Barry Skipper says of the "management" team "we don't see the
necessity for change and we don't see that as being particularly
relevant to the difficulties we've got at the moment." Which, of
course, must be true since the club will not lie to the fans. But,
when I look at the difficulties which we have, and which we are now
told are not to do with the "management" then I am somewhat mystified
as to what the "management"'s function actually is.

For example, one difficulty is team morale: "It just so low at the
minute it's indescribable." (Drury). I had always assumed that
motivating and encouraging the team was management's job. Not at
Norwich City.

Another difficulty is the team can't actually pass the ball to each
other "Today we gave the ball away far too often and we were second
best on too many occasions. We were less than average, to be fair. We
didn't pass the ball...." (Worthington) I had always assumed that
training and coaching the team was management's job. Not at Norwich
City.

Yet another difficulty is that we have signed players that aren't
actually good enough: Colin, Hughes, Etuhu, Thorne etc. I had always
assumed that transfering players was the management's job. Not at
Norwich City.

So if motivating the team, training the team, signing the team, are
all not particularly relevent to what the management do, then please
tell me - what do they do?

The odd thing is, when a manager does all the things that I think a
manager should do, things go rather well: ""He's fantastic as far as
I'm concerned," Mackay said of Boothroyd. "His man management is very
good, his tactical awareness and technical ability on the coaching
field is very good and he gives a lot of belief to the youngsters.
You're not just a number here and that can happen at some clubs. I
think all the players feel wanted and it can give you that extra 1% on
a Saturday.""

So why don't we try having a manager like that?