Where did it all go wrong Daniel, Stuart, Delia?

[Danke bitte 971]

7 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I'm still of the opinion that the emphasis has to be on being 'greater than the sum of our parts'. Having observed Buendia's struggle to make an impact at Villa as well as Cantwell's spectacular decline, I'm left with a clear view that these players probably aren't individually quite as good as we might have believed. So the question becomes more about what they collectively became and how that was lost.

I've, separately, pointed the finger at the summer recruitment and the change in system. For his last few months here, Farke was desperately trying to create some synergy out of the new squad. Ultimately he paid the price for this failure, but it's become pretty clear since that it was an impossible task. I'm now fairly clear that the (expensively assembled) squad didn't have that collective capacity.

We've repeatedly discussed the points of failure. The Buendia sale was the first (and arguably most obvious) act of self immolation. I focused more on the change of system. Many of us picked out individuals (Gilmour, McLean, Cantwell in particular - depending on your camp). There seems to be an overall consensus that the recruitment was poor, but I simply don't accept that the problem lies solely in financial limitations.

I was struck by an observation (apologies but I don't recall which poster or thread and I'm too lazy to find it) that Norwich have been more successful when they've spent less money on promotion. Now, I'm not sure on the absolute accuracy of this, but I'm totally convinced that continuity is a vital part of our recent success. The scale of the changes we made last summer made the survival task impossible.

Maybe it's reasonable to accept that better (more expensive) players would be quicker to adapt. Also that Farke, as a stubborn proponent of his own philosophy - which he'd spent 4 years embedding throughout the club - was probably poorly equipped to oversee such a radical reinvention. It begs the question of why we decided to change things so significantly rather than getting bogged down in the minutiae of how.

I'm increasingly of the belief that this change was more driven by Webber than Farke - and I'm basing this on supposition, not tangible evidence. I don't think it's a coincidence that Farke had dropped Gilmour and reverted to a central number 10 in a 4-2-3-1 on the day he was sacked. It's almost as if he was making a statement.

Webber had already rolled the dice by shaking up the squad. And, like a gambler chasing his losses, he bet again on himself by sacking Farke. It's evident now that the overwhelming change in personnel has been a failure. While you could speculate that last season's squad, managed by Farke, would have been less successful in the Premier League this season, it would certainly have been a better choice in hindsight to stick rather than twist.

Spending money doesn't guarantee success. As proven by the other relegated teams in this and recent seasons, you can spend enormously and still fail. On the other hand we've seen some great recent examples of how teams can survive by focusing more on continuity. In any case, there is no realistic scenario in which we get to see the alternative - we'll never have £200m to spend.

Maybe it's change itself that caused our downfall. The need to be seen to have tried to compete. Perhaps this is the result of Webber's wanderlust when he might be better off staying still and looking for answers within... 

There was something in the Bailey Athletic article regarding the regime stuttered with recruitment because there were concerns with Farke’s high intensity training that injuries could leave the squad decimated. Therefore the quality not quantity ethos was reversed. 

[Mello Yello 2,321]

What's actually gone wrong?.....Have I missed something?.....We're a top 26 side and our finances are sound.....

[shefcanary 2,530]

I quite like the idea that Webber forced Farke to adopt 4-3-3, then when Farke knew he was on the way out because he couldn't make that work, stuck a finger up at Webber by playing his preferred 4-2-3-1 and winning in what was his last match in charge.  This version of events may also explain the manner of his 'sacking'. Possibly..... 😉

[sgncfc 1,265]

4 hours ago, BigFish said:

Thx @Badger, rather indicates that there are experts round the club with innovative funding solutions.

Since they did ours they've done a new share issue for Rangers and Bonds for Shrewsbury and QPR. They've also just emailed me to tell me they are about to release a new Bond for an English team....details to follow.

[BigFish 2,001]

5 hours ago, Mello Yello said:

What's actually gone wrong?.....Have I missed something?.....We're a top 26 side and our finances are sound.....

I know you didn't mean it, but strip out the sarcasm and this is actually true.

[shefcanary 2,530]

2 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Since they did ours they've done a new share issue for Rangers and Bonds for Shrewsbury and QPR. They've also just emailed me to tell me they are about to release a new Bond for an English team....details to follow.

No, it couldn't be, radio silence just now at Carrow Road because they are about to launch the replacement of the City Stand, supported by a new Bond scheme? 🤣

[chicken 2,710]

14 hours ago, The Bunny said:

People keep repeating this convenient lie, but there is no evidence for it. To quote Michael Bailey from the Athletic:

https://theathletic.com/3284500/2022/04/30/a-complete-failure-the-story-of-norwich-citys-relegation-from-the-premier-league/

Stop making excuses for them. It was a decision, and they should live with the consequences of it. 

Which bit is the lie? That he wanted to leave? That's pretty certainly not a lie. That they made a choice whether to try and keep an unhappy player not once but twice? That much is true.

The bit that they were working on a deal before the end of the season? That's not false either.

So the bit you are suggesting I am lying about is what? That an agreement had been made earlier in the season?

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/city-chief-explains-buendia-sale-villa-move-sealed-8038212
He wanted to leave.

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/02/25/report-claims-emiliano-buendia-likely-to-leave-norwich-this-summer-amid-claims-agent-held-arsenal-talks/
Arsenal put off by £40m price in January. Prey tell how you can be put off by a price in January if you haven't enquired?

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/emi-buendia-norwich-city-speculation-7902856
Reflection on lack of focus in this article.

https://theathletic.com/2639341/2021/06/09/why-villa-are-spending-big-on-buendia-goalscorer-outstanding-chance-creator-and-workaholic/
Suggestion of how much more he would be paid.

http://talknorwichcity.com/video/what-is-happening-with-todd-cantwell-and-emi-buendia-at-norwich-city/
Dummy throwing at start of the season.

[chicken 2,710]

6 hours ago, Petriix said:

I'm still of the opinion that the emphasis has to be on being 'greater than the sum of our parts'. Having observed Buendia's struggle to make an impact at Villa as well as Cantwell's spectacular decline, I'm left with a clear view that these players probably aren't individually quite as good as we might have believed. So the question becomes more about what they collectively became and how that was lost.

Very much agree, especially with this line.

I can remember people would saying that we would struggle with the creativity and Pukki would struggle to score this season without Buendia.

2019-20 season: Norwich totalled 26 goals for with Pukki scoring 11 goals.
2021-22 season: Norwich total so far is 22 goals for with Pukki scoring 10 goals.

Of course, we would be better with Buendia in this team AS WELL as the players already here. It suggests that we're not doing as badly as some thought we would without him, but it also suggests that we would have been a lot better off with him still in the team in addition to what we have, not instead of what we have, IMHO.

The main reason I mention it though is that Pukki has continued to hit a similar sort of record this season and it makes you wonder who benefitted who more? Whether or not, like Holt and Hoolahan, that rather than either player being the standout, it's more a case of that combination being better than either of the two as individuals.

[Badger 2,421]

8 hours ago, Danke bitte said:

There was something in the Bailey Athletic article regarding the regime stuttered with recruitment because there were concerns with Farke’s high intensity training that injuries could leave the squad decimated. Therefore the quality not quantity ethos was reversed. 

Baily doesn't mention it in this context, but we also have to be aware of the dangers of losing players with Covid, again suggesting the wisdom of a bigger squad. Even with the bigger squad we were very, very stretched at times and as bailey implies should have been more proactive in getting games postponed.

[The Bunny 316]

2 hours ago, chicken said:

Which bit is the lie?

I was referring specifically to the statement about a deal being in place beforehand. That's been repeated numerous times on here as a statement of fact, but it was clear from the Bailey piece that there's no actual evidence for it. 

Did he want to leave? Sure. He wanted to leave before; we didn't sell him then, and we didn't have to sell him last summer. As I say, it was a decision by the club, and they should own it. 

To be clear, I'm not calling you a liar. I think there's a distinction between repeating an oft-repeated lie and coming up with that lie in the first place. It's a fine line, admittedly. 

[Mello Yello 2,321]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

I know you didn't mean it, but strip out the sarcasm and this is actually true.

I've always been easily pleased....

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,270]

‘We chose to sell Buendia’  Daniel Farke

I repeat my belief that had Smith-Shakespeare been in situ - as experienced ‘football people’ selling Buendia would have been a ‘back me or sack me’ moment.

This was all written in Sept ‘21 and it stands up pretty well to events and hindsight. It is because it was obvious proctor hoc and ‘the football grapevine’ was incredulous. 

We did indeed ‘ignore the noise’. We wanted to. 

Parma

[chicken 2,710]

4 hours ago, The Bunny said:

I was referring specifically to the statement about a deal being in place beforehand. That's been repeated numerous times on here as a statement of fact, but it was clear from the Bailey piece that there's no actual evidence for it. 

Did he want to leave? Sure. He wanted to leave before; we didn't sell him then, and we didn't have to sell him last summer. As I say, it was a decision by the club, and they should own it. 

To be clear, I'm not calling you a liar. I think there's a distinction between repeating an oft-repeated lie and coming up with that lie in the first place. It's a fine line, admittedly. 

Ok, cool.

It also wasn't a decision purely by the club. There is absolutely no point keeping a player who, at the start of last season demonstrated, can be distracted and add no value or contribute to the team due to the lack of focus.

If we apply the knowledge that something similar happened with Cantwell, we can see how a player goes from £25-30m valuations to £11m to coming back to us with a year left on his contract.

As for the other part, I believe the source for the information about an agreement with Buendia was from twitter and also from someone at the Athletic and actually during this season, I want to say around January time. People didn't just make it up. 

[The Bunny 316]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Ok, cool.

It also wasn't a decision purely by the club. There is absolutely no point keeping a player who, at the start of last season demonstrated, can be distracted and add no value or contribute to the team due to the lack of focus.

If we apply the knowledge that something similar happened with Cantwell, we can see how a player goes from £25-30m valuations to £11m to coming back to us with a year left on his contract.

As for the other part, I believe the source for the information about an agreement with Buendia was from twitter and also from someone at the Athletic and actually during this season, I want to say around January time. People didn't just make it up. 

Cantwell is an interesting discussion in itself. He never came close to Buendia’s talent of course, and one could perhaps argue that he looked a much worse player after Emi left, when he no longer had those incisive through balls to feed off. I wouldn’t be totally surprised if Emi leaving was part of why Cantwell was unsettled in the first place.

[Jim Smith 2,370]

6 hours ago, chicken said:

Ok, cool.

It also wasn't a decision purely by the club. There is absolutely no point keeping a player who, at the start of last season demonstrated, can be distracted and add no value or contribute to the team due to the lack of focus.

If we apply the knowledge that something similar happened with Cantwell, we can see how a player goes from £25-30m valuations to £11m to coming back to us with a year left on his contract.

As for the other part, I believe the source for the information about an agreement with Buendia was from twitter and also from someone at the Athletic and actually during this season, I want to say around January time. People didn't just make it up. 

I think people pretty much did just make that one up actually.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,270]

@chicken from the Rashica thread:

“Some of you might wish to note the automatic responses of ‘be better to get rid’ when there is any hint of a media story - based on truth or entirely otherwise - that a player might want to leave. 

The more Machiavellian among you might consider that it could be a useful tool to plant such stories when you need money or wish to sell. 

For other examples see ‘threw toys out of pram’….’agent made it clear to us’ ….’had ambitions’….’wanted what we couldn’t afford’…

The more worldly among you might also note that all of this could be said to be true of any sportsperson at almost any point in any career…

Those with the faintest experience of professional football will also know the true value of ’Gentleman’s Agreements’…the extreme tenability of ‘untenable situations’ and the myriad of ways back from ‘no way back’…

‘…truth and illusion George….’

Parma 

@shefcanary @essex canary @PurpleCanary @Petriix @BigFish @king canary ….

…. @Duncan Edwards

Edited May 4, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
..the children were making a noise in the back…🤗

[BigFish 2,001]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

@chicken from the Rashica thread:

“Some of you might wish to note the automatic responses of ‘be better to get rid’ when there is any hint of a media story - based on truth or entirely otherwise - that a player might want to leave. 

The more Machiavellian among you might consider that it could be a useful tool to plant such stories when you need money or wish to sell. 

For other examples see ‘threw toys out of pram’….’agent made it clear to us’ ….’had ambitions’….’wanted what we couldn’t afford’…

The more worldly among you might also note that all of this could be said to be true of any sportsperson at almost any point in any career…

Those with the faintest experience of professional football will also know the true value of ’Gentleman’s Agreements’…the extreme tenability of ‘untenable situations’ and the myriad of ways back from ‘no way back’…

‘…truth and illusion George….’

Parma 

@shefcanary @essex canary @PurpleCanary @Petriix @BigFish @king canary ….

…. @Duncan Edwards

I think the whole debate is based on supposition. Reading between your lines @Parma Ham's gone mouldy it would seem in the hard world of football you can't believe in pretty much anything that is reported or said. In summary we don't know who made this call or why.

What we do know is how this season went. Would keeping Buendia have changed the outcome. His two goals and five assists in a better team would seem to indicate no, but the counter factual is more attractive in that it is untested by reality.

I know and understand your weapon argument. However, I also remember Worthy's "earning the right to play" one. In each of Farke's EPL seasons the tema failed to do this. That for me is the root cause of the relegations, the inability to make it difficult for better teams from front to back. That is more fundamental than whether we kept Buendia or bought a CDM.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,633]

On 26/09/2021 at 13:57, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Norwich chose  to sell Buendia. 

Major point here: Buendia wanted to leave and Skipp was never our player to begin with; you're never going to hang onto a player in demand elsewhere who wants out, and Buendia wanted out. I wonder whether he regrets it given how he's doing at Villa, but there you go. 

So both of those were out of the club's hands really. 

[chicken 2,710]

34 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I think the whole debate is based on supposition. Reading between your lines @Parma Ham's gone mouldy it would seem in the hard world of football you can't believe in pretty much anything that is reported or said. In summary we don't know who made this call or why.

What we do know is how this season went. Would keeping Buendia have changed the outcome. His two goals and five assists in a better team would seem to indicate no, but the counter factual is more attractive in that it is untested by reality.

I know and understand your weapon argument. However, I also remember Worthy's "earning the right to play" one. In each of Farke's EPL seasons the tema failed to do this. That for me is the root cause of the relegations, the inability to make it difficult for better teams from front to back. That is more fundamental than whether we kept Buendia or bought a CDM.

In terms of goals scored, I'm not sure they were a better team. We played this season without an in form Cantwell and Buendia, also without the backup of Vrancic or Stiepermann.

With four games less to play we have four less goals scored than that season. Pukki has one less in total. I think what that suggests is that we are pretty similar and not particularly any worse off.

Arguably, if Buendia was part of the side we have now, we may well have scored more - 7 assists and one goal for his last premier league season. If you add that to our current total we would be 8 goals to the better which means 4 goals beyond the total of that season. As horrific as many feel we have been, in terms of scoring goals, I honestly don't think we are worse than that side.

They may have been a better side in terms of football, but not scoring. Equally, Buendia may have helped cover defensively better, but actually, we are slightly behind that total too, though with four games to go we are likely to surpass the goals conceded total.

[BigFish 2,001]

25 minutes ago, chicken said:

In terms of goals scored, I'm not sure they were a better team. We played this season without an in form Cantwell and Buendia, also without the backup of Vrancic or Stiepermann.

With four games less to play we have four less goals scored than that season. Pukki has one less in total. I think what that suggests is that we are pretty similar and not particularly any worse off.

Arguably, if Buendia was part of the side we have now, we may well have scored more - 7 assists and one goal for his last premier league season. If you add that to our current total we would be 8 goals to the better which means 4 goals beyond the total of that season. As horrific as many feel we have been, in terms of scoring goals, I honestly don't think we are worse than that side.

They may have been a better side in terms of football, but not scoring. Equally, Buendia may have helped cover defensively better, but actually, we are slightly behind that total too, though with four games to go we are likely to surpass the goals conceded total.

😀, by better team I was talking of this season, so this years Villa @chicken. I think I should have been clearer.

I agree though that this team is not actually significantly worse that our last EPL season (although neither can be described as anything but poor and it does mean no progress has been made).

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,633]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

I think the whole debate is based on supposition. Reading between your lines @Parma Ham's gone mouldy it would seem in the hard world of football you can't believe in pretty much anything that is reported or said. In summary we don't know who made this call or why.

What we do know is how this season went. Would keeping Buendia have changed the outcome. His two goals and five assists in a better team would seem to indicate no, but the counter factual is more attractive in that it is untested by reality.

I know and understand your weapon argument. However, I also remember Worthy's "earning the right to play" one. In each of Farke's EPL seasons the tema failed to do this. That for me is the root cause of the relegations, the inability to make it difficult for better teams from front to back. That is more fundamental than whether we kept Buendia or bought a CDM.

That's a great summation. Overall, I think you'd struggle to find anyone who didn't agree with the statement that who we recruited was the ultimate cause of our failure this season and it's also fair to say that it's disappointing how easily we've gone down given the money spent on those new recruits, which eclipsed what we did last time up. 

As always, though, the discussion seems to, come down to who to sack in the administration to make everything better because of the recruitment failure, but it isn't taken into account that the club lost key people in the recruitment setup at the wrong time last year, which no doubt upset things. 

Personally, I think it would be far more productive to let the club do a bit of soul-searching and analysis, look in detail at what went wrong than simply demand Stuart Webber's head, although I am concerned that the way things are going then he may simply choose to walk. 

Still, if he does choose to leave, Daniel Farke is free and I believe that DoF was more his original ambition anyway. 

[chicken 2,710]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

😀, by better team I was talking of this season, so this years Villa @chicken. I think I should have been clearer.

I agree though that this team is not actually significantly worse that our last EPL season (although neither can be described as anything but poor and it does mean no progress has been made).

Annoyingly I think poor particular to that season, rather than the players on show.

The issue both seasons had was that we had a mixture of players not able to step up and also players that were too young to be expected to hoist the others up with their potential.

The only real difference at this time is the value we know the 2019-20 team realised in the market. £33-38m for Buendia, Godfrey was bought for £20-25m, Lewis was taken to Newcastle for £15m. Whilst we only know what we paid for those added since. One argument will be, and probably fairly, are any of our current team, right now, worth those values.

And it'll come back to being a mixture of too soon to tell after one season, something those three all had the advantage of, Buendia having been with us for three seasons, Godfrey longer than the two seasons he actually played in the league for us and not a loan side, and Lewis who was again two seasons.

I do feel that at least in end product and standing in the league, there is very little to pick between the two, though the class of 2019-20 were prettier on the eye in terms of their football.

[ged in the onion bag 878]

Apparently, Buendia said he wanted to leave, that may be very different from he was 'unhappy' at Norwich especially since at the time he was adored, Championship player of the year and also just selected for first time for Argentina.    

What he did know was that he was good enough to play for a successful EPL team (he is) and that his wages were low by comparison and perhaps his ambitions were much higher than ours which is not unreasonable.    Whilst we may have a pay structure, did we do anything or enough to entice him to stay, for example, offer him the contract he undoubtedly deserved having been so instrumental in the promotion..... I fear we didn't.    Hard to blame him for moving on if that was the case.

Having the lowest shots and the lowest on target suggests we did miss him badly.

[komakino 281]

2 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

Apparently, Buendia said he wanted to leave, that may be very different from he was 'unhappy' at Norwich especially since at the time he was adored, Championship player of the year and also just selected for first time for Argentina.    

What he did know was that he was good enough to play for a successful EPL team (he is) and that his wages were low by comparison and perhaps his ambitions were much higher than ours which is not unreasonable.    Whilst we may have a pay structure, did we do anything or enough to entice him to stay, for example, offer him the contract he undoubtedly deserved having been so instrumental in the promotion..... I fear we didn't.    Hard to blame him for moving on if that was the case.

Having the lowest shots and the lowest on target suggests we did miss him badly.

A very fair assessment. 👍

[Monty13 2,346]

5 hours ago, BigFish said:

5 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Major point here: Buendia wanted to leave and Skipp was never our player to begin with; you're never going to hang onto a player in demand elsewhere who wants out, and Buendia wanted out. I wonder whether he regrets it given how he's doing at Villa, but there you go. 

So both of those were out of the club's hands really. 

 

Doesn’t matter how many times people categorically say this, it isn’t true.

Theres plenty of evidence of this not being true including apparently Buendia the last summer we were relegated.

[yellow_belly 227]

Stubbornness and arrogance without the ‘tank etc’ to back it up. 
 

In all honesty.., I guess season 25 (with Smith and Jones) is just a bit predictable and rather boring. Time for a new direction.

[BigFish 2,001]

 

19 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Doesn’t matter how many times people categorically say this, it isn’t true.

Theres plenty of evidence of this not being true including apparently Buendia the last summer we were relegated.

Perhaps it is a case that it is a trick you can only get away with once per player/career.

Edited May 4, 2022 by BigFish

[sgncfc 1,265]

I think the club did choose to cash in on Buendia and believed (as did we all) that they had spent the money well. The reason we have been relegated is because the players we acquired are not as good as we all (including the NCFC coaching team) thought they were. 

When you really examine it, it's hard to believe just how poor Gilmore, Kabak, Normann and Sargent (those 4 in particular) have been over the season.

[king canary 7,737]

6 hours ago, BigFish said:

I think the whole debate is based on supposition. Reading between your lines @Parma Ham's gone mouldy it would seem in the hard world of football you can't believe in pretty much anything that is reported or said. In summary we don't know who made this call or why.

I think you have to at least take everything said with a pinch of salt.

It was very obvious post Buendia sale that Webber would be claiming he forced the move, we couldn't keep him, etc etc. It is the playbook for all unpopular sales. We saw it with Howson and Pritchard before, both unpopular sales, both apparently forced our hands. I don't doubt that in all 3 cases the players indicated a desire to move but in these situations we largely only get the clubs side of the story and it suits the club to paint it as if it was out of our hands to help pacify the fans. I always found the argument that Buendia, on the edge of the Argentina squad, was about to down tools and refuse to play in the Premier League for Norwich unless we sold him.

What is certainly true is coming into this season the messaging coming out of Carrow Road was very different to the usual noises coming out of a promoted teams. It started with the stuff in the press claiming Aarons had 'been told he could leave' and continued with the quote about selling one of our best players for a fee that would 'start with a 3.'  

In my view it was clear Webber had, likely after knowing his budget, had decided he needed to sell one of the 'crown jewel' type players in order to give him the kind of money he felt he needed to give the squad its best chance of staying up. I'd suggest some of the stuff out there was likely briefed by us in order to try and stimulate interest. I've speculated before that the ideal situation for the club would have been getting someone to pay £30m for Aarons, as you can likely replace a right back for much less than that. I've no evidence for it but it is my interpretation of what was out there.

So based on the view that we we're likely actually quite willing sellers in order to stimulate the budget further, I am left to question how much Buendia had to 'force' his way out of the club. Obviously we just don't know though.

[Jim Smith 2,370]

39 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think you have to at least take everything said with a pinch of salt.

It was very obvious post Buendia sale that Webber would be claiming he forced the move, we couldn't keep him, etc etc. It is the playbook for all unpopular sales. We saw it with Howson and Pritchard before, both unpopular sales, both apparently forced our hands. I don't doubt that in all 3 cases the players indicated a desire to move but in these situations we largely only get the clubs side of the story and it suits the club to paint it as if it was out of our hands to help pacify the fans. I always found the argument that Buendia, on the edge of the Argentina squad, was about to down tools and refuse to play in the Premier League for Norwich unless we sold him.

What is certainly true is coming into this season the messaging coming out of Carrow Road was very different to the usual noises coming out of a promoted teams. It started with the stuff in the press claiming Aarons had 'been told he could leave' and continued with the quote about selling one of our best players for a fee that would 'start with a 3.'  

In my view it was clear Webber had, likely after knowing his budget, had decided he needed to sell one of the 'crown jewel' type players in order to give him the kind of money he felt he needed to give the squad its best chance of staying up. I'd suggest some of the stuff out there was likely briefed by us in order to try and stimulate interest. I've speculated before that the ideal situation for the club would have been getting someone to pay £30m for Aarons, as you can likely replace a right back for much less than that. I've no evidence for it but it is my interpretation of what was out there.

So based on the view that we we're likely actually quite willing sellers in order to stimulate the budget further, I am left to question how much Buendia had to 'force' his way out of the club. Obviously we just don't know though.

I agree. Classic playbook (for Webber at least) to make out that the player wanted to leave to justify a sale he knows won't go down well with the fans. I suspect agents tell him all the time that a player is interested in a move. He actually said it came from Emi's agent rather than Emi himself. What agent is going to say their player isn't interested in a move they are going to earn commision from. Doesn;t mean the player is going to force the clubs hand if they don't get it or cannot be won over by an improved contract offer. We were hawking around our crown jewells from an early stage last summer in order to fund our ultimately calamitous foray into the transfer market.

Amazes me how many of our fans bought the story previously that Johnny Howson, a consumate professional, was suddenly kicking off and refusing to train in order to force a move. I would wager that we offered him a fairly poor contract and then when his agent indicated they wouldn;t sign it put the stories out that he wanted a move away, hadn't signed a contract and therefore we had no choice but to sell him.