westcoastcanary

The sentimentality bit was a reference to other threads. I think sentiment is clouding people''s judgement about how big a loss (in footballing terms) selling Jacob, and Josh too if he goes, would be. There are stronger footballing arguments for keeping Josh but it may be that an equally good (or even better in terms of present needs) replacement has already been identified. The idea that Josh is better than anyone we could replace him with is nonsense. "But he wouldn''t be one of our own"; quite, but so what?

Instead of complaining about Benitez and Newcastle people need to get off their high horses and stop weltering in sentimentality. The most salient question is what all this tells us about the Murphys, their family and their agent. They have clearly decided -- almost certainly rightly, since there is a big difference between potential (still) and actual achievement-- that now is the time to start cashing in on the hard work and talent. Do they think they owe Norwich City years of first team service in return for having helped get them where they are? Clearly not. Do they view the arrival of Farke as an opportunity to broaden their experience, playing first team football under a coach with an approach quite different from what they are used to? Clearly not. That''s OK, they have their minds fixed firmly on their own interests and good luck to them; they want the best, as they see it, for themselves. Which is exactly the attitude the club and supporters should be taking as well, and the one I''m confident Webber will be taking. The calculation of interest seems to have been made as far as Jacob is concerned; his departure will be an additional factor in weighing up the club''s best interest in regard to Josh. Webber and Farke will have made a judgement about the value of both to Norwich City and their fate will be decided accordingly. Sentimentality has no place in the calculation.

I think we are going to need several; after all, some of us still hanker after wingers (remember them) and "old-fashioned centre backs" (the sort that simply put the boot through the ball whenever it is within kicking distance)  [:D]

[quote user="sonyc"]Agree, would like to retain him for next season. But isn''t this post his goodbye? Because he knows he is not staying?[/quote]That''s certainly how it reads to me. He''s chuffed with the appreciative chants and being implored to sign, but it''s tot ziens, vaarwel!

@PurpleThe duty of a board of directors to a company''s shareholders does not necessarily require "keeping the business going". It may be in the interests of shareholders to wind the company up, or otherwise dispose of it. There is no contradiction between a board of directors recommending such a course of action to shareholders while at the same time fulfilling all their statutory duties as directors. Which leaves your original claim dependent on there being "a moral duty" on owners to keep a business going. I''ve no doubt our majority shareholders do consider themselves to have such a duty and that they have that in common with many in football, not least a large number of fans. But clearly there are already owners who don''t subscribe to that set of values and the "fans versus customers" debate shows that football is not impervious to change.

[quote user="Woodman"]I tend to agree, he''s a more traditional box to box midfielder who will score goals by getting in good positions. However, I do think his attacking prowess is wasted by how we play him, but given we have the Murphys, Pritchard, Naismith and Wes playing in those forward midfield positions, we need him to play the deeper role with Tettey or Dorrans.[/quote]My point was that he has been forced to become "a more traditional box to box midfielder who will score by getting into good positions" through being denied the opportunity to play in the position from which he frequently DID impose himself on games as young captain of Leeds. I''m not suggesting he could now revert, just that he has uncomplainingly paid a price in the five and a half seasons he has been our player.

@PurpleThe principal duty of any owner of a business is to keep the business going? Duty? Where on earth does that idea come from? As Parma says, duty can be used as a camouflage for many things and this strikes me as a prime example.

@Bethnal10 players coming in? I''d like to see your inventory of where they''ll fit in, e.g. 2 GK, 2/3 CB, etc. And since challenging for promotion next season presumably remains an objective, meaning we need better than those who are going, how many of that 10 are likely to be loans?

It''s testimony to JH''s attitude and character that he has contributed so much to our success in the time he''s been here while virtually never being played in the position in which he excelled as captain of Leeds -- as an attacking midfielder playing behind a CF. Never purporting to be a defensive midfielder, he has nevertheless played wherever he has been asked. How can a player be expected to stamp his authority on games in those circumstances? Clubs will be queueing up to sign him if we are genuinely prepared to let him go, Lambert''s Wolves for one.

So the heat of the moment reaction of a 21 year old Ronaldo to Rooney''s stamp on a Portuguese team mate is more heinous than the conviction and prison sentence for tax fraud of a 27 year old, reputedly earning 40M Euros a year? One really does wonder sometimes about people''s values.

Even with those 7 going there are still, by my calculation, 30 players on the books either in (21), or on the fringes of (9), the first team squad:3      DF     Mitchell Dijks (loan)4      MF    Graham Dorrans5      DF     Russell Martin (captain)7      FW    Steven Naismith8      MF    Jonny Howson (vice-captain)9      FW    Nélson Oliveira10     FW    Cameron Jerome11     MF    Matt Jarvis13     GK    Paul Jones14     MF    Wes Hoolahan15     DF     Timm Klose17     MF    Yanic Wildschut20     MF    Tony Andreu21     MF    Alex Pritchard22     FW    Jacob Murphy23     DF     Harry Toffolo25     DF     Ivo Pinto27     MF    Alexander Tettey28     MF    James Maddison29     MF    Conor McGrandles30     FW    Carlton Morris31     FW    Josh Murphy33     GK    Michael McGovern34     MF    Louis Thompson35     MF    Ben Godfrey 37     MF    Ray Grant38     DF     Louis Ramsay43     MF    Glen Middleton--      GK    Declan Rudd--      GK    Remi Matthews The departures announced today were contractually based; intriguing to see what happens next.

@OldRobert  Yes. Actually a poor article IMO.

@ BroadstairsBeing Sky''s major source of income is precisely what makes  the EPL vulnerable. Sky cannot afford not to react to new trends, intensifying competition for viewers/advertising revenue, and changes in world football (China, European Super League, etc.), not to mention a possibly less attractive EPL "product" due to political/EFL/FA insistence on greater support for EFL clubs.

Where did the idea come from that Naismith was bought as some kind of substitute/replacement for Wes? He''s never purported to be that kind of player.

One thing that seems to be taken as a given in all this is the permanence of the EPL and the idea that the media rights billions will continue to pour in never decreasing quantities into its coffers. Am I alone in thinking this is almost certainly a mistaken assumption, that this particular golden goose is not that many years away from being cooked? Rather than fretting about how to clamber back onto a bandwagon headed for not too distant buffers, maybe we should try to visualise how football will look post-EPL and position ourselves accordingly? A similar point, incidentally, could be made about demographic and social change.

IMO a lot of Naismith''s problem is that, like Wes, he''s often on a different wavelength to those around him. You see the best of both when they are playing with someone who understands them, Holty for example in Wes''s case, Prichard and Oliveira for example in Naismith''s. I suspect Naismith still can''t quite believe how little he can take for granted compared to when playing for Everton.

Oliveira''s second goal was "made" by Naismith''s diagonal crossing run, pulling the second covering defender with him and so clearing Oliveira''s way. We lack players with that level of appreciation of what the situation calls for. The "ranting" he gets criticised for is simply him trying to inculcate a similar level of situational understanding into his team mates. I bet the younger players, Prichard in particular, are learning a huge amount from him.

[quote user="Platonic"]Top post Parma, only just got around to reading it. I''m genuinely looking forward to next season because of the changes afoot. If nothing else, I suspect it won''t be boring.[/quote]I''m hoping that next season will be more boring than this last one, both on and off the field. Forty-six match commentaries against a background of "Boring, boring Norwich" from opposition supporters and resounding chorus of "One-Nil to the Canaries" from our own ......... [:P]

@Purple CanaryYes, wealthier owners help, but the real key is getting the club set up right. Stuart Webber''s arrival is tacit acknowledgement that we have spent the last three years trying to emulate the WBAs, Swanseas, Stokes and Southamptons while ignoring the principal factors on which their success has been built. As I said in an earlier post, it''s not so much the money but what you do with it that matters.Re. trying to get straight back, it may well make perfectly good sense in the case of a club whose circumstances are different from ours, e.g. Newcastle. But I''m talking about us in our particular circumstances, which Parma highlighted back in 2014 in the paragraph I quoted.

"The greatest danger - and one very real to Norwich following their meteoric rise - is that foundations are not laid and mercenary players are parachuted in as the club endeavours to bridge the gap from wide-eyed, nothing-to-lose first year survival to (reasonably) established members of football''s top table"  (Parma''s 2014 post, re-posted above). Isn''t that the nub of it? The near universal belief, from board to Barclay, that it was essential to stay in the EPL, or if relegated, get back immediately, has meant years of reactive firefighting rather than more measured building of solid foundations. Understandable as far as the first two seasons in the EPL were concerned, with the club still saddled with debt; but poor judgement thereafter, decked out in the false colours of "ambition".

[quote user="hogesar"]Parma''s right when saying whether we like it or not, getting promoted would have been far more beneficial to the club than not. Football is completely money-oriented and that''s our best way of getting it, with the current ownership model.[/quote]Money is only as beneficial as the use you make of it. Have we benefited from our three seasons in the EPL? Of course we have, first and foremost by ridding the club of £20M of external debt, secondly by significantly improving the overall strength of the squad, thirdly by halting and reversing the degradation of the club''s football infrastructure, fourthly by easing the financial burden represented by our Category 1 academy. Nevertheless, those three years of EPL riches have not secured our survival in the top tier, have not enabled us to construct a squad of anything approaching Premiership quality, or established us in football people''s minds as genuinely upwardly progressive. Yes, it "could have been so different", in one of ricardo''s parallel universes where the "mistakes" that have brought us to where we are didn''t happen. But in this world those mistakes were made and there''s no reason to think it would have been any different if we were gifted another season''s worth of PL riches. Sunderland have been in the EPL for the last ten years, Swansea for the last six years; we will almost certainly be playing both in the Championship next season, along with Middlesborough. There is no automatic translation of £Ms into lasting success.

[quote user="Leedscanary"]Monk asked Cellini for a 3 year contract and he said no. He''ll be here by July 1st[/quote]I sincerely hope we follow Cellini''s example and don''t hand the incoming coach, whoever he is, a three year contract. Webber is the one who needs time. The coach''s job is to take the group of players Webber gives him and weld them into an effective team playing to the maximum of their ability. Review after one season and either extend or change, and so on. Given the new structure, it makes even less sense than before to hand out long contracts to staff whose average survival expectation is under two years. If this modus operandi deters someone from applying, it would suggest to me he''s the wrong person.

Sad to see so many sour-grape posts. Of course Brighton are going to find it difficult, as will whoever wins the play-offs; Newcastle still have a nucleus of PL players and the money and big-name magnetism that the others lack. I don''t think Brighton will see survival next season as essential; having been building sensibly in the Championship they have the luxury of being able to take a slightly longer perspective, similar to what was anticipated for us under McNally''s original 7-year plan i.e. promotion, relegation, promotion, survival. As regards scoring enough goals, how many is "enough". There''s good statistical evidence that in the EPL goal difference matters more than number of goals scored, a rough rule of thumb being that if you can keep your GD below -12 you have a good chance of surviving. Given that, I''d Hughton''s Brighton are better equipped for the PL that posters focussing on goal scoring realise.

We looked solid, but recorded zero shots on target, or, not to make too fine a point of it, two shots on target which brought two somewhat fortunate goals. As I saw it, that was the trade-off, and with respect, Parma''s point was not just about "a leaky back line" but a leaky defence caused in particular by midfield and forward players failing in their out-of-possession duties. As regards it showing that we have the players who can do what is required when properly briefed, I''m not convinced. Even under Neil there were games when we showed we could do it, but nobody would surely say it would ever be second nature to any of our squad who play regularly ahead of the back four apart maybe from Tettey, nor to at least one of the back four themselves, i.e. Pinto.

@ Parma: Re. "the nagging doubt that that could be the right move at the wrong time. Norwich once again solving yesterday''s problems".There surely isn''t a wrong time to abandon the omnipotent manager model in favour of Director of Football plus head coach? Yes, it should have been done at least two, or even four, summers ago, but far better late than never, simply because, even if the latest media rights bonanza has significantly altered the football landscape, the need to avoid the always reactive mistakes that have dogged us the last four years remains absolutely critical.