Is anyone happy?

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes. Although mistakes were plainly made I believe there were some circumstances that made decisions difficult. Take strikers. I imagine in the summer Webber and Farke discussed whether Pukki had another Premier League season in him. Slight signs of slowing down?

But who could we attract who would be good enough - and affordable for us - as a replacement but would have to put up with the potential prospect of being on the bench if Pukki still had what it took? Not easy to find one such with our financial restraints.

So the gamble is taken that Pukki has still got it, but as a kind of insurance in come Rashica and Sargent,  with spin out of Carrow Road that this will be the break-out season for Idah. Plus some goals from Cantwell....

Rashica has taken half a season to adapt to English football, and as striker (as opposed to a willing workhorse) Sargent looks to have justified Bethal's 'Noooooo!!!' comment on hearing us linked with him, while Idah appears not to be close to EPL quality. And Cantwell is elsewhere,. And Pukki, though doing OK, is apparently showing signs of a slight decline. The result? A terrible lack of goals.

Could be harsh on Idah there. From West Ham onwards until his injury - the last few games he had, he showed signs of getting to grips with the rarefied air of top-flight / first-team football. I thought he and Sargent in particular were showing signs of becoming a physical, robust, energetic presence up top that relieved the pressure on our shaky midfield, and also allowed Pukki to roam around.

Don't get me wrong, Idah didn't start the season well at all - but I think that injury could really have been very unfortunate in the timing.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Could be harsh on Idah there. From West Ham onwards until his injury - the last few games he had, he showed signs of getting to grips with the rarefied air of top-flight / first-team football. I thought he and Sargent in particular were showing signs of becoming a physical, robust, energetic presence up top that relieved the pressure on our shaky midfield, and also allowed Pukki to roam around.

Don't get me wrong, Idah didn't start the season well at all - but I think that injury could really have been very unfortunate in the timing.

Possibly, TGS. I am only going on what I've read, although even if Idah (and Sargent) had been successful in the way you describe that still didn't translate into many goals for either. One of the key signs for me for the summer transfer window is whether we do get in a potential starting striker.

[Danbury Yellow 126]

For those that want championship mid table status, the model would fail.  We need the cash for the big league to bail out our development of infrastructure and young talent to sell and then repeat.  
A stay at the lower level probably results in relegation to league 1 as an outcome over a long term period of time. I’m nervous, but I always am, I support Norwich City ! 
 

[corbs 147]

7 hours ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

In truth I think most of us would just say, " Oh well " sit back and look forward to domestic and European glory. Fair play if you wouldn't be among them.

Some of us did make a stand, different time, different reasons, and stopped going- Robert Chase. 

[Midlands Yellow 3,934]

20 hours ago, sgncfc said:

No they won't; not unless they spend £100m. The players they have are nowhere near good enough.

I’ll have a wager with you then if you wish? 

[king canary 7,578]

On 15/03/2022 at 08:45, Jambomo said:

It’s strange because I was thinking this earlier reading another thread, no fans are really happy because everyone has a “place” and there is no real competition anywhere. 

From what I can see fans at mid-table EPL teams aren’t happy either because every year is still a battle to either a) not get relegated or mainly, just to finish a place or two higher than last year - in the knowledge that there is a ceiling as to how high they are likely to go.

I live in Scotland and am also a fan of a club up here. We have seen for years the damage the lack of competition can do, the financial dominance just leads to gloryhunting fans, that leads to increased financial dominance because they buy into big teams and not local side.

The result is that outside Rangers and Celtic, utterly nobody up here gives a toss who wins the league and virtually all interest in it is gone. The best thing to happen in recent years was St Johnstone’s cup double. 

When you leave nothing real to play for, what is the point? I felt that some of the better times as a Hearts fan was when we were in the championship and actually had something to win. Mid table mediocrity is actually very dull.

I guess winning without risk of really losing can also be that way but I wouldn’t know, all my teams are basically rubbish 🤣

This really.

It is a symptom of how broken football is. Teams ahve their place and generally the only way of significantly changing that is for someone to pump billions in. The Premier League kicks off with fans of maybe 4 or 5 clubs believing they have a genuine chance of winning it- and that peversley is actually more competitive that most major European Leagues. The Bundeslif

Compare and contrast to the NFL (I know I make this point a lot). 13 different teams have won the Superbowl since 2000. Only 4 teams out of the 32 total have never made a Superbowl. Every season I'd say at least 50% go into it feeling they have a chance to win the big prize and that 50% changes from season to season. In comparison we've only seen 6 teams win the Premier League in that time period and less in other major European leagues. It isn't sustainable to have competitions that 80% will never have a remote shot of winning. 

[First Wazzock 902]

Statistically 6 out of 7 dwarves are not Happy

[nutty nigel 7,509]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

This really.

It is a symptom of how broken football is. Teams ahve their place and generally the only way of significantly changing that is for someone to pump billions in. The Premier League kicks off with fans of maybe 4 or 5 clubs believing they have a genuine chance of winning it- and that peversley is actually more competitive that most major European Leagues. The Bundeslif

Compare and contrast to the NFL (I know I make this point a lot). 13 different teams have won the Superbowl since 2000. Only 4 teams out of the 32 total have never made a Superbowl. Every season I'd say at least 50% go into it feeling they have a chance to win the big prize and that 50% changes from season to season. In comparison we've only seen 6 teams win the Premier League in that time period and less in other major European leagues. It isn't sustainable to have competitions that 80% will never have a remote shot of winning. 

I don't know much about NFL and understand little. But it seems to me the trophies are won through sporting achievement rather than owners wealth. This doesn't seem to have affected the sports popularity which our uncompetitive billionaires toy model certainly has.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

I’ll have a wager with you then if you wish? 

Found Bobby yet?

[Midlands Yellow 3,934]

9 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Found Bobby yet?

Perhaps you could help? It’s here somewhere, I’d guess in the last 3 to 5 years. Perhaps you could help? Think of all the alternative words you know for that beauty and do some searches. It could be Norfolk slang I don’t know, when I looked it up back then I laughed to be fair. 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

10 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Perhaps you could help? It’s here somewhere, I’d guess in the last 3 to 5 years. Perhaps you could help? Think of all the alternative words you know for that beauty and do some searches. It could be Norfolk slang I don’t know, when I looked it up back then I laughed to be fair. 

I wouldn't know what to search either. Not sure I have an alternative word I use on here for that.

[Midlands Yellow 3,934]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I wouldn't know what to search either. Not sure I have an alternative word I use on here for that.

Ok, I won’t post another word until I find it, work now but have tomorrow off. I’ll get back to you in due course. 

[Indy 3,283]

33 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I don't know much about NFL and understand little. But it seems to me the trophies are won through sporting achievement rather than owners wealth. This doesn't seem to have affected the sports popularity which our uncompetitive billionaires toy model certainly has.

Having followed both ice hockey and American football for years the ideology behind it is for competitive franchise based sports, meaning that there’s a salary restriction, the worst teams have first choices on new college or foreign players, squad numbers are restricted meaning those players cut from team are free to find other teams! 
The similar set up here would be to restrict all clubs to 25 players over the age of 21 in each squad, any shortfall would be to be made up from the youth academy. Salary cap the same for all teams in the premiership, thus each team have to work within restrictions more better players across all teams and levelling the competitive nature.

Wont happen as the premier league is ruled by the big clubs ring fencing thier wealth, they’d rather have 40 players on their books on massive wages to protect any chance of falling down the league.

[Monty13 2,229]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

This really.

It is a symptom of how broken football is. Teams ahve their place and generally the only way of significantly changing that is for someone to pump billions in. The Premier League kicks off with fans of maybe 4 or 5 clubs believing they have a genuine chance of winning it- and that peversley is actually more competitive that most major European Leagues. The Bundeslif

Compare and contrast to the NFL (I know I make this point a lot). 13 different teams have won the Superbowl since 2000. Only 4 teams out of the 32 total have never made a Superbowl. Every season I'd say at least 50% go into it feeling they have a chance to win the big prize and that 50% changes from season to season. In comparison we've only seen 6 teams win the Premier League in that time period and less in other major European leagues. It isn't sustainable to have competitions that 80% will never have a remote shot of winning. 

Yep the one thing most US sports get mostly right is they understand to be entertaining the playing field needs to be fairly level.

Their draft systems and wage caps do a fairly good, but not perfect job. There’s a lot wrong with US sport (franchising being the biggest IMO) but they understand it’s entertainment and needs to therefore be entertaining.

[Indy 3,283]

2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Yep the one thing most US sports get mostly right is they understand to be entertaining the playing field needs to be fairly level.

Their draft systems and wage caps do a fairly good, but not perfect job. There’s a lot wrong with US sport (franchising being the biggest IMO) but they understand it’s entertainment and needs to therefore be entertaining.

Add that they don’t have 90 teams in leagues. Most major cities have one team! Yes there’s college sports and semi pro under leagues, but the top leagues are certainly restricted in number of teams.

[king canary 7,578]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

I don't know much about NFL and understand little. But it seems to me the trophies are won through sporting achievement rather than owners wealth. This doesn't seem to have affected the sports popularity which our uncompetitive billionaires toy model certainly has.

Yes, basically.

1. The NFL has a set total salary cap (I think it stands at $200m this season), so the total cost of wages can't exceed that (although teams can be 'creative' to get around it to an extent).
2. Transfer fees don't exist- players in contract can only move if the team agrees to trade them, either for another player or a pick in a future draft (where NFL teams get to select the best players from college level football).
3. The worst team in the season before gets the first pick of the college players so good teams are built by successfully using those picks, balancing your team and coaches making the most of what they have. One owner being worth more than another is irrelevent.
4. Owners in the NFL basically own the whole competition and have a vested interest in keeping it competitive and interesting. As far as I'm aware, all NFL teams make profits so owners make money and they want to keep it that way. Their income isn't dependent on how high they finish so there isn't an incentive to try and rig the system in the way the Super League clubs tried to.

You couldn't simple lift this system and dump it into the Premier League though for a number of reasons

1. The NFL is a closed shop. If you put a salary cap on the Premier League you'd likely see the billionaires who fancied their plaything go buy clubs in another league and poach all the best players by offering higher wages. So any caps would need to come from FIFA, apply across all leagues and any breakaways would have to be shunned.
2. Youth development is totally separate from the professional teams and exist in the highly questionable college system. So imagine instead of the best young footballers in the local area playing for Norwich under 23's, they instead go to UEA to play and develop and then get 'drafted' to the professional game when they reach a certain point. 
3. There is some legitimate question marks over how fair it is to the players- owners are usually very rich, their team makes them richer and players are the ones who put their bodies on the line so deserve a bigger piece of the pie. The contract system is rigged in the owners favour as a player can sign a contract worth $50m over 4 years but with only $20m guaranteed which means the owner can cancel the contract at any point and only be on the hook for the guaranteed money. Life as someone who is more of a filler on the roster isn't great as they often get lower wages without guarantees meaning they can be 'fired' at any point with no pay owed. They can also be traded with little input, so a player in Miami could be called into his coaches office and told he's being traded to Seattle and have to pick up his life and move at very short notice.

It isn't perfect as others have said. But largely there is an understanding that you need to keep the sport as a whole competitive in order to keep it entertaining. I support the Philadelphia Eagles, in 2018 we won our first ever Superbowl. With football how it is I don't imagine I'll see Norwich win the League in my lifetime. 

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Compare and contrast to the NFL (I know I make this point a lot). 13 different teams have won the Superbowl since 2000. Only 4 teams out of the 32 total have never made a Superbowl. Every season I'd say at least 50% go into it feeling they have a chance to win the big prize and that 50% changes from season to season. In comparison we've only seen 6 teams win the Premier League in that time period and less in other major European leagues. It isn't sustainable to have competitions that 80% will never have a remote shot of winning. 

I agree with your analysis of a lot of the problems of the English system but I wouldn't want to go down a franchise route. I don't follow it at all but a friend of mine who watches American football tells me of an occasion quite recently where a club just uprooted itself and transferred itself half-way across the US.

Football in England is rooted in community - it is why it is so important to many of us. My kid are no the 4th generation of City fans, going back to the 1920s. I'm sure that many posters have similar experiences - football to us is not a big TV event, which I believe (perhaps wrongly?) the NFL to be but families coming together to support their community club. It's why teams in league One, Two etc retain a loyal band of supporters.

Football in England should not be the TV event that some of the US owners would like to make it and just dismiss us as "legacy fans." I don't actually mind that Manchester United, Arsenal etc have more money than us: they always did, but the gap wasn't so wide that competition was destroyed. What I find is so tedious about modern football is that the gap is just so big that very few teams can compete.

Top level football today is boring: they may be the odd upset during the season but we already know what will probably happen in 22-23 Premier league.

1. Man City and Liverpool will probably battle it out for the title.

2. Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea (depending on sale) Tottenham will battle for the Champions league and European places.

3. Two of the 3 promoted teams will get relegated with some of the more recently promoted/ "smaller clubs" joining them in the battle for relegation. Every year one or two others get sucked in but often escape.

Let the US investors have their TV franchise European dream, but make the price they pay that they have to leave the EPL. The TV deal will be much smaller as a consequence but domestic football in the EPL and below will be much better for it.

[king canary 7,578]

4 minutes ago, Badger said:

I agree with your analysis of a lot of the problems of the English system but I wouldn't want to go down a franchise route. I don't follow it at all but a friend of mine who watches American football tells me of an occasion quite recently where a club just uprooted itself and transferred itself half-way across the US.

Football in England is rooted in community - it is why it is so important to many of us. My kid are no the 4th generation of City fans, going back to the 1920s. I'm sure that many posters have similar experiences - football to us is not a big TV event, which I believe (perhaps wrongly?) the NFL to be but families coming together to support their community club. It's why teams in league One, Two etc retain a loyal band of supporters.

Football in England should not be the TV event that some of the US owners would like to make it and just dismiss us as "legacy fans." I don't actually mind that Manchester United, Arsenal etc have more money than us: they always did, but the gap wasn't so wide that competition was destroyed. What I find is so tedious about modern football is that the gap is just so big that very few teams can compete.

Top level football today is boring: they may be the odd upset during the season but we already know what will probably happen in 22-23 Premier league.

1. Man City and Liverpool will probably battle it out for the title.

2. Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea (depending on sale) Tottenham will battle for the Champions league and European places.

3. Two of the 3 promoted teams will get relegated with some of the more recently promoted/ "smaller clubs" joining them in the battle for relegation. Every year one or two others get sucked in but often escape.

Let the US investors have their TV franchise European dream, but make the price they pay that they have to leave the EPL. The TV deal will be much smaller as a consequence but domestic football in the EPL and below will be much better for it.

Yeah I know people don't like the franchise model but it doesn't follow that if you implement salary caps and similar that you'd have to make it a franchise model. We could pick and choose. 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

"Is anyone happy?" Hmm. Define "happy"! I guess if renewing one's season ticket is a sign of happiness, or at least not of unhappiness, then...🤓

[nutty nigel 7,509]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

"Is anyone happy?" Hmm. Define "happy"! I guess if renewing one's season ticket is a sign of happiness, or at least not of unhappiness, then...🤓

Happy/unhappy is temporary. It can change game to game or even during games.

Joy is another thing though. I can find joy as a Norwich supporter regardless of these temporary things.

Maybe I'm a Joyful Clapper 🙃

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Yeah I know people don't like the franchise model but it doesn't follow that if you implement salary caps and similar that you'd have to make it a franchise model. We could pick and choose. 

Yes agree. Salary caps of some form + other elements could help.

[king canary 7,578]

5 hours ago, Badger said:

Yes agree. Salary caps of some form + other elements could help.

I do think the discussion on these things is often too focused on clubs financial health rather than sporting integrity though. I've never wanted caps based on % of turnover or similar as all you do is lock in existing inequalities. A set wage cap across leagues is the only fair solution.

It won't happen though. Unfortunately the horse has long bolted and football as a whole has accepted the notion that clubs are businesses first and foremost and thus exist to make money and maximise profit, rather than being sporting entities first with a duty to the game as a whole.

[Badger 2,405]

16 hours ago, king canary said:

I do think the discussion on these things is often too focused on clubs financial health rather than sporting integrity though. I've never wanted caps based on % of turnover or similar as all you do is lock in existing inequalities. A set wage cap across leagues is the only fair solution.

It won't happen though. Unfortunately the horse has long bolted and football as a whole has accepted the notion that clubs are businesses first and foremost and thus exist to make money and maximise profit, rather than being sporting entities first with a duty to the game as a whole.

I agree that it will never happen.

Not sure that I agree with the reasoning re maximising profit though. Surely it would be easier for clubs to make a profit if salary clubs existed? (Especially the bigger clubs).

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

I assume everyone remembers the MK Dons are actually Wimbledon FC who moved from London to MK - this caused a huge stir and uproar. 
I would hate to see Franchise based clubs in the UK - as pointed out it undermines the entire reason you follow a team. LA Raiders? LOL.

Our game has gone past the "saving" or repair point. A salary cap would result in big name players moving to Spain / Italy / France to get the millions of pounds they deserve(?!) a week ( is this a bad thing??)
If we want the "best league in the world" then we lose the grass roots aspect.
I feel the best thing is for this Super Euro League to take shape and the big clubs to go play in the big boys million dollar league. The English FA to slap heavy restrictions on ownership (German model?) Spending and wage caps with the remaining clubs.
The Euro Super league players themselves can do what they want but CAN NOT represent their country at a National level this will encourage some to stick around.
The people who want grass roots football get what they need and the I want to see  / spend £££ can still follow Moneycheat Citeh etc.

I think the only thing we as Norwich can do is blast a middle finger up and continue using our model. So what if we as fans have to disengage from the Prem league and click "unfollow" for 12 months  every 24 months but for me I would prefer to keep our integrity and be the 21st best team in England than sell our souls to rival the big boys in the Prem.
I firmly believe that Delia is not the problem, the media , ethos, league, money, VAR / officials are / is.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Nexus_Canary

[king canary 7,578]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I agree that it will never happen.

Not sure that I agree with the reasoning re maximising profit though. Surely it would be easier for clubs to make a profit if salary clubs existed? (Especially the bigger clubs).

Well with football so much of your income is tied up with success on the pitch. Hence the desire of some clubs for a closed shop Super League or to change Champions League qualification so it isn't solely tied to League position, so income fluctuations aren't caused by what happens on the pitch. 

The larger issue is clubs are focused on themselves and nothing else. There was a quote that I'm struggling to find now from someone who had worked at one of the big Spanish clubs (I think Barca) who basically said their focus was entirely on making money for Barcelona and whether that was negative for other teams or the game as a whole just wasn't a consideration.

[Badger 2,405]

13 minutes ago, king canary said:

The larger issue is clubs are focused on themselves and nothing else. There was a quote that I'm struggling to find now from someone who had worked at one of the big Spanish clubs (I think Barca) who basically said their focus was entirely on making money for Barcelona and whether that was negative for other teams or the game as a whole just wasn't a consideration.

I remember a time (probably before you were born, because I was young*) when gates were shared by both clubs although the away teams share declined over time. I think at one time it had been about 40% but declined down to 20% before it was ended. This obviously equalised things out a bit.

There was also a maximum wage for players until the early 1960s.

*Just checked on google - it was ended in 1983. 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

2 hours ago, Nexus_Canary said:

I assume everyone remembers the MK Dons are actually Wimbledon FC who moved from London to MK - this caused a huge stir and uproar. 
I would hate to see Franchise based clubs in the UK - as pointed out it undermines the entire reason you follow a team. LA Raiders? LOL.

Our game has gone past the "saving" or repair point. A salary cap would result in big name players moving to Spain / Italy / France to get the millions of pounds they deserve(?!) a week ( is this a bad thing??)
If we want the "best league in the world" then we lose the grass roots aspect.
I feel the best thing is for this Super Euro League to take shape and the big clubs to go play in the big boys million dollar league. The English FA to slap heavy restrictions on ownership (German model?) Spending and wage caps with the remaining clubs.
The Euro Super league players themselves can do what they want but CAN NOT represent their country at a National level this will encourage some to stick around.
The people who want grass roots football get what they need and the I want to see  / spend £££ can still follow Moneycheat Citeh etc.

I think the only thing we as Norwich can do is blast a middle finger up and continue using our model. So what if we as fans have to disengage from the Prem league and click "unfollow" for 12 months  every 24 months but for me I would prefer to keep our integrity and be the 21st best team in England than sell our souls to rival the big boys in the Prem.
I firmly believe that Delia is not the problem, the media , ethos, league, money, VAR / officials are / is.

Unique circumstances. At the time Wimbledon had nowhere local to play and Milton Keynes was about the only town or city in England of any size that had no football club. Hadn't happened before and hasn't happened since.

As I understand it one of the reasons you can have franchise clubs in the US is that at any one time there are either cities that don't have a major league team (NFL-wise this was true for LA for several years, I believe) or have one when there is room for two. That is just not the position in the UK.

[BarclayWazza 91]

On 15/03/2022 at 13:25, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Yes and no

Many of the detractors at the start of the season were accusing us of not investing and just taking the money, which just wasnt true

We spent £65 odd million , the 11th (?) highest in Europe.

Its the 'who' we've spent the money on which is the issue and thats on Webber (and Farke)

 

Can we please get past this... we might have spent £65m but rather conveniently this ignores that about £15m of that sum was spent as direct replacements for players sold for £40m last season, approx £20m of that sum is contingent on us being in the PL next season (and likely then from next year's PL money) and the remainder is suspiciously close to what we sold Buendia for.

Our net spend over the last 3 seasons, despite pulling in £¼ billion in TV money is slightly above zero.

In our last PL season, we spent next to nothing.

We are rightly ridiculed for the approach we take to the PL. No creative accounting can hide that.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

2 hours ago, BarclayWazza said:

Can we please get past this... we might have spent £65m but rather conveniently this ignores that about £15m of that sum was spent as direct replacements for players sold for £40m last season, approx £20m of that sum is contingent on us being in the PL next season (and likely then from next year's PL money) and the remainder is suspiciously close to what we sold Buendia for.

Our net spend over the last 3 seasons, despite pulling in £¼ billion in TV money is slightly above zero.

In our last PL season, we spent next to nothing.

We are rightly ridiculed for the approach we take to the PL. No creative accounting can hide that.

You're confusing net spend with gross spend

We spent £65m on £65m worth of player. If we'd have banked the money we'd received for Buendia and only spent the difference it would be a different matter. But we didnt

[Badger 2,405]

On 15/03/2022 at 17:12, TheGunnShow said:

Don't get me wrong, Idah didn't start the season well at all - but I think that injury could really have been very unfortunate in the timing.

TBF, I don't think that Farkeball really suited Idah. Smith's more direct approach  is a better match to his style and strengths.