Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sonyc

Duda signed

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Tetteys Jig said:

whilst I don't dispute this, do you see any logic behind us doing this deal since we are likely doomed to go down already? Is this a sign of us not giving up yet or could Duda be a plausible permanent deal if we go down and he has impressed?

TJ, many on this board forget that things are binary: you either do sign players in January or you don’t.

If you’re struggling and you don’t you will be heavily criticised, if you do you have to take on huge liabilities (a £5m player is actually a £15m or £20m player: £5m + £50k p/w x 4 years + bonuses+clauses).

The transfer fee - often the number reported or referred to - is often fairly irrelevant and easily payable in the Premier. It is the wage and package liabilities that are onerous and destructive in the Championship where a £5m-£10m loss per annum is ‘normal’ .

Thus a quality player on loan with something to prove is an excellent piece of business. Farhmann and Amadou are logical versions of this model. 

Unlike many other clubs - with the ownership and operational model they have - Norwich must focus on keeping their ongoing monthly outgoings low. This poses a problem because actually - upon promotion - capex could easily be spent. It is the contingency of ‘what if’ and the subsequent post-Premier pcm outgoings obligation that is the handbrake. 

De-facto then we need to keep the money to pay the losses post-relegation. Asking whether one inherently causes the other is a reasonable question. 

In this context Duda is an excellent signing, in both a sporting and operational sense.

Parma

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

TJ, many on this board forget that things are binary: you either do sign players in January or you don’t.

If you’re struggling and you don’t you will be heavily criticised, if you do you have to take on huge liabilities (a £5m player is actually a £15m or £20m player: £5m + £50k p/w x 4 years + bonuses+clauses).

The transfer fee - often the number reported or referred to - is often fairly irrelevant and easily payable in the Premier. It is the wage and package liabilities that are onerous and destructive in the Championship where a £5m-£10m loss per annum is ‘normal’ .

Thus a quality player on loan with something to prove is an excellent piece of business. Farhmann and Amadou are logical versions of this model. 

Unlike many other clubs - with the ownership and operational model they have - Norwich must focus on keeping their ongoing monthly outgoings low. This poses a problem because actually - upon promotion - capex could easily be spent. It is the contingency of ‘what if’ and the subsequent post-Premier pcm outgoings obligation that is the handbrake. 

De-facto then we need to keep the money to pay the losses lost-relegation. Asking whether one inherently causes the other is a reasonable question. 

In this context Duda is an excellent signing, in both a sporting and operational sense.

Parma

Parma what you’ve said makes absolute sense, especially in the case of Duda and our current predicament.

However surely taking into account our business as a whole this summer we could have afforded more long term liability?

No one wanted another RVW or Naismith, but surely there is a middle ground between shelling out for 50K a week players for 4 years and loans? We brought in both Byram and Drmic for next to nothing so if the fee is largely irrelevant as you say, we weren’t averse to signing players? 

Having given new long contracts out to nearly the whole of our talent we certainly weren’t averse to accruing long term liability’s either.

I think all you’ve done for me is highlight that the nature of our business this window is largely going to be driven by the failure of the last.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

 We brought in both Byram and Drmic for next to nothing so if the fee is largely irrelevant as you say, we weren’t averse to signing players? 
 

The transfer fee for Duda would be around £10M, I doubt we are paying that much to loan him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TCCANARY said:

The transfer fee for Duda would be around £10M, I doubt we are paying that much to loan him.

 

Not sure your point, I agreed that in our current predicament spending big makes no sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

TJ, many on this board forget that things are binary: you either do sign players in January or you don’t.

If you’re struggling and you don’t you will be heavily criticised, if you do you have to take on huge liabilities (a £5m player is actually a £15m or £20m player: £5m + £50k p/w x 4 years + bonuses+clauses).

The transfer fee - often the number reported or referred to - is often fairly irrelevant and easily payable in the Premier. It is the wage and package liabilities that are onerous and destructive in the Championship where a £5m-£10m loss per annum is ‘normal’ .

Thus a quality player on loan with something to prove is an excellent piece of business. Farhmann and Amadou are logical versions of this model. 

Unlike many other clubs - with the ownership and operational model they have - Norwich must focus on keeping their ongoing monthly outgoings low. This poses a problem because actually - upon promotion - capex could easily be spent. It is the contingency of ‘what if’ and the subsequent post-Premier pcm outgoings obligation that is the handbrake. 

De-facto then we need to keep the money to pay the losses lost-relegation. Asking whether one inherently causes the other is a reasonable question. 

In this context Duda is an excellent signing, in both a sporting and operational sense.

Parma

Whilst this makes sense and I agree with the theory, opposed to those demanding that we spend money we don't have (or will not have after relegation), I think we have too much to do to stay up this season now and it will take a miracle. In this situation, would it not be sensible to spend money on a purchase for the future, that will help next year, preparing for the likely departure of players?

I see no problem with it If this signing has minimal cost attached to it and we are also going to make some other prudet transfers, but will be underwhelmed if this is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

Whilst this makes sense and I agree with the theory, opposed to those demanding that we spend money we don't have (or will not have after relegation), I think we have too much to do to stay up this season now and it will take a miracle. In this situation, would it not be sensible to spend money on a purchase for the future, that will help next year, preparing for the likely departure of players?

I see no problem with it If this signing has minimal cost attached to it and we are also going to make some other prudet transfers, but will be underwhelmed if this is it.

I suppose if the management are resigned to relegation (which although likely is a poor attitude to take) they might conclude that it's prudent not to sign anyone now in a transfer window where prices tend to be inflated. And when we don't yet know what gaps - due to our better departing players - will need to be somehow plugged. 

Though they may just never want to spend a sizeable transfer fee on someone worth buying, regardless of the situation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically, we would all rather sign a player on loan than no one at all.

It will be interesting to see who loses their place to Duda the most over the course of the season. I imagine neither Webber or Farke would be overly keen on sacrificing the development of our own players for the development of Duda (unless they feel there is a realistic chance of a permanent - unlikely imo).

This is the primary cause of my distaste for the loan market, when used without options to buy;

  • Best case scenario - the player is brilliant and helps achieve your short term goals - but then too expensive to purchase and help the club longer term.
  • Most likely case - they are around the same level as your own players, leading to a reluctance to play them over contracted players who are in it for the long term.
  • Worst case scenario, they are ****e and suck money out of the club.

I personally struggle to see the benefit to the club long term from this signing. Unless of course he keeps us up. Perhaps if this deal was done in the summer it would have been more likely, but now I am a bit less convinced.

Fingers crossed he is the second coming of Messi and fires us to safety!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has been clearly flagged as the number 10 so I think it is safe to assume that it is Kenny (& Steipi) who will miss out from the starting XI.  If Duda performs to the levels he can we will be a significant improvement on both.

My one concern is that Kenny is again asked to play at DCM which does not suit his style and where I think Tettey, Trybull, Vrancic,  Amadou & possibly Leitner are all better options - even if I am far from convinced that any of them are consistently good enough for the prem. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder if we would have been better doing more James Maddison type deals. Signed with a view to developing them in the championship if we go down or loaning them there if we stay up and they aren't quite ready for the prem.

A couple of good examples of players we could be looking at are Luke Matherson from Rochdale who has had a couple of stand out games against prem opposition already at 17 years old and is a Norwich fan. Then there is the young lad at Peterborough, Ricky Jade-Jones who has broken into their strong attack already and is the quickest player they have ever had according to some. Supposedly the big guns are looking at him, as they were Maddison but we are a proven stepping stone for developing prodigious talents now so he may opt for us if it came to it.

With us having £150m in the coffers coming at the end of the season, surely now is the time to start replacing the likes of Buendia and Aarons long term already?

It would surely benefit us more than some loanee who will more than likely go back and just be more money spent for no real tangible return barring a miracle?

Maybe Duda will be like Huckerby who was clearly too good for the championship but liked it so much he stuck around anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Monty13 said:

Parma what you’ve said makes absolute sense, especially in the case of Duda and our current predicament.

However surely taking into account our business as a whole this summer we could have afforded more long term liability?

No one wanted another RVW or Naismith, but surely there is a middle ground between shelling out for 50K a week players for 4 years and loans? We brought in both Byram and Drmic for next to nothing so if the fee is largely irrelevant as you say, we weren’t averse to signing players? 

Having given new long contracts out to nearly the whole of our talent we certainly weren’t averse to accruing long term liability’s either.

I think all you’ve done for me is highlight that the nature of our business this window is largely going to be driven by the failure of the last.

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

TJ, many on this board forget that things are binary: you either do sign players in January or you don’t.

If you’re struggling and you don’t you will be heavily criticised, if you do you have to take on huge liabilities (a £5m player is actually a £15m or £20m player: £5m + £50k p/w x 4 years + bonuses+clauses).

The transfer fee - often the number reported or referred to - is often fairly irrelevant and easily payable in the Premier. It is the wage and package liabilities that are onerous and destructive in the Championship where a £5m-£10m loss per annum is ‘normal’ .

Thus a quality player on loan with something to prove is an excellent piece of business. Farhmann and Amadou are logical versions of this model. 

Unlike many other clubs - with the ownership and operational model they have - Norwich must focus on keeping their ongoing monthly outgoings low. This poses a problem because actually - upon promotion - capex could easily be spent. It is the contingency of ‘what if’ and the subsequent post-Premier pcm outgoings obligation that is the handbrake. 

De-facto then we need to keep the money to pay the losses post-relegation. Asking whether one inherently causes the other is a reasonable question. 

In this context Duda is an excellent signing, in both a sporting and operational sense.

Parma

Monty, your view is entirely reasonable - and I suspect fairly common - though I would suggest that Norwich’s determination to ‘do different’ mitigated against the seemingly equitable  ‘middle ground’ option that you endorse. 

Personally I feel it underplays the unknowns that were inherent to our decision-making in advance of the season. 

The ‘Maddisons’ of this world do not have to come to Norwich. We can afford to ‘over-pay’ for them as we can afford headline fees above the going rate for players that won’t demand high wages and liabilities. Contingency bonuses, loyalty and success payments are only payable upon success (when you can afford them) - unlike the millstone in reverse when you have the liabilities and are facing losses.

The ‘Maddisons’ of this world want to play however. They are increasingly rejecting lucrative contracts to get a distant squad number at a name club (bravo), in favour of ‘curating’ a career by carefully managing the best level they can reach whilst still being likely to play every week. 

To this effect we must offer a playing pathway to the ‘Maddisons’. Given that that is the model, it is not enough to talk about it, we must deliver it and - crucially - be seen to deliver it on a bright stage (the EDP is not enough)..

This context provides the answer to your point: pre-season it was not in our interests to stall or block the pathways for up-and-coming assets such as Aarons, Lewis, Buendia, Godfrey, Cantwell et al. Other players were also expected to be central: Pukki, Leitner (yes), Hernandez, Klose, Vrancic even.

Norwich cannot attract better players to come and not start however much they pay them (which they don’t). 

Norwich must be careful with money so must buy better than they have or - in effect - not at all. Hence loans for Amadou, Fahrmann, Roberts (all of which looked sensible). 

Players that are obviously better (pre-season) than what we had - or who would definitely be better than the level our players might reach - would be too expensive for us and would likely prefer elsewhere in any case, or could not be afforded upon relegation. 

The ‘Maddisons’ of this world are however thrilled by what we have done. Players of course only really think about themselves and their own careers. We have created fabulous PR for the model by not taking the ‘middle way’ and backing our young players (a back three with a 19, 20 and 21 year old is unheard of) - and furthermore sticking to it - is brave and hugely appreciated by ‘Maddisons’ (and many football clubs who are not brave enough to do it, though would love to self-identify that way). 

Regardless of sporting outcome, financially our key assets: Pukki, Buendia, Godfrey, Aarons, Lewis (and now Cantwell) have increased massively in value. This is success by any club’s measure and it feeds into the pathways that the Maddisons dream of (unlike us it is not finishing a career with Norwich City and helping us win the European Cup). We are a great stepping stone to initial higher level playing action, (some) more money and then the chance of a big move. This is our present and future, with the model designed to grow in increments. Perhaps we will see a Stadium legacy (which for me would be a cute rabbit out of the hat, justify most things and likely please all).

So it was no accident and it still isn’t. Whether by design or necessity we have stuck to our model. Whether it has failed or not in sporting terms depends on your starting point, what constitutes success and how long a timeframe you judge it over. It also depends on what you view to be the fundamental responsibilities of business owners. 

We have played - and continue to play - the cards that we are holding. We are playing them to a hard plan (that seeing beyond the Premier will not be popular is well understood by all those in power). 
Given the parameters we have I am not sure we can do much else. Far from ‘little old Norwich’ it is quite strategically ruthless in many ways. 

Parma

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

TJ, many on this board forget that things are binary: you either do sign players in January or you don’t.

If you’re struggling and you don’t you will be heavily criticised, if you do you have to take on huge liabilities (a £5m player is actually a £15m or £20m player: £5m + £50k p/w x 4 years + bonuses+clauses).

The transfer fee - often the number reported or referred to - is often fairly irrelevant and easily payable in the Premier. It is the wage and package liabilities that are onerous and destructive in the Championship where a £5m-£10m loss per annum is ‘normal’ .

Thus a quality player on loan with something to prove is an excellent piece of business. Farhmann and Amadou are logical versions of this model. 

Unlike many other clubs - with the ownership and operational model they have - Norwich must focus on keeping their ongoing monthly outgoings low. This poses a problem because actually - upon promotion - capex could easily be spent. It is the contingency of ‘what if’ and the subsequent post-Premier pcm outgoings obligation that is the handbrake. 

De-facto then we need to keep the money to pay the losses post-relegation. Asking whether one inherently causes the other is a reasonable question. 

In this context Duda is an excellent signing, in both a sporting and operational sense.

Parma

Would suggest that letting in two goals per game is our problem, therefore an excellent signing would be a decent defender who can help to organise the lads we currently have. 

An attacking midfielder is not going to score three goals per game to get us a win, and as we have in Buendia one of the best in the League for assists etc, are we saying that in 16 weeks, Duda is suddenly going to come from not playing in Germany to being better than Emi?

Get real

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Monty, your view is entirely reasonable - and I suspect fairly common - though I would suggest that Norwich’s determination to ‘do different’ mitigated against the seemingly equitable  ‘middle ground’ option that you endorse. 

Personally I feel it underplays the unknowns that were inherent to our decision-making in advance of the season. 

The ‘Maddisons’ of this world do not have to come to Norwich. We can afford to ‘over-pay’ for them as we can afford headline fees above the going rate for players that won’t demand high wages and liabilities. Contingency bonuses, loyalty and success payments are only payable upon success (when you can afford them) - unlike the millstone in reverse when you have the liabilities and are facing losses.

The ‘Maddisons’ of this world want to play however. They are increasingly rejecting lucrative contracts to get a distant squad number at a name club (bravo), in favour of ‘curating’ a career by carefully managing the best level they can reach whilst still being likely to play every week. 

To this effect we must offer a playing pathway to the ‘Maddisons’. Given that that is the model, it is not enough to talk about it, we must deliver it and - crucially - be seen to deliver it on a bright stage (the EDP is not enough)..

This context provided the answer to your point: pre-season it was not in our interests to stall or block the pathways for up-and-coming assets such as Aarons, Lewis, Buendia, Godfrey, Cantwell et al. Other players were also expected to be central: Pukki, Leitner (yes), Hernandez, Klose, Vrancic even.

Norwich cannot attract better players to come and not start however much they pay them (which they don’t). 

Norwich must be careful with money so must buy better than they have or - in effect - not at all. Hence loans for Amadou, Fahrmann, Roberts (all of which looked sensible). 

Players that are obviously better (pre-season) than what we had - or who would definitely be better than the level our players might reach - would be too expensive for us and would likely prefer elsewhere in any case, or could not be afforded upon relegation. 

The ‘Maddisons’ of this world are however thrilled by what we have done. Players of course only really think about themselves and their own careers. We have created fabulous PR for the model by not taking the ‘middle way’ and backing our young players (a back three with a 19, 20 and 21 year old is unheard of) - and furthermore sticking to it - is brave and hugely appreciated by ‘Maddisons’ (and many football clubs who are not brave enough to do it, though would love to self-identify that way). 

Regardless of sporting outcome, financially our key assets: Pukki, Buendia, Godfrey, Aarons, Lewis (and now Cantwell) have increased massively in value. This is success by any club’s measure and it feeds into the pathways that the Maddisons dream of (unlike us it is not finishing a career with Norwich City and helping us win the European Cup). We are a great stepping stone to initial higher level playing action, (some) more money and then the chance of a big move. This is our present and future, with the model designed to grow in increments. Perhaps we will see a Stadium legacy (which for me would be a cute rabbit out of the hat, justify most things and likely please all).

So it was no accident and it still isn’t. Whether by design or necessity we have stuck to our model. Whether it has failed or not in sporting terms depends on your starting point, what constitutes success and how long a timeframe you judge it over. It also depends on what you view to be the fundamental responsibilities of business owners. 

We have played - and continue to play - the cards that we are holding. We are playing them to a hard plan (that seeing beyond the Premier will not be popular is well understood by all those in power). 
Given the parameters we have. I am not sure we can do much else. Far from ‘little old Norwich’ it is quite strategically ruthless in many ways. 

Parma

Thank you for your interesting and insightful response Parma. 

I still don’t think my views are antithetical to the model, I’m glad we have achieved a reputation as a club that trusts in youth and that we have showcased and increased the value of our biggest talent.

I still feel however that if that is the model, surely the squad as a whole needs to be invested in to that basis? If you want young talent to come to you their first team opportunities can’t be limited and we also can’t put out a eleven of that nature.

So we surely need to also buy experienced quality players for our youngsters to learn from and to provide guidance and leadership on the pitch as well. We surely also need a strong squad of players to replace them if it really isn’t working or they are injured.

The signings made in the summer to me were fine, there just wasn’t enough of them (the fact they have largely failed is benefit of hindsight). Roberts I find baffling, why bring in young largely unproven talent on loan? How does that fit the model?

The rest make sense as backups and/or potential squad improvements. However there was no player brought in that fits the model? Why not use the opportunity to bring in any number of young talent looking for their PL opportunity, especially with the reputation we had cultivated? Only one or two were expected, but none materialised.

Finally on the squad strength and depth this was clearly a choice that backfired, a lack of fifth CB given the injury records of recent seasons was a gamble that didn’t pay off. As has proved only an injury prone Drmic as the only reasonable quality backup to Pukki.

If we had brought in Rhodes (or another experienced backup), another CB and one or two exciting prospects that could have competed for starting births in midfield I think both our summer business would have been largely unquestioned and personally we likely would be better off. None of that seems incompatible with the model and it’s why I feel dissatisfaction personally. That’s the middle ground I propose and I actually think it’s more of a case of slightly to the right of what we tried than a big change.

 

Edited by Monty13
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

The signings made in the summer to me were fine, there just wasn’t enough of them (the fact they have largely failed is benefit of hindsight). Roberts I find baffling, why bring in young largely unproven talent on loan? How does that fit the model?

Webber's spoken before about how you need a 25 man squad in the Premiership, but  really only want 16-18 professionals in the Championship, primarily to allow space for young players to come through, but also to prevent scenarios where experienced players regularly don't even make the matchday squad.

Hence the desire for several loans to limit the liability, and to be able to slim the squad back down on a potential return to the Championship. But those loans can often be out of favour or unproven talent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

The signings made in the summer to me were fine, there just wasn’t enough of them (the fact they have largely failed is benefit of hindsight). Roberts I find baffling, why bring in young largely unproven talent on loan? How does that fit the model?

The rest make sense as backups and/or potential squad improvements. However there was no player brought in that fits the model? Why not use the opportunity to bring in any number of young talent looking for their PL opportunity, especially with the reputation we had cultivated? Only one or two were expected, but none materialised.

Finally on the squad strength and depth this was clearly a choice that backfired, a lack of fifth CB given the injury records of recent seasons was a gamble that didn’t pay off. As has proved only an injury prone Drmic as the only reasonable quality backup to Pukki.

If we had brought in Rhodes (or another experienced backup), another CB and one or two exciting prospects that could have competed for starting births in midfield I think both our summer business would have been largely unquestioned and personally we likely would be better off. None of that seems incompatible with the model and it’s why I feel dissatisfaction personally. That’s the middle ground I propose and I actually think it’s more of a case of slightly to the right of what we tried than a big change.

 

I would argue that in a way we did do this - but just not for this season. We brought in Daniel Adshead, Reece McAleer and Aidan Fitzpatrick for our academy teams all at fees reported to be in the region of £300,000 plus various performance related add ons etc. We bought in one or two others such as the goalkeeper Archie Mair for no fee. The hope is that they will be looking for their PL opportunity some time in the next few years.

Young talent looking for a PL opportunity that has a realistic chance of making a difference this season is going to cost serious money - Che Adams who joined Southampton for a fee of £15 million and on a 5 year contract (see Parma's point about onerous player contracts if we are a Championship club) is a case in point. Given that we made a loss of £38 million last season - and that we had incurred large future commitments by giving out the long term contracts to the players who got us up - maybe they just couldn't find suitable young talent at a price we could afford. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Add to them...

Rocky Bushiri

Charlie Gilmour

Rob Nizet

 

 

Thanks Nutty - I knew there were more, but my brain's gone to mush. Been playing chess against the computer for hours. 🙂 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Icecream Snow said:

Webber's spoken before about how you need a 25 man squad in the Premiership, but  really only want 16-18 professionals in the Championship, primarily to allow space for young players to come through, but also to prevent scenarios where experienced players regularly don't even make the matchday squad.

Hence the desire for several loans to limit the liability, and to be able to slim the squad back down on a potential return to the Championship. But those loans can often be out of favour or unproven talent.

 

So our senior squad currently comprises:

  • 3 keepers (all fit)
  • 7 defenders (5 fit)
  • 13 midfielders (all fit)
  • 3 strikers (1 fit (on Saturday))

I know the window isn't over yet but we are screaming for defensive support and the stats support that.   Has to be number 1 priority and should have been in the Summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's also worth noting that 'Maddison type' signings for the first team are not what we need this season. We started the season with loads of players in the 19-22 bracket who all needed to start- because they were very good players, they had masses of potential and for future resale value. It could be argued that we were top-heavy with this type of player, as the team has shown a lack of experience on regular occasions. Therefore the 'Maddison' type signings were quite rightly all in the 17-19 bracket and who will hopefully step up in a year or two when the current first-team youngsters move on.

This means that our transfer business should, partially in hindsight but it was also mentioned at the time, have been based on quality rather than quantity, with a couple of experienced players to improve the first eleven (centre back and defensive midfield mainly) and/or experienced players to help the talented pool of younger players.

I guess signings like Duda and Rupp fit into these categories- Duda in the first and Rupp in the second- although it could be argued they aren't players who play in the position we really need...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if I'd agree about Duda,  No 10 has been a problem this season.... neither Stieperman or Mclean have really been up to it.

If the logic on Rupp is we have in Vrancic the necessary skills but not the engine to go full bore for 90 minutes, then having a like-for-like sub to come on is a better investment them trying to find a younger version of a Vrancic who can go full bore for 90 minutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you’ll find that Rupp is viewed internally as a classic old-school utility player.

That he can provide second tier cover for the full back positions - an area where we simply could not honestly offer a first team pathway - means you have a quality flexible player who also solves some tricky strategic squad problems. 

Norwich simply can not justify - or even attract - top quality back up to sit on the bench like a non-playing photo-negative team.

Parma

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

I would argue that in a way we did do this - but just not for this season. We brought in Daniel Adshead, Reece McAleer and Aidan Fitzpatrick for our academy teams all at fees reported to be in the region of £300,000 plus various performance related add ons etc. We bought in one or two others such as the goalkeeper Archie Mair for no fee. The hope is that they will be looking for their PL opportunity some time in the next few years.

Young talent looking for a PL opportunity that has a realistic chance of making a difference this season is going to cost serious money - Che Adams who joined Southampton for a fee of £15 million and on a 5 year contract (see Parma's point about onerous player contracts if we are a Championship club) is a case in point. Given that we made a loss of £38 million last season - and that we had incurred large future commitments by giving out the long term contracts to the players who got us up - maybe they just couldn't find suitable young talent at a price we could afford. 

I’m equally happy with those young signings, it’s great to see the club building for the future and trying to grab the next Maddison, Godfrey or Aarons. But as you point out none are for this season.

Che Adams is a striker, a proven one at that if not at PL level, they always command the highest fees.

I do feel we should have been prepared to spend some “serious” money given the circumstances we now find ourselves with PL money and Parachutes. We didn’t need to go Villa crazy, nothing even close to it, 10-25 mil of sensible investment max. One or two players in the 5-10 mil bracket that could have made a difference. 

If you use Adams as an example he’s exactly the type we should have been after as if we are relegated he is proven in that league and tying him to a long contract wouldn’t be anywhere near as risky as our previous failures. Those signings either tear up the PL and double or more in value or at least remain quality second tier assets.

We didn’t buy any players in the model for now and failed to really add anything to really upgrade the journeyman who are accompanying our young talent bar an injured striker and our one gem in Byram.

Edited by Monty13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel a bit like a stuck record, but why wasn’t four CBs enough? A fifth would have been ridiculous IMHO, especially when you consider that at least two of the five would be unlikely to ever get a game in a normal season. I’ll agree that Klose’s injury record could have meant we should have been cautious assuming he would be available, but in that case what’s the point of having him at all? The injuries at the start of the season in that position were unprecedented and we should not be buying in case of this kind of unlikely situations, otherwise we would end up with 3 players for each place in the team.

 

Maybe we should have upgraded what we had, but of the four, we had Godfrey and Klose who most would have said at the start of the season had PL quality, plus Zimbo who looked like he would be good enough. With Hanley (who had previously played in the PL) as fourth choice, that was a strong line-up for a newly promoted team with very limited resources to spend.


All this ‘we should have bought a fifth CB’ stuff is pure hindsight.

 

Nuff said.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I’m equally happy with those young signings, it’s great to see the club building for the future and trying to grab the next Maddison, Godfrey or Aarons. But as you point out none are for this season.

Che Adams is a striker, a proven one at that if not at PL level, they always command the highest fees.

I do feel we should have been prepared to spend some “serious” money given the circumstances we now find ourselves with PL money and Parachutes. We didn’t need to go Villa crazy, nothing even close to it, 10-25 mil of sensible investment max. One or two players in the 5-10 mil bracket that could have made a difference. 

If you use Adams as an example he’s exactly the type we should have been after as if we are relegated he is proven in that league and tying him to a long contract wouldn’t be anywhere near as risky as our previous failures. Those signings either tear up the PL and double or more in value or at least remain quality second tier assets.

We didn’t buy any players in the model for now and failed to really add anything to really upgrade the journeyman who are accompanying our young talent bar an injured striker and our one gem in Byram.

I'm sure I'll get the inevitable 'you wish we were...' comment in response to this, but you only have to look at Southampton to see how this model can work with a bit of actual investment.

They work in a similar way to us- focus on youth development, a 'buy low, sell high' attitude to player recruitment and a focus on scouting 'hidden gems' in the right age bracket who can increase significantly in value. As a model, it has worked for them largely- 8 straight Premier League seasons (half of which were top half finishes),  European football, an FA Cup Semi final and a league cup final, all while running at a fairly low net spend and making a £35m profit before tax for 17/18. 

However their owners have enough money to be able to 'speculate to accumulate.' Sadio Mane cost £20m, sold for about £35m, Van Dijk about £12m and sold for £75m, Danny Ings signed for £20m and now likely worth double that. They haven't got a 100% hit rate but they also have the capital to give themselves some margin for error. 

Our model, at this level, still requires some investment in players to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm sure I'll get the inevitable 'you wish we were...' comment in response to this, but you only have to look at Southampton to see how this model can work with a bit of actual investment.

They work in a similar way to us- focus on youth development, a 'buy low, sell high' attitude to player recruitment and a focus on scouting 'hidden gems' in the right age bracket who can increase significantly in value. As a model, it has worked for them largely- 8 straight Premier League seasons (half of which were top half finishes),  European football, an FA Cup Semi final and a league cup final, all while running at a fairly low net spend and making a £35m profit before tax for 17/18. 

However their owners have enough money to be able to 'speculate to accumulate.' Sadio Mane cost £20m, sold for about £35m, Van Dijk about £12m and sold for £75m, Danny Ings signed for £20m and now likely worth double that. They haven't got a 100% hit rate but they also have the capital to give themselves some margin for error. 

Our model, at this level, still requires some investment in players to work.

Why aren't we Southampton?* :classic_biggrin:

 

*I'm aware your post kind of explains exactly why we're not Southampton, but hey.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

I'm sure I'll get the inevitable 'you wish we were...' comment in response to this, but you only have to look at Southampton to see how this model can work with a bit of actual investment.

They work in a similar way to us- focus on youth development, a 'buy low, sell high' attitude to player recruitment and a focus on scouting 'hidden gems' in the right age bracket who can increase significantly in value. As a model, it has worked for them largely- 8 straight Premier League seasons (half of which were top half finishes),  European football, an FA Cup Semi final and a league cup final, all while running at a fairly low net spend and making a £35m profit before tax for 17/18. 

However their owners have enough money to be able to 'speculate to accumulate.' Sadio Mane cost £20m, sold for about £35m, Van Dijk about £12m and sold for £75m, Danny Ings signed for £20m and now likely worth double that. They haven't got a 100% hit rate but they also have the capital to give themselves some margin for error. 

Our model, at this level, still requires some investment in players to work.

Whilst I agree with what you're saying, it's unrealistic to expect us to do what Southampton have done because I'm sure there are about 20 other clubs between the Premier League and League One (which is where Southampton were just nine years ago) who are trying it and there isn't room for all of them in the Premier League. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×