I’m distraught.
My golf partner and I just went to our usual course, to find it closed. Permanently.
Perhaps the local residents finally rebelled over the impact on their property of my drives. More likely, it just went out of business. We’d noticed – and of course enjoyed – that we often had the course pretty much to ourselves.
It wasn’t sustainable, illustrating the fact that (unless you’re a Bournemouth fan at the moment) you can’t have it both ways; can’t have your cake and eat it.
But what kind of cake should we be looking for, and how can we savour it?
Mick Dennis’s articles on this site always attract a deluge of comment, last Sunday’s being no exception. Rightly, only a few related to his contretemps with the Canaries Trust. Most addressed the view of the club, and in particular of the Board, that he presented.
Mick’s pieces will naturally come across as defensive of the Board and owners. The simple reason is that he’s generally moved to write in response to ill-informed and unfair commentary from other quarters. It’s important to have someone to redress the balance, and it’s good that we have someone as articulate and informed as Mick to do it.
By definition, that means his pieces will tend to be unbalanced. If I were judging his writing in isolation, I’d say he understates our Board’s shortcomings (including their over-reluctance to part ways with Alex Neil before Christmas) and the underachievement we’ve witnessed on the field this season. In isolation, Ed Balls’ summary was more balanced.
On the other hand, Mick’s absolutely right to challenge the knee-jerk negativity towards the Board and their actions. He reminds us of important positives about our club that we either take for granted or fail to notice at all (we’d certainly notice some of them if they weren’t there any more).
It’s little consolation when things aren’t right on the field, of course, but our club is for instance a leader in working with the local community. Of course the priority is topline success, and the Board will expect to be judged on it. Below the ups-and-downs of the first team’s fortunes, though, community commitment is a kind of fundamental which matters (at least to me).
And he’s right to highlight the Board’s capability – not shared by all clubs – to recognise shortcomings and address them. Past examples include the appointments of David McNally and Alan Bowkett; the current example is the review of the club’s structure.
While easy to see as a dry issue, getting the right structure is vital to achieving the success we all yearn for. It has to evolve and change over time. Giving David McNally free rein to supervise and intervene in every aspect of the club’s operation was crucial (as was Bowkett’s re-negotiation of our debt) in steering the club away from disaster in 2009. But it’s not the right way for Norwich City in 2017.
I’m no insider, and can’t predict the outcome of the Board’s strategic review. I know, however, that it’s the right thing to be doing. I’d guess it will reshape some of the key roles in the club, including that of the Chief Exec. I’ve heard nothing but good about Steve Stone, and hope the revised structure will provide a role that plays to his strengths.
As previously discussed, I believe Tom Smith can bring a sober and professional view to Board issues that Delia and Michael, in their passion for the club, have sometimes lacked.
An area of failing in the club has been the link between the football operation and the Board, reflected for instance in our mixed transfer record since 2014. A Director of Football can potentially help, provided (at least) three things are right: the definition of the role, the individual, and the chemistry between him and the manager.
We have recruited some exceptional people in the past decade, and some duds. Perhaps Jez Moxey should have been avoided in the first place, but at least prompt action was taken when it became apparent he wasn’t helping the club.
Whatever the detail, the changes presently under way will herald a new era for the club. Hopefully fans will keep an open mind to see how they work. That applies to the next manager as well. I assume Huddersfield fans were less than impressed when their Board appointed David Wagner last summer (“He can’t be any good – I’ve never heard of him”), just as we were about Paul Lambert.
If the Board has lessons to learn, so do we.
That open mind would assist another process too: communications and engagement, so damaged during Jez’s reign, can be significantly improved. But it’s a two-way street. We need to play our part, as well as what we ask from the Board.
Thank you. What an excellent article. One of thee best and most balanced of views. Hopefully things can calm down and move on.
Yes, at least Ed Balls admitted mistakes have been made from top to bottom. Mick Dennis seems to refuse to ever admit any mistakes made by The Board.
Stuart – you say our transfer dealings have been “mixed”, I would say they’ve been poor, and rotten value. This was unfortunately combined with a manager who couldnt get the best out of them.
This is a well balanced article which shows a good understanding of the problems facing NCFC. Although administrative effectiveness does not guarantee success on the pitch, not providing good administrative support can undermine the efforts of the manager and the team.
When we see the name of the new manager/head coach, we may have a better idea whether the current focus on the administrative side of the Club.o gbbbh
The board deserve credit for much and extremes don’t help. But there is a distinct whiff of nepotism about the current board and we have nosedived since Bowkett and McNally left and nephew tom and best mate Balls came in. Mick Dennis is part of that coziness that feels like it is very stale. The need for fresh air at board level is overwhelming
Now you’re just doing it to get a piece of the controversial pie. Holding hands with Dennis the Menace is as low as it gets and will serve you no good in these hair parts wunnut.
What your golf day has got to do with anything is beyond me , I think you should take your Delia tinted glasses of smell the coffee.The club is at a crossroads in its history and wrong turn at this point could spell 15yrs in the championship if we lucky .As for Tom Smith a tea boy from the from the finiacal side of the city London is a good bench mark to where the board is at this moment ,that is with out mentioning dancing Ed. To now trust them to make the wright decision you only have look at the appointment of Adams &Gunn .
Good old Jeff!
I enjoyed reading that very much.
I would suggest that problems with communication and engagement began long before the advent of Moxey, although as you quite rightly say, he didn’t help the situation.
Neither did that most unfortunate interview in The Times.
Mick D is just the other side of a reasoned debate about our beloved club. And in every dilemma there are always 2 sides.
Whilst it is disturbing to hear the abuse thrown at AN during his twilight games, and the Board for anything they try to fix, the fans’ failure-induced frustration has to be released somehow.
Better this way than by becoming fair weather fans like most other teams in the league. 26,000 at the Carra and 2,000 away regardless how we play or in what division shows how much we care, regardless of what side of the fence we take.
And Mick D’s inference that AN was ultimately pushed because of his belligerent comments is wrong. AN was sacked because of the rising groundswell of noisy discontent from the fans. Simples.
We can say what we like about The Board, but for sure they are always acutely aware of the fans reactions. A politician is nothing without an electorate; an entertainer is nothing without an audience; a product is worthless without a demand.
OTBC
We are not doing as well on the field as we expected. The Board’s Burnley-style approach of hold on to both the manager and as many of our best players (in terms of both talent and payslip) has not worked. Incidentally I think most fans bought into that approach but of course, with 20/20 hindsight have conveniently forgotten that.
So, we have to start again with a new manager and presumably eventually a much re-vamped squad.
That does not mean, as so many try to claim, that the club is a shambles, or in crisis, or a laughing stock, or any other soundbite that’s trips off the tongue every time we are on a bad run of form.
Yes, we were briefly in crisis following relegation to League One and that happened under the stewardship of Michael and Delia – so nobody should believe it could never happen again. But the signs seem to be that at the moment we are secure enough.
There is clearly a belief in the club that a “review” is necessary. Fine, you should always keep an eye on how you do things, see if they can be improved. That’s what any successful business does.
But in the end I don’t think it matters massively what they come up with – Tom Smith in an exec role, Director of Football – whatever.
There is only one decision that really matters and that’s who the Manager is. The scary thing is that by definition at the end of any season only about a quarter of clubs can really be said to have got that one right. And Boards who make one great decision often get the next one wrong – look at what happened to Bolton after Allardyce went, or Sheffield U post-Warnock.
We can write all we want about structures, the club being a shambles or whatever, but the truth is that if – it may be a big if – but if they get the manager right everything else pales into insignificance.
Trouble is, it’s now likely to be at least September/October, when we can see how we are shaping up in the Championship, before we’ll be sure whether they’ve got the right guy or not.
Good piece Stewart; nothing more to add.
O T B C
P.S. Anyone out there fancy Karanka for Manager?
I’m sure he’d be able to sort out the defence!
Martin #8: Absolutely right: even pre-Moxey there was room (as at almost every club) for communications to be better. But Jez moved them in the wrong direction, while others (including Ed) are keen to strengthen engagement with fans.
There’s a fresh start facing us all – in some ways enforced, in some ways initiated by the club. I think you and I are united in wanting people to look at new arrangements with an open mind.
Keith B #10: A lot of excellent points.
Structure is important, but all issues are more fraught when the team isn’t performing. Getting the right manager is crucial to the mood of the club and everyone associated with it. And yes, we won’t know for a while if we’ve got it right.
Some of the same people who appointed Gunn and Adams are still there; they also appointed Lambert and Alex Neil. Fingers crossed the forthcoming one!
Spot on, Stewart. Mick Dennis offers an intelligent counterpoint to a lot of the recent grunting.
But look, there’s Jeff! And pab!
There’s not one non-whining bone in their bodies. I sincerely hope they’re dispensed with as part of this review; to move forward we need to get rid of ALL the cancers in the club.
At least Jeff shouldn’t be too difficult as he “doesn’t go to matches”.
And now there’s another idiot on the loose in the shape of roey61, with his square-root-of-f***-all opinion of Tom Smith. Did somebody leave the Pink Un forum gate open again? Be careful, people!!!
Good point John (11), perhaps Boro are rushing in because they know that AN won’t be out of a job for long!*tongue very firmly in cheek*
# 12 Stewart: Yes indeed, minds need to be open. I would guess and hope that most of them actually are.
Let’s see how things transpire.
I doubt we’ll know for sure until Christmas comes around again. It could take that long to find out. Patience will be a virtue, I am sure.
As ever, only time will tell:-)
A Mick Dennis post is made of three parts, each with a very specific purpose.
—
Part 1 – Drop some knowledge. A few insider facts that clarify events. Establish ‘credibility’ for the opinions that follow. Note – opinions.
—
Part 2 – Undermine the supporters. Position those who are questioning the status quo as being wrong.
“Well, I pose apposite queries all the time, but not everyone wants to hear the accurate answers.”
“I was utterly astonished and appalled to find the hackneyed ‘he can’t play at centre-back’ message board threads about our captain.”
“Of all the accusations which have been flung around in recent weeks, the suggestion that those in senior positions “don’t care” is the most preposterous”
“The story of the game was rewritten with an almost Stalinist zeal by people whose minds are made up and closed”
“So the two assumptions underpinning the beliefs of the “outers” at Norwich are shown to be wrong”
“Yet I would hope that, by now, the Supporters Trust (of which I am a member) understand that their intervention was grievously ill-considered.”
“But the Morison moaners have a more ingrained problem. They have made up their minds long ago and now won’t allow themselves to see evidence which contradicts their blinkered, binary view.”
“But is it too much to expect that Norwich supporters would think things through when a substitution is made? It was the knee-jerk response that “Hughton’s got it wrong” which was negative and clueless.”
—
Part 3 – Reaffirm the status quo. The board are sorting it all out. They’re ambitious, they have the right people, the right mindset. If there is a manager, back them, if there’s not a manager then the board are addressing it etc…
—
The trouble with this is that:
a) Mick’s ‘facts’ only ever appear to support the board and specifically when they need it. There’s never an inside fact shared that shows a single shred of negativity. Any good journalist would not use Mick as source because of the clear lopsidedness of the information.
b) They don’t match reality. The ‘tidbits’ do. But the constant reaffirmation of the club going in the right direction is completely false. That can be seen in the players, managers, quality of football, and results. Not to mention any of the amateur off-pitch shenanigans.
Personally I don’t think Mick helps the board at all. He’s too inside to be impartial and he’s too quick to attack the supporters. If he wants to be ‘the inside guy’, fine, let’s hear it all. If he wants to be the defender the powers-that-be, then he should be prepared to get some backlash when he’s defending poor season after poor season.
Dave (16)
“Well, I pose apposite queries all the time, but not everyone wants to hear the accurate answers.”
I think you’ve just been hoisted by your own petard there.
Jeez, I can’t believe people like ‘Dave the Optimist.’ Has he never heard of there being two sides to a story? How about the concept of a rational argument?
At least Mick’s well connected enough to have some good sources, which means his opinions are likely to be based on facts – whatever interpretation he chooses to put on them. It would be nice if you could say the same for some of the half baked, ill informed nonsense the appears on here.
Perhaps Mick’s facts ‘support the board’ because they reflect what’s going on – which means the board are maybe doing a better job than many give them credit for.
They are operating in a difficult environment and trying to achieve a model for the club which is not reliant on foreign money bank-rolling NCFC – until the owner tires of it.
There are plenty of clubs who have seen that model fail – Cardiff and Pompey spring immediately to my mind, but there are plenty of others.
“Jeez, I can’t believe people like ‘Dave the Optimist.’ Has he never heard of there being two sides to a story?”
That’s my point. THere’s Mick’s side and the wrong side 😉
“Perhaps Mick’s facts ’support the board’ because they reflect what’s going on – which means the board are maybe doing a better job than many give them credit for.”
In what sense? Two blown opportunities at becoming a PL team and mid-table Championship obscurity in recent memory.
“The structural review was an admission that things had gone wrong”. Was that Dave B? One of the other critics? No – Mick Dennis, from Sunday’s MFW piece.
Yes, Mick defends the club and its owners from ill-informed and – in some cases – malicious attack. Dave’s comments made me look back at what he actually said. It confirmed my recollection that Mick’s piece (a) is full of facts, and (b) pushes back on particular critics, rather than “undermining the supporters”.
One of his targets in this case was, of course, me. As old friends should, we’re going to sort it out over a beer.
In answer to Dave B 19…In the sense that the board have overseen three promotions and spells in the Prem.
As I said, two sides to every story.
I’m not saying they’re perfect, but I am saying the board has been a lot more successful than other similar sized clubs with bigger budgets.
And that’s not taking a little ol’ Norwich view. It is however recognising that there are limitations in terms of size of catchment population and ability to spend without concern for the consequences…There aren’t many Abramovich’s around.
Actually Steve, the board in its current form are relatively new. In this setup they haven’t seen much success. Ed and Thomas have both seen us slide down the league and we have no CEO.
The rest are probably about where they started in terms of league position.
If we’re going to be pedantic, MWJ, DS, Michael Foulger, Stephan Phillips – four out of six (seven if we count a CEO) aren’t ‘relatively new in this set up.’
The first three are the ones with the muscle in terms of share ownership.
Stewart, I normally like your pieces but similar to Mick’s, this left me feeling uncomfortable. I’m someone whose view of the board has changed over the course of the season. I’d posted on here a few times defending the board; I couldn’t really understanding where people were coming from. My mind has been changed over the season by the weight of evidence in front of me. I normally welcome Mick’s insight however it seems to me some people are trying to split fans into two groups; pro and anti-board and anyone who is anti is wrong and unaware of facts. If we’re going down the line that the only people who have a valued opinion are the ones with full access to the ‘facts’ (such as Mick) then this site becomes redundant.
There has not been some ‘knee jerk negativity towards the board’. There has always been a group of the fans who have never rated the current owners and what we have ‘achieved’ – and I’ll use that word loosely – is in spite of them, not because of them. When Bowkett and McNally were on board, we at least has people who knew what they were doing, even if the latter wanted to do too much!
We are now back with a board of hapless bunch of, shall we say ‘professional amateurs’ who make lots of mistakes and are hopelessly slow to react. Their idea of football is stuck firmly in the past and if Neil was sacked without having a man in place shows how stuck in the past they are!
No values, no sentiment. We need a board who takes no prisoners and get on with making a Norwich City as relevant as any football club in the country. In short, Ruthlessness and I can’t see that with our board that has all the muscle of a fluffy bunny rabbit and a Victoria Sponge.
If there is not substantial change at NCFC, League One – again – is far closer that some of us on here would like to admit.
Darren #25: I understand the concerns (I’m a fan too!). However, there’s no other phrase for some of the criticism than knee-jerk negativity.
An example would be some of the comments on Tom Smith. People who don’t know him, and probably haven’t even bothered to check his background, write off his ability to professionalise the Board and dismiss his appointment as nepotism. That’s ignorance and prejudice.
Dave H #24: A very thoughtful comment.
Dividing the fans into two groups (especially on the basis that one group’s right, the other wrong) is unhelpful and inappropriate.
I try – and to be fair, I think Mick does too – to address my comments and arguments at a particular point of view rather than a set of fans. Despite occasional lapses like last week, I think Norwich City supporters are outstanding!
Reading these comments was depressing.
When you distill it down virtually all of them were saying “This is what I think and anyone who disagrees is wrong”.
When and why did we stop discussing City and exchanging views? When did we stop learning from each other, sharing our views and love of City and become the PinkUn?