense.

[ca 1]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]main things I would like to know:

-will bassong play for us again

-january transfer window-we can''t lose any players, we need to add (LM and CB if indeed Bassong isn''t coming back)

-managers position- where the board are at[/quote]

I also would like to know what the situation is with regards to Bassong and why we got in 3 new centre backs  Cuellar, Miguel, Hooiveld if we''re not going to use them, maybe Neil doesn''t rate them, maybe they don''t do the business in training, would be interesting to know.

Also would be interested to know what Neil sees in Whittaker that the majority of us don''t see, obviously something or else he wouldn''t start him after what I consider some poor games from him

In January I think we need another right back to challenge R Martin, a left winger ( we don''t have one) and another centre back depending on  the answers to the above.

[mrs miggins 0]

Although I agree with your other points angel, Hooiveld has played a few games and played the last match (conceding a penalty), Cuellar played with Turner against Forrest was it? Two of the slowest CBs in the league. Certainly the question of Miquel needs to be asked, he hasn''t had a look in