Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

The changing face of football and Norwich City

Recommended Posts

Excerpts Written elsewhere on January 5th 2016, though may contain pointers to McNally''s departure

''Bowkett''s departure and the new approach''

....... It is now happening for good strategic reasons, as much to do with the changing landscape of football as with any overriding philosophy change at the club (though in effect an outsider might say that it amounts to the same thing).

It would wrong to suggest that there was a pre-vision of the hugely significant levels of competitive this season at Premier League level. However there was a widespread understanding and a wind of Change that blew through many club boardrooms as the realities of the upsurge in finance became apparent to middle-tier (and lower) clubs.

The air of impermeability of the top few mega clubs was a direct consequence of superior finance, resources and structure and had a direct corollary on the pitch as the difference in wages paid, fees afforded and calibre of star created tiers within tiers, even at the top level.

As the explosion of finances available to English top tier clubs outstripped even the largest of European rivals something dramatic happened strategically at club corporate level. Much like the finest wines, the very best Petrus might be £20k, but a very fine version just a fraction below that level from the same maker and grower might command a quarter of the price. The top clubs still fight for the Messi''s and the Neymars, but the very next tier (and the tier below it) are now available to the West Hams of the world and they are suddenly ahead of the Borussia Dortmunds, the Athletico Madrids and even the Inters of this world. The fear factor of playing the top teams has been eroded by tumble-down cash and the influx of European coaches of my own schooling have shown that tactics does make a difference and can be used to thoroughly good and effective effect against even the richest sides who are "obliged" to come and attack you and dominate you on heir way to their ''rightful'' three points...Parma''s guerilla tactics are undoing years of fiscal dominance (for now).

Now, this brings us full circle back to the present, Norwich and Bowkett. What is the change and why?

Alan Bowkett was brought in at a time when the finances were in dire need of restructuring and their were institutions that needed both talking to in their own language and somebidy who understood the rules of the game and how to best apply them to the club''s benefit. Alan Bowkett had good contacts, good knowledge of the job at hand and a clear brief to fulfil. That job has been more or less completed with the virtual elimination of external debt and even the reduction of the rather small (and flexible) internal debt.

The first return to the Premier League, the relatively modest spending and the reasonably shallow quality squad depth also helped to even the keel naturally, though it must be noted that the structural reforms were achieved by Bowkett et al in advance of this.

We can characterise the overriding strategy hitherto as one "of live within our means, invest whatever we can in the football, though retain a reasonable offset cushion to amortise the sharp drop in revenues suffered upon relegation".

This is very sensible on paper, though recent developments, changing models elsewhere and the reality on grass of last year provided a realpolitik wake up call that the "stable, but yo-yoing" model might not be fit for purpose.

The Watford and Bournemouth models have to some degree contributed to this revision. They are both smaller clubs with richer owners, who crucially are prepared to ignore wage ceilings, embrace marquee signings where available and -most importantly - use their wealth to amortise losses when in the Championship. This is different from the ''glory hunter'' investors or the ''undervalued asset'' investors. It is owners who don''t and perhaps can''t make a club huge overnight, but who can tip the odds in their favour by taking (not quite) free hits at scenarios that Norwich cannot afford to risk with a ''cover the worst case scenario with real cash'' model.

This is not the only factor however. Neil Adams will not get the credit he deserves from the media and the terraces, but at boardroom level there is a clear recognition of what he did and why it was important. Not least it foreshadowed the reality of what might had been and the fragility and lack of backbone in the yo-yoing model that had previously been aspired to and believed in: uponn relegation the players were a shell of what they were and turmoil abounded in terms of possible playing turnover, plans abc and d in terms of final playing squad and psychological impact on the he troops was deep and turbulent. An enthusiastic club man, who was able to recreate a sense of purpose of playing for Norwich, that it meant something and was able to regenerate a sense of attacking verve, having been beaten regularly and totally lacking the belief and confidence to dominate games and win regularly was a significant feat.

It also showed the board that the ongoing retention of too good for the championship, not perhaps good enough for the Premier, lose the minimum number of your best players coming down, add higher quality ones on your return was a good theory, but rather tumultuous in practice. It was expensive, it didn''t provide the continuity that should have lead to stability, it was very expensive and would have dramatic consequences for playing staff if it lasted more than one year.

This the safety option was rather unmasked as not being that safe. The risk of the defensive strategy were suddenly shown to be rather greater than believed and all at the same time as the gains from success were growing exponentially to levels that genuinely allowed for life-changing , club-changing possibilities within even a single survival year.

This brings us on to now. We have a fan as Chairman, but the question he asks had already largely been thought of..."what are we here for? What is our raison d''etre?"

There are reasonably sound economic arguments that the relatively low-risk defensive strategy sensibly employed by the board hitherto was now no such thing.

We have an already successful manager learning everyday and fast, we have no debt, we are in the richest league in the world and we stand to gain more money than we have almost ever dreamt of. Our squad is deeper, stronger and better paid than they have ever been, incentivised by the knowledge that failure this year would mean a significant restructuring for many of them as double-failures.

If now is not the time to invest then it is hard to envisage more appropriate circumstances for it to occur - and this is where the fan takes over from financier - what is the point of amortising against downside risk if this mitigates so heavily against the upside being achieved in even the most favourable of circumstances? It is ultimately a football club, where linear growth is not a given despite the continual improvement in much of the controllable business.

The huge finances rewards now on offer, and the fact that many stars have aligned for the club, give us an opportunity to take a carefully calculated gamble at a point in our history where the opportunity of having the opportunity to gamble again cannot be expected even with a so-called stable model...in this way yo-yo becomes simply yo and the downside - far from being offset - is very much the status quo and a rather negative glass ceiling has become the de-facto limit onwards into the future..

The rewards on offer are truly huge both financially and strategically and are really well within our grasp. Some careful investment could see excellent returns. There is no need to be fearful of success and indeed one must calculate today''s odds, not slay yesterday''s dead demons.

Parma

Post script 9th May

McNally''s departure was a shock, though the statement from the board was clearly defined as ''unanimous''. For all to be in agreement there is the implication of lancing a boil beyond a social media meltdown.

Whether the David McNally of 2016 is same animal as previously is open to question.

The model has its limits and the downside now rears its ugly head. The inevitable compromises now upon us will be hard to swallow for all but invested owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points Parma, I agree the die was cast months ago, the management style of DMc has a limited shelf life.

Personally i am not so concerned with a chairman who is a fan first, the role of CEO impacts so much more, and spreads much wider and much more crucial than some might believe, interesting period ahead.

His replacement (D Mc) will be the biggest signing of the last 7 years, I feel it will come from within, but not Nephew Tom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was all written elsewhere over 5 months ago for a different reason Less, but it is instructive now also. The club spent significant sums in January, the full cost unappreciated as wages - and their committed outlay over many years - equate to vastly more than the net spend.

The deep squad of quality footballers, is a very expensive policy and less effective than high investment in a couple of premier league tactical weapons that hurt the opposition''s game plan (such as Crouch, set piece specialists like Pedersen, Defoe, even Delap, or anybody with real pace played in a forward position) that cannot be tactically ignored.

Simply retaining the likes of Bassong, Jerome et al may well be the best we can do pound-for-pound in the actualite'', but such players will be asked to fight for a cause - promotion - that they are unlikely to see the fruits of, their multiple failures at the top level ensuring they will not be retained or beneficiaries of any such promotion. Equally, given wages and the value we would place on them, they are unlikely to be realistic transfer targets for others either in the PL or champs .A quandary.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is the only current realistic internal candidate, but a lack of football contacts mitigates against him.

The financial role he performs is important, though it would typically work in tandem with a Sporting Director (vid Matthias Sammer) to be really effective.

In PR terms, now is not the time to be seen to take an in-house option.

Given the scouting and recruitment structure is the focus, an external CEO with greater skills in these areas looks attractive. That we may head into the Championship complicated the issue, though we are proven good payers for the role.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is indeed a quandary. If you are a better than average Championship footballer but not good enough for the Premiership, why would you rationally play for promotion if the end result is you will be replaced by an upgrade?

Turkeys dont vote for Christmas.

City have too many players in this category who, on relegation, wont be incentivised to return us to the Premiership. We need to think two seasons ahead if we are going to get out the the Championship. We have to pull out all the stops to keep our Premiership quality players and shed the Champopnship quality players. The biggest mistake we could make is to downsize the quality as the first year is our best chance to get back up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parma wrote :-

McNally''s departure was a shock, though the statement from the board was clearly defined as ''unanimous''. For all to be in agreement there is the implication of lancing a boil beyond a social media meltdown

What utter dribble from Parma again bearing in mind the make up of the current board would you expect anything else from them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lessingham Canary wrote the following post at 09/05/2016 10:54 PM:

Parma; An appointment from within is highly unlikely.

Hope you are correct, but I will stick my pound on Steve Stone getting the nod.

If we appoint the Bingo boy as CEO we are going for the cheap option and have no chance of getting back to the Prem. What a joke might as well give the job to Splat the Cat at least he dances at half time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock The Boat wrote the following post at 09/05/2016 11:22 PM:

It is indeed a quandary. If you are a better than average Championship footballer but not good enough for the Premiership, why would you rationally play for promotion if the end result is you will be replaced by an upgrade?

Turkeys dont vote for Christmas.

City have too many players in this category who, on relegation, wont be incentivised to return us to the Premiership. We need to think two seasons ahead if we are going to get out the the Championship. We have to pull out all the stops to keep our Premiership quality players and shed the Champopnship quality players. The biggest mistake we could make is to downsize the quality as the first year is our best chance to get back up again.

An interesting point raised by Parma and expanded on here. I raised the question on another thread asking why after four out of the last five years in the PL we still, with one or two exemptions have a Championship squad. Part of the answer to that is because

the players are very good championship standard but are unable to regularly raise their game in the PL. For example sticking with Jerome who has never proved himself in the PL was obviously tempting, particularly in the absence of sufficient available money and nouse to sign anything better, but the result is we go into crucial games at the end of the season relying on heros from our championship time to score our goals. Not going to happen. So yes the likes of CJ will be good enough to get us back up and if things go true to form he is also likely to get another PL contract with the added motivation that provides. History will then repeat itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we had back in 2009 was the entrance of a double act. It wasn''t just that Doncaster left, but so did an ill Munby. From the outside it looked very much as if Bowkett and McNally were two people, with similarly dynamic personalities, in lock-step agreement on how the running of the club should be drastically overhauled. And were not afraid to make enemies inside the club and outside (I doubt Archant journalists, to choose a minor case, are exactly heartbroken by McNally''s departure) to achieve that. Whether Bowkett and McNally remanined so united I don''t know , but it doesn''t really matter now, since both are gone.Although the job they had was hard to achieve, it was comparitively easy to identfy the problems, and the solutions. It was a question of tactics rather than strategy.Now, as Parma''s post from a while back indicated, there is a massive strategic decision to be made. In essence do we carry on yo-yoing on do we embark on a more ambitious - and risky - plan?I don''t know whether McNally was the man for that kind of long-term thinking, especially after a bruising seven years in the job. Bowkett might have been (there is an indication that is so) but that is now academic.As important as is the choice of a new chief executive (and, no, it won''t be the nephew, or the PUPs'' fund will be £100 richer) I would pay as much attention to whether Ed Balls has the time (he has the brains and probably the vision) to chart a strategic course through for the next decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple, again reprising work from January, Inwould suggest yet he policy did change and the money has already been spent:

--------------

Re: Transfer window Janauary 2016

In terms of his ambitious the board are, whether windows are a success or not, or where the finances go, it is a good idea for fans to think in terms of the entire package instead of the headline fee.

Thus as an example from this window we might have:

Out: Bennett (cost £3m amortised over 4 years, wages £20k@£0.5m pa = annual cost to club c£1.25m pa

In: Naismith (cost £8m amortised over 4 years, wages £50k@£2.5m pa = annual cost to club £4.5m

Where''s all the money gorn Neil?

Parma

Sent from my iPhone

Point b)

Out: Grabban (cost £3m amortised over 4 years, wages £20k@£0.5m= annual cost to club c£1.25m

In: Klose (cost £8m amortised over 4 years, wages £50k@£2.5m pa = annual cost to club £4.5m

Add to original point a)

Out: Bennett (cost £3m amortised over 4 years, wages £20k@£0.5m pa = annual cost to club c£1.25m pa

In: Naismith (cost £8m amortised over 4 years, wages £50k@£2.5m pa = annual cost to club £4.5m

Total club spend:

a) Bennett plus Grabban = £2.5m pa, total club outlay to be budgeted for: £10m

b) Naismith plus Klose = £9m pa, total club outlay to be budgeted for: £36m

Improve squad from bottom, replace with players at the top = additional £26m for 2 players

Parma

ndow Janauary 2016

As shown in point a) and b) "net spend" when focused only on transfer fees gives an unrealistic picture of club investment or "ambition"

Point c)

To illustrate further, note two comparable recent transfer fees and then note true "deal cost" showing the massive difference between two deals that under "net spend" would be similar:

Gary Hooper: Fee £3.5m, 4 year contract, weekly wage £25k

Annual cost to club: £2.125m

Overall investment: £8.5m

Charlie Austin: Fee £4m, 4 year contract, weekly wage £100k

Annual cost to club: £6m

Overall investment: £24m

Difference in "transfer fee net spend" = £0.5m

Difference in real deal cost = £15.5m

Parma

--------------------

Unfortunately the players bought in were intended as excellent upgrades On what we had, with far more top level pedigree, though I repeat my recurring tactical spear regarding top levels ''weapons'' as distinct from good players.

To make the quantum leap from too-good-for-the-championship, not-good-enough-for-the-premier-league we will have to invest funds in one or two players that have some kind of x-men tactical skill that disrupts the game plan of the opposition (vid example names listed earlier).

Such players typically do not fit all ''team'' aspects, not are they likely to stay with you if you are relegated, nor provide long-term contininuity.

However a top league strategy that de-facto revolves around all playing well and being better than the opposition in a fair fight will always have the odds stacked against Norwich.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parma, out of interest, where have you got those wage figures from?

Also, I tried to look for your ''vid example names listed earlier'' but couldn''t find, would you be able to post them again please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iwan,

"

The deep squad of quality footballers, is a very expensive policy and less effective than high investment in a couple of premier league tactical weapons that hurt the opposition''s game plan (such as Crouch, set piece specialists like Pedersen, Defoe, even Delap, or anybody with real pace played in a forward position) that cannot be tactically ignored. "

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''d say we need to rebuild in order to strengthen the base, a couple of tactical weopons bolted on to our newly promoted side of last year wouldn''t have been enough.It might work for a few seasons, but generally there''s a risk of crashing and burning as a smaller club tries to punch too far above their weight in the transfer/wages market.Keeping our squad as intact as possible for a fresh crack at staying in the Premier League, but at the expense of development, didn''t work before and wouldn''t work again. In fact we''ve gone backwards in relative terms as the balance has shifted from developing talent to trying to buy it.One of the phases of decline is that on paper we looked stronger going back up, but we''ll come back down weaker as we''ve neglected to keep the fire stoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we manage to hold onto the bulk of the current, ageing, squad, augment with a couple of well chosen signings, and if they were to limp into the promotion places again, we’d be heading into the Premiership with a squad that is proven not to be premiership quality and (for all the “new money on offer”) still with less to spend than most of the Premiership (the others get the “new” money too!), and I’d say the likelihood is that in another two years we’ll be coming back down again. And at best repeating the cycle.

Of the teams that have made the transition from the Championship and been able to consolidate a position in the Premiership, some have had greater resources than us, true, but some (Swansea, Bournemouth) have been of a similar size but are marked out by having developed a particular style of football, which they have stuck to through thick and thin. One could make a good case for saying that the main difference between Bournemouth’s performance this season and ours is that they stuck to their guns, and their style of play, when the going got tough in the Autumn, whilst we abandoned our initial on-the-front-foot approach for a defensive mind set. It does look as if those clubs that have adopted, and stuck to a playing “philosophy” have developed an identity that has enabled them to recruit better for similar money, because they know what kind of players (and even managers) will fit into their system: among a host of examples, consider the absurd recruitment of Ricky van Wolfswinkel, supposedly a fast nimble striker looking to run in behind defenders, for a manager determined to play only one up front and looking for that one to put in a shift as both a back-to-goal-hold-the-ball-up target man and a first line of defence. Frankly, even if Ricky had been the player he was supposed to be, it couldn’t have worked. And it does seem as if the adoption of a settled playing style has given those clubs an identity and a degree of stability that has enabled them to bring through more of their academies, to incorporate players whom we didn’t think were good enough within that clear playing identity (e.g., Surman at Bournemouth )and to ride out ups and downs better than we have. Whereas we have oscillated wildly, from Lambert’s gung ho approach to Hughton’s ultra-defensive set up, to Adams’ (often naive) attacking football, to the glimpses Neil showed us in the Championship of a modern high pressing game, maintained for the first few fixtures in the Premiership and then abandoned in favour of sitting deep and being “compact”, with the end result that we don’t know from one game to the next what our style is or, as a result, what our best team is.

I’d say one of the priorities for the new CEO is to sit down with AN and set a template for how we’re going to play, and then stick to it, fitting our player recruitment and retention to that template. Of course, it would be great to get back up in year one doing that, but if that means we spend two or three years in the Championship whilst a new young team grows together playing modern football to a distnctive style then I’d rather that - and hopefully go up in a couple of years on a sounder footing - than attempting to limp back up with the same ageing players and failed chop-and-change strategy. Plus, we’d all enjoy the football more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Empty Mirror"]If we manage to hold onto the bulk of the current, ageing, squad, augment with a couple of well chosen signings, and if they were to limp into the promotion places again, we’d be heading into the Premiership with a squad that is proven not to be premiership quality and (for all the “new money on offer”) still with less to spend than most of the Premiership (the others get the “new” money too!), and I’d say the likelihood is that in another two years we’ll be coming back down again. And at best repeating the cycle. Of the teams that have made the transition from the Championship and been able to consolidate a position in the Premiership, some have had greater resources than us, true, but some (Swansea, Bournemouth) have been of a similar size but are marked out by having developed a particular style of football, which they have stuck to through thick and thin. One could make a good case for saying that the main difference between Bournemouth’s performance this season and ours is that they stuck to their guns, and their style of play, when the going got tough in the Autumn, whilst we abandoned our initial on-the-front-foot approach for a defensive mind set. It does look as if those clubs that have adopted, and stuck to a playing “philosophy” have developed an identity that has enabled them to recruit better for similar money, because they know what kind of players (and even managers) will fit into their system: among a host of examples, consider the absurd recruitment of Ricky van Wolfswinkel, supposedly a fast nimble striker looking to run in behind defenders, for a manager determined to play only one up front and looking for that one to put in a shift as both a back-to-goal-hold-the-ball-up target man and a first line of defence. Frankly, even if Ricky had been the player he was supposed to be, it couldn’t have worked. And it does seem as if the adoption of a settled playing style has given those clubs an identity and a degree of stability that has enabled them to bring through more of their academies, to incorporate players whom we didn’t think were good enough within that clear playing identity (e.g., Surman at Bournemouth )and to ride out ups and downs better than we have. Whereas we have oscillated wildly, from Lambert’s gung ho approach to Hughton’s ultra-defensive set up, to Adams’ (often naive) attacking football, to the glimpses Neil showed us in the Championship of a modern high pressing game, maintained for the first few fixtures in the Premiership and then abandoned in favour of sitting deep and being “compact”, with the end result that we don’t know from one game to the next what our style is or, as a result, what our best team is. I’d say one of the priorities for the new CEO is to sit down with AN and set a template for how we’re going to play, and then stick to it, fitting our player recruitment and retention to that template. Of course, it would be great to get back up in year one doing that, but if that means we spend two or three years in the Championship whilst a new young team grows together playing modern football to a distnctive style then I’d rather that - and hopefully go up in a couple of years on a sounder footing - than attempting to limp back up with the same ageing players and failed chop-and-change strategy. Plus, we’d all enjoy the football more.[/quote]

 

"Hello Neyul, the problem with this CEO and manager is that there''s no plan B"

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Afraid my attention span precludes me reading all of that. And forgive me if I have jumped to the wrong conclusion. but if there is a suggestion that Bowkett leaving the club was "strategic" that is pure nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Empty Mirror"]If we manage to hold onto the bulk of the current, ageing, squad, augment with a couple of well chosen signings, and if they were to limp into the promotion places again, we’d be heading into the Premiership with a squad that is proven not to be premiership quality and (for all the “new money on offer”) still with less to spend than most of the Premiership (the others get the “new” money too!), and I’d say the likelihood is that in another two years we’ll be coming back down again. And at best repeating the cycle.

Of the teams that have made the transition from the Championship and been able to consolidate a position in the Premiership, some have had greater resources than us, true, but some (Swansea, Bournemouth) have been of a similar size but are marked out by having developed a particular style of football, which they have stuck to through thick and thin. One could make a good case for saying that the main difference between Bournemouth’s performance this season and ours is that they stuck to their guns, and their style of play, when the going got tough in the Autumn, whilst we abandoned our initial on-the-front-foot approach for a defensive mind set. It does look as if those clubs that have adopted, and stuck to a playing “philosophy” have developed an identity that has enabled them to recruit better for similar money, because they know what kind of players (and even managers) will fit into their system: among a host of examples, consider the absurd recruitment of Ricky van Wolfswinkel, supposedly a fast nimble striker looking to run in behind defenders, for a manager determined to play only one up front and looking for that one to put in a shift as both a back-to-goal-hold-the-ball-up target man and a first line of defence. Frankly, even if Ricky had been the player he was supposed to be, it couldn’t have worked. And it does seem as if the adoption of a settled playing style has given those clubs an identity and a degree of stability that has enabled them to bring through more of their academies, to incorporate players whom we didn’t think were good enough within that clear playing identity (e.g., Surman at Bournemouth )and to ride out ups and downs better than we have. Whereas we have oscillated wildly, from Lambert’s gung ho approach to Hughton’s ultra-defensive set up, to Adams’ (often naive) attacking football, to the glimpses Neil showed us in the Championship of a modern high pressing game, maintained for the first few fixtures in the Premiership and then abandoned in favour of sitting deep and being “compact”, with the end result that we don’t know from one game to the next what our style is or, as a result, what our best team is.

I’d say one of the priorities for the new CEO is to sit down with AN and set a template for how we’re going to play, and then stick to it, fitting our player recruitment and retention to that template. Of course, it would be great to get back up in year one doing that, but if that means we spend two or three years in the Championship whilst a new young team grows together playing modern football to a distnctive style then I’d rather that - and hopefully go up in a couple of years on a sounder footing - than attempting to limp back up with the same ageing players and failed chop-and-change strategy. Plus, we’d all enjoy the football more.[/quote]Excellent post, I''ve made pretty much the same points in the recent past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Empty Mirror"] Of the teams that have made the transition from the Championship and been able to consolidate a position in the Premiership, some have had greater resources than us, true, but some (Swansea, Bournemouth) have been of a similar size but are marked out by having developed a particular style of football, which they have stuck to through thick and thin. One could make a good case for saying that the main difference between Bournemouth’s performance this season and ours is that they stuck to their guns, and their style of play, when the going got tough in the Autumn, whilst we abandoned our initial on-the-front-foot approach for a defensive mind set.[/quote]
I get the point you and vintage are making.
The problem is both Bournemouth and Swansea have greater resources than us. The main different between Bournemouth and us is they spent lots of money, namely in direct competition with us regarding Afobe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some fine points Empty Mirror.

The weapon used strategy is a year one in the Prem strategy with the understanding that a deeper Prem squad development is too expensive and long term given the de-facto realities of boom-bust champs-Prem 93v. Weapons retain their value as you try to establish however, augmented then with better-than-champs (and different-to-champs) players. Promoted to ''established'' is a monstrous chasm in both strategic and financial terms.

Without rich benefactors to bankroll risks and failures to smooth out the jagged rubicon it will take innovative tactical approaches and weapons (and the gamble that they don''t get injured).

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you both Parma and Empty Mirror,

Although not posting on here very often these days I have been talking with other fans in my village and the two things I have complained about are 1)The lack of identity on the pitch and 2) The lack of leaders.

This has to go right through the club from Top to bottom.

Whilst as a team there are weaknesses, you fill them all immediately when your resources are limited. However, you must have key positions filed by more than Journeymen. You must have 2 or 3 ''stars'' that are game changers. A goal scorer, a creator and a Solid Captain. This is your spine of a team and you build around it.

It is always worth putting more of your resources into a few than trying to spread it too thinly. It is risky, but in this day and age I truly believe it has to be done if you are going to achieve your goal.

We have to decide very quickly whether we truly want to be a Premier League club or merely a perennial aspiring one?

Snake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post script 2:

That Alex Neil has expressed genuinely-felt surprise and disappointment at the departure of David McNally - having previously stated hat the summer transfer structure was ill-prepared and Ill-delivered - implies that he did not hold McNally accountable for any failings.

This raises the question of where the structural issues were and what the lines of communication were.

It is possible that the issues were simply unavoidable due to play-off delay circumstances, unmovable financial parameters or players simply not wanting to come at any price. Being pragmatic all of these Alex Neil would accept.

That statements have implied some failings in transfer raises the interesting possibility of where Alex Neil does lay some of the blame. The Chairman and others have only positive things to say about Alex Neil, his workings and his potential. Therefore we can assume his powers of persuasion are not lacking.

Why don''t good players want to come to Norwich then? If it is for understandable, structural, financial, personal reasons then nobody is to blame surely......quindi qualcosa non quadra....but that isn''t quite the inference is it.....?......

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea how a modern footballer thinks but imagine that if you''re a half decent player you wouldn''t want to join Norwich because:
(a) they don''t appear to want to pay much for you (as we behaved with Brady) so your agent isn''t keen;
(b) there is a tight salary structure with severe relegation clauses (again your agent won''t be keen) and that doesn''t shout expected success;
(c) there is a limited squad so it''s likely to be a hard season fending off relegation (hence the salary clauses) and playing dour football;
(d) it''s a graveyard for previous "star" players (RVW, Hooper, Naismith ....);
(e) it''s not a glamour club so if you do excel you won''t get much coverage;
(f) it''s not London.
If we''re going for hungrier, younger players the other charms of Norfolk are unlikely to appeal.
Just a thought,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Post script 2:

That Alex Neil has expressed genuinely-felt surprise and disappointment at the departure of David McNally - having previously stated hat the summer transfer structure was ill-prepared and Ill-delivered - implies that he did not hold McNally accountable for any failings.

This raises the question of where the structural issues were and what the lines of communication were.

It is possible that the issues were simply unavoidable due to play-off delay circumstances, unmovable financial parameters or players simply not wanting to come at any price. Being pragmatic all of these Alex Neil would accept.

That statements have implied some failings in transfer raises the interesting possibility of where Alex Neil does lay some of the blame. The Chairman and others have only positive things to say about Alex Neil, his workings and his potential. Therefore we can assume his powers of persuasion are not lacking.

Why don''t good players want to come to Norwich then? If it is for understandable, structural, financial, personal reasons then nobody is to blame surely......quindi qualcosa non quadra....but that isn''t quite the inference is it.....?......

Parma[/quote]Parma, with respect, from a distance it looks a leap way too far to infer from Neil expressing what seem to be just standard expressions of surprise and disappointment that he then doesn''t hold McNally at least in part responsible for failing to attract targets in the summer. McNally got Neil the job. It would be very odd if he publicly pointed the finger at his benefactor.Whatever the reason for our failure to get players in the summer the buck has to stop with the executive who oversaw that process, and that was McNally. The money (quite large by our standards) for transfers was there, and our wage limits are a well-known fact of life that always has to be worked with. If there were other problems, such as a late start, it was up to the CEO to sort them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should it not be already clear, the OP was written in advance of the flurry of transfer activity in January, which heralded a change of corporate approach towards transfers and wages paid.

Transfers such as Naismith and Klose were steps into the established top level performer bracket. Their wages alone moved the club towards players who would be a financial liability at a lower level and possibly even ill-suited to the kind of football they might encounter there.

(It should be noted at this point that the Premier League moves inexorably towards a more classically European game, with tempo higher, technicality a little lower - perhaps as a consequence - and the Championship still has more than a soupconne of 1985 about it in terms of pattern of play, approach and tactical nuances).

This again creates a tactical, footballing rubicon to cross - both from being relegated downwards or promoted upwards - in that you return or ascend to a different football world.

Thus those who talk of an identity, philosophy or academy-up template are not spouting modern spin, they are recognising that in order to bridge a widening playing-style gap, either wholesale changes have to be made or an ingrained approach drilled that potentially transcends both worlds.

Sadly we may now have a mix of players too good for the Championship who recognise that their future is all behind them and players too good for the Championship that are conversely ill-suited to it.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple, I fully accept your interpretation of the facts, which is certainly logical.

In football - as in Italy - what is not said is often more important than what is said. Conversely when people in an important position speak when they didn''t have to also has implications beyond the beige.

Neil stated his ''disappointment'' and meant it. Many a football Manager Would say "off-field matters are not my domain"

This is not quite the same as the board "unanimously accepting" McNally''s resignation and stating it in the very early part of the communique''.

The board is saying ''it was time, no turning back, we don''t want to defend him from this, we don''t ultimately need him now''

Neil is saying ''my position is weaker''

It might be felt by Neil that McNally offered him a better chance of success, this is what concerns football people.

Others may be more concerned by lines of communication, their role in the pecking order and establishing their future pathway.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Purple, I fully accept your interpretation of the facts, which is certainly logical.

In football - as in Italy - what is not said is often more important than what is said. Conversely when people in an important position speak when they didn''t have to also has implications beyond the beige.

Neil stated his ''disappointment'' and meant it. Many a football Manager Would say "off-field matters are not my domain"

This is not quite the same as the board "unanimously accepting" McNally''s resignation and stating it in the very early part of the communique''.

The board is saying ''it was time, no turning back, we don''t want to defend him from this, we don''t ultimately need him now''

Neil is saying ''my position is weaker''

It might be felt by Neil that McNally offered him a better chance of success, this is what concerns football people.

Others may be more concerned by lines of communication, their role in the pecking order and establishing their future pathway.

Parma[/quote]Parma, I think that is very much how to read the board''s attitude, although I might just end it with "we don''t want to defend him from this even if we could". I agree that Neil is saying his position is weaker, hence his sadness being genuinely hearfelt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...