Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dean Coneys boots

At the risk of being repetitive

Recommended Posts

It wasn’t Farke and it isn’t Webber. It is the budget set by the board and the lack of investment they bring. 

No manager on earth can take championship wages and fees and make a premiership team. You might chance if for a season on confidence but will eventually be found out. 

premiership talent and pedigree comes with premiership wages and fees. We don’t pay them- given that Webber hasn’t don’t badly. But we need to recognise his hands are tied  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is Webber, he signed 11 players, many whom are no better than players who left. Surely we were better off keeping the likes of Hernandez, Vrancic and Hugill and signing 4 or 5 players who would improve the XI, as opposed to players who may come good in 5 years time. 

The budget is of course an issue, but that doesn't mean Webber hasn't totally blown the resources he did have. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

It wasn’t Farke and it isn’t Webber. It is the budget set by the board and the lack of investment they bring. 

No manager on earth can take championship wages and fees and make a premiership team. You might chance if for a season on confidence but will eventually be found out. 

premiership talent and pedigree comes with premiership wages and fees. We don’t pay them- given that Webber hasn’t don’t badly. But we need to recognise his hands are tied  

I agree. They need to accept their limitations, advertise their intentions to seek new ownership / investment and we can then see if there really is no one out there. If they have the best interests of the club, there is no reason not to do that.

Our performance in the top flight is not acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

It wasn’t Farke and it isn’t Webber. It is the budget set by the board and the lack of investment they bring. 

No manager on earth can take championship wages and fees and make a premiership team. You might chance if for a season on confidence but will eventually be found out. 

premiership talent and pedigree comes with premiership wages and fees. We don’t pay them- given that Webber hasn’t don’t badly. But we need to recognise his hands are tied  

It definitely wasn't Farke but Webber.........first of all he is part of the board that set the budget.

More importantly, and despite this ongoing theme about lack of investment, we did actually spend quite a lot of money this summer. Webber spent it and so far all the evidence suggests that he didn't spend it wisely.

Actually that isn't quite accurate - what he said in the summer whilst making the signings was all about the long term and bringing in young players with a lot of potential who would over time (months or years!) strengthen the squad but were not immediate first teamers for the PL this season. The most experienced and so far the most successful signing, Normann, only arrived on deadlone with our season already well underway. Whilst there was certainly the hope that we would avoid relegation and there was also the recognition that we might not but that we have to come back up again again with by then a stronger squad.

Even 10 or so days before the decision was apparently taken to sack Farke, Webber re-iterated that message very strongly. But within days he appears to have changed his mind and suddenly survival in the PL was essential and why wasn't Farke getting these young superstars to gel.

Webber can't have it both ways - if survival in the PL this year was essential then he spent his transfer kitty very poorly because no way was that group going to do it. We all know and have seen many times that even very good and experienced players from overseas often take some time to adapt to British football. The idea that these youngsters like Tzolis, Sargeant and even Rashica could just come in and immediately start winning PL games for us is ridiculous whereas if they had genuinely been for the medium/long term they may turn to be great signings.

And that's before we get to signings like Gunn - why on earth did we spend £8m on a keeper we don't need rather on a defensive midfielder or striker (i.e. spend the Sargeant & the Gunn money on a realistic striker).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Creative Midfielder said:

It definitely wasn't Farke but Webber.........first of all he is part of the board that set the budget.

More importantly, and despite this ongoing theme about lack of investment, we did actually spend quite a lot of money this summer. Webber spent it and so far all the evidence suggests that he didn't spend it wisely.

Actually that isn't quite accurate - what he said in the summer whilst making the signings was all about the long term and bringing in young players with a lot of potential who would over time (months or years!) strengthen the squad but were not immediate first teamers for the PL this season. The most experienced and so far the most successful signing, Normann, only arrived on deadlone with our season already well underway. Whilst there was certainly the hope that we would avoid relegation and there was also the recognition that we might not but that we have to come back up again again with by then a stronger squad.

Even 10 or so days before the decision was apparently taken to sack Farke, Webber re-iterated that message very strongly. But within days he appears to have changed his mind and suddenly survival in the PL was essential and why wasn't Farke getting these young superstars to gel.

Webber can't have it both ways - if survival in the PL this year was essential then he spent his transfer kitty very poorly because no way was that group going to do it. We all know and have seen many times that even very good and experienced players from overseas often take some time to adapt to British football. The idea that these youngsters like Tzolis, Sargeant and even Rashica could just come in and immediately start winning PL games for us is ridiculous whereas if they had genuinely been for the medium/long term they may turn to be great signings.

And that's before we get to signings like Gunn - why on earth did we spend £8m on a keeper we don't need rather on a defensive midfielder or striker (i.e. spend the Sargeant & the Gunn money on a realistic striker).

Fantastic post. Sums it up perfectly. Webber’s made himself look like a fool for criticising the previous regime “for p!55ing money up the wall” and then coming out determined to be a top 17 club. He’s been fantastic for the club but, with the first team dealings, he’s lost me now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be quite so binary.

It's a combination of things.

- our overall budget which is meagre at PL level.

- our recruitment strategy which prioritises signing young players in the hope they will develop and appreciate in value. We needed more 25 year old players like Dimi and Normann than 20 year olds like Sargent and Tzolis.

- the individuals identified and signed, who've proved to be inadequate for the most part. There was also a serious lack of PL experience throughout our transfer business. This is the best league in the world. 

In relation to the latter, obviously Webber has to take significant responsibility. £20m on Tzolis and Sargent has been a disaster.

But there is a bigger picture in that the strategy as a whole is not designed to give us the best chance to stay up in the here and now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Beefy is a legend said:

It doesn't have to be quite so binary.

It's a combination of things.

- our overall budget which is meagre at PL level.

- our recruitment strategy which prioritises signing young players in the hope they will develop and appreciate in value. We needed more 25 year old players like Dimi and Normann than 20 year olds like Sargent and Tzolis.

- the individuals identified and signed, who've proved to be inadequate for the most part. There was also a serious lack of PL experience throughout our transfer business. This is the best league in the world. 

In relation to the latter, obviously Webber has to take significant responsibility. £20m on Tzolis and Sargent has been a disaster.

But there is a bigger picture in that the strategy as a whole is not designed to give us the best chance to stay up in the here and now. 

 

I agree with most of that, but I don't think the money we spent on Tzolis will turn out to be wasted. Sargent is a result of what might be called the Pukki Dilemma. Because we were not going regularly to play two up front it was always going to be hard to attract a PL-quality pure striker. Hence looking at Josh King, who can play out wide as well.

Added to that, the mood music coming out of Carrow Road early on in the summer window (although not so much later) was that Idah would make the breakthrough. And that Rashica would provide some goals. Of those only the latter may start to come true.

The other point, which is linked to failing to get Josh King, is that players with PL experience who are good enough for us to want to buy them will usually have wage demands well above what we can afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I agree with most of that, but I don't think the money we spent on Tzolis will turn out to be wasted. Sargent is a result of what might be called the Pukki Dilemma. Because we were not going regularly to play two up front it was always going to be hard to attract a PL-quality pure striker. Hence looking at Josh King, who can play out wide as well.

Added to that, the mood music coming out of Carrow Road early on in the summer window (although not so much later) was that Idah would make the breakthrough. And that Rashica would provide some goals. Of those only the latter may start to come true.

The other point, which is linked to failing to get Josh King, is that players with PL experience who are good enough for us to want to buy them will usually have wage demands well above what we can afford.

Absolutely. My point is not necessarily that Tzolis and Sargent will never be good enough. It is that, for this season, they are not at the level required to contribute sufficiently to a side staying up.

On my point re. PL experience, I was only pointing out the fact that we signed very little of it. There are reasons why that is the case, the main one being our meagre budget by PL standards, which was also a point that I made. In some respects, it is the messaging that is the problem. Webber spun the signings as given Farke a few tanks and a bazooka. It was spun as a genuine effort to stay in this division. The reality is that we did not recruit players at the level required to stay in this division.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

It is Webber, he signed 11 players, many whom are no better than players who left. Surely we were better off keeping the likes of Hernandez, Vrancic and Hugill and signing 4 or 5 players who would improve the XI, as opposed to players who may come good in 5 years time. 

The budget is of course an issue, but that doesn't mean Webber hasn't totally blown the resources he did have. 

I actually think this is fair criticism. I think the mistake Webber did make in the summer was adding too many that aren’t that big a step up in quality.

We could have kept Hernandez and Vrancic and spent the money we have on Lees-Melou and Tzolis elsewhere as an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Monty13 said:

I actually think this is fair criticism. I think the mistake Webber did make in the summer was adding too many that aren’t that big a step up in quality.

We could have kept Hernandez and Vrancic and spent the money we have on Lees-Melou and Tzolis elsewhere as an example.

And could have signed a capable championship level keeper for about £1m to improve on our goalkeeping backup, we didn't need to spend £5m to improve on McGovern, we could have signed Jamal Blackman for £0 really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing about how we needed more Premier League experience but I don't think people appreciate just how much those players cost both in fees and wages. 

Lots turned their nose up at the thought of Josh King but he is likely able to demand more than put highest wage earner. Players like Dan James command fees north of £20m with a likely wage of at least 50k p/w.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who’s worse for wasting our money? Webber or McNally?

Edited by Indy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What upsets me the most is ... have we wasted the Buendia money?

You can only tolerate seeing the likes of Emi, Godrey, Lewis, Maddison etc. leave if that money is then successfully reinvested.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Indy said:

So who’s worse for wasting our money? Webber or McNally?

We likely won't know for another couple of years but I'd put my bet on McNally having done worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • The problem is that our self funding model will not work in the Prem, even the majority of clubs in the Championship are far wealthier than us.
  • Don't agree with the way money is ruining football  but if we stay as we are eventually we'll end up getting stuck in the Championship for a sustained period of time.
  • Just wish Delia and MWJ would accept they've served their time here and at least actively try and sell the club to someone with the money to take the club to the next level.
  • Three years ago we were the equal of Villa when we were both in the Championship but they were on a different planet to us last night, difference is they have owners who have the money and are prepared to invest in good players to improve the team while we scour the world for young players who may improve and be sold at a big profit just to keep the club going.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, king canary said:

We likely won't know for another couple of years but I'd put my bet on McNally having done worse. 

Funny old game new broom moans about previous one and sweeps the same!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

It wasn’t Farke and it isn’t Webber. It is the budget set by the board and the lack of investment they bring. 

No manager on earth can take championship wages and fees and make a premiership team. You might chance if for a season on confidence but will eventually be found out. 

premiership talent and pedigree comes with premiership wages and fees. We don’t pay them- given that Webber hasn’t don’t badly. But we need to recognise his hands are tied  

At the risk of being repetitive, this seems at odd with what you said about the signings which only goes to further support the fact that talking with the benefit of hindsight doesn't make you a genius:

  

On 31/08/2021 at 07:26, Dean Coneys boots said:

Fair credit to the board. Those two signings have turned this into a very solid transfer window indeed- perhaps the best I can remember on paper. Bravo Webber two days have totally plugged the gaps. My bad for doubting! 

Don’t know much (anything) about Normann but hope he is the CDM we are crying out for. Kabak is a huge signing for us- marquee. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Cantiaci Canary said:

What upsets me the most is ... have we wasted the Buendia money?

You can only tolerate seeing the likes of Emi, Godrey, Lewis, Maddison etc. leave if that money is then successfully reinvested.

Too early to tell. If at least one of Josh, Rashica or Tzolis comes good and becomes another sellable 30 mil+ asset no. If not yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Too early to tell. If at least one of Josh, Rashica or Tzolis comes good and becomes another sellable 30 mil+ asset no. If not yes.

 

2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Too early to tell. If at least one of Josh, Rashica or Tzolis comes good and becomes another sellable 30 mil+ asset no. If not yes.

Problem is, they could good in the second tier and we have to sell them so back to square one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kenny Foggo said:

 

Problem is, they could good in the second tier and we have to sell them so back to square one

Only if we fail to get promoted. I suspect all three will be here next year regardless of where we finish, long contracts so we either keep in summer or sell and we won’t sell unless it’s for a profit. Fail to get promoted though and it’s a trickier position to be in year 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Only if we fail to get promoted. I suspect all three will be here next year regardless of where we finish, long contracts so we either keep in summer or sell and we won’t sell unless it’s for a profit. Fail to get promoted though and it’s a trickier position to be in year 2.

Tzolis and Sargent likely will be (although that depends a bit on their agents I guess). If Rashica shows the form he did pre injury for the rest of the season he'll have suitors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, king canary said:

Tzolis and Sargent likely will be (although that depends a bit on their agents I guess). If Rashica shows the form he did pre injury for the rest of the season he'll have suitors. 

Possibly, but if next summer we want him to stay then he will have to, and that applies to those other two. It won't be the same as it was with Buendia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, king canary said:

Tzolis and Sargent likely will be (although that depends a bit on their agents I guess). If Rashica shows the form he did pre injury for the rest of the season he'll have suitors. 

Yea that’s my thoughts exactly but we will ant 25mil plus in that scenario so win win if he stays or goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

I keep hearing about how we needed more Premier League experience but I don't think people appreciate just how much those players cost both in fees and wages. 

Lots turned their nose up at the thought of Josh King but he is likely able to demand more than put highest wage earner. Players like Dan James command fees north of £20m with a likely wage of at least 50k p/w.

 

Yep, but that takes us back to did we really need to breakup a Championship winning squad and sign 11 when 4 quality additions would have served us better? At some point to succeed we have to increase the wage ceiling, 1 quality player on 50k a week may have served us better than 2 mediocre ones on 25k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I understand the argument, but this seems a funny week to argue we signed too many players.

Not really. We let a lot go at the same time, either on loan or permanently, spending money on players who for whatever reason have struggled to get into the squad.

Does Lees-Melou offer much more than Vrancic? You have to wonder if spending money on someone like Tzolis and sending Hernandez out on loan was wise in the context of Prem survival.

Of course, it is harsh to judge individual transfers, but given the fan fare around how Farke was being given a good chance this season, it's perfectly reasonable to point out that we seem to have signed a lot of players that haven't really added much quality to the squad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ian said:

Not really. We let a lot go at the same time, either on loan or permanently, spending money on players who for whatever reason have struggled to get into the squad.

Does Lees-Melou offer much more than Vrancic? You have to wonder if spending money on someone like Tzolis and sending Hernandez out on loan was wise in the context of Prem survival.

Of course, it is harsh to judge individual transfers, but given the fan fare around how Farke was being given a good chance this season, it's perfectly reasonable to point out that we seem to have signed a lot of players that haven't really added much quality to the squad.

I think in isolation each of our moves made some sense- there is nobody from our list of outgoings where I think 'I really wish they were still here.' From a midfield perspective our issue is that we're a bit lightweight- Vrancic doesn't solve that, not does Hernandez really offer any more creativity. 

However I do take the wider point- would we have been better off keeping Onel for depth and then just signing Rashica and using the Tzolis money elsewhere? Very possibly. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think in isolation each of our moves made some sense- there is nobody from our list of outgoings where I think 'I really wish they were still here.' From a midfield perspective our issue is that we're a bit lightweight- Vrancic doesn't solve that, not does Hernandez really offer any more creativity. 

However I do take the wider point- would we have been better off keeping Onel for depth and then just signing Rashica and using the Tzolis money elsewhere? Very possibly. 

 

Buendia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Buendia?

Different kettle of fish- yes I'd love to have kept him but that totally changes the picture of our budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...