That's a really really good question.I fell in love with Norwich because we were different

Progressive, enlightened, never too demanding, a real family club. And that was at a time of hooliganism, the long ball and football being treated like a pariah sport.

I've never been someone that ambitious or ruthless, so a large part of me has always liked that we're not either. But only up to a point. The problem, as with everything in life, is when we take it too far.

In football, to be hated is to exist. So many other clubs and journalists patronise us so often because they just cannot take us seriously. The real reason they praise us is because well, they like us being a soft touch who they'll take three points off all the time. Plenty of people insisted we were a 'breath of fresh air' in 2004/5, for example. I didn't. I thought our attitude to it all stank, with Fulham the culmination of it.

It's all about extremes. No other club at this level would ever keep a manager with that appalling a record in the top division - because to do so is to admit defeat, to give up. That's not what Webber's here for at all. And why did we need to bring tougher people in in the first place? First McNally, then Webber, were desperately needed because we twice reached a point (2009, 2017) when failure would mean financial armageddon.

That's the thing about being too nice. Under our model, it can actually result in catastrophe. That's kinda why I was so infuriated throughout Adams' stint: what did we think we were doing by wasting that time when, with parachute payments, we had to get back up, or else?

If Norwich were ever taken over by Newcastle-style owners, that'd be it for me. For many thousands of others too I imagine. But between black and white, there's plenty of shades of grey. This isn't a flower show. It's professional sport. And being hard and objective doesn't mean 'selling our soul' in any way: we have to make smart, tough decisions in order to have any chance at all.

Posted By: thebigfeller, Nov 7, 21:47:33