Parma’s State of the Nation

[Don J Demorr 162]

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

What does @Don J Demorr think this shows about our self-awareness? Might he identify a weak nexus point?

In former times I used to stagger home with my dad’s copy of the Sunday Times. Now the worthy Parma has written one of his own! (I’m still staggering about but not necessarily for the same reason).

It is most flattering (and not to say embarrassing) to be given so many references but amongst them there is the challenge I have quoted here.

Firstly, by “our self-awareness” I presume that “our” means the NCFC. In that, I do see a generic weakness which I think needs to be addressed. I don’t see anybody who is going to ensure that this gets done and this is certainly a weakness and the weakness is, I believe, built in, at and around the top. Whoever designed it the present management paradigm is flawed.

In reading this please do not think I believe that this is because of any personal inadequacy, particularly that of the owners. In exactly the same circumstances an even older and certainly wiser companion once remarked that most people spend their lives trapped in a cage that they themselves have built. I’m more than sure that Delia and Michael did not foresee their current difficulties when they made their initial investment and now their cage door is troublesome to find. It might turn out that there isn’t one if Michael Attanasio walks away.

I have previously written at some length about what I think the management structure should look like, so no more of that. Even with a new structure there would be work to be done.

Without doubt all of you want the club to be a success. The question is what will success be like when you get there? One standard criterion is that the club will have a large and faithful cohort of “delighted” customers. This is the root of the problem that is causing and will cause the dilemma for any club management. The customers are the paying supporters of all kinds, and they are clearly delighted by different outcomes.  At one extreme are the purists who want to see wonderfully skilful football and at the other those who want the club to win as many points as possible, which is done by cheating. I can no more reconcile these extremes than anybody else and it is not for me to do so anyway.

One thing I might do is to try to analyse the question as to whether these extremes do in fact reflect good and bad corporate behaviour. I base the following on personal experience. Patience, per piacere, I’ll get back to NCFC in a minute or two.

The Soviet Union disintegrated thirty years ago. Shortly after that I was asked to go out and establish new business ventures in those territories. I spent the next four years living there, in two different countries, with a local office in a third. The few expats who were there at that time lived in in their expat bubble in the grotty ex-Intourist hotels. In each country I chose to live as my newly recruited colleagues lived, in an apartment that they found for me. That decision opened my eyes not only to their society but to a new understanding of the fragility of my own. People wanted to talk - over the dinner table, at work, during invitations to spend time at the University and at State Enterprises. Of the many surprises was (and is) the nature of “corruption”.  Corruption in what had been the Soviet Union was not at all a shortfall from exalted standards, it was (and still is) the standard operating procedure without which the society simply could not function. It is endemic. Everybody knows, everybody does it; it is absolutely normal and universally accepted. Fortunately, our business was with western companies so I was not directly affected. The very simplistic corollary is that if you try to run a business using the Western paradigm in those states you will inevitably fail. You have to play the game according to their rules. Which brings me back to the choices facing NCFC.

My conjecture (which I have mentioned before) is that the putative game of Association Football has two similar but different paradigms. The first is that there is a game in the unpolluted meaning of the word, in  which all contestants agree to follow the official written Rules of the game and the outcome is decided by skill and athleticism in “fair” competition. This game is considered to be pure and attractive. It is played at schoolboy and maybe a bit higher level (plea of ignorance here). The second paradigm is that there is a game called Association Football that is played at the professional level. In this paradigm most(?) of the Rules are the same but some are always ignored by general consensus and are replaced or added to by sketchily enforced unwritten agreement. This is despised as “cheating”.

The whole point of the Soviet analogy is that this is not cheating – the participants are playing a different game by a different set of “agreed” rules. It meets all the criteria for a game but that game is not Association Football as we know it, Jim.

For NCFC and any other aspirant club, if you bring a naive game plan into a more “sophisticated” contest where your contestant plays by unwritten rules and you don’t, you will lose. Every time. As you do. The club and you supporters have a choice to make.

Maybe, my friend Parma, that is a “weakness” that needs to be resolved.

Grazie a tutti,

 

Don

[Serinus Canaria Domestica 45]

Don, you may well be correct in your analysis. But there comes a point where you have to decide whether to take your ball home and quit playing with clubs who assault your values.

 

Reminds me of a time in the 1970s when I went with a Greek colleague to watch Derby v ??? (Maybe AEK Athens). The Greek side won by what I considered foul means, gamesmanship call it what you will. My Greek mate was ecstatic at what to me was a completely hollow victory. I couldn’t see the point. Still don’t.

[The Real Buh 3,486]

This thread is wild! All these new characters.

The Pinkun is the best Anime on the internet for sure.

[Don J Demorr 162]

42 minutes ago, Serinus Canaria Domestica said:

Don, you may well be correct in your analysis. But there comes a point where you have to decide whether to take your ball home and quit playing with clubs who assault your values.

Exactly so, Serinus, that is very much part of my point. I'm not an NCFC supporter nor even a football one. My post is about effective management of the Club. I have no dog in the fight as to whatever behavioural choice is eventually, but that it now seems to be the case that no clear choice at all has been made. Whatever choice is eventually made, in either case it has to be clear to everybody and to engender constancy of purpose. Purpose breeds behaviour. You can't please everybody.

If the choice is to play Association Football according to the Book of Rules, you need one kind of club with one kind of management structure. If you decide to play the EPL way you need a completely different structure of the club,  its management an personnel. Until this choice is made there can be no sound choice of management structure.

No choice being made means to drift and eventual failure to please anybody. Like now?

Don

Edited June 25, 2023 by Don J Demorr
making clearer to Serinus

[ricardo 7,414]

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

 

Farke to Leeds would be too much even for my cool, detached, empirical mind. That would prove we just got it wrong. You only know the cost of your choices when you come to pay the bill

Indeed. I was appalled at the time and my view hasn't been changed by subsequent events.

We didnt just lose our identity, we willfully threw it in the bin. In the final annalysis you get what you deserve.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

29 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Indeed. I was appalled at the time and my view hasn't been changed by subsequent events.

We didnt just lose our identity, we willfully threw it in the bin. In the final annalysis you get what you deserve.

Yes.

Parma

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Indeed. I was appalled at the time and my view hasn't been changed by subsequent events.

We didnt just lose our identity, we willfully threw it in the bin. In the final annalysis you get what you deserve.

 

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

Yes.

Parma

Thing was, that was what many fans wanted, and we all pay the price for that.

Farkeball was great when winning the Champs, lousy when finishing bottom of the EPL. Too many asked "why arn't we [[Insert club of the moment]]'' rather than recognising what we were and what we had. Possibly Webber included. If you spend all of your time moaning about why we cannot become an established EPL club you miss that we had beautiful football, inbetweener football, too good for the Champs, not good enough for the EPL. If Farke goes to Leeds, np from me, I wish hime well. We had our chance.

[lake district canary 4,551]

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

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Indeed. I was appalled at the time and my view hasn't been changed by subsequent events.

We didnt just lose our identity, we willfully threw it in the bin. In the final annalysis you get what you deserve.

Yes.

Parma

The sacking was a hard pill to swallow at the time, it seemed counter to any sense of common sense - unless there really was someone cherry picked to take his place and carry on......and there wasn't.

I get it - results were bad up to Brentford, even though we had started picking up the odd point after the horrendous start. Some players behind the scenes were unhappy - Cantwell and Gilmour and probably others too - some (imo idiot) fans who were very vocal in wanting him out...........but in those situations you have two choices, stick or twist - and Webber twisted, but he got it totally wrong. Should have backed the manager and ridden out the storm.

[ricardo 7,414]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

 

Thing was, that was what many fans wanted, and we all pay the price for that.

Farkeball was great when winning the Champs, lousy when finishing bottom of the EPL. Too many asked "why arn't we [[Insert club of the moment]]'' rather than recognising what we were and what we had. Possibly Webber included. If you spend all of your time moaning about why we cannot become an established EPL club you miss that we had beautiful football, inbetweener football, too good for the Champs, not good enough for the EPL. If Farke goes to Leeds, np from me, I wish hime well. We had our chance.

I naively assumed that the club meant what they said when they decided to move in a different direction and for a while their actions appeared to confirm this e,g. There being no call to sack the manager after the first relegation from the Premier League.

The impression i had was that we had moved away from the established idea of sacking managers in the hope of success and were intent on building for a future based on the type of football and style of play that Daniel Farke had instigated. My feelings were that this gave us a unique identity and despite the results being harder to come by in the top league, it was an identity that we would strive  to maintain. In the long run and due to financial constraints this might only make us perennial yoyo club but personally speaking that would not be a bad thing.

Sadly it seems that somebody in authority wasn't 100% committed to the idea and ditched the project. Now we find ourselves back with every other football club, hoping the next manager might hit the jackpot.

Ive been a supporter for seventy years and i have seen good times and bad times but I've only ever seen one dream time.

It won't  come again.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

24 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I naively assumed that the club meant what they said when they decided to move in a different direction and for a while their actions appeared to confirm this e,g. There being no call to sack the manager after the first relegation from the Premier League.

The impression i had was that we had moved away from the established idea of sacking managers in the hope of success and were intent on building for a future based on the type of football and style of play that Daniel Farke had instigated. My feelings were that this gave us a unique identity and despite the results being harder to come by in the top league, it was an identity that we would strive  to maintain. In the long run and due to financial constraints this might only make us perennial yoyo club but personally speaking that would not be a bad thing.

Sadly it seems that somebody in authority wasn't 100% committed to the idea and ditched the project. Now we find ourselves back with every other football club, hoping the next manager might hit the jackpot.

Ive been a supporter for seventy years and i have seen good times and bad times but I've only ever seen one dream time.

It won't  come again.

Perfect.

Parma

[Monty13 2,256]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

 

Thing was, that was what many fans wanted, and we all pay the price for that.

Farkeball was great when winning the Champs, lousy when finishing bottom of the EPL. Too many asked "why arn't we [[Insert club of the moment]]'' rather than recognising what we were and what we had. Possibly Webber included. If you spend all of your time moaning about why we cannot become an established EPL club you miss that we had beautiful football, inbetweener football, too good for the Champs, not good enough for the EPL. If Farke goes to Leeds, np from me, I wish hime well. We had our chance.

We will never know if things would have been different, but IMO Farke’s sacking can be traced back to the poor choices of that summer.

We didn’t throw the identity away when we sacked Farke, we’d already done it. Farke was, IMO, an inevitable casualty of those choices. To be fair my argument has always been they were choices he went along with and that’s why he ultimately got sacked. I wasn’t desperate to see him gone but I understood why it was going to, and probably needed to, happen.

Some very discreet targeted surgery that summer with a continuation of philosophy and I think we would have done better. Would we have stayed up? Probably not, the odds were and always will be stacked against us currently, but I personally believe we’d be in a far better place right now.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Monty13
Spelling

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

As it's Sunday night I will opt for pith in what is actually a complicated question. Having seen Bobby Brennan, Clive Woods (yes, I know, ex-Ipswich, and past his best and all that, but even so...), the fitful but sometimes unplayable Jimmy Neighbour, Mark Barham, Darren Eadie and Darren Huckerby, I struggle with a "never mind the width, feel the quality" transfer policy that leaves the club with Onel Hernandez  as its first-choice winger in the Premier League. Doesn't strike me as any kind of dream.

[canarybubbles 1,950]

12 hours ago, ricardo said:

Indeed. I was appalled at the time and my view hasn't been changed by subsequent events.

We didnt just lose our identity, we willfully threw it in the bin. In the final annalysis you get what you deserve.

I agree with you totally, but I suspect that Webber would view this talk of identity as naive nonsense. This modern management class will work for anyone - a university, a bank, a medical organisation, a company that cans baked beans, an evil polluter, or a football club - as long as it gets them up the greasy pole. I personally saw these people in the educational field when I was still working. They have no real care, commitment nor understanding of the specific field they are in because they see them as interchangeable. They believe only in a sort of abstract concept of success, and this usually means success for the individual manager or company, not for the field they are temporarily working in. 

Webber's comment fairly early in his reign that if fans didn't like it, they could go and support someone else perfectly sums up this lack of understanding of the specific field he was in - the fans are consumers and can move to another brand of shampoo if they aren't happy with the product. It betrayed a shallowness of both thinking and belief. And ultimately, in my opinion, this lack of genuine belief in the identity which he and Farke created is why he failed and we are now back (at least on the pitch) to where we were when he arrived, or possibly in a worse position, struggling to forge an overriding identity or structure to our play and having fewer assets to sell. 

Edited June 26, 2023 by canarybubbles

[BigFish 1,988]

9 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

As it's Sunday night I will opt for pith in what is actually a complicated question. Having seen Bobby Brennan, Clive Woods (yes, I know, ex-Ipswich, and past his best and all that, but even so...), the fitful but sometimes unplayable Jimmy Neighbour, Mark Barham, Darren Eadie and Darren Huckerby, I struggle with a "never mind the width, feel the quality" transfer policy that leaves the club with Onel Hernandez  as its first-choice winger in the Premier League. Doesn't strike me as any kind of dream.

Indeed @PurpleCanary, there is a tendency to hyperbole and when things were going well hubris as well. Relegation was pretty much inevitable that last EPL season but in trying to give the appearance of going for it the club pretty much dispensed with continuity. Now continuity is overrated in football. Nothing lasts forever, Buendia and Pukki would have moved on by now in any case. Revolution is more exciting, but evolution more long lasting. The SD/coach model is designed to enable one or other to move on without reverting to starting from scratch. We are effectively starting from scratch this season. In part this is because a large part of the fan base were unwilling or unable to accept the club's position in the pecking order. A yo-yo club was not acceptable.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,407]

The problem we face wasn’t due to sacking Farke whose time was up despite him being a legend for us. The problem was failing to replace him. We needed a smooth transition to another manager able to keep our identity alive. Instead Webber decided we needed to bin the whole thing and went, in a knee jerk reaction, for dean Smith. This proved a very, very bad decision because our entire ethos, identity and purpose went up in smoke leaving us back where we started when Webber arrived. Factor in total lack of money and we are now signing ageing champs journeymen in the hope of bedding down for a slog in mid table. Make no mistake- so far we see no signs of promotion push. Barnes < Pukki. Stacey < Aarons. Duffy < Big Andy (over next few years) 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Dean Coneys boots

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

12 hours ago, ricardo said:

Sadly it seems that somebody in authority wasn't 100% committed to the idea and ditched the project. Now we find ourselves back with every other football club, hoping the next manager might hit the jackpot.

Here is the key. 

Some of us on here know somewhat some of the senior decision-makers. Something of their tendencies, drivers and beliefs. 

@TIL 1010 @shefcanary @GMF for example.

So who wasn’t 100% committed? Delia? Michael? Michael? Tom? Or A.N.Other?

How hard did that person drive the out agenda? Why did they do it? What was their real motivational driver? 

Was it solely for the good of the club? Or did other factors come into play? Why?

This is the heart of the issue. 

Parma 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Feedthewolf 4,896]

12 hours ago, ricardo said:

I naively assumed that the club meant what they said when they decided to move in a different direction and for a while their actions appeared to confirm this e,g. There being no call to sack the manager after the first relegation from the Premier League.

The impression i had was that we had moved away from the established idea of sacking managers in the hope of success and were intent on building for a future based on the type of football and style of play that Daniel Farke had instigated. My feelings were that this gave us a unique identity and despite the results being harder to come by in the top league, it was an identity that we would strive  to maintain. In the long run and due to financial constraints this might only make us perennial yoyo club but personally speaking that would not be a bad thing.

Sadly it seems that somebody in authority wasn't 100% committed to the idea and ditched the project. Now we find ourselves back with every other football club, hoping the next manager might hit the jackpot.

Ive been a supporter for seventy years and i have seen good times and bad times but I've only ever seen one dream time.

It won't come again.

This is really poignant, Ricardo, and highly likely to be correct... although I must say that I hope beyond hope that you live to see yourself proved wrong! 🙂

[Serinus Canaria Domestica 45]

DCB: perhaps more accurate comparisons are…..Stacey>Byram and Duffy>Hanley (at least until New Year) and at a push Barnes~Pukki (last season’s version at least). Whether Sainz proves> Dowell will hopefully be shown in the near future.

 

look on the bright side for once. It is quite refreshing.

[Capt. Pants 4,298]

Well I'm hoping Attanasio has some vision on how he sees NCFC evolving? I have no idea what that will look like and he seems to have disappeared into the background somewhat. I get the impression we are drifting a bit in the meantime. It's a sharp contrast to the Farke/Webberlution.

[Don J Demorr 162]

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

Here is the key. 

Some of us on here know somewhat some of the senior decision-makers. Something of their tendencies, drivers and beliefs. 

@TIL 1010 @shefcanary @GMF for example.

So who wasn’t 100% committed? Delia? Michael? Michael? Tom? Or A.N.Other?

How hard did that person drive the out agenda? Why did they do it? What was their real motivational driver? 

Was it solely for the good of the club? Or did other factors come into play? Why?

This is the heart of the issue. 

Parma 

Parma, as you know I am big on the issue of management decision making. What I see here as a possibility with NCFC is not that poor decisions are being made but, even worse than that, no decisions are being made at all. Things are happening by default or by ad hoc reaction. Sometimes it almost doesn't matter what decisions you make as long as it is clear to everybody that a decision is made that then guides the actions of others. Stasis is a killer. Momentum matters, even if it is in a suboptimal direction.

Regards to all,

Don

[Dean Coneys boots 1,407]

16 minutes ago, Serinus Canaria Domestica said:

DCB: perhaps more accurate comparisons are…..Stacey>Byram and Duffy>Hanley (at least until New Year) and at a push Barnes~Pukki (last season’s version at least). Whether Sainz proves> Dowell will hopefully be shown in the near future.

 

look on the bright side for once. It is quite refreshing.

The point I am making is whether entire squad is upgraded or downgraded. You might be right that the new players are better than the worse players who left- but unless and until we replace the best players who left with better ones then we have actually declined 

[GMF 757]

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

Here is the key. 

Some of us on here know somewhat some of the senior decision-makers. Something of their tendencies, drivers and beliefs. 

@TIL 1010 @shefcanary @GMF for example.

So who wasn’t 100% committed? Delia? Michael? Michael? Tom? Or A.N.Other?

How hard did that person drive the out agenda? Why did they do it? What was their real motivational driver? 

Was it solely for the good of the club? Or did other factors come into play? Why?

This is the heart of the issue. 

Parma 

It’s been my view for a number of years, certainly post Ed Balls, that the directors, usually non-exec officers (the owners) have had the tendency to put far too much faith in the executive officers, seemingly at the expense of a lack of sufficient accountability.

Of course, the executive officers will argue that isn’t the case, but I’m seeing little evidence at the moment to suggest that there’s any substance behind their claims.

[Don J Demorr 162]

28 minutes ago, GMF said:

It’s been my view for a number of years, certainly post Ed Balls, that the directors, usually non-exec officers (the owners) have had the tendency to put far too much faith in the executive officers, seemingly at the expense of a lack of sufficient accountability.

Of course, the executive officers will argue that isn’t the case, but I’m seeing little evidence at the moment to suggest that there’s any substance behind their claims.

GMF, It looks very much as if you are correct. If indeed you are this leads directly to Parma's "Nexus of weakness" because the wrong people are making the wrong kind of decisions. In yet another analogy, the owner buys the car, the owner decides the destination, then employs a driver to get there. That is the long term view - the vision or mission, if you like. The driver then decides what route to take and how fast to go. These are executive decisions, not strategic ones. The "blame" seems to be with the driver(s). The problem might be that there is no defined destination for the vehicle.

Don

Edited June 26, 2023 by Don J Demorr
spelling correction

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

7 hours ago, GMF said:

It’s been my view for a number of years, certainly post Ed Balls, that the directors, usually non-exec officers (the owners) have had the tendency to put far too much faith in the executive officers, seemingly at the expense of a lack of sufficient accountability.

Of course, the executive officers will argue that isn’t the case, but I’m seeing little evidence at the moment to suggest that there’s any substance behind their claims.

Here you go @Don J Demorr. The nexus point.

‘Committee’ decisions are notoriously susceptible to one loud voice - or even obsessive adherence to a single mission statement (that could be flawed).

Further, deep believers often have a need (or weakness) for Messiahs. 

Be careful what you wish for, lest you should receive it. 

A nexus point of messianic belief meets obsessive adherence to a plan that no-one questioned at the key moment? 

QED everything that @ricardo says. 

Che peccato.

Parma

Edited June 26, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[BigFish 1,988]

17 minutes ago, Don J Demorr said:

GMF, It looks very much as if you are correct. If indeed you are this leads directly to Parma's "Nexus of weakness" because the wrong people are making the wrong kind of decisions. In yet another analogy, the owner buys the car, the owner decides the destination, then employs a driver to get there. That is the long term view - the vision or mission, if you like. The driver then decides what route to take and how fast to go. These are executive decisions, not strategic ones. The "blame" seems to be with the driver(s). The problem might be that there is no defined destination for the vehicle.

Don

The problem is less that there is no destination, it is more that some of the passengers in the car don't want to go there.

[essex canary 508]

54 minutes ago, GMF said:

It’s been my view for a number of years, certainly post Ed Balls, that the directors, usually non-exec officers (the owners) have had the tendency to put far too much faith in the executive officers, seemingly at the expense of a lack of sufficient accountability.

Of course, the executive officers will argue that isn’t the case, but I’m seeing little evidence at the moment to suggest that there’s any substance behind their claims.

Has that been the case from the beginning through Bennett, Doncaster. McNally and Webbers? I wonder if Moxey had a different view?

[Don J Demorr 162]

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

‘Committee’ decisions are notoriously susceptible to one loud voice - or even obsessive adherence to a single mission statement (that could be flawed).

Exactly so, as ever, Parma. In Business Process Re-engineering we did not ever use the word "Committee" - always a "Team". A committee either defers to a dominant person (in a business usually the boss) or makes the call by a majority vote. Both methods lead to the dreaded stasis. Worse, either way you get winners and losers and consequently hidden conflict. You ain't going to get any Re-engineering that way. I was taught always to find a consensus, which is usually presented as unanimous agreement, which almost but not quite correct. A real consensus is when everybody can truly say "Maybe that is not exactly what I wanted, but I understand it, I can live with it and I will support it". This is much more difficult to achieve  and takes much more discussion and flexibility of thought, but the result is far stronger.

Tragically, what is really needed here is a supporters consensus on what is the purpose of NCFC, which is quite impossible!

Don

Edited June 26, 2023 by Don J Demorr

[Monty13 2,256]

18 minutes ago, GMF said:

It’s been my view for a number of years, certainly post Ed Balls, that the directors, usually non-exec officers (the owners) have had the tendency to put far too much faith in the executive officers, seemingly at the expense of a lack of sufficient accountability.

Of course, the executive officers will argue that isn’t the case, but I’m seeing little evidence at the moment to suggest that there’s any substance behind their claims.

What grates me is when people point to a level of success without accountability to justify it not being in place.

It’s perfectly possible to have success without accountability, if it wasn’t a lot of small businesses and entrepreneurs wouldn’t get anywhere.

The issue is to be at the very top of your game as an organisation (not in comparison to others, but to your own potential) is very hard to do without some level of accountability at all levels, of checks and balances in place and with major decisions (especially strategic ones with long term impact) being scrutinised before enactment.

I’m not sure what’s happened the last two years if we had that in place.

[Barham Blitz 664]

14 hours ago, ricardo said:

I naively assumed that the club meant what they said when they decided to move in a different direction and for a while their actions appeared to confirm this e,g. There being no call to sack the manager after the first relegation from the Premier League.

The impression i had was that we had moved away from the established idea of sacking managers in the hope of success and were intent on building for a future based on the type of football and style of play that Daniel Farke had instigated. My feelings were that this gave us a unique identity and despite the results being harder to come by in the top league, it was an identity that we would strive  to maintain. In the long run and due to financial constraints this might only make us perennial yoyo club but personally speaking that would not be a bad thing.

Sadly it seems that somebody in authority wasn't 100% committed to the idea and ditched the project. Now we find ourselves back with every other football club, hoping the next manager might hit the jackpot.

Ive been a supporter for seventy years and i have seen good times and bad times but I've only ever seen one dream time.

It won't  come again.

This is a perfect summary of what I feel as well.

[Nuff Said 5,183]

2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

The problem we face wasn’t due to sacking Farke whose time was up despite him being a legend for us. The problem was failing to replace him. We needed a smooth transition to another manager able to keep our identity alive. Instead Webber decided we needed to bin the whole thing and went, in a knee jerk reaction, for dean Smith. This proved a very, very bad decision because our entire ethos, identity and purpose went up in smoke leaving us back where we started when Webber arrived. Factor in total lack of money and we are now signing ageing champs journeymen in the hope of bedding down for a slog in mid table. Make no mistake- so far we see no signs of promotion push. Barnes < Pukki. Stacey < Aarons. Duffy < Big Andy (over next few years) 

 

1 hour ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

The point I am making is whether entire squad is upgraded or downgraded. You might be right that the new players are better than the worse players who left- but unless and until we replace the best players who left with better ones then we have actually declined 

But your point is massively influenced by hindsight. When Pukki, Aarons and Omobamidele first entered the team, I doubt anyone was confident of what they would contribute. Indeed, you actually say Omobamidele’s potential is still to be fully realised, Until we see what Barnes, Stacey and Duffy actually bring, it’s a pointless comparison.