Parma’s State of the Nation

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

On 18/03/2023 at 19:35, Soldier on said:

International break now. Any danger we hear more on future direction for the club ?

Let’s play a game.

 

1. How many players would retain their place, be good enough and for sure start every week if we were promoted? Anyone? Don’t you think that they know that too?

2. We are back to needing Lambert and Farke 1. We really should - after ‘taking the money to come back stronger’ and then getting promoted again (with all its additional funds, what £250m?) -  have Hughton and Farke 2 levels of momentum. We don’t. 

3. We spent the money on players that are young, can improve, but have flaws - Tzolis, Sargent, latterly Sara and Nunez. Then add Gunn I suppose.  Plus Rashica. We kept Pukki, missed out on Skipp and lost Buendia. That is the nuts of bolts of our transfer strategy over the period. How does it look to you?

4. So the future is without momentum as a starting point. Anyone who knows anything about football knows that momentum is the alchemists gold. It makes average players look good, good players look great. It lifts all boats: makes managers braver, players more loyal and confident, fans noisier and more buoyant. It all adds up. It is the nearest football equivalent to compound interest, the eighth wonder of the financial world. 

5. What can we (now) do? I have no idea. Ask stronger believers in high odds outcomes than me. It can happen. Lambert did do it. Farke 1 did it too. How often has it really happened to Norwich, particularly since football finances changed? We have ridden the hated Murdoch’s millions really well I’d say. Timing our ascents well, finding ways to be better than the Championship. An Alex Neil here, a Worthington there. 

6 There have always been weapons though. Huckerby, Crouch, Wes, even Holty was an awkward ****, Buendia, Pukki, maybe even Redmond sometimes…(not that I ever thought we used him correctly)….there aren’t any now. Sara is playing well, though he is not a complete player in my view. I hope it is not us talking up his money, in that I hope it is true that someone wants to give us a fortune for him. He is exactly what you do sell to fund the model, particularly now.. Not Buendia at the point of promotion (afterwards fine).  Sell ‘good’ players (Sara, Godfrey) and try to find weapons. Then keep those weapons as long as you can,  at almost any strategic cost. 

7. We appear to have descending psychology. We hark after our Premier yesterdays. We are subconsciously fearful of our Premier tomorrows. The truth of 1 sits in the minds of every current player. Where is the all-for-one boys brigade collective psychological purpose to lift all boats in that?

8.. Norwich don’t get many shots at promotion with money. The ‘pissed up the wall’ window had Klose-Pinto-Naismith-Maddison-Godfrey. This time we got minus Buendia, minus Skipp plus Tzolis-Sargent-Rashica and a large handful of less-than-successful loans. This was after we ‘banked’ our previous promotion pot of gold by the way, so almost double bubble then? Do a plusvalenza (as we say in Italy). Add them all up and subtract the losses from the gains. How do you think they compare?

8a. I reckon Klose-Pinto were fair value, Naismith a -£15m disaster (I thought contemporarily he was a good signing btw), Maddison +£22m, Godfrey +£23m = Net +£20m?

8b. Maybe +£30m Buendia, Tzolis -£5m if lucky, Sargent -£5m maybe, Rashica -£7m? = Net +£13m maybe?

Though we sold a magnificent player who plays number 10 week-in-week-out at the top level and keeps out Coutinho? An England squad player worth £60m? And we are left with mid-to-upper Championship quality instead? All for £250m extra income? I think it is hard to argue a case that that is brilliant recruitment or even par for the course. 

9. In defence of transfer policy it is now quite well established that the odds are something along the following lines (this is ‘football grapevine wisdom’):

A. There are about 1,000 footballers on databases that can improve a Championship side

B. There are only about 100 players on databases that can improve most Premier League teams 

So, that is the hope. 

I would also suggest that we should - and indeed with no obvious money and lots of players out of contract in the summer it appears we will - thin out our wide-and-deep squad that we have run for a couple of years. This is an incredibly expensive - and unnecessary and unwise - strategy for a club like ours. 

As we saw in the Premier it simply makes us less- bad-but-still-some-way-from-good-enough-to win-games. This was an odd strategic route to choose. 

The trouble is now we have no weapons at all. Nothing to build on. Pukki looks like he is protecting himself for a decent summer move to a good European name as maybe third choice striker (a very nice move for him), so that is that. 

Perhaps Placheta, or Rowe, or Sorenson, or Onel, or Nunez, or Sargent, or Tzolis, or Idah, or Springett, or Kamara will come good, become a weapon…..or……we slog through the Championship inconsistently, hoping for luck, finding a weapon, inheriting some money….

Sorry. I feel a bit Antonio Conte about it all. 

 

Parma 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone

Edited April 5, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Such is life Parma… such is life… even at this level you need an owner that is going to lump £20m into the club each season just to keep going (a la Bristol City).

Truth is, that without mega money in this pay to win game, there are limited options for getting to and sustaining premier league football. We were close to achieving the dream of mid table prem on a budget but ultimately working against the grain can only be sustainable for so long.

My main hope now is that our wonderful youth set up will start churning out plenty of wonder kids that stick around long enough for us to build something special again.

[Big O 225]

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

Let’s play a game.

 

1. How many players would retain their place, be good enough and for sure start every week if we were promoted? Anyone? Don’t you think that they know that too?

2. We are back to needing Lambert and Farke 1. We really should - after ‘taking the money to come back stronger’ and then getting promoted again (with all its additional funds, what £250m?) -  have Hughton and Farke 2 levels of momentum. We don’t. 

3. We spent the money on players that are young, can improve, but have flaws - Tzolis, Sargent, latterly Sara and Nunez. Then add Gunn I suppose.  Plus Rashica. We kept Pukki, missed out on Skipp and lost Buendia. That is the nuts of bolts of our transfer strategy over the period. How does it look to you?

4. So the future is without momentum as a starting point. Anyone who knows anything about football knows that momentum is the alchemists gold. It makes average players look good, good players look great. It lifts all boats: makes managers braver, players more loyal and confident, fans noisier and more buoyant. It all adds up. It is the nearest football equivalent to compound interest, the eighth wonder of the financial world. 

5. What can we (now) do? I have no idea. Ask stronger believers in high odds outcomes than me. It can happen. Lambert did do it. Farke 1 did it too. How often has it really happened to Norwich, particularly since football finances changed? We have ridden the hated Murdoch’s millions really well I’d say. Timing our ascents well, finding ways to be better than the Championship. An Alex Neil here, a Worthington there. 

6 There have always been weapons though. Huckerby, Crouch, Wes, even Holty was an awkward ****, Buendia, Pukki, maybe even Redmond sometimes…(not that I ever thought we used him correctly)….there aren’t any now. Sara is playing well, though he is not a complete player in my view. I hope it is not us talking up his money, in that I hope it is true that someone wants to give us a fortune for him. He is exactly what you do sell to fund the model, particularly now.. Not Buendia at the point of promotion (afterwards fine).  Sell ‘good’ players (Sara, Godfrey) and try to find weapons. Then keep those weapons as long as you can,  at almost any strategic cost. 

6. We appear to have descending psychology. We hark after our Premier yesterdays. We are subconsciously fearful of our Premier tomorrows. The truth of 1 sits in the minds of every current player. Where is the all-for-one boys brigade collective psychological purpose to lift all boats in that?

7. Norwich don’t get many shots at promotion with money. The ‘pissed up the wall’ window had Klose-Pinto-Naismith-Maddison-Godfrey. This time we got minus Buendia, minus Skipp plus Tzolis-Sargent-Rashica and a large handful of less-than-successful loans. This was after we ‘banked’ our previous promotion pot of gold by the way, so almost double bubble then? Do a plusvalenza (as we say in Italy). Add them all up and subtract the losses from the gains. How do you think they compare?

7a. I reckon Klose-Pinto were fair value, Naismith a -£15m disaster (I thought contemporarily he was a good signing btw), Maddison +£22m, Godfrey +£23m = Net +£20m?

7b. Maybe +£30m Buendia, Tzolis -£5m if lucky, Sargent -£5m maybe, Rashica -£7m? = Net +£13m maybe?

Though we sold a magnificent player who plays number 10 week-in-week-out at the top level and keeps out Coutinho? An England squad player worth £60m? And we are left with mid-to-upper Championship quality instead? All for £250m extra income? I think it is hard to argue a case that that is brilliant recruitment or even par for the course. 

8. In defence of transfer policy it is now quite well established that the odds are something along the following lines (this is ‘football grapevine wisdom’):

A. There are about 1,000 footballers on databases that can improve a Championship side

B. There are only about 100 players on databases that can improve most Premier League teams 

So, that is the hope. 

I would also suggest that we should - and indeed with no obvious money and lots of players out of contract in the summer it appears we will - thin out our wide-and-deep squad that we have run for a couple of years. This is an incredibly expensive - and unnecessary and unwise - strategy for a club like ours. 

As we saw in the Premier it simply makes us less- bad-but-still-some-way-from-good-enough-to win-games. This was an odd strategic route to choose. 

The trouble is now we have no weapons at all. Nothing to build on. Pukki looks like he is protecting himself for a decent summer move to a good European name as maybe third choice striker (a very nice move for him), so that is that. 

Perhaps Placheta, or Rowe, or Sorenson, or Onel, or Nunez, or Sargent, or Tzolis, or Idah, or Springett, or Kamara will come good, become a weapon…..or……we slog through the Championship inconsistently, hoping for luck, finding a weapon, inheriting some money….

Sorry. I feel a bit Antonio Conte about it all. 

 

Parma 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone

It’s not all doom and gloom Parma, we seem to be one of those clubs that actually do better with transfers when we have to be creative!

you are correct that few if any of this team could play in the premier league but I’d be amazed if we win the play offs (got a lot to do to get into them).

Both Emi and Teemu came in under the radar and there isn’t anything to say we couldn’t do that again, what is more worrying for me is the speed at which we have thrown away the style of play and foundations that Farke built.

I think we swapped an exchange before where I said the best we could hope for with this management appointment this season was some type of momentum being built that we could ride, no manager could fix all of our problems with the make up of the squad. We have to commit and believe in Wagner now and try and support him in bringing In the 5-6 players that we badly need but more importantly implement a style of play that fits them.
 

There is some tough choices to be made but we are going to have to act decisively this window, can’t let the PUkki saga or Rashica saga drag on. They are either in or out 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Big O

[FenwayFrank 2,457]

Football club needs lots of money shocker...

[BigFish 1,986]

On 18/03/2023 at 08:38, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

There you go @BigFish (and others)….there’s a start…what would you add?…🤗

Parma 

 

 

 

 

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

Careful with this statement. We wanted to sell Buendia because we needed his funds (and liquid up front cash) to fund our new plans.

These plans were Rashica, Tzolis and Sargent. 

@Taiwan Canary asked about Brentford et al earlier. 

They kept their weapons (Toney) and pounced at the merest sniff of a chance of another (Eriksen). 

Wages and funds are part of the same cake. We have what we have. Though we can choose how we cut it.

You can do what we did and have 30 good players, cover for injuries, loss of form, two good players for every position: this is lots of thin slices from the same cake. 

OR

You can cut a few very fat slices of cake. Pay them more, risk injuries more, be prepared to dip into your academy, work psychologically on your reserves to make them feel wanted and that you ‘expect them to play a massive part…you explain the exact risk your taking..you tell them it really pivots on them (not the weapons)’…In football-speak it is quite close enough to the truth (and may well come to pass).

That is the choice we made @nutty nigel Nobody should fall into the comfortable narrative trap espoused that there was no choice.

Parma 

Been pondering this one @Parma Ham's gone mouldy, and like you didn't have a initial answer. I think the club has two plans, A and B, depending on whether we rather unlikely go up via the playoffs or are more likely setting up for a second season in the Champs. This will determine the next steps in the MA process and also the price he ends up paying. The nightmare scenario is we reach the playoff final and lose, starting plan B in June rather late April. What prompted the late lamented @First Wizard used to start those threads along the line of "beating x could relegate us".

It seems very much as if we are at the end of something. So if, as seems likely, we are setting up for the Champs we brush ourselves down and reset. Trim the squad by letting the 10 out of contract go (goodbye Teemu, Onel, Dowell etc), forget about cover in the squad (the third left back, fifth CB etc), move onto the MA regime who could underwrite the risk of a second failed tilt (goodbye Delia & Michael), buy a (slightly defective but therefore affordable) weapon or two (but only this) and crawl to EPL teams for a couple of loans.

So where does that leave us. A much smaller squad. Webber still here, Kenny at CDM, only two incoming (but hopefully weapons) and a couple of loan kids, MA buying equity to underwrite losses.....

Is that enough? Maybe, or maybe not.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

Big O is right, we do better when we're having to be creative in the transfer market with limited funds and we're going to be forced to do that again as we're short of cash for the forseeable future.

When we have money we shop in the 5-10m range, by nature because of the value of these players they will be known to all similar sized clubs and they'll be a good reason that a Palace/Southampton/Brentford have passed on them already. We're shopping for known quantities then and you can almost guarantee that they'll be in that bracket of not good enough for other bottom Pl/top Championship sides, you'll get the odd Sara here and there but most of the time you end up with a Rashica who has a few talents but many flaws. 

When shopping in the lower value market we can look for players who are overlooked by our rivals and we can pip smaller teams with smaller budgets to them, they'll be happy to be here and grateful for the opportunity and won't just see us as a stepping stone. They'll come with flaws too but there's less risk and always the chance that they defy expectations and maybe their strengths turn out to be a bit better than previously thought. You'll get a lot of Marley Watkins' and Ben Marshalls but the odd Vrancic/Stiepermann more than off sets that and they develop to be just as good as those 5-10m players at a small cost and maybe a Pukki or Buendia will be unearthed from time to time.

Another overlooked aspect is how the players fit together as a team and whether they suit the managers style. In the Championship at least it's better to have a lower quality team who gel and work as a cohesive unit under the managers tactical philosophy than what we currently have with players who individually are really good but always play like they've never played together before and don't suit our current managers tactics. I'm hoping for a big overhaul this summer and that we do away with the idea of improving the individual quality of the squad and instead focus on building a decent team of fresh hungry players who make sense at the sum of their parts and suit Wagner's style. We'll most likely not unearth another Pukki or Buendia so will carry on being 'weaponless' as Parma puts it but we'll have a good base to start from again and maybe in the next few windows we'll find another 'weapon' in that price range and can have another crack at promotion then survival with a different set of players playing a style that's less easily exploited and countered in the PL for a weaker team. 

[king canary 7,580]

16 hours ago, BigFish said:

 

Been pondering this one @Parma Ham's gone mouldy, and like you didn't have a initial answer. I think the club has two plans, A and B, depending on whether we rather unlikely go up via the playoffs or are more likely setting up for a second season in the Champs. This will determine the next steps in the MA process and also the price he ends up paying. The nightmare scenario is we reach the playoff final and lose, starting plan B in June rather late April. What prompted the late lamented @First Wizard used to start those threads along the line of "beating x could relegate us".

It seems very much as if we are at the end of something. So if, as seems likely, we are setting up for the Champs we brush ourselves down and reset. Trim the squad by letting the 10 out of contract go (goodbye Teemu, Onel, Dowell etc), forget about cover in the squad (the third left back, fifth CB etc), move onto the MA regime who could underwrite the risk of a second failed tilt (goodbye Delia & Michael), buy a (slightly defective but therefore affordable) weapon or two (but only this) and crawl to EPL teams for a couple of loans.

So where does that leave us. A much smaller squad. Webber still here, Kenny at CDM, only two incoming (but hopefully weapons) and a couple of loan kids, MA buying equity to underwrite losses.....

Is that enough? Maybe, or maybe not.

I agree this is the path I'd rather see us take (although I'd probably keep Onel).

Not everyone who leaves needs to be replaced, especially if we have faith in some of the players breaking through to play bit parts. I had high hopes from Flynn Clarke (although he seems to have gone off the radar), we can see Mumba has ability, Springett is getting game time at Derby, Kamara has made the bench for us of late. 

Whether we'll do that though, I'm not sure. Since he joined Webber has seemingly preferred the method of multiple cheaper eggs in multiple baskets so to speak- 5 signings this year, 9 the year before, 10 the year before that etc etc. 

The reporting at the time suggested Farke preferred a smaller squad with the money spent on a few quality players but Webber was concerned that his training regime would lead to more injuries. Wagner seemingly also prefers a smaller squad so will he get his way this time?

[Robert N. LiM 4,246]

16 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

When we have money we shop in the 5-10m range, by nature because of the value of these players they will be known to all similar sized clubs and they'll be a good reason that a Palace/Southampton/Brentford have passed on them already. We're shopping for known quantities then and you can almost guarantee that they'll be in that bracket of not good enough for other bottom Pl/top Championship sides, you'll get the odd Sara here and there but most of the time you end up with a Rashica who has a few talents but many flaws. 

The whole of this post is great - but I think this bit is particularly underappreciated. Obviously the recruitment should not be beyond criticism, but it does need to be acknowledged that it gets much, much harder when you're shopping in that bracket.

[king canary 7,580]

7 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

The whole of this post is great - but I think this bit is particularly underappreciated. Obviously the recruitment should not be beyond criticism, but it does need to be acknowledged that it gets much, much harder when you're shopping in that bracket.

It may be that that changes for us with new investment.

I don't think the American's are going to be sending us on spending sprees ala Forest or Villa but our biggest issue appears to be the contracts we can offer players. Even when the wages might be competitive it seems they come with extremely punitive but necessary relegation wage drops which may not be the case elsewhere. We seem to end up in a place where as soon as another Premier League club takes an interest in a player we're out of the running as we either can't match the fee they'll pay or the contract they offer- see Ajer last season for example. Hopefully that changes.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

The point has been made before that it is very hard for Norwich City (and not just us, although very much us) to make plans lasting longer than just one season, because of the boom and bust nature of being a yo-yo club. Most companies do not have to factor in such vast potential changes of income from year to year.

If I was advising Attanasio (although I hope and suspect he already knows this) I would stress the need to boost  income streams that are not entirely determined by membership or not of the Premier League, to try to even out turnover over several seasons. So, yes, increased capacity, but also in hand with that a serious push on catering and commercial activities.

[BigFish 1,986]

19 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

The point has been made before that it is very hard for Norwich City (and not just us, although very much us) to make plans lasting longer than just one season, because of the boom and bust nature of being a yo-yo club. Most companies do not have to factor in such vast potential changes of income from year to year.

If I was advising Attanasio (although I hope and suspect he already knows this) I would stress the need to boost  income streams that are not entirely determined by membership or not of the Premier League, to try to even out turnover over several seasons. So, yes, increased capacity, but also in hand with that a serious push on catering and commercial activities.

Every little helps, but in Soccernomics this is only a marginal benefit for a club like ours.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

4 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Every little helps, but in Soccernomics this is only a marginal benefit for a club like ours.

I see it potentially as more than a marginal benefit, whether we are in the Premier League or below it. 

[king canary 7,580]

7 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Every little helps, but in Soccernomics this is only a marginal benefit for a club like ours.

Yes I agree- according to Swiss Ramble broadcast revenue was £101m while everything else was about £32m total. Sure you can grow that but it is inevitable for a club like us that broadcasting revenue will be the big difference maker.

[repman 634]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

It may be that that changes for us with new investment.

I don't think the American's are going to be sending us on spending sprees ala Forest or Villa but our biggest issue appears to be the contracts we can offer players. Even when the wages might be competitive it seems they come with extremely punitive but necessary relegation wage drops which may not be the case elsewhere. We seem to end up in a place where as soon as another Premier League club takes an interest in a player we're out of the running as we either can't match the fee they'll pay or the contract they offer- see Ajer last season for example. Hopefully that changes.

I think there's probably some truth to this but even still we are always going to be up against it in terms of recruitment unless we stay in the prem for more than 1 season. 

Player recruitment is only one part of the puzzle and there are other areas where I think we've come up short in which have let us down just as much. The main area in my view is coaching, there  have been sides with worse or similar quality players as us stay in the PL down to the fact they're simply much better coached sides. Of the coaches we have had I think Farke was probably a good coach but we were always a poor side defensively and that meant we'd always struggle in the PL where we wouldn't have the talent to overwhelm the opposition. Smith also wasn't good enough, the logic in appointing him was almost fair enough given that he had miraculously fixed Villa's defence over lockdown in 19/20 which kept them in the league. That now looks more like luck than anything special he did. Now we're onto Wagner who I think is probably the best defensive coach of the 3 but it's the attacking side where there are question marks and we probably need that side more if we want to get promoted out of this league. He's also had very little time to work so I won't be too critical yet.

The other area I think we could do a bit better on is getting our academy players into the team, we seem to get them around the first team squad but then they hit a brick wall. Obviously as young players they will be up and down in performances but we should be forcing the issue much more. Managers will generally always go for experienced players, so it becomes a situation where you leave them next to no choice to play the youngster. A good example was what happened with Jamal Lewis, had he not got injured when Farke joined he would've been first choice, but our other options there that season were Husband (no more than a decent back up) and Stiepermann (not a left back). 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

On 20/03/2023 at 12:38, PurpleCanary said:

The point has been made before that it is very hard for Norwich City (and not just us, although very much us) to make plans lasting longer than just one season, because of the boom and bust nature of being a yo-yo club. Most companies do not have to factor in such vast potential changes of income from year to year.

If I was advising Attanasio (although I hope and suspect he already knows this) I would stress the need to boost  income streams that are not entirely determined by membership or not of the Premier League, to try to even out turnover over several seasons. So, yes, increased capacity, but also in hand with that a serious push on catering and commercial activities.

Just to put some financial flesh on this point. Even in the Premier League non-TV income (tickets, commercial and catering) accounted for £20m out of total income of £134m. Increasing  that non-TV figure by adding capacity is more than a marginal gain. There is a reason why even big clubs in the Premier League want bigger stadiums.

But below the PL the percentage of non-TV income grows signficantly. In a season with the second year of parachute payments such as 2017-18 (which is what we seem to be heading for) non-TV income was £21m out of £61m, or more than a third. And in a season without parachute payments such as 2018-19 it was £23m out of £34m, or more than two-thirds.

[shefcanary 2,389]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Just to put some financial flesh on this point. Even in the Premier League non-TV income (tickets, commercial and catering) accounted for £20m out of total income of £134m. Increasing  that non-TV figure by adding capacity is more than a marginal gain. There is a reason why even big clubs in the Premier League want bigger stadiums.

But below the PL the percentage of non-TV income grows signficantly. In a season with the second year of parachute payments such as 2017-18 (which is what we seem to be heading for) non-TV income was £21m out of £61m, or more than a third. And in a season without parachute payments such as 2018-19 it was £23m out of £34m, or more than two-thirds.

To take the theory of an expansion of the estate further, I've seen it mentioned on here several times the need for a medium sized indoor stadium (say capacity of 6,000 - to go larger would be foolhardy - Sheffield's 12,500 Arena struggles as it is too large to hit promoters sweet spot for profitability) for a combination of conferences / political rallies / product launches / fashion shows / basketball / netball / other indoor sporting events plus of course music concerts in the city. I'm sure this will be in Attanasio's thinking, probably on the car park (sweating those assets). People can go to a concert, after eating at Delia's beforehand, then having a final pint in a bar after. Or have a burger in Yellow's then watch some basketball etc. Not rocket science but if City don't do it, it will be done by someone in the City when a suitable plot of land large enough becomes available. The club has the advantage of the land, plus the proximity to the train station (if the trains can be relied on) and the city itself - it would be a sin not to utilise those benefits. 

[NorthCarolinaYellow 197]

Some greats thoughts among many, especially Parma, as always and an overall good and dare I say productive conversation.

To be honest ... I'm okay with our current state. It's a difficult old game and there are ups and downs for a club of our size/nature. It's okay. We'll have better periods and we'll have worse periods. I'd also argue that if we'd correctly sacked Smith during the WC break we'd be solidly in the playoff spots.

My main thoughts these days, the ones that tempt me when we're pissing around with the ball and creating nothing down 1-0 to f*cking Luton, is that ... well, we f*cked up the 1st PL promotion campaign in 2019-2020. Badly.

Here are the matchday-level players we brought in either on transfers or loans during the two windows: Drmić, Byram, Rupp, Roberts, Fährmann, Amadou, Duda. That's a travesty. We simply had to do much better.

And then those we brought in for the future almost all have failed to make any impact at this point 3 years later: Adshead, Bushiri, Gilmour, Sitti, et al. Sam McCallum is truly the only real success. Under Webber we've been very good at identifying dead weight that needs clearing out (save Carlton Morris and Harry Toffolo perhaps), and while we were quite good early on at exploiting Farke's primarily German connections to unearth some gems ... we're now overall somewhat poor at recruitment. It's a fact. We've pissed the money up the wall, Stuart. Sorry.

In hindsight while it was okay to categorize that 2019-2020 campaign as a "free hit" we should have pursued a recruitment strategy that, at least, brought in some potentially promising youngsters who might now be paying dividends. Between ... (a) not chasing most of those listed above (Drmić et al.) and (b) not prematurely cashing in our bond and (c) not giving unilateral new contracts to the entire 2018-2019 title winners (Moritz Leitner I'm looking at you) ... there should have been enough money to bring in a much better crop of prospects. We still would have been battered but we might now be in a much better place. Maybe.

[BigFish 1,986]

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Just to put some financial flesh on this point. Even in the Premier League non-TV income (tickets, commercial and catering) accounted for £20m out of total income of £134m. Increasing  that non-TV figure by adding capacity is more than a marginal gain. There is a reason why even big clubs in the Premier League want bigger stadiums.

But below the PL the percentage of non-TV income grows signficantly. In a season with the second year of parachute payments such as 2017-18 (which is what we seem to be heading for) non-TV income was £21m out of £61m, or more than a third. And in a season without parachute payments such as 2018-19 it was £23m out of £34m, or more than two-thirds.

All true @PurpleCanary, my friend. They are the fundamentals that underpin the clubs finances. But that doesn't necessarily translate into the cost benefit of ground expansion. There is a reason we have the ground we do, with a stunted City Stand & a hotel in the corner. That is every time we do some building we buy the best we can afford, but this proves to be a little crap. This is not helped by the difficulties in developing a ground while still needing to host football matches. Most big clubs approach this by starting from scratch in a new home, or alternatively moving out for a couple of years. I really can't see a way we could do without the City Stand for a couple of seasons and add enough seats for this to wash its face. Unless, of course MA knows differently.

[Robert N. LiM 4,246]

17 minutes ago, BigFish said:

or alternatively moving out for a couple of years. I really can't see a way we could do without the City Stand for a couple of seasons

Would it really take two years to build a new City stand? Genuine question, not snark. If, for instance, it was a two-tier stand, would it not be possible to open the lower tier more swiftly (thus replacing the lost City stand seats) and the 'extra' seats in an upper tier later?

And do I remember correctly that the South stand (whatever it's called now) was designed with the ability to add another tier later? Or am I making that up?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

21 minutes ago, BigFish said:

All true @PurpleCanary, my friend. They are the fundamentals that underpin the clubs finances. But that doesn't necessarily translate into the cost benefit of ground expansion. There is a reason we have the ground we do, with a stunted City Stand & a hotel in the corner. That is every time we do some building we buy the best we can afford, but this proves to be a little crap. This is not helped by the difficulties in developing a ground while still needing to host football matches. Most big clubs approach this by starting from scratch in a new home, or alternatively moving out for a couple of years. I really can't see a way we could do without the City Stand for a couple of seasons and add enough seats for this to wash its face. Unless, of course MA knows differently.

A couple of quick points, BF. We did manage to relocate 4,000 fans (myself included) from the South Stand elsewhere in the ground while that was being doubled in size. And alternatively I believe the acquisition of Carrow Road  may now make it possible to put an extra tier on the City Stand while the bottom tier remains in use.

[shefcanary 2,389]

Purple does make a very good point - it wasn't that long ago that we managed without the South Stand and I think I am right in that the capacity of the existing City Stand is less than lost at that time. We will probably get dispensation to limit away fans during any re-build period. Fulham are an example of a club who bit that bullet recently and my reading of the experience is that there was no real dissent. 

Both Purple and RN Lim have touched on this. Whilst the potential of retaining the existing seating in the City Stand doesn't make long term sense, one would expect that any new City Stand could be developed in such a way that a top tier could be built first behind and over the existing stand (by god it is small enough, check what has happened at Anfield this season) before the old stand is demolished and a new lower tier constructed (the extension to the Main Stand at Hillsborough was similarly constructed as a new build at the back and over the old stand which was retained apart from the roof). The question becomes a financial choice, go for broke and forego ticket income from 3,500 fans for a season and half (c. £5m) or add £5-10m to build costs and extend the build period a bit longer. I would expect as Big Fish comments the cheapest route would be taken, but Attanasio's approach at Milwaukee suggests he might be bolder than that!

Much will depend on the finance for the re-build. Given that a UK high street bank has recently financed the acquisition of an office block for the company I am a director of, plus rolled up existing loans in a new loan, at only 2.5% pa (!, yes even I was astounded by their generosity given the current state of banking, but it is a long term loan), I'm sure Attanasio can find similar low costs structures. There are deals to be done if you are open minded and / or aggressive with your negotiations. Perhaps Tifosy can be utilised again.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Some excellent points from @PurpleCanary @shefcanary @BigFish @NorthCarolinaYellow @Robert N. LiM

I think it worth repeating that if Webber oversaw the expansion of the ground - certainly even at the expense of ‘free hit’ 2019 and ‘poor recruitment (in and out)’ 2021 - that many-most-all fans would see this as the kind of impressive legacy he has often spoken of.

The training ground improvements were financed by a bond, Colney was purchased long ago, even Chase made good capital investments in land that paid off for others later.So ‘the training ground’ whilst improved recently, is not the legacy of one man.

The ‘plusvalenza’ value of the current squad is pretty poor compared to 2021 and maybe even 2019. That is an unavoidable indictment. 

However redemption and legacy is within grasp via the long term benefits, opportunities and potential change in club-wide mentality (dare we then say bigger club?) and self-image of a meaningfully expanded stadium. This would indeed have huge value. Beyond even the commercial. 

Almost any stadium is an inconsequential white elephant vs current Premier Broadcast revenues. Though we did sell out in the third tier. Getting people to destinations is what is hard, not getting them to willingly part with more of their money whilst they are there. 

Our American cousins are masters at that. 

Parma 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Robert N. LiM 4,246]

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

if Webber oversaw the expansion of the ground

surely as 'sporting director' this is not part of his remit, in the same way that upgrading the training facilities is?

I think most of the time SW gets unfairly criticised by people who minimise his role by talking about him as if his only responsibility were player recruitment. But this seems an unusual example of someone overestimating his job description.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Robert N. LiM

[Monty13 2,229]

25 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

surely as 'sporting director' this is not part of his remit, in the same way that upgrading the training facilities is?

I think most of the time SW gets unfairly criticised by people who minimise his role by talking about him as if his only responsibility were player recruitment. But this seems an unusual example of someone overestimating his job description.

I assume the point was more if money from the Playing squad had been diverted to achieve that aim while still getting success on the pitch. 

As SD I don’t think anyone’s expecting him to oversee it in the literal sense, but he’d have to agree to sacrifice from the sporting side and work within a tight budget to allow the finance for it to happen.

You can’t make a commitment like that at a club like ours without the full by in of the SD as they will have to deal with the knock on affect of the redistribution of finances.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

To be fair I think that the bond issue only paid for phase one of Colney. I could be wrong but that's what I've always understood. Webber spoke about it earlier this month...

Colney transformation

Previously we had 49 temporary buildings when I arrived here. The academy pitches had a hill in them. The gym was tiny. So we needed to improve that. But step by step. Then being in the Premier League helped that.

But you see a lot of clubs reach the Premier League, then lose that status, and you look and think, 'what have they got for that?'. I was very keen, with the rest of the team here, that each time we go up, and the ultimate aim is to stay there, but at least we have something to show for it. There is a legacy.

Otherwise it is where did all the money go? We are proud of what we have done so far. We are now building a swimming pool, which will be world class, and that opens in October.

What about the temptation to spend that money on player wages and transfers?

 

No, because for me as a sporting director you are here to build something that stands the test of time. Players don't. You could buy the right player, get promoted, get relegated and you are no further forward as a football club. Maybe you've had a few nice days out, which I appreciate is important.

I've never had that temptation. I can see why people do. But I have been afforded the luxury here, which not many people get, of time. Time to implement a vision. That has been around fracilities, around youth productivity, around improving our scouting. All of those take time. 

There is a big understanding of that here at board level. Our owners have been here 27 years, through thick and thin. It is about trying to build a healthy football club that serves it's community. 

Is it hard with the fans and the media that their sole measure of success is results?

Of course, and I understand that. I am a football fan as well. You don't pay your money to go and listen to someone like me talking about long term plans. You want to win that particular game, and ideally your team plays well into the bargain.

We have won two trophies in the last three years. We have competed in the hardest league in the world, where a club like Chelsea has spent more than the rest of Europe combined. We are trying to compete when we get in there.

Brighton and Brentford, two fantastic models, but the last set of accounts Brentford published in 2021 their owner had put £130m in. Brighton, their lastest accounts, is £700m. Even people and clubs who are seen as our peer group, and ours is zero to give some context, it is super tough.

The key with fans and the media is constantly trying to communicate that. They want to win today, but so do we. No-one walks around here happy when we are relegated.

.......................................................................................................................................................

When I think about this the only truth I know is what I have experienced. And that is the truth that whatever the strategy there would have been massive acceptance and agreement in successful seasons and massive criticism and rejection in unsuccessful seasons. This is the only truth that stands the test of time.

Minimum of 130m please Marky Mark...

[shefcanary 2,389]

Just to be clear. The expansion of the ground should only be taken on if it doesn't impact the playing budget. As such it doesn't have to involve, or have an impact on, Webber and his role at all, AS LONG AS he gets his job right more times than wrong.

The funding of the stand should be funded through loans which are repaid from the future income generated by that stand, irrespective of success on the pitch. If its designed right this should be eminently achievable. One assumes Attanasio & team have the right skills and experience to achieve this, leaving Mr Webber to look after the playing side and Mrs Webber to oversee delivery of things off the pitch.

Edited March 28, 2023 by shefcanary

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

On 28/03/2023 at 19:46, Monty13 said:

I assume the point was more if money from the Playing squad had been diverted to achieve that aim while still getting success on the pitch. 

As SD I don’t think anyone’s expecting him to oversee it in the literal sense, but he’d have to agree to sacrifice from the sporting side and work within a tight budget to allow the finance for it to happen.

You can’t make a commitment like that at a club like ours without the full by in of the SD as they will have to deal with the knock on affect of the redistribution of finances.

Indeed. The longer term ‘good of the club’ view. 

The ‘leave it better than we found it’ promise. All things are connected. 

Parma 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[nutty nigel 7,513]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Just to be clear. The expansion of the ground should only be taken on if it doesn't impact the playing budget. As such it doesn't have to involve, or have an impact on, Webber and his role at all, AS LONG AS he gets his job right more times than wrong.

The funding of the stand should be funded through loans which are repaid from the future income generated by that stand, irrespective of success on the pitch. If its designed right this should be eminently achievable. One assumes Attanasio & team have the right skills and experience to achieve this, leaving Mr Webber to look after the playing side and Mrs Webber to oversee delivery of things off the pitch.

I guess that's fine if such loans are available. The loans taken to build the South Stand, a necessity, could have had dire consequences. Future income really is a shot in the dark...

The other point about how we rehoused the South Stand season ticket holders at that time has to be viewed understanding that there weren't very many. Certainly nowhere near as many as there are in the main stand now.

[BigFish 1,986]

15 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Would it really take two years to build a new City stand? Genuine question, not snark. If, for instance, it was a two-tier stand, would it not be possible to open the lower tier more swiftly (thus replacing the lost City stand seats) and the 'extra' seats in an upper tier later?

And do I remember correctly that the South stand (whatever it's called now) was designed with the ability to add another tier later? Or am I making that up?

I don't know how it panned out, and Covid had an impact, but Fulham, which is possibly our nearest comparator planned to decant their season ticket holders from the Riverside Stand for two seasons from 2019. The Upper Tier will only open next season. The Stand cost £80 million and has nice views of the Thames. If it was the City Stand the views would be of an ugly retail park. So I would read across from that, a time line that has a reduced capacity for two season, an equivalent one for one year and an increased capacity one year later. I suspect the time scale would be similar for us, although the development somewhat more modest.

[essex canary 492]

21 hours ago, shefcanary said:

To take the theory of an expansion of the estate further, I've seen it mentioned on here several times the need for a medium sized indoor stadium (say capacity of 6,000 - to go larger would be foolhardy - Sheffield's 12,500 Arena struggles as it is too large to hit promoters sweet spot for profitability) for a combination of conferences / political rallies / product launches / fashion shows / basketball / netball / other indoor sporting events plus of course music concerts in the city. I'm sure this will be in Attanasio's thinking, probably on the car park (sweating those assets). People can go to a concert, after eating at Delia's beforehand, then having a final pint in a bar after. Or have a burger in Yellow's then watch some basketball etc. Not rocket science but if City don't do it, it will be done by someone in the City when a suitable plot of land large enough becomes available. The club has the advantage of the land, plus the proximity to the train station (if the trains can be relied on) and the city itself - it would be a sin not to utilise those benefits. 

Just kit out the Forum differently. Convert the Theatre Royal to a Library.