Did Webber get lucky?

[AJ 1,218]

On 01/11/2021 at 12:10, TIL 1010 said:

I dread to think how much he has shelled out on loan fees and wages for players who will be return to sender once we are relegated. Gilmour,Williams, Kabak and Normann will not have been cheap and will be gone in a flash at the end of the season.

Just remember what he said back in 2017 about us pi$$ing money up the wall.

They won't be cheap, but they were paid for with PL money. The whole concept of loaning to buy means if(/when) we get relegated we have no long term commitments to things we can't afford, which is what Webber was referring to before

[AJ 1,218]

6 minutes ago, king canary said:

Kabak has more Premier League experience than Gilmour...

Whilst true, my point was more they are all young and relatively inexperienced kids in the grand scheme of things

[Google Bot 3,256]

8 minutes ago, king canary said:

This just isn't true in my view. When we bought in more expensive 'proven' players on higher wages under Neil they suffered huge devaluation

The difference is that Farke NEEDS players of quality to work his magic, without that it's pointless even trying his brand of football.

Farke carries a high risk gameplan which can yield massive rewards if executed properly, i.e. providing you've got players that can at least retain the ball and keep their composure.

[Danke bitte 965]

If anyone was reading the Pink Un’s Q&A with Paddy yesterday apparently Webber is due to announce his contract situation later this month. 

Paddy’s comment read that “all was to be revealed” like he knew something, but could just be goading the person who put the question to him. 

I think Webber’s off, he sounds tired of the whole thing, and the backlash from the fans hasn’t helped his cause. 

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Danke bitte

[Mengo 820]

1 minute ago, Danke bitte said:

If anyone was reading the Pink Un’s Q&A with Paddy yesterday apparently Webber is due to announce his contract situation later this month. 

Paddy’s comment read that “all was to be revealed” like he knew something, but could just be goading the person who put the question to him. 

I think Webber’s off, he sounds tired of the whole thing, and the backlash from the fans hasn’t helped his cause. 

 

Webbers 😫tired . Tough at the top.

[king canary 7,578]

Just now, Google Bot said:

The difference is that Farke NEEDS players of quality to work his magic, without that it's pointless even trying his brand of football.

Farke carries a high risk gameplan which can yield massive rewards if executed properly, i.e. providing you've got players that can at least retain the ball and keep their composure.

That is true but I don't think that means we need to sign proven Premier League players to get that. 

My main point of disagreement is that signing proven, more experienced players is less of a risk financially. There is a reason the RVW window under Hughton didn't cripple us but the Naismith one under Neil did- under Neil those players all lacked resale value because they were old and on high wages. With the players signed by Hughton we sold Fer, Redmond, Olsson for decent profits over time due to their attractiveness as young players with potential to grow and made our money back largely on Hooper as again he was a decent investment for another club. 

[king canary 7,578]

5 minutes ago, Danke bitte said:

If anyone was reading the Pink Un’s Q&A with Paddy yesterday apparently Webber is due to announce his contract situation later this month. 

Paddy’s comment read that “all was to be revealed” like he knew something, but could just be goading the person who put the question to him. 

I think Webber’s off, he sounds tired of the whole thing, and the backlash from the fans hasn’t helped his cause. 

 

If he doesn't like the 'backlash' he's had here from fans he'll really struggle elsewhere.

I think he sounded more pissed off with the TalkSport ****e he's had to deal with.

Edited November 2, 2021 by king canary

[Mengo 820]

5 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

The difference is that Farke NEEDS players of quality to work his magic, without that it's pointless even trying his brand of football.

Farke carries a high risk gameplan which can yield massive rewards if executed properly, i.e. providing you've got players that can at least retain the ball and keep their composure.

Farke carries a high risk gameplan which can yield massive rewards if executed properly, i.e. providing you've got players that can at least retain the ball and keep their composure.

This is true. Start picking the correct 11 

 

[priceyrice 123]

18 hours ago, Google Bot said:

2 league titles in 3 seasons can't be luck, it's a complete overhaul of players and management in that period. 

The only players pre-Webber that stand out are Howson and Maddison, for me.  It's been an improvement elsewhere.  This season he believed his own hype in uncovering diamonds, but took his eye off the short-term.   

I think his ability has been somewhat hampered with the desire to leave us with some long-lasting investments as he takes off at the end of the season.

What about Lewis, Aarons,  Godfrey? All pre Webber signings. 

I think Webber has been fortunate with the signings made before him which gave him a good base to improve the squad and has allowed him to spend big money himself, unfortunately it seems without success. 

He helped build a decent team to get promoted first time round but the only players from that era we have sold for a profit and not been stuck with and cancelled contracts or released for free  are Buendia and Pukki (obviously not sold him but could have). 

[TheGunnShow 5,930]

1 minute ago, priceyrice said:

What about Lewis, Aarons,  Godfrey? All pre Webber signings. 

I think Webber has been fortunate with the signings made before him which gave him a good base to improve the squad and has allowed him to spend big money himself, unfortunately it seems without success. 

He helped build a decent team to get promoted first time round but the only players from that era we have sold for a profit and not been stuck with and cancelled contracts or released for free  are Buendia and Pukki (obviously not sold him but could have). 

And by getting an excellent coach in Farke in, who was and is always willing to give promising youngsters their lead, he maximised the value from those signings. Webber might not have got them in, but by putting Farke in as manager, he gave them the ideal conditions to thrive.

Most other clubs probably wouldn't have done so many at once.

[king canary 7,578]

1 minute ago, priceyrice said:

What about Lewis, Aarons,  Godfrey? All pre Webber signings. 

I think Webber has been fortunate with the signings made before him which gave him a good base to improve the squad and has allowed him to spend big money himself, unfortunately it seems without success. 

He helped build a decent team to get promoted first time round but the only players from that era we have sold for a profit and not been stuck with and cancelled contracts or released for free  are Buendia and Pukki (obviously not sold him but could have). 

On the flip side one of the elements Webber identified needed improving was the route from the youth teams to the first team, so I think he needs some credit. This is the kind of invisible behind the scenes work that its difficult for us to actually see. It isn't just about signing some good 16/17 year olds, it is about what you do to help them progress as a club. 

I don't think its any coincidence that since then we've had Aarons, Lewis, Omobamidele, Cantwell and Godfrey all make that progression. Before then we basically just had the Murphy twins . 

[Mengo 820]

8 minutes ago, king canary said:

If he doesn't like the 'backlash' he's had here from fans he'll really struggle elsewhere.

I think he sounded more pissed off with the TalkSport ****e he's had to deal with.

For sure he will struggle elsewhere. 

[Google Bot 3,256]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

That is true but I don't think that means we need to sign proven Premier League players to get that. 

It does mean that, it means exactly that.  I keep saying this, but you cannot separate the success Farke has had from the resource that Emi Buendia offered him.

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

My main point of disagreement is that signing proven, more experienced players is less of a risk financially. 

There's too many facets to that point to really agree or disagree.  Spending more money is not the absolute criteria here, it's getting the correct players in that suit the managers need - and the offshoot of that is that these are players in the 20m range, not 8-10m.  We missed out on players that would've made a difference.

What's key, is making the correct signings, and if that means adjusting our budget to buy fewer players in to allow for it, then surely it's a really simple puzzle to solve when you setting the budget.

You're only considering the risk in regards to if we got relegated.  What you have to take into account is lessening the risk of that being the outcome.  We never approached this season in a positive mindset to signings, and I feel that there's never been an absolute belief in providing the manager with fewer quality tools.

These signings are as much about Webber's ego of leaving us with a legacy of future stars... Which I get, and do appreciate his stance.  However, Farke simply cannot work without a magician.  As proven.

[priceyrice 123]

Just now, king canary said:

On the flip side one of the elements Webber identified needed improving was the route from the youth teams to the first team, so I think he needs some credit. This is the kind of invisible behind the scenes work that its difficult for us to actually see. It isn't just about signing some good 16/17 year olds, it is about what you do to help them progress as a club. 

I don't think its any coincidence that since then we've had Aarons, Lewis, Omobamidele, Cantwell and Godfrey all make that progression. Before then we basically just had the Murphy twins . 

I agree with the other positives he has brought to the club, infrastructure improvements, more focus on the academy and I understand that behind the scenes the environment to work for staff is vastly improved that under McNally. 

However, ultimately the man has given himself ultimate control over all aspects of the non coaching side of the football and he has to be judged by the quality of signings and ability to keep us in the Premier league, for which he has objectively been worse than all our previous regimes and their prem league tenures and he has far more money to spend than any other previous regimes. Webber is an honest and blunt guy and has spoken numerous times about the money we have pissed up the wall previously, but he has pissed far more and far higher than anyone else. Unfortunately, my biggest issue is his insistence that we have to do things differently. We've spent 50 to 70m this summer on unproven players with no prem experience with the hope of benefiting from large profits from these players down the line. This is fundamentally an approach which will not work, we need players with experience and this was identified after our last failed attempt. One successful year of staying in the top flight would generate more cash for our club than developing and selling on 3 of these youngsters signed for 10m plus. 

I backed Webber and Farke after our last failed attempt but to see neither of them learning anything from it and that is my biggest concern. I also can't stand the negative attitude the two of them keep reeling off about how we're not good enough to compete with the top team. I'm worries this blunt negative approach feeds down into all aspects of the club, including the players 

[king canary 7,578]

4 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

It does mean that, it means exactly that.  I keep saying this, but you cannot separate the success Farke has had from the resource that Emi Buendia offered him.

 

I hate to point out the obvious but Buendia wasn't a proven Premier League player when he joined so that's a bit of an odd argument

 

6 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

There's too many facets to that point to really agree or disagree.  Spending more money is not the absolute criteria here, it's getting the correct players in that suit the managers need - and the offshoot of that is that these are players in the 20m range, not 8-10m.  We missed out on players that would've made a difference.

What's key, is making the correct signings, and if that means adjusting our budget to buy fewer players in to allow for it, then surely it's a really simple puzzle to solve when you setting the budget.

You're only considering the risk in regards to if we got relegated.  What you have to take into account is lessening the risk of that being the outcome.  We never approached this season in a positive mindset to signings, and I feel that there's never been an absolute belief in providing the manager with fewer quality tools.

These signings are as much about Webber's ego of leaving us with a legacy of future stars... Which I get, and do appreciate his stance.  However, Farke simply cannot work without a magician.  As proven.

No doubt there is an argument that spending £20m on one player rather than £10m on two was an option and not something I'd disagree with. I guess my general view is the team targetting right sort of profile- ie younger with potential resale value in the future. We just can't spend £15-20m on players aged 28+ on high wages as those players are difficult to move onwards if we do struggle.

[Move Klose 303]

On 01/11/2021 at 11:49, Dean Coneys boots said:

Is Webber a genius hampered by his budget? Or did he just strike lucky in Pukki and Buendia?

I ask because it does currently seem as if we just wasted a massive amount of cash on players who have made us worse not better as a starting XI

Hes done so many good things at this club, more than anyone else has in his position before but his recruitment is questionable. Not like he's been a failure, just some haven't worked out. But the market we work in that's inevitable. Just wonder if he's quite the genius we thought he was. Time will tell.

 

[Google Bot 3,256]

49 minutes ago, king canary said:

I hate to point out the obvious but Buendia wasn't a proven Premier League player when he joined so that's a bit of an odd argument

No it's not, it's supporting my point that we fail without a proven premier league player - I'm not sure what you're failing to understand here, but we failed before and we're failing now - identical scenarios except this time we've splattergunned the entire squad with hopefuls.

Farke's success is based around having a comparable magician in the league that we're in, as demonstrated.

Arguably, Emi would've started this season as a more proven prem player, and what we've done is replaced one proven performer, for 3 hopefuls at a greater cost to the club both in signing fee's and wages. 

We only had to pay Emi more money but neglected to do so due to how WE decided the budget would be distributed.

49 minutes ago, king canary said:

We just can't spend £15-20m on players aged 28+ on high wages as those players are difficult to move onwards if we do struggle.

Based on what? Of course we can.

Are you seriously suggesting that if we went down that Gibson will hold his value of £8-9m better than Ajer's £13-14m? 

Same applies to Sargent @ 9m, he's going to hold more value than the likes of Armstrong @15m?

It's nonsense and you know it.  No-one will want Gibson, and god knows what will happen with Sargent.  They'll have a combined worth of 10m vs 30m+ with Ajer and Armstrong.  These are two key areas where we're lacking, as Farke says "In both boxes".

If we didn't sign Angus Gunn we could've saved that 5-7m, offered Emi 75k+ a week and still had several million change in our pocket.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Google Bot

[hogesar 9,616]

5 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

No it's not, it's supporting my point that we fail without a proven premier league player - I'm not sure what you're failing to understand here?   

Farke's success is based around having a comparable magician in the league that we're in, as demonstrated.

Arguably, Emi would've started this season as a more proven prem player, and what we've done is replaced one proven performer, for 3 hopefuls at a greater cost to the club both in signing fee's and wages. 

We only had to pay Emi more money but neglected to do so due to how WE decided the budget would be distributed.

 

I think that's incredibly naive.

[Google Bot 3,256]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

I think that's incredibly naive.

Same is happening with Cantwell, i'm not the naïve one, matey.

You think Emi would've left if we offered him 100k a week?  5.2 million across the year.  We must be paying Gunn around 1.5 mil a year, plus 5m+ to Southampton, it's SAVING money - try it on your calculator.

Emi wouldn't have decreased in value in that time either, that's just nonsense.  He's pure quality and the world on their dog knows it, he would've gone to one of the proper big boys for 40-50m after we survived this season.

[king canary 7,578]

18 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

No it's not, it's supporting my point that we fail without a proven premier league player - I'm not sure what you're failing to understand here, but we failed before and we're failing now - identical scenarios except this time we've splattergunned the entire squad with hopefuls.

Farke's success is based around having a comparable magician in the league that we're in, as demonstrated.

Arguably, Emi would've started this season as a more proven prem player, and what we've done is replaced one proven performer, for 3 hopefuls at a greater cost to the club both in signing fee's and wages. 

We only had to pay Emi more money but neglected to do so due to how WE decided the budget would be distributed.

What I'm saying is we signed Emi as non proven Premier League player who became on (although some debate that). So suggesting we have to buy in ready made ones doesn't make sense to me.

 

18 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Based on what? Of course we can.

Are you seriously suggesting that if we went down that Gibson will hold his value of £8-9m better than Ajer's £13-14m? 

Same applies to Sargent @ 9m, he's going to hold more value than the likes of Armstrong @15m?

It's nonsense and you know it.  No-one will want Gibson, and god knows what will happen with Sargent.  They'll have a combined worth of 10m vs 30m+ with Ajer and Armstrong.  These are two key areas where we're lacking, as Farke says "In both boxes".

You seem to have ignored the age part I mentioned. 

Ajer and Armstrong are 23 and 24 respectively. The both fit the profile I was talking about, although I'd add neither of them were proven Premier League players.

[Google Bot 3,256]

8 minutes ago, king canary said:

What I'm saying is we signed Emi as non proven Premier League player who became on (although some debate that). So suggesting we have to buy in ready made ones doesn't make sense to me.

Can only bring the water, can't force you to drink it.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Google Bot

[king canary 7,578]

6 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Can only bring the water, can't force you to drink it.

Feeling a bit the same about the other half of my post you've ignored 😉

[hogesar 9,616]

1 hour ago, Google Bot said:

Same is happening with Cantwell, i'm not the naïve one, matey.

You think Emi would've stayedif we offered him 100k a week?  5.2 million across the year.  We must be paying Gunn around 1.5 mil a year, plus 5m+ to Southampton, it's SAVING money - try it on your calculator.

Emi wouldn't have decreased in value in that time either, that's just nonsense.  He's pure quality and the world on their dog knows it, he would've gone to one of the proper big boys for 40-50m after we survived this season.

Emi currently has a goal and assist for Villa, so there's certainly none of the proper big boys after him based on his performances this season so far.

Would Emi have left if we offered him 100k a week? And if we sign Emi it means we don't need a backup goalkeeper? And this 100k a week we're only doing for one year? And he'd agree to this with a 70% reduction clause if we get relegated?

Yup, you're definitely not naïve. Sigh.

Edited November 2, 2021 by hogesar

[Google Bot 3,256]

9 minutes ago, hogesar said:

You think Emi would've left if we offered him 100k a week?

 

9 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Would Emi have left if we offered him 100k a week?

Great conversation, sir. 

[hogesar 9,616]

1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

 

Great conversation, sir. 

I meant remained with us. But it's given you an opportunity to wriggle away from the silly points you've made, so completely understand you taking that 🙂 

[Google Bot 3,256]

2 hours ago, Google Bot said:

You think Emi would've left if we offered him 100k a week? 

 

22 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Would Emi have left if we offered him 100k a week?

 

10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I meant remained with us.

Fancy a third and final attempt at this, perhaps?

[hogesar 9,616]

3 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

 

 

Fancy a third and final attempt at this, perhaps?

No, no need. I think you realise how wrong you were.

[Google Bot 3,256]

Just now, hogesar said:

No, no need. I think you realise how wrong you were.

Sure thing.  You've got a bit of wool on your brow.

[Mello Yello 2,279]

Stu will need a bit more than luck in his next appointment.....