'Kevin was not quite like other boys; but he was afraid at last. A tremor ran through him, like a Charlton attack pounding the Norwich defence; but at The Valley one wave followed another till there were hundreds of them, and Kevin felt just the one.
'Next August he was standing erect in the River End again (until he was told to sit down), with his scarf around his neck and a drum beating within him. It was saying: 'League One will be an awfully big adventure.'
(With apologies to J.M. Barrie)
And so, with typical perversity, City have marked the 50th anniversary of reaching the FA Cup semi-finals as a Third Division team, not by having another glorious cup run but by becoming a third tier team again.
But is this really the time to point the finger at people and start apportioning blame? Actually, it is.
There are (largely thanks to the heavy use of the loan system) too many players from the last four years to mention. Perhaps we could ensure they are never forgotten by installing commemorative bricks bearing their names at Carrow Road � not at the back of the Jarrold Stand but in the urinals. Sponsorship of the bricks would at least bring in a bit of money.
We all know which two managers are chiefly responsible.
And then, of course, we have the board. They are the target of a lot of anger at the moment, with widespread accusations of gross incompetence. But are they incompetent or just very unlucky?
It seems to me that on most issues, you can make a case that they have acted reasonably � though this doesn't lead me to the overall conclusion you might expect. Let's go through the principal items on the charge sheet:
1) Sticking with Nigel Worthington for too long, while the parachute payments were running out.
I thought Worthy should have gone a year before he did; after the 3-0 defeat at QPR in October 2005, to be exact. But although I thought the board were wrong, I could understand why they didn't want to sack him. They didn't want to be one of those clubs (like QPR) which changes managers too readily � and to be fair, the hire-and-fire approach rarely brings success.
2) Appointing Grant and Roeder. These decisions look disastrous now � but this is where I have most sympathy with the board. All you can ever do when hiring someone is choose the best candidate available and then keep your fingers crossed that it works out. Sometimes it doesn't � and in our case it went wrong twice in quick succession.
You can accuse the board of lacking football knowledge � but Dave Stringer was brought in to advise, and I believe the opinions of other people in the game were canvassed too. Due diligence was carried out.
Even people who know and understand football can get it horribly wrong sometimes. At the Capital Canaries AGM in 2000, Bryan Hamilton came to outline his vision for the future of the club.
After hearing him speak, a fellow City fan whom I respect for his deep knowledge and astute reading of the game stood up to declare that these were the most inspiring words he had ever heard from a City manager. I still tease him about this occasionally, and he looks utterly mortified every time.
You can accuse the board of lacking good instincts. But even the best instincts aren't infallible.
My wife, who has an almost scary ability to suss people within moments of meeting them, is largely responsible for recruitment at her school.
'Have you ever got it badly wrong?' I asked her. 'God, yes,' she said. 'We had a head of department once. He was brilliant at his interview � head and shoulders above the other candidates � and we thought we'd got a gem.
'Within six months we realised he was useless…'
I thought Grant was a decent appointment at the time. True, he had no managerial experience � but neither did Aidy Boothroyd when he became Watford manager. Roeder's managerial CV was not as terrible as is now generally painted.
And within a few months of his appointment, he was being called Saint Glenn by many (me included). The only concerns being expressed on the message boards at the time were that he might be snatched away from us by a Premiership club.
3) Appointing Bryan Gunn as manager. Both of my regular readers will know he wasn't my preferred choice. But you can see the thinking in choosing a figure to unite the fans (albeit temporarily) and whose love for the club might inspire enough passion to compensate for the squad's lack of quality.
4) Too much non-football expenditure. I don't think anyone disagrees that the old South Stand needed replacing; it had only just been awarded its safety certificate for a number of years.
The acquisitions of land may have proved unwise with hindsight, but the board was hardly alone in speculating on property in the belief that values would continue to rise. As for other costs such as the refurbishment of the ticket office and Yellows � well, perhaps that money would have been better spent on the team.
But all of our recent managers have still been given more than enough money to spend to keep us at the right end of the Championship � they've just spent it very poorly.
5) Failure to prevent the managers' mistakes. The board is now being blamed for allowing the over-reliance on the loan system and even Jamie Cureton's loan spell at Barnsley. But once they've appointed their man, the board should allow him to handle team matters without interference.
6) Failure to bring in new investment. A verdict of 'unproven' has to be given here. Why didn't Cullum come on board? Why did the Turners turn away? Who knows? I certainly don't.
When you look at each issue in isolation, there is a case for the board's defence. You can see why they acted (or didn't act) the way they did, and to a large extent they have been unlucky.
But� when you put them all together, it's very hard to keep giving them the benefit of the doubt. They've been too unlucky too many times. However well-intentioned and reasonable, they've made the wrong call too often.
Perhaps, just as Napoleon wanted lucky generals, we need a luckier board. (Looking back, you could say that Robert Chase was lucky; the appointments of Dave Stringer and Mike Walker looked like cheap options at the time, but they worked out brilliantly.)
Change is needed. But of course, complete change cannot happen until someone buys out Delia and Michael � and that doesn't look like happening any time soon. Which leaves only two other options.
The club could bring new people on to the board who hold different views and allow them to have a genuine influence on decision making. (Admittedly this idea could be flawed if the current board choose which people to invite on.)
Alternatively, the board could adopt the idea of George Costanza in an episode of Seinfeld called 'The Opposite'. (Season 5, episode 22 if you have the DVD box sets.) Frustrated by his continued failures, George resolves to do the exact opposite of what his instincts tell him at all times � and everything in his life quickly falls into place.
They could start at Wednesday's board meeting, especially if their instincts tell them to keep Bryan Gunn in the manager's office. I'm afraid the team sheet last Sunday looked like a resignation letter, and the attitude of many of the players was the signature on it.
Leave a Reply