Here's a theory: Farke massively over achieved

[hogesar 9,808]

Just to note, at the time I didn't want Farke sacked but the majority on here did. Note of caution, this forum isn't necessarily representative of the wider fanbase, in fact it often isn't.

However, this concept of Webber making these signings and Farke not being in agreement or wanting them is fanciful. One of our signings deemed the worst so far is Sargent, and rather than call him a 'good signing' and simply toe the line, Farke went in depth and referred to his signing as a "master stroke".

https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/sport/norwich-city/canaries-ncfc-josh-sargent-usmnt-daniel-farke-praise-8366840

 

[Van wink 2,994]

On 31/07/2022 at 18:05, hogesar said:

Just commenting to say your second point couldn't be more true. In a way, its a bit sad that generally speaking what we've experienced isn't far away from being as good as it gets for our size of club with a couple of rare, notable exceptions.

But what's worse is it doesn't compute with football fans. And that's why Farke was mocked and unfairly insulted on here by fans that were singing his name only a couple months prior.

There were many on here and elsewhere who at least had some basic grasp of the model we were following and understood the implications of that both in terms of short and intermediate term rough waters, with not necessarily jam tomorrow but progress, development of club structures, players, Academy, style, culture etc etc and could see overall progress.

You dont necessarily need to give in to the baying mob and if the message is conveyed consistently and loudly enough imo there would probably have been enough support to continue plan A and suck it up. Perhaps communication, or insufficient communication is the key here, there has been deafening silence from Webber and the board too often when the waters get rough, emphasising our model, the big idea, to reassure and gain more converts surely had to be part of plan, which was sadly missing imo.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Van wink

[Monty13 2,268]

43 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Two things to add:

• It wasn't publicly known that Buendia wanted out at the time this was written
• Buendia hasn't really delivered since he went to Villa; Villa are actually looking to sell him now apparently. 

The second point does lend itself to the suggestion that Farke was doing something that brought out the best in Buendia that Villa can't replicate. 

Bailey’s obviously was written after Norwich made it known and he still believed Norwich made a decision to sell for the money. I’ve not seen any journalist buy into the narrative that Buendia wanted to leave and therefore Norwich were right to sell him personally. 

I’m not sure how well he’s done at Villa is relevant. We all know what he provided in a Norwich team and how integral he was. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

3 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Bailey’s obviously was written after Norwich made it known and he still believed Norwich made a decision to sell for the money. I’ve not seen any journalist buy into the narrative that Buendia wanted to leave and therefore Norwich were right to sell him personally. 

I’m not sure how well he’s done at Villa is relevant. We all know what he provided in a Norwich team and how integral he was. 

Regardless, you still have the irrefutable fact that we finished the season in the Premier League without Buendia one point better off than the season we had with him; in the final analysis, objective evidence that we lost more from selling Buendia than we gained isn't there. 

[Monty13 2,268]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Regardless, you still have the irrefutable fact that we finished the season in the Premier League without Buendia one point better off than the season we had with him; in the final analysis, objective evidence that we lost more from selling Buendia than we gained isn't there. 

We lost a manager, we lost a style and we potentially lost a lot of money on other players, time will tell.

The team that got promoted had a lot of reinforcement from the previous season in the PL. 

It also had players, particularly in Buendia, who had grown and improved. Buendia’s Championship outlay was far superior to previous seasons.

Was being no real worse than abject failure the  last time in the PL the goal?

That team should have competed better, not suggesting it would have survived but I think based on evidence it’s hard to suggest it wouldn’t have done any better with Buendia in it. Although admittedly that still left a Skipp shaped hole that wasn’t filled.

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

9 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I’m honestly not sure how you are drawing that conclusion. I don’t speak for Parma, they can correct me if I’m wrong, but I read their post and continue to interpret their view not that we set out to sell Buendia, but that given the financial constraints on the club and him wanting out we swiftly made the decision to. I don’t know why you therefore think we are in contradiction.

I said you were spoiling for a fight because at one point today no matter who I replied to on this thread you were replying to it, often with long lengthy responses. I don’t think I’ve used any inappropriate language or had an attitude.

No it wasn’t the same thing as Maddison, we didn’t need to sell him to survive. We had to sell someone if we wanted to buy any noteworthy players and he made himself the easy option. You’re saying selling Buendia wasn’t logical if it was for financial reasons. Your assumption seems to be, based on the above comments, we must therefore have had to for another reason.

I’ll continue to maintain we didn’t have to sell Buendia and we chose to, because there’s literally no evidence that position is wrong other than Webber’s comments. We were heavily financially constrained and we made what we thought was the best play, it wasn’t. That’s it, that’s my opinion.

Edit: FYI I went back and read Michael Bailey’s piece on the Buendia sale. Also the Pinkun post sale article. I don’t see how the  journalistic evidence counters my view personally.

Athletic:

“As The Athletic revealed, there was no agreement between player and club that one more season of service would result in Buendia’s sale at the end of it — but once June arrived, it swiftly became clear the forward’s heart was set on joining Aston Villa.

At that point, Norwich had a decision to make — and chose to get it done as soon as the money they wanted was on the table.”

Pinkun article: 

“Let’s not sugarcoat it. This is Webber’s biggest decision since arriving at Carrow Road. 

Norwich have decided to sell their best player before a season where they are hoping to survive in the Premier League. 

Externally and, to some internally, that looks like madness. But it boils down to a simple mathematical equation. 

Despite echoing that City aren’t in a position where they need to sell as a necessity, a line that was also was uttered prior to Maddison’s Leicester departure, the difference in spending was stark. 

Without selling one of their assets, Norwich would have been able to sign around £15m worth of fresh talent. That figure will be doubled as a result of Buendia’s departure. 

So, in the end, Webber was faced with a maths problem. Do you keep one player of excellent ability in the hope that he can keep you up or cash in and look to collectively improve the squad? 
When it’s put like that, you can understand, even if you don’t agree with, the logic.”

More like trebled. For what it is worth:

Did Buendia very much want to leave? That seems definitely the case.

Did we have a choice? Given there was apparently no legal document we had signed agreeing to sell him then, yes, we did have a choice.

What would have happened if we had insisted he stayed? No one knows. No one can say. He might have cut up rough for a week or so but then knuckled down and performed well for the rest of the season. He might equally have sulked in his tent until the next May – what Homer called “Doing a Cantwell” – and we lost not just the player but the £33m.

Were there significant gaps in the squad – such as a Skipp replacement - that couldn’t be filled with £15m to spend but could with upwards of £45m? Certainly Webber and Farke thought so.

Was the money spent well to fill those gaps for that Premier League season? Generally no. No replacement for Skipp, for example. But that doesn’t invalidate the financial rationale behind selling Buendia.

Did selling our prize asset look weird to the world of football. I don’t doubt it. But the world of football famously knows sod all about Norwich City. To have a valid opinion the world of football would have to factor in the gaps in the squad and the exceptional circumstance of our extremely limiting financial model. I doubt that happened. Take those factors into account and the world of football might have seen the decision as less weird.

Was the result a dire season? Yes. What kind of season would we have had if we'd kept Buendia and he had decided not to play for us? No one can say. What kind of season would we have had if we had kept Buendia and he had decided after all to play for us? No one can say.

[ron obvious 1,517]

For me the biggest shame, & something I find almost incomprehensible, is the way Daniel completely lost any idea of how we were going to play last season. I suspect he lost faith that his wonderfully entertaining style could keep us in the PL &, particularly after losing Skipp & Buendia - which must have known was on the cards - failed to come up with a viable alternative.

He just looked so bereft of confidence & ideas after those first few games it was tragic. Perhaps he realised the new signings couldn't cut it? I don't know. If he had doubts about them when they signed he really should have stood up to Webber & refused. Perhaps it would've been better to resign at that point.

And yes, I thought he probably had to go when he did. And yes, I wish he hadn't.

It's all terribly, terribly sad. I can't imagine I'll ever see a better manager - in all respects - at Carrow Road again.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

17 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

We lost a manager, we lost a style and we potentially lost a lot of money on other players, time will tell.

The team that got promoted had a lot of reinforcement from the previous season in the PL. 

It also had players, particularly in Buendia, who had grown and improved. Buendia’s Championship outlay was far superior to previous seasons.

Was being no real worse than abject failure the  last time in the PL the goal?

That team should have competed better, not suggesting it would have survived but I think based on evidence it’s hard to suggest it wouldn’t have done any better with Buendia in it. Although admittedly that still left a Skipp shaped hole that wasn’t filled.

We lost a manager who many fans were loudly attacking after every game: 'Farke doesn't know what he's doing', 'he's clueless', 'I'm sick of his post-match interviews', 'no fight', 'he has given up before a ball has been kicked'. Results were poor and it was rapidly getting very toxic and the club acted. Smith did deliver more points per game for us in the Premier League than Farke did, when comparing over the last Premier League season with the same squad. 

As Chicken pointed out, Farke was effusive about some of the new signings. Arguing that selling Buendia for far more money than Villa are going to sell him for was a mistake that would have dramatically improved our chances of survival simply because we failed to succeed without him, even though we failed to succeed with him, just doesn't hold up. 

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,246]

8 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

More like trebled. For what it is worth:

Did Buendia very much want to leave? That seems definitely the case.

Did we have a choice? Given there was apparently no legal document we had signed agreeing to sell him then, yes, we did have a choice.

What would have happened if we had insisted he stayed? No one knows. No one can say. He might have cut up rough for a week or so but then knuckled down and performed well for the rest of the season. He might equally have sulked in his tent until the next May – what Homer called “Doing a Cantwell” – and we lost not just the player but the £33m.

Were there significant gaps in the squad – such as a Skipp replacement - that couldn’t be filled with £15m to spend but could with upwards of £45m? Certainly Webber and Farke thought so.

Was the money spent well to fill those gaps for that Premier League season? Generally no. No replacement for Skipp, for example. But that doesn’t invalidate the financial rationale behind selling Buendia.

Did selling our prize asset look weird to the world of football. I don’t doubt it. But the world of football famously knows sod all about Norwich City. To have a valid opinion the world of football would have to factor in the gaps in the squad and the exceptional circumstance of our extremely limiting financial model. I doubt that happened. Take those factors into account and the world of football might have seen the decision as less weird.

Was the result a dire season? Yes. What kind of season would we have had if we'd kept Buendia and he had decided not to play for us? No one can say. What kind of season would we have had if we had kept Buendia and he had decided after all to play for us? No one can say.

Yes. I can go with all of that Purple.
 

Though of course we do know what did happen. And it was dismal. 

If we were down the pub, I might well discuss some of the effect on the other players that remained. 

One cannot talk about ‘marginal gains’ and then ignore the massive psychological elephant in the room of how the timing of the decision made the players feel. 
 

Players are human. Players play. Not coaches or sporting Directors or hydro pools, or podiatrists or veg patches.

So much of what Pep does - and Fergie before him - is about how players feel about themselves and each other, and the team’s chances and their careers. 

Strong people. Yet fragile. 
 

Managers, owners and Sporting Directors must factor this highly into the equation too. 
 

It was a huge call. It looked odd to the football world. It was made to feel - or perhaps even was - rational from the inside. It could have worked. It didn’t. It didn’t at all. 

Own it and move on is fine. Though of course not all failures are equal. Momentum is an ephemeral star. We have no divine right to keep repeating successes. £30m of spending need not come around for our self-sustaining model with limited finances. 
 

Perhaps the arrival of the Americans on the scene is coincidental. Perhaps. 
 

Perhaps Webber et al did do like I do. Perhaps they did push the model to its limits. 

Perhaps they have found the edge. 

Parma 

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

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

Yes. I can go with all of that Purple.
 

Though of course we do know what did happen. And it was dismal. 

If we were down the pub, I might well discuss some of the effect on the other players that remained. 

One cannot talk about ‘marginal gains’ and then ignore the massive psychological elephant in the room of how the timing of the decision made the players feel. 
 

Players are human. Players play. Not coaches or sporting Directors or hydro pools, or podiatrists or veg patches.

So much of what Pep does - and Fergie before him - is about how players feel about themselves and each other, and the team’s chances and their careers. 

Strong people. Yet fragile. 
 

Managers, owners and Sporting Directors must factor this highly into the equation too. 
 

It was a huge call. It looked odd to the football world. It was made to feel - or perhaps even was - rational from the inside. It could have worked. It didn’t. It didn’t at all. 

Own it and move on is fine. Though of course not all failures are equal. Momentum is an ephemeral star. We have no divine right to keep repeating successes. £30m of spending need not come around for our self-sustaining model with limited finances. 
 

Perhaps the arrival of the Americans on the scene is coincidental. Perhaps. 
 

Perhaps Webber et al did do like I do. Perhaps they did push the model to its limits. 

Perhaps they have found the edge. 

Parma 

Parma, quickly, I can well believe what you say about the effect on the remaining players. That rings true. As to the imminent arrival of the Americans, I doubt that is coincidental. Or to be more precise, the arrival of these Americans might be coincidental, but not the arrival of some such.

Just to add, I don't think the planning for increasing capacity at Carrow Road is coincidental either.

Edited August 2, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

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

Perhaps Webber et al did do like I do. Perhaps they did push the model to its limits. 

Perhaps they have found the edge. 

Given we know just how poorly the money was spent I don't think anyone can say that was the 'edge' of the model. Clearly a vaguely competent window would've put us in a far better position to compete!

[TheGunnShow 6,080]

If the signings after Buendia's sale had struck gold, we'd all be saying Webber / the scouting team / Delia / Farke etc. is a genius. By definition, we're only having this convo in hindsight. 

[Monty13 2,268]

34 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

We lost a manager who many fans were loudly attacking after every game: 'Farke doesn't know what he's doing', 'he's clueless', 'I'm sick of his post-match interviews', 'no fight', 'he has given up before a ball has been kicked'. Results were poor and it was rapidly getting very toxic and the club acted. Smith did deliver more points per game for us in the Premier League than Farke did, when comparing over the last Premier League season with the same squad. 

As Chicken pointed out, Farke was effusive about some of the new signings. Arguing that selling Buendia for far more money than Villa are going to sell him for was a mistake that would have dramatically improved our chances of survival simply because we failed to succeed without him, even though we failed to succeed with him, just doesn't hold up. 

 

What was the root cause of Farke’s departure though?

Personally I think given what happened he had to go, wanting him to go is different. I didn’t want him to, but the circumstances ended up dictating it IMO and that includes his actions.

I think you can trace his departure back to the summer and arguably the Buendia sale was the starting point.

Not exactly sure what you’re saying in that second paragraph to be honest to be able to offer a counterpoint.

[king canary 7,703]

10 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I’ll continue to maintain we didn’t have to sell Buendia and we chose to, because there’s literally no evidence that position is wrong other than Webber’s comments. We were heavily financially constrained and we made what we thought was the best play, it wasn’t. That’s it, that’s my opinion.

I've long believed Webber knew he needed to sell someone to boost his measly transfer budget and ideally wanted it to be Aarons- it was pretty clear we were actively briefing that he was available almost as soon as promotion was secured (see here). In theory it makes sense- if you can sell Aarons for £30m, you can probably replace him for £10m (or even a good loan) and use the extra money to fill other positions. 

When that didn't happen we ended up having to sell Buendia. However the same rationale doesn't apply to him- selling a player of his qualities for £30m+ and replacing him for significantly less is near impossible. It is much easier to find a good lower Premier League level right back that it is a key creative midfielder. Hence we ended up spending almost all the Buendia money on players to try and replace what he did (Rashica, Tzolis, Sargent) while not upgrading other parts of the squad. From a monetary standpoint it was basically net zero.

[Monty13 2,268]

29 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If the signings after Buendia's sale had struck gold, we'd all be saying Webber / the scouting team / Delia / Farke etc. is a genius. By definition, we're only having this convo in hindsight. 

100%, everyone would be saying that. However let’s be fair plenty of people at the time were saying it wasn’t the right move, it isn’t only a point of view generated by hindsight.

Also does that mean we shouldn’t have the conversation? Failure requires reflection, you’d hope that’s happened professionally. We are on a message board to discuss Norwich, no reason it shouldn’t be having the conversation. 

[chicken 2,679]

10 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I’m honestly not sure how you are drawing that conclusion. I don’t speak for Parma, they can correct me if I’m wrong, 

They wont. But their post does.

Hense Parma calls suggesting players wanting to leave "errant nonsense".

Purple has since put it better than I could.

You conveniently dismiss statements you don't like, for example. And continue, like Parma, to push this 'were we better off' tripe. You know that is not what I was asking or pushing for a better understanding of.

Parma, if you like logic, hindsight can not be logical reasoning for the factors that influenced a decision as those making it, did not have the blessing of hindsight.

Ultimately, there were other saleable assests. Would Buendia have been sold ahead of an Aarons, Cantwell, Krul, Pukki?

The fact this had rumbled on for an entire season, before we knew whether we'd be back in the premier league, suggests fairly strongly, that Buendias desire to leave, heavily played upon the decision they had to make.

The alternative choice, as others point out, is to face a repeat of the prior Aug/Sept, whilst being in a less forgiving league with fewer games.

The narrative that it was a stupid choice is brilliant only in hindsight. And I believe I am right in saying folks need to get over it, Buendia had a central part in the story,of wanting away, that cannot be easily dismissed as it is, to suit agendas.

 

[Monty13 2,268]

17 minutes ago, king canary said:

I've long believed Webber knew he needed to sell someone to boost his measly transfer budget and ideally wanted it to be Aarons- it was pretty clear we were actively briefing that he was available almost as soon as promotion was secured (see here). In theory it makes sense- if you can sell Aarons for £30m, you can probably replace him for £10m (or even a good loan) and use the extra money to fill other positions. 

When that didn't happen we ended up having to sell Buendia. However the same rationale doesn't apply to him- selling a player of his qualities for £30m+ and replacing him for significantly less is near impossible. It is much easier to find a good lower Premier League level right back that it is a key creative midfielder. Hence we ended up spending almost all the Buendia money on players to try and replace what he did (Rashica, Tzolis, Sargent) while not upgrading other parts of the squad. From a monetary standpoint it was basically net zero.

Agree with your first paragraph.

Think the issue with the second point is we choose very early to sell Buendia. We didn’t end up doing it, the option was there and we took it before the window even opened.

[TheGunnShow 6,080]

22 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

100%, everyone would be saying that. However let’s be fair plenty of people at the time were saying it wasn’t the right move, it isn’t only a point of view generated by hindsight.

Also does that mean we shouldn’t have the conversation? Failure requires reflection, you’d hope that’s happened professionally. We are on a message board to discuss Norwich, no reason it shouldn’t be having the conversation. 

Sure, but keeping unhappy players against their will rarely works well nowadays. I do think people forget how much the Bosman ruling and similar legislation turned the tables towards player power, not to mention they'd already pulled it out for a year. Prime example of what an unhappy player can do in a team - Paul Pogba at United. Webber's strength here was putting ourselves in a position to maximise profit with long-term contracts.

If Maddison gets sold to Newcastle for below £50m as a player proven in the top flight over several seasons and on the edge of the England team, considering the inevitable premium paid for English players in this league, then that Buendia sale is suddenly going to look a very decent price indeed. Unless Rashica, Sargent and Tzolis kick on, then we can safely say it's blown up.

No-one's saying the conversation shouldn't be had, I don't really see how that conclusion could be drawn. I think the idea was spot on, but the performances of the players in question so far can only show the conclusion that the great idea was not well executed.

Edited August 2, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[king canary 7,703]

5 hours ago, Monty13 said:

Agree with your first paragraph.

Think the issue with the second point is we choose very early to sell Buendia. We didn’t end up doing it, the option was there and we took it before the window even opened.

Yeah but if your whole transfer strategy relies on a big player sale then you kind of have to complete that early otherwise you'll be really up against it.

Personally for me the strategy should have been 'we'll fund it with Aarons or Cantwell but not Emi' and had a plan B in case that interest didn't emerge. Instead it seems we went all in on it.

It also just further highlights the 'unique' circumstances our current financial situation places us in. We can all dance around it but the fact (and yes I'm happy to say fact) is we're going to remain at a large competitive disadvantage unless we see new investment or a significant change in the rules. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by king canary

[Monty13 2,268]

29 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Sure, but keeping unhappy players against their will rarely works well nowadays. I do think people forget how much the Bosman ruling and similar legislation turned the tables towards player power, not to mention they'd already pulled it out for a year. Prime example of what an unhappy player can do in a team - Paul Pogba at United. Webber's strength here was putting ourselves in a position to maximise profit with long-term contracts.

If Maddison gets sold to Newcastle for below £50m as a player proven in the top flight over several seasons and on the edge of the England team, considering the inevitable premium paid for English players in this league, then that Buendia sale is suddenly going to look a very decent price indeed. Unless Rashica, Sargent and Tzolis kick on, then we can safely say it's blown up.

No-one's saying the conversation shouldn't be had, I don't really see how that conclusion could be drawn. I think the idea was spot on, but the performances of the players in question so far can only show the conclusion that the great idea was not well executed.

I think the issue is we don’t know what an unhappy Buendia would have done. We are both free to believe what could of happened because we will never no.

I don’t disagree Webber got good money for him, I think he potentially may have been worth more at the end of last season, but again we’ll never know.

We know he was sold and we know he wanted to be, IMO we will never be certain of the motivations that drove the decision to do so from Webbers/Norwich’s POV or if something different could have happened.

[Monty13 2,268]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yeah but if your whole transfer strategy relies on a big player sale then you kind of have to complete that early otherwise you'll be really up against it.

Personally for me the strategy should have been 'we'll fund it with Aarons or Cantwell but not Emi' and had a plan B in case that interest didn't emerge. Instead it seems we went all in on it.

It also just further highlights the 'unique' circumstances our current financial situation places us in. We can all dance around it but the fact (and yes I'm happy to say fact) is we're going to remain and a large competitive disadvantage unless we see new investment or a significant change in the rules. 

Yea I agree. We know we wanted to sell someone, we know Emi wanted to be sold.

IMO the decision was made early to make Emi’s and the clubs goals align because it was seen as the best chance of success. I think that was the wrong decision personally.

[king canary 7,703]

2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Yea I agree. We know we wanted to sell someone, we know Emi wanted to be sold.

IMO the decision was made early to make Emi’s and the clubs goals align because it was seen as the best chance of success. I think that was the wrong decision personally.

Same, and before anyone shouts hindsight I said so at the time. 

The idea we simply had to sell him because he told us he wanted to move just doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny but that is a whole other can of worms. 

[Monty13 2,268]

45 minutes ago, chicken said:

They wont. But their post does.

Hense Parma calls suggesting players wanting to leave "errant nonsense".

Purple has since put it better than I could.

You conveniently dismiss statements you don't like, for example. And continue, like Parma, to push this 'were we better off' tripe. You know that is not what I was asking or pushing for a better understanding of.

Parma, if you like logic, hindsight can not be logical reasoning for the factors that influenced a decision as those making it, did not have the blessing of hindsight.

Ultimately, there were other saleable assests. Would Buendia have been sold ahead of an Aarons, Cantwell, Krul, Pukki?

The fact this had rumbled on for an entire season, before we knew whether we'd be back in the premier league, suggests fairly strongly, that Buendias desire to leave, heavily played upon the decision they had to make.

The alternative choice, as others point out, is to face a repeat of the prior Aug/Sept, whilst being in a less forgiving league with fewer games.

The narrative that it was a stupid choice is brilliant only in hindsight. And I believe I am right in saying folks need to get over it, Buendia had a central part in the story,of wanting away, that cannot be easily dismissed as it is, to suit agendas.

 

Honestly I no longer have any idea what your position is or the problem with mine.

If I read Parma’s post correctly he called the excuse the player wanted to leave so we had little choice but to sell errant nonsense, he wasn’t suggesting players never want to leave. How are you drawing this conclusion?

Buendia was sold ahead of those players, again I don’t get your position? He was sold before the window even opened.

Buendia didn’t “rumble on for an entire season”. Bailey confirmed there was no agreement to let him leave. He was brought back in and had an amazing season. Your reading of that is that he would have been unmanageable if he wanted to leave again, my reading is, given the evidence, that he’d been brought in line once (in more difficult circumstances IMO) and he could be again.

It was a massive unprecedented gamble, stupid is your word not mine. It didn’t pay off. Yes that’s in hindsight, but it’s not like it wasn’t objected to or seen as the wrong choice at the time.

[TheGunnShow 6,080]

15 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I think the issue is we don’t know what an unhappy Buendia would have done. We are both free to believe what could of happened because we will never no.

I don’t disagree Webber got good money for him, I think he potentially may have been worth more at the end of last season, but again we’ll never know.

We know he was sold and we know he wanted to be, IMO we will never be certain of the motivations that drove the decision to do so from Webbers/Norwich’s POV or if something different could have happened.

I agree with the bit in bold in that we'll never know for sure, indeed that's where the discussion ultimately lands up. We do know what Farke was like with players who he felt could slightly jeopardise the harmony he set such store by - even unproblematic players like Trybull and Klose were discarded, and he was happy to be strict with Cantwell when he played up.

For me, this is the crux, as a small team in the biggest league, our team harmony / spirit was always likely to be our biggest weapon. I accept Parma's argument that spirit could be affected by the best player being sold, but would counter - using Man Utd and Pogba as a very obvious example - of what happens to a team when such a player is not sold.

[Monty13 2,268]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I agree with the bit in bold in that we'll never know for sure, indeed that's where the discussion ultimately lands up. We do know what Farke was like with players who he felt could slightly jeopardise the harmony he set such store by - even unproblematic players like Trybull and Klose were discarded, and he was happy to be strict with Cantwell when he played up.

For me, this is the crux, as a small team in the biggest league, our team harmony / spirit was always likely to be our biggest weapon. I accept Parma's argument that spirit could be affected by the best player being sold, but would counter - using Man Utd and Pogba as a very obvious example - of what happens to a team when such a player is not sold.

The only thing I’d say on that is Farke only completely discarded players that weren’t integral. Buendia was brought back in relatively quickly, so was Cantwell the first time.

I think that’s a totally valid viewpoint, I think the harmony thing does go both ways. I don’t doubt Webber had a hard decision, I just think he made the bigger gamble believing he could make it work.

[Barham Blitz 666]

Long-time lurker.

Seems to me that as various posters have suggested, Webber needed to top up the transfer kitty through the sale of an asset and may well have preferred that asset to be Aarons but in combination with his desire to move on and the fact that the only sizeable bids received were for him, that asset turned out to be Buendia.

The interesting element for me then focuses on the change in formation and personnel following the sale.  We didn’t look to replace Buendia like for like (if that was even possible) – the signings of Rashica and Tzolis in particular up top and Normann, PLM and Gilmour in midfield looked to be geared absolutely towards a counter-attacking 4-3-3 with the midfield trio looking to provide longer vertical passes in a faster transition from an essentially defensive standpoint to more traditional wide players.  

I vaguely remember an Athletic article on Normann highlighting his use of longer channel passing for example, and I wonder if the Sargent signing was a recognition that Pukki might not thrive in such a set up, but that Hugill wouldn’t be mobile enough.

It obviously didn’t work – Parma has articulated the shortcomings of traditional wingers if you don’t have the ball in the Premiership - but there is a [sort of] logic there.  The fact that Cantwell disappeared, Sargent demonstrated that he lacked a striker’s instinct, and Rashica and Tzolis had nothing like the expected effect would certainly not have helped the change. 

Similarly Gilmour and Normann’s inability to find them regularly and the fact that even as a relatively low central block in midfield they were all questionable defensively in comparison to Skipp also undermines the approach.

So the question for me would be a chicken and egg one of whether the move to a counter-attacking but more direct 4-3-3 was a result of the sale of Buendia and the lack of a direct replacement, or whether he was viewed as potentially expendable given a change in formation that was viewed as more likely to keep us up than the Farkeball 4-2-3-1 (which was also always going to suffer from the lack of an available alternative to Skipp and our demonstrable dependence on Buendia in the Championship formation.)

If the latter, the sale of Buendia and the subsequent “justification” that he had forced a move would be necessary to finance the changes that perhaps Webber thought needed to be made anyway – hence Farke suggesting that we [Webber] had chosen to sell.  Given Farke’s comments about his preferred targets and the general tactical approach during his tenure, I’m not sure that the decision was entirely mutual mind …

[TheGunnShow 6,080]

9 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

The only thing I’d say on that is Farke only completely discarded players that weren’t integral. Buendia was brought back in relatively quickly, so was Cantwell the first time.

I think that’s a totally valid viewpoint, I think the harmony thing does go both ways. I don’t doubt Webber had a hard decision, I just think he made the bigger gamble believing he could make it work.

True on the first para, but the crux is that Farke was still more than willing to cast them aside, even if only temporarily, if he felt they were going to impact on team spirit.

[Monty13 2,268]

20 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

True on the first para, but the crux is that Farke was still more than willing to cast them aside, even if only temporarily, if he felt they were going to impact on team spirit.

Long season though, no reason Buendia couldn’t have been cast out and returned if it had happened that way. It worked once.

[TheGunnShow 6,080]

3 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Long season though, no reason Buendia couldn’t have been cast out and returned if it had happened that way. It worked once.

Fair point, but the converse is "how long was he willing to put up with it?"

[Monty13 2,268]

9 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Fair point, but the converse is "how long was he willing to put up with it?"

Again we’ll never know. It’s my belief though if we’d stood firm and the window slammed shut there’s no way he wouldn’t have played. He had international ambitions, he wanted to play on the PL stage. Yes he wanted that move and the money, but in that situation his best move was to play and accept he’d get it next summer.

He could have downed tools and looked for a January move but that’s a major red flag for future clubs. The how does this look to future players/clubs works both ways.