Here's a theory: Farke massively over achieved

[Petriix 2,853]

I don't think getting hung up on the sale of one player is particularly relevant. It's a pretty big leap to assume that keeping Buendia would have meant Premier League survival. We got good money for him and it's entirely possible that he will never replicate his form at Norwich (under Farke) elsewhere.

In many ways, Buendia is a distraction from the real issue. The assumption that Premier League survival was within our grasp, if we had only employed better tactics is (to me) totally flawed. I will maintain that our best hope was continuity rather than change, but that it was always a long shot.

The real failure was blowing the money on three gambles. £30M could buy you 20 Buendias (at his original transfer fee). We should have been developing talent or spending real money on genuine quality. The halfway house of picking up expensive (for us) not quite good enough wannabes will never work. 

Ripping up everything we'd built under Farke was madness. Webber should have realised that his transfer business had failed and simply allowed Farke to rebuild. Persevering with loanees and the likes of PLM, Rashica and (to a lesser extent) Sargent meant stalling the development of our other young players.

More significantly, permanently abandoning the philosophy that Farke and his team had spent 4 seasons embedding into every level of the club was beyond incompetent. We were always led to believe that there was a selection of replacement coaches in line to continue with Farke's work should he leave.

The appointment of Dean Smith was a dramatic divergence from what we thought was the plan. Now it appears to be pretty shambolic. Whether some kind of new identity emerges remains to be seen.

The clock is ticking. Smith doesn't have a great deal of credit to play with and I can see things turning nasty pretty quickly if we don't see some grounds for optimism soon. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Imo Webber absolutely thought he could put the Norwich city squad in a better place with £33mil to fund a series of incomings, rather than keeping Buendia and having little to work with. And I think that underlying belief (arrogance perhaps) but unfortunate misconception is what drove the transfer forwards so quickly.

I wonder how last summer would pan out if he could go back and do it all again with the power of hindsight. 

[Monty13 2,256]

Just now, chicken said:

I'm not claiming there isn't a debate, I'm claiming the position you are trying to hold in said debate is based purely on assumption and requires information out there from journalists and interviews with people involved to all be incorrect. I would argue that it cannot all be incorrect, that the head coach would not lie about the reasons for leaving out "our best player".

So unless anyone can shed any new light on this, whilst there is room for a debate, that argument is seriously lacking in evidence.

An opinion based upon assumption is just dismissed. It has to be. There are not even any anchoring points.

I’m not saying he’s lying, I’m saying spin exists and is a normal part of PR.

Tell me the facts? Because other than the facts everything is, claims, spin and assumption. You wouldn’t accept it from politicians I’d bet.

The anchoring point is we needed money to finance any major further spending after our promotion tied financial commitments. Our net spend proves that. I’ve also heard that widely acknowledged by the journalist community.

I’ve never doubted Buendia wanted to leave, his personal motivation seems pretty clear. I’m just suggesting that we needed to sell someone to fund any further rebuild and given Buendia’s position that made him the obvious candidate. I think that was a mistake.

 

[chicken 2,656]

1 minute ago, Monty13 said:

I’m not saying he’s lying, I’m saying spin exists and is a normal part of PR.

Tell me the facts? Because other than the facts everything is, claims, spin and assumption. You wouldn’t accept it from politicians I’d bet.

The anchoring point is we needed money to finance any major further spending after our promotion tied financial commitments. Our net spend proves that. I’ve also heard that widely acknowledged by the journalist community.

I’ve never doubted Buendia wanted to leave, his personal motivation seems pretty clear. I’m just suggesting that we needed to sell someone to fund any further rebuild and given Buendia’s position that made him the obvious candidate. I think that was a mistake.

 

Right, so you are arguing everything that the club has put out, eg what Farke and Webber are on record as having said in interviews, everything the PinkUn journalists found in their investigative work, everything that Michael Bailey and other journo's at the Athletic did through the same methods is just "spin"?

I've not presented any of it as fact.

This came about when you said that my position was based upon nothing but assumption. I have pointed out that it isn't. That I am basing upon information available in the public domain through journalism and interviews, some of which are also on youtube, that it is reasoned from this information.

Conversely the position YOU hold IS based purely upon assumption. It relies upon all of that information to be spin and inaccurate so that your position holds as much weight. It doesn't and wont ever hold more because at best, assumption Vs assumption is just down to belief. This is essentially what it boils down to.

Typically, I go with what the evidence indicates. All of the evidence, whilst not cast iron, indicates a narrative you don't like. That is why I ask you for any information that can support another position. That's where we are with this. Even if the evidence I am relying upon is weak, it is still better than no evidence at all. 

[Monty13 2,256]

6 minutes ago, chicken said:

Right, so you are arguing everything that the club has put out, eg what Farke and Webber are on record as having said in interviews, everything the PinkUn journalists found in their investigative work, everything that Michael Bailey and other journo's at the Athletic did through the same methods is just "spin"?

I've not presented any of it as fact.

This came about when you said that my position was based upon nothing but assumption. I have pointed out that it isn't. That I am basing upon information available in the public domain through journalism and interviews, some of which are also on youtube, that it is reasoned from this information.

Conversely the position YOU hold IS based purely upon assumption. It relies upon all of that information to be spin and inaccurate so that your position holds as much weight. It doesn't and wont ever hold more because at best, assumption Vs assumption is just down to belief. This is essentially what it boils down to.

Typically, I go with what the evidence indicates. All of the evidence, whilst not cast iron, indicates a narrative you don't like. That is why I ask you for any information that can support another position. That's where we are with this. Even if the evidence I am relying upon is weak, it is still better than no evidence at all. 

That’s exactly what I said was it, that journalists are just peddler’s of spin? I said club PR is spun, it always will be. Webber’s not going to say he was actually ok with selling Buendia to fund transfers is he? He was extremely forceful in his interview that Buendia had to go because Buendia wanted to go.

I listen to both Bailey’s and the Pinkun podcasts as well as reading articles and I don’t recall either being fully convinced Buendia had to be sold.

Like I said Buendia’s unhappiness is well documented. The clubs financial position is well documented, that’s not assumption. We weren’t spending 30 million on players if he hadn’t been sold.

So what’s the known facts because how is anything but fact evidence? 

To me:

Buendia wanted to leave, multiple sources confirm this.

Villa were the only club close to our valuation, again as far as I’m aware multiple sources seem to confirm that.

We sold him. We spent that money on other signings.

What else would you consider evidence and not conjecture?

You said Parma was “wrong”, your word. Given the available evidence I don’t see how you can say that.

[Robert N. LiM 4,570]

1 hour ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Wait, Parma's a girl? I didnt know that!

It's so hard to tell on the internet if someone is joking, but in case you're not, I was referring to this. I have no information on Parma's gender.

https://youtu.be/FfnhmuZ27eQ

[chicken 2,656]

39 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Buendia wanted to leave, multiple sources confirm this.

You said Parma was “wrong”, your word. Given the available evidence I don’t see how you can say that.

You confirmed it in your own statement.

Parma said that Buendia was sold to provide funds for the squad.

The facts, as you put it, is that for this to be the motivation for selling Buendia, that the club must have wanted to sell him before he wanted to leave.

The club sold him because he wanted to leave. As Webber has put it so firmly before, it is then up to the club to realise the best possible value for the player to provide funds to reinvest in the squad. Though obviously, and quite notably, in some cases it has also been to balance the books of the club.

Despite this round the houses sort of dance which involves essentially dismissing all of the information available as "spin" before then basing some of your own positions on said spin - eg; how do you know Buendia was unhappy? Farke - eg club "spin" and journalists "spin".

Given the evidence I don't know how you can say otherwise. Given the evidence it is odd that you pick and choose which is reliable and not considering they come from the same sources you so readily dismiss as spin. You either accept it all as spin and dismiss it all, or none of it... 

The importance? By saying the club was the primary motivator in a statement like that, it suggests that Buendia didn't want to go, or was only mildly looking to, or would be easily convinced to stay but the club elected they'd prefer the money. That wasn't the case, as you have accepted by saying that Buendia wanted to leave the previous summer.

Like I said, it spins a narrative, one that has no evidence to support it. Even spun evidence. The club had already fought to keep him an additional season.

Do I believe the club had no choice? No. Do I believe that the player was the one that got their choice? Yes. Do I believe there was a better choice to be made? Given the information we have to hand, no.

That's the only bit that is really open to debate. The chronology literally reads:

1) Summer 2020, after relegation from the Premier League, the club sold Godfrey and Lewis. Despite interest for other players they didn't sell. To some degree we were forced to sell Godfrey at least due to losses caused by the Covid pandemic lock-downs.
2) At the end of the summer 2020 transfer window, around the time it shut, Buendia was not in the squad and Cantwell was dropped after a handful of games. Farke said this was due to a "lack of focus" at which point he had compared them to Aarons who was said to have had much interest in him (including Barcelona) but had handled this professionally and remained focused.
3) Summer 2021, after promotion back to the premier league, Buendia was sold after reports in various media outlets that Villa had offered the best deal which was more than Arsenal and Athletico Madrid were prepared to pay, backed up somewhat by a fair bit of build up over the space of a week or so. Rashica arrived soon after. At this point various reports came out suggesting that a "gentlemans agreement" had been made with Buendia which kept him with us for the season. This was dismissed by Webber who said he didn't make any such agreement. However, what most sources did report and Webber I believe has suggested is that the discussions with parties involved stretched back several months - very generally speaking somewhere between Christmas and April.

The player wanted to leave, he still wanted to leave at the start of the 2021 calendar year. It was around that time he essentially said so to a journalist in an interview.

We know that this was all caused by Buendia wanting to leave.

As I have said all along, there is a choice, but I wouldn't say either are particularly brilliant. As with this summer, I suspect that the club would have preferred to have sold Aarons first, out of all of the players we had. You either accept that a player wants to leave and that it is the best choice to sell and try and use the money to find potential replacements and strengthening the squad, OR to do everything you can to keep him and risk disrupting the squad you have or having an unhappy player on the books not playing close to their potential.

The last bit can be debated to whatever extent you want. Would we have been stronger? Would we have got enough points? Would Buendia have played to the levels we know he is capable of? All questions we can never answer.

However, it is wrong to state that the club wanted to sell Buendia to fund squad rebuilding. The club sold Buendia because he had told them he wanted to leave. The club then has to make the best of that situation and the money generated from it. It may be semantics to you, but it's important when it comes to neutrality, unbias and not spinning it.

You can debate whether you think they'd have been better fighting to keep him, but not the chronology of events that led up to it. 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,092]

1 hour ago, Robert N. LiM said:

It's so hard to tell on the internet if someone is joking, but in case you're not, I was referring to this. I have no information on Parma's gender.

https://youtu.be/FfnhmuZ27eQ

OK fair enough, I didnt get the reference!!

[Monty13 2,256]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

You confirmed it in your own statement.

Parma said that Buendia was sold to provide funds for the squad.

The facts, as you put it, is that for this to be the motivation for selling Buendia, that the club must have wanted to sell him before he wanted to leave.

The club sold him because he wanted to leave. As Webber has put it so firmly before, it is then up to the club to realise the best possible value for the player to provide funds to reinvest in the squad. Though obviously, and quite notably, in some cases it has also been to balance the books of the club.

Despite this round the houses sort of dance which involves essentially dismissing all of the information available as "spin" before then basing some of your own positions on said spin - eg; how do you know Buendia was unhappy? Farke - eg club "spin" and journalists "spin".

Given the evidence I don't know how you can say otherwise. Given the evidence it is odd that you pick and choose which is reliable and not considering they come from the same sources you so readily dismiss as spin. You either accept it all as spin and dismiss it all, or none of it... 

The importance? By saying the club was the primary motivator in a statement like that, it suggests that Buendia didn't want to go, or was only mildly looking to, or would be easily convinced to stay but the club elected they'd prefer the money. That wasn't the case, as you have accepted by saying that Buendia wanted to leave the previous summer.

Like I said, it spins a narrative, one that has no evidence to support it. Even spun evidence. The club had already fought to keep him an additional season.

Do I believe the club had no choice? No. Do I believe that the player was the one that got their choice? Yes. Do I believe there was a better choice to be made? Given the information we have to hand, no.

That's the only bit that is really open to debate. The chronology literally reads:

1) Summer 2020, after relegation from the Premier League, the club sold Godfrey and Lewis. Despite interest for other players they didn't sell. To some degree we were forced to sell Godfrey at least due to losses caused by the Covid pandemic lock-downs.
2) At the end of the summer 2020 transfer window, around the time it shut, Buendia was not in the squad and Cantwell was dropped after a handful of games. Farke said this was due to a "lack of focus" at which point he had compared them to Aarons who was said to have had much interest in him (including Barcelona) but had handled this professionally and remained focused.
3) Summer 2021, after promotion back to the premier league, Buendia was sold after reports in various media outlets that Villa had offered the best deal which was more than Arsenal and Athletico Madrid were prepared to pay, backed up somewhat by a fair bit of build up over the space of a week or so. Rashica arrived soon after. At this point various reports came out suggesting that a "gentlemans agreement" had been made with Buendia which kept him with us for the season. This was dismissed by Webber who said he didn't make any such agreement. However, what most sources did report and Webber I believe has suggested is that the discussions with parties involved stretched back several months - very generally speaking somewhere between Christmas and April.

The player wanted to leave, he still wanted to leave at the start of the 2021 calendar year. It was around that time he essentially said so to a journalist in an interview.

We know that this was all caused by Buendia wanting to leave.

As I have said all along, there is a choice, but I wouldn't say either are particularly brilliant. As with this summer, I suspect that the club would have preferred to have sold Aarons first, out of all of the players we had. You either accept that a player wants to leave and that it is the best choice to sell and try and use the money to find potential replacements and strengthening the squad, OR to do everything you can to keep him and risk disrupting the squad you have or having an unhappy player on the books not playing close to their potential.

The last bit can be debated to whatever extent you want. Would we have been stronger? Would we have got enough points? Would Buendia have played to the levels we know he is capable of? All questions we can never answer.

However, it is wrong to state that the club wanted to sell Buendia to fund squad rebuilding. The club sold Buendia because he had told them he wanted to leave. The club then has to make the best of that situation and the money generated from it. It may be semantics to you, but it's important when it comes to neutrality, unbias and not spinning it.

You can debate whether you think they'd have been better fighting to keep him, but not the chronology of events that led up to it. 

Just because Buendia wanted to leave does not mean selling him wasn’t a choice or even a necessity in order to fund transfers, there’s no way I can respond to this wall of text but I don’t get why that simple premise is something you have such an issue with.

Just because Buendia wanted to leave doesn’t mean that didn’t align with a Transfer plan for last summer to sell to buy.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

4 hours ago, Monty13 said:

My point was you were making a lot of assumptions and making out they’re facts. The assumption Buendia would have definitely downed tools and not play, the assumption if offered a much improved contract (again a choice) he wouldn’t have signed it. We sold him very early, if Villa had moved on who else was coming in?

We know exactly the same about both players. They both intimated they wanted to leave and one did and the other didn’t. The rest is supposition as we don’t know what would have happened if Norwich had held firm.

Also how do you know Webber wasn’t at least partly motivated to sell Buendia? Where else was money for a squad build coming from?

How can you dismiss someone else's argument for  making assumptions when your own argument is full of assumptions? 

Bottom line is that Buendia was with us one Premier League season and we didn't stay up, so there's nothing to support your supposition that keeping him against his will  and throwing away a fantastic transfer fee would have kept us up the second time around. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Monty13 2,256]

32 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

How can you dismiss someone else's argument for  making assumptions when your own argument is full of assumptions? 

Bottom line is that Buendia was with us one Premier League season and we didn't stay up, so there's nothing to support your supposition that keeping him against his will  and throwing away a fantastic transfer fee would have kept us up the second time around. 

I’m not dismissing it? I’m perfectly fine with people who believe the party line that we only sold Buendia because we couldn’t keep him, I just don’t agree with it.

My issue is the idea that if you don’t agree with that assessment your opinion is “wrong”.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

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

I do think that there is truth in this. 

I think Webber can certainly be defended if he perceived it all as ‘railing against the little old Norwich mentality’.

Aspiring to better, refusing to acknowledge the ceiling, our ceiling. I respect that. It is a necessary mentality for top level success. 

Behind closed doors however, good non-executive boards would be well aware if they had go-kart finances at a Ferrari race day. 

How much was for the good of the company and how much was to satisfy personal ambition, to prove that signings were good enough, that the manager was flawed at the top level?

Being a little bit autistic, I like to prove concepts or theories empirically. I go to the edge. I like to prove something fails or withstands. 

We’ve spent tens of millions that are very, very hard to come by. We sold our weapon due to lack of finances. We fired a fantastic manager and person. We drifted from a clear, relatable, loved methodology and pattern of play. 

What have we learned from it? What have we proved? What clarity have we gained?

It is hard to see now. 

I wonder if Pep watches us anymore?

Parma 

I’ve thought about this.

Perhaps Webber has learned something. Perhaps he genuinely thought it could have been Farke underperforming. Perhaps he thought it wasn’t massively about finances. Perhaps he thought he could easily find new weapons. Perhaps he thought the expensive new young players would train on and be worth even more as assets. 

We all now know better then. 
 

Parma 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

1 minute ago, Monty13 said:

I’m not dismissing it? I’m perfectly fine with people who believe the party line that we only sold Buendia because we couldn’t keep him, I just don’t agree with it.

My issue is the idea that if you don’t agree with that assessment your opinion is “wrong”.

And you're entitled to that view, but when it extends to essentially arguing that it's evidence that those making the decisions aren't fit to do the job, then it should be a bit more concrete than that. 

[Monty13 2,256]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And you're entitled to that view, but when it extends to essentially arguing that it's evidence that those making the decisions aren't fit to do the job, then it should be a bit more concrete than that. 

Where did I say those in charge aren’t fit to do the job? I said I think it was the wrong decision. Wrong decisions get made all the time, important thing is lessons are learned.

[chicken 2,656]

1 minute ago, Monty13 said:

I’m not dismissing it? I’m perfectly fine with people who believe the party line that we only sold Buendia because we couldn’t keep him, I just don’t agree with it.

My issue is the idea that if you don’t agree with that assessment your opinion is “wrong”.

It is when you dismiss every iota of information that suggests otherwise. You said your self, without fail, every source said Buendia wanted to leave.

The only aspect you disagree with is that there was a real choice that he could have been kept and helped us to stay up. It goes against the evidence on hand, which you accept because you call it the "party line" which means any alternative news source that supported that must also be part of some giant spin storm or something.

It is "wrong" to say the club only sold Buendia to fund squad building. As I have said, if Buendia had wanted to stay, there is nothing saying that they would have sought to sell other players to do the same. Aarons, Cantwell perhaps? Would they have gained as large a fees? Maybe not, but had we kept Buendia we also wouldn't have to spread bet on trying to find a replacement.

Again - it is wrong to dismiss the vast majority of sources and information that all paint the same story. The instigating factor behind Buendia's sale was the player wanting to leave.

As I have said, which you falsely say contrary to, I have not said the club had no choice, but that the choice wasn't "keep Buendia and be successful" or "sell Buendia and fail" - which is ultimately how you are painting it. In that situation there are no right choices but the one that ends like a fairy tale. With Tzolis and Rashica being revelations, with Sargent smashing in 15-20goals, Normann and Kabak being inspired loans to buys, Gillmour looking like the new Scholes... etc etc etc. 

Either way, you've still not evidenced anything to the contrary, in fact what you have evidenced only supports that the club did not set out to sell Buendia, but that Buendia set out to angle for a move in August 2021 or earlier that summer. That's what instigated his move away, not the clubs desire to sell him to fund rebuilding - that is wrong, it is an incorrect narrative supported by every source that has reported on it.

[chicken 2,656]

4 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Imo Webber absolutely thought he could put the Norwich city squad in a better place with £33mil to fund a series of incomings, rather than keeping Buendia and having little to work with. And I think that underlying belief (arrogance perhaps) but unfortunate misconception is what drove the transfer forwards so quickly.

I wonder how last summer would pan out if he could go back and do it all again with the power of hindsight. 

I'm not convinced his thoughts were absolute, but I suspect that once Buendia had made his demands to leave, this is the stance that Webber took. No problem with that, you have to make the best out of a bad situation. I think if there had been a preference in players to have been sold, I think they would have looked to shift Aarons first, I only say that as it would appear that the club themselves have often presented Aarons as the player that will some day play at a higher level.

[Monty13 2,256]

45 minutes ago, chicken said:

It is when you dismiss every iota of information that suggests otherwise. You said your self, without fail, every source said Buendia wanted to leave.

The only aspect you disagree with is that there was a real choice that he could have been kept and helped us to stay up. It goes against the evidence on hand, which you accept because you call it the "party line" which means any alternative news source that supported that must also be part of some giant spin storm or something.

It is "wrong" to say the club only sold Buendia to fund squad building. As I have said, if Buendia had wanted to stay, there is nothing saying that they would have sought to sell other players to do the same. Aarons, Cantwell perhaps? Would they have gained as large a fees? Maybe not, but had we kept Buendia we also wouldn't have to spread bet on trying to find a replacement.

Again - it is wrong to dismiss the vast majority of sources and information that all paint the same story. The instigating factor behind Buendia's sale was the player wanting to leave.

As I have said, which you falsely say contrary to, I have not said the club had no choice, but that the choice wasn't "keep Buendia and be successful" or "sell Buendia and fail" - which is ultimately how you are painting it. In that situation there are no right choices but the one that ends like a fairy tale. With Tzolis and Rashica being revelations, with Sargent smashing in 15-20goals, Normann and Kabak being inspired loans to buys, Gillmour looking like the new Scholes... etc etc etc. 

Either way, you've still not evidenced anything to the contrary, in fact what you have evidenced only supports that the club did not set out to sell Buendia, but that Buendia set out to angle for a move in August 2021 or earlier that summer. That's what instigated his move away, not the clubs desire to sell him to fund rebuilding - that is wrong, it is an incorrect narrative supported by every source that has reported on it.

1) What information am I dismissing, other than Webber’s statement on the reason for the sale I don’t have an issue with what’s available.

2) I call it the party line because NCFCs only official comment on it, I’m aware of, is from Webber saying he had to be sold.

3) I never said the club “only sold Buendia to fund squad building”, neither did Parma, you chose to interpret it that way.

4) I never suggested he wanted to stay.

5) I never suggested we would have been successful if he stayed, I suggested the team would have been stronger.

6) I never said the club set out to sell Buendia, I said the club had to sell someone if they wanted to buy more players, that’s a fact evidenced by the finances.

7) I’ve also said when they were faced with Buendia wanting out they chose to sell him.

Once again those last two points dovetail but aren’t the same points. 

Honestly you’re just spoiling for a fight and not interested in discussing what I’m actually saying.

Just to be clear, my chosen read of the situation is Buendia wanted out and instead of taking the hard road to manage that situation to keep him the club made the decision to cash in and use the money to fund transfers as otherwise funds were extremely limited. That’s it. It fits the known information and the only thing that directly counters it, that’s currently on record, is Webbers statement he had to be sold (which of course he would say).

 

 

 

 

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

I think they'd already done that for some time with Buendia. Didn't he want to leave as soon as we got relegated? There's only so long that situation can realistically be managed before it spills to the team in general, or when the player in question really has had enough.

Furthermore, would we have got north of £30m plus add-ons at that point? Not sure there. He had a decent season but faded badly in Project Restart. His return to the Championship was tremendous. 

Ultimately, if the signings of Tzolis, Rashica, and Sargent HAD resulted in us staying up, we'd not be having this convo.

[Petriix 2,853]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I’ve thought about this.

Perhaps Webber has learned something. Perhaps he genuinely thought it could have been Farke underperforming. Perhaps he thought it wasn’t massively about finances. Perhaps he thought he could easily find new weapons. Perhaps he thought the expensive new young players would train on and be worth even more as assets. 

We all now know better then. 
 

Parma 

He might well have learnt something. His signings might still come good. Rashica might suddenly realise that passing is better than trying to run with the ball or (more likely) he could get injured and force a change which works out successfully... 

But, short of a miraculous change in fortunes, we're stuck with the legacy of those gambles. Now we can only sit back and watch to see how deep the decline is.

The biggest irony would be having a poor season, scraping into the playoffs then somehow winning them. Then hitting the Premier League with a more athletic squad and surviving by 'doing a Burnley'. It could be written in the stars... 

[chicken 2,656]

21 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

1) What information am I dismissing, other than Webber’s statement on the reason for the sale I don’t have an issue with what’s available.

2) I call it the party line because NCFCs only official comment on it, I’m aware of, is from Webber saying he had to be sold.

3) I never said the club “only sold Buendia to fund squad building”, neither did Parma, you chose to interpret it that way.

4) I never suggested he wanted to stay.

5) I never suggested we would have been successful if he stayed, I suggested the team would have been stronger.

6) I never said the club set out to sell Buendia, I said the club had to sell someone if they wanted to buy more players, that’s a fact evidenced by the finances.

7) I’ve also said when they were faced with Buendia wanting out they chose to sell him.

Once again those last two points dovetail but aren’t the same points. 

Honestly you’re just spoiling for a fight and not interested in discussing what I’m actually saying.

Just to be clear, my chosen read of the situation is Buendia wanted out and instead of taking the hard road to manage that situation to keep him the club made the decision to cash in and use the money to fund transfers as otherwise funds were extremely limited. That’s it. It fits the known information and the only thing that directly counters it, that’s currently on record, is Webbers statement he had to be sold (which of course he would say).

1 and a bit of 2) ALL of the other reports, interviews etc that I have mentioned that came from the moment Farke informed us about Buendia's loss of "focus" to the stories that seeped out over the ensuing season and after it into the next summer. You can dismiss Webber's "party line", but as I have said before, he made more than one statement, one was to dismiss articles, including one from Michael Bailey, that suggested a 'gentleman's agreement' had been made with Buendia to get him onside for the season. Webber, for what it's worth, never said we "had" to sell Buendia, he said that the club didn't want to stand in the way of a player that didn't want to be here and that it was then up to the club to get a valuation for the player that they find agreeable. Which is different, but also, as you say, well supported. You could argue that this has been further evidenced with the loan of Cantwell to Bournemouth with an agreed £11m fee and the recent interview with Pukki's agent who identified and sympathised with the club setting their stall at valuation wise and no club being willing to pay what they felt was fair for Pukki, and the resulting amateur meltdown from a Finnish MFW contributor. 

3) Parma said "We sold our weapon due to lack of finances" - as I have said before, this isn't exactly true as it suggests the motivation to sell Buendia was from our end, when in reality, we had other saleable assets that we could have elected to sell ahead of Buendia. I would argue that given the plain, on paper choice, most folks here would go with Aarons, Cantwell then Buendia in that sort of order at that point in our history, to sell. In either case, Buendia essentially put himself front and centre for demanding to leave.

4) Never said you didn't, in fact, for the last god knows how many responses I keep referring to you having said it was well evidenced he wanted away. 
5) Successful/Stronger - again, we'll never know for sure. We'd have needed him firing on all cylinders. If he wasn't interested in playing for us anymore we would have faced a similar issue as the season before, and faced it again in the approach to January. We can evidence that because he had done it before, making it more likely that it could happen again. Yes, there is the possibility that he could once more knuckle down, get on with it and play another season superbly, but at this point the question has been raised. He's made it clear he wants gone for an entire season. And once more, if reports are to be believed, he knew of interest in him from the likes of Villa, Arsenal and Athletico before the 2020-21 season was done. On paper, of course, he made the team look stronger - in practice, we'll never know. If he had more losses of concentration though, he might not have even made the bench for several games again. Like I said, you cannot argue a what if, using hindsight, you have to look at that situation then without knowing what happened next.
6) See above. Nothing saying that had Buendia wanted to stay, we couldn't have plugged that hole with sales of other players instead.

7) What is interesting to me here, is point 6. You have said that we had to sell a player due to finances, something that is evidenced by the club accounts. You say the club had to sell to generate income for more players. Therefore, when faced with a player that doesn't want to be at the club, with the need to generate funds for financial reasons, some to generate funds for players, some to plug gaps in covid hit finances, that there is still a choice to not sell them? And that it is still a genuine, not forced hand choice. As in, you don't have to sell him and you'd be stronger for it. All I am seeing here is more evidence to suggest that the club had little choice but to sell someone or some of the players to reinvest etc. Surely that only add's weight to them giving into Buendia's demands and further evidences Webber's stance on it? 

"Honestly you’re just spoiling for a fight and not interested in discussing what I’m actually saying."

Honestly, that's particularly unfair considering I was responding to Parma and not you, before you stepped in and then followed up with criticising a reasoned and evidenced based view and then shared your own opinion which was all assumption without any real evidence to base it upon, weak or otherwise - as others have pointed out. You've also seemingly dismissed other articles I have related to as non-existent.

No, I'm not spoiling for a fight. I'm just pointing out that the weight of evidence is against what Parma had written. I may well have interpreted it differently, and even wrongly, to you. Odd that you say I am spoiling for a fight yet you only just point that out, rather than it be your first response. Instead choosing to disagree and attempt to invalidate. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

Daniel Farke said ‘we chose to sell Buendia’

Having been in professional football I can quite assure you ‘history is mostly written by the victors’

Nobody ever says ‘we had to sell’. The player leaving - for Buendia read Howson for example - is always the ‘one who demanded to leave’ and ‘we couldn’t do anything else’ 

This is errant nonsense that covers a multitude of sins, lack of finances, irritating agents, big money offers with cash up front that allows other deals to be done, holes in cash flow, personal desires to prove that previous transfer successes can be repeated, ‘no one is bigger than the club’

Nobody within football that I know thought selling Buendia upon promotion was a good idea. No one. 

No one felt that Buendia would be worth much less after another season in the premier. 

Everyone thought that Buendia would come to heel after a few weeks in the premier sun, a goal,  a couple of assists and a few nice headlines. Such is football and footballers since time began. 

Everyone knew that Buendia was a good player. That he had a residual value. 

The jungle drums suggested that all the Norwich players knew he was the best player. That the team ticked around him. Liking him or not is irrelevant. It is professional football. 

The Skipp role was also crucial. Players are human. What did Cantwell, Pukki, Aarons all feel when Buendia was sold pre-season? How did it affect them? Did they feel that their chances of survival improved or dipped? Did they feel better or worse about the new season?

How about after a few training sessions with Sargent? Did they think he was a silky American Messi? Did they think Tzolis was ready? Did they feel that Rashica was really engaged? Did they think any of them were a weapon?

Players know. They are instinctive creatures. Word gets around. 

Players thinks of their careers. They like to win. They actually don’t all have to be friends. Buendia made some of them look good. That travels. Did they maybe think that the club had made a bit of a mistake? Did Farke know it too? What did he say behind closed doors?

Fans have blind faith, sometimes even blind trust in their club. That’s sweet. Players not so much so. Who’s on the up, who’s ambitious, who is one to watch, a team to watch, something different, ‘they could surprise people’.

No one said that about Norwich. They said it was suicide to sell Buendia, that he would be impossible to replace for Norwich, that the timing was unnecessary and would upset the players, that the Skipp role had to be filled, that Pukki would be neutered. 

Football talk eh? Ignore the noise!

Except that is of course exactly what happened. Exactly how it panned out. We don’t have to guess, we can read the book. 

It’s professional football. You must live and own your failures as much as your successes. Everybody, but everybody - including Webber - has got this far on steel, ruthlessness, determination and constantly driving against the odds and the doubters. There is absolutely no need to be a defensive apologist for him or anyone else. 
 

It dIdn’t work. It failed dismally, historically badly. Momentum - the biggest weapon in football - was lost. The decisions, the sales , the signings, the money was almost universally mis-placed. It was a dreadful, embarrassing season that could not have gone worse.
 

False sympathy or apologist defensiveness - however well-meaning - will not be required by anyone. Professional football. 

Parma 

 

[Monty13 2,256]

20 minutes ago, chicken said:

1 and a bit of 2) ALL of the other reports, interviews etc that I have mentioned that came from the moment Farke informed us about Buendia's loss of "focus" to the stories that seeped out over the ensuing season and after it into the next summer. You can dismiss Webber's "party line", but as I have said before, he made more than one statement, one was to dismiss articles, including one from Michael Bailey, that suggested a 'gentleman's agreement' had been made with Buendia to get him onside for the season. Webber, for what it's worth, never said we "had" to sell Buendia, he said that the club didn't want to stand in the way of a player that didn't want to be here and that it was then up to the club to get a valuation for the player that they find agreeable. Which is different, but also, as you say, well supported. You could argue that this has been further evidenced with the loan of Cantwell to Bournemouth with an agreed £11m fee and the recent interview with Pukki's agent who identified and sympathised with the club setting their stall at valuation wise and no club being willing to pay what they felt was fair for Pukki, and the resulting amateur meltdown from a Finnish MFW contributor. 

3) Parma said "We sold our weapon due to lack of finances" - as I have said before, this isn't exactly true as it suggests the motivation to sell Buendia was from our end, when in reality, we had other saleable assets that we could have elected to sell ahead of Buendia. I would argue that given the plain, on paper choice, most folks here would go with Aarons, Cantwell then Buendia in that sort of order at that point in our history, to sell. In either case, Buendia essentially put himself front and centre for demanding to leave.

4) Never said you didn't, in fact, for the last god knows how many responses I keep referring to you having said it was well evidenced he wanted away. 
5) Successful/Stronger - again, we'll never know for sure. We'd have needed him firing on all cylinders. If he wasn't interested in playing for us anymore we would have faced a similar issue as the season before, and faced it again in the approach to January. We can evidence that because he had done it before, making it more likely that it could happen again. Yes, there is the possibility that he could once more knuckle down, get on with it and play another season superbly, but at this point the question has been raised. He's made it clear he wants gone for an entire season. And once more, if reports are to be believed, he knew of interest in him from the likes of Villa, Arsenal and Athletico before the 2020-21 season was done. On paper, of course, he made the team look stronger - in practice, we'll never know. If he had more losses of concentration though, he might not have even made the bench for several games again. Like I said, you cannot argue a what if, using hindsight, you have to look at that situation then without knowing what happened next.
6) See above. Nothing saying that had Buendia wanted to stay, we couldn't have plugged that hole with sales of other players instead.

7) What is interesting to me here, is point 6. You have said that we had to sell a player due to finances, something that is evidenced by the club accounts. You say the club had to sell to generate income for more players. Therefore, when faced with a player that doesn't want to be at the club, with the need to generate funds for financial reasons, some to generate funds for players, some to plug gaps in covid hit finances, that there is still a choice to not sell them? And that it is still a genuine, not forced hand choice. As in, you don't have to sell him and you'd be stronger for it. All I am seeing here is more evidence to suggest that the club had little choice but to sell someone or some of the players to reinvest etc. Surely that only add's weight to them giving into Buendia's demands and further evidences Webber's stance on it? 

"Honestly you’re just spoiling for a fight and not interested in discussing what I’m actually saying."

Honestly, that's particularly unfair considering I was responding to Parma and not you, before you stepped in and then followed up with criticising a reasoned and evidenced based view and then shared your own opinion which was all assumption without any real evidence to base it upon, weak or otherwise - as others have pointed out. You've also seemingly dismissed other articles I have related to as non-existent.

No, I'm not spoiling for a fight. I'm just pointing out that the weight of evidence is against what Parma had written. I may well have interpreted it differently, and even wrongly, to you. Odd that you say I am spoiling for a fight yet you only just point that out, rather than it be your first response. Instead choosing to disagree and attempt to invalidate. 

No that’s your interpretation of what Parma said and your view of my agreement with it. 

Let me posit you this. If we were a rich club with a wealthy owner and 50+ million in the bank to spend last season would you accept so readily Buendia’s sale?

Parma never said the only motivation to sell Buendia was from our desire to, neither did I.

They said “we sold our weapon due to lack of finances”. 

IMO we choose to sell Buendia. Now maybe that’s because we weren’t prepared to play hardball (probably because if things did go wrong we had no money for another option) or maybe because presumably we weren’t prepared to spend the money on wages. Both driven by lack of finances.

Maybe it was because cashing in and gambling on three other players (with hopefully potential to increase in value) was seen as a better gamble than playing hardball. Three players. Not one circa 20 million player to replace him.

Our financial position was fundamentally relevant to his sale, regardless of his desire to leave. 

It was a gamble either way, but you can’t say our choice to sell him and gamble on three unproven PL players wasn’t in any way influenced by our financial situation.

[Monty13 2,256]

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

Daniel Farke said ‘we chose to sell Buendia’

Having been in professional football I can quite assure you ‘history is mostly written by the victors’

Nobody ever says ‘we had to sell’. The player leaving - for Buendia read Howson for example - is always the ‘one who demanded to leave’ and ‘we couldn’t do anything else’ 

This is errant nonsense that covers a multitude of sins, lack of finances, irritating agents, big money offers with cash up front that allows other deals to be done, holes in cash flow, personal desires to prove that previous transfer successes can be repeated, ‘no one is bigger than the club’

Nobody within football that I know thought selling Buendia upon promotion was a good idea. No one. 

No one felt that Buendia would be worth much less after another season in the premier. 

Everyone thought that Buendia would come to heel after a few weeks in the premier sun, a goal,  a couple of assists and a few nice headlines. Such is football and footballers since time began. 

Everyone knew that Buendia was a good player. That he had a residual value. 

The jungle drums suggested that all the Norwich players knew he was the best player. That the team ticked around him. Liking him or not is irrelevant. It is professional football. 

The Skipp role was also crucial. Players are human. What did Cantwell, Pukki, Aarons all feel when Buendia was sold pre-season? How did it affect them? Did they feel that their chances of survival improved or dipped? Did they feel better or worse about the new season?

How about after a few training sessions with Sargent? Did they think he was a silky American Messi? Did they think Tzolis was ready? Did they feel that Rashica was really engaged? Did they think any of them were a weapon?

Players know. They are instinctive creatures. Word gets around. 

Players thinks of their careers. They like to win. They actually don’t all have to be friends. Buendia made some of them look good. That travels. Did they maybe think that the club had made a bit of a mistake? Did Farke know it too? What did he say behind closed doors?

Fans have blind faith, sometimes even blind trust in their club. That’s sweet. Players not so much so. Who’s on the up, who’s ambitious, who is one to watch, a team to watch, something different, ‘they could surprise people’.

No one said that about Norwich. They said it was suicide to sell Buendia, that he would be impossible to replace for Norwich, that the timing was unnecessary and would upset the players, that the Skipp role had to be filled, that Pukki would be neutered. 

Football talk eh? Ignore the noise!

Except that is of course exactly what happened. Exactly how it panned out. We don’t have to guess, we can read the book. 

It’s professional football. You must live and own your failures as much as your successes. Everybody, but everybody - including Webber - has got this far on steel, ruthlessness, determination and constantly driving against the odds and the doubters. There is absolutely no need to be a defensive apologist for him or anyone else. 
 

It dIdn’t work. It failed dismally, historically badly. Momentum - the biggest weapon in football - was lost. The decisions, the sales , the signings, the money was almost universally mis-placed. It was a dreadful, embarrassing season that could not have gone worse.
 

False sympathy or apologist defensiveness - however well-meaning - will not be required by anyone. Professional football. 

Parma 

 

Spot on 👏

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

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

Daniel Farke said ‘we chose to sell Buendia’

Having been in professional football I can quite assure you ‘history is mostly written by the victors’

Nobody ever says ‘we had to sell’. The player leaving - for Buendia read Howson for example - is always the ‘one who demanded to leave’ and ‘we couldn’t do anything else’ 

This is errant nonsense that covers a multitude of sins, lack of finances, irritating agents, big money offers with cash up front that allows other deals to be done, holes in cash flow, personal desires to prove that previous transfer successes can be repeated, ‘no one is bigger than the club’

Nobody within football that I know thought selling Buendia upon promotion was a good idea. No one. 

No one felt that Buendia would be worth much less after another season in the premier. 

Everyone thought that Buendia would come to heel after a few weeks in the premier sun, a goal,  a couple of assists and a few nice headlines. Such is football and footballers since time began. 

Everyone knew that Buendia was a good player. That he had a residual value. 

The jungle drums suggested that all the Norwich players knew he was the best player. That the team ticked around him. Liking him or not is irrelevant. It is professional football. 

The Skipp role was also crucial. Players are human. What did Cantwell, Pukki, Aarons all feel when Buendia was sold pre-season? How did it affect them? Did they feel that their chances of survival improved or dipped? Did they feel better or worse about the new season?

How about after a few training sessions with Sargent? Did they think he was a silky American Messi? Did they think Tzolis was ready? Did they feel that Rashica was really engaged? Did they think any of them were a weapon?

Players know. They are instinctive creatures. Word gets around. 

Players thinks of their careers. They like to win. They actually don’t all have to be friends. Buendia made some of them look good. That travels. Did they maybe think that the club had made a bit of a mistake? Did Farke know it too? What did he say behind closed doors?

Fans have blind faith, sometimes even blind trust in their club. That’s sweet. Players not so much so. Who’s on the up, who’s ambitious, who is one to watch, a team to watch, something different, ‘they could surprise people’.

No one said that about Norwich. They said it was suicide to sell Buendia, that he would be impossible to replace for Norwich, that the timing was unnecessary and would upset the players, that the Skipp role had to be filled, that Pukki would be neutered. 

Football talk eh? Ignore the noise!

Except that is of course exactly what happened. Exactly how it panned out. We don’t have to guess, we can read the book. 

It’s professional football. You must live and own your failures as much as your successes. Everybody, but everybody - including Webber - has got this far on steel, ruthlessness, determination and constantly driving against the odds and the doubters. There is absolutely no need to be a defensive apologist for him or anyone else. 
 

It dIdn’t work. It failed dismally, historically badly. Momentum - the biggest weapon in football - was lost. The decisions, the sales , the signings, the money was almost universally mis-placed. It was a dreadful, embarrassing season that could not have gone worse.
 

False sympathy or apologist defensiveness - however well-meaning - will not be required by anyone. Professional football. 

Parma 

 

This. 

But in light of our current circumstances and a desire to try and make the best of what early doors feels like a bit of a duff hand. 
1) I’m feeling optimism about our new signings (at least one of them) being good and providing the catalyst for some players to instinctively feel that we’ve found a good one here. 
2) Supporters have to support, at least until positions are untenable. Imo this point has not been reached and there is some value in providing a good home atmosphere to make CR feel psychologically like a ‘fortress’. One win there this weekend will give enough good feeling and I’m hopeful if the introduction of Sara and one or two standout performances to get behind (even if one is Cantwell 😬)

3) Maddison money incoming may yet mean one more ‘quality’ recruit. Momentum is critical in this league and getting it early feeds the latter stages.

For me the season starts on Saturday. First home game, chance to watch a game we have a chance of winning and a chance for our players to earn the plaudits. 

[Monty13 2,256]

2 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

This. 

But in light of our current circumstances and a desire to try and make the best of what early doors feels like a bit of a duff hand. 
1) I’m feeling optimism about our new signings (at least one of them) being good and providing the catalyst for some players to instinctively feel that we’ve found a good one here. 
2) Supporters have to support, at least until positions are untenable. Imo this point has not been reached and there is some value in providing a good home atmosphere to make CR feel psychologically like a ‘fortress’. One win there this weekend will give enough good feeling and I’m hopeful if the introduction of Sara and one or two standout performances to get behind (even if one is Cantwell 😬)

3) Maddison money incoming may yet mean one more ‘quality’ recruit. Momentum is critical in this league and getting it early feeds the latter stages.

For me the season starts on Saturday. First home game, chance to watch a game we have a chance of winning and a chance for our players to earn the plaudits. 

Yep I’m with you. Mistakes of the past are just things to learn from, hopefully we have learned after such a hard lesson. I’ve got a lot of patience this year, I think Webber got humbled last year and wouldn’t admit it, but I don’t care if he does the job well this year.

I’m surprised how slow we are moving but I’m also remaining optimistic that this year we find the right players for our minimal finances and keep the ones we need.Definitely feels like we are quite behind where we should be as a squad but I assume it’s just by financial necessity.

Its early days, but putting the Pukki thing to bed straight away, getting Cantwell playing and bringing in Hayden feel the right moves.

Lets hope we sign Nunez and one or both of him and Sara do better at what we bought them for than the last three big players purchased unfortunately so far have.

[chicken 2,656]

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

Daniel Farke said ‘we chose to sell Buendia’

Having been in professional football I can quite assure you ‘history is mostly written by the victors’

Nobody ever says ‘we had to sell’. The player leaving - for Buendia read Howson for example - is always the ‘one who demanded to leave’ and ‘we couldn’t do anything else’ 

This is errant nonsense that covers a multitude of sins, lack of finances, irritating agents, big money offers with cash up front that allows other deals to be done, holes in cash flow, personal desires to prove that previous transfer successes can be repeated, ‘no one is bigger than the club’

Nobody within football that I know thought selling Buendia upon promotion was a good idea. No one. 

No one felt that Buendia would be worth much less after another season in the premier. 

Everyone thought that Buendia would come to heel after a few weeks in the premier sun, a goal,  a couple of assists and a few nice headlines. Such is football and footballers since time began. 

Everyone knew that Buendia was a good player. That he had a residual value. 

The jungle drums suggested that all the Norwich players knew he was the best player. That the team ticked around him. Liking him or not is irrelevant. It is professional football. 

The Skipp role was also crucial. Players are human. What did Cantwell, Pukki, Aarons all feel when Buendia was sold pre-season? How did it affect them? Did they feel that their chances of survival improved or dipped? Did they feel better or worse about the new season?

How about after a few training sessions with Sargent? Did they think he was a silky American Messi? Did they think Tzolis was ready? Did they feel that Rashica was really engaged? Did they think any of them were a weapon?

Players know. They are instinctive creatures. Word gets around. 

Players thinks of their careers. They like to win. They actually don’t all have to be friends. Buendia made some of them look good. That travels. Did they maybe think that the club had made a bit of a mistake? Did Farke know it too? What did he say behind closed doors?

Fans have blind faith, sometimes even blind trust in their club. That’s sweet. Players not so much so. Who’s on the up, who’s ambitious, who is one to watch, a team to watch, something different, ‘they could surprise people’.

No one said that about Norwich. They said it was suicide to sell Buendia, that he would be impossible to replace for Norwich, that the timing was unnecessary and would upset the players, that the Skipp role had to be filled, that Pukki would be neutered. 

Football talk eh? Ignore the noise!

Except that is of course exactly what happened. Exactly how it panned out. We don’t have to guess, we can read the book. 

It’s professional football. You must live and own your failures as much as your successes. Everybody, but everybody - including Webber - has got this far on steel, ruthlessness, determination and constantly driving against the odds and the doubters. There is absolutely no need to be a defensive apologist for him or anyone else. 
 

It dIdn’t work. It failed dismally, historically badly. Momentum - the biggest weapon in football - was lost. The decisions, the sales , the signings, the money was almost universally mis-placed. It was a dreadful, embarrassing season that could not have gone worse.
 

False sympathy or apologist defensiveness - however well-meaning - will not be required by anyone. Professional football. 

Parma 

 

This is great, but again, ignores things.

I've also had dealings with people inside of professional football clubs, and the picture they paint isn't one that is aligned to yours.

Not only that but you present a bunch of non-points or points already covered and moved on from.

No one said selling Buendia was a good idea from a footballing perspective. As in, wow, isn't that genius. No one is claiming that either. Nor anything about his value after another season in the premier league, folks have commented on the previous summer his value being less, after relegation, but not after promotion, the opposite in fact.

Actually at this point I'm really not going to be bothered to read further. This is just as strawman as one of Monty's posts. To save time, can either of you actually link anything you are actually saying to any evidence or are we to just trust in Parma having "been in professional football" and Monty's "it's the clubs line/spin".

So in short, despite Monty arguing otherwise, I did interpret Parma's original point correctly. Thanks, all I needed to know thus far.

That, by the way, despite Monty saying financial constraints were a pressure on selling him.

Goodnight chaps, see you both when you have more than assumption that you both so readily beat others for supposedly having and for putting forward arguments or reasoning that aren't particularly relevant. 

[chicken 2,656]

57 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

No that’s your interpretation of what Parma said and your view of my agreement with it. 

Let me posit you this. If we were a rich club with a wealthy owner and 50+ million in the bank to spend last season would you accept so readily Buendia’s sale?

Parma never said the only motivation to sell Buendia was from our desire to, neither did I.

They said “we sold our weapon due to lack of finances”. 

IMO we choose to sell Buendia. Now maybe that’s because we weren’t prepared to play hardball (probably because if things did go wrong we had no money for another option) or maybe because presumably we weren’t prepared to spend the money on wages. Both driven by lack of finances.

Maybe it was because cashing in and gambling on three other players (with hopefully potential to increase in value) was seen as a better gamble than playing hardball. Three players. Not one circa 20 million player to replace him.

Our financial position was fundamentally relevant to his sale, regardless of his desire to leave. 

It was a gamble either way, but you can’t say our choice to sell him and gamble on three unproven PL players wasn’t in any way influenced by our financial situation.

My interpretation now stands correct with Parma's response which you call "spot on". So I was correct. 

We're not talking about what-if's? Not sure how many times we have to go through this? Make belief scenarios do not help when we are discussing an actual scenario. If we were Man City, do you think Buendia would want to leave? Do you think if we had Newcastle's owners, that he could have been offered a gazillion pounds and persuaded to stay? Neither of these are reality. We're not debating the motivation for Buendia's desire to leave, nor whether he would have stayed should we have had the money to offer him a more lucrative contract. We are simply discussing things we know. Such as in the summer of 2020 he wanted to leave and indicated this to the club. The rest is just BS.

Pretty much everything you are now posting is 100% assumption, as is Parma coincidentally. Hilariously fraught with contradictions at times too - because you agree with Parma even though it then undermines the point you are trying to make, which you then repeat ad nausium.

Next time you want to accuse others of spoiling for a fight, it'd probably be wise to consider your own attitude and language and before trying to railroad someone for having nothing but assumption, that you have more than assumption yourself. Not only that, probably best to do some research and realise that is wasn't assumption, but reasoned balancing from several sources of information and not just "the club line" either.

One final point I will add to this is that we also had a net spend on transfers last summer. By some distance too. That suggests we had money to spend, which is to reinforce that we did not need to sell Buendia as badly as is being made out, for financial reasons. Had we kept Buendia, and say, sold Aarons, we may have had £10-15m less but we also wouldn't have needed to gamble on Tzolis AND Rashica. In fact, we probably could have added a bit more quality rather than quantity. So the logic isn't entirely there that the main factor was finances. 

Anyway, I bid you good night. This has gone full circle now. I interpreted Parma's statement correctly, they have now underlined that. I have stated why I disagree with it, and the information I have based my reasoning on.

The strange thing is, I'm really not bothered. He's gone. He wanted to go. He put himself in the shop window. He went. It was not the same situation as Maddison, where the main reason for us selling was finances, as in actual finances, to survive and still have a club.

 

[chicken 2,656]

1 hour ago, SwearyCanary said:

But in light of our current circumstances and a desire to try and make the best of what early doors feels like a bit of a duff hand. 
1) I’m feeling optimism about our new signings (at least one of them) being good and providing the catalyst for some players to instinctively feel that we’ve found a good one here. 
2) Supporters have to support, at least until positions are untenable. Imo this point has not been reached and there is some value in providing a good home atmosphere to make CR feel psychologically like a ‘fortress’. One win there this weekend will give enough good feeling and I’m hopeful if the introduction of Sara and one or two standout performances to get behind (even if one is Cantwell 😬)

3) Maddison money incoming may yet mean one more ‘quality’ recruit. Momentum is critical in this league and getting it early feeds the latter stages.

For me the season starts on Saturday. First home game, chance to watch a game we have a chance of winning and a chance for our players to earn the plaudits. 

I agree. Though in fairness, up until last summer, one of the common traits of a Webber-Farke transfer window was players in early doors to get a full pre-season with them in their new surroundings. I believe at least Webber stated that they changed this approach last summer as they felt that they had possibly rushed through targets too quickly.

Reading between the lines, that suggests that they had gone in for players that were, in their eyes, better than the ones we had ended up signing, that then became available (whether affordable or through clubs bringing in new players freeing them up etc etc etc) later in the window, when we had already brought players in for those positions.

I suspect that we may have seen his with Duda for example.

I think the long and short of it is that a good signing is a good signing, they can arrive at the beginning, end or anywhere in-between of the transfer window. In reality, the pond we fish for talent in, has shrunk considerably in the last few seasons, and that can't make it any easier.

This summer is odd, heated debates already, high levels of angst and knee-jerking and it's only August 1st... I always think you need to give any team a run of games before you know more about them. I am always happy to give our players that time. I can draw better conclusions, so can the coaches and the sporting director. I remain optimistic, whether we have won the league or been relegated from it, every summer needs a degree of reset. You can't ignore that hurt of relegation, you need to channel it, the same as you don't ignore the momentum of promotion.

I think we lost that momentum last summer through changing approach. My biggest beef is that we didn't stick with our tried and tested 4-2-3-1 for at least the first four to five games. Those were such a tough series of games I am not convinced they were the best to test out new ideas and formations in. 

[Monty13 2,256]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

My interpretation now stands correct with Parma's response which you call "spot on". So I was correct. 

We're not talking about what-if's? Not sure how many times we have to go through this? Make belief scenarios do not help when we are discussing an actual scenario. If we were Man City, do you think Buendia would want to leave? Do you think if we had Newcastle's owners, that he could have been offered a gazillion pounds and persuaded to stay? Neither of these are reality. We're not debating the motivation for Buendia's desire to leave, nor whether he would have stayed should we have had the money to offer him a more lucrative contract. We are simply discussing things we know. Such as in the summer of 2020 he wanted to leave and indicated this to the club. The rest is just BS.

Pretty much everything you are now posting is 100% assumption, as is Parma coincidentally. Hilariously fraught with contradictions at times too - because you agree with Parma even though it then undermines the point you are trying to make, which you then repeat ad nausium.

Next time you want to accuse others of spoiling for a fight, it'd probably be wise to consider your own attitude and language and before trying to railroad someone for having nothing but assumption, that you have more than assumption yourself. Not only that, probably best to do some research and realise that is wasn't assumption, but reasoned balancing from several sources of information and not just "the club line" either.

One final point I will add to this is that we also had a net spend on transfers last summer. By some distance too. That suggests we had money to spend, which is to reinforce that we did not need to sell Buendia as badly as is being made out, for financial reasons. Had we kept Buendia, and say, sold Aarons, we may have had £10-15m less but we also wouldn't have needed to gamble on Tzolis AND Rashica. In fact, we probably could have added a bit more quality rather than quantity. So the logic isn't entirely there that the main factor was finances. 

Anyway, I bid you good night. This has gone full circle now. I interpreted Parma's statement correctly, they have now underlined that. I have stated why I disagree with it, and the information I have based my reasoning on.

The strange thing is, I'm really not bothered. He's gone. He wanted to go. He put himself in the shop window. He went. It was not the same situation as Maddison, where the main reason for us selling was finances, as in actual finances, to survive and still have a club.

 

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.”

Edited August 2, 2022 by Monty13

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

7 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.”

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.