Mick Dennis on MFW - Good Read

[FenwayFrank 2,458]

Popcorn ?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Mick, I am a huge fan of Delia though the embracing of the new philosophy was post-hoc, not proctor-hoc. It was borne out of resigned recognition that all bat had gone before had not and would not work again.

Any Damascean conversion you speak of (after Steve Stone''s elevation) was very much the zealousness of the newly-converted. The concept had been proposed seriously some time before. Following extracts from January 2016:

13/07/2017, 2:49 PM

Parma Ham''s gone mouldy is not online. Last active: 09/08/2017 20:50:32 Parma Ham''s gone mouldy

Not Ranked

Joined on 13/11/2003

Posts 1,184

Re: scraping the barrel

Norfolk,

Multiple views may be held within the same room, listening to the same conversation. Views may be subsequently expressed for a variety of reasons, some of which may involve self-interest.

Ed Balls had a significant impact on arrival and introduced and explored some new strategic thinking. From end 2015 at Norwich (in with) he had a vision of a similar model to the one now in operation. Note the date on the following:

"

05/01/2016, 12:10 AM

Parma Ham''s gone mouldy is not online. Last active: 12/07/2017 22:45:35 Parma Ham''s gone mouldy

Re: Bowkett et al

Yes that is what I meant. 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 arguably the best manager the club has ever had [the retained belief at the time - somewhat understandably given the dramatic initial impact], 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 ''

The gamble has been had. The vision and new model has now been introduced out of necessity, rather than proctor-hoc by design.

Revisionist viewpoints - however primary or of noble origin - are exactly that. We are where we are.

Parma"

Your article is a fair view of that moment in time, though the background to the story of where we have arrived at - and that it came about over a longer timeframe with input from multiple stakeholders - gives a more rounded view.

Parma

[The Bristol Nest 513]

I think that some folks are looking too deeply into an article that is celebrating a fresh start after a difficult couple of years.

[FenwayFrank 2,458]

👍

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="Mick Dennis"]Hi purple,As an aside, I always read your posts with interest. Your grasp of the finances is often enlightening.On this matter:Of course it''s true that the idea of a director of football or a sporting director has been around a long time. Other clubs have been going down that route for a very long time, and

some have given up and returned to the all-powerful chief exec model. I don''t know of Comolli''s conversation with Ed Balls, but clearly at that stage Balls and Co discounted the advice.  It was the departure of Moxey, so soon after the head-hunting process  — together with the admiration by then of Steve Stone and feedback from senior staff — that persuaded most (although not all) of the board that the club should be rearranged into two "silos". I am happy to concede that the idea wasn''t, strictly speaking, born then; perhaps you''ll accept ''nutured and allowed to mature''.It might, indeed, seem obvious with hindsight, but it was such a dramatic change that there were some who were wary. Delia made up her mind though, went against her usual policy of seeking unanimous consent, and said, "This is what we''re doing".The point of my MFW piece was merely that, having seen how the relationship between Stone and Webber (and their "silos") has developed, and watching a happy hierachy interacting with fans, I felt bouyed and wanted to pass that on.On the MFW site, some have commented that they''d rather have success on the field than approachable, open heads of the organisation. But it''s not an either/or.[/quote]Mick, that is fair enough. I was only concerned about your original wording, which did read as if the very notion of such a system had been been Delia''s invention and had been sprung on the other unknowing directors in that moment, like Athena emerging fully-formed from the head of Zeus. As you acknowledge, and as parma has posted, this notion was already well-known at Carrow Road. For what it is worth I believe Smith and Jones have, overall, been excellent owners, who deserve praise for taking such a radical step.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mick Dennis"]Hi purple,As an aside, I always read your posts with interest. Your grasp of the finances is often enlightening.On this matter:Of course it''s true that the idea of a director of football or a sporting director has been around a long time. Other clubs have been going down that route for a very long time, and

some have given up and returned to the all-powerful chief exec model. I don''t know of Comolli''s conversation with Ed Balls, but clearly at that stage Balls and Co discounted the advice.  It was the departure of Moxey, so soon after the head-hunting process  — together with the admiration by then of Steve Stone and feedback from senior staff — that persuaded most (although not all) of the board that the club should be rearranged into two "silos". I am happy to concede that the idea wasn''t, strictly speaking, born then; perhaps you''ll accept ''nutured and allowed to mature''.It might, indeed, seem obvious with hindsight, but it was such a dramatic change that there were some who were wary. Delia made up her mind though, went against her usual policy of seeking unanimous consent, and said, "This is what we''re doing".The point of my MFW piece was merely that, having seen how the relationship between Stone and Webber (and their "silos") has developed, and watching a happy hierachy interacting with fans, I felt bouyed and wanted to pass that on.On the MFW site, some have commented that they''d rather have success on the field than approachable, open heads of the organisation. But it''s not an either/or.[/quote]Mick, that is fair enough. I was only concerned about your original wording, which did read as if the very notion of such a system had been been Delia''s invention and had been sprung on the other unknowing directors in that moment, like Athena emerging fully-formed from the head of Zeus. As you acknowledge, and as parma has posted, this notion was already well-known at Carrow Road. For what it is worth I believe Smith and Jones have, overall, been excellent owners, who deserve praise for taking such a radical step.[/quote]

They have taken many such radical steps as owners. The first I remember was their first full season where they appointed Bruce Rioch and embraced sports science, against some opposition from the old guard. Sports science is now the norm.

As an aside, good to see you posting Mick. While you''re around we''d love if you could help Platonic and Duncan in their quest to add to the DS team funding with a couple of suggestions on Rays Funds.

[Mike 2]

"On the MFW site, some have commented that they''d rather have success on the field than approachable, open heads of the organisation. But it''s not an either/or"

The job of the current owners / board is to run a successful club. I judge a successful club in their performance on the pitch (90% first team). I do not believe the current owners of board have made a very good job with it as the much reduced player budget and quality of player shows.

I am glad they mix with fans but to me it''s not important. The successful running and building of a first team is.

I would argue that, that is the most important thing. Me being nice at nice & mixing with people is not what keeps me in a job.

[Mike 2]

Nice at work even...

[Diane 500]

[quote user="Mike "]" I am glad they mix with fans but to me it''s not important. The successful running and building of a first team is.

I would argue that, that is the most important thing. Me being nice at nice & mixing with people is not what keeps me in a job.[/quote]

Bosses mixing with their staff in a place of work is slightly different to a football club thought isn''t it. Bet your bosses are nice to the people/companies where the money comes from?

There is no club without supporters, so to me it''s important that the people running my club have a good friendly relationship with the fans, being so accessible is a bonus. Of course we also want success on the pitch, but bet the majority of us are greedy and want both

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Surely the ideal is both which is what we have.

[Diane 500]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Surely the ideal is both which is what we have.[/quote]

Yes as I said the ideal is both Nutty but we can''t say we''ve got success on the pitch yet as the season hasn''t started [:D]

[Greavsy 2,412]

And a harmonious forum, with everyone feeling the love?

Perfect!

[Diane 500]

[quote user="Greavsy"]And a harmonious forum, with everyone feeling the love?

Perfect![/quote]

Yes that would be ideal too, but this is a football messageboard so that is never going to happen.

Back on topic, what did you think of Mick''s article ?

[Greavsy 2,412]

I''ve had a brief read Diane and smiled at the supporters forum comment.

I don''t know enough about the ''behind the scenes/history'' to comment on content other than I was aware Delia and all regularly turned up amongst the fans at away games, and long may it continue.

Was surprised with the Butler comment, and thought Mick would have been a bit better than that, personally. Although Butler dishes is out, and I''m sure can take it back.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

I seriously don''t understand why anyone would want a harmonious forum unless they get off by being told "good post". A harmonious football forum would not betrue to life. It would only appeal to control freaks...

[Mr Apples 1,318]

Good post Nutty.Apples

[Greavsy 2,412]

nutty nigel wrote the following post at 10/08/2017 3:23 PM:

I seriously don''t understand why anyone would want a harmonious forum unless they get off by being told "good post". A harmonious football forum would not betrue to life. It would only appeal to control freaks...

Derail ahoy, again. Sighs.

[Van wink 2,994]

Good post Apples

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Thanks professor. I hope you''re having a great day😆

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Strangely one of the control freaks doesn''t class all opinions about a harmonious forum as derailing. No siree! Not even the first one....

[Greavsy 2,412]

I rest my cast, and again, will leave you to childish games.

It''s there for all to see.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

You promised me that yesterday but just as i got my hopes uo you didn''t go through with it.

[Mr Apples 1,318]

I''m feeling very harmonious Nutty, Mick''s piece has given me a warm glow and made me hopeful for the future.Apples

[Greavsy 2,412]

Let not make this about me, or you Nigel, and try to remain on topic, or thereabouts, so the others on the forum can partake and enjoy.

You game is so obvious, and won''t work this time either.

[BobLoz3 492]

Read the article, haven''t read through all the posts on this thread.But one thing I can say for certain is that I agree with Dennis on Butler... The man is a cretin.I am not sure how he got his job but he should probably go and do something else because he''s shocking at it.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Classing a different opinion as playing games is just another symptom of your control issues.

[Greavsy 2,412]

Nothing to see here, move along, and back to the original topic.

[......and Smith must score. 1,339]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]I seriously don''t understand why anyone would want a harmonious forum unless they get off by being told "good post". A harmonious football forum would not betrue to life. It would only appeal to control freaks...[/quote]Indeed.Far better to all drown in a bitchy '' my willy''s bigger than your willy, so there '' swamp any day......[;)]

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Well now Smiffy, my willy is always at least half full...

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Stop playing games, Greavsy. Your games were what got rid of a prominent and popular poster in morty and it''s clear you''re trying the same tactics with nutty nigel