Is 'The Model' flawed?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Written August 2017 (‘The Philosophy, the Company and the Future’) to explain the model and predict its strengths and flaws (spoiler: long form content):

‘........

• Report post
•  
•  

Posted August 30, 2017

The new philosophy has seen a radical overhaul of what went before. Change was overdue, though questions remain as to whether the new philosophy and structure is fundamentally different from the cyclical culling of managers with differing ideas and differing personalities at CEO (or similar) and the subsequent Phoenix-like rise of a new messiah.

The restructuring of the club was and is a financial necessity, precipitating the chicken and egg question posed by historians discussing key events and figures ''ideology or economics''?. 

Economics is nearly always considered the major motivating factor, with figures more often characterised as ''opportunists'' taking advantage of events, regardless whether they flew a philosophical flag in public (proctor or post hoc).

The Composition of board does therefore have relevance to direction taken and decisions made. An evangelical belief in any new Messiah is a fan-like approach, with an inherent risk of fervently embracing anything new and then clinging to it with a disciple''s commitment. Belief is unwavering, often - and by extension - beyond the empirical evidence to hand.

The current football oversight structure is similar to the multiple European models highlighted in the Masterclasses. The Bayern structure is a good example of how even greater delineation, specialisation and oversight of playing, philosophical, negotiating and recruitment roles are employed elsewhere. 

Personalities are inevitably formed via experiences and such experiences influence decision- making and the weight afforded to factors used to influence decisions. Near administration may well make one financially risk-averse, very survival may then be considered a valid operational aim and achievement. Success may be viewed via a prism of sustainability, the cavalier methods of others may be dismissed and looked down upon, morals - politically or religiously influenced - may come to the fore and be used to mitigate or validate strategic approaches that are in reality more definitely influenced by finances or the lack thereof. 

The current structure may well be too late in deployment and may well be hamstrung by the limited finances to effect major changes. The question posed in Masterclasses was '' can you really do better with less?'' and ''if it were so easy, why doesn''t everyone do it?''.

Greatly reducing wage budgets, player purchase values, squad size, de-facto pedigree and paper-level of players whilst fundamentally changing how the club functions operationally, the approach to training, fitness and tactical play is a huge amount to restructure in a short space of time. It can be built, though buying such players for limited money is a challenge, training existing players to operate differently is likely to be erratic, whilst breeding such players may take years. 

This philosophy is not a new manager short-fix panacea, to work it must be programmed to operate five or ten years ahead, to be the route the club is completely committed to take into the future.

Arguably it will be more of a challenge to maintain it with success, the tendency will be to quickly parachute high earners in for the top level, which can quickly destabilise years of balanced philosophy and methodology. Alternatively it functions effectively without much top League exposure, maintaining Academic purity though consigning operations to Crewe-like breeding ground for others.

Dynamics and personality inevitably influence where we are at and the decisions we make. Webber would only be human to want to prove himself in his own right, to show that Huddersfield''s success was down to him as well as, or as much as, or more than, Wagner. Historically any Sporting Directors have been background figures, kingmakers perhaps, but the Manager or ahead Coach still typically gets the limelight. The footballing autonomy likely to be shown to Webber- in light of the limited football-background of the board outside of NR1- will be intoxicating.

Farke and Webber are hard workers, but many are in football. It is often all they know and has been their lives 24 hours a day for ever. Many know nothing else. Doing better is hard, doing (much) better with (much) less is not impossible, though it would as well not to get romantically carried away with lottery-winning possibilities. The odds are (well) against.

Long term footballing tactics must always survive short term results. The tactical methodology employed - a good deal of which chimed with many previous Masterclasses - is arguably confronting Europe''s least hospitable testing ground. The Championship remains a loosely-refereed rough-and-tumble League of physical men and spoilers. There are arguably increasing amounts of ball-playing sides, though many have dual personality characteristics that take account of the need ''to earn the right to play''. Mourinho has spent £300m and is still quite happy to throw Fellaini on and hit him from deep let us not forget.

The money had gone. In fact we will need to significantly reduce yet further. The change has gone too late, with too little to succeed in the short (to medium) term. The Naismith-Pinto- Klose purchases - and subsequently retaining a large, expensive squad upon relegation (turning down £15m summer money for Brady) - not only failed, it created resentment and a lack of stomach, fight and cohesion. This is where the money went. Paying multiple players £30k+ per week on 3 and 4 year contracts is a frightening Company liability.

Masterclass 16 commented that (vid Sunderland to QPR changes in approach) tactically it was ''early for Mummy to take away the spinach and putting the McDonald''s back on the table''. The concern was that what can be dressed as ''flexibility'' quickly transmits to paralysis through analysis to players and a fracturing of the clarity of instruction that players crave.

Better management may not be possible in the short term with limited, new, adjusting, inexperienced, homesick, mis-communicating, young, inconsistent players. In such a context Zonal marking (for example) may be an unnecessary complication. Alternatively even poor or flawed tactics are often rescued by weapons, players who simply do things regularly that are awkward for the opposition and cannot be ignored. Being better is a rare luxury in football and typically reserved for only the very best (and very richest) sides. 

Possession is a defensive tool as Masterclasses have discussed. Developing a mindset that senses danger a half second later than English defenders typically do, taking a fraction longer on the ball, assessing passing angles in advance and looking to retain possession - particularly in the minds of those who do not have the ball and must act as auxiliary and possibly unused angles repeatedly - requires an education that should start at school. I succeeded in Italy in a way I could not in England because players thought like me, saw the game like me, played fast and slow in a way that was logical to me, pressed together or not at all, shut spaces and spoiled games without needing to be told. I felt at home. I was a different player. 

We are hoping to achieve something akin to this now. Mentally the players must feel completely ''at home'' with it. They must operate it instinctively and seamlessly on the field. All of them. Always. The cheap ones, the old ones, the young ones, the awkward ones, the resentful ones, the foreign ones, the British ones. Doing more with less?

You can instantly buy players who understand, you can change those you have and you can teach the future. I support all of these into the future. The change we are seeing can be change for change''s sake and I would still support it. There is a level of intrinsic, instinctive, ingrained Football Intelligence that is required here though, not street smarts or jumpers for goalposts keenness, there must be an intellectual cohesive on the pitch whereby all operate on the same wavelength at the same time or the system will fail. Then our on-paper inferior players will look precisely that. Such coaching and instruction requires a clarity of communication, a (ironically) religiosity to language, an ability to create visualisation of the picture to all players , the ability to break down the technical into the simple, the visual, its constituent parts and essentials. Not easy with already formed mindsets.

Financially and spiritually it would be understandable if the current board intrinsically had no love for the Premier League. In many ways it represents the gargoyle head of society''s capitalist monster and warps and devours decency and long-term structural good behaviour. It cruelly exposes the limits of our model and operational capabilities. 

We all have sympathy with much of that, but business is business and ''this is the life we have chosen'' as Michael Corleone famously reminded us.

There is something also of resenting what you don''t understand, what you can''t compete with. It is not unusual to then demonise it and create parallel universes where you are morally or spiritually victorious. ''Premier League bad, Lower Leagues and financial survival good''. Yes and no.

Financial fear can be accentuated through history, though also through circumstance. Administration is disastrous, but not competing can it be considered a moral victory merely because that is the only route remaining or finances insist. If educational, structural, intelligent possession-based play is the future, it must be adhered to for the very long term. It must inform Academy-to-first team, it must withstand no money and great riches, it must accept demotion to lower tiers if that is the consequence. Such a long-term vision will require huge education and communication both without and within to withstand such poor results however. Custodians may be considered superior to rich dictators, though custodians focusing on mere survival may not be enough of a religious parable for many.

That the ground was full in League 1 may be a blessing and a curse. Once the television money is all gone, the theatre must still be full and all may keep buying ice creams at full time. There are many theatres in many sectors available however.

The reasonable Premier Gamble has been had and it didn''t work. Buying better, attracting better and managing better simply doesn''t work well enough with our parameters at the top level. 

Lambert''s miracle lead to the Neil pinnacle of short termism and not only are no long term benefits seen, there would be an argument that the accelerated, artificial almost, change that occurs to club is simply beyond our model to adapt to.

The new philosophy and structure must avoid multiple previous mistakes identified repeatedly across Masterclasses, though in doing there will be the irony that the mistakes you don''t make are invisible and thus not heralded (or even appreciated). Given the dramatic downturn in recent circumstances, and the contemporary recent high expectations that abounded, even performing ''well'' in our straitened context may still look like unattractive backsliding. 

There is no guarantee of success with less, though there is the advantage of there being no other meaningful choice. The Philosophy is a consequence of the financial Model and vice versa. The Philosophy needed to be implemented with money and will now be conversely harder, yet possibly more steadfast and designed by necessity. Fans will be forced to accept it.

Maybe the modern fan will, maybe they will find something else to do. Maybe new blood will be encouraged. Shorter attention spans, coupled with less success, coupled with the need to educate to a very long-term strategy the fruits of which may take years to come to fruition, does not sound like a recipe for taking social media by storm however.

Logic says we will go backwards before (maybe) going forwards. The model - and the nature of other clubs, their strategies and their finances - suggests the (unintentional) possibility of becoming something akin to a breeding ground for top clubs. Such top clubs however will buy ready-made versions of what they need and may in time dismiss the best players in the Championship if it continues to operate tactically in a way increasingly dissimilar to the Premier League. 

The odds are now against any meaningful top tier success for some time whilst we restructure. Unless cataclysmic implosion occurs at the top level of English football however, it is hard to see how we will not drift further away from such riches. 

Relegated clubs continue to suffer the turmoil that we know so well following relegation, so perhaps regrowth and regeneration can see a leaner, low-cost model achieve a unity of purpose and vision and counter-act the financial odds. I wouldn''t put my money on it however.

Should we emerge as an elegant, intelligent, possession-based, technically and tactically educated and attractive passing side then many Norwich fans will consider that a moral victory and will wear the approach as a (religious) badge of honour. 

Once shifted expectations have a habit of becoming the norm however and a more secular Norwich society may simply see less Canaries tweeting their love and a little more space in the nest.

This is the life we have chosen.

Parma

...........’

 

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

Jesus wept. All I want to do is watch my team play football and hopefully not lose, maybe even score a goal.

[hogesar 9,618]

One thing I'm starting to notice is some, not all, of the posters who have been clamouring for us to spend 20mill or so on a couple of players seem to spend the match thread telling everyone that none of our squad are remotely premier league quality and how this might be the worst team we have had in the prem.

If that is the case, then spending an extra 20m would likely be a waste and therefore the club are doing the right thing, unknowingly by your own collective admissions..

[Badger 2,405]

10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

One thing I'm starting to notice is some, not all, of the posters who have been clamouring for us to spend 20mill or so on a couple of players seem to spend the match thread telling everyone that none of our squad are remotely premier league quality and how this might be the worst team we have had in the prem.

If that is the case, then spending an extra 20m would likely be a waste and therefore the club are doing the right thing, unknowingly by your own collective admissions..

Another thing that I have noticed is the lack of an alternative model - unless you include risking the future by spending more than we can afford or finding a rich donor prepared to give us tens of millions ...

What is the alternative model?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

2 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Written August 2017 (‘The Philosophy, the Company and the Future’) to explain the model and predict its strengths and flaws (spoiler: long form content):

‘........

• Report post
•  
•  

Posted August 30, 2017

The new philosophy has seen a radical overhaul of what went before. Change was overdue, though questions remain as to whether the new philosophy and structure is fundamentally different from the cyclical culling of managers with differing ideas and differing personalities at CEO (or similar) and the subsequent Phoenix-like rise of a new messiah.

The restructuring of the club was and is a financial necessity, precipitating the chicken and egg question posed by historians discussing key events and figures ''ideology or economics''?. 

Economics is nearly always considered the major motivating factor, with figures more often characterised as ''opportunists'' taking advantage of events, regardless whether they flew a philosophical flag in public (proctor or post hoc).

The Composition of board does therefore have relevance to direction taken and decisions made. An evangelical belief in any new Messiah is a fan-like approach, with an inherent risk of fervently embracing anything new and then clinging to it with a disciple''s commitment. Belief is unwavering, often - and by extension - beyond the empirical evidence to hand.

The current football oversight structure is similar to the multiple European models highlighted in the Masterclasses. The Bayern structure is a good example of how even greater delineation, specialisation and oversight of playing, philosophical, negotiating and recruitment roles are employed elsewhere. 

Personalities are inevitably formed via experiences and such experiences influence decision- making and the weight afforded to factors used to influence decisions. Near administration may well make one financially risk-averse, very survival may then be considered a valid operational aim and achievement. Success may be viewed via a prism of sustainability, the cavalier methods of others may be dismissed and looked down upon, morals - politically or religiously influenced - may come to the fore and be used to mitigate or validate strategic approaches that are in reality more definitely influenced by finances or the lack thereof. 

The current structure may well be too late in deployment and may well be hamstrung by the limited finances to effect major changes. The question posed in Masterclasses was '' can you really do better with less?'' and ''if it were so easy, why doesn''t everyone do it?''.

Greatly reducing wage budgets, player purchase values, squad size, de-facto pedigree and paper-level of players whilst fundamentally changing how the club functions operationally, the approach to training, fitness and tactical play is a huge amount to restructure in a short space of time. It can be built, though buying such players for limited money is a challenge, training existing players to operate differently is likely to be erratic, whilst breeding such players may take years. 

This philosophy is not a new manager short-fix panacea, to work it must be programmed to operate five or ten years ahead, to be the route the club is completely committed to take into the future.

Arguably it will be more of a challenge to maintain it with success, the tendency will be to quickly parachute high earners in for the top level, which can quickly destabilise years of balanced philosophy and methodology. Alternatively it functions effectively without much top League exposure, maintaining Academic purity though consigning operations to Crewe-like breeding ground for others.

Dynamics and personality inevitably influence where we are at and the decisions we make. Webber would only be human to want to prove himself in his own right, to show that Huddersfield''s success was down to him as well as, or as much as, or more than, Wagner. Historically any Sporting Directors have been background figures, kingmakers perhaps, but the Manager or ahead Coach still typically gets the limelight. The footballing autonomy likely to be shown to Webber- in light of the limited football-background of the board outside of NR1- will be intoxicating.

Farke and Webber are hard workers, but many are in football. It is often all they know and has been their lives 24 hours a day for ever. Many know nothing else. Doing better is hard, doing (much) better with (much) less is not impossible, though it would as well not to get romantically carried away with lottery-winning possibilities. The odds are (well) against.

Long term footballing tactics must always survive short term results. The tactical methodology employed - a good deal of which chimed with many previous Masterclasses - is arguably confronting Europe''s least hospitable testing ground. The Championship remains a loosely-refereed rough-and-tumble League of physical men and spoilers. There are arguably increasing amounts of ball-playing sides, though many have dual personality characteristics that take account of the need ''to earn the right to play''. Mourinho has spent £300m and is still quite happy to throw Fellaini on and hit him from deep let us not forget.

The money had gone. In fact we will need to significantly reduce yet further. The change has gone too late, with too little to succeed in the short (to medium) term. The Naismith-Pinto- Klose purchases - and subsequently retaining a large, expensive squad upon relegation (turning down £15m summer money for Brady) - not only failed, it created resentment and a lack of stomach, fight and cohesion. This is where the money went. Paying multiple players £30k+ per week on 3 and 4 year contracts is a frightening Company liability.

Masterclass 16 commented that (vid Sunderland to QPR changes in approach) tactically it was ''early for Mummy to take away the spinach and putting the McDonald''s back on the table''. The concern was that what can be dressed as ''flexibility'' quickly transmits to paralysis through analysis to players and a fracturing of the clarity of instruction that players crave.

Better management may not be possible in the short term with limited, new, adjusting, inexperienced, homesick, mis-communicating, young, inconsistent players. In such a context Zonal marking (for example) may be an unnecessary complication. Alternatively even poor or flawed tactics are often rescued by weapons, players who simply do things regularly that are awkward for the opposition and cannot be ignored. Being better is a rare luxury in football and typically reserved for only the very best (and very richest) sides. 

Possession is a defensive tool as Masterclasses have discussed. Developing a mindset that senses danger a half second later than English defenders typically do, taking a fraction longer on the ball, assessing passing angles in advance and looking to retain possession - particularly in the minds of those who do not have the ball and must act as auxiliary and possibly unused angles repeatedly - requires an education that should start at school. I succeeded in Italy in a way I could not in England because players thought like me, saw the game like me, played fast and slow in a way that was logical to me, pressed together or not at all, shut spaces and spoiled games without needing to be told. I felt at home. I was a different player. 

We are hoping to achieve something akin to this now. Mentally the players must feel completely ''at home'' with it. They must operate it instinctively and seamlessly on the field. All of them. Always. The cheap ones, the old ones, the young ones, the awkward ones, the resentful ones, the foreign ones, the British ones. Doing more with less?

You can instantly buy players who understand, you can change those you have and you can teach the future. I support all of these into the future. The change we are seeing can be change for change''s sake and I would still support it. There is a level of intrinsic, instinctive, ingrained Football Intelligence that is required here though, not street smarts or jumpers for goalposts keenness, there must be an intellectual cohesive on the pitch whereby all operate on the same wavelength at the same time or the system will fail. Then our on-paper inferior players will look precisely that. Such coaching and instruction requires a clarity of communication, a (ironically) religiosity to language, an ability to create visualisation of the picture to all players , the ability to break down the technical into the simple, the visual, its constituent parts and essentials. Not easy with already formed mindsets.

Financially and spiritually it would be understandable if the current board intrinsically had no love for the Premier League. In many ways it represents the gargoyle head of society''s capitalist monster and warps and devours decency and long-term structural good behaviour. It cruelly exposes the limits of our model and operational capabilities. 

We all have sympathy with much of that, but business is business and ''this is the life we have chosen'' as Michael Corleone famously reminded us.

There is something also of resenting what you don''t understand, what you can''t compete with. It is not unusual to then demonise it and create parallel universes where you are morally or spiritually victorious. ''Premier League bad, Lower Leagues and financial survival good''. Yes and no.

Financial fear can be accentuated through history, though also through circumstance. Administration is disastrous, but not competing can it be considered a moral victory merely because that is the only route remaining or finances insist. If educational, structural, intelligent possession-based play is the future, it must be adhered to for the very long term. It must inform Academy-to-first team, it must withstand no money and great riches, it must accept demotion to lower tiers if that is the consequence. Such a long-term vision will require huge education and communication both without and within to withstand such poor results however. Custodians may be considered superior to rich dictators, though custodians focusing on mere survival may not be enough of a religious parable for many.

That the ground was full in League 1 may be a blessing and a curse. Once the television money is all gone, the theatre must still be full and all may keep buying ice creams at full time. There are many theatres in many sectors available however.

The reasonable Premier Gamble has been had and it didn''t work. Buying better, attracting better and managing better simply doesn''t work well enough with our parameters at the top level. 

Lambert''s miracle lead to the Neil pinnacle of short termism and not only are no long term benefits seen, there would be an argument that the accelerated, artificial almost, change that occurs to club is simply beyond our model to adapt to.

The new philosophy and structure must avoid multiple previous mistakes identified repeatedly across Masterclasses, though in doing there will be the irony that the mistakes you don''t make are invisible and thus not heralded (or even appreciated). Given the dramatic downturn in recent circumstances, and the contemporary recent high expectations that abounded, even performing ''well'' in our straitened context may still look like unattractive backsliding. 

There is no guarantee of success with less, though there is the advantage of there being no other meaningful choice. The Philosophy is a consequence of the financial Model and vice versa. The Philosophy needed to be implemented with money and will now be conversely harder, yet possibly more steadfast and designed by necessity. Fans will be forced to accept it.

Maybe the modern fan will, maybe they will find something else to do. Maybe new blood will be encouraged. Shorter attention spans, coupled with less success, coupled with the need to educate to a very long-term strategy the fruits of which may take years to come to fruition, does not sound like a recipe for taking social media by storm however.

Logic says we will go backwards before (maybe) going forwards. The model - and the nature of other clubs, their strategies and their finances - suggests the (unintentional) possibility of becoming something akin to a breeding ground for top clubs. Such top clubs however will buy ready-made versions of what they need and may in time dismiss the best players in the Championship if it continues to operate tactically in a way increasingly dissimilar to the Premier League. 

The odds are now against any meaningful top tier success for some time whilst we restructure. Unless cataclysmic implosion occurs at the top level of English football however, it is hard to see how we will not drift further away from such riches. 

Relegated clubs continue to suffer the turmoil that we know so well following relegation, so perhaps regrowth and regeneration can see a leaner, low-cost model achieve a unity of purpose and vision and counter-act the financial odds. I wouldn''t put my money on it however.

Should we emerge as an elegant, intelligent, possession-based, technically and tactically educated and attractive passing side then many Norwich fans will consider that a moral victory and will wear the approach as a (religious) badge of honour. 

Once shifted expectations have a habit of becoming the norm however and a more secular Norwich society may simply see less Canaries tweeting their love and a little more space in the nest.

This is the life we have chosen.

Parma

...........’

 

A few quick points from someone in general agreement.

1) We went from finishing 14th or wherever it was to finishing 1st while actually cutting the player wage bill by some millions of pounds. In this era of the billionaire backer that is rather noteworthy (note classic British understatement).

2) This is not the life 'we' have chosen. Truthfully, that inclusive 'we' is  a bit of an illusion. It is the life the directors (nb not just S&J) have chosen. That is what directors do. They direct the path of a company. And if it is M&S and you don't like their direction you can switch to C&A, but with a football team you can only either stop supporting or buy the club.Tough, but no-one forced you to start following something so totally predestined to cause you at least intermittent heartache as a middling football club.

3) Whatever the rights and wrongs of 'The model' it is the model chosen, and whether you call it a medium- or a long-term plan, and however you define medium- or long-term, halfway through this season does not remotely fit either of those supposed time frames. As  evidenced by the majority - in terms of numbers and youth rather than cost - of the summer transfer signings.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Purple,
 

2 is very much what I also intended (back in Aug 2017). ‘This is the life we have chosen’ means de-facto accepting that the owners do not have the funds to compete on those terms. Very much the Royal we.

It also doubles as ‘The Premier League has lots of rich owners /expensive players /high wages / unforgiving environment’ and that the realpolitik is that ‘we’ have chosen to run a football club and the Premier League is what it is. 

1. Agreed of course. Very much a season where ‘ unicorn dreams’ wonderfully succeeded where analysis - including mine - did not. 

Parma 

[Mason 47 1,373]

All things are flawed. I work to the concept that you can never truly be right, just less wrong than before.

After last year, Norwich as a club and fanbase are a tight-knit operation and when Webber etc said at the start of the season we can't afford to go on a spree and we're likely to go down, the majority of us agreed and got strapped in. For what it's worth, although it hurts now I do believe that the investment and work going on behind the scenes genuinely will help set us up as a higher-level club for the forseeable (providing that they hit their targets and nothing goes awfully wrong).

The problem is, losing really sucks. Losing constantly sucks more. And losing abjectly, constantly, is going to start boiling peoples blood. Knowing the ridicule this statement will probably attract, beating Man City has probably done more harm than good; what it did was prove that this group of players, even when depleted, can actually compete at the top level, sets a level of expectation whether we want it to or not.

What is key for me is that we seem to have morphed into this parody of ourselves, that 'we are Norwich and we're going to stick to our guns and play it OUR way no matter what' tagline starting to appear more like a millstone around the neck than a triumphant battle-cry. This group is categorically not playing as well as they did last year, at the same game; at no point last season did Emi Buendia try a lazy Cruyff turn in his own backline, and yesterday he does it in the first minute of a crucial match. Last year our players closed the space to offer short passing options and played through teams- now, whilst acknowledging that we aren't as big or as strong or as fast as everyone else, our players are stretched out over the pitch, forcing the game into a longer footrace that we know we can't win. 

If I had to put my money down, I'd say our team looks scared. Jamal Lewis seemed so reluctant to carry the ball across the halfway line last night, we could well have been watching Jurgen Colin; Emi doesn't look like he wants to trust anyone else with the ball. Gone are the short passing options and last night we often turned into a 5-0-5 formation with a wall of Watford players comfortably mopping up the forlorn attempts by Trybull to breach through them. 

These players are good enough, and the model is good enough, to give this season a decent go- and as a fanbase that's what we agreed to. But at the moment I almost feel the club need to show some more respect to the fans, wake the hell up, and accept that the Premier League will not afford us the luxury of playing with a 2-3-5 formation; because as united as we are, we will not accept 'we have injuries and we can't spend money' as fair excuses if we lose every game between now and May.

(Side note, Farke has been well documented as potentially having been a director of football under different circumstances. If things proceed without any major issues it wouldn't surprise me to see him take up Webber's mantle in 3 years and us go searching for the next head coach)

[Herman 9,713]

A well argued and reasoned post Mason. Nice one👍

[king canary 7,578]

13 hours ago, Badger said:

Another thing that I have noticed is the lack of an alternative model - unless you include risking the future by spending more than we can afford or finding a rich donor prepared to give us tens of millions ...

What is the alternative model?

I think the main question is how is a debt free club with Premier League money and guaranteed parachute payments if we go back down only able to afford to spend what we did.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

10 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

All things are flawed. I work to the concept that you can never truly be right, just less wrong than before.

After last year, Norwich as a club and fanbase are a tight-knit operation and when Webber etc said at the start of the season we can't afford to go on a spree and we're likely to go down, the majority of us agreed and got strapped in. For what it's worth, although it hurts now I do believe that the investment and work going on behind the scenes genuinely will help set us up as a higher-level club for the forseeable (providing that they hit their targets and nothing goes awfully wrong).

The problem is, losing really sucks. Losing constantly sucks more. And losing abjectly, constantly, is going to start boiling peoples blood. Knowing the ridicule this statement will probably attract, beating Man City has probably done more harm than good; what it did was prove that this group of players, even when depleted, can actually compete at the top level, sets a level of expectation whether we want it to or not.

What is key for me is that we seem to have morphed into this parody of ourselves, that 'we are Norwich and we're going to stick to our guns and play it OUR way no matter what' tagline starting to appear more like a millstone around the neck than a triumphant battle-cry. This group is categorically not playing as well as they did last year, at the same game; at no point last season did Emi Buendia try a lazy Cruyff turn in his own backline, and yesterday he does it in the first minute of a crucial match. Last year our players closed the space to offer short passing options and played through teams- now, whilst acknowledging that we aren't as big or as strong or as fast as everyone else, our players are stretched out over the pitch, forcing the game into a longer footrace that we know we can't win. 

If I had to put my money down, I'd say our team looks scared. Jamal Lewis seemed so reluctant to carry the ball across the halfway line last night, we could well have been watching Jurgen Colin; Emi doesn't look like he wants to trust anyone else with the ball. Gone are the short passing options and last night we often turned into a 5-0-5 formation with a wall of Watford players comfortably mopping up the forlorn attempts by Trybull to breach through them. 

These players are good enough, and the model is good enough, to give this season a decent go- and as a fanbase that's what we agreed to. But at the moment I almost feel the club need to show some more respect to the fans, wake the hell up, and accept that the Premier League will not afford us the luxury of playing with a 2-3-5 formation; because as united as we are, we will not accept 'we have injuries and we can't spend money' as fair excuses if we lose every game between now and May.

(Side note, Farke has been well documented as potentially having been a director of football under different circumstances. If things proceed without any major issues it wouldn't surprise me to see him take up Webber's mantle in 3 years and us go searching for the next head coach)

One of the best posts I've seen on here in a while.

[hogesar 9,618]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think the main question is how is a debt free club with Premier League money and guaranteed parachute payments if we go back down only able to afford to spend what we did.

I think we could have spent more. I think we chose not to. I guess we were only willing to go for the 'perfect' signing, I.e plan A, and not move down the ladder.

I believe from Webbers comments they believe that with a fully fit squad and a bit of luck and good fortune we can compete in this division. I tend to agree. 

[Hillhead 114]

On 08/11/2019 at 22:02, TeemuVanBasten said:

 

So I decided to reflect again on 'the model',  and our apparent decision to just accept relegation this season, finish this season with a significant cash surplus, and then use that money to continue building next season, find another Buendia or two and presumably come back stronger. But at the same time ensure that we can survive / Fund the academy for a bit if we don't come back up. 

Essentially this is what people are saying I think? Only, this isn't anything at all new. West Brom yo-yo'd a few times and kept their squad together, getting a little stronger with each promotion and eventually having a sustained spell in the top tier. 

A promoted teams biggest asset is their team spirit and togetherness, they've all just achieved something fantastic together, all contributed to each others success. Momentum can take a team a long way. 

But that can all change very quickly, these players were thrown to the lions the day we decided not to add a bit more quality and physicality to the squad.

What I feel people are missing when they say we can't afford to spend is that if you spend well on players of the right age and profile you can recoup the fee if you need to. You think if we spend £15m on a top Championship winger we wouldn't be able to get £10m back for him in the event we are relegated and he doesn't set the world alight? 

You are buying asset. Assets can be bought and sold. What do you think we did with Leroy Fer? 

I don't agree with the rest of your post which in my opinion is a reaction and based on a worst case scenario type outcome but I do agree with the points made here. I'm still of the belief that so much can change so quickly on football. There have been many teams looking down and out by Xmas that have soon got themselves out of it and looked nothing like the teams that looked such a mess just a few months earlier so I'll remain optimistic of the same happening to us. It might look deluded now but them I'm sure many were saying the same on those clubs forums too.

Yet I do wonder about our lack of investment in the summer. What was the plan? See how we are doing in January and spend accordingly? When you look at the players brought in under Webber  It seems a shame we didn't see a few 'upscaled' versions of these but who knows what will happen in January

If anything though I don't know if this makes the model flawed. It seems a deviation off what I thought the model was. 

Success and growth for our club doesn't mean massive spends or success after success. Relegations can happen as.long as the overall trajectory of the club is generally on the up but for that to happen i'd hope that if we were returning to the championship we would be doing so with a squad considered stronger than the one that got is our of the championship last time. Burnley who I think you've mentioned are a good example of a way of doing this.

 

[Flying Dutchman 744]

22 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Cork is a sh*thole, go away. 

You absolute petulant child.

What a way to react to someone rightly calling you out on something you said.

And it's not like this is even a one-off, this is just the latest in you being a little pr!ck to anyone who dares to have an actual opinion based on facts you dont like.

You use a large amount of bull***t to support your so called 'arguments', and when someone says you might be wrong, you become a little playground tw*t.

Not that you have much anyway at this point, but you now have absolutely zero credibility or respect. You come across like an absolute cnt, I feel for whoever might be in your life.

I think I'm done giving anything you post the time of day. I imagine I'm probably not the first to do that either.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Flying Dutchman

[Badger 2,405]

31 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think the main question is how is a debt free club with Premier League money and guaranteed parachute payments if we go back down only able to afford to spend what we did.

Without having access to current financial information it is possible to know for certain but I tend to agree with Hogesar in that I think that we could have spent more but chose not to. Assuming that I am correct in this, I imagine that Webber felt that the players available to us were not a significant upgrade on what we have at present and chose not to spend money for the sake of it "as a punt."

The current status of the players we did bring in illustrate the difficulty of bringing in new players. To my mind, the calibre  and history of Fahrmann, Amadou and Drmic, looked pretty good and Byram and Roberts looked promising. However, as yet, and we are only a third of the way through the season, none has established themselves. There is no reason to suppose that spending money on "extra bodies" would have been any more successful. 

Again, I ask you, what is the alternative model that you propose - gamble the future by taking on debt; becoming an investment vehicle for someone to profit in a rising market confident that asset sales could recover losses or finding a donor prepared to give up  loads of their own money to subsidise us?

[Herman 9,713]

35 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think we could have spent more. I think we chose not to. I guess we were only willing to go for the 'perfect' signing, I.e plan A, and not move down the ladder.

I believe from Webbers comments they believe that with a fully fit squad and a bit of luck and good fortune we can compete in this division. I tend to agree. 

I guess that is probably right. The choices we had were;

Buy a quality, first team cert. Problem is he would have cost an absolute budget busting fortune.

Risk a cheap back up. Problem is that he might not make it and end up back whence he came. (See Franke for example).

Invest in a younger player. Problem is that he wouldn't be ready.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

14 minutes ago, Flying Dutchman said:

You absolute petulant child.

What a way to react to someone rightly calling you out on something you said.

And it's not like this is even a one-off, this is just the latest in you being a little pr!ck to anyone who dares to have an actual opinion based on facts you dont like.

You use a large amount of bull***t to support your so called 'arguments', and when someone says you might be wrong, you become a little playground tw*t.

Not that you have much anyway at this point, but you now have absolutely zero credibility or respect. You come across like an absolute cnt, I feel for whoever might be in your life.

I think I'm done giving anything you post the time of day. I imagine I'm probably not the first to do that either.

Yep, Thanks Dutcho. His posting style was ' the more I say it over and over again, the righter I am', despite incorrect 'facts' , unreliable quotes and opinions dressed up as truths. I suspect he has an o level in revisionism and wiseafterthefactery.  He seems to have disappeared after that post so maybe his mammy saw what a naughty boy he'd been and confiscated his internet devices. He may even be washing the family car as punishment this morning. We should end discussing him now as I feel we're pandering to his attention seeking neediness. Cheers for the support.  Corko.

[king canary 7,578]

50 minutes ago, Badger said:

Without having access to current financial information it is possible to know for certain but I tend to agree with Hogesar in that I think that we could have spent more but chose not to. Assuming that I am correct in this, I imagine that Webber felt that the players available to us were not a significant upgrade on what we have at present and chose not to spend money for the sake of it "as a punt."

The current status of the players we did bring in illustrate the difficulty of bringing in new players. To my mind, the calibre  and history of Fahrmann, Amadou and Drmic, looked pretty good and Byram and Roberts looked promising. However, as yet, and we are only a third of the way through the season, none has established themselves. There is no reason to suppose that spending money on "extra bodies" would have been any more successful. 

Again, I ask you, what is the alternative model that you propose - gamble the future by taking on debt; becoming an investment vehicle for someone to profit in a rising market confident that asset sales could recover losses or finding a donor prepared to give up  loads of their own money to subsidise us?

Fundamentally in my opinion we need owners who can afford to take a 'calculate risk' at this level- that doesn't mean going Villa or Fulham level spending but right now the opinion seems to be spending £20-30m in a summer is a gamble we can't afford which is going to render us likely uncompetitive at this level.

This also isn't a dig but I hate this 'There is no reason to suppose that spending money on "extra bodies" would have been any more successful' sort of argument. There is no guarantee of anything in football, it doesn't mean you should try.

Our budget means we've added two loanees who seem to have pedigree (that we haven't seen that yet isn't anyone's fault) a striker with a horrific injury record, a right back who was never going to be more than a back up and whatever the hell Roberts is. It also means we've filled gaps in the squad but we haven't really improved much- players like Stiepermann and McLean for me are decent Championship level but shouldn't be more than squad players at this level yet we've not tried to upgrade them.

[Flying Dutchman 744]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

Yep, Thanks Dutcho. His posting style was ' the more I say it over and over again, the righter I am', despite incorrect 'facts' , unreliable quotes and opinions dressed up as truths. I suspect he has an o level in revisionism and wiseafterthefactery.  He seems to have disappeared after that post so maybe his mammy saw what a naughty boy he'd been and confiscated his internet devices. He may even be washing the family car as punishment this morning. We should end discussing him now as I feel we're pandering to his attention seeking neediness. Cheers for the support.  Corko.

We may not always agree with people on here, that's the beauty of opinions, and creates grounds for a reasoned debate.

That's the difference, reasoned debate.

But resorting to that is just entirely unnecessary and there is literally no excuse apart from being a crap human being who, when it comes to people challenging them, has no 'plan B'

Ironic, right?

[Monty13 2,229]

I’ll be honest that I’m not really sure what our strategy was for the last transfer window.

We clearly didn’t want to spend much money which like it or not meant we were unlikely to properly compete at this level.

We then spent a lot of money on three loan players only one of whom (Amadou) looks like a possible upgrade on what we had so far. Our actual acquisitions look like filling squad positions rather than improving the first team although I think individually Byram and Drmic were both good gets.

I suppose my issue is if the model is based on a level of frugality that means we were unlikely to compete at this level as we weren’t going to invest in the starting 11, why not invest the money in championship and foreign talent that had potential and resale value than loans which were equally gambles?

It’s quite rare that a talented younger (by this I mean 25 and below not teenagers) player who has proved themselves at championship level is a complete waste of investment.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Monty13

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Fundamentally in my opinion we need owners who can afford to take a 'calculate risk' at this level- that doesn't mean going Villa or Fulham level spending but right now the opinion seems to be spending £20-30m in a summer is a gamble we can't afford which is going to render us likely uncompetitive at this level.

"... we need owners who can afford to take a 'calculate risk' at this level" - so your model is, in essence, to borrow and hope for the best and never mind that if it doesn't work, we will be in a worse long-term position?

I'm not sure because as stated above, I do not have access to the current figures, but I suspect that we could have spent £20 or 30 million if the right players became available.*The fact that we didn't suggests that that Webber was not convinced that the players that were available in that price bracket would be an upgrade. (*It is just "fag-packet accounts" but if you deduct the overspend of last year + what we have spent + extra wages, there seems to be some left on the extra income)

This also isn't a dig but I hate this 'There is no reason to suppose that spending money on "extra bodies" would have been any more successful' sort of argument. There is no guarantee of anything in football, it doesn't mean you should try.

It follows from my premise above that if the right players were not available, we would just be adding "extra bodies" for the sake of it. Of course there is no guarantee of anything in football but is it really wise to just spend it because it's there, even if you do not think that what you are buying is an improvement? 

Our budget means we've added two loanees who seem to have pedigree (that we haven't seen that yet isn't anyone's fault) a striker with a horrific injury record, a right back who was never going to be more than a back up and whatever the hell Roberts is. It also means we've filled gaps in the squad but we haven't really improved much- players like Stiepermann and McLean for me are decent Championship level but shouldn't be more than squad players at this level yet we've not tried to upgrade them.

We got what we felt we needed from what was available to us. I disagree with your evaluation of Roberts and Byram and think both have PL potential and as you suggest the other three have pedigree (setting aside Drmic's injury record) but none of them have seriously impacted the first team as yet (2/3 of the season remain). Why do you suppose that other players, lower down our list of targets would have had more impact?

 

[Cantiaci Canary 556]

4 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I’ll be honest that I’m not really sure what our strategy was for the last transfer window.

We clearly didn’t want to spend much money which like it or not meant we were unlikely to properly compete at this level.

We then spent a lot of money on three loan players only one of whom (Amadou) looks like a possible upgrade on what we had so far. Our actual acquisitions look like filling squad positions rather than improving the first team although I think individually Byram and Drmic were both good gets.

I suppose my issue is if the model is based on a level of frugality that means we were unlikely to compete at this level as we weren’t going to invest in the starting 11, why not invest the money in championship and foreign talent that had potential and resale value than loans which were equally gambles?

It’s quite rare that a talented younger (by this I mean 25 and below not teenagers) player who has proved themselves at championship level is a complete waste of investment.

I think the problem with buying from the Championship was that decent players were still far too expensive ... e.g Maupay £16m.

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

17 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

All things are flawed. I work to the concept that you can never truly be right, just less wrong than before.

After last year, Norwich as a club and fanbase are a tight-knit operation and when Webber etc said at the start of the season we can't afford to go on a spree and we're likely to go down, the majority of us agreed and got strapped in. For what it's worth, although it hurts now I do believe that the investment and work going on behind the scenes genuinely will help set us up as a higher-level club for the forseeable (providing that they hit their targets and nothing goes awfully wrong).

The problem is, losing really sucks. Losing constantly sucks more. And losing abjectly, constantly, is going to start boiling peoples blood. Knowing the ridicule this statement will probably attract, beating Man City has probably done more harm than good; what it did was prove that this group of players, even when depleted, can actually compete at the top level, sets a level of expectation whether we want it to or not.

What is key for me is that we seem to have morphed into this parody of ourselves, that 'we are Norwich and we're going to stick to our guns and play it OUR way no matter what' tagline starting to appear more like a millstone around the neck than a triumphant battle-cry. This group is categorically not playing as well as they did last year, at the same game; at no point last season did Emi Buendia try a lazy Cruyff turn in his own backline, and yesterday he does it in the first minute of a crucial match. Last year our players closed the space to offer short passing options and played through teams- now, whilst acknowledging that we aren't as big or as strong or as fast as everyone else, our players are stretched out over the pitch, forcing the game into a longer footrace that we know we can't win. 

If I had to put my money down, I'd say our team looks scared. Jamal Lewis seemed so reluctant to carry the ball across the halfway line last night, we could well have been watching Jurgen Colin; Emi doesn't look like he wants to trust anyone else with the ball. Gone are the short passing options and last night we often turned into a 5-0-5 formation with a wall of Watford players comfortably mopping up the forlorn attempts by Trybull to breach through them. 

These players are good enough, and the model is good enough, to give this season a decent go- and as a fanbase that's what we agreed to. But at the moment I almost feel the club need to show some more respect to the fans, wake the hell up, and accept that the Premier League will not afford us the luxury of playing with a 2-3-5 formation; because as united as we are, we will not accept 'we have injuries and we can't spend money' as fair excuses if we lose every game between now and May.

(Side note, Farke has been well documented as potentially having been a director of football under different circumstances. If things proceed without any major issues it wouldn't surprise me to see him take up Webber's mantle in 3 years and us go searching for the next head coach)

Thanks for posting Mason, totally agree with this.

My previous comment was aimed at the length and complexity of previous posts attempting to explain what our model is, how it is flawed, or anything else. On matchday frankly I couldn't give a stuff what the model is and all I want to do is see us win and I don't care how we do it. I'm a very sore loser, and I suspect like a lot of supporters am now getting more than frustrated that we're losing every week and making the same mistakes game after game. 

Anyway loving the model, and I can't wait for the next one 

 

[Monty13 2,229]

3 hours ago, Cantiaci Canary said:

I think the problem with buying from the Championship was that decent players were still far too expensive ... e.g Maupay £16m.

We managed to pickup Byram for next to nothing and he very much looked the part in his appearances.

And Maupay seems about worth it from what I’ve seen, but a goal scoring striker is always going to be expensive, I refuse to believe there weren’t shrewd buys to be had in the Championship or abroad that would have improved our squad and were affordable. Players are assets at the end of the day that money hasn’t disappeared when buying them.

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

22 hours ago, Flying Dutchman said:

You absolute petulant child.

What a way to react to someone rightly calling you out on something you said.

And it's not like this is even a one-off, this is just the latest in you being a little pr!ck to anyone who dares to have an actual opinion based on facts you dont like.

You use a large amount of bull***t to support your so called 'arguments', and when someone says you might be wrong, you become a little playground tw*t.

Not that you have much anyway at this point, but you now have absolutely zero credibility or respect. You come across like an absolute cnt, I feel for whoever might be in your life.

I think I'm done giving anything you post the time of day. I imagine I'm probably not the first to do that either.

Blimey, well I hope you feel much better getting that off your chest.

WCorkCanary had already made it clear that he didn't like me on another on my threads, called me a 'liar', and said he was never going to interact with me again, then chose to read and respond to this one, less than a week later. I really didn't owe him any response at all and that's why I told him to "go away"

I think when you start calling people a "c*nt" and "pr!ck" its you that has run out of anything of value to add to the conversation, and I don't know anybody "credible" or worthy of "respect" who walks around dropping C bombs on the regular.

On ‎09‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 11:41, wcorkcanary said:

Try saying that when you're  actually  there, to some people  who live  there,  Billy  very Small bollix. There , I can trade insults too. Now how about admitting you spout shoite and react like a spoilt  child when proved wrong. Sad ,sad case.

Why not do what you said you were going to do and stop attempting to interact with me, I really liked that idea.

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by TeemuVanBasten

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

16 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Blimey, well I hope you feel much better getting that off your chest.

WCorkCanary had already made it clear that he didn't like me on another on my threads, called me a 'liar', and said he was never going to interact with me again, then chose to read and respond to this one, less than a week later. I really didn't owe him any response at all and that's why I told him to "go away"

I think when you start calling people a "c*nt" and "pr!ck" its you that has run out of anything of value to add to the conversation, and I don't know anybody "credible" or worthy of "respect" who walks around dropping C bombs on the regular.

Why not do what you said you were going to do and stop attempting to interact with me, I really liked that idea.

 

Well, guess what, tough. I changed my mind , so there. Na na na na na. Now hadnt you better be off to school. Or don't they like you there either?  You may have a chance to dream up some more imaginary moral high ground while you wander around the playground sad and alone. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

23 hours ago, king canary said:

I think the main question is how is a debt free club with Premier League money and guaranteed parachute payments if we go back down only able to afford to spend what we did.

To be fair King its all in the accounts as to why we did not have that much money to spend but accounts of course only tell half the story and 2 points really occur I suppose:

1. Uber caution over spending in advance against the promised receipts and going into debt or I suppose even spending on the basis that we have playing assets worth millions we can see if the worst happens and we go down. We are taking a route whereby we only borrow if we absolutely have to and I think in respect of the latter would regard it as too high risk.  They did take out an overdraft this summer of around £19m but it appears that we really just to cover the promotion bonuses and extra payments due on promotion. It certainly did not leave a lot to spend on transfers etc.

2. Cashflow - the question has often been asked what benefits would having wealthier owners and again I would say its linked to her above and our uber cautious approach. If you have wealthy backers then what that of course gives you is flexibility on cashflow. i'm not really talking about them personally funding signings etc but if they are able to loan the club some money here, underwrite a loan there, cover some of the capital costs we had to incur etc then that gives more flex to spend money sooner on players. With us, we don't get the first prem tv money payment until the season is underway I believe. We therefore have a cash flow issue in the summer until those monies start to come in. 

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

12 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Well, guess what, tough. I changed my mind , so there. Na na na na na. Now hadnt you better be off to school. Or don't they like you there either?  You may have a chance to dream up some more imaginary moral high ground while you wander around the playground sad and alone. 

You sound like an absolute knuckle dragger.

[Badger 2,405]

5 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

To be fair King its all in the accounts as to why we did not have that much money to spend but accounts of course only tell half the story and 2 points really occur I suppose:

1. Uber caution over spending in advance against the promised receipts and going into debt or I suppose even spending on the basis that we have playing assets worth millions we can see if the worst happens and we go down. We are taking a route whereby we only borrow if we absolutely have to and I think in respect of the latter would regard it as too high risk.  They did take out an overdraft this summer of around £19m but it appears that we really just to cover the promotion bonuses and extra payments due on promotion. It certainly did not leave a lot to spend on transfers etc.

2. Cashflow - the question has often been asked what benefits would having wealthier owners and again I would say its linked to her above and our uber cautious approach. If you have wealthy backers then what that of course gives you is flexibility on cashflow. i'm not really talking about them personally funding signings etc but if they are able to loan the club some money here, underwrite a loan there, cover some of the capital costs we had to incur etc then that gives more flex to spend money sooner on players. With us, we don't get the first prem tv money payment until the season is underway I believe. We therefore have a cash flow issue in the summer until those monies start to come in. 

 

I don't think that the cashflow issue rings true. Given the guaranteed income from the PL, there would be no problem in borrowing short-term money.

With regards your first point, you are in essence suggesting taking on debt as a gamble that it might make things better. We, and other clubs, have been down this road before - the more you gamble, the harder it is to recover.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I don't think that the cashflow issue rings true. Given the guaranteed income from the PL, there would be no problem in borrowing short-term money.

With regards your first point, you are in essence suggesting taking on debt as a gamble that it might make things better. We, and other clubs, have been down this road before - the more you gamble, the harder it is to recover.

I don't think there would be a problem borrowing money short term either but they clearly are not prepared to do it other than to cover what they absolutely have to (e.g. the bridging loan/overdraft we took out this summer which has already been repaid).

Re the second point I accept that there is an element of risk to taking into account the value of your assets in terms of determining spending but for example, we have Pukki, Arrons, Lewis, Buendia, Godfrey who collectively, even with our/their current drop in form and ignoring the other players we have, must be worth £60m plus (and that's being conservative). Its inconceivable that all will have career ending injuries or be rendered worthless by a poor season for us in the premier league. Given this, I would regard spending an extra £20-£30m or so in the summer as pretty low risk should he worst happen and we get relegated as they are all saleable assets as, indeed, would any signings we made also be. Webber is big on "being honest" with the fans. If he explained that to people (i.e. if you want us to spend a bit then we would have to sell someone if we got relegated) then I will bet good money most fans would prefer us to try that rather than go down with a pathetic whimper as it looks like we may do. 

Fundamentally though what the recent financial figures have shown is that we have owners who cannot afford to own a sustainable premier league club or indeed championship club without parachute payments and who are undoubtedly holding us back through their stance of not even considering new ownership. 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

15 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

You sound like an absolute knuckle dragger.

As stated before, I adjust my wit to suit my company. In this particular case , you.