There is a plan

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/2018/04/01/a-viable-plan-is-in-place-one-thats-firmly-focused-on-a-return-to-the-premier-league/Interesting article from the Trusts Chairman.

It was clear from Webber’s graphic description of Colney when he

arrived (“the inmates were running the asylum”) and the struggles to

bring about a culture change that there were many problems in pre-season

that were not obvious to the fans.

His description of a move from “players thinking that Norwich City

owed them something to making them understand that they owe Norwich

City” suggested that there were ingrained attitudes that took time to

eradicate. He also confirmed that the atmosphere among the playing and

managerial staff is infinitely better and that that will provide the

springboard for a much more effective preseason – particularly with so

many staff and players having a Championship season under their belt.

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="A Load of Squit"]http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/2018/04/01/a-viable-plan-is-in-place-one-thats-firmly-focused-on-a-return-to-the-premier-league/Interesting article from the Trusts Chairman.

It was clear from Webber’s graphic description of Colney when he

arrived (“the inmates were running the asylum”) and the struggles to

bring about a culture change that there were many problems in pre-season

that were not obvious to the fans.

His description of a move from “players thinking that Norwich City

owed them something to making them understand that they owe Norwich

City” suggested that there were ingrained attitudes that took time to

eradicate. He also confirmed that the atmosphere among the playing and

managerial staff is infinitely better and that that will provide the

springboard for a much more effective preseason – particularly with so

many staff and players having a Championship season under their belt.

[/quote]I am not saying Webber is altogether wrong, but incoming executives tend to exaggerate the problems they face, for obvious reasons. And Webber seems prone to a bit of hyperbole anyway, As with the comment about the club having p*ssed loads of money away. Not sure, with the odd exception, the facts really bear that out. Ditto the implication that somehow the club had been lax in not updating Colney. With what money? From the playing budget? Now this comment about how he has inherited a madhouse. A madhouse that  has recently had four years in the Premier League? Some clubs we know of would kill for that kind of insanity.

[ron obvious 1,711]

Makes sense to me. Unless we suddenly become very rich (which doesn''t guarantee success anyway) it''s the only realistic option we have.

[Badger 2,745]

I agree totally with Purple. It is just a standard tactic that incoming leaders with a brief to change things disparage the situation they inherited. It gives them an excuse when things take longer than originally planned and if they are unsuccessful.Webber has used this tactic from the start - I don''t particularly blame him for it - it is just a standard practice.

[ron obvious 1,711]

PC, I can''t see the present set up sanctioning the purchases of Naismith or RvW (for example) or the general level of wages that were being paid. A problem in the Premiership I grant you (they may want to jump ship) but I wonder how many of the squad members we had then could have got similar remuneration elsewhere? Have those who departed fared well financially since?

It sounds as if updating Colney would have been a much better investment than the money we spent on some players (see above).

I don''t think he was saying it was a madhouse, just poorly run with too much player power going on. In practice we were living off the amazing Lambert years & not being judicious with the inheritance.

And how much did Lambert''s astounding squad cost? Buying overpriced players is not the only way to succeed.

[Guest]

Some clubs we know of would kill for that kind of insanity.

I am interested to know what Webber thinks is insanity?

Hiring a coaching staff and recruiting players that have shown absolutely no progress in 39 games? What is the coaching method producing? Just to say the players training methods were lax and they were not used to being trained hard is what you are told in junior football.

It would be quite easy to hide behind the assertion that this is the only way forward. And then if he is relieved of his position in the future he will be able to say the club didn''t buy into it.

I think he is lucky that NCFC is in the main a patient club and the supporters have not given them hardly any stick.

Many said their hopes weren''t high this season and that is about right but in reality we still had parachute money and should not be behind Ipswich, Brentford and Millwall.

[KiwiScot 1,684]

Now a fine plan would be to win the FA cup and get into Europe.

[TIL 1010 5,246]

When Webber stated at the AGM that we had ''pi$$ed The Premiership money up the wall'' his bluntness was accepted by most people and the financial position we currently find ourselves kind of proves his point.Now just a few days ago he states that when he walked into Colney ''the inmates were running the asylum'' which is sitting uncomfortably it would appear but who on earth do we hold responsible for that culture to prevail as in July 2014 we appointed a Football Board to run the football side of things at NCFC ?

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

“players thinking that Norwich City owed them something to making them understand that they owe Norwich City”

Can we work out collectively who these might have been?

Sounds a bit of a problem.

Naismith and Martin were fairly quickly shipped out. The former (for reasons best known to himself) must be a candidate, but that nice Mr. Martin too?

Ruddy was on his bike quickly and most of us probably acknowledge that Oliveira has been somewhat difficult.

I was surprised that Cameron Jerome was sold leaving us a bit skint in the stiking department, but by all accounts he was the model pro.

Any more qualify? Jarvis? Klose?

[lake district canary 4,823]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]When Webber stated at the AGM that we had ''pi$$ed The Premiership money up the wall'' his bluntness was accepted by most people and the financial position we currently find ourselves kind of proves his point.Now just a few days ago he states that when he walked into Colney ''the inmates were running the asylum'' which is sitting uncomfortably it would appear but who on earth do we hold responsible for that culture to prevail as in July 2014 we appointed a Football Board to run the football side of things at NCFC ?[/quote]I suggest that the culture had less to do with the Football Board and was born more out of the players that were brought in under Hughton - the move to a more premier league style squad where players are molly coddled and who think they are al that matters.  

[king canary 8,750]

It''s a big concern that as far as I can tell this is the second time our culture has deteriorated to a worrying extent in the last few years.

[Badger 2,745]

It is only a guess, I accept, but I think that the Football Board will have gone with McNally. I think that the "promotion at all costs" approach of Moxey, may be the target - this will have brought in some of the financial laxness to which I guess he is referring.The failure to upgrade Colney was a failure of the board after the debt was paid off. Inits defence, it was probably a popular move to put all resources into the short-term objectives of staying-up and "kicking on" - but a mistake nevertheless.The mistake is thrown into even sharper relief by the current "grow your own" philosophy. Again, this was less to the fore pre-Webber, so the academy would not have been as high a priority. When the philosophy changes, previous actions can be seen in a different light to how they might have been seen at the time.

[TIL 1010 5,246]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="TIL 1010"]When Webber stated at the AGM that we had ''pi$$ed The Premiership money up the wall'' his bluntness was accepted by most people and the financial position we currently find ourselves kind of proves his point.Now just a few days ago he states that when he walked into Colney ''the inmates were running the asylum'' which is sitting uncomfortably it would appear but who on earth do we hold responsible for that culture to prevail as in July 2014 we appointed a Football Board to run the football side of things at NCFC ?[/quote]I suggest that the culture had less to do with the Football Board and was born more out of the players that were brought in under Hughton - the move to a more premier league style squad where players are molly coddled and who think they are al that matters.  

[/quote]Well surely somebody has to take responsibility for allowing that culture to grow and fester Lakey ?

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Olsson and Dorrans are another two potentials and both were shipped out fairly rapidly.

Bassong seems to have been a bit of a big head who overated himself.

Even lovely little Wes is on record deriding our club when he failed to get his own way.

It''s turning into a series of conspiracy theories in my head now. The original contention by Webber has gone down very badly with me .... no wonder we crashed so badly.

On the plus side the current bunch, whether German or not, seem to have their heads in the right place.

That would seem to give some cause for optimism, at least.

[STFU 0]

Moxey was only here for 6 months, was that really long enough for the damage that Webber is describing to be done? Don''t think so.

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="ron obvious"]PC, I can''t see the present set up sanctioning the purchases of Naismith or RvW (for example) or the general level of wages that were being paid. A problem in the Premiership I grant you (they may want to jump ship) but I wonder how many of the squad members we had then could have got similar remuneration elsewhere? Have those who departed fared well financially since?

It sounds as if updating Colney would have been a much better investment than the money we spent on some players (see above).

I don''t think he was saying it was a madhouse, just poorly run with too much player power going on. In practice we were living off the amazing Lambert years & not being judicious with the inheritance.

And how much did Lambert''s astounding squad cost? Buying overpriced players is not the only way to succeed.[/quote]Ron, the problem is Webber, as far as I know, didn''t specify exactly how we had p*ssed awy all this money. But generally the figures do not back him up, on wages, or on transfers, with the exception of that Hughton summer when we spent a record amount (for us, but still peanuts by PL standards) and, as Bowkett later said, didn''t really improve the squad (and I don''t want to get into specific players, but my guess is Webber wouldn''t not have wanted to touch van Wolfswinkel with a very long barge-pole, but probably would have sanctioned Naismith, as so many fans here did at the time...).Take the three consecutive seasons we were in the Pl and our wages. The first two seasons we were in the bottom three, ie the relegation zone, in terms of wages (which is probably the best, albeit flawed, guide to how a team will fare). The season we got relegated we were out of the relegation zone, wage-wise, but only because we were in 17th place. The season back under Neil were were again in the wage relegation zone. That really doesn''t look like us throwing money away.Fans get excited by the vast amounts of TV money clubs get, but the reality - which Webber has to know but seems to ignore - is that it goes, on transfers and wages, no matter how prudent you are. Unless Webber is suggesting we should have done a Burnley and budgeted to get relegated as part of a longer-term plan. Is he saying that if he had been advising the board then that is what he would have advocated?Or is he saying we threw money away in the inbetween season getting straight back? That he would then have told us to cut back and pass up the chance we actually took, and instead spend the money on Colney? Because it is a fantasy for him to suggest, if that is what he is doing, that there was ever a time in the PL when we could have diverted money to infrastructure without harming our chances of staying up, or in the Championship without harming our chances of promotion.Where he might have more of a case is last season, before he arrived, when the board took a decision to budget (arguably over-budget) to try to get straight back, with Neil as manager. It didn''t work, in stark contrast to the time before when it did work. And the club is suffering now as a result, with Webber having to cope and cut back.But what is he saying specifically? That we should have budgeted not to try to get promoted? And/or that Neil should have been sacked that summer? He would have argued for both those? I don''t know because he hasn''t, as far as I am aware, ever been tied down to specifics of how he would have acted. It is easy in hindsight, and in very general terms, to criticse difficult decisions you weren''t involved in. Especially since if we had budgeted not to get promotion all hell would have broken loose among fans.None of this should be taken as me being anti-Webber. On the contrary I like the overall concept of a sporting director (with a head coach) and I think Webber is the right man for the job. I also think he is right, given our circumstances, to go for younger, hungrier, cheaper players. That is now. But that doesn''t mean that if he had been with us a few years earlier he would have tried to make any significant changes to how the club was run, no matter how much he slags off those decisions and their implications now.

[Guest]

I despair of politicians blaming someone else for any problems but we don''t need our DoF doing it.

Shut up and concentrate on putting it right if you are the right man to do it.

[king canary 8,750]

@purple

I really can''t see Webber sanctioning the Naismith move. Tieing that much money up in one player with minimal resale value is the opposite of his ethos so far.

[lake district canary 4,823]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="TIL 1010"]When Webber stated at the AGM that we had ''pi$$ed The Premiership money up the wall'' his bluntness was accepted by most people and the financial position we currently find ourselves kind of proves his point.Now just a few days ago he states that when he walked into Colney ''the inmates were running the asylum'' which is sitting uncomfortably it would appear but who on earth do we hold responsible for that culture to prevail as in July 2014 we appointed a Football Board to run the football side of things at NCFC ?[/quote]I suggest that the culture had less to do with the Football Board and was born more out of the players that were brought in under Hughton - the move to a more premier league style squad where players are molly coddled and who think they are al that matters.  [/quote]Well surely somebody has to take responsibility for allowing that culture to grow and fester Lakey ?[/quote]

Agreed.   You could put it down to McNally or our board if you want, but to me the culture of player power is inherent in the whole of the PL. The only way of stopping it is to lay down a strict regime and at the time we were promoted, the club - and many fans - were dreaming of establishing ourselves in the PL, with players to match that dream.  I can''t imagine that second and third season in the PL with us going in with having bought no expensive players in.  There would have been a huge furore that the club was showing no ambition.  No, we went for it and it backfired and imo there is no disgrace in that. So if you want to ask who is responsible - then you could say the players, you could say the managers, you could say the board members, you could even bring in to it the fans who it was clear wanted us to spend big money, but really the problem is inherent in the system.Can you buck that system?  Yes, through development of a different approach based on something other than money and other than pandering to rich players - and that is what we are trying to do now.  A more down to earth appoach, no nonsense - and as we are told, the development of a culture that makes the players subservient to the club and not the other way round.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="TIL 1010"]When Webber stated at the AGM that we had ''pi$$ed The Premiership money up the wall'' his bluntness was accepted by most people and the financial position we currently find ourselves kind of proves his point.Now just a few days ago he states that when he walked into Colney ''the inmates were running the asylum'' which is sitting uncomfortably it would appear but who on earth do we hold responsible for that culture to prevail as in July 2014 we appointed a Football Board to run the football side of things at NCFC ?[/quote]I suggest that the culture had less to do with the Football Board and was born more out of the players that were brought in under Hughton - the move to a more premier league style squad where players are molly coddled and who think they are al that matters.  

[/quote]I would imagine that is what is being inferred.A product of those four years spent in the PL. I believe a number of problems with the first season under AN in the Championship were down to player problems - which manifest themselves as ''I am better than this''... or ''are we supposed to know who you are ?" Hence the times that players were dropped or played when football logic suggested otherwise.Maybe the first time we went up we had an ''enforcer'', someone who might be later thought a ''bully'' but was certainly able to keep players in line, or quickly ship them out. Whichever it is time to move forward. Embrace the fact that if there are any members of the awkward squad'' then they are being ''dealt with'' and/or will move on in the summer.In other words I want to see players with the attitude of Zimmerman not Bassong

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="king canary"]@purple

I really can''t see Webber sanctioning the Naismith move. Tieing that much money up in one player with minimal resale value is the opposite of his ethos so far.[/quote]His ethos now, yes.. Under the circumstances now, yes. But back then the circumstances were very different. This is my whole point, that Webber is slagging off decisions taken when he wasn''t around, withut saying how he would have acted.Back then he would have had a big decision to make. Get in an extra attacker who would do a job now, ie someone like Naismith, to help us stay in the PL. Or accept relegation by signing someone young, promising and quite out of their depth in the top flight.I don''t know, but my strong suspicion is Webber would have concentrated on the goal of staying up and gone straight for Naismith as a  kind of Trevor Hockey-style signing. Bear in mind there was a thread from that time resurrected a while back in which - for once!  - there was pretty universal agreement here that Naismith was a great signing - under those circumstances.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Good point.

What other options did McNally/Neil have?

Was Naismith the best of a bad bunch?

January window prices remember, but something had to be done. The pressure was on.

The contractual stuff, which still has repercussions, is another matter.

[king canary 8,750]

@purple

It''s not simply whether he would have signed a Naismith type player, it''s whether he would have signed off a contract of the length and size Naismith has. We panicked badly in that window and handed long, sizeable contracts to him and Jarvis, seemingly oblivious to the long term financial ramifications. I just don''t see Webber doing that.

[Mello Yello 2,572]

I wonder if the ''pee-pee'' money wasn''t just wasted on the club''s football aspects, like disappointing players, their high wages etc......But, was also frittered away on maintaining floundering, less successful and running at a loss non-football related ''ventures'' within or connected to the club......?

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="king canary"]@purple

It''s not simply whether he would have signed a Naismith type player, it''s whether he would have signed off a contract of the length and size Naismith has. We panicked badly in that window and handed long, sizeable contracts to him and Jarvis, seemingly oblivious to the long term financial ramifications. I just don''t see Webber doing that.[/quote]Panic or trying to stay up? Under those circumstances, in a winter window, a player in Naismith''s position, knowing how much we want them and how great our need is, can demand high wages and a long contract. Again, Webber would not do that now, but he might well have been forced to then, under those circumstances.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

"But, was also frittered away on maintaining floundering, less successful and running at a loss non-football related ''ventures'' within or connected to the club."

Football related, I realise, but admin also.

Paying off Hughton and his staff.

Something for Adams and his staff(?)

Paying off Neil and his staff.

McNally''s golden handshake (no doubt.)

Moxey paid off.

Gladys the tea lady paid off.

Compensation to Farke''s old club.

Ditto Webber (?)

T.V. screen.

The club has bled money over the past few seasons.

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]"But, was also frittered away on maintaining floundering, less successful and running at a loss non-football related ''ventures'' within or connected to the club."

Football related, I realise, but admin also.

Paying off Hughton and his staff.

Something for Adams and his staff(?)

Paying off Neil and his staff.

McNally''s golden handshake (no doubt.)

Moxey paid off.

Gladys the tea lady paid off.

Compensation to Farke''s old club.

Ditto Webber (?)

T.V. screen.

The club has bled money over the past few seasons.[/quote]Adams is still employed by the club.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

"Adams is still employed by the club."

I know that, but assume that he is no longer on manager''s wages ... hence compensation.

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

I would imagine that his compensation was having an extended holiday and then still having a job. [:D]

[king canary 8,750]

@purple

It was panic caused by the incompetence in the summer window.

When you compare what happened in those windows to how we did business in the season we got relegated under Hughton you can see a stark difference.

Under Hughton we bought players with resale value- RVW was a disaster but we made money on Fer, Redmond and Olsson, got some money back for Hooper and even Ricky and didn''t tie our selves down to stupid contracts that we couldn''t shift. There were mistakes that window but after it all shook out I think we probably made a net profit in fees on those players we signed.

The season under Neil we failed to strengthen in key areas and I''d wager the only players we''ll make a reasonable profit on from that season are Brady and Pinto. Naismith and Jarvis we can''t pay to leave, Klose has probably lost value now and Mulumbu just collected a good pay cheque for very little output.