If you were a member of the board

[SussexYellow]

Would you be trying to persuade your fellow directors to remove the manager?

But it is not going to be that simple a question, you can not base your reply just on your emotions as a supporter you have to take the following factors into account.

1. You are responsible for the management/stewardship of a multi million pound business.

2. That business almost went into financial administration a few years back, and has a priority objective of never being in that position again.

3. You are part of the collective decision to appoint the manager just a few months ago, so you have some ownership of the appointment.

4. The team lies just 4 points off the top of the league

5. The team has only been beaten heavily once all season

6. The appointment of a new manager comes with no guarantee of success/promotion.

I, like many, have gone through the emotions of the football supporter this week wanting instant success and reacting accordingly. However I have found that adding the responsibility that comes with the above factors does make it hard if not impossible to demand the removal of the manager.

That said I would be aware that recent results do reflect a significant drop in form. If there are no signs of an upturn in the next few games, and possibly even after the next game (depending on the nature of the performance) I might be quietly saying to my co-directors that it is getting near to the point where it needs to be on the agenda.

 

[eatonparkboy]

I remember an ex US President saying that he had only been elected by 40% of the populus so 60% never voted for him and so he didn't have to please everybody when he made decisions. So lets just accept that you don't become a board member and expect the crowd to love you or your decisions all the time.

Some of the board, while symbolically being elected to run the club on behalf of the shareholders and in essence the supporters as well, some of who are shareholders themselves, are really the owners and have put a great deal of money into it. But they are supporters as well. And they must have sat in the directors box and cringed on Tuesday. And they must have been thinking just the same as the reasoned and calmer people on here for instance.

But of course they are in the position of being able to say to their employees that they were less than happy with that and other recent performances and would like to see an improvement. They would also remind themselves that they have had a less than 50% success rate in the managerial appointments they have made. And didn't really cover themselves in glory when they responded to the "mob" after the WBA game. And that they probably painted themselves into a corner with that far too late decision.

But I would say to myself if in their shoes that yes, we did rescue the club not too long ago but long enough to have escaped many memories. I would say that we kind of fit the Norwich City/Norfolk mentality. Nice people, fairly transparent, not ones for too many emotional outbursts (apart from too much red wine) and loyal. I would say that we have judged the majority of our fans to be happy just to come along and be part of the NCFC experience and watch a game of football in a stadium close to the City and enough decent facilities to make it a good day out. And I would reason that we didn't face any real competition so some would berate us for ambitions that are not as far reaching or equally as potentially damaging as theirs but we did have pretty good guarantees of attendances, income and popularity.

So like political parties I would accept that it is easier and wiser to be in opposition, turn the other cheek and look at our overall record and reason that in to be honest  NCFC is like a roller coaster ride with many ups and downs in a short space of time but be happy that there is a big queue waiting to get on it.

 

[GazzaTCC]

This raises an interesting question, as previously, such decisions clearly rested squarely with the Board. However, McNally made it clear at the recent supporters meeting that the revised set up of him, Adams, Ricky Martin and the head of scouting (Barry Simmons?) are now responsible for all footballing matters.

Clearly, Adams (and possibly Martin & Simmons) are highly unlikely to be involved in a "firing" decision. However, does this leave such decisions in the hands of one man, McNally, or does he still refer such matters to the board for discussion?

 

[SussexYellow]

Gazza, I do not know the set up at Norwich but in my experience firing usually rests at the same point as hiring.

The appointment of a manager is clearly a board decision. I would expect the decision to fire to rest there as well - irrespective of any internal committees that have been set up to administer specific functions.

However it does raise the question of whether the manager is invited to the board to report on footballing matters or whether the CEO is now accountable to the board for such matters? In which case is the CEO's position now at greater risk if matters do not go well on the field?

 

[Boyerboy]

I believe that the football board deals with the running of the football operation and removes the Board from any day to day involvement in that.   It also divides responsibilities for the various parts of the operations.

The employment of the manager must still be a  Board responsibility because of his importance to the Club as a whole.

I would expect the procedure to be that used with Gunn where McNally presented a dossier to the Board with his recommendation and the Board discussed it and made a decision.   Any other process would place McNally above the Board which is very unusual in any company. 

 

[Andy]

If I were a member of the board I would have a much better idea of what's actually happening behind the scenes than I do now. The reality is that fans like us don't have a clue about the day to day issues that Neil Adams has had to face and whether he's doing well under the circumstances or not. We simply don't know the facts but that doesn't seem to put some fans off from making up their own narrative. I've seen comments on Twitter stating that Adams has favourites, has a devisive style of management and, of course, is clueless. No evidence is provided for these allegations but the more they are repeated, the more people seem to believe them.

We just see the performances and results. We are not party to any personal information about the players that might affect their performances.

It's easy for fans to call for the head of the manager when the going gets tough but what if it's not the manager that's the problem?

 

[SussexYellow]

Gazza, I do not know the set up at Norwich but in my experience firing usually rests at the same point as hiring.

The appointment of a manager is clearly a board decision. I would expect the decision to fire to rest there as well - irrespective of any internal committees that have been set up to administer specific functions.

However it does raise the question of whether the manager is invited to the board to report on footballing matters or whether the CEO is now accountable to the board for such matters? In which case is the CEO's position now at greater risk if matters do not go well on the field?

Thinking about my own question in the final sentence, I think a lot will depend on who chairs the football board. If it is the manager then prime responsibilty should still rest with him. It would tempting to think that as the CEO is on the board he would chair as the most senior official. But this need not be so, particularly if his role is to be a check and balance against ill thought out spending decisions!

Anybody know who chairs the football board?

 

[ZLF]

No - I would not be looking to remove Adams right now - a knee jerk to one 4-0 defeat after the equally over celebration of last Fridays win is the wrong thing.

However I would now be actively considering what if scenarios should we continue to fall down the table 

 

[Dubai Mark]

Would you be trying to persuade your fellow directors to remove the manager?........

Based on the facts at hand (and we dont know everything that goes on I agree) and the expectation I had for this season, and even though it is early in to the season........absolutely..YES, YES, YES!

Only two weeks ago I did not think this way at all, I did not support the NA appointment but have been supporting him fully since his appointment, plus I believe strongly in stability. You see, I believed that with such a strong squad to work with, he would have enough in his locker to keep us positioned comfortably in the top two, worse case three.

I liked the early sound bites about the way we would play, BUT...in all honestly how many minutes of anything close to inspiring attacking football have the fans seen, even in our more "convincing" wins we were often not that impressive for large slices of the games but the results were clouding over this fact.  

We played an apparently "much improved Bolton" (were they really?) and whilst it was a comfortable win, was it really that good of a performance....looked "slow and ploddy" for the most part to me and Bolton were quite frankly very average. A friend of mine who was at the match sent me a sms afterwards and said "good win...but we look mid table still"........ffs "mid table" with THAT squad, give me a break......and then we get tonked away at Middlesbrough, sure one of the better sides.....but 0-4 was just not acceptable...we ARE better than that......so....YES, YES, YES from me!!! 

 

[UlsterCanary]

Based on the situation right now I'd be asking my fellow directors and board members to keep a very close eye on the situation in the coming months and make a decision from there. I'd also be suggesting a sit down with NA and discussing the short term future for NCFC on the pitch.

1 in 8 is dire and a football club like Norwich City shouldn't come to that in the 2nd tier. But kneejerk reactions get you nowhere in football and consistency is probably something this club needs more than many other things before it.

I don't know how much McNally or the rest know about the current footballing situation. Have they discussed that specific with Adams? Are they going to? Have they totally stayed out of it? Whatever the sitation I think there needs to be more dialogue before any decision can be reached.

Worth remembering it is Novemeber and it's going to be a long season. Also worth remembering - this is the Football League, a bumpy start doesn't equate to a *bleep* season. Just ask any Palace fan!

 

[Personal Trainer]

I think historically the owners took advice from people they knew and who were respected in football, like Sir Bobby Robson and Roy Hodgson but of course they did not have a CEO with football experience. They were also younger and I suspect more involved with day to day issues.

As Gazza TCC explained the football side is now separate from the financial side so I suspect the Board will act on the advice of McNally who, lets face it, will have an "army" of PL and Championship CEOs he can talk to. The Makay situation in the summer probably bears this out.

 

[GazzaTCC]

I always got the impression, and it is no more than that, that any decision on change needed a majority vote from the board, of whom McNally was just one member?

Now, more authority has been delegated to this new football "mini" board. There is little doubt in my mind that McNally now has far more influence on such matters than previously.

I therefore suspect (but clearly don't know) that it's his recommendation to the board which is crucial. Whether they vote on his recommendation or just "rubber stamp" his recommendation is the interesting question.

 

[Canaryboy]

No - I would not be looking to remove Adams right now - a knee jerk to one 4-0 defeat after the equally over celebration of last Fridays win is the wrong thing.

However I would now be actively considering what if scenarios should we continue to fall down the table 

When we appointed Hughton I can remember McNally saying that he was always the "Plan B", Lambert having previously thrown his toys out of the pram of course. I would like to think that McNally and the rest of the board will at least always be keeping half an eye on what is happening in the market, and a rough idea who they would be interested in talking to if things didn't work out.

Didn't McNally (or perhaps Bowkett) say that they had considered sacking Hughton in January but felt there was a lack of suitable candidates? If so, then they were unprepared last time. This time I'd like to think that they would be better prepared, they certainly didn't mess around with the Gunn sacking and subsequent Lambert appointment.

It also concerned me that the board considered there to be a lack of candidates last January, Malky Mackay was unemployed (and employable) at the time, and Neil Lennon was clearly looking for an escape route. There were plenty of candidates a month earlier, in December, so I do feel like the board were naive last year in not considering their options and pinning all their hopes on Hughton coming good. Particularly as Hughton's eventual replacement was already at the club. 

 

[Canaryboy]

The Makay situation in the summer probably bears this out.

Do you think its likely that our board had 'got wind' of that situation brewing then? 

I remember that it was Martin O'Neill who recommended Paul Lambert? Probably shouldn't phone him again though, he'd recommend Roy Keane  h34r:

 

[Personal Trainer]

Obviously no proof, but I can't imagine that when Football CEOs get together they don't discuss, informally, what is going on at their clubs and I don't believe they appoint solely on CVs without calling for references.

 

[SussexYellow]

Well indications that all is not well in the dressing room and yesterday's result has turned it for me. I think I would be saying this now to my fellow directors.

Whilst we are not yet detached from the top 6 the current run of form indicate that it is a matter of when, not if, we become detached. There are no signs that fortunes are likely to change and indeed there are indications that all may not be well in the dressing room. It is also possible that our loyal and supportive fan base will turn after just one more poor performance. Clubs at the bottom of the division are showing a bit of form and we are likely to spend the rest of the season looking over our shoulder when we need to be looking upwards.

We knew when we appointed Neil Adams that it was a risk and now is the time to recognise that it has not paid off. When an investment turns out to be ill judged rarely, if ever, does it come good by hanging on to it. The best strategy is simply to cut your losses. As things stand, whilst it will be costly to remove Neil Adams there would be little to no risk of results getting worse under new management.

And finally whilst Neil Adams is a thoroughly good guy and NCFC through and through that should not influence us from making the right decision. Albeit we should try to find the least messy way of implementing that decision.

 

[eatonparkboy]

.

And finally whilst Neil Adams is a thoroughly good guy and NCFC through and through that should not influence us from making the right decision. Albeit we should try to find the least messy way of implementing that decision.

That is a very sensible point. We must not let sentiment be a barrier to making the right decisions. A sentiment the manager expressed last week regarding team selection.