Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vlad666

Buendia “come and get me”

Recommended Posts

I cant say that there is anything in that article that surprised me, if anything it was a little encouraging for him to be talking about wanting to fight and where Norwich belong as well as being settled in Norwich at this moment with his family. I think we cant be under any illusions that Todd, Max and Ben are privately (and potentially publicly soon too) harbouring a similar opinion of the situation. Personally I don't have any issue with this, all of these players will have dreams and ambitions to win trophies and play in Europe and the reality is that this just won't likely happen at Norwich, despite us becoming a solid lower mid Prem team potentially. Does that mean they need to be driven from the club or our attitude towards them need to change? No, we want winners and to get to a club that can match their aspirations, its going to require them to carry on being outstanding which benefits us and increases that value.

 

With regards to the come and get me plea? Well lets be real here, top clubs know if they come in for top young players who have dropped down a league, they are going to get that players attention, don't for one minute believe that potential suitors have been holding back and waiting for Emi to give a signal that he wants to play at the highest level, its just not a position unique to him or should be a surprise to anyone. I don't think it was even really that, I think it was more an honest answer to an honest question.

 

Do I think he goes? Tough call, not because he isn't good enough to play for a top side, but the money I think we would be demanding will probably be closer to 30 than 20 million, considering how hard it would be to re-sign a player with his stats. That would put him out of the reach of most sides outside the top 10, and think looking at the clubs up there and the business they have already done its hard to see a club with an obvious Buendia shaped hole (unlike for example Liverpool requiring LB back up before the whole Lewis thing). That doesn't mean a club wouldn't want him, considering his stats anyway, but its just the balancing act of the big outlay and not potentially being a starter for a top 6 side.. would they be willing to do that? Or perhaps they want a little longer to watch him, and make sure he's shaken off the relegation blues. But then that also adds the risk of him picking up an injury before a move can materialise. Very tricky situation.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hardhouse44 said:

Hang on. We’re just getting what most fans on this forum want aren’t we. A big pay out and more money to guarantee that we remain able to sustain the club as “Top 26 side”

Trouble with some fans they don’t know what they want. 
 

Should have made some Fu(£ing effort to stay in the premiership in the first place. Then we’d have a player who was where he wants and deserves to been. 

Little bit of playing the poster, not the post here. At its core, it is not at all unreasonable to hold this view. 

Premier seasons do not come around like busses. Extreme football finance means that linear models may not work. Recent history indicates the stark difference between the top 2 tiers creates instability and severe disruption of models. 

Our financial model is designed to dominate 2nd tier, though only be competitive at the top level at some point in the future (after multiple promotions). 

Hardhouse’s view is the opposite one, but it is not without historical merit. it is a reasonable one to hold (and I think Webber would even knowledge it). With more money we might well have done differently. 

Parma 

Nb: This does not negate the current model. In an ideal world it would be auxiliary, not primary. 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Little bit of playing the poster, not the post here. At its core, it is not at all unreasonable to hold this view. 

Premier seasons do not come around like busses. Extreme football finance means that linear models may not work. Recent history indicates the stark difference between the top 2 tiers creates instability and severe disruption of models. 

Our financial model is designed to i I ate 2nd tier, though only be competitive at the top level at some point in the future (after multiple promotions). 

Hardhouse’s view is the opposite one, but it is not without historical merit. it is a reasonable one to hold (and I think Webber would even knowledge it). With more money we might well have done differently. 

Parma 

In: This does not negate the current model. In an ideal world it would be auxiliary, not primary. 

Wise words Parma but not what the masses on here like reading. 

Share this post


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

Little bit of playing the poster, not the post here. At its core, it is not at all unreasonable to hold this view. 

Premier seasons do not come around like busses. Extreme football finance means that linear models may not work. Recent history indicates the stark difference between the top 2 tiers creates instability and severe disruption of models. 

Our financial model is designed to i I ate 2nd tier, though only be competitive at the top level at some point in the future (after multiple promotions). 

Hardhouse’s view is the opposite one, but it is not without historical merit. it is a reasonable one to hold (and I think Webber would even knowledge it). With more money we might well have done differently. 

Parma 

In: This does not negate the current model. In an ideal world it would be auxiliary, not primary. 

I do think people downplay the risks involved in our model too- we're reliant on either getting to the Premier League or a steady conveyor belt of large scale player sales, neither of which you can actually rely on. A couple of fallow years in those respects could put us in a tough position.

Share this post


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

I do think people downplay the risks involved in our model too- we're reliant on either getting to the Premier League or a steady conveyor belt of large scale player sales, neither of which you can actually rely on. A couple of fallow years in those respects could put us in a tough position.

The model is the right one for the parameters we have. The core elements of it should and would be a fundamental part of any well-run club. 

However we are forced to operate it in extremis without any form of financial or sporting ‘overdraft’ (even for a Huckerby, training ground et al) because of the stark limits of our wealth. 

As @sonyc pointed out, Buendia did not have to do any interview. Following the same principle running a business in an extravagantly expensive loss-making showboat sector, with no access to  funds beyond your own winnings is not something you have to do.

it is historically where we have ended up (and a position which has ironically sustained due to the oft-despised Murdoch sky money ), with the model borne of necessity. 

Perhaps Corona will reduce the pool of money for Football clubs as playthings. Perhaps the next pay TV deal will see value drop through the floor. Perhaps the ifollow model will become ubiquitous and virtual season tickets issued by clubs will be the norm. Perhaps. 

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Share this post


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

The model is the right one for the parameters we have. The core elements of it should and would be a fundamental part of any well-run club. 

However we are forced to operate it in extremis without any form of financial or sporting ‘overdraft’ (even for a Huckerby, training ground et al) because of the stark limits of our wealth. 

As @sonyc pointed out, Buendia did not have to do any interview. Following the same principle running a business in an extravagantly expensive loss-making showboat sector, with no access to  funds beyond your own winnings is not something you have to do.

it is historically where we have ended up (and a position which has ironically sustained due to the oft-despised Murdoch sky money ), with the model borne of necessity. 

Perhaps Corona will reduce the pool of money for Football clubs as playthings. Perhaps the next pay TV deal will see value drop through the floor. Perhaps the ifollow model will become ubiquitous and virtual season tickets issued by clubs will be the norm. Perhaps. 

Parma 

Yep I agree with all of that- although the other 'perhaps' is the looming talk of salary caps, something any sensible owner should be in favour of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hardhouse44 said:

Of course there would but we’d be in a far better position to negotiate. Perhaps he be worth £50m then. Anti club my ****. I’ve pumped more money in to the club than you ever have I’m willing to wager. 
 

I listen to fans on here delight in hoping that the newly promoted sides fail in the premiership because they just can’t stand the fact that maybe they will prove yet again that Norwich wasted yet another opportunity to establish themselves. Schadenfreude some call it. Pathetic is what I call it. Get real I’m not anti club. I’m anti failure, anti mediocrity and anti lack of planning which if left unchecked will ultimately see us slide away from ever competing within the 40 let alone to 26. The club will be left behind. That what I’m anti. 

Selling Madison saved Norwich from a dreadful fire sale of other assets. We would have had to have sold Ferrari’s because we couldn’t afford the petrol to put in them. Webber himself acknowledges this. 

It was only a couple of years ago, not ancient history. The Championship winning season was a spectacular outlier. It was almost entirely unexpected by anyone. Buendia’s assists and Pukki's goals were remarkable. Exceptional. 

Banking the Premier gold was actually ruthless. I do not say it was wrong. There is no other access to money. We simply could not throw enough money at the squad to guarantee a better outcome than trusting to winning momentum and the chance that our young player potential might smash a glass ceiling. 

At its core Hardhouse’s view is valid though. We have chosen to sit at a high-rollers poker game without the chips to compete. Playing nicely at home with your mates just isn’t the same. Norwich are trading off the dream, without any real attempt to fulfil it. 

He’s fully entitled to be frustrated by that.

Parma

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I do think people downplay the risks involved in our model too- we're reliant on either getting to the Premier League or a steady conveyor belt of large scale player sales, neither of which you can actually rely on. A couple of fallow years in those respects could put us in a tough position.

 

They are very real risks too.  

 

Burnley have shown that if you an get that foothold in the prem it is possible to compete without a wealthy backer to pump funds in ,  however they are increasingly an outlier.

 

I can only agree with Parma,  we have a course that currently suits our club and plays to the strengths of the decisions makers to make it successful, so it is the right course for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that Hardhouse and his ilk compare what we have now to some ideal alternative, a beneficent billionaire who will just throw money at the club. It seems to me that the chances of this are actually small to nothing if you look at other clubs. We are more likely to end up with someone who loses interest after a few seasons of at best PL mid-table mediocrity, or what turns out to be an incompetent chancer who screws us and leaves us in ruins.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I do think people downplay the risks involved in our model too- we're reliant on either getting to the Premier League or a steady conveyor belt of large scale player sales, neither of which you can actually rely on. A couple of fallow years in those respects could put us in a tough position.

I'd say the risks are somewhat different in our model, not that they're downplayed. The model many propose has far greater financial/cashflow risks, as we found out twice in ten years when we were close to administration and indeed had to sell the family silver in James Maddison to get our head out of the fiscal noose. The risks we face tend to be more a risk of stagnation and of far more gradual decline. The falls when financial risks are taken are far more dramatic, as the likes of Blackburn, Wigan, Bolton, Portsmouth, Blackpool, Leeds (before they came back) and indeed our two close calls with administration make crystal clear.

We rely, more than anything, on a good conveyor belt of young and promising talent (leading to those big sales). It also means consistent investment in our facilities / staff to ensure that we remain a destination of choice for young talent to come to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

The problem is that Hardhouse and his ilk compare what we have now to some ideal alternative, a beneficent billionaire who will just throw money at the club. It seems to me that the chances of this are actually small to nothing if you look at other clubs. We are more likely to end up with someone who loses interest after a few seasons of at best PL mid-table mediocrity, or what turns out to be an incompetent chancer who screws us and leaves us in ruins.

Precisely

My view is we’re too well run and financially stable (relative to other non-bankrolled outfits) to be of good value to an investor or asset stripper, and not big enough potential catchment or profile for a billionaire sugar daddy

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

At its core Hardhouse’s view is valid though. We have chosen to sit at a high-rollers poker game without the chips to compete. Playing nicely at home with your mates just isn’t the same. Norwich are trading off the dream, without any real attempt to fulfil it. 

He’s fully entitled to be frustrated by that.

Parma

Gonna have to disagree with that.  We haven't chosen to be at that high-rollers poker game - we're at that game because we were good enough to get there. We earned the right to play that game and choice doesn't come into it.

As for "trading off the dream without any attempt to fill it" - well that isn't true either - the attempt to develop the club to the extent of being able to consistently compete at PL level could only happen down the line when resources have gradually built up. As you say it is only two years since we had to sell to save the club! 

The PL was a free hit last season, a campaign that could have gone better for many reasons - and no, Hardhead isn't entitled to be frustrated by lack of resources to do with that - he is entitled to be frustrated that we didn't do better - we all feel that - but not frustrated because of lack of resources. To be frustrated at that is like sitting in a traffic jam and shouting at the stopped cars in front of you. You make a noise, but it is pointless as there is nothing you or anyone can do about it. You might as well accept it knowing that tyhe traffic will ease and you will get to your destination eventually.  In football terms, the destination is another promotion, but with the resoursces built up over two or three years so a better attempt at staying in the PL can be made.

Frustrated at not having the resources?  Well he's at the wrong club then. He could always go and support a club that has loads of money - plenty of them around, quite a lot wallowing in the championship and league 1 who haven't been anywhere near the PL for years or ever......or maybe he should just support a rich club that is guaranteed success - like a Man City or a Liverpool.  If he gets so frustrated, which he appears to be, then he is just metaphorically bashing his head against a brick wall hoping to ease his headache. Or maybe he likes getting frustrated.....some people make it a way of life to be like that......it's a mindset at the end of the day...a choice.

Edited by lake district canary
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, GenerationA47 said:

Precisely

My view is we’re too well run and financially stable (relative to other non-bankrolled outfits) to be of good value to an investor or asset stripper, and not big enough potential catchment or profile for a billionaire sugar daddy

I think that’s a reasonable assessment @GenerationA47 . There are however other ways. 

Economists have predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions, though operating within football without the funds to make any errors, to operate - in effect - without (owner) overdraft or bailout possibility (even to sign a Huckerby or update a training ground) is highly unlikely to be sustainable alongside any measure of sporting success over an extended period. 

A free striker from Finland and a second-tier Spanish outcast catalysed a wonderful and unexpected promotion, which will keep the wagons rolling for a year or two more, though these unlikely jackpots are very difficult to keep spinning. Goals (and assists) are precious, rare and ephemeral fig leaves for all sorts of fragilities. 

We are not too far from ‘Huddersfield o’clock’ for Webber, who will strike out when his own hot iron risks cooling too much. A dynamic window of young, thrusting maybes and a relative revolution of change follows a steely-cold taking o’ the money. All fine, though deliberately ‘noisy’ as methodologies go. Plenty of ‘here I am’ at all times. Understandable. Transient. 

When he leaves he’ll let slip the story of the Maddison sale. How close Norwich were (again) to an extremely dramatic fire sale of decent players that would have been released as the petrol couldn’t have been paid for the Ferraris (Klose et al). In context it was overblown poker to play Maddison in the last month. Nearly all in football would have had him out with a Knock. His injury had many (including Webber) absolutely ****ting themselves. Playing hard with other people’s money that wasn’t there. 

Another miracle occurred of seismic proportions and the wonderful, attractive, unexpected (anywhere) promotion. People quickly forget how exceptional it all was. The Premier season cruelly reminded. 

 This cycle has repeated and has actually sustained further and more often than it had any right to. I do not lament that of course,  though as an analyst, I think reversion to the (financial) mean is now likely. 

The model, corporate structure and recent appointments have smoothed the separation of the two elements of Football and Finance  (previously  ‘we let our Managers manage’ with all its ‘them-and-us’ fiefdom and short-term self-interest risks) which for so long - and often so poisonously - had been clumsily and ignorantly separate.

Webber leaving (Farke moving upwards might be cute as an aside) may well catalyse a return to familiar failings. I find it hard to believe Webber will appoint his own superior successor to undermine his own cherished and well-polished legacy. A contacts book is a good thing to move with and Academy conveyor belts take very deep, long-term quality throughout, not top-down instruction.

The current espoused model is right, though it is auxiliary, not primary as a route to success. 

Our assets are now well-promoted and advanced, though in terms of effectiveness it is Buendia and Pukki’s marvels that need to be re-created. Others are merely good adornments, excepting Godfrey who is a paint job away from a Ferrari. The market is now full of sellers. 

The point being it is game-changers that are pragmatic weapons, that really affect games and add points. Assists and goals are hard to grow. Even Norwich with their limited resources break their own model for strikers. 

What the future of Norwich could or should look like? What it will need to look like to be reasonably competitive over the medium term. 

I happen to believe that Delia and Michael would sell. Or rather would even step aside should an appropriate alternative be seen to be viable. 

Hitherto events have kept the need to sell at bay somewhat, though additional funds have been sought. The ‘offer’ - I suppose because those offering were not considered the right sort - has needed to include the purchase of majority shareholding plus a Company-changing sum for investment/ transfers/ stuff. Needless to say this is quickly unattractive to buyers, who typically want something more distressed, with higher impact for their buck. 

I do not preclude Delia and Michael stepping aside for a good local consortium however - and indeed believe they would welcome an involvement in it. A socio model looks quite suited to Norwich, its supporter base, locality and wide number of potential investors with some money, though not many with a lot of money: A first-among-equals voting rights system according to investment has its flaws, though this kind of model would appear to suit the existing parameters. Putting the deal together is where it’s at.

The hand-me-down inheritance model espoused (Tom) is somewhat discounted. This is in my view to indicate that there is some plan, so as not to appear distressed in an outright sale. It is the plan until another plan arrives. A sale was very actively sought reasonably recently. Events dear boys, events. 

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hardhouse44 said:

Of course there would but we’d be in a far better position to negotiate. Perhaps he be worth £50m then. Anti club my ****. I’ve pumped more money in to the club than you ever have I’m willing to wager. 

Oh do **** off. You are not a better fan because you've given more money to the club than another person. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Oh do **** off. You are not a better fan because you've given more money to the club than another person. 

Who the F@)£ said I was a better fan. But not wholeheartedly agreeing with very thing the powers that be decide makes me a worse one does it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the sound of a cat being put in the middle of several pigeons...

Or of several much-cherished foxes being shot...

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think that’s a reasonable assessment @GenerationA47 . There are however other ways. 

Economists have predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions, though operating within football without the funds to make any errors, to operate - in effect - without (owner) overdraft or bailout possibility (even to sign a Huckerby or update a training ground) is highly unlikely to be sustainable alongside any measure of sporting success over an extended period. 

A free striker from Finland and a second-tier Spanish outcast catalysed a wonderful and unexpected promotion, which will keep the wagons rolling for a year or two more, though these unlikely jackpots are very difficult to keep spinning. Goals (and assists) are precious, rare and ephemeral fig leaves for all sorts of fragilities. 

We are not too far from ‘Huddersfield o’clock’ for Webber, who will strike out when his own hot iron risks cooling too much. A dynamic window of young, thrusting maybes and a relative revolution of change follows a steely-cold taking o’ the money. All fine, though deliberately ‘noisy’ as methodologies go. Plenty of ‘here I am’ at all times. Understandable. Transient. 

When he leaves he’ll let slip the story of the Maddison sale. How close Norwich were (again) to an extremely dramatic fire sale of decent players that would have been released as the petrol couldn’t have been paid for the Ferraris (Klose et al). In context it was overblown poker to play Maddison in the last month. Nearly all in football would have had him out with a Knock. His injury had many (including Webber) absolutely ****ting themselves. Playing hard with other people’s money that wasn’t there. 

Another miracle occurred of seismic proportions and the wonderful, attractive, unexpected (anywhere) promotion. People quickly forget how exceptional it all was. The Premier season cruelly reminded. 

 This cycle has repeated and has actually sustained further and more often than it had any right to. I do not lament that of course,  though as an analyst, I think reversion to the (financial) mean is now likely. 

The model, corporate structure and recent appointments have smoothed the separation of the two elements of Football and Finance  (previously  ‘we let our Managers manage’ with all its ‘them-and-us’ fiefdom and short-term self-interest risks) which for so long - and often so poisonously - had been clumsily and ignorantly separate.

Webber leaving (Farke moving upwards might be cute as an aside) may well catalyse a return to familiar failings. I find it hard to believe Webber will appoint his own superior successor to undermine his own cherished and well-polished legacy. A contacts book is a good thing to move with and Academy conveyor belts take very deep, long-term quality throughout, not top-down instruction.

The current espoused model is right, though it is auxiliary, not primary as a route to success. 

Our assets are now well-promoted and advanced, though in terms of effectiveness it is Buendia and Pukki’s marvels that need to be re-created. Others are merely good adornments, excepting Godfrey who is a paint job away from a Ferrari. The market is now full of sellers. 

The point being it is game-changers that are pragmatic weapons, that really affect games and add points. Assists and goals are hard to grow. Even Norwich with their limited resources break their own model for strikers. 

What the future of Norwich could or should look like? What it will need to look like to be reasonably competitive over the medium term. 

I happen to believe that Delia and Michael would sell. Or rather would even step aside should an appropriate alternative be seen to be viable. 

Hitherto events have kept the need to sell at bay somewhat, though additional funds have been sought. The ‘offer’ - I suppose because those offering were not considered the right sort - has needed to include the purchase of majority shareholding plus a Company-changing sum for investment/ transfers/ stuff. Needless to say this is quickly unattractive to buyers, who typically want something more distressed, with higher impact for their buck. 

I do not preclude Delia and Michael stepping aside for a good local consortium however - and indeed believe they would welcome an involvement in it. A socio model looks quite suited to Norwich, its supporter base, locality and wide number of potential investors with some money, though not many with a lot of money: A first-among-equals voting rights system according to investment has its flaws, though this kind of model would appear to suit the existing parameters. Putting the deal together is where it’s at.

The hand-me-down inheritance model espoused (Tom) is somewhat discounted. This is in my view to indicate that there is some plan, so as not to appear distressed in an outright sale. It is the plan until another plan arrives. A sale was very actively sought reasonably recently. Events dear boys, events. 

Parma 

This is such a good description of my general feelings towards this model. It is working brilliantly at the moment but it leaves so little margin for error that a reversion to the mean feels inevitable at some point. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

At its core Hardhouse’s view is valid though. We have chosen to sit at a high-rollers poker game without the chips to compete. Playing nicely at home with your mates just isn’t the same. Norwich are trading off the dream, without any real alternative

He’s ... entitled

 

 

Fixt  it 4 ya 😛

Share this post


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

Gonna have to disagree with that.  We haven't chosen to be at that high-rollers poker game - we're at that game because we were good enough to get there. We earned the right to play that game and choice doesn't come into it.

As for "trading off the dream without any attempt to fill it" - well that isn't true either - the attempt to develop the club to the extent of being able to consistently compete at PL level could only happen down the line when resources have gradually built up. As you say it is only two years since we had to sell to save the club! 

The PL was a free hit last season, a campaign that could have gone better for many reasons - and no, Hardhead isn't entitled to be frustrated by lack of resources to do with that - he is entitled to be frustrated that we didn't do better - we all feel that - but not frustrated because of lack of resources. To be frustrated at that is like sitting in a traffic jam and shouting at the stopped cars in front of you. You make a noise, but it is pointless as there is nothing you or anyone can do about it. You might as well accept it knowing that tyhe traffic will ease and you will get to your destination eventually.  In football terms, the destination is another promotion, but with the resoursces built up over two or three years so a better attempt at staying in the PL can be made.

Frustrated at not having the resources?  Well he's at the wrong club then. He could always go and support a club that has loads of money - plenty of them around, quite a lot wallowing in the championship and league 1 who haven't been anywhere near the PL for years or ever......or maybe he should just support a rich club that is guaranteed success - like a Man City or a Liverpool.  If he gets so frustrated, which he appears to be, then he is just metaphorically bashing his head against a brick wall hoping to ease his headache. Or maybe he likes getting frustrated.....some people make it a way of life to be like that......it's a mindset at the end of the day...a choice.

The bit in bold - exactly. By definition, we were good enough to get through the door. We just weren't able to stick around. Like most promoted teams.

Share this post


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

At its core Hardhouse’s view is valid though. We have chosen to sit at a high-rollers poker game without the chips to compete. Playing nicely at home with your mates just isn’t the same. Norwich are trading off the dream, without any real attempt to fulfil it. 

He’s fully entitled to be frustrated by that.

Parma
 

nb: This refers to the realpolitik of modern top-level football, not our promotion per se. 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Share this post


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

@lake district canary 

Careful of descent into polemic. Both opinions can - and do in my view -  co-exist. One does not exclude the other. 

Parma

I agree both opinions exist and people are entitled to have them, - usually. It's just that Hardhouse has a history of just being "anti" whatever the club says or does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think that’s a reasonable assessment @GenerationA47 . There are however other ways. 

Economists have predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions, though operating within football without the funds to make any errors, to operate - in effect - without (owner) overdraft or bailout possibility (even to sign a Huckerby or update a training ground) is highly unlikely to be sustainable alongside any measure of sporting success over an extended period. 

A free striker from Finland and a second-tier Spanish outcast catalysed a wonderful and unexpected promotion, which will keep the wagons rolling for a year or two more, though these unlikely jackpots are very difficult to keep spinning. Goals (and assists) are precious, rare and ephemeral fig leaves for all sorts of fragilities. 

We are not too far from ‘Huddersfield o’clock’ for Webber, who will strike out when his own hot iron risks cooling too much. A dynamic window of young, thrusting maybes and a relative revolution of change follows a steely-cold taking o’ the money. All fine, though deliberately ‘noisy’ as methodologies go. Plenty of ‘here I am’ at all times. Understandable. Transient. 

When he leaves he’ll let slip the story of the Maddison sale. How close Norwich were (again) to an extremely dramatic fire sale of decent players that would have been released as the petrol couldn’t have been paid for the Ferraris (Klose et al). In context it was overblown poker to play Maddison in the last month. Nearly all in football would have had him out with a Knock. His injury had many (including Webber) absolutely ****ting themselves. Playing hard with other people’s money that wasn’t there. 

Another miracle occurred of seismic proportions and the wonderful, attractive, unexpected (anywhere) promotion. People quickly forget how exceptional it all was. The Premier season cruelly reminded. 

 This cycle has repeated and has actually sustained further and more often than it had any right to. I do not lament that of course,  though as an analyst, I think reversion to the (financial) mean is now likely. 

The model, corporate structure and recent appointments have smoothed the separation of the two elements of Football and Finance  (previously  ‘we let our Managers manage’ with all its ‘them-and-us’ fiefdom and short-term self-interest risks) which for so long - and often so poisonously - had been clumsily and ignorantly separate.

Webber leaving (Farke moving upwards might be cute as an aside) may well catalyse a return to familiar failings. I find it hard to believe Webber will appoint his own superior successor to undermine his own cherished and well-polished legacy. A contacts book is a good thing to move with and Academy conveyor belts take very deep, long-term quality throughout, not top-down instruction.

The current espoused model is right, though it is auxiliary, not primary as a route to success. 

Our assets are now well-promoted and advanced, though in terms of effectiveness it is Buendia and Pukki’s marvels that need to be re-created. Others are merely good adornments, excepting Godfrey who is a paint job away from a Ferrari. The market is now full of sellers. 

The point being it is game-changers that are pragmatic weapons, that really affect games and add points. Assists and goals are hard to grow. Even Norwich with their limited resources break their own model for strikers. 

What the future of Norwich could or should look like? What it will need to look like to be reasonably competitive over the medium term. 

I happen to believe that Delia and Michael would sell. Or rather would even step aside should an appropriate alternative be seen to be viable. 

Hitherto events have kept the need to sell at bay somewhat, though additional funds have been sought. The ‘offer’ - I suppose because those offering were not considered the right sort - has needed to include the purchase of majority shareholding plus a Company-changing sum for investment/ transfers/ stuff. Needless to say this is quickly unattractive to buyers, who typically want something more distressed, with higher impact for their buck. 

I do not preclude Delia and Michael stepping aside for a good local consortium however - and indeed believe they would welcome an involvement in it. A socio model looks quite suited to Norwich, its supporter base, locality and wide number of potential investors with some money, though not many with a lot of money: A first-among-equals voting rights system according to investment has its flaws, though this kind of model would appear to suit the existing parameters. Putting the deal together is where it’s at.

The hand-me-down inheritance model espoused (Tom) is somewhat discounted. This is in my view to indicate that there is some plan, so as not to appear distressed in an outright sale. It is the plan until another plan arrives. A sale was very actively sought reasonably recently. Events dear boys, events. 

Parma 

What we have undergone and enjoyed over the past few years has been exceptional. It deserves revision and analysis. Its methodology and sustainability are hugely important issues for any Norwich fan.

Trading a Premier League season for a progressive jam-tomorrow methodology is a dramatic, dynamic piece of corporate strategy. 

Hardhouse taking the view that it is simply not necessarily an easily repeatable scenario and that it may de-facto lead to the loss of our best player - and that they are directly corollated - is not unreasonable. 

That is not to say that I - or anyone else - has to agree with it. It is not to say that - given our parameters - we could or should have done differently.

However questioning why those parameters exist and whether there are ways to change or improve them - thus improving our competitiveness and odds of success - is something that he has every right to voice and question.

Norwich City - as a Club, a business - its shareholders and stakeholders should all be continually evaluating its competitiveness and the suitability of its resources, methodologies, operations and sporting success. Last year was awful, a failure. 

New seasons bring new hope to fans, which is the wonderful rollercoaster of being a supporter.

Business owners need to view the future with steelier eyes. 

Parma 
 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think that’s a reasonable assessment @GenerationA47 . There are however other ways. 

Thank you, some decent counter thoughts there. I accept things could change and take the point that unpredictable things do regularly happen.

I’d say they are not significantly in the gift of our owners to initiate those alternatives, but certainly now you mention them, they could and probably should prepare for their eventuality. Just like I hope Webber’s  succession plan is well planned / under way already, at least in the scope of selection criteria, method and shortlist of  choices.

To acknowledge  the risks of the current approach is fine & sensible. To dwell on them, though - without regard to the yet  greater uncertainties and risks of the alternatives, including your above examples - is a bit unfair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

...... but it’s very unlikely!!!!    He is the one player we would miss and so will Pukki!    

I totally agree, and I'd definitely prefer him to stay. All I'm saying is when a player decides he wants to leave, the club won't stand in his way. And if we do lose him, I think there's a decent chance of our scouting team unearthing another quality player. Just as Emi isn't the same kind of player as Maddison, the next cab off the rank will have a different set of variables.

There's every chance we could find another high-potential creative attacking midfielder and groom them into the next Emi or Madders. If the system works as it should, that player will be given every chance to shine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Feedthewolf said:

I totally agree, and I'd definitely prefer him to stay. All I'm saying is when a player decides he wants to leave, the club won't stand in his way. And if we do lose him, I think there's a decent chance of our scouting team unearthing another quality player. Just as Emi isn't the same kind of player as Maddison, the next cab off the rank will have a different set of variables.

There's every chance we could find another high-potential creative attacking midfielder and groom them into the next Emi or Madders. If the system works as it should, that player will be given every chance to shine.

Semantics maybe but I think saying there is 'every chance' does a bit of a disservice to how difficult it is.

Finding players for £2/3m that can be turned into £20-30m players is very difficult- if it wasn't everyone would be doing it. Good to have faith in the recruitment team but what happened two summers ago was pretty exceptional in terms of transfers and return on investment. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, king canary said:

Semantics maybe but I think saying there is 'every chance' does a bit of a disservice to how difficult it is.

Finding players for £2/3m that can be turned into £20-30m players is very difficult- if it wasn't everyone would be doing it. Good to have faith in the recruitment team but what happened two summers ago was pretty exceptional in terms of transfers and return on investment. 

Fair comment. All I'm saying is that the way we play football will give talented young players with as-yet-unrealised potential every chance to stand out and achieve great things. Of course not every transfer will work out, and Emi in particular will be a difficult talent to replace, I accept that.

Share this post


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

Fair comment. All I'm saying is that the way we play football will give talented young players with as-yet-unrealised potential every chance to stand out and achieve great things. Of course not every transfer will work out, and Emi in particular will be a difficult talent to replace, I accept that.

I just think we got a bit spoiled two years ago and now see signings like Emi or Pukki being standard, or thinking that every academy product who comes through will turn into an Aarons or Cantwell type.

Often a £2/3m player will be be just that, as academy products often end up more like a Shackell/Toffolop/Rudd type (solid Championship player, never sold for a large fee). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I totally agree, and I'd definitely prefer him to stay. All I'm saying is when a player decides he wants to leave, the club won't stand in his way. And if we do lose him, I think there's a decent chance of our scouting team unearthing another quality player. Just as Emi isn't the same kind of player as Maddison, the next cab off the rank will have a different set of variables.

There's every chance we could find another high-potential creative attacking midfielder and groom them into the next Emi or Madders. If the system works as it should, that player will be given every chance to shine.

It's very difficult to expect our scouting team to continue to find the emi and pukkis of this world , sooner or later our luck will run out as it will with brentford too , who are doing something similar to us.

Share this post


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

I agree both opinions exist and people are entitled to have them, - usually. It's just that Hardhouse has a history of just being "anti" whatever the club says or does.

Saved me saying the same thing. With some posters on here you don’t need to read their posts as they are always banging the same drum, no matter what the tune. Then there are others - Jim Smith and Kenny Foggo to name two - who I disagree with most of the time, but they will back up their points and have a genuine debate.

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...