The afternoon after the night before and it doesn’t feel any better.
Everything that’s NCFC-related at the moment feels like it’s in a state of transition, and there’s a sense of being completely directionless both on and off the field.
No doubt those in charge will see if differently and, as has been said before, there’s no substitute for winning games.
Of course, there’s a significant element of truth in that but the only problem is City seem a million miles away from doing so on anywhere near a consistent enough basis to maintain anything resembling a serious top-six challenge.
Just changing the head coach isn’t enough to resolve this mess; the problems run much deeper than that.
Which begs a serious question, who is in charge of this football club at the moment?
We have a sporting director, still working his notice, with the intention of hanging around for a handover, at least until December and possibly throughout the January transfer window.
City also have a new sporting director who is not due to start officially until the November 27. His arrival is still another four games away, with a fifth game immediately after his appointment.
That’s an eternity in footballing terms – I’m not sure most can wait that long!
We have an executive director, married to the outgoing sporting director. That sits uncomfortably with many. Personally, I’d rather judge people by what they say and do.
So, if you’re overseeing the day-to-day running of the football club, personal circumstances should be irrelevant. What’s in the best interest of the football club should be of paramount importance.
Then there’s a takeover with US-based minority owners seemingly adopting a hands-off approach, at least until January 2026.
This time last year, at the Club’s AGM, Mark Attanasio earned loud cheers and applause, for uttering the line, “Ipswich just want to be like us”. Just twelve months later, those words are coming back to bite his butt as the cyclical nature of football has turned full circle.
Confidentiality clauses and shareholder agreements will only get you so much latitude from fans and respecting all that’s gone before you is absolutely fine to a point. But when results are not going your way, fans naturally want to know what’s next – what’s the long-term vision?
And then there’s a fan base whose loyalty and commitment should never be questioned. Those same fans who have repeatedly stood by the club down the years. Whether through their support of share offers, bond issues, or early season ticket renewals, even throughout COVID-19 and having to endure two disastrous Premier League campaigns.
Patience is again being tested to breaking point.
These are undoubtedly testing times where, rather than silence or an information vacuum, someone needs to step up and show some leadership. And, it’s time to start asking some serious questions.
Like…
What is it going to take to get Ben Knapper to Carrow Road as soon as possible?
Is Webber’s ongoing presence really still needed at Carrow Road?
Can Neil Adams step in and assist Knapper with the handover?
How proactive is Mark Attanasio going to be?
Aside from another director of his choosing, will he appoint a “boots-on-the-ground” to an executive position to review things up behind the scenes, or is this investment, while significant, going to be more passive?
I fear inaction, levels of toxicity reaching new heights with every unfavourable result, and, before we know it, November will have come and gone, and then the small matter of an incoming meeting with “that lot”, on the horizon.
All City fans really want is something to buy into. Some leadership, a shared vision, some honesty, and transparency.
Season ticket renewals aren’t that far away – so is it really that much to ask?
A good summing up of the long running malaise.
The list of questions itemised will I’m sure go unanswered as the custodians and everyone else involved seek to keep a lid on matters with a news blackout.
The feeling that they are all just waiting for an unlikely upturn in results to resolve the balance and kick a few cans down the road is palpable.
The ridiculous protracted ‘takeover’ lurches on and on with no inkling given as to the future plans and direction of the club. Apparently the Attanasios are quite happy to “learn the ropes” from Delia Smith over a vaguely specified timescale, ranging from 3 to 7 years or possibly never if lady muck takes some umbrage at the Americans or their ideas.
The arrogance displayed by the custodians in their assertion that they are in some way acting as guardians and saving the Club from attanasio and others reportedly showing an interest is breathtaking. Let is be remembered, without the significant injection of funds by attanasio the club would already be on the brink of financial armageddon.
Rather than delia Smith saving the club from others, we should be asking who is going to save thw club from delia Smith.
Fair observations, although, to my mind, just changing the ownership is unlikely to be the sole reason for the current situation. It’s about a whole series of factors.
There are huge questions – in my mind at least – about Wagner’s selections AND in-game decision making.
With repeated leakiness at the back, there seems no willingness to switch up the defence. Batth must wonder when his chance will come, as must Jaden Warner after his excellent showing against Fulham. Kellen Fisher has looked excellent when given his opportunities in the cup. There are two alternative left backs, yet that back four are seemingly bulletproof (with the worst defensive record in the division!!).
Aside from anything else, Stacey and Duffy look tired at the end of each match lately, while Gibson has yet to have a match of any significant input. Giannoulis arguably has the greatest impact, yet is the only one of the four whose place seems vulnerable at times.
Why are we changing midfielders to try and see out games? If we are going to concede the initiative by playing more defensively in front of the defence, then thise tired legs at the back are expected to handle even greater pressure when they can least cope.
I know I’m reacting to recent results, but there is no attempt to explain the thinking behind selections and substitutions, which leaves many of us confused and frustrated!
I’m off for a lie down. This is bad for my blood pressure!
All these pre-game and in-game decisions are, indeed, difficult to fathom out at times. Addressing them would certainly help the cause, but I can’t imagine that in itself would resolve all of City’s issues.
Gary: I try to let my feelings settle down after a disappointing game before saying too much. But your observations and questions are entirely fair and pertinent.
The only thing I’d question – both in your piece and recent ones by the other Gary – is whether Mark Attanasio is sitting passively as things unfold.
Yes, he and Delia/Michael want the change of ownership to be a controlled and gradual process. And he’s agreed not to overrule her for a period. But his record says passivity isn’t his style.
Delia has stressed – as Tom Smith did in his interview for the Canaries Trust – that they’re keen to tap into Mark’s expertise and ideas. I’ve no doubt he’s actively injecting ideas and suggestions rather than being ‘hands off’.
How that will help us isn’t clear, but I’d be amazed if the club isn’t getting his proactive input.. Meanwhile, your questions about the role of others are perfectly fair – and worrying.
I’m sure much of what you’re saying is perfectly true, Stewart, there’s input behind the scenes. My personal viewpoint is that some public messaging would certainly help matters, but, that’s just one element. We’re both agreed about this.
Absolutely!
Nero (the owners and directors) fiddled while Rome (the football team) burned. Or rather got burned. One measly point from the last four games is relegation form. Eight goals let in – an average of 2/game -must stop. I deliberately swerved the Middlesborough fiasco and watched in horror as we threw away a winning position against Leeds. I’m not sure if this is the place where the author signs off with a relevant piece of pop music but watching that Leeds 2nd half ‘Wide Open Spaces’ sprang to mind.
The musical input usually comes from Martin, I’m afraid.
If you’re talking about Leeds in isolation, I’d suggest Daniel Powter’s Bad Day, but for David Wagner generally, Sam Smith’s, The Writing’s on the Wall – I doubt even James Bond can save him.
The Moody Blues Go Now would do for me…addressed to more than one person.
A good read Gary, all relevant points. In relation to Attanasio I’ve said from the outset his involvement would not benefit the canaries on the ground, he’s a business man, he’s made the club a loan acquired a heap of shares on the cheap for surety and I have no doubt when the timing suites him he’ll off load them, he’s not here for the long term. The club, as you rightly state Gary is rudderless and in dire straights, with an incoming SD green behind the ears, a pawn in the hands of Mrs Webber. With criticism gaining momentum I have no doubt all the passive happy clappers will be on their key boards supporting Aunty Delia, and therein lies our problem, passive supporters, what is desperately needed is Chase like demo’s to get rid of this Delia, let her know that running the club on ” LOVE ” as she tries to make us believe, doesn’t cut it anymore.
David C, we can only judge Attanasio by his long term involvement with the Brewers, so, personally, I’d be surprised if his involvement was short term. Time will tell, I guess.
It was Chase Out that gave us Delia. I would say that it has been far from a recipe for success.
I agree Gary, everything is so up in the air at the moment and it is a big worry.
Could Mark Attanasio at any time in the next three years make a “hostile” takeover of the club? Personally I would like to think that should be used only as a last resort, but surely the man with the money has to have a huge say in the running of the club?
I just feel we are in real trouble of being in a relegation scrap, and it seems our leaders are imitating “Nero” and doing nothing while Rome burns. Like the Christians did for Rome’s demise I feel we would get the blame for sinking into League One anyway.
I don’t think anything “hostile” would happen in the three year period, it’s simply not in Attanasio’s interest to do so.
If things were to really fall apart between him and D&M, heavens forbid, there’s still the 20% minority shareholders potentially in play, although that would require MA to make them an offer. Something that he’s currently reluctant to consider.
Wasn’t that what the shareholders had to vote on after the clearance from the regularity authorities, was that at the insistence of Mark Attanasio? if so why? or was it at the insistence of Delia to ward off losing shareholder control, Attanasio didn’t need three years to learn how to run a football club, the sport maybe different but running a sporting franchise would be right up his alley, he’s probably much more experienced than anyone at Norwich all put together, but I still have serious doubt about his involvement with Norwich, and he must be having second thoughts too, seeing Norwich were in the premier League when he first became interested and now heading for league one
David C, there’s a perception in some quarters that this was an insistence by either D&M, or MA. It was neither, it’s simply a legal requirement under the Takeover Code.
But Gary it became a legal requirement only after the club approached the regularity authorities to not enforce the rule that obliged Attanasio to offer to buy those 20% of shares under the takeover code, so who was behind that approach and why
No David C, that’s simply not correct. The club is a public limited company and the requirement for an offer to existing shareholders is mandatory at the point someone crosses, or is about to cross the 30% ownership threshold. That’s irrespective of the means taken to achieve that, not as a consequence of the route chosen by the club. Important difference.
Gary I don’t know who’s confused here, you or me, because buying that latest share issue took Attanasio over the 30% mark is why the club did go to the regularity authorities, who in turn waived the requirement for him to have to make that offer as long those share holders voted to accept that ruling, which they did, with that in mind I would like to know at who’s insistence was the approach to the authorities made in the first place and why?, one that caused considerable delays, as confirmed by Mrs Webber not too long ago.
This particular point reminds me of the crafty way Delia overcame the similar problem all those years ago, much to the angst of one Mr Wattling.
Wasn’t the vote to allow Mark to go ahead and purchase the additional shares without having to offer the same price to all shareholders? That’s what people voted on. Had they not, every shareholder could have sold to him and pushed him into majority status.
There are no legal requirements that he must became a joint-minority shareholder for 3 years, correct? I’m not aware, although could be wrong, that there’s no legal requirement for him not to purchase more shares in future. Unless that was part of the agreement with the authorities.
Assuming no such agreement exists, could he not cross that 30% share threshold, should he renege on whatever verbal agreement he has with Delia? Unless of course they have a separate, binding agreement that he won’t.
Trying to articulate that (which I likely didn’t), really shows what an extraordinarily complex, opaque, and ridiculous situation the club is in, with the only real beneficiary of it being Delia.
David C, no confusion on my part.
There’s two ways to cross the 30% threshold. First, by acquiring shares from existing shareholders – Attanasio already had 21.5% through this means. Second, by acquiring new shares through the proposed allotment of new shares, as was the case here.
At this point the Takeover Panel became involved because NCFC are a public limited company. It’s a mandatory requirement.
The usual procedure at this point is for the offeror, Attanasio, to then make a mandatory offer to existing minority shareholders for their shares. The point of seeking the waiver was to avoid this requirement, which was actually approved by shareholders, rather than the Takeover Panel.
When Delia and Michael initially acquired their 34% stake from GW, the Club was still a private limited company, not public, which, in any event, didn’t happen until 2002. There was nothing ‘crafty’ about that, contrary to your suggestion, and, in any event, the current Takeover Code is a product the Companies Act 2006 – a much later piece of legislation.
David Bowers, the three year situation is part of the shareholder agreement between D&M and Attanasio. It’s a private arrangement between them, there’s no legislation relevant in this deal.
`Gary, I’ve been arguing this point with you all along, by acquiring the new share issue Attanasio would be going over the 30% threshold requiring him to make the mandatory offer to the remaining shareholders but, the club went to the authorities seeking a waiver which was granted as long as those same shareholders voted to accept the ruling, my argument with you Gary is at who’s insistence was the waiver sought, was it Mark A or was it D S&MWJ if the later was it to cling on to her power or was it because M A doesn’t want a take over situation, either way it answers a lot of questions,
Gary, I think you need to re-read this chain because you’ve definitely provided conflicting information about what is legally required and what was “Delia” required.
David C and David Bowers. The code is a legally binding piece of legislation, which binds various parties and their advisers. To suggest that one party, or another, has done something tactically is therefore misleading. They were simply following what they are legally bound to do.
Clearly, D&M and MA agreed between themselves a proposal which, if approved by shareholders, would have resulted in parity between them.
The fact that the proposal would result in MA crossing the 30% ownership threshold, meant that the Takeover Code would become applicable (something that didn’t apply to D&M back in the 90’s, because the club was private, and the Takeover Code didn’t exist) requiring all parties, including the club to notify Takeover Panel.
It really is that simple. No tactical plans or conspiracy theories required, just compliance with the law.
I don’t know what I have to write Gary that gets through to you, I have not disagreed with any of the corporate legalities you keep repeating, in fact if you read my threads I have stated those same rulings, and I think that’s very plain to see, obviously you can’t. All I started out asking was why both parties had obviously agreed on parity and this three year agreement, was it our Delia clinging on for dear life or was it MA not wanting to get involved in any take over. For anyone reading my comments over the past 18 months will know I (like most) want Delia out but not necessarily Attanasio in, I don’t think he is what this club and supporters want, but Gary what is most important is that nobody outside the inner sanctum has any idea what his plans are going forward, it’s all conjecture, all guesswork, it’s dragging this club down and the poor old paying punter is the one suffering and dear old auntie of course (along with the Webbers) couldn’t give a shit
One thing stands out for me. It’s unthinkable that Webbers wife remains on the board after his departure. What a ridiculous situation for the new Sporting Director to face.
She should never have been appointed in the first place, it was nepotism at its worst.
Run just like one big happy family it’s seems.
Webber should be on Gardening leave, and the new man in now. How can Webber be working in the clubs best interest, while having his main focus on his next move.
The only good thing about his departure is that he will no longer be in such high demand that he imagined he would be a few years back.
Zoe was already at the Club, albeit doing a different job, when Stuart was appointed, Whilst I can understand the angst, to a certain degree, you can’t simply sack someone, just because their other half joined. Similarly, Ben Kensell’s departure was hardly down to her. Whether there was a need for an alternative appointment at that point is another matter.
I think you have raised the pertinent issues Gary but knowing our owners past performance I doubt if there’ll be any action because I fear they are out of touch with the majority of the fan base.
The last thing the club needs is another Webber influenced transfer window so why keep him on the premises.
The fact he’s still here on his inflated salary only provokes the fans.
Unfortunately for the club at this moment Delia needs to come out of her comfort zone and take action to remedy matters. As this requires bringing forward the Attanasio take over I doubt much will happen and it’s league 1 next year.
I doubt that much business will be done in January, but I understand your general point, JohnF
Don’t underestimate him Gary, we could have a few more aging freebies on long contracts!
Well Gary a win record of six out of 26 under Wagner says it all for me we are on a slippery slope and I don’t think he knows how to stop it . Very worrying indeed someone at the club needs to grow a pair before it’s too late .
The tide seems to have turned against him, however, as mentioned in the article, DW isn’t the only issue for me.
Hi Gary
An interesting read and many good comments.
I think the new Sporting Director is on a hiding to nothing with Webbers wife still being at the club after he leaves.
Other staff will be looking over their shoulders to see what reaction she has to any changes Knapper makes and second guessing anything she suggests being from her husband.
A clean break would be best for everyone, yes we all live by how we preform at work and reputation but there will always be that cloud hanging around with everything he wants to do.
I’m just trying to picture the look on Zoe’s face if you were to say that directly to her.
Instead of Wagner out They should be singing Webber out and not stop til he’s gone .
He is the rotten core atm that and the fact we have three owners and wife/director of the reluctant departing Stuart Webber.
Quite a mess really .
Unfortunately the board will maintain a keep calm and carry on attitude for the forseeable future.
David C – ignoring for one moment the first sentence of your last reply to me, or the fact that you don’t think I understand the questions you’ve asked – actually, I do, and I’ve answered you, albeit you clearly don’t understand the context in which they are given, I would suggest that you read my article before this one again, as it gives you plenty of clues to the questions you’ve asked.
Better still, read the shareholder agreement between the parties, which includes the lock-step agreement on voting – it’s a legal agreement between the parties. Again, it should give you the answers to your questions.
Also read the waiver circular, subsequently detailed on the club’s website, includes details of the £10m c-preference loan (repayable in 7 years) and £31m debt financing provided by MA in the last year – a not insignificant amount for someone you think won’t be around for a while.
I accept that this is a complex process, but, by repeating your questions, and then ignoring the answers given, seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the legal process on your part.
There is no conspiracy theory in play here. D&M will almost certainly sell to MA in due course – not quick enough for many, I accept – but they still have a significant degree of influence in the whole process, whether you, or I, like it, or not.