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

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

On 26/09/2021 at 12:57, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

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

I had a client who - aside from other things - was a leading National risk assessor for Health & Safety accidents at work. 

When thinking about apportioning blame for any perceived failure, I often think about his firmly-held belief - borne of repeated experience - that major failures are almost always the consequence of a string of (he would say predominantly-avoidable) smaller errors occurring in collective sequence.

These errors can be broken down into the strategic, the operational-systemic and the individual. The overriding driver for assessment is learning and structural improvement where necessary. 

Much as it is with Norwich. 

In the immediate aftermath of failure, my client would consider it highly unwise to leap to find fast answers and apportion useful blame. It is something of a human instinct, though it is a poor substitute for slower, more considered thinking. 

Norwich don’t have enough money to compete on an equal footing at this level. This is undoubtedly a massive hindrance and defines a number of macro imperatives that drive subsequent sporting decisions. 

Let’s start with the obvious. There are few Norwich fans who would argue against the statement that Buendia was our best player last year and that Skipp was our most important. Buendia for pure ability to hurt the opposition and affect games, week in, week out. He cannot be ignored strategically by the opposition, they have to change their own preferred plans to adjust to his very presence. Coaching definition: a weapon. Skipp naturally played the exact way that offered a key counterpoint to the way Farke likes to play and set up his sides. He instinctively acted as a third centre back when necessary, didn’t get sucked forward or out of shape when we were on top, smelt danger before it arrives and was fast into the fire at its outbreak. If he was not priceless to us, his role was. If not him, then someone had to bought to do that exact job. It is even more important at the top level. This is not hindsight, it was pretty clear to the vast majority of Norwich fans who watch their team regularly. 

Let us now shoot a canard or two to move the discussion forward.  It is unheard of to sell your best player and major weapon upon promotion. Unheard of. The timing of it is extraordinary. It was a huge gamble and - slightly - smells of a compulsive need-belief in ‘doing differently’ to the point where you try to reinvent the wheel in evangelical belief. 

Norwich did not have to sell Buendia. There have been thousands of footballers who pitched for a move, who got their agent to get spiky, who leaked some ‘come-and-get-me’ pleas, a thousand gentleman’s agreements in football that weren’t worth the toilet paper they weren’t wiped on. Norwich were premier League. Buendia was under contract. Promotion was fresh.

Norwich chose  to sell Buendia. 

This goes to the heart of the issue, as it combines the weaknesses of lack of finance with sporting strategy. 

It is not retrospective wisdom to note that at the top level teams are full of powerful, capable squads who have the top level nous to minimise on-field strategic weakness (and force the best to be brilliant, week-in, week-out). Weaker teams face more pressure and thus weaker players make more individual mistakes. Is this then really errors of the individual or the inevitable odds of the wheel of fortune?

Stuart Webber wisely stated that we would not try to compete with this, that we couldn’t, that we would focus on improving the first xi and not spread money around a vast squad of interchangeable (likely not-quite-as-good-as-everyone-else’s) players. 

Nevertheless the decision was made to sell Buendia - who not only a weapon in his own right, but also ensured that Pukki his compadre was at least half a weapon. That’s already good enough to trouble teams a bit. 

What has been bought are not weapons. They are good players. We are on average much better as a squad, yet conversely less dangerous to the opposition. There is the trade. It seems at odds with the early-in-pre-season statement. 

Daniel Farke can pick two good teams every week, though not an eleven that can trouble the opposition. This looks like an expensive mis-calculation. 

There may be a necessary asset investment angle to this. A Tzolis, a Sargent, a Rashica can flourish and suddenly be a valuable asset. They may stay and thrive in the Championship. This strategy may be a product of lack of finance. It would be hard to argue that it doesn’t sacrifice the here-and-now though. 

The painful truth may be that Daniel, Stuart and Delia have all done as well as they can with what they have. 

Demanding change now may be missing the point. Daniel may be wedded to a dominant footballing philosophy that flourishes exclusively against the weaker. Stuart may have ‘done different’ one too many times and succumbed to the - often wonderful - religious fervour of a new  Messiah. Delia may be right to rail against the dreadful capitalism of the whole thing….but….
 

…Maths is a terrible adversary however and all the numbers are against us with what we have. Unpicking the stitching in the dugout changes little if the over-arching fundamentals remain the same. Farke may be the lightning rod, Webber may seek pastures new and trade off well-earned previous glories, Delia may cling on with an ever-tighter grip like Miss Haversham in the crumbling manor…but what then? Does the cycle repeat….the wonderful, awful pain and joy of yo-yo greatness and awfulness? The railing against Murdoch’s millions while gobbling it up so it can be dribbled away to pay for the inevitable annual millions lost in the Championship?

Farke has an array of good players, though he has no weapons. Even Pukki is emasculated without Buendia. Of course when you have one or two weapons you are dependent. Of course you are one injury away from a real issue. Though even that wily old warhorse Steve Bruce - no-ones favourite for favourite manager of the year - essentially builds a solid, effective team then ‘gives the ball to the lad Saint-Maximin’ while the others players sit tight, watch and applaud. It is an effective strategy for the job at hand. Newcastle stay up comfortably (also not enough for fans of course, one must ever move forwards..such is top level sport). Unless you are a truly wealthy, incredible team you cannot hold many weapons for long though. Though the magpies do keep Saint-Maximin, Spurs do not sell Kane and nobody - but nobody - sells such a weapon at the point of promotion. 

Norwich are hamstrung by their ownership model. Self-sustaining to an absolutist degree is an extraordinary strategy in football. There is no money. Self-sustaining is not a philosophy or a laudable guiding principle, it is borne of necessity. Everything - selling Buendia included - flows from there. 

Unless Delia gives the shares away or bequeathes them to a group or individual, then they must be bought. They do have a value. Let us say that the club is worth £100m. To buy 65% of the club, an investor, new benefactor, lottery winner must spend £65m on a nameplate. Before anything else happens. £65m spent and not a single loan left back added yet. No wonder there ‘is no queue of investors lining Carrow Road’. 

So this is it. This is where the maths ends up and the road we tread again. Farke is a red herring. Sacking the manager changes nothing. I’m not even sure that 2 or 3 ardent fans would agree on what our best xi is, what shape it should be, where our best weapons are. I’m afraid simply railing that ‘we should get after them more’….or ‘we don’t go at teams from the off’ … or ..’we need to want it more’ is pointless, worthless nonsense.

We have spent Buendia on a lot of players who are better than we had before and a lot less not-as-good-as-everyone-else’s. Though we don’t have anything now to really hurt teams tactically with. ‘Both boxes’ as the old boys used to say. 

Our failure is a cascading collection of small weaknesses and inter-connecting sticking plasters to cover the gaping wound of lack of finance. All of it is understandable.

If we really want to ‘do different’ it is time to reach out to the SME world, to the Tifosys trading ground bond supporters, small investors, loyal individuals and create a genuinely inclusive French-Shared-Mortgage model whereby the small slices of ownership fluctuate according to investment size at any given moment. Whereby any small (vetted) investor gets a marketing share of brand usage, whereby the community and collective spirit is honourably leveraged to create a membership-style model that would truly be a fitting legacy to Delia’s wonderful era. She herself could and should be a major part going forwards. Like it or not, intended or not, the club has become a massively appreciated asset. It’s value has increased maybe tenfold from the very welcome, though contextually small investment of (anecdotally) £10m or less. 

The majority of the £100m is now Delia’s. She can hand it down to Tom. He can keep it or cash it in. Maybe it is a theoretical £100m that never sees the light of day. If you ask for that money from an investor, I would be reasonably sure it would never materialise. The ‘doors are open’ offer to sell is thus a somewhat theoretical one. It also would have no benefit to Norwich City. Not a pound would enter the club from such a share sale. Something of a circular reference self-fulfilling prophecy then….

..and so we have 20 odd good players and no Buendia. Nor any Skipp. Nor any points. 

Not really an accident at all.

Parma 

 

 

 

@Petriix

…from Sept ‘21

Parma

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

Mistakes were undoubtedly made this season. Looking ahead, though, for me the relevant question is whether these mistakes were an inevitable consequence of the ‘living within our means’ financial and organisational model, and so bound to be repeated ad infinitum, or only partly a result of the model, or one-off mistakes caused by particular circumstances in which there was no purely right solution, leading to human error. Or a combination of the above. And whether the club has learned from the mistakes.

Two specific examples where there were situations without an unarguably right decision are Buendia and Farke/Smith. I don’t want to rehash the Buendia debate. I fully understand the argument for keeping. I can also understand the argument for selling.

As to Farke, I don’t believe anyone here thought we should sack him last summer. However he very quickly became regarded as – again – out of his depth in the Premier League. Yet now there are posters who think we should have kept him, and to make matters worse that Smith, with a good Championship track record, was a disastrous choice as the replacement.

The general point is that the model (which is what we have for now, like it or not) only works if those in charge get all or very nearly all of the major decisions – and particularly those on senior personnel – right. Which is a rarity in business.

I can think of one Footsie-100 company, where CEOs usually lasted 10 years, which had a straight choice between two similar candidates to take over. Most staff thought Mr Tall was markedly better. Mr Short was chosen, and was sacked only three years later, while Mr Tall went to a competitor firm and is at the top of the global business tree.

The Footsie-100 company easily survived the mistake, which was rectified by an excellent choice as Mr Short’s successor, whereas for us any wrong decisions get magnified in importance because of our financial limitations.

Our equivalent to the CEO I suppose is Webber. Whose reputation among some posters has gone from genius guru who can do no wrong to incompetent fraud. Rarely any grey areas in judgments about football, or honest acknowledgements of screeching U-turns when it comes to opinions! And that Adams, already assumed to be the replacement, is a typically sentimental Delia jobs-for-the-boys choice.

I don’t have a conclusion to this. Except that I believe some of the mistakes this season were made in one-off situations that are unlikely to be repeated, and that I don’t see any firm evidence that decision-making generally is irredeemably flawed. Only that the model means mistakes are harshly punished.

[Monty13 2,235]

15 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Mistakes were undoubtedly made this season. Looking ahead, though, for me the relevant question is whether these mistakes were an inevitable consequence of the ‘living within our means’ financial and organisational model, and so bound to be repeated ad infinitum, or only partly a result of the model, or one-off mistakes caused by particular circumstances in which there was no purely right solution, leading to human error. Or a combination of the above. And whether the club has learned from the mistakes.

Two specific examples where there were situations without an unarguably right decision are Buendia and Farke/Smith. I don’t want to rehash the Buendia debate. I fully understand the argument for keeping. I can also understand the argument for selling.

As to Farke, I don’t believe anyone here thought we should sack him last summer. However he very quickly became regarded as – again – out of his depth in the Premier League. Yet now there are posters who think we should have kept him, and to make matters worse that Smith, with a good Championship track record, was a disastrous choice as the replacement.

The general point is that the model (which is what we have for now, like it or not) only works if those in charge get all or very nearly all of the major decisions – and particularly those on senior personnel – right. Which is a rarity in business.

I can think of one Footsie-100 company, where CEOs usually lasted 10 years, which had a straight choice between two similar candidates to take over. Most staff thought Mr Tall was markedly better. Mr Short was chosen, and was sacked only three years later, while Mr Tall went to a competitor firm and is at the top of the global business tree.

The Footsie-100 company easily survived the mistake, which was rectified by an excellent choice as Mr Short’s successor, whereas for us any wrong decisions get magnified in importance because of our financial limitations.

Our equivalent to the CEO I suppose is Webber. Whose reputation among some posters has gone from genius guru who can do no wrong to incompetent fraud. Rarely any grey areas in judgments about football, or honest acknowledgements of screeching U-turns when it comes to opinions! And that Adams, already assumed to be the replacement, is a typically sentimental Delia jobs-for-the-boys choice.

I don’t have a conclusion to this. Except that I believe some of the mistakes this season were made in one-off situations that are unlikely to be repeated, and that I don’t see any firm evidence that decision-making generally is irredeemably flawed. Only that the model means mistakes are harshly punished.

I think the assessment is completely correct in terms of our financial means punishes mistakes and amplifies their affects.

I think the issue is when you start to do a post mortem of this season and the previous two you can argue there’s a fair number of mistakes in the squad decisions.

We seem to have made too many gambles, discarded too many players and not invested wisely enough for a club that can only afford minimal mistakes.

I don’t think that means heads must roll or the model should be torn up, but there needs to be some honest reflection on why we have failed so poorly to advance on the field in any meaningful way and arguably have gone backwards.

[komakino 272]

38 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I think the assessment is completely correct in terms of our financial means punishes mistakes and amplifies their affects.

I think the issue is when you start to do a post mortem of this season and the previous two you can argue there’s a fair number of mistakes in the squad decisions.

We seem to have made too many gambles, discarded too many players and not invested wisely enough for a club that can only afford minimal mistakes.

I don’t think that means heads must roll or the model should be torn up, but there needs to be some honest reflection on why we have failed so poorly to advance on the field in any meaningful way and arguably have gone backwards.

The overriding issue for me is the lack of interest the club has in the EPL. It must be difficult for all below board level to work for a club that has this kind of attitude. The club needs its money to keep this flawed system alive, but its heart is not there. I’m sure prospective transfer targets know that too.

Quite where Norwich City goes from here should concern more fans that it actually does. The club has made its contempt for the top tier clear and the board is a closed shop. Ward’s appointment was pathetic as it was predictable as regards to moving the club forward. 
 

What saddens me most of all is that we’ve gone from being a neutrals favourite to being considered rather pointless - no pun intended. I’ll always support Norwich City as their my home club. That aside, they are a very difficult sell. 
 

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Mistakes were undoubtedly made this season. Looking ahead, though, for me the relevant question is whether these mistakes were an inevitable consequence of the ‘living within our means’ financial and organisational model, and so bound to be repeated ad infinitum, or only partly a result of the model, or one-off mistakes caused by particular circumstances in which there was no purely right solution, leading to human error. Or a combination of the above. And whether the club has learned from the mistakes.

Two specific examples where there were situations without an unarguably right decision are Buendia and Farke/Smith. I don’t want to rehash the Buendia debate. I fully understand the argument for keeping. I can also understand the argument for selling.

As to Farke, I don’t believe anyone here thought we should sack him last summer. However he very quickly became regarded as – again – out of his depth in the Premier League. Yet now there are posters who think we should have kept him, and to make matters worse that Smith, with a good Championship track record, was a disastrous choice as the replacement.

The general point is that the model (which is what we have for now, like it or not) only works if those in charge get all or very nearly all of the major decisions – and particularly those on senior personnel – right. Which is a rarity in business.

I can think of one Footsie-100 company, where CEOs usually lasted 10 years, which had a straight choice between two similar candidates to take over. Most staff thought Mr Tall was markedly better. Mr Short was chosen, and was sacked only three years later, while Mr Tall went to a competitor firm and is at the top of the global business tree.

The Footsie-100 company easily survived the mistake, which was rectified by an excellent choice as Mr Short’s successor, whereas for us any wrong decisions get magnified in importance because of our financial limitations.

Our equivalent to the CEO I suppose is Webber. Whose reputation among some posters has gone from genius guru who can do no wrong to incompetent fraud. Rarely any grey areas in judgments about football, or honest acknowledgements of screeching U-turns when it comes to opinions! And that Adams, already assumed to be the replacement, is a typically sentimental Delia jobs-for-the-boys choice.

I don’t have a conclusion to this. Except that I believe some of the mistakes this season were made in one-off situations that are unlikely to be repeated, and that I don’t see any firm evidence that decision-making generally is irredeemably flawed. Only that the model means mistakes are harshly punished.

@PurpleCanary How about the thesis that neither Farke nor Smith has failed at all. Nor that the model has really failed. That the model is a necessity dressed as a choice. Rather that the club and its lack of competitive finance  has failed?

The very sporting director model is designed to mitigate and puncture the myth of the omniscient manager - and I advocated it long before it was implemented at Norwich - surely one searches the Himalayas for enlightenment as to how to make sense of what comes next. 

As Darren Kenton Darren Eadie have both stated in different  forms players think of their money, themselves and their career. A manager-sporting director- club must endeavour to align broader macro aims with these micro realities. 

Webber chose to swap Buendia for Sargent-Tzolis-Rashica, he was not able to keep Skipp in the building, nor find a replacement for his role. With more financial leeway he would almost certainly have acted differently. 

We got Gilmour and believed in Cantwell. Farke discarded both reasonably quickly. I do not think that hindsight says he was wrong. I very much doubt he cheered at Buendia leaving, nor Skipp returning. A four-year deal pre-season suggested the love was deep. 

This also goes to the heart of what it is to be a Norwich fan. I may be wrong - this is my own view - though I honestly think that Norwich fans just like to feel proud of the club. Not in a winning things sense, but in a way of playing, a more continental leaning. A triangular, pass-and-move, attractive identity. 

One can certainly ignore the noise- there may be little of it high up mountains - though to most fans and their friends who are fans of other clubs, what really hurts is to hear ‘what’s happened to you guys, I used to really like watching you play..?’

The police say ‘follow the money’ in answer to almost any problem. Managers and models are red herrings, I don’t feel like complicating it any further than that. 

Parma 

[king canary 7,609]

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

This also goes to the heart of what it is to be a Norwich fan. I may be wrong - this is my own view - though I honestly think that Norwich fans just like to feel proud of the club. Not in a winning things sense, but in a way of playing, a more continental leaning. A triangular, pass-and-move, attractive identity. 

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think if we'd have got the exact same results playing a pass and move continental style fans would still be unhappy because watching your team get humped week in week out just isn't enjoyable, no matter how many nice triangles you play.

[komakino 272]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think if we'd have got the exact same results playing a pass and move continental style fans would still be unhappy because watching your team get humped week in week out just isn't enjoyable, no matter how many nice triangles you play.

You certainly don’t win by losing. Farkeball didn’t work at the highest level as he didn’t have the money - and therefore the personnel - to play it successfully. You don’t get players to play a system they are not good enough to play at. 
 

I remember West Ham fans getting sick and tired of being told they played in ‘The Wesr Ham way’ when it didn’t actually exist. All they wanted to do was win. Football is a results business and has no time for sentimentality, as Delia would do well to note. 
 

I don’t give a damn how we play as long as it works and the rule of thumb is that you’ve got to play pretty good football to keep getting good results. 
 

There is no Norwch way as that has changed throughout the years, but once Smith is given a budget, we will see what sort of version that will be. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

16 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think if we'd have got the exact same results playing a pass and move continental style fans would still be unhappy because watching your team get humped week in week out just isn't enjoyable, no matter how many nice triangles you play.

You may be right @king canary…I think the love for Farke was very genuine though. I got the sense that the general feeling was that ‘he gets us’….There was a sense of seeing oneself reflected in the mirror (as a Norwich fan), perhaps even more so than Lambert, who was an incredible Glasgow-gambler-throwing-doubles rollercoaster…

…I think that sense of ‘being understood’ smooths choppy waters better than most things. 

Losing is horrible for players. I actually also think Smith has done well to keep them trying, working hard, despite being horribly unthreatening and inferior. That’s also a rather better job than it might appear. 

Parma

[king canary 7,609]

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

You may be right @king canary…I think the love for Farke was very genuine though. I got the sense that the general feeling was that ‘he gets us’….There was a sense of seeing oneself reflected in the mirror (as a Norwich fan), perhaps even more so than Lambert, who was an incredible Glasgow-gambler-throwing-doubles rollercoaster…

…I think that sense of ‘being understood’ smooths choppy waters better than most things. 

Losing is horrible for players. I actually also think Smith has done well to keep them trying, working hard, despite being horribly unthreatening and inferior. That’s also a rather better job than it might appear. 

Parma

Yeah I agree there was a very genuine strength of feeling between the fans and Farke, hence why he got a relatively smooth ride after the first season in the Premier League. I do also think you're right that fans want to feel like whoever is in charge 'understands' them but I do also believe winning trumps all in these situations. The goodwill only stretches so far when you never get to celebrate a win.

[hogesar 9,677]

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

@PurpleCanary How about the thesis that neither Farke nor Smith has failed at all. Nor that the model has really failed. That the model is a necessity dressed as a choice. Rather that the club and its lack of competitive finance  has failed?

I'm only quoting this bit because I generally agree with the rest of it.

I've seen it stated multiple times on here as a 'necessity dressed as a choice' or worded as such.

Multiple times the club, Farke / Webber and now even Smith have said the model is a necessity. I'm not sure there's anyone who believes it a choice. The only bit that was most definitely a choice was to work within the Sporting Director / head coach ruleset.

[hertfordyellow 460]

Personally disagree with the main points made in the post but it seems I’m in the minority.

The ‘we didn’t replace Skipp’ argument, like Webber couldn’t see his value or didn’t get round to it. 1) You can’t replace Skipp with our wage structure, finances and relative standing in the game. He was integral to Spurs, a champions league place chasing team until injured. You describe his position well, a deep lying playmaker, these are not easy to find and anyone who signs for us would not be Skipps quality. 2) You bemoan that we sold Buendia and didn’t replace Skipp. How do we even afford to replace Skipp without the sale of Buendia? It doesn’t add up.

We’ve seen what happens when you keep a player against his will and hope he still plays well. His name is Cantwell and he’s gone from a 30 million Premiership player to a 10 million Championship player. He’s stunk the place out. In hindsight we should have sold him in the summer. Buendia would be even worse. We’ve seen him sulk, we know he demanded a move and vowed never to play again for us. We would have another expensive talent sitting on the sidelines stinking out the place and without the money to spend on new players.

None of what you say is new. Buendia and Skipp were are best players. But your simple solution to keep one and replace the other doesn’t match the reality of the situation faced.

[Petriix 2,840]

I think the point is that far too many decisions were made, leaving us far too vulnerable to those decisions turning out to be mistakes.

Ok, selling Buendia is the conspicuous one. But maybe that wouldn't have been such an issue if we'd given Vrancic another year, given Cantwell a massive pay rise and built the team around him, kept the same system that we'd refined over 4 years etc.

Perhaps giving Farke a 4 year contract then sacking him weeks later was a bit too much of a financial gamble; compounded by clearly not having a coherent strategy for his replacement. Or breaking the transfer record three times without actually improving the first team.

Each of these things in isolation was maybe survivable. But, in combination, they add up to a catastrophic failure from which short term recovery is unlikely.

I keep saying it: this incarnation of Norwich City is unrecognisable from Farke's Championship winners.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

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

@PurpleCanary How about the thesis that neither Farke nor Smith has failed at all. Nor that the model has really failed. That the model is a necessity dressed as a choice. Rather that the club and its lack of competitive finance  has failed?

Webber chose to swap Buendia for Sargent-Tzolis-Rashica, he was not able to keep Skipp in the building, nor find a replacement for his role. With more financial leeway he would almost certainly have acted differently. 

The police say ‘follow the money’ in answer to almost any problem. Managers and models are red herrings, I don’t feel like complicating it any further than that. 

Parma 

Parma, as Hogesar has posted, I don't believe the model has ever been painted by anyone who mattered as a choice. I certainly have never suggested that. It is a necessity because the owners are paupers and in the time they have been owners no-one has ever made a formal offer to take control from them. Of course it has been and is always open to people in business with money and/or contacts to make such a move.

I doubt Norwich City having more money would have persuaded Spurs to allow us to keep Skipp for another season, given that he has made 14 starts and 4 appearances as a sub for them this season, before getting injured.

In the days when I used to speak to police officers they actually ascribed most of what they dealt with day in day out not to a greed for money but to a rather different aspect of the human condition, but I have never lost sight of the uncomplicated fact that professional football is, and always has been, going back to its 19th century roots, a question of finance.
 

[Cantiaci Canary 558]

I've been starting to ponder recently whether the biggest error the club's made is actually 'just' communication.

We stopped hearing about becoming 'a top 26 club' and started hearing about being inside Europe's top eleven spenders with tanks, missile launchers and whatnot instead.

This was hideously wishful thinking at best - misleading at worst. Survival with the money we spent, minus Buendia and Skipp, zero DMs recruited and, yet again, buying in players with no Premier League experience was always unlikely ... as virtually all of us suspected.

We are perhaps just at the inevitably choppy part of The Model right now: 

Two promotions have given us bold expectations (we 'should' be a Premier League side). We've 'completed' the Championship and have the trophy to show for it - twice.

BUT ...

We are still buying £10M players in a league where everyone else buys in £20M names to sit on the bench. Even Brentford lured our no.1 defensive target with more cash and we were blown out of the water by Southampton when Armstrong departed Ewood Park.

The model dictates that we sell stars for profit and then spread that money across the squad ... slowly lifting its quality across the board and recruiting the next generation of stars (Tzolis). This relies on a bit of luck with transfers and getting recruitment perfect - we didn't get lucky and we certainly didn't sign anyone who was good enough to give us a chance THIS season.

Still, we go down without debts, a squad of internationals, an excellent academy and facilities, some exciting youngsters in the pipeline, assets to sell (on our terms) or to lead another promotion push and with a head coach who is highly respected and has both promoted a club recently and secured survival. I'm actually quite excited to see what Dean Smith will do with a transfer budget.

 

Ultimately, perhaps - we are .... just where the model would always have us this far into it.

The error was in saying that we COULD be comfortably better than we ARE and perhaps a more honest, and humble, pitching of our prospects and hammering home of the long term vision would've helped - regardless of the howls of lacking ambition and naivity.

Essentially, if we're going to pursue with this ''We Have A Bespoke Way Of Becoming A Top Team Without The Risk Of Bringing In A Billionaire With Their Own Agenda'' experiment then we need to own that and keep the messaging pure, accurate and realistic.

That (and not buying any DMs last summer!!!) has done the true damage. We abandoned talking about long termism DESPITE deploying only long term strategies = disappointment, confusion and apathy.

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Cantiaci Canary

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

Parma Ham's gone mouldy     744

•  
  •  

Posted just now

   8 hours ago,  paddycanary said: 

The disappointment/disillusionment of this season feels worse for me. There were a few results we could hang our hats onto two years ago and we were competitive in more games than this year, at least up until the lockdown. 

The 'post-mortem' is already taking place and there are still 8(?) games to go which sums up where we are. 

Lots of things haven't worked out for us; perhaps even if most of them had, we'd still be struggling to get to 17th position, who knows. 

Buendia was gone early & they surely must have been planning for Skipp not returning. The fixture list was also well flagged, as always. Lots of clubs had Covid-related pre-season interference, although we seemed to fare worse than most in that regard.

4-3-3 seemed to be the main battle plan, with Aarons and one of Williams & Dimi providing width (and one eye on Byram regaining fitness). For me, I don't think the defence is what has relegated us. Kabak has contributed virtually nothing.

In midfield, I guess a lot more was hoped for/expected from Gilmour which was perhaps unfair on such a young lad and quite possibly a costly misjudgement on the club's part. The Normann signing hasn't worked out. PLM was a decent squad filler with a bit of nous & experience for a reasonable outlay, with perhaps (alas) one eye on having a competent player if back in the Champo (a la McLean & probably the serially-injured Rupp). Perhaps more was hoped for too from Sorensen, who seems to be generally struggling for fitness and perhaps just not fancied. The engine room is where we have been most found wanting, imo.

In the advanced areas, the club went with Pukki again being the main provider of goals, backed up by Idah which was a gamble anyway whether fit or not and then I suppose Rashica or Sargent as a third option if necessary up top. Support for Pukki was supposed to be primarily Rashica & Cantwell with roles for Sargent, Dowell, Placheta & Tzolis and perhaps Rupp or McLean as options too. 

When you look at it with the benefit of hindsight (and not with the annual pre-season hopeful optimism), it's probably not too surprising to see how the season has panned out. Losing Emi was a huge blow, but I guess the hope was that the creativity would come from a mix of Cantwell, Gilmour, Rashica and Normann (& perhaps Tzolis?). Not replacing Skipp was an inexplicable recruitment decision (maybe bitten by the Amadou signing?) & has been disastrous. And also no attempt to remedy this in January is almost unforgivable, particularly with Lungi struggling for fitness. 

17th place or higher was always going to be a massive task, but I think the club itself (aspirations of 'top-17') was hoping for & even expecting to make a better fist of it this time around. I think we will just shade the pathetic tally of 21 points from two years ago, but on the whole I think we look worse overall this season in comparison.

Maybe it is just to do with the astronomical finance required to compete with the other clubs & feed at the EPL trough. We over-achieve at Champo level but the leap to bottom-half Prem quality has widened to a ridiculous level. Burnley's stay looks to be over (big game against Everton!) & I think Brentford will 'do a Sheffield United' next year. Leeds have their 'Olly Skipp' with Phillips which has surely helped to garner them the few precious points required to hover sufficiently above the drop-zone. 

Apologies for rambling length of post! 

I think that’s a very good post Paddy.

Parma

@paddycanary

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

If this club had the chance to buy an Erikson, the attittude would be "we can not afford it" , this club is hamstrung by its lack of ambition. We have a DoF who early in his job, said that if you were not in Carrow Road you didn't know what you were talking about... a man about to spend significant time up a mountain instead of at Carrow Road.

[Mello Yello 2,296]

The club currently from top to bottom is akin to sitting on the toilet whilst suffering from severe constipation....or like a couple having a dry-hump.....'We're just going through the motions'.....

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

22 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I think the assessment is completely correct in terms of our financial means punishes mistakes and amplifies their affects.

I think the issue is when you start to do a post mortem of this season and the previous two you can argue there’s a fair number of mistakes in the squad decisions.

We seem to have made too many gambles, discarded too many players and not invested wisely enough for a club that can only afford minimal mistakes.

I don’t think that means heads must roll or the model should be torn up, but there needs to be some honest reflection on why we have failed so poorly to advance on the field in any meaningful way and arguably have gone backwards.

Monty, I think that is very fair. There certainly needs to be some honest reflection on the mistakes made. Despite what some fans might wish for I don't believe this has to be done openly, apart from a guarantee that it is happening. The test will not be whether Webber et al abase themselves in public but whether the summer transfer window is well-planned and executed.

[Monty13 2,235]

6 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Monty, I think that is very fair. There certainly needs to be some honest reflection on the mistakes made. Despite what some fans might wish for I don't believe this has to be done openly, apart from a guarantee that it is happening. The test will not be whether Webber et al abase themselves in public but whether the summer transfer window is well-planned and executed.

I think we’ve reached the point where some openness in terms of admission of mistakes and on the plan to progress is needed personally.

It doesn’t need to be detailed but I personally think after a lot of the bluster about weapons, improvement and this squad being good enough and the end results not justifying that bravado, some broad outline on the plan to move forward would be welcome.

I don’t think a “trust us we got this” message is going to fly given two back to back failures to compete in the PL personally. That was basically the message after the last relegation. 

This summer needs to be about getting the messaging right as well as the results IMO given the unhappiness.

[Mengo 823]

2 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I think we’ve reached the point where some openness in terms of admission of mistakes and on the plan to progress is needed personally.

It doesn’t need to be detailed but I personally think after a lot of the bluster about weapons, improvement and this squad being good enough and the end results not justifying that bravado, some broad outline on the plan to move forward would be welcome.

I don’t think a “trust us we got this” message is going to fly given two back to back failures to compete in the PL personally. That was basically the message after the last relegation. 

This summer needs to be about getting the messaging right as well as the results IMO given the unhappiness.

Yes it certainly looks like we've reached the point 👉 

some broad outline on the plan to move forward would be welcome. 

Very welcome indeed. One thing I will say is that this can only be made public when it becomes mathematically impossible to stay up. Then and IF , I can't wait for the Genius to speak about it. Bravado will be in short supply and rightly so.

 

[Mello Yello 2,296]

Stu's probably gonna run to the Hills and leave Neeyul to explain things.....

[NCFCInnit 52]

So many words! To summarise them: the players we bought are crap.

[shefcanary 2,410]

A new five year plan!  The Suffolk Socialists should be up for that surely? 😉 🙂

 

[Mengo 823]

8 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

A new five year plan!  The Suffolk Socialists should be up for that surely? 😉 🙂

 

Genius idea Shef 😉. Any ideas recommendations? I'm sure SS will ask for undying support from the Faithful support. Probably ask the pinkun.com to conduct a poll for them to give them a clue what the best way forward . Does feel like it's a bit like climbing Everest but thousands of wannabes are doing that these days. 🙃

 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

6 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I think we’ve reached the point where some openness in terms of admission of mistakes and on the plan to progress is needed personally.

It doesn’t need to be detailed but I personally think after a lot of the bluster about weapons, improvement and this squad being good enough and the end results not justifying that bravado, some broad outline on the plan to move forward would be welcome.

I don’t think a “trust us we got this” message is going to fly given two back to back failures to compete in the PL personally. That was basically the message after the last relegation. 

This summer needs to be about getting the messaging right as well as the results IMO given the unhappiness.

You are probably right about that. An interesting point made today by Davitt or Southwell that the word from the club is that the financial position will be the best in five years, suggesting there will be some decent money for strengthening. I know the focus needs to be on midfield, but I still believe we need a higher class striker than Hugill, Idah or Sargent seem to be.

[komakino 272]

6 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by komakino
Error

[komakino 272]

While the clubs position may be reasonably sound, Webber cannot be trusted with it and one would hope Smith would have more say that what Farke did. 

[Bradwell canary 109]

..and so we have 20 odd good players and no Buendia. Nor any Skipp. Nor any points. 
sorry Parma, but who are they……20 is more than a bit OTT.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

21 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

…. the owners are paupers and in the time they have been owners no-one has ever made a formal offer to take control from them. Of course it has been and is always open to people in business with money and/or contacts to make such a move.
 

True and not true @PurpleCanary

There is a massive corporate finance elephant in that room as well you know. 

The issue is the capital gain on the shares. Bought for c£8m worth (say) between £60m-£90m depending on your flavouring.

Nobody could be expected to happily pay that money to just change the nameplate over the door. Nor would it benefit the club. It would basically still be a private transaction at this point and a buyer is down the best part of £100m. 

That issue cannot be theorised away. It would be unreasonable to expect a ‘gainer’ to not claim the win - particularly as the gain must equally transfer to the new owners - but the ‘loser’ has dumped a lot of cash for no club benefit (yet)…it is a canard n’est-ce pas?

Parma 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

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

True and not true @PurpleCanary

There is a massive corporate finance elephant in that room as well you know. 

The issue is the capital gain on the shares. Bought for c£8m worth (say) between £60m-£90m depending on your flavouring.

Nobody could be expected to happily pay that money to just change the nameplate over the door. Nor would it benefit the club. It would basically still be a private transaction at this point and a buyer is down the best part of £100m. 

That issue cannot be theorised away. It would be unreasonable to expect a ‘gainer’ to not claim the win - particularly as the gain must equally transfer to the new owners - but the ‘loser’ has dumped a lot of cash for no club benefit (yet)…it is a canard n’est-ce pas?

Parma 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by PurpleCanary