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

[kirku 1,332]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

I can't speak for Parma but I've always believed the part in bold is massively overstated by some on here.

Surely having a Maddison, Godfrey & Buendia to point towards helps in signing the likes of Tzolis and Rashica?

---

As for the OP, a great post as usual from Parma. I was fully behind the decision to upgrade the squad with the proceeds from Buendia's sale but the point about a stronger squad yet less impactful team was not one I foresaw. 

You could make an analogy with asymmetrical warfare - it'd certainly suit the weapon narrative..

[king canary 7,604]

4 minutes ago, kirku said:

Surely having a Maddison, Godfrey & Buendia to point towards helps in signing the likes of Tzolis and Rashica?

 

Sure in part. But there seems to be this suggestion that if we don't sell a player when they push to leave that suddenly any other young player won't be interested, despite this not playing out anywhere else.

I've made the point before with Palace- they held onto Wilf Zaha despite two separate transfer requests yet have still been able to convince young players (Olise, Eze, Guehi etc) that signing for Palace is a good career move. The idea that if we'd have held on to Emi that the whole model suddenly collapses doesn't ring true to me.

[Petriix 2,835]

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

It was just an example @Petriix..I am not wedded at all to particular systems or formations.

The personnel within systems, their psychology, movement tendencies, fears, defaults under pressure, playing muscle memory and grooved neural pathways have much more to do with how tactics play out on grass than any nominal formation.

It is harnessing these elements that is key. Indeed the system, tactics and formation should be constructed around those underlying tendencies rather than vice-versa in my view. 

Parma 

I absolutely agree with the psychology and 'muscle memory' part of it. Which is why I'm so baffled by the decision to rip up the winning system and try to get the remaining midfielders to play different roles. McLean was just getting the hang of his position at the back end of last season, playing with real discipline and control. Cantwell and Dowell were forming a decent understanding etc. Looking at the shambles on the pitch this season, It's safe to say that the changes have done nothing but destroy the balance and confidence in the team.

[Robert N. LiM 4,338]

Excellent OP, prompting a really good discussion.

The only question I have, and it is a question, is whether we can be certain at this stage that we haven't bought any 'weapons'. How many games did it take Emi to be a weapon for us? Have we seen enough of Tzolis and Rashica to know they can't be? The early signs are not great, for sure, but especially with Tzolis, who I think has started one PL game, it's a bit soon, isn't it, to be making definitive judgments?

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Great discussion.

A point I would say is being missed is that we already had a season of PL football with Emi. It didn't go well. In fact 10 of the 16 games used as damning statistics came from that season.

I'm not saying it was right to sell Emi but theoretically the impact of the sale may be greatest if we return to the champs. We had to find another way to survive PL. There's still time for that.

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,338]

2 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I absolutely agree with the psychology and 'muscle memory' part of it. Which is why I'm so baffled by the decision to rip up the winning system and try to get the remaining midfielders to play different roles. McLean was just getting the hang of his position at the back end of last season, playing with real discipline and control. Cantwell and Dowell were forming a decent understanding etc. Looking at the shambles on the pitch this season, It's safe to say that the changes have done nothing but destroy the balance and confidence in the team.

I still can't work out what I think about this. That formation plainly didn't work for us in the PL last time so you can see why Daniel thought he needed a different approach. But obviously so far the alternatives have been just as leaky at the back and even more toothless up front.

There's part of me that thinks we need to stick with the 352, try and become much harder to beat, and try and become more expansive as the season goes on. Another part of me thinks that if we're going to keep on making individual errors like the two that led to the goals on Saturday, we might as well be throwing caution to the wind and trying to cause the opposition more problems. Apart from anything else, it'd be more fun. 

I certainly don't envy DF having to solve this problem, and I think that goes back to the original post in this thread: no obvious first choice XI and too many players all of similar not-quite-good-enough quality. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

7 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I'm not saying it was right to sell Emi but theoretically the impact of the sale may be greatest if we return to the champs. We had to find another way to survive PL. There's still time for that.

 

This is something I was considering earlier. The big concern for me is that IF we do get relegated then two of the players that have looked the most promising - admittedly in a very brief window of assessment - Kabak and Normann then go back to their parent clubs. Chuck Gilmour in too, and I think the Championship would be a very different proposition.

That said, if the likes of Tzolis, Sargent, Rashica etc aren't up to the task of getting us out of the Championship, we probably shouldn't have signed them for a Prem campaign. 🤷‍♂️

[king canary 7,604]

9 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

This is something I was considering earlier. The big concern for me is that IF we do get relegated then two of the players that have looked the most promising - admittedly in a very brief window of assessment - Kabak and Normann then go back to their parent clubs. Chuck Gilmour in too, and I think the Championship would be a very different proposition.

That said, if the likes of Tzolis, Sargent, Rashica etc aren't up to the task of getting us out of the Championship, we probably shouldn't have signed them for a Prem campaign. 🤷‍♂️

I honestly wouldn't be concerned about this squad in the Championship. Even if we lose Kabak, Normann, Aarons and Cantwell I think we're still stronger than almost anyone in that league- Gibson and Omobamidele in central defence, Giannoulis or McCallum at left back, Tzolis, Sargent and Rashica attacking (although I'd imagine one of those would leave at least). We'd likely need some new central midfielders but I think the quality of non parachute payment teams in the league below is very low at the moment.

The only concern would be getting the confidence back.

[Petriix 2,835]

1 minute ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I still can't work out what I think about this. That formation plainly didn't work for us in the PL last time so you can see why Daniel thought he needed a different approach. But obviously so far the alternatives have been just as leaky at the back and even more toothless up front.

There's part of me that thinks we need to stick with the 352, try and become much harder to beat, and try and become more expansive as the season goes on. Another part of me thinks that if we're going to keep on making individual errors like the two that led to the goals on Saturday, we might as well be throwing caution to the wind and trying to cause the opposition more problems. Apart from anything else, it'd be more fun. 

I certainly don't envy DF having to solve this problem, and I think that goes back to the original post in this thread: no obvious first choice XI and too many players all of similar not-quite-good-enough quality. 

I would contend that the 4-2-3-1 we played in the Premier League last time was not the same as how we played in the Championship. It was more of a 4-1-1-2-1-1 originally with the number 10 (usually Stiepermann) more advanced and the second CM playing more box-to-box. We adapted it last season to great effect with the second CM and the number 10 playing deeper and more disciplined roles.

In my opinion, the reason why we're so easy to beat is that the midfield roles are too convoluted and not disciplined enough - in both attack and defence. There seems to be a vague hope that the 3 CMs will read the game and pop up as the extra man where needed - either getting forward into the pockets of space that a number 10 might occupy or filling in the gaps in defence like Skipp did. In practice their roles are too woolly and they are being ineffective at both ends of the pitch.

I don't think any of them have a complete enough all-round game to do that job and I think the lack of attacking threat is giving other teams license to pile men forwards with impunity, which is compounding the issue. Adding another CB is just making us far too deep meaning we struggle to get any kind of a foothold in the opposition half, unless the CMs press on and then get caught out of position.

Ironically, I think that having more attacking players on the pitch will mean that other teams have to defend a little deeper and we will be far less vulnerable to being overrun. And with two CDMs playing very tactically disciplined roles, the margin for error would be greatly reduced.

[birchfest 397]

This is all very charming, the notion that we need simply had said no to Buendia and that would have solved all our problems. As i said earlier in this thread, and I say this as a huge Emi fan, by hook or crook he was getting himself out of Norwich this summer past. To use Wes and the brief flirtation he had with Villa is a poor comparison, there you have players on completely different career trajectories and Norwich already in turmoil with Hughton. 

 

We have to look at the facts with Emi; He caused that much of a fuss at the start of last season he had to be left out of the side, including against Bournmouth who at that stage in the season was a huge game for us. It was that much of an issue Farke even outed him to apply pressure back on the player and his agent. And remember that was without a single formal bid coming in, we know that only Lewis, Godfrey and Aarons were actually contacted about. 

 

You then read that detailed piece about Norwich and their transfer dealings in the Times, I believe, which suggested that 'the mood music from Buendia and his agent' throughout that season had made the situation at times almost unmanageable. So you have a player and an agent all season long saying 'this time next year, I WILL be somewhere else', a player who managed to cause enough issues when there wasn't a formal bid, who then early in the window is subjected to two serious bids. He's off. The trouble it would have caused and the issues it would have likely presented us just out weigh the fantasy that he was the type of player who was willing to quietly get on with it, for a second time I might add... he just wasn't going to do that.

 

I think the club have been relatively tight lipped about it out of respect for Emi and the relationship he had with the fans, I don't say this to suggest he is a bad guy or anything like that. I think this is actually the norm these days, and whilst I'm sure he now has fond memories of us, you cant expect him to display the same loyalty that we feel, as a young Argentinian who likely didn't know a thing about us before his move here, and an ambition to reach the top of the footballing tree.

 

I also don't view Buendia being sold as the tactical masterstroke by Webber. To reinvest was a necessity, they couldn't sit on the money and we knew we needed to strengthen, even if Buendia stayed. But it must have been pretty clear that this was going to happen and hence why it appears we had Rashica on our radar in may. It was the upside of a painful inevitable end to his time with us. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by birchfest

[Robert N. LiM 4,338]

11 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I would contend that the 4-2-3-1 we played in the Premier League last time was not the same as how we played in the Championship. It was more of a 4-1-1-2-1-1 originally with the number 10 (usually Stiepermann) more advanced and the second CM playing more box-to-box. We adapted it last season to great effect with the second CM and the number 10 playing deeper and more disciplined roles.

In my opinion, the reason why we're so easy to beat is that the midfield roles are too convoluted and not disciplined enough - in both attack and defence. There seems to be a vague hope that the 3 CMs will read the game and pop up as the extra man where needed - either getting forward into the pockets of space that a number 10 might occupy or filling in the gaps in defence like Skipp did. In practice their roles are too woolly and they are being ineffective at both ends of the pitch.

I don't think any of them have a complete enough all-round game to do that job and I think the lack of attacking threat is giving other teams license to pile men forwards with impunity, which is compounding the issue. Adding another CB is just making us far too deep meaning we struggle to get any kind of a foothold in the opposition half, unless the CMs press on and then get caught out of position.

Ironically, I think that having more attacking players on the pitch will mean that other teams have to defend a little deeper and we will be far less vulnerable to being overrun. And with two CDMs playing very tactically disciplined roles, the margin for error would be greatly reduced.

Excellent, very thoughtful response, cheers.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

28 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

This is something I was considering earlier. The big concern for me is that IF we do get relegated then two of the players that have looked the most promising - admittedly in a very brief window of assessment - Kabak and Normann then go back to their parent clubs. Chuck Gilmour in too, and I think the Championship would be a very different proposition.

That said, if the likes of Tzolis, Sargent, Rashica etc aren't up to the task of getting us out of the Championship, we probably shouldn't have signed them for a Prem campaign. 🤷‍♂️

Memory failing but I think I read that Normann wanted to leave Rostov/Russia anyway. Of course that might not mean he would be happy to stay with us, but we have a habit of making players feel at home.

[essex canary 496]

23 hours ago, Badger said:

I agree with this. I think that Parma has seriously undervalued the club as well. A valuation of £150 to £200 million is more likely.* Then if (I don't) accept the argument that we don't have sufficient finance to be competitive, we have to assume that there would need to be an annual deficit to make us competitive - I have no idea what amount this would need to be - but it would need to be an ongoing subsidy.

So what would be the end game for the buyers? Would you really be confident that in 5 years time we would be worth £400 -£500 million so that you could get your money back + profit, in justification of the risk involved. I do, however, think that he has a good point in the alternative methods of raising finance. Speaking personally I would be prepared to buy more share +  would be interested in another bond scheme. We have done both before and they could be used again - but what for and for how long if he feels that we are structurally under-funded when does this stop - again where is the end game. But I would be very happy with dilution of ownership amongst fans, local businesses and other smaller investors.

 

*According to the administrators there are several credible buyers prepared to buy little more than a brand name at Derby County - no ground, no players etc. Although the nominal cost will almost certainly be £1, they will have to pay between £40 to £60 million of Derby's debt (and even then most of the debtors will only be getting 25%).

 

Given Parma's argument, what is the basis of your higher valuation and its application to NCFC circumstances?

In terms of supporter finance, how would you envisage the risk reward equation given the history of minority shareholding and bonds?

[Badger 2,405]

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

The investigation report has said no one is to blame. It is what it is. No one could do much different. Are you satisfied?

 

This raises an interesting question - could we have ever stay up if things are done differently or are we doomed to fail time and again because we are self-funding?

I am very much of the opinion that we could stay up whilst I know others feel that because of our model we will always be relegated. Staying up just one brings huge benefits, especially if you do not do it by the skin of your teeth, but even then there is second season syndrome which hits some clubs - most recently Sheffield Utd. All three clubs that we relegated last season ( Sheffield, WBA, Fulham) had been promoted in 1 of the two previous seasons - two went down after one year, one went down after two. They have very different ownership models to us, but it did not seem to protect them.

Fulham have an immensely rich and seemingly generous owner, but have been relegated in each of the last three seasons they have been in the PL. WBA, who have an Uncle Fred wet dream of an owner (rich and Chinese) have been relegated from both the last two seasons.

There have been others who have been recently who have stayed up for longer. Of these, the only reason Villa and Leeds had extended stays outside the PL in the first place was due to financial mismanagement. Others, like Burnley and Palace, have stayed up by playing a particularly pragmatic brand of football. Brighton have the ultimate fans dream of an owner (Tony Bloom Billionaire philanthropist Brighton fan ) and Wolves have Uncle Fred's fantasy again. 

So is it down to this - we either need to play a particularly pragmatic brand of football or we need a billionaire owner?

So with "Parma's blame game" if you believe that a self-funding club can never survive, you can only blame Farke/ Webber for not playing a Hughtonesque or Dyche brand of football - would you be happy with this? Many were unhappy with Hughton, even when we were doing OK.

That leaves us waiting for a billionaire or trying to make our model work - with some of the suggestions with regards smaller funding that PH has suggested.

[Badger 2,405]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Given Parma's argument, what is the basis of your higher valuation and its application to NCFC circumstances?

In terms of supporter finance, how would you envisage the risk reward equation given the history of minority shareholding and bonds?

1. Burnley was sold at a value of over £200 million according to the Guardian. I would value us at least as highly. A sum of the parts valuation would require someone far better qualified than I, but according to the administrators at Derby there are several purchasers who are interested in Derby County. Although they would get it for £1, they would have to clear debts of between £40 to £60 million (depending on whether Mel Morris is prepared to forgo the 25% of the £100 million he is owed). This would be without a ground, and most of the players who were worth anything have been sold + the rest are on short-term contracts.

I would have thought our brand value was similar to Derby's (or ITFC who sold for £40 million, without a ground or much of a training ground). We own our own ground with a good commercial operation within it (£40 million?), a training ground worth millions even before the heavy investment in it + playing squad which is worth tens of millions.

2. Diluting the ownership with small owners would raise capital like last time (without expectation of dividends in the foreseable future, so I'm not sure the risk reward equation applies. PH has suggested that businesses could be given marketing privileges; fans could be given privileges similar to those offered at the bond issue. D+ M's ownership would be theoretically diluted, but such a diverse group would never act in unison so they would retain effective control, if that was a "blocking point." It would make a hostile takeover more difficult (I forget the percentage at which shareholders have to sell.) A bond issue, I feel could help with a ground improvements - a prudently managed club would be a reasonably safe investment, particularly for fans (again with privileges like before). The last bond issue was over-subscribed and sold out quickly, suggesting we could raise more this way. Keeping the maths simple, if we raised £10 million at 5% it would cost  £500,000 a year. I don't know how much a stand would cost, but I'm confident that a carefully considered stand could cover much of this cost by non-football activities alone (e.g. mobile offices with ample parking in this post-pandemic world).

I'm not an accountant - this is honest speculation.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Great discussion.

A point I would say is being missed is that we already had a season of PL football with Emi. It didn't go well. In fact 10 of the 16 games used as damning statistics came from that season.

I'm not saying it was right to sell Emi but theoretically the impact of the sale may be greatest if we return to the champs. We had to find another way to survive PL. There's still time for that.

 

What if it ultimately costs us Farke and Webber?

Parma 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

46 minutes ago, Badger said:

2. Diluting the ownership with small owners would raise capital like last time (without expectation of dividends in the foreseable future, so I'm not sure the risk reward equation applies. PH has suggested that businesses could be given marketing privileges; fans could be given privileges similar to those offered at the bond issue. D+ M's ownership would be theoretically diluted, but such a diverse group would never act in unison so they would retain effective control, if that was a "blocking point." It would make a hostile takeover more difficult (I forget the percentage at which shareholders have to sell.)

 

Badger, a would-be buyer has to make an offer for all shares once they reach 30 per cent and has to buy all remaining shares once they reach - I think this figure is still correct - 90 per cent. But in some circumstances the question of what percentage a hostile would-be buyer could get to or would theoretically need becomes irrelevant.

Done properly (and this would apply now, with S&J having a clear majority) the takeover plan would be so attractive and gain such widespread support that public opinion would force shareholders to sell up to make the deal happen.

[kirku 1,332]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Sure in part. But there seems to be this suggestion that if we don't sell a player when they push to leave that suddenly any other young player won't be interested, despite this not playing out anywhere else.

I've made the point before with Palace- they held onto Wilf Zaha despite two separate transfer requests yet have still been able to convince young players (Olise, Eze, Guehi etc) that signing for Palace is a good career move. The idea that if we'd have held on to Emi that the whole model suddenly collapses doesn't ring true to me.

I'm getting a bit of deja vu, so perhaps we've discussed this previously? 

Given the financial situation, we are unable to offer the types of contracts that are likely to placate players wantaway players, at least to an extent.

Palace, as an example, might not meet Zaha's sporting ambitions but they've certainly met his financial ones. We can't do either. And nor can we offer consistent top flight experience. We need every advantage we can get in these dealings, certainly more than Palace.

We can offer a nurturing environment with a coach known for developing youth in a place where it's easier to concentrate on football and without undue pressure or media scrutiny. And if you're good enough, we won't stand in the way - if a deal comes along that works for both player and club.

At least, that's how I see us conducting our asymmetrical transfer warfare, our negotiation weapon...

[kirku 1,332]

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

What if it ultimately costs us Farke and Webber?

Parma 

Webber costs us Webber?

Eminception

[king canary 7,604]

2 minutes ago, kirku said:

I'm getting a bit of deja vu, so perhaps we've discussed this previously? 

Given the financial situation, we are unable to offer the types of contracts that are likely to placate players wantaway players, at least to an extent.

Palace, as an example, might not meet Zaha's sporting ambitions but they've certainly met his financial ones. We can't do either. And nor can we offer consistent top flight experience. We need every advantage we can get in these dealings, certainly more than Palace.

We can offer a nurturing environment with a coach known for developing youth in a place where it's easier to concentrate on football and without undue pressure or media scrutiny. And if you're good enough, we won't stand in the way - if a deal comes along that works for both player and club.

At least, that's how I see us conducting our asymmetrical transfer warfare, our negotiation weapon...

Very possibly.

I don't disagree in general about what us and Palace can offer- I guess my wider point is I don't think if we'd have kept Buendia that Tzolis/Normann/Kabak etc would have turned us down because of it.

[shefcanary 2,402]

Very good quality discussion, even the usual suspects have held off making the thread descend into farce.

On potential takeovers etc. even if one came in now it would be too late given the complicated shareholding currently outlined by Purple, for any completion this side of the end of the season (my current employment is in this area and deal makers are complaining even simple takeovers are taking three months longer than normal because of remote working and additional due diligence etc.).So this season we are, as they tend to say, where we are.  There is thus a long term discussion over the future of the club, but a more pressing short term solution to find. 

And harping back on what has happened, although great fun on here, won't change diddly squat for now.  Indeed as Purple and Badger and others have said, the chances of one individual forking out what would be close to £1billion in 5 years to pursue a dream with relatively small chance of a return is complete pie in the sky.

That leaves us with doing it on the pitch, now. 

The discussion seems to have gently reached the conclusion that 4-2-3-1 (or as Parma said, some minor variant of it) is the right way to go.  I recently advocated a core four of Kabak / Omobamidele with Normann / Sorenson the double pivot.  I am mystified why this has not yet been trialled but here you go, football is "all about opinions".  It would then take a slice of luck or two (or a VAR decision going our way) to secure a victory against Burnley before confidence in the squad soars and a la Sheff Utd two seasons ago, opponents start to cave in against us.  Then all talk of financing and shareholdings drifts away again!

Then I wake up and find, no chance of Smith & Jones contemplating any sale of their shares, Farke still persisting with 4-3-3, more VAR decisions go against us and still nul point!  

But this thread still grows and entertains.....  

Please continue everyone, and keep it sweet.

 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Great discussion.

A point I would say is being missed is that we already had a season of PL football with Emi. It didn't go well. In fact 10 of the 16 games used as damning statistics came from that season.

I'm not saying it was right to sell Emi but theoretically the impact of the sale may be greatest if we return to the champs. We had to find another way to survive PL. There's still time for that.

 

I go back and forth on the sale of  Emi. 
 

He looked good at times in the Prem but also was a liability . I’m sure the Club felt the same. 
 

Emi agitated all season - I don’t think there is any doubt about that . He was a sulky surly player at the start of the Chumps season and ended dancing around in Carrow Road spraying beer around outside the directors entrance , enjoying the fans singing his name . Something had  gone on - I assume it was promises/contracts/ money. It usually is. 
 

But you still can’t shake the fact that we sold our best player . Emi was absolutely outstanding last year - and teams don’t sell their best players on promotion. If you want stats our record with Emi against our record without him is extraordinary. 
 

Now of course this is all about results . If we had won 3 out of 6 we would be saying that it was a good move . We still might . 6 straight defeats however suggest at the moment it was exactly what the Media thought . A bizarre decision. 
 

Time will tell. One thing is for sure . Emi is one of the greatest players I’ve ever seen in a City shirt . 

[Monty13 2,231]

5 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Great discussion.

A point I would say is being missed is that we already had a season of PL football with Emi. It didn't go well. In fact 10 of the 16 games used as damning statistics came from that season.

I'm not saying it was right to sell Emi but theoretically the impact of the sale may be greatest if we return to the champs. We had to find another way to survive PL. There's still time for that.

 

But Emi got assists and finished the league statistically as one of the most dangerous players regardless of the team as a wholes performance.

Yes it would have been nice if he’d scored some goals on top or got a few more assists, but the evidence that he was someone to build a PL team around was there IMO.

[Ulfotto 632]

I think really although you would not change it the Promotion in 18/19 was too early. Can’t help feeling swapping places with Leeds and missing out in 18/19. Promoted 19/20 might have been better way to do it.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,135]

5 hours ago, Petriix said:

I absolutely agree with the psychology and 'muscle memory' part of it. Which is why I'm so baffled by the decision to rip up the winning system and try to get the remaining midfielders to play different roles. McLean was just getting the hang of his position at the back end of last season, playing with real discipline and control. Cantwell and Dowell were forming a decent understanding etc. Looking at the shambles on the pitch this season, It's safe to say that the changes have done nothing but destroy the balance and confidence in the team.

I don't think we have ripped up a winning system though. We've just tried to adapt it to forgoing a number 10 to try to not have to play with a DM by playing 3 box to box CM's. We still pass out from the back, we still will make a short pass unless absolutely necessary, We still make the pitch small, we still build slowly, we still fart around with it on the edge of the oppositions box instead of dribbling around players to create openings, we still push wingbacks high etc etc The fundamentals of our philosophy haven't changed at all, we've just changed the positions these players are operating in. 

But as has been said a million times before, is common knowledge within football, it's pretty much an established fact and re-iterated on this thread that positional play and possession based football only works if you are at least equal in terms of quality to your opposition. It completely breaks down when you're the inferior team. It looks like we've changed our style but we haven't it's just that the opposition are causing us to fail at it so it looks so much different on the pitch

[essex canary 496]

5 hours ago, Badger said:

1. Burnley was sold at a value of over £200 million according to the Guardian. I would value us at least as highly. A sum of the parts valuation would require someone far better qualified than I, but according to the administrators at Derby there are several purchasers who are interested in Derby County. Although they would get it for £1, they would have to clear debts of between £40 to £60 million (depending on whether Mel Morris is prepared to forgo the 25% of the £100 million he is owed). This would be without a ground, and most of the players who were worth anything have been sold + the rest are on short-term contracts.

I would have thought our brand value was similar to Derby's (or ITFC who sold for £40 million, without a ground or much of a training ground). We own our own ground with a good commercial operation within it (£40 million?), a training ground worth millions even before the heavy investment in it + playing squad which is worth tens of millions.

2. Diluting the ownership with small owners would raise capital like last time (without expectation of dividends in the foreseable future, so I'm not sure the risk reward equation applies. PH has suggested that businesses could be given marketing privileges; fans could be given privileges similar to those offered at the bond issue. D+ M's ownership would be theoretically diluted, but such a diverse group would never act in unison so they would retain effective control, if that was a "blocking point." It would make a hostile takeover more difficult (I forget the percentage at which shareholders have to sell.) A bond issue, I feel could help with a ground improvements - a prudently managed club would be a reasonably safe investment, particularly for fans (again with privileges like before). The last bond issue was over-subscribed and sold out quickly, suggesting we could raise more this way. Keeping the maths simple, if we raised £10 million at 5% it would cost  £500,000 a year. I don't know how much a stand would cost, but I'm confident that a carefully considered stand could cover much of this cost by non-football activities alone (e.g. mobile offices with ample parking in this post-pandemic world).

I'm not an accountant - this is honest speculation.

Raising £10 million at a consistent 5% a year sounds sensible enough to me. The bond issue was oversubscribed because it paid out far more than that whereas the last share issue was exactly the opposite. Consistency of approach would help. Why not Trust arrangements like Wimbledon and Exeter?

[nutty nigel 7,531]

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

What if it ultimately costs us Farke and Webber?

Parma 

If "another way" was forced upon Webber then that may be a worry. But I doubt it will be. I am of the impression that the only parameters Webber has to work under is for us to be a self-sustaining football club that plays football with a style and is central in the community.

The summer transfer window suggests to me we did intend change that style from passing through teams to counter attacking with pace. If I'm right then clearly Webber is on board with that. It hasn't worked yet. Not to say it won't.

What could have cost us Farke and Webber would have been a directive from above to stay in the PL at all costs.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

@nutty nigel I refer you to an excerpt from earlier: 

…it has always troubled me. Success undermines the model. Sportspeople, players, Managers, Sporting Directors don’t love losing, they don’t like to be associated with failure..more than anything they hate (and are very sensitive to) the point where a sporting journey, career or model reaches its glass ceiling and that glass is shown to be impenetrable. Success was always the threat to the model. 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

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

@nutty nigel I refer you to an excerpt from earlier: 

I get this. But we may have a better chance of staying up at all costs if we use a system with more affordable weapons. Maybe a long thrower, a set piece specialist and some big units up front. IE Pulis at Stoke. Too late now though, the money is spent. And I assume Webber and Farke spent it.

[hogesar 9,658]

9 hours ago, king canary said:

Sure in part. But there seems to be this suggestion that if we don't sell a player when they push to leave that suddenly any other young player won't be interested, despite this not playing out anywhere else.

I've made the point before with Palace- they held onto Wilf Zaha despite two separate transfer requests yet have still been able to convince young players (Olise, Eze, Guehi etc) that signing for Palace is a good career move. The idea that if we'd have held on to Emi that the whole model suddenly collapses doesn't ring true to me.

I guess its somewhere in the middle. I dont believe it would stop us being able to sign young players but if we are in competition with other clubs,  it has to be a potential deciding factor especially if we can't overpay on wages. I guess it's about giving us something other than money which we know we arent strong on to convince