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

Parma's Tactics Masterclass 15

Recommended Posts

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tumbleweed @purple @westie @ICF @Hoggy

The questions are similar, though the perspectives differ. What constitutes success? What constitutes growth? What does it look like in reality and is it acceptable to all, the majority of fans, the majority owners or just largely inevitable due to the current football food chain and our reluctant position in it?

Sustainable transition is attractive to all and a valid objective. What are the barriers, what advantages do we have and how do we - Norwich City per se, with our own idiosyncrasies - best go about maximising our chances of achieving it?

Let''s face some brutal market-forces truths about promotion to the top tier. In context, few players of proven Premiership quality really want to come to us (above other offers). We offer the perennial media-bookmaker likely vision of instant return. We are one of the lowly premier destinations that players who are, or are perceived to be, good enough to remain in the lower reaches of the top league - whether rejected from the first xi of an established or surviving Premier Club looking to upgrade, or parachuting out of a beleaguered relegated side - turn to when other options evaporate. We pay a fortune for players that are not our first choice and we are not theirs. This happens late in the window because all held out for better, compounding structural, tactical, practical issues and increasing the likelihood that the bookies got it right again.

It might be argued that a philosophy - á la Swansea say - might attract players because of style of play or approach. This might give us a slight market edge, moving us a few digit points up from the above scenario. I would like to see such a clear methodology in any case, so this is an area where our new structure could add value. Good.

Whilst our funding and ownership model has been derided on ascent to higher tiers, we have in recent top tier seasons invested fair sums on transfer fees. Fees that would have been inconceivable a very few years ago. The dramatically changed economics of the current football market see any promoted Club rocket into the top 40 of European clubs. This Phoenix-like European-scale ascent is commonly ephemeral and transitory, but for any given top tier year it provides a tantalising glimpse of the club we aspire to be. It becomes a benchmark.

Wages paid have been an area where we have lagged behind commensurate rivals such as Bournemouth or Watford. Wages paid are currently regarded as the most accurate indicator of - and correlator with - final League position, ergo top tier success.

The media perpetuates a flawed impression amongst fans that transfer fees paid or net spend are an indicator of ambition, investment and relative chance of survival upon ascent. This is mostly misleading. For a club like Norwich wages are the real liability, the real investment, the real spend, the real risk. So do you just pay pay people more? The very thing that data shows functions better than any other as a driver of success in the top tier is precisely the Albatross that ruins clubs and balance sheets upon demotion. A player''s contract is amortised over the length of the contract, whilst transfer fees can be paid like Capex as and when you have it. The transfer fee thus isn''t the issue.

Template Calculation: Naismith bought for £8.5m. Wages £50k per week. 4 year contract. Overall liability to club = £18.5m

£2.5k wages pa in Premier, no problem. Year 1 Champs ok. Year 2 v expensive. Year 3 more than annual TV revenue received.

At this point some of you should revise your concept of ''ambition''. Multiply the above by Klose, Pinto, Wolfswinkel, Fer, throw in lower-but-good earners like Ruddy, Hoolahan, Bassong, Tettey, and then offset against ''real'' (non-Prem-Sky) earnings 25,000 x £40 x 25 games = £25m (tickets x best avg stadium spend x home matches). There is contextually both ambition and financial risk in significant measure in evidence. The maths are the maths.

In many ways the progressive almost-aspired-to yo-yo model of a few years ago has been unmasked as very far from a linear process following recent influxes of vast, de-stabilising Sky cash. The paradox is that it can neither be ignored as Lambert identified, nor fully welcomed in its entirely as Westie contends. The New structure is now seen as a belated vehicle for smoothing out this recently perennial imbalanced struggle.

My fear is that - whilst welcome - it is once again behind the spinning wheel of history and our timing is too late. In short it would have helped had it been in place previously, but parameters have changed and its benefits will be much more marginal now. Once again let me repeat my endorsement for the direction of travel, the oversight methodology and defined playing and recruiting philosophy, joined-up thinking and recruiting process that should ensure less delineation, more coherent spending and tactics, no Chinese walls between Board and Boots and broader information-sharing for all.

Let us assume success and attempt to provide some solutions of how to sustainably bridge the gap. There must be some detail offered here, some examples, even some names as ICT contends. Philosophy is fine, but how does this translate onto grass?

The Masterclasses have long referred to a year-one solution that has never been embraced. It was absolutely crying out for it Year-two Hughton, when the opportunity presented itself in eminently doable fashion. Weapons.

Weapons are not good players. They are not the ''best'' players the market has to offer. They come with compromises. They are almost always compromises that middle top tier and above clubs reject in favour of wider team progression.

We are talking about awkward, destructive, effective players that have singular, exceptional skills that simply cannot be ignored by the opposition. They have to be accommodated within the opposition''s match tactics. Crouch, Defoe, Pedersen or any set piece specialist.

(The painful irony is that - by our standards - we did have versions of such players last year, but failed to recognise the principle and were un able to think creatively along such lines. Our last Premier squad lacked top level forwards. We were too open in midfield. Our defence was not reliable enough to be exposed. Solution? Redmond as runner at number 9 (never in midfield), Hoolahan as a classic Italian 10, ''complimented'' by a boring two-banks of organised four, more old-school Italian counter-attack, rely on your weapons to achieve the 9 wins you need).

Of course you become reliant upon limited individuals, this is a risk, but in our context it is a risk we must take (and we cannot in any case sustain or attract two players for each position, at least not without huge expense and future liability, plus the risk that you have 25 nearly players and none that are really players).

Proven Weapons typically retain inherent value to others), so whilst you break your wage structure and perhaps pay a higher transfer fee for an older player, you are not typically saddled with a liability. If you progress or regress they always find a home. In actual fact you''ll have to battle hard to get them. The right time and way to overstretch yourself in my view. You own them, but they are ''on loan'' to you until you go down or can progress on from them via ''being better than the opposition'' (the exclusive preserve of the rich at Premier level in my view). If this means you maintain a smaller squad and take higher risks with injuries, so be it. This is what the Academy must be for.

At Norwich level Buying good players to ''be better'' than other teams, rather than causing the opposition specific tactical problems via weapons, is muddled, flawed thinking and indicates a lack of empirical statistical analysis in my view. Buying better players than you have, as we have typically done in recent years, those that are maybe too good for the Championship and swim around the bottom of the Premier, are conversely too expensive for you, because you can''t shift them easily, they weren''t desperate to come to you, they get high wages and they may not really be at all suitable - playing style or mentality - upon relegation.

The Premier League is a different beast to the Championship for many more reasons than previously. The International allure of the Premier League - and London - has seen the League attract nearly the top tier of players from across the world. The Premier is now overwhelmed with player between 85%-95% of the best available. The comparatively even distribution of wealth through the Premier, when juxtaposed with other major European leagues, means that minor grade clubs with some form of benefactor that allow them to better offset or amortise risks on wage contracts - make more mistakes in short - can attract players that we are rarely, if ever, going to get. We cannot even get an Afobe, when identified as the rare animal ticking all requirement boxes and a realistic option.

The permanent risk of and ever-increasing instability inherent to the yo-yo model thus makes the West Brom model redundant, unless extremely attritional methods are employed. A philosophy of sorts, but unlikely to be the Norwich way. Not something to please the punters, all 25,000 of whom turn up in Division 3 after all and must always the back-stop bulwark to Murdoch. So the Swansea option - or perhaps that is now Huddersfield - looks the model.

The fear persists however. Have we simply now missed the window that Lambert first opened for us, model or no model?

Even if negativity is misplaced - it is not too late and success can be achieved - the new structure and ownership model has further problems to contend with in the form of the fan''s untrammelled expectations. The Swansea model lead to an apex of middle top tier mediocrity and renewed cries of a lack of ambition, the ownership structure holding the club back, successful survival is boring, no ambition, we want more. Supporting is not enough, Silverware shines, Europe attracts, how do we compete with the best?.....

We don''t have to guess if we can read the book, as my Father says.

This is Delia''s despair. The Reality of modern football for Norwich. Risk enormous amounts too achieve what? Sterile survival. Sell out to achieve what? An International franchise.

Identity needs to be sustainable for fans through ups and downs. Perhaps we could buy into something more meaningful, more cerebral á la Ajax. Accepting the philosophy as sacrosanct, as a way of life, taking joy and comfort in the sense of superiority in the process, the style in which the game is played, the opportunity for youth transition, fair play within a sustainable financial framework. Such a philosophy cannot be presented as a guaranteed generator of results however. Will fans accept its spirit? Outside the Premier? For a year, three years? Within the Premier no-man''s land year after year?

What constitutes success and what makes people happy? Is what we want enough for us after a period? How much shall we risk to achieve a dream that we then rapidly reject? Little Norwich or little realism?

We have had a statistically great home record this year, lots of goals, lots of home wins, yet most would judge it a terrible season. The Emperor has no clothes. We move to a European model to avoid wasting the money we no longer have. To share important information throughout the club that would have solved problems that we have already committed. To create a longer term sustainable model to deal with structural issues that will be made redundant by another year in the Championship and the inevitable realpolitik decisions that will have to be made.

So is the new model the Ajax solution or the little Dutch boy with his fingers in the Dam?

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="westcoastcanary"]@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.[/quote]

@westcoast. The point about most of those clubs (I will come back to Swansea) is that having richer owners has allowed them to pay higher wages than Norwich City and helped them recover more easily from mistakes.As for Swansea, it is true they built an admirable philosopy/model, but their circumstances were unusual and helpful. A long ascent from financial troubles and the fourth tier, by way of a fans'' takeover, to the top flight. But already it seems reality is biting, with an overseas takeover and managers coming and going. We shall see, but my suspicion is that if Swansea get relegated they will resort to short-termism to try to get straight back up.Which takes me on to the idea that we had an opportunity, in one recent season, to forget about being promoted straight back but adopt a year-zero approach and install some Swansea-style long-term model/philosophy. I like the theory but I still do not see how in practice a club in our position would ever justify doing that. The circumstances would never be right.It reminds me of a seventeenth century king of Sweden, a highly cultured man who went to war to save Protestantism from the forces of Catholicism, and dreamt of reordering the continent of forging a lasting peace but just never found the circumstances were right to stop fighting. And he died in battle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic insightful post Parma. This thread may be your best yet. Thanks for posting and thanks for finding me at the Brighton game[Y]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]You just have to sit back and enjoy this wonderful parody by Parma.[/quote]That''s twice you''ve used the word parody about Parma.  Suggest you look it up, or if you really mean "parody" then you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might be right there but it will be a long time away.

Go abroad and every bar from Hong Kong to Bangkok and many more places have placards to entice business by advertising Premier League games.

It is that popular and rightly so.

This is Sky''s major source of income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of the language used, and the fact that the OP refers to it as a "masterclass" is pretentiousness at it''s finest. If I start a thread with "masterclass" does it make my opinion or view any more right or informed? No, of course it doesn''t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Some of the language used, and the fact that the OP refers to it as a "masterclass" is pretentiousness at it''s finest. If I start a thread with "masterclass" does it make my opinion or view any more right or informed? No, of course it doesn''t.[/quote]

Most people will form a judgement based upon what they read, Hans, rather than the title of the thread.I think Parma''s post are superb and I find them interesting and stimulating. I have not read anything commercially (Press or books) which has given me as much insight and food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Some of the language used, and the fact that the OP refers to it as a "masterclass" is pretentiousness at it''s finest. If I start a thread with "masterclass" does it make my opinion or view any more right or informed? No, of course it doesn''t.[/quote]When you start putting out threads of the same quality as Parma does we can judge if your opinion is any more correct or informed, but until that point, how about just not commenting on the threads you personally don''t enjoy, instead of trying to tear down a well respected poster who clearly puts a lot of thought and effort into what they write?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The questions are similar, though the perspectives differ. What constitutes success? What constitutes growth? What does it look like in reality and is it acceptable to all, the majority of fans, the majority owners or just largely inevitable due to the current football food chain and our reluctant position in it? Sustainable transition is attractive to all and a valid objective. What are the barriers, what advantages do we have and how do we - Norwich City per se, with our own idiosyncrasies - best go about maximising our chances of achieving it? Let''s face some brutal market-forces truths about promotion to the top tier. In context, few players of proven Premiership quality really want to come to us (above other offers). We offer the perennial media-bookmaker likely vision of instant return. We are one of the lowly premier destinations that players who are, or are perceived to be, good enough to remain in the lower reaches of the top league - whether rejected from the first xi of an established or surviving Premier Club looking to upgrade, or parachuting out of a beleaguered relegated side - turn to when other options evaporate. We pay a fortune for players that are not our first choice and we are not theirs. This happens late in the window because all held out for better, compounding structural, tactical, practical issues and increasing the likelihood that the bookies got it right again.Quite. It is a myth that with Bowkett and McNally we always did our business early. Not least because we are not at the top of the transfer food chain, and so are always at the mercy of the dealings of other clubs. Another myth is that the board hasn''t backed the various managers over transfer fees or wages, including the two recent times when we have been relegated. We have not had fire sales. We spent about as much on incoming transfers in the summer of 2014 as we received, and wages were not slashed. The same applied to our summer dealings this season, and I suspect the accounts will show we again did not slash wages.It might be argued that a philosophy - á la Swansea say - might attract players because of style of play or approach. This might give us a slight market edge, moving us a few digit points up from the above scenario. I would like to see such a clear methodology in any case, so this is an area where our new structure could add value. Good.Whilst our funding and ownership model has been derided on ascent to higher tiers, we have in recent top tier seasons invested fair sums on transfer fees. Fees that would have been inconceivable a very few years ago. The dramatically changed economics of the current football market see any promoted Club rocket into the top 40 of European clubs. This Phoenix-like European-scale ascent is commonly ephemeral and transitory, but for any given top tier year it provides a tantalising glimpse of the club we aspire to be. It becomes a benchmark. Wages paid have been an area where we have lagged behind commensurate rivals such as Bournemouth or Watford. Wages paid are currently regarded as the most accurate indicator of - and correlator with - final League position, ergo top tier success.Yes. Although I would argue (actually I have on several occasions!) that caution needs to be applied. That wages are the most accurate indicator doesn''t mean they are THAT accurate. And a distinction needs to be drawn between correlating wages over one season and over several. The longer the time span the closer the correlation. Irony Corner; in those three consecutive seasons in the Premier League we stayed up the two times were were in the Wage Table Relegation Zone, and went down as soon as we climbed above the Zone...
The media perpetuates a flawed impression amongst fans that transfer fees paid or net spend are an indicator of ambition, investment and relative chance of survival upon ascent. This is mostly misleading. For a club like Norwich wages are the real liability, the real investment, the real spend, the real risk. So do you just pay pay people more? The very thing that data shows functions better than any other as a driver of success in the top tier is precisely the Albatross that ruins clubs and balance sheets upon demotion. A player''s contract is amortised over the length of the contract, whilst transfer fees can be paid like Capex as and when you have it. The transfer fee thus isn''t the issue.All true. It is wages that kill you if you spend above your station. Which is why  our PL wages have, sensibly, either been in the relegation zone or, as with that season when we went down, only one place above.In many ways the progressive almost-aspired-to yo-yo model of a few years ago has been unmasked as very far from a linear process following recent influxes of vast, de-stabilising Sky cash. The paradox is that it can neither be ignored as Lambert identified, nor fully welcomed in its entirely as Westie contends. The New structure is now seen as a belated vehicle for smoothing out this recently perennial imbalanced struggle.
My fear is that - whilst welcome - it is once again behind the spinning wheel of history and our timing is too late. In short it would have helped had it been in place previously, but parameters have changed and its benefits will be much more marginal now. Once again let me repeat my endorsement for the direction of travel, the oversight methodology and defined playing and recruiting philosophy, joined-up thinking and recruiting process that should ensure less delineation, more coherent spending and tactics, no Chinese walls between Board and Boots and broader information-sharing for all.I may have missed it but I am not sure how the parameters have changed, unless it is just the influx of even more TV money in the latest deal. I can see we should have done this some years ago (although I would argue that it would always have, in practical terms been difficult to pick a time. As St Augustine said, envisaging just this problem: "Lord make me pure, but not yet...") but not that the concept is less usefully valid that it was.The permanent risk of and ever-increasing instability inherent to the yo-yo model thus makes the West Brom model redundant, unless extremely attritional methods are employed. A philosophy of sorts, but unlikely to be the Norwich way. Not something to please the punters, all 25,000 of whom turn up in Division 3 after all and must always the back-stop bulwark to Murdoch. So the Swansea option - or perhaps that is now Huddersfield - looks the model.I am not sure ALL fans would object to Pulis-style football, if it did mean survival...
The fear persists however. Have we simply now missed the window that Lambert first opened for us, model or no model? Even if negativity is misplaced - it is not too late and success can be achieved - the new structure and ownership model has further problems to contend with in the form of the fan''s untrammelled expectations. The Swansea model lead to an apex of middle top tier mediocrity and renewed cries of a lack of ambition, the ownership structure holding the club back, successful survival is boring, no ambition, we want more. Supporting is not enough, Silverware shines, Europe attracts, how do we compete with the best?.....This is Delia''s despair. The Reality of modern football for Norwich. Risk enormous amounts too achieve what? Sterile survival. Sell out to achieve what? An International franchise. Identity needs to be sustainable for fans through ups and downs. Perhaps we could buy into something more meaningful, more cerebral á la Ajax. Accepting the philosophy as sacrosanct, as a way of life, taking joy and comfort in the sense of superiority in the process, the style in which the game is played, the opportunity for youth transition, fair play within a sustainable financial framework. Such a philosophy cannot be presented as a guaranteed generator of results however. Will fans accept its spirit? Outside the Premier? For a year, three years? Within the Premier no-man''s land year after year? What constitutes success and what makes people happy? Is what we want enough for us after a period? How much shall we risk to achieve a dream that we then rapidly reject? Little Norwich or little realism?
We have had a statistically great home record this year, lots of goals, lots of home wins, yet most would judge it a terrible season. The Emperor has no clothes. We move to a European model to avoid wasting the money we no longer have. To share important information throughout the club that would have solved problems that we have already committed. To create a longer term sustainable model to deal with structural issues that will be made redundant by another year in the Championship and the inevitable realpolitik decisions that will have to be made. So is the new model the Ajax solution or the little Dutch boy with his fingers in the Dam?Gide said that true happiness comes not from freedom (in this case that would mean footballing freedom from mere economics) but from the acceptance of a duty. It is usually supposed the principal duty of the owners of any business is to be successful. It is not. It is to keep the business going. Delia may not know the Gide quote but I would wager she would agree with it. And duty in this case means maintaining something that is part of the fabric of a whole county as part of that fabric.Different generations have different concepts of duty, and Delia''s may seem alien to fans who have grown up indoctrinated with and seduced by the notion that there can be nothing of value outside the Premier League.
I don''t know whether the model we are seemingly turning to will work, or indeed whether we should have turned to it before, or whether it will prove a dangerous fad. But I will take it over the now-discarded boom-and-bust model or the sell-your-soul-for-a-mess-of Premier-League-pottage model that creates the footballing equivalent of a shopping centre franchise that could exist anywhere on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent Purple, thank you. The Gide quote is particularly poignant.

That sense of duty well fulfilled will be parodied by some as Little Norwich when operated in practice however. Duty can equally also be employed as a camouflage and justification for inherent conservatism.

As politics takes centre stage, and rights and wrongs of individual actions are debated - a national debate is often not held (as it frequently is in France for example) on ''what is society for?''.

An answer - any constructive answer - to such a questions would then inform analysis and critiques of subsequent actions and decisions.

As it is with Norwich City: ''What is the Football Club for?''

Perfection is indeed not on offer.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Excellent Purple, thank you. The Gide quote is particularly poignant.

That sense of duty well fulfilled will be parodied by some as Little Norwich when operated in practice however. Duty can equally also be employed as a camouflage and justification for inherent conservatism.

As politics takes centre stage, and rights and wrongs of individual actions are debated - a national debate is often not held (as it frequently is in France for example) on ''what is society for?''.

An answer - any constructive answer - to such a questions would then inform analysis and critiques of subsequent actions and decisions.

As it is with Norwich City: ''What is the Football Club for?''

Perfection is indeed not on offer.

Parma[/quote]Parma, the Gide quote is from his preface to another writer''s novel about pilots pioneering airmail flights in South America, so a very dangeous duty. I take the point that duty could be used to justify craven (over-)conservatism as much as sensible prudence. Asking what society is for might provoke various answers (given how altruism has got such a good kicking) but I cannot think any worthwhile society could exist without duty being integral to it. And the same with owning a football club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
''Ironically it would be my view that in football-speak (Martin post-Brighton and repeatedly, Jerome, even Howson) in terms of actions on the field (red cards, overt non-tracking back, Leeds, half-hearted responses in games stated as important by the Manager to the media) the players made their feelings perfectly clear from 6 months before Alex Neil''s sacking. ''

Martin''s interview yesterday overtly confirms this. It is an extraordinary admission and an indictment of not only the ex-Manager and the players themselves, but further reiterates that those higher up the food chain were unable to speak football or interpret clearly what was occurring within their own Company.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]@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. [/quote]Yes, that''s right. It is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Parma Ham''s gone mouldy"

''Ironically it would be my view that in football-speak (Martin post-Brighton and repeatedly, Jerome, even Howson) in terms of actions on the field (red cards, overt non-tracking back, Leeds, half-hearted responses in games stated as important by the Manager to the media) the players made their feelings perfectly clear from 6 months before Alex Neil''s sacking. ''

Martin''s interview yesterday overtly confirms this. It is an extraordinary admission and an indictment of not only the ex-Manager and the players themselves, but further reiterates that those higher up the food chain were unable to speak football or interpret clearly what was occurring within their own Company.

Parma"

Badically you are saying our owners are incompetent at managing a football club of this level, even after 20 years at the helm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="westcoastcanary"]@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. [/quote]Yes, that''s right. It is.[/quote]Chapter and verse? Where is it laid down; what legislation establishes this duty? Directors have legally established duties to shareholders; trustees have legally established duties to beneficiaries, and so on. Where is it laid down that owners have this duty? Genuine question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Rocker,

Rather that, as the Masterclasses have long suggested, there was huge danger in the strategy of ''letting the Manager''s manage''.

Chinese walls, limited informed critical oversight, and reduced information sharing were inevitable.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="westcoastcanary"]@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. [/quote]Yes, that''s right. It is.[/quote]Chapter and verse? Where is it laid down; what legislation establishes this duty? Directors have legally established duties to shareholders; trustees have legally established duties to beneficiaries, and so on. Where is it laid down that owners have this duty? Genuine question.[/quote]There is a rather longer answer, but the short answer, dealing just with one legality as opposed to any moral issues, is that in most cases, as certainly with Norwich City, the owners of companies are not only also directors but usually have chosen the other directors and so in effect control the board and the way the company is run, or do so in the same fashion, handpicking the directors without being on the board themselves. Thus they carry the burden of that duty you mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="westcoastcanary"]@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. [/quote]Yes, that''s right. It is.[/quote]Chapter and verse? Where is it laid down; what legislation establishes this duty? Directors have legally established duties to shareholders; trustees have legally established duties to beneficiaries, and so on. Where is it laid down that owners have this duty? Genuine question.[/quote]There is a rather longer answer, but the short answer, dealing just with one legality as opposed to any moral issues, is that in most cases, as certainly with Norwich City, the owners of companies are not only also directors but usually have chosen the other directors and so in effect control the board and the way the company is run, or do so in the same fashion, handpicking the directors without being on the board themselves. Thus they carry the burden of that duty you mention.[/quote]In that latter case the duty might not strictly be legal but would certainly be a moral one, and in any event with NCFC the owners are also directors.

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...