Highland Canary

Responsibility for our failure, once again, does not sit with Webber. If you only have the financial power to recruit championship level players it necessarily and unsurprisingly follows that you will finish 20th, once again.

I’m not so sure. Our lack of quality in front of goal - we missed a host of chances in the period before the first Brentford goal - and our total inability to not ship easy goals at the other end means that almost invariably we fail. A simple function of a playing budget which lacks efficacy in the PL.

Jim, VAR and decisions by officials in any given game are only low level noise in the system. Fundamentally, we lack quality. Sadly, our lack of competitiveness means we are viewed by many as an embarrassment to the PL. That is quite simply because we are unable to pay the wages necessary to attract the quality of player and/or coach needed to win a sufficient number of football matches in the PL to finish at worst 17th. Only new investment can arrest our decline.

Indeed, yes. That a couple of years back in the championship may leave us only a ‘Maddison’ away from administration again seems to be the most significant driver of the need for further investment in the club.

It seems that the predominant view on this message board - and at Carrow Road more generally - is near total acceptance of our business model notwithstanding the implications for our continual failure on the pitch. When your customer base is so content with the club’s approach what possible incentive is there for the owners to sell?

No, he is not the most significant factor in our failure.

Our failure is fundamentally due to a business model which lacks efficacy in the PL. No blame attaches to the sporting director, coach or players. Only with new investment might we cease to be an embarrassment to and in the PL.

Yes. Pitting your wits in the top tier against the best clubs in Europe has to be the objective of any professional football club. It protects the club from being a Maddison away from administration which is where we’ll be again if we fail to get promoted next season. It increases the attractiveness of the club to new investment which might help break our cycle of failure.

Fundamentally, we lack quality. And to be fair I’ve seen few good performances at St Mary’s over the years. Our failure is nothing to do with Webber, Farke, Smith or the players. It’s simply the outcome of a business model that is incompatible with the PL.

All things change over time. The ability to compete without beneficial owners being one of them. I suspect you’d be hard pushed to find more than a handful of Newcastle fans unhappy with their new owners. Similarly, we will only be able to compete with new investment in the club.

Simply a reflection that our business model is not compatible with competitive PL football.

I suspect our business model will simply not support additional wages in the championship. Only new investment might ameliorate this challenge.

You cannot criticise Burnley, or any other club, for testing the rules in this area. Presumably, any club would take any opportunity to increase their chance of winning football matches. After all this is the raison d’etre of professional football.

Fundamentally, this is why we need additional investment if we have ambition to compete in the PL. Arguably, it is not necessarily the wage demands in the PL but our ability to fund these in tier 2 that is the more significant issue. Otherwise, we are only a Maddisonesc fire sale away from administration with our current financial capability. Perhaps, with reform of the parachute payment system being muted that might increase the importance of additional finance at board level. Failing that with our current resources being competitive in tier 2 let alone tier 1 may become but a distant dream.

If our level of performance is so poor such that the spectacle of a ‘competitive’ match is absent I suspect the PL might well find that embarrassing. After all is the competitive nature of the PL which distinguishes it from other European top leagues and therefore generates overseas broadcasting income.

What Jordan suggests seems self-evident. It is undeniable that our performances are embarrassing both to the club and to the PL more generally.

This is why we need new investment if we have any ambition of competing in tier one, or indeed in tier two, especially if parachute payments are removed.

Ambition. Grit. Winning football matches. To throw off our little ‘ole Norwich persona. To compete in tier one.

If you believe we have any chance of staying up then ‘no’. The last thing we should do is dispose of a key playing asset to a direct relegation rival.

Southampton have moved from league one to become a reasonably established PL club largely achieved by owners with sufficient wealth to not only bankroll that achievement but also act as insurers should relegation occur. It is this latter capability, in particular, we lack with relegation typically forcing Maddisonesc fire sales to avoid the risk of administration. We don’t necessarily need new owners but we do need additional investment if we are to break our cycle of failure.

The key issue is we don’t appear to have the financial capability to navigate the PL/champ transition without either putting the club at risk and/or forcing a fire sale of player assets. Therefore, we are unable to pay the salary necessary to attract PL quality players even if we are able to pay modest transfer fees (which largely are financed from other player disposals). Only new equity investment can break this cycle which, self-evidently, does not work in the PL.

The level of ambition is entirely consistent with our business model. The problem is the business model is inconsistent with succeeding in the PL Only new equity investment can change this.

This approach is entirely consistent with our business model. Only new equity investment can break the ‘dispose of our best playing asset approach in order to subsidise our operating costs’, especially when the top 26 objective appears to target relegation as ‘success’ or at least as meeting the board’s top 26 objective.

You missed the Oles when we had a bit of possession in the second half, all very sad. Gilmour may not have made the contribution that many had hoped for this season but he kept going for the entire match yesterday notwithstanding what was coming from our crowd. A real low point. The issue is our business model not the players, manager or sporting director.

We lack the finances to pay the wages of established PL quality players. Farke, Smith and Webber are all easy targets for blame but blame does not rest with them. Nor does it rest with the players. Yesterday, Gilmour for example, was one of the few who tried to keep going notwithstanding what was happening in the away section, especially in the second half. Sad really. Our problems run much deeper and can only be solved by new investment.