Here's a theory: Farke massively over achieved

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

1 minute ago, Monty13 said:

They are fair points, but they also need to be weighed against Parma’s point that the fact selling him almost certainly had a negativity affect on the other players. Again I’d argue though that coming back and playing in a disgruntled manner wasn’t in his interests if still here. I’m not doubting there would be an impact initially, but it was a long season.

I’d also argue only Buendia knew what he was likely to do. He was playing poker and the club folded before the first bet. Webber and Farke could only make an assessment, but they had been there before and got him playing again to the highest level he ever had, all after a pay cut and in a division he really didn’t want to be in.

 

Sure, I'm saying you could get a disgruntled team either way. They could be unhappy that the best player has boogered off, or they could be peeved if Buendia stays but is disgruntled as his discontent goes through the team somewhat.

It's that part of the team dynamic in particular that none of us as fans could ever begin to guess.

[Monty13 2,256]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Sure, I'm saying you could get a disgruntled team either way. They could be unhappy that the best player has boogered off, or they could be peeved if Buendia stays but is disgruntled as his discontent goes through the team somewhat.

It's that part of the team dynamic in particular that none of us as fans could ever begin to guess.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true.

I’m not sure why his discontent at not being allowed to leave would necessarily affect all the others. 

I can see why selling him would affect almost all the players to some degree as Parma articulated.

[Petriix 2,853]

2 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

People seem to want to only remember the virtues of 'Farkeball' while ignoring it's limitations. Some other top level and Championship clubs play passing football, but our version under Farke was so passive off the ball by comparison. While we had so many good aspects to our play why did we as a team just gently trot back when we lost the ball? Other pessesion based teams either press really hard to win it back or sprint back into shape to stick 10 men behind the ball, this is why we were always so vulnerable on the counter attack. 

Another annoyance I always had was that player more than 10-15 yards away from the ball never seemed to engage in the game. So if we went through our usual pattern of playing it out from the back, when we gave it to a FB to move forward nobody would come and offer him an option or at most one player would so we often lost the ball as a result, it's called pass and move and so many players seemed to switch off when we were building play if they weren't right near the man with the ball. Other teams who play possession football in the PL have the energy to get around the pitch and offer the passer an option, we just seemed too static except for in the immediate vicinity of the ball. 

Another thing I've noticed is that other passing teams were never afraid to play a good cross field ball to create some space whereas we just seemed unwilling to do anything but pass it 5 yards to the nearest team mate which meant we could never deal with a press. I thought that was Gilmours job but he rarely tried anything. 

These problems are why I wanted Farke gone and thought he was flawed at the top level even if he were to have better players to work with. Other teams now days are just too quick, athletic and tactically well drilled to allow us to pass through them using short, one touch passing. It works in the Championship (although I think we'd still struggle to score goals without that Buendia-Pukki link up playing this way) but it was never going to work in the PL. 

That's an incredible assessment of the style of football that gave us our two biggest points tallies in the club's history. Even with hindsight it's hard to imagine a more exciting brand of football.

What you refer to as seemingly lazy - not pressing, just jogging back etc. could be considered a pragmatic conservation of energy which gave us a physical edge at crucial moments particularly late in the game. 

Playing shorter, narrower passes meant retaining possession and playing to the strengths of Pukki and Buendia. It obviously wasn't perfect, especially at Premier League level. But it did peak with beating Man City.

Given that the alternative seemed to entirely hinge around lumping the ball into the channels for our wingers to aimlessly chase, occasionally hitting a cross for the opposition keeper to catch etc. I know which I'd rather have been watching.

Looking at how successfully Brentford stuck with their philosophy - and remember how much better we were than them - tells me that there would have been merit in sticking with our own system and utilising that momentum. It certainly couldn't have been worse.

In 2019/20 it showed signs of working against a backdrop of adversity with injuries and then Covid. While it should have affected all teams equally, no other team suffered the same downturn as us.

I will always maintain the belief that Farkeball would have been more successful in 2021/22 than any other system with that particular squad - before our summer transfers destroyed the balance in favour of that ill-fated 4-3-3.

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

9 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I’m not sure that’s entirely true.

I’m not sure why his discontent at not being allowed to leave would necessarily affect all the others. 

I can see why selling him would affect almost all the players to some degree as Parma articulated.

Two obvious reasons would be that firstly, if he's unhappy he could well start tattling around the squad. Farke's clearly aware of that hence his propensity to put players in the U23s. Moreover, remember that in our model the aim is to develop youngsters and if their big opening crops up, sell at maximum profit. This was his.

No doubt there are plenty more as well.

[chicken 2,656]

9 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I’m not sure that’s entirely true.

I’m not sure why his discontent at not being allowed to leave would necessarily affect all the others. 

I can see why selling him would affect almost all the players to some degree as Parma articulated.

Because you don't want to see it. Again, there are examples of it happening in football over the years.

One of your other beliefs could as well. Perhaps we offered him a better pay packet outside of our usual structure to stay... That also could unsettle the team, as has been documented.

You may not think it could happen Monty, but you so readily dismiss alternative outcomes to the one you so vehimently believe in.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

10 hours ago, Monty13 said:

They are fair points, but they also need to be weighed against Parma’s point that the fact selling him almost certainly had a negativity affect on the other players. Again I’d argue though that coming back and playing in a disgruntled manner wasn’t in his interests if still here. I’m not doubting there would be an impact initially, but it was a long season.

I’d also argue only Buendia knew what he was likely to do. He was playing poker and the club folded before the first bet. Webber and Farke could only make an assessment, but they had been there before and got him playing again to the highest level he ever had, all after a pay cut and in a division he really didn’t want to be in.

 

Without prolonging this specific argument, it is perfectly possible that even Buendia didn't know what he would do if the club refused to sell him and carried on refusing, adding an extra degree of uncertainty for Webber and Farke.

[Bradwell canary 109]

The person to blame for our dreadful PL journey was Webber. He admitted that he send Farke to a war without a gun. So the second time what did he do, saddle the manager with a load of dross. Then he did what everyone does to take the heat away from their self, sack the manager.

Now resulting in Dean, having to get that load of dross playing as a team…….no chance. 
makes me wonder with Sporting Directors in charge, what say does a manager really have?

Gone are the days when George Graham would be sitting in our director Box, in a midweek game, looking at our players for himself.

 

 

 

 

[Monty13 2,256]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Two obvious reasons would be that firstly, if he's unhappy he could well start tattling around the squad. Farke's clearly aware of that hence his propensity to put players in the U23s. Moreover, remember that in our model the aim is to develop youngsters and if their big opening crops up, sell at maximum profit. This was his.

No doubt there are plenty more as well.

Thanks for that. I think the first one is manageable, Farke had proven he could deal with it before and I think he would again even if it meant a period taken out of the group. I suppose just to add to your point that I hadn’t fully considered, that has some similar impacts on the team as selling him does. However I’d say the difference is it should be a finite impact if he returned.

The impact of not selling him on others I’m not so sure. The model is to let them move on to bigger and better you are right, however arguably we were already in the PL, he was there from a footballing perspective and he would undoubtedly have stayed there if we didn’t. Also I’m not sure letting players leave primarily for the payday (which to me is how it was framed) is a good precedent to set when we have weak finances, it basically leaves us more open than we are already naturally are to our players being tempted away for a bigger pay day.

I just look at the impact of selling him in comparison where the only real way of mitigating the psychological impact on the squad was if we adequately replaced him or proved we could play without him. We now know that wasn’t going to happen. Given we already had a massive Skipp shaped hole to fill, adding Buendia to the replacements needed made Webber’s and Farke’s jobs almost impossible to even create a team as good, let alone a progression.

I think Parma’s right, the players knew this. I think Farke knew this from some of his words into the season.

I get there’s very little likelihood there would be no impact if he’d been made to stay. I just look at the potential psychological impact on the squad of each outcome and for me selling, bar a miracle we know didn’t happen, was always the more likely to have a bigger impact on the squad.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Monty13

[Monty13 2,256]

13 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Without prolonging this specific argument, it is perfectly possible that even Buendia didn't know what he would do if the club refused to sell him and carried on refusing, adding an extra degree of uncertainty for Webber and Farke.

That’s a very good point. Imagine he and his team had a game plan for getting the transfer, but I doubt he’d really given much thought to what he would actually do if Norwich played hardball and he was still here at the window close.

Even if he had, he very well may have changed his mind when faced with the reality, we all frequently do when situations we don’t expect arise.

I’m not sure that added any extra degree of uncertainty to Webber or Farke though.

[Robert N. LiM 4,570]

On 02/08/2022 at 10:48, 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.

Good post, and makes sense. I thought at the time that, ironically, the sale of Buendía actually made the sale of Aarons more necessary, in that we needed way more than £35million to replace what Emi offered us. 

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,570]

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

 

Especially good if you are inferior. Or the opposition have weapons that worry you. Or it is a high level. Or the game is important. 

 

 

this sounds a bit like the Premier League to me 😉

[Monty13 2,256]

4 hours ago, chicken said:

Because you don't want to see it. Again, there are examples of it happening in football over the years.

One of your other beliefs could as well. Perhaps we offered him a better pay packet outside of our usual structure to stay... That also could unsettle the team, as has been documented.

You may not think it could happen Monty, but you so readily dismiss alternative outcomes to the one you so vehimently believe in.

“I’m not sure that’s entirely true.”

How do you read this as dismissing?

“I’m not sure why his discontent at not being allowed to leave would necessarily affect all the others. 

I can see why selling him would affect almost all the players to some degree as Parma articulated.”

That was my point and the one I’ve continued to discuss with thegunnshow. I’m very interested to hopefully hear what their counterpoint is to my last post.

I have an opinion I’ve come to believe based on the narrative that to me best fits what we know. I’m very open to the alternative being a possibility, I’m interested why people think it and they are more than welcome to, but I’m not going to change my mind on a subject that’s open to interpretation without something compelling to make me.

Also if I have a different interpretation I’m going to put it forward, people can read the posts in this thread and make their own mind up but I don’t think I’m the one being dismissive of others positions.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Monty13

[Robert N. LiM 4,570]

15 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I keep hearing that social media such as twitter are making message-boards like this redundant. I don't do these social media but I imagine it would be impossible to have a discussion as complex and multi-faceted as this one has turned out to be on twitter or whatever.

Agreed. If you curate it properly (with liberal use of the 'mute' and 'block' features), Twitter is brilliant for getting the news: it's like a great paper you edit yourself. It is completely useless for an in-depth discussion. This message-board is often unbearable, but threads like this make it all worthwhile - so much good, thoughtful stuff here, all united by an unspoken agreement that we all want what's best for the club. 

[chicken 2,656]

5 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Without prolonging this specific argument, it is perfectly possible that even Buendia didn't know what he would do if the club refused to sell him and carried on refusing, adding an extra degree of uncertainty for Webber and Farke.

Precisely, and not only that, he had been playing poker with the club since the summer. Statements/interviews with foreign press...

This is the key issue, it's said like it was a sudden decision, offer in, accepted, done. Matter of days. Not other offers, took the first possible offer, too cheaply etc etc etc.

It played out over at least a season and the precluding summer. We don't know, but it wouldn't be surprising if Buendia had visions of this before the end of the Premier League campaign.

It is highly likely we played poker with Buendia and we won another season from him.

As we were not the poker players, we'll likely never know fore sure. Though the longer we play that game, the weaker our hand looks.

Especially in a self sustaining model where we actively pitch ourselves as a club that invests in young potential and bring it to the fore to benefit us on the pitch and then financially. It hardly looks great when you reneg on that quite publicly.

[chicken 2,656]

2 hours ago, Monty13 said:

“I’m not sure that’s entirely true.”

How do you read this as dismissing?

“I’m not sure why his discontent at not being allowed to leave would necessarily affect all the others. 

I can see why selling him would affect almost all the players to some degree as Parma articulated.”

That was my point and the one I’ve continued to discuss with thegunnshow. I’m very interested to hopefully hear what their counterpoint is to my last post.

I have an opinion I’ve come to believe based on the narrative that to me best fits what we know. I’m very open to the alternative being a possibility, I’m interested why people think it and they are more than welcome to, but I’m not going to change my mind on a subject that’s open to interpretation without something compelling to make me.

Also if I have a different interpretation I’m going to put it forward, people can read the posts in this thread and make their own mind up but I don’t think I’m the one being dismissive of others positions.

You've been dismissive and others have pointed it out.

If you were genuinely interested and interested in 'the narrative' you wouldn't dismiss 'the club line' as spin or lies.

Grabban is a great example of a player refusing to play ball. We have given you that. Lambert did the same with Colchester before we signed him and then did the same when he left.

There are many well noted examples of players being the "wrotten apple" that disrupted the squad. Or of players clubs broke wage structures to sign or keep, again, unsettling other players by disgruntling them.

We don't know what went on off the pitch during or after relegation to the point he left other than he wanted a move and it distracted him enough to be dropped, incidentily at a similar time to Cantwell who had started the first few games, possible connection.

The Villa deal, or the action of pitching Buendia for sale rumourdly started towards the end of the season, some suggestions as early as February, hence instigating suggestions that an agreement had been reached with Buendia to stay on on the basis we'd not stand in his way the following summer.

As said with purple, you assume we had not played poker already, that we hadn't done so, perhaps with several players, since the end of the prior premier league season, in fact it's likely we did, see Cantwell and Aarons.

The idea, not yours, that we'd tried to sell Aarons and had no bites resulting in Buendia's sale doesn't hold much water either.

Buendia was interviewed by a foreign media outlet, I want to say whilst away on international training camps, either Spanish or Argentinian, I can't recall 100% which. Some on here commented on it as it read very much like he intended to leave.

So, back to that narrative, could we have played poker with him again? As thegunnshow said, perhaps this time the club felt it was too risky going all in? We'd possibly played the only Ace we had "stay here, give it your best, lets see what happens" (only Webber dismissed this). We didn't know the impact on forcing him to stay, which could play out quite publicly, would have on the players we already had as well as those we were looking to sign. Nor the impact on him leaving.

However, we can't dismiss that both Farke and Webber have always been keen to talking about team unity and spirit. Oliveira was a good example of that, though a more public show of decent. Some might argue that he was a better striker of that type than Drmic, Sargent and even Hugill and Rhodes.

Another worth considering is Pritchard. We were not looking to sell him but are told he pushed to leave. He has since confirmed this.

So in the larger scheme of things, why do we think Buendia would be the buck of the trend?

[Monty13 2,256]

7 minutes ago, chicken said:

You've been dismissive and others have pointed it out.

If you were genuinely interested and interested in 'the narrative' you wouldn't dismiss 'the club line' as spin or lies.

Grabban is a great example of a player refusing to play ball. We have given you that. Lambert did the same with Colchester before we signed him and then did the same when he left.

There are many well noted examples of players being the "wrotten apple" that disrupted the squad. Or of players clubs broke wage structures to sign or keep, again, unsettling other players by disgruntling them.

We don't know what went on off the pitch during or after relegation to the point he left other than he wanted a move and it distracted him enough to be dropped, incidentily at a similar time to Cantwell who had started the first few games, possible connection.

The Villa deal, or the action of pitching Buendia for sale rumourdly started towards the end of the season, some suggestions as early as February, hence instigating suggestions that an agreement had been reached with Buendia to stay on on the basis we'd not stand in his way the following summer.

As said with purple, you assume we had not played poker already, that we hadn't done so, perhaps with several players, since the end of the prior premier league season, in fact it's likely we did, see Cantwell and Aarons.

The idea, not yours, that we'd tried to sell Aarons and had no bites resulting in Buendia's sale doesn't hold much water either.

Buendia was interviewed by a foreign media outlet, I want to say whilst away on international training camps, either Spanish or Argentinian, I can't recall 100% which. Some on here commented on it as it read very much like he intended to leave.

So, back to that narrative, could we have played poker with him again? As thegunnshow said, perhaps this time the club felt it was too risky going all in? We'd possibly played the only Ace we had "stay here, give it your best, lets see what happens" (only Webber dismissed this). We didn't know the impact on forcing him to stay, which could play out quite publicly, would have on the players we already had as well as those we were looking to sign. Nor the impact on him leaving.

However, we can't dismiss that both Farke and Webber have always been keen to talking about team unity and spirit. Oliveira was a good example of that, though a more public show of decent. Some might argue that he was a better striker of that type than Drmic, Sargent and even Hugill and Rhodes.

Another worth considering is Pritchard. We were not looking to sell him but are told he pushed to leave. He has since confirmed this.

So in the larger scheme of things, why do we think Buendia would be the buck of the trend?

I’ve disagreed, I don’t think I’ve dismissed someone’s point of view just because I see things differently. 

I don’t dismiss the clubs position I just take it for what it is, PR. It’s always going to be spun to be most positive for the club especially when what’s just happened is incredibly unpopular. I never said lies.

There are plenty of examples of players wanting out, not getting it and returning to play. Both examples exist.

No we don’t know the impact, it’s what we are debating, we can speculate either way and we are.

Team unity and spirit includes impact of his sale, that’s the point.

Oliviera was not Norwich’s most expensive player sale of all time. He wasn’t the Championship’s best player or a PL proven one. He wasn’t key to getting the best out of our Star striker. He was a mediocre forward as his career has proven. It’s apples and oranges. Norwich have discarded all sorts of players in Farke’s tenure but not one who you could argue was essential for the way we played other than Buendia.

Pritchard is actually a great example, this is what Webber said:

”He thought his destiny was the Premier League, we didn’t have to sell Alex, we chose to sell him because it got to a point it reached a price we thought was pretty good for us and relieve some of the pressure this summer”

Interesting parallels with Buendia.

Because it’s not a definite trend as I keep pointing out, every player that asks to leave doesn’t get it, particularly key ones. Plenty of examples of those being brought back in line including Buendia himself, he already bucked your trend.

[chicken 2,656]

4 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I’ve disagreed, I don’t think I’ve dismissed someone’s point of view just because I see things differently. 

I don’t dismiss the clubs position I just take it for what it is, PR. It’s always going to be spun to be most positive for the club especially when what’s just happened is incredibly unpopular. I never said lies.

There are plenty of examples of players wanting out, not getting it and returning to play. Both examples exist.

No we don’t know the impact, it’s what we are debating, we can speculate either way and we are.

Team unity and spirit includes impact of his sale, that’s the point.

Oliviera was not Norwich’s most expensive player sale of all time. He wasn’t the Championship’s best player or a PL proven one. He wasn’t key to getting the best out of our Star striker. He was a mediocre forward as his career has proven. It’s apples and oranges. Norwich have discarded all sorts of players in Farke’s tenure but not one who you could argue was essential for the way we played other than Buendia.

Pritchard is actually a great example, this is what Webber said:

”He thought his destiny was the Premier League, we didn’t have to sell Alex, we chose to sell him because it got to a point it reached a price we thought was pretty good for us and relieve some of the pressure this summer”

Interesting parallels with Buendia.

Because it’s not a definite trend as I keep pointing out, every player that asks to leave doesn’t get it, particularly key ones. Plenty of examples of those being brought back in line including Buendia himself, he already bucked your trend.

No, Buendia doesn't buck the trend...

Ok, I think I have seen the issue here. Everytime someone puts forward an alternative to yours, you take it as a fixed position. 90% of this thread proves it.

Several people have now pointed out how everything you hold and put forward as your view can easily be flipped to the opposite and be just as true. In each instance you have said you disagree and tell them why their view is also easily flippable or why your version is a stronger case.

You then get caught in moments of hypocracy. For example, you criticised me for answering to a question posed to tgs, yet our own two and fro was instigated because you saw it fit to answer a question I posed Parma.

Then you criticised an expanded view I made in response as total assumption.

Here's the thing, you cannot simply dismiss every comment made by the club as "PR spin", interestingly you don't when it suits you, hence the quote about Pritchard.

If being cynical at this point, it could easily be said that was also PR spin, that Webber wanted to send a signal that players would only be allowed to go on the clubs terms, not theirs. There are obvious PR pro's for doing this, warding off other clubs, agents angling for their player to move or indeed any other want away players.

On the point of club spin, it was Webber that denied that an agreement, gentlemans or otherwise, had not been made with Buendia to get him to commit to that season. Bailey echo'd that. I think I misquoted Bailey, it could well have been one of the PinkUn journo's, it was deffo out there and deffo posed to Webber which is when he gave his response. Logically, he is going to deny this all day long. It wouldn't be PR spin if he is telling the truth... and thus, if you base your view on whether you can call something spin and not accurate or truth and accurate, no one will ever be able to present alternatives you will give equal validity to... unless they agree with you.

As for trends and bucks in them, just another example. You were the one arguing it's not hard to keep players, clubs do it all the time and gave the example of Kane.

There are examples of both, but which, honestly, do you think is more common, especially in clubs of our position. And of those that do occur, how many were angling for better contracts than genuinely wanting away? Look at Salah for example for that aspect of threatening to leave.

Most folks on here are not proposing their hard and fast views, just alternative concepts that have equal validity.

My only disagreement is the chicken and egg situation. Whether the choice was made to sell Buendia before or after he made it clear he wanted to leave. That aspect is the only piece I have questioned.

The example of Pritchard is brilliant. The club will not want to give the impression they are week, that the player, in some senses, rejected them, but that actually it is their 'choice' and they choose if a player leaves or not. Just to throw a bonus into it, Webber even speaks about funds for the summer and having plans!

It's pretty much as PR spin as you can get. I believe Farke expanded on that, or at least someone did, as they were not planning to sell him and had hoped to keep him as an important part of the team. Put's an ever so slightly different spin on it. Not to mention, I think he was dropped in the period just before.

If you want spin, it's right there. Or at least, can just as equally be seen as such with equal or more validity as no need to dismiss any of it or pick and choose.

Otherwise everything else you have argued has missed the original point or dragged us away from it.

As I said, the question of finances clearly didn't drive the sale of Buendia in terms of the necessity as it did Maddison, or indeed Godfrey and to a lesser extent Lewis.

The only point I made was that we had other saleable assets, but if there was a choice, Buendia had perhaps, made it for them. As others have said, undeniably their position was clear that they would have preferred to have cashed in on Aarons primarily. Links to big teams that January, esp going public with the interest from Barcelona, back this up.

Buendia was already making questionable statements to some media outlets.

So, ergo, the plan was to sell, but not Buendia

His antics that August followed by a clear desire to leave pushed their hand into selling him rather than anyone else. The positive of this was that they'd likely get more money, the negative was unearthing another Buendia, especially as a premier league team, was going to be much more difficult.

I also can see merit in how this may have impacted upon how they decided to rebuild the side, changing style/tactics. I think this dovetails with what Parma says about how do you operate without that 'creative' player. Especially when any you bring in are unknown quantities.

It's clear Rashica and to a lesser extent Tzolis were hoped to be the answer to this. Especially with Rashica being presented that way. Perhaps more responsibility on Cantwell too.

Am I saying this is all fact or must have been how it happened? No. But it does take in more sources and less cherry picking. It's not a million miles off what you are saying bar a key aspected which is the club were only motivated to sell Buendia and no other player. Which is why he was sold, and the belief that a player can be continuously forced to stay, either against their will, or by repeatedly changing their mind with bigger/longer/better contracts and that letting a player leave is more damaging to a squad than keeping them if disgruntled.

Those are at best 50/50 assumptions/views.

 

[Besthorpe-48 103]

A massive farke fan here. Just such an interesting read. And isn't it also interesting that 30 games after he left we are still talking about him. I just hope that in a few games time everyone will be pleased with how Dean Smith is performing. Unfortunately it won't be beautiful football the like of which I have never seen at carrow Road before and probably never will again.

Otbc

[Monty13 2,256]

2 hours ago, chicken said:

No, Buendia doesn't buck the trend...

Ok, I think I have seen the issue here. Everytime someone puts forward an alternative to yours, you take it as a fixed position. 90% of this thread proves it.

Several people have now pointed out how everything you hold and put forward as your view can easily be flipped to the opposite and be just as true. In each instance you have said you disagree and tell them why their view is also easily flippable or why your version is a stronger case.

You then get caught in moments of hypocracy. For example, you criticised me for answering to a question posed to tgs, yet our own two and fro was instigated because you saw it fit to answer a question I posed Parma.

Then you criticised an expanded view I made in response as total assumption.

Here's the thing, you cannot simply dismiss every comment made by the club as "PR spin", interestingly you don't when it suits you, hence the quote about Pritchard.

If being cynical at this point, it could easily be said that was also PR spin, that Webber wanted to send a signal that players would only be allowed to go on the clubs terms, not theirs. There are obvious PR pro's for doing this, warding off other clubs, agents angling for their player to move or indeed any other want away players.

On the point of club spin, it was Webber that denied that an agreement, gentlemans or otherwise, had not been made with Buendia to get him to commit to that season. Bailey echo'd that. I think I misquoted Bailey, it could well have been one of the PinkUn journo's, it was deffo out there and deffo posed to Webber which is when he gave his response. Logically, he is going to deny this all day long. It wouldn't be PR spin if he is telling the truth... and thus, if you base your view on whether you can call something spin and not accurate or truth and accurate, no one will ever be able to present alternatives you will give equal validity to... unless they agree with you.

As for trends and bucks in them, just another example. You were the one arguing it's not hard to keep players, clubs do it all the time and gave the example of Kane.

There are examples of both, but which, honestly, do you think is more common, especially in clubs of our position. And of those that do occur, how many were angling for better contracts than genuinely wanting away? Look at Salah for example for that aspect of threatening to leave.

Most folks on here are not proposing their hard and fast views, just alternative concepts that have equal validity.

My only disagreement is the chicken and egg situation. Whether the choice was made to sell Buendia before or after he made it clear he wanted to leave. That aspect is the only piece I have questioned.

The example of Pritchard is brilliant. The club will not want to give the impression they are week, that the player, in some senses, rejected them, but that actually it is their 'choice' and they choose if a player leaves or not. Just to throw a bonus into it, Webber even speaks about funds for the summer and having plans!

It's pretty much as PR spin as you can get. I believe Farke expanded on that, or at least someone did, as they were not planning to sell him and had hoped to keep him as an important part of the team. Put's an ever so slightly different spin on it. Not to mention, I think he was dropped in the period just before.

If you want spin, it's right there. Or at least, can just as equally be seen as such with equal or more validity as no need to dismiss any of it or pick and choose.

Otherwise everything else you have argued has missed the original point or dragged us away from it.

As I said, the question of finances clearly didn't drive the sale of Buendia in terms of the necessity as it did Maddison, or indeed Godfrey and to a lesser extent Lewis.

The only point I made was that we had other saleable assets, but if there was a choice, Buendia had perhaps, made it for them. As others have said, undeniably their position was clear that they would have preferred to have cashed in on Aarons primarily. Links to big teams that January, esp going public with the interest from Barcelona, back this up.

Buendia was already making questionable statements to some media outlets.

So, ergo, the plan was to sell, but not Buendia

His antics that August followed by a clear desire to leave pushed their hand into selling him rather than anyone else. The positive of this was that they'd likely get more money, the negative was unearthing another Buendia, especially as a premier league team, was going to be much more difficult.

I also can see merit in how this may have impacted upon how they decided to rebuild the side, changing style/tactics. I think this dovetails with what Parma says about how do you operate without that 'creative' player. Especially when any you bring in are unknown quantities.

It's clear Rashica and to a lesser extent Tzolis were hoped to be the answer to this. Especially with Rashica being presented that way. Perhaps more responsibility on Cantwell too.

Am I saying this is all fact or must have been how it happened? No. But it does take in more sources and less cherry picking. It's not a million miles off what you are saying bar a key aspected which is the club were only motivated to sell Buendia and no other player. Which is why he was sold, and the belief that a player can be continuously forced to stay, either against their will, or by repeatedly changing their mind with bigger/longer/better contracts and that letting a player leave is more damaging to a squad than keeping them if disgruntled.

Those are at best 50/50 assumptions/views.

 

I don’t take it as a fixed position, I assume posters want to hear alternative viewpoints and I’m interested in their’s. Yes I flip their view and offer an alternative because that’s called a discussion, it’s an exchange of ideas and I’ve heard new ones, just nothing convincing. If I didn’t believe in my position why would I hold it? I’ve repeatedly said I understand their position I just don’t agree based on the conflicting possibilities and my reading of it. 

Once again the two highlighted bits is not what I’m saying and just proves you continue to choose what my position is for me rather than reading it.

Just as you did when you said:

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

Which I pointed out to you as wrong and you choose to ignore.

I’m using the Pritchard situation to point out an extremely similar situation was spun differently. I’m not picking and choosing I’m saying it’s all spun depending on what the message needs to be. I’m not saying it’s untrue, I’m saying it’s emphasised how they want it to be, that’s spin, it’s very unlikely they’d be caught in an outright lie, that’s terrible PR. In Pritchard’s case it was “we didn’t have to sell” in Buendia’s “left with little choice”. You can argue the situation for both players have almost exactly the same facts only the messaging is different.

You asked if Parma was referring to Buendia and I answered, that’s true, it was confirmation of something I thought was obvious not a disagreement of your post, you then said:

“We really need to drop the concept that we chose to sell Buendia to fund a squad rebuild.”

That was your original point in follow up to me and that’s what I took issue with and continue to.

“My only disagreement is the chicken and egg situation. Whether the choice was made to sell Buendia before or after he made it clear he wanted to leave. That aspect is the only piece I have questioned.”

So again you aren’t listening because apparently If you believe we decided to sell Buendia after he said he wanted to leave we are in agreement, as I’ve already said on more than one occasion.

For the final time, for clarity, this is my position: Buendia made clear he wanted to leave at the end of the season. Norwich already knew that  in order to bring in a number of expensive new players the club needed to sell someone, that was pretty clear from the finances and Webber made it clear in his it needs to start with a 3 interview we were open to it. There was no agreement to sell Buendia, but Buendia’s wanting to leave presented an opportunity to make those two things align, there was a suitor (well two but reporting suggests Arsenal weren’t close to what we wanted) so Nowich made the choice to sell him. That process was started well before the window opened as Bailey has reported and was concluded before it closed. I’ve never suggested we set out only ever wanting to sell Buendia, but there was presumably never a chance for it to be Max or Todd because there is no reporting of any bids for them and the decision was made to sell Buendia so early. The fact he wanted to go and we had a buyer presented the opportunity, yes it also presented an unknown issue if we said no, I’ve never denied that, but doesn’t change we literally did choose to sell him to fund a rebuild.

I often agree with you, this time I don’t. However mainly I’m failing to understand what of the paragraph above you actually disagree with?

Bailey and the Pinkun articles I’ve read them all and listen to every podcast from both. What we know and what’s reported, even their opinions I’ve heard on the more open podcasts align comfortably with my view above. You say I’m cherry picking the clubs/Webbers comments. I’m not, I’ve read and listened very carefully to what’s been said, what hasn’t, how it’s been said and who’s saying it. Just as I would a politician.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Monty13

[chicken 2,656]

Ok so you're not 'fixed' in your position but having heard views of at least equal validity, you've not altered you're view in anyway... even to recognise equal validity.

As pointed out above, my view isn't even that drastically different and you come very close to confirming it.

Ultimately Buendia wanting to leave is why Buendia left. You agree that we had other assets we were looking to sell ahead of him. You agree he had wanted to leave at least 9months before he did.

What you have argued is that we had a choice, could have offered him better terms to stay, could have refused to let him go for any price with a side of belief that we could have had more bids and raised more money had we held on longer. That's the crux of it. The cherry on top is that the club pr spin, that you literally said I couldn't rely upon, said they chose to sell him.

I go back. Ultimately, Buendia wanting to leave is why Buendia left.

That's it. No coulda, woulda, shoulda stories.

Folks do need to get over it, and not state questions as accusations. What I see is purely;

"Did the club do everything it could to keep Buendia?"

This needs to be asked of two points not one. In August 2021 and Feb-April 2022.

What I read is;

"The club did not do everything it could to keep Buendia."

It's not a question. It's a statement. Several neutral, level headed posters, some far less temperemental than me, have pointed out how unsecure vital elements of making that statement are, and you have dismissed them.

To me, that makes your position fixed. Because you ultimately didn't like what happened and need to blame someone.

Like I said before, I'm done now. My only real word of advice is to test you challenges against your own 'theories' or indeed 'conspiracies' before applying them to others. If it can't stand up to your own standards, it's ill advised to use them to criticise others.

[Monty13 2,256]

4 minutes ago, chicken said:

Ok so you're not 'fixed' in your position but having heard views of at least equal validity, you've not altered you're view in anyway... even to recognise equal validity.

As pointed out above, my view isn't even that drastically different and you come very close to confirming it.

Ultimately Buendia wanting to leave is why Buendia left. You agree that we had other assets we were looking to sell ahead of him. You agree he had wanted to leave at least 9months before he did.

What you have argued is that we had a choice, could have offered him better terms to stay, could have refused to let him go for any price with a side of belief that we could have had more bids and raised more money had we held on longer. That's the crux of it. The cherry on top is that the club pr spin, that you literally said I couldn't rely upon, said they chose to sell him.

I go back. Ultimately, Buendia wanting to leave is why Buendia left.

That's it. No coulda, woulda, shoulda stories.

Folks do need to get over it, and not state questions as accusations. What I see is purely;

"Did the club do everything it could to keep Buendia?"

This needs to be asked of two points not one. In August 2021 and Feb-April 2022.

What I read is;

"The club did not do everything it could to keep Buendia."

It's not a question. It's a statement. Several neutral, level headed posters, some far less temperemental than me, have pointed out how unsecure vital elements of making that statement are, and you have dismissed them.

To me, that makes your position fixed. Because you ultimately didn't like what happened and need to blame someone.

Like I said before, I'm done now. My only real word of advice is to test you challenges against your own 'theories' or indeed 'conspiracies' before applying them to others. If it can't stand up to your own standards, it's ill advised to use them to criticise others.

Jesus, I do recognise they are equally valid in holding their opinion, I’ve acknowledged it in multiple posts. When it comes to specific details yes I’ve challenged them on points, the same as they’ve challenged me. I agree with most of what you’re saying anyway.

Ultimately it comes down to whether you believe we could/should have kept Buendia and no like I said I don’t see an overly compelling argument to change my mind that we could and should have given the risks. I recognise and respect the counter arguments but while thoughts about details of that tough situation have changed, no my overall position hasn’t.

I maintain the publicly known elements line up that Norwich swiftly made the choice to sell him and maximise the money early for the summer. Buendia wanting to leave is why that choice was made but it does not stop it being a choice. This seems what we are at a total impasse on because you seem to be implying his wanting to leave removed the choice from the club.

The question isn’t did the club do everything they could, because we know the answer is no. I’m not sure how anyone’s definition of everything that could be done to keep him is covered by immediately starting a bidding process as reported by Bailey. 

How about you? So you still feel mine, Parma’s and other posters views are “a concept that need to be dropped”? a “narrative that it was a stupid (your word) choice is brilliant only in hindsight. And I believe I am right in saying folks need to get over it”  do you still “find it utterly daft. "No one sells their best player on promotion"” and that such a view is “pathetic”?

You’ve repeatedly accused me of being dismissive of others views. You accused me of being fixed in my position and not offering equal validity to others views, but that’s exactly where  you are. 

“To me, that makes your position fixed. Because you ultimately didn't like what happened and need to blame someone.”

This is where you’ve got me as a person completely wrong, I ultimately don’t care about  blame, I don’t understand the modern obsession with it. Blame is boring to me. I care that we learnt something, that mistakes are acknowledged and understood and we are trying to do better. Looking at this year so far I think we have, so I’m actually relatively happy.

You seem to feel the need to defend what happened.

[king canary 7,681]

7 hours ago, chicken said:

Ok so you're not 'fixed' in your position but having heard views of at least equal validity, you've not altered you're view in anyway... even to recognise equal validity.

As pointed out above, my view isn't even that drastically different and you come very close to confirming it.

Ultimately Buendia wanting to leave is why Buendia left. You agree that we had other assets we were looking to sell ahead of him. You agree he had wanted to leave at least 9months before he did.

What you have argued is that we had a choice, could have offered him better terms to stay, could have refused to let him go for any price with a side of belief that we could have had more bids and raised more money had we held on longer. That's the crux of it. The cherry on top is that the club pr spin, that you literally said I couldn't rely upon, said they chose to sell him.

I go back. Ultimately, Buendia wanting to leave is why Buendia left.

That's it. No coulda, woulda, shoulda stories.

Folks do need to get over it, and not state questions as accusations. What I see is purely;

"Did the club do everything it could to keep Buendia?"

This needs to be asked of two points not one. In August 2021 and Feb-April 2022.

What I read is;

"The club did not do everything it could to keep Buendia."

It's not a question. It's a statement. Several neutral, level headed posters, some far less temperemental than me, have pointed out how unsecure vital elements of making that statement are, and you have dismissed them.

To me, that makes your position fixed. Because you ultimately didn't like what happened and need to blame someone.

Like I said before, I'm done now. My only real word of advice is to test you challenges against your own 'theories' or indeed 'conspiracies' before applying them to others. If it can't stand up to your own standards, it's ill advised to use them to criticise others.

I love the idea Monty has taken a fixed position, whereas you haven't?

It just boils down to the pretty simple fact that you and him disagree on your reading of the situation, where we will never have full facts. You clearly think your reading is more valid, fine, but your position is no less fixed than anyone else on this thread.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

8 hours ago, Monty13 said:

For the final time, for clarity, this is my position: Buendia made clear he wanted to leave at the end of the season. Norwich already knew that  in order to bring in a number of expensive new players the club needed to sell someone, that was pretty clear from the finances and Webber made it clear in his it needs to start with a 3 interview we were open to it. There was no agreement to sell Buendia, but Buendia’s wanting to leave presented an opportunity to make those two things align, there was a suitor (well two but reporting suggests Arsenal weren’t close to what we wanted) so Nowich made the choice to sell him. That process was started well before the window opened as Bailey has reported and was concluded before it closed. I’ve never suggested we set out only ever wanting to sell Buendia, but there was presumably never a chance for it to be Max or Todd because there is no reporting of any bids for them and the decision was made to sell Buendia so early. The fact he wanted to go and we had a buyer presented the opportunity, yes it also presented an unknown issue if we said no, I’ve never denied that, but doesn’t change we literally did choose to sell him to fund a rebuild.

👍👍

This sounds like pretty much it for me. I don’t think you should ‘stop’ with your opinions on this matter. 

Everything the club did from the end of the previous campaign showed a strong level of complicity and encouragement towards the sale.

It started with Webber’s choice to make some very public rhetoric about the model and not getting in players way, followed by the choice to set a good but achievable price for Buendia once we knew there was interest - with the intention clearly not to price suitors out but to try and get the most amount and highest bids.

Just compare those choices with the rhetoric from teams like Watford at the same point in time around their top players, it was made clear the Sarr was not available for sale under any circumstance and that the status quo of the most important players from the promotion winning side would remain intact. 

Then you have the timing of it all, from start to finish just a few weeks or even less was it not? Hardly seems to show a club scrambling to keep their best player in place does it? And any efforts to keep him against his desire to leave (which I think we all acknowledge) would be in direct conflict with Webber’s comments at the start of the window.

So how can anyone believe the club did all they could to retain Buendia? They didn’t. Ultimately as I said before, imo the whole thing centres around Webber’s belief that more can be done with £33 million rather than keeping hold of Buendia. You take away that misguided belief and all of a sudden you have a totally different stance from the club imo.

[Monty13 2,256]

36 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

👍👍

This sounds like pretty much it for me. I don’t think you should ‘stop’ with your opinions on this matter. 

Everything the club did from the end of the previous campaign showed a strong level of complicity and encouragement towards the sale.

It started with Webber’s choice to make some very public rhetoric about the model and not getting in players way, followed by the choice to set a good but achievable price for Buendia once we knew there was interest - with the intention clearly not to price suitors out but to try and get the most amount and highest bids.

Just compare those choices with the rhetoric from teams like Watford at the same point in time around their top players, it was made clear the Sarr was not available for sale under any circumstance and that the status quo of the most important players from the promotion winning side would remain intact. 

Then you have the timing of it all, from start to finish just a few weeks or even less was it not? Hardly seems to show a club scrambling to keep their best player in place does it? And any efforts to keep him against his desire to leave (which I think we all acknowledge) would be in direct conflict with Webber’s comments at the start of the window.

So how can anyone believe the club did all they could to retain Buendia? They didn’t. Ultimately as I said before, imo the whole thing centres around Webber’s belief that more can be done with £33 million rather than keeping hold of Buendia. You take away that misguided belief and all of a sudden you have a totally different stance from the club imo.

Thanks, I also think I pretty much agree with what you’ve said too in terms of how to read the situation.

Interesting thing around the timing, Bailey said:

Make no mistake, Villa was the move the forward wanted. That had been made clear to Norwich and rival suitors Arsenal during a bidding process that began on the last day of May.

What’s not clear to me is Webbers interview talking about selling and prices was mid May.

Bailey has said that a bidding process started at the end of May and Buendia made it clear during that process that he wanted to move to Villa.

It’s really not clear at all when Buendia told Norwich he wanted to leave last summer, at least I can’t find anything that corroborates a date.

However Bailey seems to suggest he solidified his opinion after Norwich had already started a process to sell him.

[nutty nigel 7,649]

I've always thought that the selling of Emi goes back to his signing. In fact right back to 2017 when this 'model' was formulated. I understood that it was all about pathways. One of the selling points to signing players with potential was that if they 'outgrew' our club they would be able to move on. EMI obviously felt he had outgrown us after that first relegation but somehow we managed to hold on to him for another season. Trying to keep him longer wouldn't have just resulted in an unhappy player but would have compromised future signings. I console myself believing if the model was different we'd never have signed Emi in the first place.

What I don't understand is the sacking of Farke who was pivotal to all these pathways for players with potential. Every time it crosses my mind I think 'WTF'.....

 

 

 

[hogesar 9,773]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

I've always thought that the selling of Emi goes back to his signing. In fact right back to 2017 when this 'model' was formulated. I understood that it was all about pathways. One of the selling points to signing players with potential was that if they 'outgrew' our club they would be able to move on. EMI obviously felt he had outgrown us after that first relegation but somehow we managed to hold on to him for another season. Trying to keep him longer wouldn't have just resulted in an unhappy player but would have compromised future signings. I console myself believing if the model was different we'd never have signed Emi in the first place.

What I don't understand is the sacking of Farke who was pivotal to all these pathways for players with potential. Every time it crosses my mind I think 'WTF'.....

We see things pretty similarly then (shock horror). 

I guess the fee's involved also important. Not only was Emi likely sold the pathway 'dream' upon signing, he'd also proven himself to be a good player and we'd then had a £30 million offer from a bigger club.

Had we only been talking £15 million then the risk / reward of keeping a potentially unhappy player may have been different. 

[Monty13 2,256]

33 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I've always thought that the selling of Emi goes back to his signing. In fact right back to 2017 when this 'model' was formulated. I understood that it was all about pathways. One of the selling points to signing players with potential was that if they 'outgrew' our club they would be able to move on. EMI obviously felt he had outgrown us after that first relegation but somehow we managed to hold on to him for another season. Trying to keep him longer wouldn't have just resulted in an unhappy player but would have compromised future signings. I console myself believing if the model was different we'd never have signed Emi in the first place.

What I don't understand is the sacking of Farke who was pivotal to all these pathways for players with potential. Every time it crosses my mind I think 'WTF'.....

 

 

 

I understand what you are saying Nutty, I really do, Buendia was not going to be happy and there was always a risk of potential knock on of that. I think the difference of opinion we probably have is when they should be allowed to move on as per the model (the risk balance) and whether it should have been encouraged.

Buendia was plying his trade in the second tier of Spanish football when we picked him up. He’d been loaned to another second tier team as well. We were a step up, and he was moulded at Norwich into a PL player. I’m not convinced he wouldn’t have signed given how far away he was from that dream when we did.

If the model allows these players to leave when they want, even when we are in the worlds best league, I’d say that’s a huge flaw.

If the model dictates we sell players of PL quality on promotion to the PL it makes survival go from improbable to almost impossible. How can that be aligned with the clubs stated goal?

If Nunez or Sara have an outstanding season this year and we are promoted should they be allowed to leave if there’s a bigger club interested? If not I’m unclear where the line gets drawn.

When it comes to Farke I still think it’s intrinsically linked, he agreed (at least to some extent) to the summer plans which appeared to include both a change of style and of personnel. He then failed to make it remotely work, not only that (IMO) it felt from some of his comments/language that he didn’t really believe it could. Someone was going to take the fall and  I don’t see how, given the circumstances, that rightly or wrongly it wasn’t going to be him.

Wasn’t the only alternative’s to admit either the model doesn’t work? or to admit that that the summer business was completely unsuccessful?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

3 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I've always thought that the selling of Emi goes back to his signing. In fact right back to 2017 when this 'model' was formulated. I understood that it was all about pathways. One of the selling points to signing players with potential was that if they 'outgrew' our club they would be able to move on. EMI obviously felt he had outgrown us after that first relegation but somehow we managed to hold on to him for another season. Trying to keep him longer wouldn't have just resulted in an unhappy player but would have compromised future signings. I console myself believing if the model was different we'd never have signed Emi in the first place.

What I don't understand is the sacking of Farke who was pivotal to all these pathways for players with potential. Every time it crosses my mind I think 'WTF'.....

 

 

 

Completely agree, which comes back to 'embracing the yoyo', as @ricardo put it so nicely, not worrying so much about bad performance in the Premier League, and simply working on the basis that, sooner or later we'll catch a break in the Premier League if we keep yoyoing.

I still think it was noise from some fans that drove the sacking of Farke; on the upside, Smith has also had some very good successes developing younger players, so I think the choice of replacement has been made with continuity in mind. 

 

[chicken 2,656]

6 hours ago, king canary said:

I love the idea Monty has taken a fixed position, whereas you haven't?

It just boils down to the pretty simple fact that you and him disagree on your reading of the situation, where we will never have full facts. You clearly think your reading is more valid, fine, but your position is no less fixed than anyone else on this thread.

That's probably fair, something I can accept. But then, in fairness, I wasn't stating my view was so flexible - after all, the statement I made is that people need to drop the charade that there was anything other than Buendia wanting to leave that lead to him leaving.

The only argument against that is that people "believe" there is more we could have done to keep him. And to do that, you have to dismiss almost everything else. In an effort to underline this, player purchases have been brought into the debate.

If you look around, there is more than enough evidence. Supposedly Farke said we chose to sell him.

https://www.norfolklive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/webber-norwich-transfer-mistake-buendia-7132075

Quote

He[Webber] was then asked if the money was spread too thinly, to which he replied: "Yes, absolutely, but they are the rules we deal with. So we sold a player, our best player [Buendia], because he made it very, very clear, as soon as the season finished, 'I won't be here next year'. So you are left then with 'what do we do now?"

"It is about getting maximum value at that point because we haven't got the capability to give him £100,000 a week to stay and give us one more year, we can't do that and everyone knows that. So then it is about trying to strengthen the squad as best as we can. If we had just replaced Emi [Buendia] with just one player, we wouldn't have been good enough, that's a fact. We haven't got relegated because of one player. We had to spread that and did we spread it too thinly? Yes, absolutely, we did."

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/norwichs-emi-buendia-breaks-silence-following-arsenal-tottenham-and-aston-villa-transfer-links/
For a bit more information on the subject.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/05/25/arsenal-aston-villa-going-head-head-sign-norwichs-emiliano-buendia/
No other teams were in for Buendia... Not the only source, but just wanted to give another source rather than go to the same one. Especially as it links up with the above suggesting links to Arsenal as early as January.

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/leeds-united-transfers-emi-buendia-19281313
Article with interview with Buendia where he states he lost focus and only a discussion with Farke made him change his mind at that point.

Like I said, unless the various sources and Webber's various interviews can be proven to be lies, we can only really go on information we have, not information we have to imagine. Talk of what happens with other players at other clubs, or our club before and after only give evidence to possibilities but as Buendia is none of those players, in none of their positions, we can only use them as examples of what other players chose to do or not do.

Buendia gave statements that season, to various outlets saying he wanted to play at the highest level to win medals and silverware. A lot of fans on here and elsewhere figured this mean he was off, especially after the issues at the start of the 2020-21 campaign (said Aug 21 before which was an error, my apologies).

Now, if someone was to present actual, verifiable information that contradicts all of this - and there are more articles, more pieces, across various media sources - then yes, I will alter how I feel about this. But as of yet, no one has provided any evidence, just the odd "Farke said we chose to sell him".

As I've said before, if what Webber said was PR spin, then he is absolutely shocking at it. That would have to be a flat out lie. Which is odd considering following that he admits that they got it wrong last summer. The evidence would suggest this is an honest reflection of the situation would it not? PR spin, is an assumption at this point, in this instance "spin" would also have to be a lie.
 

Quote

The only point of these debates is second-guessing the competence of those making the decisions to be in post to make the decisions. 

Posted by @littleyellowbirdie and it's spot on. There is a picture pretty well painted out there. How it happened matters less than what happened after unless you need to question further the competence of those involved. Ergo, "we chose to sell Buendia" is also said in the same post as "the club was stupid", "everyone in the footballing world questioned selling Buendia"... these charges could not be levelled if you were not "second-guessing the competence of those making the decisions". Hence calling anything Webber says as spin.

At this point it becomes nigh on conspiracy.

I agree with @nutty nigel too. Which lines up with what Webber said in the linked interview. If there is PR spin to that, it is to underline our model, that we look to give players a platform, a pathway to perform, that ultimately, we are unable, at this time, to offer the types of contracts, the level of football that will ultimately keep some of the more talented players at the club in the long term. This also backs up what you said @king canary that Aarons was the clear favourite in terms of being moved on but this changed.

Now tell me why I should agree that Parma and Monty have a valid alternative without really any sort of tangible evidence apart from one piece by Bailey that kind of, sort of suggests something?

Boils down to Buendia wanting to move is the reason Buendia went to Villa. Does it fit the model? Yes. Did Farke and Webber want it to happen? No. Unless both are lying. You can't spin a yes no. "We wanted him to stay". That has to be a lie for the alternative to be true. 

 

[chicken 2,656]

28 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Completely agree, which comes back to 'embracing the yoyo', as @ricardo put it so nicely, not worrying so much about bad performance in the Premier League, and simply working on the basis that, sooner or later we'll catch a break in the Premier League if we keep yoyoing.

I still think it was noise from some fans that drove the sacking of Farke; on the upside, Smith has also had some very good successes developing younger players, so I think the choice of replacement has been made with continuity in mind. 

 

Yup. Would I rather be us or say a Blackburn, Coventry, Wigan, Sunderland or even sides like Shef Utd and WBA who have also been in the premier league in recent seasons? Are Fulham fans massively unhappy with their club despite two relegations and now three promotions having spent a fair bit of money doing it?

Or do we try to, as best as possible, enjoy the ride knowing that Norwich has rarely been a properly established top flight side in it's history and whilst we must believe that to be possible, and an achievable ambition, that it gets harder every year.