Underlying Issues. Saturday's defeat - No surprise

[Row D Seat 7 0]

We gifted Cardiff a way back into the game. The signs were there. So, when we came out against Brentford, I thought a draw would be a good result for us. They were better than us in every area possible and unfortunately we lost the game fair and square. No surprise. No game plan. Poor tactics.

Since Hughton was sacked there has been underlying issues at this football club. Something just isn''t right. The appointment of Chris Hughton severely damaged this football club and we are still suffering the effects of his tenure, in my opinion.

We no longer seem like a club that are singing from the same hymn sheet. I''m not sure if this is common knowledge but McNally and Bowkett don''t have the best relationship. Neil Adams'' appointment was the decision of Delia, Michael and Bowkett. The Alex Neil appointment was McNally''s choice. Hence a more chipper McNally when Alex Neil was announced compared to the downbeat and miserable McNally in the press conference announcing Neil Adams as our permanent manager, which Bowkett was present at because McNally didn''t want it to be seen as "his appointment", therefore Bowkett did the majority of the talking that day.

We are going into the remaining 19 games blind. We still don''t know what Alex Neil is capable of and it''s unfair to judge him on Saturday''s performance and result. However, something needs to be cut out of this football club, whether it be a player overhaul or a change at boardroom level because there''s elements of this football club that still seem to be suffering and as a result, it''s dragging the club down again.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Row D Seat 7"]Neil Adams'' appointment was the decision of Delia, Michael and Bowkett. The Alex Neil appointment was McNally''s choice.[/quote]And of course, you can back that up with proof.......

[Row D Seat 7 0]

Of course I can''t. Doesn''t make it untrue.

[Snoots 0]

OP is spot on with this observation :

"We are going into the remaining 19 games blind. We still don''t know what Alex Neil is capable of"

With a nod to the debate on another thread : AN''s appointment was not a calculated risk, instead it was indeed a complete punt ; not even a cunning stunt, just a McHunch that the appointment could pay off. With promotion being the clear objective this season, AN''s appointment was breathtakingly astonishing. Not a question of being wise after the event as most fans thought the same thing at the time. That having been said, of course we all want him to succeed ..... but if he doesn''t then whoever was responsible for his appointment, and I assume it was McNally, should go.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Row D Seat 7"]Of course I can''t. Doesn''t make it untrue.[/quote]Doesn''t make it true either.It''s no different to the few games Neil Adams and Mike Phelan had together. The conspiracy theorists will tell us the games we won were down to Phelan but the ones we lost were Adams fault.All too easy for those who want to apportion blame but, to go along with your theory, who''s appointment was Chris Hughton?(you can''t say McNally in the first year and Delia in the second).

[Row D Seat 7 0]

Hughton''s appointment was a board decision. It''s after CH''s appointment that relationships on the board, mainly between DM and AB, became strained.

Agree, Neil''s appointment is a blind punt, not an informed risk, whether we got Ferguson''s approval or not.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Row D Seat 7"]Hughton''s appointment was a board decision.[/quote]I think I get it now!  When the club is looking for a new manager, sometimes it''s left to McNally, sometimes it''s Delia, Michael and Bowkett and sometime the whole board come together. I guess it''s all down to who happens to be around at the time.Thanks for explaining it.

[PurpleCanary 6,391]

[quote user="Row D Seat 7"] I''m not sure if this is common knowledge but McNally and Bowkett don''t have the best relationship. Neil Adams'' appointment was the decision of Delia, Michael and Bowkett. The Alex Neil appointment was McNally''s choice[/quote]The idea of a Smith and Jones and Bowkett alliance against McNally at least has the virtue of novelty. It makes a change from the myth emanating in particular from south of the border that all the bad decisions come when the idiot amateurs (S&J and Foulger and Fry) gang up against the two professionals (Bowkett and McNally) who know what they are doing. And the only good decisons come when the latter two are allowed to do as they will.That Neil was McNally''s recommendation seems to be stating the obvious. Given that we had scouts at every Hamilton Academical game this season it is clear that Neil, presumably thanks to McNally, was on our radar in the summer and we decided to watch his progress as a manager in the top flight. We were studying the manager as well as players.And that not every directors was totally convinced about Adams, once Mackay turned us down, is quite possible. It would be surprising if there had been total conviction. He represented a risk. But then so did Mackay, to a lesser extent, and all the other available candidates. As Highland has admitted, Lennon also represented a risk. One that other Championship clubs decided against taking. Despite what is now being claimed there was not a "no brainer" choice out there that would have guaranteed boardrom unity.

[TIL 1010 5,246]

[quote user="Row D Seat 7"] Neil Adams'' appointment was the decision of Delia, Michael and Bowkett. The Alex Neil appointment was McNally''s choice. [/quote]

You must be the seat that Newton sits on. [:D]

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Row D Seat 7"]Hughton''s appointment was a board decision.[/quote]

 

Was that the board meeting that Stephen Fry was actually there for?

 

 

[Chip20 69]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Row D Seat 7"]Hughton''s appointment was a board decision.[/quote]I think I get it now!  When the club is looking for a new manager, sometimes it''s left to McNally, sometimes it''s Delia, Michael and Bowkett and sometime the whole board come together. I guess it''s all down to who happens to be around at the time.Thanks for explaining it.[/quote]

As I mentioned on another thread recently, it''s common knowledge that, after each sacking, the Board members play Paper Scissors Stone to decide who gets to select the next manager. It''s the only fair way. 

[Felixfan 53]

They said the appointment was unanimous!

[Katie Borkins 1]

Well they would say that, wouldn''t they?

Hardly going to say "most of us are delighted with this appointment but there were a few serious doubts raised by a couple of directors who aren''t convinced."

[Ginja 43]

Hughton is gone, we had some good times, we had some bad times, it didn''t work out, get over it.

Why are we still talking about this guy?

[Row D Seat 7 0]

One of our problems is the selection process when picking managers. David McNally was reluctantly given the ok to sack Bryan Gunn and pick his man to recommend to the board. We know he wanted Paul Lambert and the rest of that is history.

When Lambert left, Chris Hughton topped the board''s Plan B list which had been in place since the previous summer when Lambert almost accepted an offer from West Ham.

Chris Hughton was seen as a long term appointment. Someone who could succeed in bringing us regular Premier League football for years to come without any mad ambition to walk out on us at the drop of a hat. A safe bet. So, when he began to fail, we were stumped. ''Tunnel vision'' has been a phrase used to describe our board more than once by someone very close to the club.

Everyone agreed that Hughton had to leave after the home defeat to West Brom in order to give us the best chance of survival. Hughton knew the board were mulling over his future when he attended a fan event that evening.

Neil Adams was the unanimous choice, to the end of the season. We get to the summer and Neil''s name is being kept in the frame for the job, but the club really want Malky Mackay and want Neil to become part of his first team setup. Neil was reluctant but willing to accept this, if it was his only choice. Malky, on the other hand, held a meeting with West Brom and was waiting to hear back from them, thus, in turn, keeping us waiting. We interviewed Zola in the meantime and spoke to Tim Sherwood''s representatives. Tim wasn''t interested believing he could attain a Premier League position. He was also in the running for West Brom at the time.

This is where things between McNally and Bowkett became even more frosty. After some pushing, Malky made it clear he wanted to hold out for a Premier League job. After such a long wait Bowkett, Delia and Michael were championing Neil Adams, believing he was the man to take control, but McNally didn''t see Neil as a serious candidate, despite what he was saying publicly. Most key players on the board voted in favour of Neil taking the job despite McNally wanting to speak with other candidates again.

Neil Adams was appointed permanent manager. The day after this is announced, Alan Bowkett takes control of the press conference with David McNally not wanting to be the sole representative of the board at this event. He didn''t want it to look like his appointment, as was reflected in his body language and demeanour. The club (McNally) vetoes Adams'' desire to bring in Steve Foley as first team coach, the first real decision by our ''football board'', but in reality it was solely McNally''s decision.

So, when Neil Adams "resigned", McNally was given the go ahead to recommend someone to the board. He was to lead our search for a new manager. He subsequently recommended Alex Neil, backed up by some very impressive references. Alex Neil is appointed as our new manager with a chipper, happier David McNally being the sole board representative at the press conference. The public face of the appointment.

It''s very easy to shoot me down. I do understand that any ''inside'' knowledge on here should be treated with total suspicion, after all I can''t prove any of this. Some of it has been reported in local and national newspapers anyway. Let''s just hope Alex Neil is the right man. What a relief that would be.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

All that, and then you finish off by saying you can''t prove any of it...............................

[PurpleCanary 6,391]

[quote user="Row D Seat 7"]One of our problems is the selection process when picking managers. David McNally was reluctantly given the ok to sack Bryan Gunn and pick his man to recommend to the board. We know he wanted Paul Lambert and the rest of that is history.

When Lambert left, Chris Hughton topped the board''s Plan B list which had been in place since the previous summer when Lambert almost accepted an offer from West Ham.

Chris Hughton was seen as a long term appointment. Someone who could succeed in bringing us regular Premier League football for years to come without any mad ambition to walk out on us at the drop of a hat. A safe bet. So, when he began to fail, we were stumped. ''Tunnel vision'' has been a phrase used to describe our board more than once by someone very close to the club.

Everyone agreed that Hughton had to leave after the home defeat to West Brom in order to give us the best chance of survival. Hughton knew the board were mulling over his future when he attended a fan event that evening.

Neil Adams was the unanimous choice, to the end of the season. We get to the summer and Neil''s name is being kept in the frame for the job, but the club really want Malky Mackay and want Neil to become part of his first team setup. Neil was reluctant but willing to accept this, if it was his only choice. Malky, on the other hand, held a meeting with West Brom and was waiting to hear back from them, thus, in turn, keeping us waiting. We interviewed Zola in the meantime and spoke to Tim Sherwood''s representatives. Tim wasn''t interested believing he could attain a Premier League position. He was also in the running for West Brom at the time.

This is where things between McNally and Bowkett became even more frosty. After some pushing, Malky made it clear he wanted to hold out for a Premier League job. After such a long wait Bowkett, Delia and Michael were championing Neil Adams, believing he was the man to take control, but McNally didn''t see Neil as a serious candidate, despite what he was saying publicly. Most key players on the board voted in favour of Neil taking the job despite McNally wanting to speak with other candidates again.

Neil Adams was appointed permanent manager. The day after this is announced, Alan Bowkett takes control of the press conference with David McNally not wanting to be the sole representative of the board at this event. He didn''t want it to look like his appointment, as was reflected in his body language and demeanour. The club (McNally) vetoes Adams'' desire to bring in Steve Foley as first team coach, the first real decision by our ''football board'', but in reality it was solely McNally''s decision.

So, when Neil Adams "resigned", McNally was given the go ahead to recommend someone to the board. He was to lead our search for a new manager. He subsequently recommended Alex Neil, backed up by some very impressive references. Alex Neil is appointed as our new manager with a chipper, happier David McNally being the sole board representative at the press conference. The public face of the appointment.

It''s very easy to shoot me down. I do understand that any ''inside'' knowledge on here should be treated with total suspicion, after all I can''t prove any of this. Some of it has been reported in local and national newspapers anyway. Let''s just hope Alex Neil is the right man. What a relief that would be.[/quote]This is not meant sarcastically, but you are right that most of your

account of the background to the various managerial changes could have

been worked out by a careful reading of what has been in the public

domain. There is nothing there that contradicts anything I have ever

seen.As to the specifics of the boardroom discussions in the

summer, what it comes down to, assuming you have accurate inside

information, is only that McNally wanted to make another attempt at

persuading Mackay and Sherwood to take the job after they had made it

clear they had their sights set on the Premier League.You are

not suggesting McNally wanted a different person entirely - Howe or

Lennon or Rosler or Warnock or any of the other names mentioned here at

the time - or indeed Alex Neil. That might have constituted a serious

split, but not the scenario you have painted.And given what

happened afterwards it looks as if the other directors had a point about

the fruitlessness (not to mention the undesireability) of again trying

to persuade the unwilling Mackay or Sherwood to move down to the

Championship. The former was then offered a Premier League job, and the

latter has not ended up in one of the several other Championship jobs

that became available in the summer and early autumn.

[Tumbleweed 106]

Taken on face value all highly plausible. But it is worrying that having effectively overruled McNally on Adams, the Board then give him carte blanche to choose Alex Neil who must have come as a totally left field candidate. And staggering perhaps that McNally opposed Adams'' appointment, presumably for lack of experience, only to go for a younger man with arguably just as little.

Was McNally cringing I wonder when his so called good man manager goes and slags off his players to all and sundry after his first game in sole control?

There will always be divisions and tensions if you put successful and strong-willed people together though. It is how you marshall that for the greater good which is important. It doesn''t necessarily mean that things are broken.

[kantata soul 0]

[quote user="Crabbycanary3"]All that, and then you finish off by saying you can''t prove any of it...............................[/quote]It''s been confirmed elsewhere by Robin Sainty that McNally was outvoted on Neil Adams. I imagine this was leaked by McNally himself at one of those post match meetings of hard core plastics at the Nelson.The info posted suggests some kind of compromise, either implicit or explicit,

between McNally and the rest of the board. He is outvoted on the new manager, but gets more influence in the appointment of the new first team coaches. Maybe he was given leeway to veto Adams'' choices in order to keep the peace in a divided boardroom.If Steve Foley was vetoed by McNally then two main possibilities arise. Either McNally blocked the appointment of a very experienced Foley forcing Adam''s to opt for Gary Holt. Or Adams wanted Foley in addition to Gary Holt and never intended on having Mark Robson as one of his coaches.I''d tend not to believe the first possibility as I''ve always thought that Holt would have been the first person that Adams insisted upon having once he got the job permanently. If the second was true then it suggests that Robson was imposed upon Adams by McNally, maybe abusing the same continuity argument that saw Adams himself appointed.This latter wouldn''t be inconsistent with a rumour posted on here a while back which suggested that Robson, who had some management experience and a longer coaching CV than Adams, picked the team and decided on tactics. It was also widely believed to be the case that Adams was not fully in charge when Phelan was here.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Poceni Kanarski"]It''s been confirmed elsewhere by Robin Sainty that McNally was outvoted on Neil Adams.[/quote]Announcement on the official site......."He has the full and unanimous support of the Board and will receive robust backing in this summer’s transfer window.""Chief Executive David McNally said: “Neil

impressed us when he stepped up to the plate for the last five games of

the season in the most trying of circumstances and he’s continued to

impress us during a very rigorous round of talks about the full-time

managerial position. He is a very talented coach who is hungry to

succeed at Norwich City, playing the kind of football we want to see."Thing is, did McNally look like he was chewing a wasp when he made this announcement?

[nutty nigel 7,902]

When was this confirmed by Robin and how was he in a position to confirm it?

[TIL 1010 5,246]

[quote user="Poceni Kanarski"]It''s been confirmed elsewhere by Robin Sainty that McNally was outvoted on Neil Adams. I imagine this was leaked by McNally himself at one of those post match meetings of hard core plastics at the Nelson.

[/quote]

It can be confirmed by me that Robin Sainty does not drink post match at The Nelson and I didn''t realise that ''hard core plastics'' regularly go to away games.

 

[Row D Seat 7 0]

From what I heard, the Foley move was vetoed because of a few factors. The main one being that the Adams appointment had already gone down like a lead balloon (something DM expected) and bringing in Steve Foley from Needham Market looked like we now had a manager who couldn''t attract a high level of staff so had to settle for the Needham Market coach. Plus, McNally wanted someone younger and more dynamic with fresh ideas. Hence Gary Holt. DM was also aware of how bringing Foley in would''ve looked considering the managerial appointment we''d just made.

The breakdown in relationship between McNally and Bowkett is a worry because I believe it caused problems in the past and could do again. I did hear that Bowkett was going to step down last summer but that didn''t end up happening, which surprised me.

This is the first sole McNally appointment since Lambert so we should have some faith in it despite the poor display last weekend. However, McNally was also behind the appointment of Lawrie Sanchez at Fulham....

[Tumbleweed 106]

I am surprised that any staff appointment, especially one so key, should be down to just one person. One would have thought that having a few people involved would be sensible to avoid pure subjectivity. But then football often seems to exist in its own little bubble of practices even where industry in general has moved on.

[Row D Seat 7 0]

In response to someone above, the breakdown in relationship between Bowkett and McNally didn''t first become apparent during the appointment of Neil Adams. It has been lingering since the Paul Lambert days.

There was a breakdown in relationship between all three of these individuals, hence PL''s departure to Aston Villa.