Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yellow_belly

Just looked at Norwich City Facebook

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Fulham and Villa didn’t work it well, but Wolves and Sheffield Utd most certainly did. Wouldn’t you like to see our current team given a chance to spend some money?

Yes - and if the plan develops as it should, then assets will increase year on year as we sell on players and bring others through.

Yes - but not if it means selling to a non-fan who might then sell it on to another non-fan in a few years, who might then sell it on again etc etc.......for every good owner with money who has been successful there are plenty more who are not so the odds are not favourable in any way. 

So the answer is a definite yes, i would like to see more money spent, but not money we haven't got or anyone else's money just because they've got money.  If nothing else the last three years has proved you can build assets and become more wealthy even though on the face of it you don't have much money.  Ok, success at staying in the PL looks to have eluded us, but the PL is not the be all and end all of being a successful club - and it is not "unambitious" to say that. There is a bigger picture and those that refuse to accept that are just day dreamers who just want it all now.

Sometimes you have to wait to get what you want - a lesson that many people seem to have not learned. Life isn't all instantaneous gratification, wave a magic wand or waft a load of pound notes in the air and everything will be right - football just doesn't work like that.  And I don't mean waiting for a genie with a magic lantern who will cast his millions around and buy us success just like that - I mean waiting to see a project develop through to it's fulfillment - in our case, a project that is as clear as clear could be.

So forget the PL, in fact f***  the PL.  Focus on the club and it's development which will show itself again next season - more young players coming through, some sold on at huge profit enabling us to finance more players to come in - and another year where Farkeball can be re-established, improved on and developed further into the club's dna. And if Farke leaves us at any stage, then someone will be brought in of like mind who can take the project on in the same vein.

The PL and success will come along when it comes along - it came along last season, maybe a year ahead of schedule - and there is every possibility - even probability we will get there again and with what has been learned this year, we can be better prepared. Bu the message is - we can do it -  AS LONG AS WE STICK TO THE PROJECT. Sorry for shouting, not shouting at you, but it is exasperating trying to get through to people who think that somehow money is the main issue. It isn't - money is only part of it. 

You can listen to pundits and statisticians until you're blue in the face - nodding their heads sagely and saying, there you see, they didn't spend any money so they didn't stay there.   Well what about last season?  We didn't spend much at all and had vastly inferior money compared to most of our rivals there - and we won the whole league?  So how did that happen?  With money?  No - WITH A GOOD STRATEGY IN PLACE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

2 minutes ago, Uncle Fred said:

You always have to have your say don’t you Spidy 

I’d hate to disappoint anyone, plus I believe this is a forum for people to have their say

Edited by FenwayFrank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Indeed. People delighted to play a small part in bright new chapter for the club and get a little tummy tickle for the privilege. Every time a player comes off that production line, everyone involved can take some pride in knowing that they played a part in their graduation. I imagine that must give those people a warm fuzz. 
 

Weird though, the bond was an undisputed success, yet it is still viewed negatively. 🤷‍♂️

Because if we want fan investment why not organise it such that the funds are in the Club medium to long term with the rewards set accordingly. The whole reason for having shareholders should be first of all to provide for and look after the premises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can’t we have something we want from NCFC board just for once ie a stinking rich Chinese owner 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Because if we want fan investment why not organise it such that the funds are in the Club medium to long term with the rewards set accordingly. The whole reason for having shareholders should be first of all to provide for and look after the premises.

Ahh, essex, essex, still carrying that chip?  That annoying bond that was so successful, eh?  All those people able to contribute their hard earned savings in a risky venture that paid off.....so terrible wasn't it, how could the club do it to them, all those fans able to feel part of the club they support and profit from it too....how dare they......

Edited by lake district canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Club now needs cash in the light of Covid19 and probable relegation therefore with the benefit of hindsight retaining cash would have been a better option. If it was ok 18 years ago why not now or for that matter 2 years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Just need a shout for the banned one to return. 

Morty? I can assure you that he’s seen it but is yet to comment. He DM’d me to say so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Morty? I can assure you that he’s seen it but is yet to comment. He DM’d me to say so. 

How exciting! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Because if we want fan investment why not organise it such that the funds are in the Club medium to long term with the rewards set accordingly. The whole reason for having shareholders should be first of all to provide for and look after the premises.

Well of course you think it’s all wrong, you can’t work out that for life benefits cease when the life expires. 🤪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Indeed. People delighted to play a small part in bright new chapter for the club and get a little tummy tickle for the privilege. Every time a player comes off that production line, everyone involved can take some pride in knowing that they played a part in their graduation. I imagine that must give those people a warm fuzz. 
 

Weird though, the bond was an undisputed success, yet it is still viewed negatively. 🤷‍♂️

But that is exactly why it’s viewed negatively...🤓

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

Although naturally your taken on this situation is more negative than mine, in essence most of what you say is true; it's just framed with despondency rather than optimism. I know it's the hope that kills you, and all that, but I think the point I'm trying to make is that I believe we're doing a great job considering our means.

Take a quick look at this article from October 2017: https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/listed-owners-every-championship-club-13778193. There is not a single owner of a Championship club with a lower listed net worth than NCFC. Of the few without a listed net worth, only Burton Albion and Bolton might possibly have less wealthy owners than ours. Even Barnsley were taken over by a huge consortium shortly after this was published.

So, we've established that we're cash poor. However, even with a wealthier owner to underwrite those difficult periods, how much financial clout would that realistically give us? There are probably only about 15 or 20 clubs in the world that have the sheer size and money to insulate themselves against having to cash in on their best assets. Of course there's a food chain, and they can prey on clubs further down that chain, but almost all clubs are selling clubs.

Even clubs with billionaire owners - such as QPR, West Brom, Fulham and Stoke - have to mitigate against FFP, and ensure they don't overcommit in an effort to reach the big time. We've been over the permutations of new investment over and over again, and that's not what I wish to discuss here. What I want to discuss is how we're doing based on what we actually have, rather than what we feel we should or could have.

I am often perceived as some sort of 'happy clapper' on here, but the reality is that I have been very critical of Delia and Michael in the past (2006 to 2009 being particularly awful), and I have reservations about the long-term prosperity of the club under Tom Smith. What Tom does not - and will not - have is the huge amount of goodwill afforded to Delia and Michael for what they've done for our club over almost a quarter of a century. I know there are some people who don't rate them, and even some who actively dislike them; but, ultimately, the majority of our fans are at least appreciative of their long service.

Bringing in the club's first ever foreign manager and first ever two-tier management structure was a bold move on their part. Considering our position in the financial food chain, do you not think that we've overperformed against our means over the last three years? For the entirety of that first season under Farke, there was an awful lot of negativity (some of which was justified) about the style of football, and the overall direction of the club under owners with such limited finances.

Relegation sucks. Relegation by finishing bottom by a mile with what appears to be a limp surrender sucks even harder. Nobody likes it, and I don't think even the most partisan advocates of the Webber/Farke axis could tell us that they believed we did the best we could in terms of both recruitment and performance this season.

But what do we do? There's no investment incoming, other than the parachute payments and player sales. Is there really a better option than allowing our management duo to continue with what they've started and unearthing more good Championship players? The plan was always to try to establish ourselves as a Premier League club without overstretching ourselves financially; that doesn't happen overnight even with a ton of money (unless you're Wolves).

Well done if you're still reading, Teemu; this is where I start to weave everything back into your previous post. You said that with this plan we "essentially accept our existing average level". I would argue that given our financial position, our average level of being a yo-yo club (average league position 20.8 over the last ten seasons) is pretty good. I can't think of any other clubs with similarly limited means who are anywhere near that level.

So, what I'm saying is that of course there's a plan. There are many aspects of this plan that we've not discussed here, but it exists, and I believe it's going relatively well considering our means. Therefore, I think your main issue is not with the plan, or even with Webber and Farke (despite their shortcomings), but with the ownership of the club.

I'm not going to start backing Delia and Michael to the hilt and accuse you of being an apostate; I share your concerns. In particular, I have grave concerns of what could happen in two or three years if all of these variables come to pass:

1) Delia and Michael pass on their majority shareholding to Tom;
2) There is no further external investment;
3) Webber and Farke both leave;
4) We fail to return to the Premier League;
5) The Academy does not continue to produce saleable assets of the same quality/at the same rate.

If, in three years' time, all of those five variables are true, the club could be in a genuinely parlous state (and that's before we even consider the general state of football post-coronavirus).

The main point that I wish to make is that I believe the 'project' - if you are prepared to acknowledge its existence 🙂 - is designed to adequately insulate the club as far as possible against the worst consequences of the variables presented above. The dangers of overstretching the finances are even starker when you consider the current global situation. You could say that this is the reason we need new investment, but when we consider potential investors in the current climate, whose stock is genuinely rising, and who is on the brink of collapse?

It's a vital crossroads in the future of our club, and to be genuinely financially sustainable is more valuable to us now than it's ever been. That's why I believe in this project, and why I think fans in general should try to get behind it. That doesn't mean it should be followed blithely like some kind of personality cult. It doesn't mean that those at the helm shouldn't be questioned. But it does mean that, as fans, we should appreciate more than ever that we still have a club to support and it doesn't have a long list of debtors waiting at the door.

OTBC.

That is an excellent post, with a balanced views of Smith and Jones, and an uncertainty I share over Tom Smith. Because at the moment I know next to nothing about him and his capabilities, and what is his vision for the club. There is an assumption he will simply carry on as S&J have done, but it is only an assumption.

The only extra point is that the project is not Webber’s and he is not necessary for its continuation. Indeed the project assume a turnover of sporting directors, as well as of head coaches. No, the project is S&J’s but again they are not necessary for its continuation.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

That is an excellent post, with a balanced views of Smith and Jones, and an uncertainty I share over Tom Smith. Because at the moment I know next to nothing about him and his capabilities, and what is his vision for the club. There is an assumption he will simply carry on as S&J have done, but it is only an assumption.

The only extra point is that the project is not Webber’s and he is not necessary for its continuation. Indeed the project assume a turnover of sporting directors, as well as of head coaches. No, the project is S&J’s but again they are not necessary for its continuation.

I'd be interested to know how the project came about. Was it the existing BOD who identified the need for that specific structure, or was it that they were in a right old pickle after the Moxey debacle, and Webber sold the structure to them? I guess nobody really knows, but it was an incredibly profound change of style from an obnoxious old boot like Moxey to a forward-thinking young firebrand like Webber.

Can you (or anyone else) remember what S&J said publicly after Moxey left and before Webber arrived? Did they talk about the need for a sporting director model, or did Webber sell it to them? It's an interesting turn of events - Moxey leaves in February, Neil is sacked in March (Smith/Jones/Balls being the executive board members, and who else?), Webber is appointed in April (with Irvine in temporary charge), then Farke arrives in June. I could do with a memory refresh concerning what we know about that period!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good posting from FTW.

The Tom thing worries me,  it’s not because I know something about him, more because I don’t. 
An inherited dynasty rarely delivers the promise.

Share this post


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

But that is exactly why it’s viewed negatively...🤓

Painfully accurate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

Although naturally your taken on this situation is more negative than mine, in essence most of what you say is true; it's just framed with despondency rather than optimism. I know it's the hope that kills you, and all that, but I think the point I'm trying to make is that I believe we're doing a great job considering our means.

Take a quick look at this article from October 2017: https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/listed-owners-every-championship-club-13778193. There is not a single owner of a Championship club with a lower listed net worth than NCFC. Of the few without a listed net worth, only Burton Albion and Bolton might possibly have less wealthy owners than ours. Even Barnsley were taken over by a huge consortium shortly after this was published.

So, we've established that we're cash poor. However, even with a wealthier owner to underwrite those difficult periods, how much financial clout would that realistically give us? There are probably only about 15 or 20 clubs in the world that have the sheer size and money to insulate themselves against having to cash in on their best assets. Of course there's a food chain, and they can prey on clubs further down that chain, but almost all clubs are selling clubs.

Even clubs with billionaire owners - such as QPR, West Brom, Fulham and Stoke - have to mitigate against FFP, and ensure they don't overcommit in an effort to reach the big time. We've been over the permutations of new investment over and over again, and that's not what I wish to discuss here. What I want to discuss is how we're doing based on what we actually have, rather than what we feel we should or could have.

I am often perceived as some sort of 'happy clapper' on here, but the reality is that I have been very critical of Delia and Michael in the past (2006 to 2009 being particularly awful), and I have reservations about the long-term prosperity of the club under Tom Smith. What Tom does not - and will not - have is the huge amount of goodwill afforded to Delia and Michael for what they've done for our club over almost a quarter of a century. I know there are some people who don't rate them, and even some who actively dislike them; but, ultimately, the majority of our fans are at least appreciative of their long service.

Bringing in the club's first ever foreign manager and first ever two-tier management structure was a bold move on their part. Considering our position in the financial food chain, do you not think that we've overperformed against our means over the last three years? For the entirety of that first season under Farke, there was an awful lot of negativity (some of which was justified) about the style of football, and the overall direction of the club under owners with such limited finances.

Relegation sucks. Relegation by finishing bottom by a mile with what appears to be a limp surrender sucks even harder. Nobody likes it, and I don't think even the most partisan advocates of the Webber/Farke axis could tell us that they believed we did the best we could in terms of both recruitment and performance this season.

But what do we do? There's no investment incoming, other than the parachute payments and player sales. Is there really a better option than allowing our management duo to continue with what they've started and unearthing more good Championship players? The plan was always to try to establish ourselves as a Premier League club without overstretching ourselves financially; that doesn't happen overnight even with a ton of money (unless you're Wolves).

Well done if you're still reading, Teemu; this is where I start to weave everything back into your previous post. You said that with this plan we "essentially accept our existing average level". I would argue that given our financial position, our average level of being a yo-yo club (average league position 20.8 over the last ten seasons) is pretty good. I can't think of any other clubs with similarly limited means who are anywhere near that level.

So, what I'm saying is that of course there's a plan. There are many aspects of this plan that we've not discussed here, but it exists, and I believe it's going relatively well considering our means. Therefore, I think your main issue is not with the plan, or even with Webber and Farke (despite their shortcomings), but with the ownership of the club.

I'm not going to start backing Delia and Michael to the hilt and accuse you of being an apostate; I share your concerns. In particular, I have grave concerns of what could happen in two or three years if all of these variables come to pass:

1) Delia and Michael pass on their majority shareholding to Tom;
2) There is no further external investment;
3) Webber and Farke both leave;
4) We fail to return to the Premier League;
5) The Academy does not continue to produce saleable assets of the same quality/at the same rate.

If, in three years' time, all of those five variables are true, the club could be in a genuinely parlous state (and that's before we even consider the general state of football post-coronavirus).

The main point that I wish to make is that I believe the 'project' - if you are prepared to acknowledge its existence 🙂 - is designed to adequately insulate the club as far as possible against the worst consequences of the variables presented above. The dangers of overstretching the finances are even starker when you consider the current global situation. You could say that this is the reason we need new investment, but when we consider potential investors in the current climate, whose stock is genuinely rising, and who is on the brink of collapse?

It's a vital crossroads in the future of our club, and to be genuinely financially sustainable is more valuable to us now than it's ever been. That's why I believe in this project, and why I think fans in general should try to get behind it. That doesn't mean it should be followed blithely like some kind of personality cult. It doesn't mean that those at the helm shouldn't be questioned. But it does mean that, as fans, we should appreciate more than ever that we still have a club to support and it doesn't have a long list of debtors waiting at the door.

OTBC.

Excellent . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Good posting from FTW.

The Tom thing worries me,  it’s not because I know something about him, more because I don’t. 
An inherited dynasty rarely delivers the promise.

No one really knows what to expect when or indeed if he does eventually get handed the reigns, as it stands I don’t think we’d really see any difference in how the club was run currently because he won’t be turning up ‘green’ - he’s already been here a while learning the ropes. But there is always the possibility that after a few months or wotnot, he decides running a football club isn’t for him, and in that case, who knows what will happen? As I’ve said before, for everyone’s daydreams about these queues of mega rich investors, I would be absolutely amazed if some oil rich sheikh or whatever decides we could be a fun little play thing for him, and the Chinese see the colour yellow as bad for branding and marketing etc so I think it’s fairly safe to rule out that stinking rich Chinese investor too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Feedthewolf said:

I'd be interested to know how the project came about. Was it the existing BOD who identified the need for that specific structure, or was it that they were in a right old pickle after the Moxey debacle, and Webber sold the structure to them? I guess nobody really knows, but it was an incredibly profound change of style from an obnoxious old boot like Moxey to a forward-thinking young firebrand like Webber.

Can you (or anyone else) remember what S&J said publicly after Moxey left and before Webber arrived? Did they talk about the need for a sporting director model, or did Webber sell it to them? It's an interesting turn of events - Moxey leaves in February, Neil is sacked in March (Smith/Jones/Balls being the executive board members, and who else?), Webber is appointed in April (with Irvine in temporary charge), then Farke arrives in June. I could do with a memory refresh concerning what we know about that period!

The idea was floated by Ed Balls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Feedthewolf said:

I'd be interested to know how the project came about. Was it the existing BOD who identified the need for that specific structure, or was it that they were in a right old pickle after the Moxey debacle, and Webber sold the structure to them? I guess nobody really knows, but it was an incredibly profound change of style from an obnoxious old boot like Moxey to a forward-thinking young firebrand like Webber.

Can you (or anyone else) remember what S&J said publicly after Moxey left and before Webber arrived? Did they talk about the need for a sporting director model, or did Webber sell it to them? It's an interesting turn of events - Moxey leaves in February, Neil is sacked in March (Smith/Jones/Balls being the executive board members, and who else?), Webber is appointed in April (with Irvine in temporary charge), then Farke arrives in June. I could do with a memory refresh concerning what we know about that period!

There was a long discussion  here back in 2017 sparked by a Mick Dennis piece, which got my attention because I thought it made it look as if the idea of a sporting director/head coach had been Delia's alone. Mick joined in and accepted that perhaps the wording was a bit strong. i think that is fair, but Mick is much closer to the inner workings of Carrow Road than I am (it would be hard not to be!) and he made a good case for Delia having been very keen on the idea.

This link should work:

https://forum.pinkun.com/index.php?/topic/111413-mick-dennis-on-mfw-good-read/page/2/&tab=comments#comment-1730794

 

Parma joined in with his knowledge of NCFC affairs as well.

---

Just seen Duncan's comments about Ed Balls. I did mention back in 2017 that Balls had done the investigatory spadework, talking to key figures at other clubs, such as Comolli at Liverpool, and it wouldn't at all surprise me if Comolli had recommended Webber, if he got ever be got.

PPS. Posters may notice a pseudy Boris Johnson-style classical reference at one point. In my defence I would argue that this has the practical benefit of being able to use a single rare word or name in the search facility to ease the process, and it certainly worked this time...

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

The idea was floated by Ed Balls. 

Webber is certainly here because of Ed Balls. 

I still think we could do with an experienced head as chairman and would take Ed Balls back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Van wink said:

Good posting from FTW.

The Tom thing worries me,  it’s not because I know something about him, more because I don’t. 
An inherited dynasty rarely delivers the promise.

I assume you are hinting with this post you want a Chinese dynasty instead? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Yes - and if the plan develops as it should, then assets will increase year on year as we sell on players and bring others through.

Yes - but not if it means selling to a non-fan who might then sell it on to another non-fan in a few years, who might then sell it on again etc etc.......for every good owner with money who has been successful there are plenty more who are not so the odds are not favourable in any way. 

So the answer is a definite yes, i would like to see more money spent, but not money we haven't got or anyone else's money just because they've got money.  If nothing else the last three years has proved you can build assets and become more wealthy even though on the face of it you don't have much money.  Ok, success at staying in the PL looks to have eluded us, but the PL is not the be all and end all of being a successful club - and it is not "unambitious" to say that. There is a bigger picture and those that refuse to accept that are just day dreamers who just want it all now.

Sometimes you have to wait to get what you want - a lesson that many people seem to have not learned. Life isn't all instantaneous gratification, wave a magic wand or waft a load of pound notes in the air and everything will be right - football just doesn't work like that.  And I don't mean waiting for a genie with a magic lantern who will cast his millions around and buy us success just like that - I mean waiting to see a project develop through to it's fulfillment - in our case, a project that is as clear as clear could be.

So forget the PL, in fact f***  the PL.  Focus on the club and it's development which will show itself again next season - more young players coming through, some sold on at huge profit enabling us to finance more players to come in - and another year where Farkeball can be re-established, improved on and developed further into the club's dna. And if Farke leaves us at any stage, then someone will be brought in of like mind who can take the project on in the same vein.

The PL and success will come along when it comes along - it came along last season, maybe a year ahead of schedule - and there is every possibility - even probability we will get there again and with what has been learned this year, we can be better prepared. Bu the message is - we can do it -  AS LONG AS WE STICK TO THE PROJECT. Sorry for shouting, not shouting at you, but it is exasperating trying to get through to people who think that somehow money is the main issue. It isn't - money is only part of it. 

You can listen to pundits and statisticians until you're blue in the face - nodding their heads sagely and saying, there you see, they didn't spend any money so they didn't stay there.   Well what about last season?  We didn't spend much at all and had vastly inferior money compared to most of our rivals there - and we won the whole league?  So how did that happen?  With money?  No - WITH A GOOD STRATEGY IN PLACE. 

I get what you are saying, but money is what runs the game, whether you like it or not.

 

Delia has proven that without the premier millions, the club struggles to run. It’s a smart way of going about it this time and credit to Webber for testing the youth route. But there will come a time when people are constantly sick of selling their best players, especially in the championship.

 

The premier league isn’t a nice place, and you can say FCUK it all you want, but the goal is to be there and even the people who swear about it, want to be there. The championship is a much more fun league, regular games and (abit more) level playing field. The problem is, the longer we are in there, the more we will need to constantly sell and then there could be a time we spend a long time in there (Ipswich) and nobody wants that. 
 

i have faith in Webber and Farke, I don’t want a Consortium coming in and destroying the club, I just want an owner who is willing to help out when the going gets tough. If it is a fan, brilliant! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncle Fred said:

I assume you are hinting with this post you want a Chinese dynasty instead? 

That would be Minging

Share this post


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

There was a long discussion  here back in 2017 sparked by a Mick Dennis piece, which got my attention because I thought it made it look as if the idea of a sporting director/head coach had been Delia's alone. Mick joined in and accepted that perhaps the wording was a bit strong. i think that is fair, but Mick is much closer to the inner workings of Carrow Road than I am (it would be hard not to be!) and he made a good case for Delia having been very keen on the idea.

This link should work:

https://forum.pinkun.com/index.php?/topic/111413-mick-dennis-on-mfw-good-read/page/2/&tab=comments#comment-1730794

 

Parma joined in with his knowledge of NCFC affairs as well.

---

Just seen Duncan's comments about Ed Balls. I did mention back in 2017 that Balls had done the investigatory spadework, talking to key figures at other clubs, such as Comolli at Liverpool, and it wouldn't at all surprise me if Comolli had recommended Webber, if he got ever be got.

PPS. Posters may notice a pseudy Boris Johnson-style classical reference at one point. In my defence I would argue that this has the practical benefit of being able to use a single rare word or name in the search facility to ease the process, and it certainly worked this time...

This was an excellent read, Purple; thanks for posting it. Well worth half an hour of anyone's time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Van wink said:

That would be Minging

Unless of course it was the Ker Ching dynasty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

That's not the point I was making.

The rules never said we couldn't have a satellite in Bristol. They never said Southampton couldn't have one I Bath.

So what did your special dispensation allow Southampton to do?

Bumped for Teemu/Le Juge

Share this post


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

This was an excellent read, Purple; thanks for posting it. Well worth half an hour of anyone's time. 

FTW, on the question which gets raised there of why the sporting director/head coach model was not brought in when McNally left but only when Moxey quit, I think there is one factor which wasn't mentioned.

To do it properly you have to choose the SD and then they bring in the head coach, but when McNally left, in the summer of 2016 after relegation, we were sticking with Neil as manager with the aim he would do well in the Championship.

Whereas when Moxey was pushed out, early in February 2017, Neil was failing,, and the board probably were thinking of sacking him, which came only a month later.

So both jobs were vacant and they could hire the SD (Webber in this case) and give him a free hand to choose the head coach, and that is what happened, with Webber arriving in April and Farke a month later.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do admire your fortitude Purple. But none of it will alter the basic facts that if we fail it's because of Delia and if we succeed it's inspite of Delia.

I don't think Teemu Van Jugster ever said but does anyone know when Delia defunded the academy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

FTW, on the question which gets raised there of why the sporting director/head coach model was not brought in when McNally left but only when Moxey quit, I think there is one factor which wasn't mentioned.

To do it properly you have to choose the SD and then they bring in the head coach, but when McNally left, in the summer of 2016 after relegation, we were sticking with Neil as manager with the aim he would do well in the Championship.

Whereas when Moxey was pushed out, early in February 2017, Neil was failing,, and the board probably were thinking of sacking him, which came only a month later.

So both jobs were vacant and they could hire the SD (Webber in this case) and give him a free hand to choose the head coach, and that is what happened, with Webber arriving in April and Farke a month later.

Yeah I can't imagine Neil would have been receptive to working with a Webber type figure.

British managers are really going to have to get sued to it though- this model isn't going anywhere and is a far more sensible way to run a club instead of giving one manager figure power over everything.

Share this post


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

I do admire your fortitude Purple. But none of it will alter the basic facts that if we fail it's because of Delia and if we succeed it's inspite of Delia.

I don't think Teemu Van Jugster ever said but does anyone know when Delia defunded the academy?

Wasn't it about the time she siphoned the money from the Johnson, Grabban, Redmond and Brady sales into one of her offshore🏝️ accounts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...