Jump to content
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Parma’s State of the Nation

Recommended Posts

Something has bugs me on the subject of Buendia. 
 

What we know / what we saw , was a moody unresponsive Buendia at the start of the season. He missed a few early games , he then played and refused to celebrate goals . Next was an apparently committed Emi scoring and celebrating goals , tweeting love for the club and finally ecstatic Emi dancing outside the City stand on promotion. 
 

We are told that Emi /Agent told the club he wouldn’t play for the club. But because of “an agreement” he changed from Early Season Emi to Dancing Emi. 
 

This seems unlikely to me ? Such a transformation due to an agreement ? Seems very unfootball like to me . Maybe a side contract ? But the missing bit was who would buy him? Maybe some sort of trigger clause was inserted ? If so why haven’t we been told ? 
 

So Emi turns on a gentleman’s agreement ? If that’s what we are told then I guess we have to take the word on it . But when did football hang on unwritten agreement ? 

 

Edited by Graham Paddons Beard
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Something has bugs me on the subject of Buendia. 
 

What we know / what we saw , was a moody unresponsive Buendia at the start of the season. He missed a few early games , he then played and refused to celebrate goals . Next was an apparently committed Emi scoring and celebrating goals , tweeting love for the club and finally ecstatic Emi dancing outside the City stand on promotion. 
 

We are told that Emi /Agent told the club he wouldn’t play for the club. But because of “an agreement” he changed from Early Season Emi to Dancing Emi. 
 

This seems unlikely to me ? Such a transformation due to an agreement ? Seems very unfootball like to me . Maybe a side contract ? But the missing bit was who would buy him? Maybe some sort of trigger clause was inserted ? If so why haven’t we been told ? 
 

So Emi turns on a gentleman’s agreement ? If that’s what we are told then I guess we have to take the word on it . But when did football hang on unwritten agreement ? 

 

I believe it’s been confirmed there was no agreement. I’m pretty sure I remember a piece where Bailey wrote that was the case.

Edited by Monty13
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to @BigFish ‘s counter-factuals and what we’ve learnt and will do differently, a really obvious error was buying wingers. 

Even the very best sides don’t play with what anybody over 40 would understand as a winger. 

That we were obviously going to be weaker, had little money, had sold our only weapon, neutered our half weapon and were about to spend a once-in-a lifetime amount of cash was a hugely significant set of circumstances.

And we spent 2/3rds of our fortune on wingers that we should never have bought. For a bit of double irony, the other 1/3rd was a striker that we played as a winger.

@Petriix greatly laments abandoning the comfortably-grooved pathways of the 4231, which can easily be played with only one forward, plus a half 10 (about what a top level weaker Italian side would do at maximum), though to then play a 433 openly, with a striker wide, a non-stick 9 (I love Pukki), a wide Rashica, looks a horribly flawed ideology. 

Throw in the massive over-dependence and hugely heavy structural pivot on Gilmour - with the corollary belief that must have existed that we would ‘pop the ball around’ to our heart’s content - and I am afraid it was not simply a case of ‘being a bit unlucky’ whilst fishing in a lower pond ‘which is the common lot of newly-promoted sides’. 

No. A huge amount of false beliefs and false strategic decisions were made. That they didn’t work is not ‘bad luck versus Brentford’. We did the wrong things for the wrong reasons because we had a false self-image.

We might have ignored the noise, though we also ignored the mirror. 

What we bought made little sense in the context of the job at hand. 
 

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 7

Share this post


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

I believe it’s been confirmed there was no agreement. I’m pretty sure I remember a piece where Bailey wrote that was the case.

That was after Webber dismissed that rumour... though, one might suggest he had good reason to pretend it didn't exist. 

We do know that when he said when it came towards the end of the season the player made it clear he wouldn't play for us again as we know that his head was turned the previous summer and that it took some good management, I guess we can call it that, for him to come back in and eventually play some of his best ever football for us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Further to @BigFish ‘s counter-factuals and what we’ve learnt and will do differently, a really obvious error was buying wingers. 

Even the very best sides don’t play with what anybody over 40 would understand as a winger. 

That we were obviously going to be weaker, had little money, had sold our only weapon, neutered our half weapon and we’re about to spend a once-in-a lifetime amount of cash was a hugely significant set of circumstances.

And we spent 2/3rds of our fortune on wingers that we should never have bought. For a bit of double irony, the other 1/3rd was a striker that we played as a winger.

@Petriix greatly laments abandoning the comfortably-grooved pathways of the 4231, which can easily be played with only one forward, plus a half 10 (about what a top level weaker Italian side would do at maximum), though to then play a 433 openly, with a striker wide, a non-stick 9 (I love Pukki), a wide Rashica   looks a horribly flawed ideology. 

Throw in the massive over-dependence and hugely heavy structural pivot on Gilmour - with the corollary belief that must have existed that we would ‘pop the ball around’ to our heart’s content - and I am afraid it what not simply a case of ‘being a bit unlucky’ whilst fishing in a lower pond ‘which is the common lot of newly-promoted sides. 

No. A huge amount of false beliefs and false strategic decisions were made. That they didn’t work is not ‘bad luck versus Brentford’. We did the wrong hinges for the wrong reasons because we had a false self-image.

We might have ignored the noise, though we also ignored the mirror. 

What we bought made little sense in the context of the job at hand. 
 

Parma 

Not 3rds... well, unless signing Gibson for £8m, Giannoulis for £6m are dismissed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

We did the wrong hinges for the wrong reasons because we had a false self-image.

This. We thought we were good. We weren't. Now we're worse, with little prospect of being better in the near future. Our next stab at the PL could be a few years away.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

This. We thought we were good. We weren't. Now we're worse, with little prospect of being better in the near future. Our next stab at the PL could be a few years away.

I very much doubt that. No team thinks they are good when essentially replacing their entire midfield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chicken said:

That was after Webber dismissed that rumour... though, one might suggest he had good reason to pretend it didn't exist. 

We do know that when he said when it came towards the end of the season the player made it clear he wouldn't play for us again as we know that his head was turned the previous summer and that it took some good management, I guess we can call it that, for him to come back in and eventually play some of his best ever football for us. 

When did Webber dismiss that rumour? I’m not aware of anything before Bailey’s article.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

We chose the spread bet squad, we chose to get rid of Farke, we chose to sell Buendia ( @PurpleCanary we will have to respectfully completely disagree on that point. Even Farke said ‘we chose to sell Buendia’. As for ‘Gentleman’s agreements’ in football, well for one as pragmatic, empirical and Machiavellian as you I find your adherence to that view unlikely…🤣🥰. Webber simply thought he could repeat his Buendia-Pukki triumph. He hasn’t. Nor do many frankly).

 

Parma, just to be clear, I have never doubted we had a choice, and I have never clung to the idea there was a gentleman's agreement that would have bound us. The only way in which we wouldn't have had a choice would have been if there had been a formal agreement to allow Buendia to go if he wanted to. Without that, and it seems there was no such agreement, we could have refused him the move to Villa or wherever. In that sense Farke was right to say it was a choice. But hardly a choice free of some very pertinent arguments in favour of letting Buendia go.

Was that a bad choice as part of an overall bad choice? Quite possibly. You make a strong case much of which I agree with.

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

@Petriix greatly laments abandoning the comfortably-grooved pathways of the 4231, which can easily be played with only one forward, plus a half 10 (about what a top level weaker Italian side would do at maximum), though to then play a 433 openly, with a striker wide, a non-stick 9 (I love Pukki), a wide Rashica   looks a horribly flawed ideology

I can, to a degree, understand the idea that we had to do something different.* I can't, however, accept persevering with such an obviously flawed plan for so long.

Farke had clearly realised it couldn't work and, after some experimentation, had returned to his original plan, albeit with far worse players. Webber doubled down, sacked Farke and brought in Smith who then continued the madness until very recently. And we all fear he could keep reverting back to the flawed 4-3-3.

*to me it's obvious that going to more of a 4-5-1 would have been far more appropriate a tweak to the system. Slightly deeper, more defensive in general, but with the same fundamentals in possession.

Edited by Petriix
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a pleasure to read through such an insightful, thoughtful & well-written thread (if slightly depressing too!)

Parma: your threads raise the bar; many thanks.

I include myself when I say that the last number of years have made us fairly complacent about the Championship challenge while simultaneously fearful of the Premier League. We can all see what the club has been attempting to do but we've crashed & burned on both top flight assaults during this 'Webber era.' While I have doubts & misgivings about where this current crop are heading, I still remain hopeful that Smith & Shakey can make things 'click' sufficiently well to achieve promotion again and have another go. Perhaps I'm naïve.

We have options regaining fitness & the World Cup break to focus the minds on the training pitch. I'm sure there will be some wheeling & dealing in January and perhaps a contract or two signed. My blind/wavering optimism is not as well thought out as the majority of the posts above, but it is still very intriguing to ponder and observe the opera as it unfolds! 

Great thread!

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, paddycanary said:

... the last number of years have made us fairly complacent about the Championship challenge while simultaneously fearful of the Premier League. .... While I have doubts & misgivings about where this current crop are heading, I still remain hopeful that Smith & Shakey can make things 'click' sufficiently well to achieve promotion again and have another go.

I too think/hope there is more than enough about the team/Smith & Shakey to get us out of this division @paddycanary. And yes the fan base is both overawed by the quality of the EPL and underawed by the achievement it is to get out of the Champs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Monty13 said:

When did Webber dismiss that rumour? I’m not aware of anything before Bailey’s article.

 

In one of his many interviews... trawling for it now but don't expect anything soon. I don't think it was a revelation by Bailey though. It was only ever rumoured to be an agreement. It "fit" at the time because we knew he was desperate to go that summer and he was persuaded/forced to stay. He also didn't lose focus in January, which goes along with the current thread that it wasn't a "sudden" sale but one that had been worked upon prior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, chicken said:

In one of his many interviews... trawling for it now but don't expect anything soon. I don't think it was a revelation by Bailey though. It was only ever rumoured to be an agreement. It "fit" at the time because we knew he was desperate to go that summer and he was persuaded/forced to stay. He also didn't lose focus in January, which goes along with the current thread that it wasn't a "sudden" sale but one that had been worked upon prior. 

The only one I’m aware of where I think he said this was addressing the rumour long after the event.

Bailey is a journalist, he would have corroborated his information or he wouldn’t have written it, be very surprised if anything else was the case as he wasn’t speculating he was confirming.

“Contrary to popular belief in Norwich, there had been no agreement between Buendia and the club 12 months ago that one more season of service would be rewarded with a guaranteed move away – although there were brief discussions in November over a potential transfer to a club in Saudi Arabia. Nothing materialised there, nor were Norwich interested in sanctioning such a move.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The only one I’m aware of where I think he said this was addressing the rumour long after the event.

Bailey is a journalist, he would have corroborated his information or he wouldn’t have written it, be very surprised if anything else was the case as he wasn’t speculating he was confirming.

“Contrary to popular belief in Norwich, there had been no agreement between Buendia and the club 12 months ago that one more season of service would be rewarded with a guaranteed move away – although there were brief discussions in November over a potential transfer to a club in Saudi Arabia. Nothing materialised there, nor were Norwich interested in sanctioning such a move.”

Sure but who would he have corroborated it with? The club?

Like I say it was a rumour at the time. I still don't 100% believe that it wasn't at least in part true. It could just have been a conversation that suggested they would revisit the following summer, there didn't need to be an agreement. In any sense it is 100% immaterial. 

Share this post


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

Sure but who would he have corroborated it with? The club?

Like I say it was a rumour at the time. I still don't 100% believe that it wasn't at least in part true. It could just have been a conversation that suggested they would revisit the following summer, there didn't need to be an agreement. In any sense it is 100% immaterial. 

Sources who would of known, that’s what real journalism is.

Immaterial to what? How can it be immaterial to your assertion that it was a sale that was worked on prior to that summer when there’s no evidence of that, in fact the only evidence contradicts that?

I laid out the timeline for you in a previous thread. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary, you never did in that thread:

 

What’s more telling to me is the timings. The idea that the only reason we sold Buendia is because he wanted to leave doesn’t quite fit the timings.

8 May we draw with Barnsley to end the season.

13 May Webber gives his infamous interview basically telling the world our best players are for sale.

End of May (according to Bailey) Norwich start a bidding process for Buendia.

During that bidding Process Buendia makes it clear he wants to move to Villa (again according to Bailey)

So did Buendia between the last game and Webbers clearly pre planned interview (5 days) tell Webber he’d never play for the club?

He said Buendia let them know that at the “end of the season” in his October interview, that doesn’t mean directly on final whistle, we don’t know when that means.

Given Norwich apparently started a bidding process for him more than 3 weeks after the season ended and over 2 weeks after that interview, why did we wait if he already gave us an ultimatum and we accepted it?

Also Bailey says he made it clear to the club during the bidding process he wanted to go to Villa. Brave player to tell the club he’s never going to play again without a solid suitor and that seems like it occurred sometime in June.

I don’t see any reason with what we know to believe Buendia had given the club an ultimatum before Webbers interview, therefore the easy read for me is we unsettled our own player and ultimately we got the sale we intended to even if we’d preferred another player.

Despite protestations I don’t see any evidence that counters that.

  •  
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 03/11/2022 at 07:17, Nexus_Canary said:

Fans need to turn on Smith and webber we can't even muster a full chrous of otbc at the moment much less "Smith out"

That Hanley/ Gibson passing master class was enough to put a chronic insomniac to sleep.

 

Not disputing that fact but there were underlying reasons for it .... one Isaac Hayden and on the day Liam Gibbs.... failed utterly to offer an option and when they did, didn't even try to get on the front foot, just kept returning it!   They were terrible, the CB's only options were the full-backs.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What’s more telling to me is the timings. The idea that the only reason we sold Buendia is because he wanted to leave doesn’t quite fit the timings.

8 May we draw with Barnsley to end the season.

13 May Webber gives his infamous interview basically telling the world our best players are for sale.

End of May (according to Bailey) Norwich start a bidding process for Buendia.

During that bidding Process Buendia makes it clear he wants to move to Villa (again according to Bailey)

So did Buendia between the last game and Webbers clearly pre planned interview (5 days) tell Webber he’d never play for the club?

He said Buendia let them know that at the “end of the season” in his October interview, that doesn’t mean directly on final whistle, we don’t know when that means.

Given Norwich apparently started a bidding process for him more than 3 weeks after the season ended and over 2 weeks after that interview, why did we wait if he already gave us an ultimatum and we accepted it?

Also Bailey says he made it clear to the club during the bidding process he wanted to go to Villa. Brave player to tell the club he’s never going to play again without a solid suitor and that seems like it occurred sometime in June.

I don’t see any reason with what we know to believe Buendia had given the club an ultimatum before Webbers interview, therefore the easy read for me is we unsettled our own player and ultimately we got the sale we intended to even if we’d preferred another player.

Despite protestations I don’t see any evidence that counters that.

  •  

Sadly as much as you like to suggest you are a fair and reasonable person happy to agree with folks etc etc. This is an ongoing issue for you, not me.

It is immaterial because it bares no relevance to "now". As I have said before, it only bares relevance if you 'need' it as a stick to beat someone with. It bares so little relevance to now that it is entirely 100% immaterial. 

You have previously argued that we didn't do everything we could do keep a player that didn't want to be here. We know he didn't want to be here from the previous summer because Farke told us. The same as he told us about Cantwell, both had their heads turned, both expected to be sold which unsettled them both - arguably Buendia more as Cantwell actually started the season.

It isn't so hard to believe that there was a discussion - there had to have been as Buendia did knuckle down and Farke appeared to work with them both that season which saw a change in their performances to be more positive. Again, with Buendia, to arguably deliver his most consistently outstanding period for us. Are the two windows related? No.

Does Bailey always get things 100% right? No. If there was interest in Buendia in the January window which never materialised, does that sound like it was as clear cut to you as a player being happy and not wanting to leave? Or a club not already testing the waters at least a little? It certainly wasn't a "a club showed interest in him and we dismissed it out of hand and told them we weren't interested" response.

Again, in any case, what difference? Some of what you have just shared isn't even mutually exclusive. Your timeline is also slightly out I feel.

11th June is when Buendia was officially announced as a Villa player. It would appear that from some sources at least, Villa's Martinez may have had some influence on his decision to go there. Either way, if a player chooses one over another - which is oddly missing from that storyline. It would have been a pretty rapid bidding process if Buendia made that statement only days before officially signing...

Unofficially, I suspect clubs were making enquiries. That's when you start a bidding process, you drum up interest first. You rarely tend to start an auction for a valued asset blind without some publicity. In this instance a player that clearly wanted to move the summer before but had knuckled down and got on with the season after the opportunity to leave had gone. 

Bailey simply doesn't have the intimate and precise information to timeline anything.

Players will be in constant discussions with clubs. A player like Buendia will have been since the previous summer because of his actions. We have no reason to not believe that the club hadn't explored offering him a new contract upon promotion at that point, or different ways to hold onto him for longer, or even just that he had committed and spoke himself or via his agent that he would like to move on come the summer but would not be disruptive about it until then.

The only thing we know for sure is that the player wanted to leave and that once he had seen whatever the options were, that he would prefer a move to Villa. I'm still not 100% convinced about this. At one point, Ajer made noises about coming here after our bid for him was turned down and he expressed that he wasn't happy with the fee being asked for him and it preventing him from moving. 

As I said before, we'll never know the exact details - but you have to make one hell of a lot of assumptions to come back to Buendia being shoved/pushed out the door without even so much as a "please stay for one more year"... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parma, that's a great piece, well articulated and worth reading, thought provoking too.     Tend to agree with most of it although, personally believe that there is a way of creating a competitive EPL team but it needs patience and a well executed plan.... we certainly won't achieve it by chasing promotion when we aren't ever going to be ready.    That's what happened unexpectedly when Farke first got us promoted.

To achieve success though, we would need recruitment of players with the basic ability requirements for that league, speed, strength, agility so as a base, we can be difficult to beat... beyond that the quality is vital and you simply can't play in the EPL without CDM's... they are probably the most important position and we just haven't employed any in the past 4 years except Tettey who was on his last legs.    Our recruitment has lacked good judgement though so its unlikely we will get that well executed plan.   Clearly a long shot now, but the clubs failure to address the CDM position (which started on Farke's first promotion with Amadou etc..) has meant we've never had a chance of competing.      

How can we develop sufficient players if we choose to loan players in the Championship?      Don't get that!    Hayden is only useful to us if we get promoted and if that happens he will probably hinder the prospect of us getting some decent CDM's.    Ramsey, what's all that about.... what difference is he going to make long-term except for prevent development of others...... think its quite clear already that a promotion will be calamitous, as he won't be with us next season, what's the point of playing him?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Sadly as much as you like to suggest you are a fair and reasonable person happy to agree with folks etc etc. This is an ongoing issue for you, not me.

It is immaterial because it bares no relevance to "now". As I have said before, it only bares relevance if you 'need' it as a stick to beat someone with. It bares so little relevance to now that it is entirely 100% immaterial. 

You have previously argued that we didn't do everything we could do keep a player that didn't want to be here. We know he didn't want to be here from the previous summer because Farke told us. The same as he told us about Cantwell, both had their heads turned, both expected to be sold which unsettled them both - arguably Buendia more as Cantwell actually started the season.

It isn't so hard to believe that there was a discussion - there had to have been as Buendia did knuckle down and Farke appeared to work with them both that season which saw a change in their performances to be more positive. Again, with Buendia, to arguably deliver his most consistently outstanding period for us. Are the two windows related? No.

Does Bailey always get things 100% right? No. If there was interest in Buendia in the January window which never materialised, does that sound like it was as clear cut to you as a player being happy and not wanting to leave? Or a club not already testing the waters at least a little? It certainly wasn't a "a club showed interest in him and we dismissed it out of hand and told them we weren't interested" response.

Again, in any case, what difference? Some of what you have just shared isn't even mutually exclusive. Your timeline is also slightly out I feel.

11th June is when Buendia was officially announced as a Villa player. It would appear that from some sources at least, Villa's Martinez may have had some influence on his decision to go there. Either way, if a player chooses one over another - which is oddly missing from that storyline. It would have been a pretty rapid bidding process if Buendia made that statement only days before officially signing...

Unofficially, I suspect clubs were making enquiries. That's when you start a bidding process, you drum up interest first. You rarely tend to start an auction for a valued asset blind without some publicity. In this instance a player that clearly wanted to move the summer before but had knuckled down and got on with the season after the opportunity to leave had gone. 

Bailey simply doesn't have the intimate and precise information to timeline anything.

Players will be in constant discussions with clubs. A player like Buendia will have been since the previous summer because of his actions. We have no reason to not believe that the club hadn't explored offering him a new contract upon promotion at that point, or different ways to hold onto him for longer, or even just that he had committed and spoke himself or via his agent that he would like to move on come the summer but would not be disruptive about it until then.

The only thing we know for sure is that the player wanted to leave and that once he had seen whatever the options were, that he would prefer a move to Villa. I'm still not 100% convinced about this. At one point, Ajer made noises about coming here after our bid for him was turned down and he expressed that he wasn't happy with the fee being asked for him and it preventing him from moving. 

As I said before, we'll never know the exact details - but you have to make one hell of a lot of assumptions to come back to Buendia being shoved/pushed out the door without even so much as a "please stay for one more year"... 

 

You commented on my answer to another posters question with again your opinion of what happened.

If it’s immaterial to the now…why did you feel the need to comment on it?

We are on a thread discussing how we got to the now, Parma has put forward the sale of Buendia as the initial nexus point. 

I’ve categorised what we know with a timeline.

You are essentially calling Bailey, who I would probably say is the single most reputable journalist covering NCFC, a liar.

My position is and always has been with what the available evidence suggests, and will be unless any new evidence is offered or anything remotely concrete to contradict.

We wanted to sell one of our players, we did sell a player and it was Buendia. I agree with Parma. That is the initial point in the explanation of how we got to now. 

Please feel free to actually unpick the timeline I’ve put forward with some actual evidence to the contrary, I’d be genuinely interested.

Share this post


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

You commented on my answer to another posters question with again your opinion of what happened.

If it’s immaterial to the now…why did you feel the need to comment on it?

We are on a thread discussing how we got to the now, Parma has put forward the sale of Buendia as the initial nexus point. 

I’ve categorised what we know with a timeline.

You are essentially calling Bailey, who I would probably say is the single most reputable journalist covering NCFC, a liar.

My position is and always has been with what the available evidence suggests, and will be unless any new evidence is offered or anything remotely concrete to contradict.

We wanted to sell one of our players, we did sell a player and it was Buendia. I agree with Parma. That is the initial point in the explanation of how we got to now. 

Please feel free to actually unpick the timeline I’ve put forward with some actual evidence to the contrary, I’d be genuinely interested.

Again your typical response.

I've not called Bailey a liar. That's you, yet again, putting words in mouths in an attempt to derail. I have simply said that rarely do journalists know all of the intimate details or exact timelines.

As for your timeline, it only took one date to unpick it. "sometime in June" to the first 11days of which we can discount probably at least the 3-4 leading up to the official announcement for medicals, promo/commercial stuff like photo shoots, and contract discussions. Which if your timeline is to be believed means that the bidding period was two weeks give or take a day or two.

All I have asserted to that is that "bidding period" is rarely started without some build up prior to it.

It doesn't matter if you agree with Parma or not, Parma doesn't really attach a motive or emotive need to it. You are 100% biased and continue to be. You have only even demonstrated a fierce loyalty to the timeline as you want it to be and the reasons that you want to be. Ergo the player didn't want to leave, the choice was 100% ours etc etc etc.

The nexus point from Parma is that actually, the only real relevance is that we failed to replace a weapon. Albeit, we took a gamble on a player that was valued at £1.5m and it transpired he was a "weapon". We clearly hoped to repeat that feat when selling him and looking to reinvest the money in other players. On paper - Rashica was a better player than Buendia when we signed him. Tzolis was a younger Buendia - neither yet have proven they can be that level of "weapon", that's the relevance. 

Not the minutiae of Buendia's moving on or the manner. An obsession that has no relevance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, chicken said:

I've not called Bailey a liar. That's you, yet again, putting words in mouths in an attempt to derail. I have simply said that rarely do journalists know all of the intimate details or exact timelines.

 

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Bailey simply doesn't have the intimate and precise information to timeline anything.

What does this mean exactly then? You arent calling Bailey a liar but you are saying he can't timeline anything? What exactly do you take issue with what he laid out?

31 minutes ago, chicken said:

As for your timeline, it only took one date to unpick it. "sometime in June" to the first 11days of which we can discount probably at least the 3-4 leading up to the official announcement for medicals, promo/commercial stuff like photo shoots, and contract discussions. Which if your timeline is to be believed means that the bidding period was two weeks give or take a day or two.

Yes I said that, end of May means two weeks, whats your point? How have you unpicked anything, can you explain? Because its literally what I (well Bailey) said.

1 hour ago, Monty13 said:

End of May (according to Bailey) Norwich start a bidding process for Buendia.

 

31 minutes ago, chicken said:

All I have asserted to that is that "bidding period" is rarely started without some build up prior to it.

I agree, and as it started end of May and Webbers interview was two weeks earlier there was one.

31 minutes ago, chicken said:

It doesn't matter if you agree with Parma or not, Parma doesn't really attach a motive or emotive need to it. You are 100% biased and continue to be. You have only even demonstrated a fierce loyalty to the timeline as you want it to be and the reasons that you want to be. Ergo the player didn't want to leave, the choice was 100% ours etc etc etc.

I've literally told you multiple times, I'm not disputing the player may have wanted to leave, players always want to move to bigger clubs for more money. That doesnt change the fact we choose to sell him.

Edited by Monty13

Share this post


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

I've literally told you multiple times, I'm not disputing the player may have wanted to leave, players always want to move to bigger clubs for more money. That doesnt change the fact we choose to sell him.

Though you have argued constantly ever since that it was a "choice" rather than an inevitable decision - very different. The suggestion you make is we could have chosen not to sell him, and have argued such previously.

If you felt that I said Bailey couldn't be trusted to tell a true timeline, then I apologise. I was merely suggesting that even with contacts as good or not as they may well be, it's unlikely that he holds all of the details so with respect you always take journalism with a pinch of salt.

IMHO, two weeks is probably not quite right, perhaps for the actual bidding process, but there will have been groundwork before. As I say, the comment about interest in January very much suggests that it was ongoing for longer than has been suggested/confirmed.

Share this post


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

Though you have argued constantly ever since that it was a "choice" rather than an inevitable decision - very different. The suggestion you make is we could have chosen not to sell him, and have argued such previously.

If you felt that I said Bailey couldn't be trusted to tell a true timeline, then I apologise. I was merely suggesting that even with contacts as good or not as they may well be, it's unlikely that he holds all of the details so with respect you always take journalism with a pinch of salt.

IMHO, two weeks is probably not quite right, perhaps for the actual bidding process, but there will have been groundwork before. As I say, the comment about interest in January very much suggests that it was ongoing for longer than has been suggested/confirmed.

I've argued it was a choice because there is no such thing as an "inevitable decision", its an oxymoron. Either it was inevitable or it was a decison, it can't be both.

Apology accepted. I don't dispute he may not have every minute detail, but what he does have seems compelling to me.

I believe there is always "interest" in good players, how much interest has there been in Max? However when things solidified we seem to have the big details of from Bailey. Incidentally I believe it was knowledge of these details which is one of the resoans Bailey's relationship with the club started to suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I've argued it was a choice because there is no such thing as an "inevitable decision", its an oxymoron. Either it was inevitable or it was a decison, it can't be both.

Apology accepted. I don't dispute he may not have every minute detail, but what he does have seems compelling to me.

I believe there is always "interest" in good players, how much interest has there been in Max? However when things solidified we seem to have the big details of from Bailey. Incidentally I believe it was knowledge of these details which is one of the resoans Bailey's relationship with the club started to suffer.

There is such as thing as an "inevitable decision", it is most certainly not an oxymoron.

Essentially it's a "choice" you are more or less forced to make. As in, you have a player that wants to leave, refuses to sign a new contract - you do have a choice, you can try to force them to stay, you can make them see out their contract.

The issue there, as Parma has said before, is that our model isn't typically like that, especially with younger players. Mainly as we rely upon, as in need, the income from such players progressing. We can't afford for players to vote with their feet and essentially bring down their own value either by playing poorly or refusing to play(it happens) and running down the clock on their contract.

As I have said before, the weight in the current climate is ALL in favour of the players and that will never change now. Players, like every day folks, should have some say in where they work etc. I don't hold it against them, it's what it is, it's the industry they work within. It is unique.

Now, there are absolutely times to be like Captain Kirk and hold to the line that there is always an alternative. This just isn't one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chicken said:

There is such as thing as an "inevitable decision", it is most certainly not an oxymoron.

Essentially it's a "choice" you are more or less forced to make. As in, you have a player that wants to leave, refuses to sign a new contract - you do have a choice, you can try to force them to stay, you can make them see out their contract.

The issue there, as Parma has said before, is that our model isn't typically like that, especially with younger players. Mainly as we rely upon, as in need, the income from such players progressing. We can't afford for players to vote with their feet and essentially bring down their own value either by playing poorly or refusing to play(it happens) and running down the clock on their contract.

As I have said before, the weight in the current climate is ALL in favour of the players and that will never change now. Players, like every day folks, should have some say in where they work etc. I don't hold it against them, it's what it is, it's the industry they work within. It is unique.

Now, there are absolutely times to be like Captain Kirk and hold to the line that there is always an alternative. This just isn't one of them.

As long as you appreciate in relation to the sale of Buendia this is all subjective and unknown in terms of how much it had any affect in that decision.

What we do know is we were going to sell a top player, Webber told us. The plan to sell to strengthen was set.

After that point there is much more to debate, but it appears we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the nature of that choice.

Share this post


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

As long as you appreciate in relation to the sale of Buendia this is all subjective and unknown in terms of how much it had any affect in that decision.

What we do know is we were going to sell a top player, Webber told us. The plan to sell to strengthen was set.

After that point there is much more to debate, but it appears we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the nature of that choice.

And that last bit, is what I don't get. If you put so much faith in Bailey and his reporting, how come he doesn't report it as Norwich having an actual choice? That's the point I have always made, I'm not really assuming anything, I am following all of the details reported upon. It takes a leap of faith to believe that there was an alternative option and Norwich had a, lets call it, 'balanced' choice to make. 

Nowhere, anywhere does it say Webber lied, that the player didn't want to leave, hadn't made it clear they wanted to go... even though that fits with the information you share that he then demanded a move to Villa.

The version you wish to follow - your choice - requires disbelief in the narratives of all journalism and anything from the club that seems to largely align with the journalism.

Again, thus leaving you with James T Kirk - there always has to be an alternative. And even if that is the case, the alternative is just as legitimate and as evenly weighted as the option taken. Even Kirk would accept his choices often were slim to none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaps, @chicken @Monty13 sometimes it is easier to remove the fan connection and view it from a different club, create a similar scenario, then see how you’d feel and interpret it. 
 

Blackburn are doing quite well and they have a player in undoubted demand in Brereton-Diaz. 

He’s a good player, not a weapon like Buendia, though key to Blackburn and their chances of success.

There has been ongoing, repeated and  insistent interest in him. Not least from decent Spanish teams for example, where he might be attracted.

He has never had a big move , I do not know his agent, though let’s assume that he and his agent have never had a big move and made the kind of life-changing lump sum that comes from such a move.

Let’s imagine he has a couple of years left on his contract and an option. 

At this point would anyone begrudge him a move? Of course not. Does he ‘want’ to go. Yes of course, in the sense that he would for a good sum. 

Now let’s imagine that Blackburn get promotion. Finish top 2.

They don’t have tons of good players. No weapons. He is their best. 
 

Upon promotion they sell him. Before a Premier ball is kicked. 

How do the fans feel? 

How do they react?

What do they think about the ambition of their club?

What do all of his teammates feel about their chances? What they worked all season for? How do they feel about their club? 

Webber wanted to buy Rashica-Sargent-Tzolis. He thought he could repeat the Buendia-Pukki trick. 

The lack of money in the model (and lack of immediate cash vid current loans) meant Webber possibly had to sell someone (and get cash in quick).

He touted Cantwell, Aarons and others. But clubs only want your good players. 

So he decided-had to take the money. That came from Villa. They paid a good wedge up front. 

He did it so he could buy Rashica-Sargent-Tzolis (and prove his Sporting Director credentials to Chelsea-Barca-the watching world?)

Then - and only then - you use the classic football PR of player x ‘wanting to leave’.

It is a phrase on speed dial in every sporting Directors’s office in the world (vid even Jonny Howson who was back having supper at the club after 😂). Player x (Buendia) sucks up the story because he and his agent have made a packet. 

And in that sense he did ‘want to leave’

Pretending it was the forced driver for the sale decision is absolute nonsense. As everybody involved knows perfectly well.

It is just what you say to the fans to keep them onside. 
 

Parma 

 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Chaps, @chicken @Monty13 sometimes it is easier to remove the fan connection and view it from a different club, create a similar scenario, then see how you’d feel and interpret it. 
 

Blackburn are doing quite well and they have a prayer in undoubted demand in Brereton-Diaz. 

He’s a good player, not a weapon like Buendia, though key to Blackburn and their chances of success.

There has been ongoing, repeated and  insistent interest in him. Not least from decent Spanish teams for example, where he might be attracted.

He has never had a big move , I do not know his agent, though let’s assume that he and his agent have never had a big move and made the kind of life-changing lump sum that comes from such a move.

Let’s imagine he has a couple of years left on his contract and an option. 

At this point would anyone begrudge him a move? Of course not. Does he ‘want’ to go. Yes of course, in the sense that he would for a good sum. 

Now let’s imagine that Blackburn get promotion. Finish top 2.

They don’t have tons of good players. No weapons. He is their best. 
 

Uoin promotion they sell him. Before a Premier ball is kicked. 

How do the fans feel? 

How do they react?

What do they think about the ambition of their club?

What do all of his teammates feel about their chances? What they worked all season for? How do they feel about their club? 

Webber wanted to buy Rashica-Sargent-Tzolis. He thought they would repeat the Buendia-Pukki trick. 

The lack of money in the model (and lack of immediate cash vid current loans) meant Webber had to sell someone (and get cash in quick).

He touted Cantwell, Aarons and others. Buy clubs only want your good players. 

So he had to take the money. That came from Villa. They paid a good wedge up front. 

He did it so he could buy Rashica-Sargent-Tzolis (and prove his Sporting Director credentials to Chelsea-Barca-the watching world?)

Then - and only then - you use the classic football PR of player x ‘wanting to leave’.

It is a phrase on speed dial in every sporting Directors’s office in the world (vid even Jonny Howson who back having supper at the club after 😂). Player x (Buendia) sucks up the story because he and his agent have made a packet. 

And in that sense he did ‘want to leave’

Pretending it was the forced driver for the sale decision is absolute nonsense. As everybody involved knows perfectly well.

It is just what you say to the fans to keep them onside. 
 

Parma 

 

Not at all Parma, sorry, but you are massively wrong on this one. There are plenty of examples of players pushing to leave and forcing moves away - we have seen some this summer. Equally we have seen players determine where they moved such as R. Bennett(or Howson, it was one of the two) who reportedly changed destination whilst in a car on the way to sign/speak for/to a different club. Huckerby, for example, demanded a move to us - is another example, albeit a bit older. As I said, if the opposite was true, where is the journalism to reflect that, Bailey isn't scared of reporting contrary to club statements. 

I am removing the "fan connection" and applying a greater global one. If a player doesn't demand a move clubs don't state they have just to appease people. We have sold players, Maddison, Murphy etc and shared the financial motivations behind doing so. We sold Pritchard at a similar time and shared that it was because the player demanded a move, but we had planned on retaining him - the player himself has since stated that leaving us was probably a mistake but that he did push the move. I believe Jerome has said something similar too. 

Not only that but there is also evidence to suggest that Sargent and Tzolis were not the primary targets, I think Rashica was, but there is no way we would have bought Tzolis and Sargent had we signed Billing, Ajer and Armstrong who bids were made for prior to the others signing.

Edited by chicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

It is just what you say to the fans to keep them onside. 

 

Parma 

 

Well, that didn't work 😀

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...