Farke Contract Rumours

[FenwayFrank 2,450]

28 minutes ago, LaUnionCanary said:

Yeah, wtf is a "Shakespearian fulcrum".

It’s an art gallery in New York apparently 

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

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

I think that this statement is why - as @TIL 1010 has intimated previously - that there needs to be significant planning, involvement , skills, understanding, consistency of methodology and  pragmatism far beyond and above ‘just’ Webber and Farke for the benefits of their magnificent tenure to endure and be the ‘root not the fruit’ of our future ongoing success.

We are fans of a club. However much we are fans of Webber and Farke ‘letting the managers manage’ has mostly been disastrous to us as a club. Webber has shown why it doesn’t work, though - paradoxically - he may be the very kind of dynamic, single-minded, responsibility-shouldering individual who (perhaps unintentionally) bridges and amortises the ‘let the managers manage’ weakness only until he leaves. If he has truly changed the club, that flawed belief must have changed above him. 

As you say if Norwich succeed they go. If Norwich fail, they go (or they stay and the glass ceiling looks very thick indeed).

Pivotal for us - as fans - indeed. 

Parma 

@PurpleCanary

I was musing on this in an idle moment during the social media lockdown (as a debating point, I wouldn’t say ‘let the manager manage’ has been ‘mostly disastrous’ but that is not to say it has always worked…)

Institutional knowledge/institutional memory are relevant here. All long-standing institutions have that, but taking the right lessons from the right bits of knowledge/memories and acting on them correctly doesn’t always follow. Either through human error or because past events don’t provide an answer to current circumstances.

The danger is that an organisation goes on doing things the same way because that’s the way they have always been done and while, yes, sometimes it has gone badly it has also worked well on occasion.

That could be said about Norwich City. Until recently. As I understand it, looking from the outside, a conscious decision was made to dump the ‘let the manager manage’ approach in favour of something more collegiate that enabled longer-term planning. Given that at least to an extent it is a kind of non-switch, because instead of the directors letting the manager manage they are now letting the sporting director direct sportingly.

By all accounts it has so far worked well. The system seems sensible and the choices of staff to operate it appear to have been good. But ideally what is happening is that this new system and these new people are becoming part of the club's institutional knowledge/memory.

So not only is the system kept going (as long as suited to circumstances) but crucially the seemingly successful examples of Webber et al will serve as a guide to how the system is meant to work at near to maximum efficiency and so what kind of executives are best suited to running it.

I don’t know, but my guess is that there Is enough sense among the directors to be taking all this in, so they know what to look for in the potential replacements for Webber and the others when they leave. In other words, I am less pessimistic about a post-Webber era than some fans...

-

Having written all that I have only just seen this much earlier post of yours, Parma, which very much touches on the same subject:

 

Yes that is absolutely the counterpoint. I very much hope you are correct. It would indeed be truly exceptional body of work to have created something that endures long after key architects are gone. 

It would be excellent if alongside the remarkable development and progression that an education in the methodology has taken place throughout the building - including its upper echelons -  to ensure no regression to the mean and the ‘hands-off’ attitudes of the past.

Parma 

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by PurpleCanary

[sonyc 5,484]

43 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

By all accounts it has so far worked well. The system seems sensible and the choices of staff to operate it appear to have been good. But ideally what is happening is that this new system and these new people are becoming part of the club's institutional knowledge/memory.

So not only is the system kept going (as long as suited to circumstances) but crucially the seemingly successful examples of Webber et al will serve as a guide to how the system is meant to work at near to maximum efficiency and so what kind of executives are best suited to running it.

I don’t know, but my guess is that there Is enough sense among the directors to be taking all this in, so they know what to look for in the potential replacements for Webber and the others when they leave. In other words, I am less pessimistic about a post-Webber era than some fans...

I'm afraid I'm far less confident (and I'm someone who tends to look for the best case scenario too). A system change might have happened but in my experience (which I might say could be deemed jaded or rather influenced by events) is that despite thinking a system is bigger than an individual, who leads it sets the culture so much. I'm sure you'd probably agree but I can still only see a diminution in the Webber effect. I saw the Scott Yellows podcast. I'm sure he is capable. Webber appears to have that kind of self-belief and values set that is quite rare however. I guess much depends on Tom S because it wont be long now before Delia and Michael will no longer be at the helm (realise this is a bit grim but I'm meaning retirement). Lots of change to come.

I just try and enjoy what I have now and all things NCFC are in the best shape I've known in my supporting Norwich life...50 years plus actively  (and I don't just mean team performance but ownership, recruitment, youth development, management, marketing, fan involvement etc...its the all round package where the stars just seem aligned). I hope you're right by the way.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

3 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Well that depends on who you read or listen to. Being in the EPL for 13 or 14 of the 20 teams is about survival, nothing more. And almost all of those clubs are or will be financially challenged. Prove he can run a tight, albeit a bigger ship and survive in the EPL and the world is his oyster. But two relegations from the EPL, with very little learned, and Farke will get pigeon-holed as a coach who can't keep a team up and the "Norwich way" will be equally pilloried despite its current high profile.

Steve Bruce is still employed because he keeps teams up. He has already pointed out (correctly) that playing the Norwich way gets you relegated. Allardyce got yet another job at West Brom because they thought if anyone could, he could. Sean Dyche re-invents Burnley year after year to keep them up. Roy Hodgson likewise, firstly at Fulham, now Palace.

Coaches like Graham Potter, Hassenhuttl and Farke (much like Wagner) will only progress if they prove themselves. For Farke, that means survival this coming season. Everyone likes Scott Parker - will another EPL team employ him? No chance. Will Chris Wilder get another shot at the EPL? Doubtful.

Farke, at the moment, is quite near the top jobs in Germany apparently. Not in England. But add a season of survival with Norwich and suddenly the bigger jobs here will open up for him. I can easily see him next at Wolves or Leeds, perhaps as a further stepping stone to something even bigger. But fail next season and that's all gone. 

 

There is nothing wrong with what @sgncfc has stated here. It is another interesting counterpoint and contains fairly widely-accepted truths. 

One of the reasons for academic language is precisely because my interest is in the margins. The areas of fine-call and strategic issues that arise and require deeper thought or assessment. 

Precise language makes it hard for reductive interpretations. The issues are not black-white easy-hard. They will only interest those who are so inclined. Providing the other side of the equation as @sgncfc is absolutely valid and his views co-exist with others, rather than being for or against what is written. 

@PurpleCanary later point - on which we both agree - is to what extent institutional learning has taken place and - critically - what is then actually done with it. Now is the time to address these issues. As Webber himself would no doubt do if it was unrelated to him personally. The issues of Webber-Farke must extend beyond those two protagonists. 

Parma

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

32 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I'm afraid I'm far less confident (and I'm someone who tends to look for the best case scenario too). A system change might have happened but in my experience (which I might say could be deemed jaded or rather influenced by events) is that despite thinking a system is bigger than an individual, who leads it sets the culture so much. I'm sure you'd probably agree but I can still only see a diminution in the Webber effect. I saw the Scott Yellows podcast. I'm sure he is capable. Webber appears to have that kind of self-belief and values set that is quite rare however. I guess much depends on Tom S because it wont be long now before Delia and Michael will no longer be at the helm (realise this is a bit grim but I'm meaning retirement). Lots of change to come.

I just try and enjoy what I have now and all things NCFC are in the best shape I've known in my supporting Norwich life...50 years plus actively  (and I don't just mean team performance but ownership, recruitment, youth development, management, marketing, fan involvement etc...its the all round package where the stars just seem aligned). I hope you're right by the way.

I don't know anything about Scott,  if indeed he is the successor to Webber. But although it would be nice if he was as good as Webber he doesn't have to be in order for the system still to be the right system and indeed for him to be the right choice. As said, if the directors are learning the lessons from this then that is a great help in choosing successors and in making sure those successors do the job correctly and as well as they can.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

A Shakespearean fulcrum is typically a very minor character - who nevertheless has an undue influence on the unfolding of the action.

The character may be portentous and may - intentionally or otherwise - deflect, direct or decide the essence of the tale or outcome.

It is different to a pivot, a chance encounter or a marginal gain - though it may include or imply any or all of these. 

There is often implication of predestination, what is or isn’t deserved, or maybe even foreshadowing what is to come (often as a consequence of, counterpoint  to, or contrast from previous actions).

What is typically implied or overt is that things will never be the same again, that small factors have remarkable power, that things dismissed or overlooked as trivial were no such thing.

The inference is that this season - despite being just one year in a hundred or more - is not created equally. The nature of what we have seen, the characters involved, the state of play economically, structurally and sportingly - will have fundamental repercussions for Norwich City well into the future almost regardless what number on the die is rolled. 

Parma

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,421]

12 hours ago, Wrathofthefarkely said:

Do you challenge yourself to use the most convoluted, obscure, meandering, words and structure possible? 

Yes. 
Sorry , I meant no. 
I hope I’ve cleared that up . 
🥸

[Jim Smith 2,314]

20 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Well that depends on who you read or listen to. Being in the EPL for 13 or 14 of the 20 teams is about survival, nothing more. And almost all of those clubs are or will be financially challenged. Prove he can run a tight, albeit a bigger ship and survive in the EPL and the world is his oyster. But two relegations from the EPL, with very little learned, and Farke will get pigeon-holed as a coach who can't keep a team up and the "Norwich way" will be equally pilloried despite its current high profile.

Steve Bruce is still employed because he keeps teams up. He has already pointed out (correctly) that playing the Norwich way gets you relegated. Allardyce got yet another job at West Brom because they thought if anyone could, he could. Sean Dyche re-invents Burnley year after year to keep them up. Roy Hodgson likewise, firstly at Fulham, now Palace.

Coaches like Graham Potter, Hassenhuttl and Farke (much like Wagner) will only progress if they prove themselves. For Farke, that means survival this coming season. Everyone likes Scott Parker - will another EPL team employ him? No chance. Will Chris Wilder get another shot at the EPL? Doubtful.

Farke, at the moment, is quite near the top jobs in Germany apparently. Not in England. But add a season of survival with Norwich and suddenly the bigger jobs here will open up for him. I can easily see him next at Wolves or Leeds, perhaps as a further stepping stone to something even bigger. But fail next season and that's all gone. 

 

The fact that some of our fans regard “Wolves” as a bigger job or a step up from Norwich says it all about the way some of our support seems to have been brainwashed by the little Norwich mantra perpetuated by the club. Wolves should not be regarded as a step up from Norwich and to the extent that it is that impression has been created solely by the lack of true ambition the club has shown over recent years. That needs to stop now. If we just blindly accept we will lose players or managers to the likes of Wolves, Villa, West Ham etc then we will never again be competitive at the top level. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

17 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I was musing on this in an idle moment during the social media lockdown (as a debating point, I wouldn’t say ‘let the manager manage’ has been ‘mostly disastrous’ but that is not to say it has always worked…)

Institutional knowledge/institutional memory are relevant here. All long-standing institutions have that, but taking the right lessons from the right bits of knowledge/memories and acting on them correctly doesn’t always follow. Either through human error or because past events don’t provide an answer to current circumstances.

The danger is that an organisation goes on doing things the same way because that’s the way they have always been done and while, yes, sometimes it has gone badly it has also worked well on occasion.

That could be said about Norwich City. Until recently. As I understand it, looking from the outside, a conscious decision was made to dump the ‘let the manager manage’ approach in favour of something more collegiate that enabled longer-term planning. Given that at least to an extent it is a kind of non-switch, because instead of the directors letting the manager manage they are now letting the sporting director direct sportingly.

By all accounts it has so far worked well. The system seems sensible and the choices of staff to operate it appear to have been good. But ideally what is happening is that this new system and these new people are becoming part of the club's institutional knowledge/memory.

So not only is the system kept going (as long as suited to circumstances) but crucially the seemingly successful examples of Webber et al will serve as a guide to how the system is meant to work at near to maximum efficiency and so what kind of executives are best suited to running it.

I don’t know, but my guess is that there Is enough sense among the directors to be taking all this in, so they know what to look for in the potential replacements for Webber and the others when they leave. In other words, I am less pessimistic about a post-Webber era than some fans...

-

Having written all that I have only just seen this much earlier post of yours, Parma, which very much touches on the same subject:

 

Yes that is absolutely the counterpoint. I very much hope you are correct. It would indeed be truly exceptional body of work to have created something that endures long after key architects are gone. 

It would be excellent if alongside the remarkable development and progression that an education in the methodology has taken place throughout the building - including its upper echelons -  to ensure no regression to the mean and the ‘hands-off’ attitudes of the past.

Parma 

 

It’s not been “let the manager manage” that has been disastrous for us it’s been placing too much control in the hands of one trusted individual or in this case potentially a small group of individuals who are very closely connected. It happened in the latter McNally days (and we saw the vacuum after he left) and there is a risk of it happening here if we are not careful because all of the key people at the club are linked to him. I would perhaps feel less concerned about it if Zoe Ward wasn’t Mrs Webber because there would be an objective/independent senior management level emoloyee overseeing the contract situation etc. Equally I would be more relaxed if Farke was tied down to a longer contract.

As it is, it feels as though we are a little exposed. Im not saying Webber is out to screw us over but he is ambitious and will have half an eye on his next move and I still harbour concerns he’s keeping open the option of moving with Farke as a package. Someone at the club without a vested interest needs to be on top of this. 

[TheGunnShow 5,910]

14 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s not been “let the manager manage” that has been disastrous for us it’s been placing too much control in the hands of one trusted individual or in this case potentially a small group of individuals who are very closely connected. It happened in the latter McNally days (and we saw the vacuum after he left) and there is a risk of it happening here if we are not careful because all of the key people at the club are linked to him. I would perhaps feel less concerned about it if Zoe Ward wasn’t Mrs Webber because there would be an objective/independent senior management level emoloyee overseeing the contract situation etc. Equally I would be more relaxed if Farke was tied down to a longer contract.

As it is, it feels as though we are a little exposed. Im not saying Webber is out to screw us over but he is ambitious and will have half an eye on his next move and I still harbour concerns he’s keeping open the option of moving with Farke as a package. Someone at the club without a vested interest needs to be on top of this. 

At the same time, don't forget that he got Huddersfield progressing with Wagner. I don't think it is as much of a given that Webber and Farke come as a combination. Farke happened to be a superb choice of coach for getting our crop of young talent moved along and sold for bigger sums of money.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

19 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

At the same time, don't forget that he got Huddersfield progressing with Wagner. I don't think it is as much of a given that Webber and Farke come as a combination. Farke happened to be a superb choice of coach for getting our crop of young talent moved along and sold for bigger sums of money.

How about we try and win something (at the top level) as well though? It’s not just about flogging players for good money. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Just now, Jim Smith said:

How about we try and win something (at the top level) as well though? It’s not just about flogging players for good money. 

Or just not get relegated 

[hogesar 9,611]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

The fact that some of our fans regard “Wolves” as a bigger job or a step up from Norwich says it all about the way some of our support seems to have been brainwashed by the little Norwich mantra perpetuated by the club. Wolves should not be regarded as a step up from Norwich and to the extent that it is that impression has been created solely by the lack of true ambition the club has shown over recent years. That needs to stop now. If we just blindly accept we will lose players or managers to the likes of Wolves, Villa, West Ham etc then we will never again be competitive at the top level. 

Oh dear......

[TheGunnShow 5,910]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

How about we try and win something (at the top level) as well though? It’s not just about flogging players for good money. 

We tried that method of chucking good money after bad and nearly had the club in administration twice over the last ten/twelve years.

Leicester lost several good players after their surprise title win but with some shrewd additions are up fighting for Europe again. We're going to have to do the same thing from a lower starting point.

However, that wasn't the point I was making. The point was that Webber and Farke do not necessarily have to come as a pair. Farke just happened to be known as a coach who was more than willing to let promising youngsters have their start and we had a promising crop of them in our youth team. Webber might end up with a job that's a different remit, particularly if he's ambitious and wants to go to the top.

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

19 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

We tried that method of chucking good money after bad and nearly had the club in administration twice over the last ten/twelve years.

Leicester lost several good players after their surprise title win but with some shrewd additions are up fighting for Europe again. We're going to have to do the same thing from a lower starting point.

However, that wasn't the point I was making. The point was that Webber and Farke do not necessarily have to come as a pair. Farke just happened to be known as a coach who was more than willing to let promising youngsters have their start and we had a promising crop of them in our youth team. Webber might end up with a job that's a different remit, particularly if he's ambitious and wants to go to the top.

 

Yes i agree with you on that. I just find it a little convenient thoigh that they are both out of contract at the same time, it certainly leaves open the option of them continuing their work together elsewhere which would no doubt be an attractive option for a number of clubs. The saving grace is that its in their interests to at least keep us up first as it will further bolster their reputations whereas another poor premier league season may diminish them. There is therefore mutual benefit to all parties in making sure next season is a success.

I'm sorry if i sounded a bit short in my post I just find it frustrating that some (not you or ineed many others on here) now seem to see the sole point of the club existing as being to produce players to sell for big transfer fees so as to survive  and indeed seem to get as excited about selling players for big money as they do about us winning things. Thats not what football is about for me. ok its a by-product of a well run club for thoe outside the top 7 or 8 in the premier league but at some point we do need to try and build a team to sustain us at that level for a longer period of time or perhaps compete for a cup and indeed enable further growth in the club through the ground expansion etc. The Colney improvements do at least mean we have something to show for our recent periods of relative success but other clubs (and I know often this is funded by their owners) have grown more off the back of two or three seasons in the premier league than we have managed. We will probably never have a better opportunity to firmly cement ourselves as the top club in East Anglia than we have had over the last few years and still have now with the sc*m being in the state they are and us being in the premier league.

 

[Midlands Yellow 3,920]

43 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

We tried that method of chucking good money after bad and nearly had the club in administration twice over the last ten/twelve years.

Leicester lost several good players after their surprise title win but with some shrewd additions are up fighting for Europe again. We're going to have to do the same thing from a lower starting point.

However, that wasn't the point I was making. The point was that Webber and Farke do not necessarily have to come as a pair. Farke just happened to be known as a coach who was more than willing to let promising youngsters have their start and we had a promising crop of them in our youth team. Webber might end up with a job that's a different remit, particularly if he's ambitious and wants to go to the top.

 

Leicester went on a bit of a spending spree after winning the title. They lost Kante to Chelsea but spent three times that fee on new players. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Midlands Yellow

[TheGunnShow 5,910]

14 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Leicester went on a bit of a spending spree after winning the title. They lost Kante to Chelsea but spent three times that fee on new players. 

They often sell big and get cheaper in though - and the cheaper ones often have a knack of doing quite well. Don't forget, they've also sold the likes of Maguire, Mahrez, Chilwell, and Drinkwater for hefty sums even after that title-winning season. They're essentially doing what we did with Lewis, then Giannoulis, with larger sums.

How Leicester City replaced their biggest transfer sales, from Mahrez to Maguire | Squawka

[Petriix 2,834]

On 01/05/2021 at 13:43, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I suspect that this coming season may well be something of a Shakespearean fulcrum for Norwich City.

Farke honours contracts, though there is no reason that performance-related clauses cannot work reciprocally. This would be a clean, honourable exit, though to Norwich’s detriment regardless. 
 Farke is hot at the moment - as is Webber - and Norwich as an entity will need to show more competitiveness to retain key staff across the board. 

Should Norwich be relegated again - even closely and unluckily - an exodus of key playing talent and Managerial talent would look inevitable. 

The fundamental issue is that the Champs-Premier gap is wider and more damaging than any linear, progressive ISO9001 model can handle (or be expected to handle). 

Top stars - playing or sporting - are intrinsically competitive. Glass ceilings are instinctively felt and rejected. Dreams and visions only carry as far as the door to reality. 

It can certainly be done - Norwich are far, far better structured and equipped than they were last time. 

Though - conversely - far, far more now rides on it. 

Parma

I understand the sentiment of your view, but I'm not quite as worried as you are. I still think we're favourites for relegation. Players will leave, but the transfer fees will be big. As to whether Farke and Webber stay or go, and who their replacements might be, we just can't predict; nor their possible success or failure.

The philosophy running through the club must remain. We need to continue to sign young and obscure players and develop them into the next generation of £20M+ assets. We can't gamble everything on this one season so the evolution needs to be balanced and progressive: not big signings on big money but more potential future stars who have the right attitude and attributes to work hard and rapidly improve. And we have to continue to give them the chance.

While we can worry about the departure of Aarons and Buendia, we can also be excited about Mumba and Omobamidele. It's a continuous production line. We will attract the best young talent because they know that Norwich have a proven pathway to success. The ultimate mark of that success is playing at the top level so it is inevitable that those players will move on. We just need to keep investing in the future of the squad rather than getting too hung up on the current first team.

Now that's not to say that we can completely ignore this season, but just that there has to be an equal focus on the next one and the years that follow. We can't expect young and untested players to deliver at Premier League level and, for every Buendia, there's three or four signings that don't work out. So there needs to be a balance with signing players who improve the match day squad immediately.

So, back to Farke and his potential successor... There is a clear footballing vision throughout the squad, visible at all levels. There is absolutely no possibility of bringing someone in who will rip that up and start again. I'm not certain that Farke will go, even if we're relegated, but assuming he does, we will recruit someone who would continue the project in the same vein. Sure, there will be differences, but we've go something special here which is bigger than one or two key figures.

The other consideration is that it's taken the entire history of Norwich City for the club to have a season as good as this; we're not about to replicate it every year. We need to enjoy this moment and accept things will go downhill again. We just need to maximise the possibility of maintaining as much of the success as we can.

[Midlands Yellow 3,920]

23 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

They often sell big and get cheaper in though - and the cheaper ones often have a knack of doing quite well. Don't forget, they've also sold the likes of Maguire, Mahrez, Chilwell, and Drinkwater for hefty sums even after that title-winning season. They're essentially doing what we did with Lewis, then Giannoulis, with larger sums.

How Leicester City replaced their biggest transfer sales, from Mahrez to Maguire | Squawka

From 2014 to 2019 they have a net spend of £194m. 

[TheGunnShow 5,910]

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

From 2014 to 2019 they have a net spend of £194m. 

Over the last five years their net spend is still in the lower half of the Premiership. Watford and Bournemouth have spent more than them.

The 20 Premier League clubs ranked by net spend over last five years - Planet Football

Edited May 6, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[FatCanary 249]

10 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I understand the sentiment of your view, but I'm not quite as worried as you are. I still think we're favourites for relegation. Players will leave, but the transfer fees will be big. As to whether Farke and Webber stay or go, and who their replacements might be, we just can't predict; nor their possible success or failure.

The philosophy running through the club must remain. We need to continue to sign young and obscure players and develop them into the next generation of £20M+ assets. We can't gamble everything on this one season so the evolution needs to be balanced and progressive: not big signings on big money but more potential future stars who have the right attitude and attributes to work hard and rapidly improve. And we have to continue to give them the chance.

While we can worry about the departure of Aarons and Buendia, we can also be excited about Mumba and Omobamidele. It's a continuous production line. We will attract the best young talent because they know that Norwich have a proven pathway to success. The ultimate mark of that success is playing at the top level so it is inevitable that those players will move on. We just need to keep investing in the future of the squad rather than getting too hung up on the current first team.

Now that's not to say that we can completely ignore this season, but just that there has to be an equal focus on the next one and the years that follow. We can't expect young and untested players to deliver at Premier League level and, for every Buendia, there's three or four signings that don't work out. So there needs to be a balance with signing players who improve the match day squad immediately.

So, back to Farke and his potential successor... There is a clear footballing vision throughout the squad, visible at all levels. There is absolutely no possibility of bringing someone in who will rip that up and start again. I'm not certain that Farke will go, even if we're relegated, but assuming he does, we will recruit someone who would continue the project in the same vein. Sure, there will be differences, but we've go something special here which is bigger than one or two key figures.

The other consideration is that it's taken the entire history of Norwich City for the club to have a season as good as this; we're not about to replicate it every year. We need to enjoy this moment and accept things will go downhill again. We just need to maximise the possibility of maintaining as much of the success as we can.

I think the overarching point is that you say it's bigger than just one or two key figures, but that is an intangible really. I, too, would like to hope that what Delia and Michael have implemented and overseen is the one true way for Norwich City from now on, but as I have said before it is easy for those things to get lost in transition unless the new incumbents are sufficiently humble to respect the work and the process that got the club to where it is. The 'too long, didn't read' of this is that football is an infinite game- and, therefore- whilst it is very likely that our owners heavily buy in to what they have seen implemented by Webber et al- (and the succession plan will very likely see apt replacements for Webber/Farke) will Tom Smith when the time comes? 

I do personally fall on the side of the argument that this is ingrained deeper than Stuart Webber and Daniel Farke.

The acid test will be in our owners' ultimate retirement and what happens next.

[Midlands Yellow 3,920]

22 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Over the last five years their net spend is still in the lower half of the Premiership. Watford and Bournemouth have spent more than them.

The 20 Premier League clubs ranked by net spend over last five years - Planet Football

We’ve a long way to go emulating Leicester, I see we are bottom of the spend league but are definitely stronger now. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Midlands Yellow

[TheGunnShow 5,910]

31 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I understand the sentiment of your view, but I'm not quite as worried as you are. I still think we're favourites for relegation. Players will leave, but the transfer fees will be big. As to whether Farke and Webber stay or go, and who their replacements might be, we just can't predict; nor their possible success or failure.

The philosophy running through the club must remain. We need to continue to sign young and obscure players and develop them into the next generation of £20M+ assets. We can't gamble everything on this one season so the evolution needs to be balanced and progressive: not big signings on big money but more potential future stars who have the right attitude and attributes to work hard and rapidly improve. And we have to continue to give them the chance.

While we can worry about the departure of Aarons and Buendia, we can also be excited about Mumba and Omobamidele. It's a continuous production line. We will attract the best young talent because they know that Norwich have a proven pathway to success. The ultimate mark of that success is playing at the top level so it is inevitable that those players will move on. We just need to keep investing in the future of the squad rather than getting too hung up on the current first team.

Now that's not to say that we can completely ignore this season, but just that there has to be an equal focus on the next one and the years that follow. We can't expect young and untested players to deliver at Premier League level and, for every Buendia, there's three or four signings that don't work out. So there needs to be a balance with signing players who improve the match day squad immediately.

So, back to Farke and his potential successor... There is a clear footballing vision throughout the squad, visible at all levels. There is absolutely no possibility of bringing someone in who will rip that up and start again. I'm not certain that Farke will go, even if we're relegated, but assuming he does, we will recruit someone who would continue the project in the same vein. Sure, there will be differences, but we've go something special here which is bigger than one or two key figures.

The other consideration is that it's taken the entire history of Norwich City for the club to have a season as good as this; we're not about to replicate it every year. We need to enjoy this moment and accept things will go downhill again. We just need to maximise the possibility of maintaining as much of the success as we can.

That's also why I would say Farke is much more likely to stick around for the long run, as the willingness to build teams from youngsters, to let youngsters have their head start, and to coach them into adaptable and established players is very much his style. At Norwich, he's gradually got an environment around him that's best suited for doing that.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

3 hours ago, Petriix said:

I understand the sentiment of your view, but I'm not quite as worried as you are. I still think we're favourites for relegation. Players will leave, but the transfer fees will be big. As to whether Farke and Webber stay or go, and who their replacements might be, we just can't predict; nor their possible success or failure.

The philosophy running through the club must remain. We need to continue to sign young and obscure players and develop them into the next generation of £20M+ assets. We can't gamble everything on this one season so the evolution needs to be balanced and progressive: not big signings on big money but more potential future stars who have the right attitude and attributes to work hard and rapidly improve. And we have to continue to give them the chance.

While we can worry about the departure of Aarons and Buendia, we can also be excited about Mumba and Omobamidele. It's a continuous production line. We will attract the best young talent because they know that Norwich have a proven pathway to success. The ultimate mark of that success is playing at the top level so it is inevitable that those players will move on. We just need to keep investing in the future of the squad rather than getting too hung up on the current first team.

Now that's not to say that we can completely ignore this season, but just that there has to be an equal focus on the next one and the years that follow. We can't expect young and untested players to deliver at Premier League level and, for every Buendia, there's three or four signings that don't work out. So there needs to be a balance with signing players who improve the match day squad immediately.

So, back to Farke and his potential successor... There is a clear footballing vision throughout the squad, visible at all levels. There is absolutely no possibility of bringing someone in who will rip that up and start again. I'm not certain that Farke will go, even if we're relegated, but assuming he does, we will recruit someone who would continue the project in the same vein. Sure, there will be differences, but we've go something special here which is bigger than one or two key figures.

The other consideration is that it's taken the entire history of Norwich City for the club to have a season as good as this; we're not about to replicate it every year. We need to enjoy this moment and accept things will go downhill again. We just need to maximise the possibility of maintaining as much of the success as we can.

Noted and accepted Petriix, though I also do not discount @Jim Smith quite fundamental views of ‘What’s it all about Alfie?’.....I actually think that’s entirely fair and understandable. Is mere infinite survival and is ‘whatever happens, happens..see you next week’ enough?

Is sport no longer about stretching, winning, going beyond and - perhaps most saliently - taking of excellent chances as they come along?

I do not wish to put words in @Jim Smith‘s mouth, though if because of our structure we are not able to take advantage of a very rare set of circumstances - exceptional players, unity, staff, culture - then staring at the top of the party is a bitter-sweet enjoyable-fearful moment. That is not especially negative, it is a valid assessment of reasonable probability given available data and information. 

Football is simply not linear. It is not easy to repeat success and football finances - particularly wages - now dictate to an enormous degree. 

Huddersfield have not really built on their success. The key architects left and the momentum was lost. Momentum is a gold-plated resource in football. 

Thus it is crucial not just to ‘be along for the ride’. Stakeholders must take as much control of events proctor hoc as possible. Others - as we have outlined above - may wish to ‘wait and see’, good Corporate Governance cannot and should not be so passive. Not all seasons are created equally. 

Parma 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[sgncfc 1,221]

6 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

The fact that some of our fans regard “Wolves” as a bigger job or a step up from Norwich says it all about the way some of our support seems to have been brainwashed by the little Norwich mantra perpetuated by the club. Wolves should not be regarded as a step up from Norwich and to the extent that it is that impression has been created solely by the lack of true ambition the club has shown over recent years. That needs to stop now. If we just blindly accept we will lose players or managers to the likes of Wolves, Villa, West Ham etc then we will never again be competitive at the top level. 

Don't be ridiculous. At the moment Wolves are a bigger club than Norwich - this is indisputable. It's not a matter of opinion and it's nothing to do with ambition. It's not blind acceptance either - simply recognition of reality.

Some facts to bear this out:

Bigger ground; bigger turnover; more season ticket holders (with over 10,000 on the waiting list as of Jan 2021); much higher average wage; team squad value much higher; owned by Fosun, (worth £4.8bn); recent team success; established EPL team.

 

[Buendia Than Barnby 50]

On 05/05/2021 at 12:23, LaUnionCanary said:

Yeah, wtf is a "Shakespearian fulcrum".

I understand he was quite a pioneer in football tactics. I think these days it's more popularly known as the double pivot! 🙄

[lake district canary 4,531]

6 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

6 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

The fact that some of our fans regard “Wolves” as a bigger job or a step up from Norwich says it all about the way some of our support seems to have been brainwashed by the little Norwich mantra perpetuated by the club. Wolves should not be regarded as a step up from Norwich and to the extent that it is that impression has been created solely by the lack of true ambition the club has shown over recent years. That needs to stop now. If we just blindly accept we will lose players or managers to the likes of Wolves, Villa, West Ham etc then we will never again be competitive at the top level. 

Don't be ridiculous. At the moment Wolves are a bigger club than Norwich - this is indisputable. It's not a matter of opinion and it's nothing to do with ambition. It's not blind acceptance either - simply recognition of reality.

Some facts to bear this out:

Bigger ground; bigger turnover; more season ticket holders (with over 10,000 on the waiting list as of Jan 2021); much higher average wage; team squad value much higher; owned by Fosun, (worth £4.8bn); recent team success; established EPL team.

More money/fans/squad value does not necessarily mean "bigger".  in Footballing wise, Wolves are not a step up.  They may be slightly stronger in terms of being in the PL for longer, but they are in the mix for staying in the PL just like every team from about 7 downwards, including us.  In football terms I would expect us to be able to match most teams next season (as we did on plenty of occasions last time, but without results). The difference this time will be that we are better developed, better squad, more street wise and will be less of a pushover.  Wolves bigger? Pah!

[Midlands Yellow 3,920]

3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

More money/fans/squad value does not necessarily mean "bigger".  in Footballing wise, Wolves are not a step up.  They may be slightly stronger in terms of being in the PL for longer, but they are in the mix for staying in the PL just like every team from about 7 downwards, including us.  In football terms I would expect us to be able to match most teams next season (as we did on plenty of occasions last time, but without results). The difference this time will be that we are better developed, better squad, more street wise and will be less of a pushover.  Wolves bigger? Pah!

Wolves are bigger and we matched other teams now and again, hence the points total.

[Petriix 2,834]

34 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Noted and accepted Petriix, though I also do not discount @Jim Smith quite fundamental views of ‘What’s it all about Alfie?’.....I actually think that’s entirely fair and understandable. Is mere infinite survival and is ‘whatever happens, happens..see you next week’ enough?

Is sport no longer about stretching, winning, going beyond and - perhaps most saliently - taking of excellent chances as they come along?

I do not wish to put words in @Jim Smith‘s mouth, though if because of our structure we are not able to take advantage of a very rare set of circumstances - exceptional players, unity, staff, culture - then staring at the top of the party is a bitter-sweet enjoyable-fearful moment. That is not especially negative, it is a valid assessment of reasonable probability given available data and information. 

Football is simply not linear. It is not easy to repeat success and football finances - particularly wages - now dictate to an enormous degree. 

Huddersfield have not really built on their success. The key architects left and the momentum was lost. Momentum is a gold-plated resource in football. 

Thus it is crucial not just to ‘be along for the ride’. Stakeholders must take as much control of events proctor hoc as possible. Others - as we have outlined above - may wish to ‘wait and see’, good Corporate Governance cannot and should not be so passive. Not all seasons are created equally. 

Parma 

It's a really valid question: should we view the relatively small chance of serious success as too good an opportunity to pass up? There's probably a better gambling analogy but something like letting your accumulator ride on the last 10/1 shot for £1M when you could cash out for £200k. 

Maybe it's not such a terrible analogy because, in that situation, there's also another choice: place a series of other bets to maximise your chances of a decent return while limiting your risk. And that's what I think we should do.

I think we're better placed than anybody to continue to replicate our success. Huddersfield is a great counterpoint, especially if you consider Webber's comments about the club and why he left them for us. Ultimately they didn't follow through on the evolution whereas we've absolutely committed to a seemingly permanent paradigm shift.

I think we can continue to buck the trend. I'm excited to see what left-field signings we make this summer. Whatever happens it's going to be entertaining.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

6 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

The fact that some of our fans regard “Wolves” as a bigger job or a step up from Norwich says it all about the way some of our support seems to have been brainwashed by the little Norwich mantra perpetuated by the club. Wolves should not be regarded as a step up from Norwich and to the extent that it is that impression has been created solely by the lack of true ambition the club has shown over recent years. That needs to stop now. If we just blindly accept we will lose players or managers to the likes of Wolves, Villa, West Ham etc then we will never again be competitive at the top level. 

Spot on Jim... our ambitions & mission statement should be more than Top 26... or "he'll be a top player but not here". Good ownership with ambition and intent.