Jump to content

Monty13

Members
  • Content Count

    5,664
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Monty13


  1. 17 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

    Possibly, but if I have understood the key point of the pivot argument it was not to do with the suitability or otherwise of the type of player we bought but whether the money should have been spread comparitively thinly to cover obvious gaps in the squad, or to have been used to make a very few key signings.

    That we went for the former and then suposedly erred with the specific purchases has rather obscured things. It does not mean the latter strategy, which had the plain danger of leaving the squad sub-standard in several areas (Hernandez as our go-to wide man?!), would have worked any better. It could just as easily have been equally catastrophic. Or even more so. 

    I think the other element of the point isn’t just how the money was spent but why.


  2. 7 hours ago, king canary said:

    Personally I'd argue he made more of an impact than Rashica, as he really did improve our defence when he came in and we'd taken 7 points from the last three games before his injury. I remember thinking we were doomed after he was ruled out. I never felt Rashica had anything like that impact.

    Also, on the fee point, it was reportedly our choices that meant we never got any money back on him. Reports at the time suggested we rejected a bid of £10m+ from West Brom after we went down and even in 2018 we apparently scared off Hannover by demanding £4m for him. Lots context that needs to be considered.

    For £10m we got over 100 appearances including 30 plus in our first Farke promotion. Not great, not terrible.

    Considering the value of that promotion there isn’t a player from that summer who compares to Klose in return.

    Maybe Gibson actually thinking about it at the risk of upsetting a lot of people 🤣 


  3. 2 hours ago, Petriix said:

    My overriding feeling is that it never works out for us when we spend anything close to the 'market value' for a Premier-League-ready player. You can point to a few neutral examples like Brady but the overwhelming majority of our £5m+ signings have been expensive mistakes.

    All our top players in recent decades seem to have been discovered or developed from youth teams, lower leagues and overseas. To that end, spreading £10m across half a dozen signings seems to give a far better success rate than putting those eggs in one basket. 

    The unfortunate irony is that the Championship is the ideal place to experiment with a Pukki or a Buendia in the hope of finding a gem while the Premier League requires the consistency and instant impact that such players are unable to deliver until they've had time to adapt. 

    This is why I think we should be building the team in the Championship and not splashing the cash on promotion. Keep Buendia, sign Skipp or a similar replacement. But definitely keep your Vrancic too. 

    How many were “premier league ready”? Not sure there’s a clear definition in your thought here so just clarifying?

    I can only think of a handful of players we’ve bought or brought in on loan in the last 20 years who had any current PL experience on arrival.

    I think we are all hung up on the Naismith deal because of how catastrophically bad it was in hindsight. Although I agree a different strategy is likely to be more successful because I’d argue a club like ours only gets a PL player because at least 17 other clubs didn’t want them, so how successful are they likely to be?

     


  4. On 15/06/2024 at 09:38, PurpleCanary said:

     

    The spin from Carrow Road seems to be mixed. We need to sell to buy, but also we now only need to sell for footballling reasons rather than financial ones, suggesting some bank-rolling by Attanasio. I will be surprised if Cordoba is the only acquisition we pay actual money for.

    What appears certain is that this window will be the start - only the start - of a process of reducing the age of the squad and to an extent the wage bill.

    So are we just ignoring FFP? Happy to take our chances with a deduction? or is some creative accounting underway to prevent us breaching?

    We may have Attanasio’s financial backing but I’m unclear, just from what’s public knowledge from our accounts, how we can lose parachute payments after two years of losses and not be needing to generate funds to avoid breaching the rules?

    I assume however the way to interpret the Carrow Road line is that the football reasons are FFP and we won’t buy new players without selling but we are comfortable with the level of debt if we can’t get the money we want for players. 


  5. 5 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

    If Idah goes and Aboh goes out on loan, then I would think Norwich go out and loan in a striker for cover/push Sargent. 

    Keeping Aboh around for 10/15 mins off the bench would be similar to when Norwich kept Idah around behind Pukki. It doesn't help player or club in the long run.

    Don’t disagree at all. Loan makes a lot of sense for both him and for cover.

    If Sargent goes though going to be a lot of churn up front. Really interesting window ahead.


  6. 25 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

    Aboh will be 20 in November and needs a season of playing regularly, he isn't going to get that at Norwich with Sargent around. Also, he isn't ready for a season in the Championship. He would have been out on loan this season if it wasn't for him delaying in signing a new deal. 

    Wagner copped a lot of flak for not playing him, but mostly from people who have never seen Aboh play. From what I have seen of him at youth level, he is still a way off being Championship ready.

    Hopefully he has a Kamara/Mumba style loan to League One and gets lots of game time under his belt and comes back ready to make an impact.

    That would presumably require us to bring in at least one more striker? (assuming Idah leaves)

    And assuming Sargent stays too.


  7. 1 hour ago, Up and Away said:

    So many promising young players fail to establish themselves in senior football, so you can see why they may be tempted to take the money, while it is on offer.

     

    This is of course true, why would anyone not take the money when the career is so short and the chance of failure so high?


  8. 3 hours ago, hogesar said:

    I wasn't worried about him leaving before last night anyway. He's been great for us. But there's not many Prem teams needing a number one who would see him as an improvement.

     

    Think that’s the crux of it. He’s a good Championship keeper but what PL team is looking for a good Championship keeper to be their no 1?

    • Like 2

  9. 2 hours ago, Cowboy said:

    As a layman, that's the clearest and best explanation of the finances I've ever seen - I even understood most of it. Do we think it's fairly accurate? How worrying is it?

    Not sure how worrying it is but it’s pretty shocking to me that after the decade we’ve had we are sitting here in so much debt and interestingly with such a big player trading loss over the period.

    The change over the last few year's in financial status seems pretty concerning for at least the short term health of the club however under control it may be. 

    • Like 1

  10. Just now, Feedthewolf said:

    Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but Sarge sat out the USA's friendly against Brazil last night, and is touch-and-go for the Copa America. Would probably help us if he wasn't in the shop window this summer, and can recuperate fully from his injury-ravaged season and be fit and firing in August. I doubt anyone would be willing to pay what we think he's worth.

    Still think Rowe is the most likely to be sold; Kamara is a ready-made replacement, and he should command the young-and-English premium.

    We’ll see. I get the feeling it’s a bit like the promotion season where we had Aaron’s, Cantwell and Emi in the shop window but only Emi was wanted (in hindsight we can see why).

    I think we’d love to sell Rowe and keep the other two if possible but we are all assuming there’s interest in him at a good price. However maybe there won’t turn out to be, but will be for one or both of the other two.


  11. I don’t think it will be far off and hope Josh stays, but I’d have thought we would play at least one or two more developing players this season given the vision.

    If Gibbs is back from injury I’d like to see him used more. I really like Stacy but wouldn’t be surprised to see Fisher given a chance if not loaned out. Suspect we may sign another player with potential as well.

    Im not convinced on Frese rumours if we keep and play Stacy, having potentially 4 of the back five not being developing players seems counter to the narrative.


  12. 2 hours ago, BigManInTheBarclay said:

    Once the window opens I think we'll see a lot of interest in Rowe, Sara and Josh.

    Rowe is the one I fear losing the least and I think will probably get the most interest personally.

     

    A transfer window where we get good money for Rowe and Kamara steps up wouldn’t be bad at all assuming they think Kamara can do it. Everything I’ve seen and heard makes me think he can and will.


  13. 40 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

    Most profitable because they are producing the best talent. 

    About half the spine of the current Man City team came through at Benfica, and our best academy success stories in the past decade are Jacob Murphy getting a few minutes in the Champions League and Max Aarons sometimes being picked ahead of Adam Smith for Bournemouth? 

    Come off it. There is wearing yellow tinted glasses, which I'm sure we can all be guilty of, and then there is being completely delusional. 

    I’m aware but the point is they are the equivalent of Man City in Portugal. The best young Portuguese players go there and before U.K. rules relaxed on South America it was good stepping stone for talent into the PL who couldn’t qualify direct.

    The way I see it any English player playing for Norwich who’s good enough will get snapped up by a bigger English fish. Any Norwich youth who isn’t of interest to them probably isn’t going to start at Benfica so is probably just as well off personally both financially and progressing in the Norwich first team if there’s a pathway.

    I just don’t see many obvious scenarios where someone is too good for Norwich but chooses Benfica over a big English club?


  14. 7 hours ago, Commonsense said:

    The Portuguese league is considerably stronger than the Scottish one. It is though dominated by 3 clubs , with 2 others who often participate in the Europa or Conference league.

    I’m not sure considerably is justified but it’s very subjective.

    Regardless the Championship is wealthier.


  15. 1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

    You can't see our best 16 year olds wanting to go to worlds most profitable football academy?

    Not sure why the 16 year olds care how profitable the academy is? Making it at Norwich would be as swift a route to the EPL if we follow through on the Knapper vision and they’d be better off jumping ship to be number 40 youth player at Chelsea or Citeh etc. if they want personal wealth.


  16. 2 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

    Benfica have the most profitable academy in the world.

    This makes me seriously fear for our future on two fronts.

    Firstly, he may have realised that we're essentially going to be a money pit and that trying to fund a promotion and establishing ourselves in the Premier League is going to require substantial investment with a high risk of no return, whereas Benfica is a safer bet.

    Secondly, as Bethnal points out, if he ends up the majority shareholder in both clubs, it is more likely that Benfica will acquire our best academy products than us acquiring theirs, even if we end up establishing ourselves as a club that can cling on to 16th in the Premier League for a few seasons.

    Benfica are a big club but the Portuguese league is only slightly better than the Scottish PL arguably. 

    I don’t see many players dumping a shot at the EPL or being given better than a Champs wage to move to Portugal (however nice it is), especially if they are British. 

    I’m not saying we are on the same level as Benfica to be clear, I just don’t think it’s that big a jump in the money stakes. Everyone always talks about the lure of European football when moving to Celtic or Rangers for instance but they often lose out to Champs clubs like Cordoba just showed.


  17. 10 minutes ago, Herman said:

    It should be on the other side obviously but there are so many political threads already that a new one isn't that necessary. 👍👍

    Ah yes nothing better than witnessing the age old battle between the less educated and/or morally dubious V those who think they are more educated than they actually are and for some reason morally infallible.

    Then watch them completely miss any valid points the other makes in the race to see who has the stamina to not give up making their **** points in perpetuity.

    More of those threads in the football section please.

    • Haha 1

  18. 1 hour ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

    I start this comment by saying two things:

    1) Having attended more meetings in my life than I care to remember I hate them with a passion, particularly if nothing really happens as a result of them.

    2) I am not Essex Canaries biggest fan.

    I think Essex has made a valid point, whilst we receive minutes from panel meetings, usually via this message board, the latest set of minutes do not contain a "Date of Next Meeting" so there is no real transparency of when a future meeting has been arranged.

    Assuming it is correct that a meeting has been held since the last one in February it cannot be right that so few supporters knew anything about it.............

    Yes ignoring the agenda of the poster, it’s a fair point. 

    • Like 1

  19. 3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

    How can the Panel 'collate and feedback any points for consideration to the Club at least 10 days before the meeting (TOR 7A) and present the views of all supporters (TOR 6F)' ?  unless it actively asks the supporters say 20 days before the meeting with a closure say 12 days before?

    The supporter simply has no idea when and how they are supposed to feed in to facilitate the Club meeting it's obligations under section 3.  Neither this message board or any other such sources could reasonably be considered to meet inclusiveness requirements. 

     

     

    While that’s a fair point, that’s presumably the supporter panels responsibility?


  20. 10 minutes ago, essex canary said:

    These are as shown below

    supporterpanelTOR.pdf (canaries.co.uk)

    The question must therefore be in terms of an apparent meeting this week which nobody seems to have been aware of, how exactly is the Panel discharging it's role under section 7(a) in order for the Club to meet it's objectives under Section 3 of same?   

    We’ll get the minutes after according to that?

    Why would the rest of us be expected to know about a meeting we can’t go to before it happens?

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...