Parma’s State of the Nation

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

7 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I guess some just don't have it in their souls Parma. I didn't  choose to become  Norwich City fan,  Norwich City choose me. I certainly wasn't  attracted by the glamour because in one of my earliest seasons we finished stone last in the old Division 3 South., had to apply for re-election and nearly went out of business. Survive that and you can survive anything.

I am reminded of friend from my youth. We both loved football and played the game together at an amateur level. For some reason he became Liverpool fan when they were in their pomp in the 1970's.

Yes, I could appreciate their quality but it used to stick in my craw when he would refer to them as "We". With both of us being Norwich born and bred it puzzled me, I couldn't  see where that conection came from.

For me it is part of my identity as a Norwich person and not something I can just discard when times are bad. There have been many moments of pride and achievement over my lifetime but the style and togertherness of the Farke years was something I had never experienced before. I am not ashamed to say that I think I will always miss it.

Growing up in rural Norfolk with no siblings or parental interest in football I fairly randomly chose Liverpool as ‘my’ team. Went away to uni and felt the pull of pride for my homeland and a realisation that I had a connection with my city in my county. Success or no success if felt like I was able to be a ‘supporter’ rather than just a ‘fan’. Those lucky to have a hereditary influence saw the light sooner than I, but I got there by 18 and decades later don’t regret the parochial pride one bit. 

OTBC TID 

Edited June 27, 2023 by SwearyCanary

[BigFish 1,988]

5 minutes ago, ricardo said:

 There have been many moments of pride and achievement over my lifetime but the style and togertherness of the Farke years was something I had never experienced before. I am not ashamed to say that I think I will always miss it.

...........the issue was that there were too many fans who didn't recognise this, and not enough who did to get through the EPL period of constant defeats.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

18 minutes ago, BigFish said:

...........the issue was that there were too many fans who didn't recognise this, and not enough who did to get through the EPL period of constant defeats.

No no no @BigFish. That is not what happened. That is not the nexus point.

I think @GMF  knows what I know and there was despair, sadness and heartbreak at the very top level of the club about the decision to sack Daniel Farke.

The shock and loss that I believe most fans felt when they heard the news after the Brentford game was very much mirrored in the boardroom.

The decision to obsessively adhere to the revised and very public mission statement of Premier League before all else was driven hard.

It was railroaded through via loud influential voice and passive ‘we let the managers manage’.

It was the toxic confluence of our nexus point finding us out at our weakest moment, with the extremes of individual determination, obsession and ambition meeting misplaced messianic believers who are loathe to take the tiller. Even when they should. 

It was flawed process. Our Achilles heel seeing history repeating. 

Though - as @ricardo says - this error, this time, this occasion, was truly historic. 

We don’t have to guess if we can read the book. 

Parma 

[Fuzzar 1,703]

So, D & M wanted Farke to stay, but feared losing Webber more. 

Now Webber's going anyway and Farke's long gone. 

Great...

[BigFish 1,988]

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

No no no @BigFish. That is not what happened. That is not the nexus point.

I think @GMF  knows what I know and there was despair, sadness and heartbreak at the very top level of the club about the decision to sack Daniel Farke.

The shock and loss that I believe most fans felt when they heard the news after the Brentford game was very much mirrored in the boardroom.

The decision to obsessively adhere to the revised and very public mission statement of Premier League before all else was driven hard.

It was railroaded through via loud influential voice and passive ‘we let the managers manage’.

It was the toxic confluence of our nexus point finding us out at our weakest moment, with the extremes of individual determination, obsession and ambition meeting misplaced messianic believers who are loathe to take the tiller. Even when they should. 

It was flawed process. Our Achilles heel seeing history repeating. 

Though - as @ricardo says - this error, this time, this occasion, was truly historic. 

We don’t have to guess if we can read the book. 

Parma 

In which case @Parma Ham's gone mouldy please excuse me but I am am struggling to understand. The question would seem to be if there was widespread despair within the club hierarchy and the fan base at the course chosen, why was it thought that Farke had to go. (Although I don't believe that at the time this was as much of a minority decision as has been implied). A different path was available. Is the answer @Fuzzar's suggestion above?

 

[canarybubbles 1,944]

40 minutes ago, BigFish said:

In which case @Parma Ham's gone mouldy please excuse me but I am am struggling to understand. The question would seem to be if there was widespread despair within the club hierarchy and the fan base at the course chosen, why was it thought that Farke had to go. (Although I don't believe that at the time this was as much of a minority decision as has been implied). A different path was available. Is the answer @Fuzzar's suggestion above?

 

If I understand Parma correctly, he is saying that a policy of 'letting the managers manage', allied to Webber's 'obsession and ambition', led to the railroading through of a terrible decision that has dragged the club down ever since (apologies if I've misunderstood, but Parma will soon correct me if I have or if my reading of the situation is too simplistic).

In many ways, D & M seem the wrong kind of bosses for someone like Webber. He needs strong bosses who can slap him down occasionally and put him in his place, not bosses who idolise him (he can manage that by himself). As a result, that threat of self-destruction that seems to lurk within Webber came to pass, and the footballing identity on the pitch which he had been a vital part of building was collateral damage.

As I've said before, he's history now. He just needs to leave asap so that we can start building again. 

[hogesar 9,745]

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

No no no @BigFish. That is not what happened. That is not the nexus point.

I think @GMF  knows what I know and there was despair, sadness and heartbreak at the very top level of the club about the decision to sack Daniel Farke.

The shock and loss that I believe most fans felt when they heard the news after the Brentford game was very much mirrored in the boardroom.

The decision to obsessively adhere to the revised and very public mission statement of Premier League before all else was driven hard.

It was railroaded through via loud influential voice and passive ‘we let the managers manage’.

It was the toxic confluence of our nexus point finding us out at our weakest moment, with the extremes of individual determination, obsession and ambition meeting misplaced messianic believers who are loathe to take the tiller. Even when they should. 

It was flawed process. Our Achilles heel seeing history repeating. 

Though - as @ricardo says - this error, this time, this occasion, was truly historic. 

We don’t have to guess if we can read the book. 

Parma 

For what it's worth, I agree. But the wider fanbase didn't at the time. Every poll online suggested fans felt we had to move on from Farke after a diabolical start to another Premier League campaign. It was spoken about in the stands after most home games.

Don't forget, those home games at the start of the season included:

3-0 Home loss to Liverpool

2-1 Home Loss to Leicester

1-0 Home Loss to Arsenal

3-1 Home Loss to Watford

0-0 Home Draw to Burnley

0-0 Home Draw to Brighton

2-1 Home Loss to Leeds

In between those were 7-0 away loss to Chelsea, 5-0 to Man City, 2-0 to Everton...

We can pretend all we like but we'd seen 3 goals at home vs 11 conceded. The end of every match in the Lower Barclay people were bemoaning the clubs lack of ambition and that's why we'd stick with Farke..

Of course, we didn't...

For what it's worth, fans not being able to enjoy the previous title win because of Covid would surely have had an impact on patience as it's not the same experience.

I'm also not 100% convinced we'd have been any better off for having kept Farke.

[king canary 7,678]

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

Though - as @ricardo says - this error, this time, this occasion, was truly historic. 

This feels..hyperbolic.

Some people seem to want to assign some great significance to a man who was responsible for two great seasons and one awful one. There is a curious amount of people who at times appear to be more Daniel Farke fans than Norwich City ones. 

[BigFish 1,988]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

For what it's worth, I agree. But the wider fanbase didn't at the time. Every poll online suggested fans felt we had to move on from Farke after a diabolical start to another Premier League campaign. It was spoken about in the stands after most home games.

Don't forget, those home games at the start of the season included:

3-0 Home loss to Liverpool

2-1 Home Loss to Leicester

1-0 Home Loss to Arsenal

3-1 Home Loss to Watford

0-0 Home Draw to Burnley

0-0 Home Draw to Brighton

2-1 Home Loss to Leeds

In between those were 7-0 away loss to Chelsea, 5-0 to Man City, 2-0 to Everton...

We can pretend all we like but we'd seen 3 goals at home vs 11 conceded. The end of every match in the Lower Barclay people were bemoaning the clubs lack of ambition and that's why we'd stick with Farke..

Of course, we didn't...

For what it's worth, fans not being able to enjoy the previous title win because of Covid would surely have had an impact on patience as it's not the same experience.

I'm also not 100% convinced we'd have been any better off for having kept Farke.

Thanks @hogesar, that is pretty much how I remember it. I didn't agree with the sacking at the time, but I could see why it happened.

[king canary 7,678]

2 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Thanks @hogesar, that is pretty much how I remember it. I didn't agree with the sacking at the time, but I could see why it happened.

The other thing I'd add is that Farke was, at that point, getting absolutely nothing out of any of the new signings.

I get they might not be world beaters but I can understand an SD looking at what was happening with the players he'd spent good money on and questioning what was going on. 

[Serinus Canaria Domestica 45]

Problem is: what we call GOOD money is absolute peanuts in EPL terms.

[Mengo 825]

1 hour ago, Serinus Canaria Domestica said:

Problem is: what we call GOOD money is absolute peanuts in EPL terms.

Our good money is in fact small dross , we need to wake up and get real . WE  WE ,WE  NORWICH  CITY F.C. are just not at the races . We are in football EPL terms utter paupers. Change is needed drastically if your ultimate aim is to survive in the EPL. No ifs , no buts.

[sgncfc 1,258]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

Thanks @hogesar, that is pretty much how I remember it. I didn't agree with the sacking at the time, but I could see why it happened.

Personally, I think we'd seen it through........almost. The Farke revolution was virtually over when the Board clearly made the decision; but then we went and won away at Brentford. It was lucky. We held on. The players at the end were euphoric - I remember Normann in particular giving it large at the end. A flexible manager/CEO/Chairman whatever you call him or her might have said "Hold it! Let's give it another week or two to see what happens". Webber didn't do that and I never understood why when, at the time, there was nothing to lose by doing that - no candidate to grab as Smith wasn't sacked until a day later.

A worst case scenario is that we'd have returned to losing games, which after a brief blip under Smith, we did anyway. It would have been good to see the Farke experiment fully blow out before admitting defeat. There's always a "what if....." in every supporters mind. Leaving that "what if" in all the circumstances is just another example of poor decision making.

[nutty nigel 7,630]

Let's be careful not to rewrite history here. There was not a single season where quite a significant number of fans didn't want rid of Daniel and 'the model'. Don't take my word for it. Put 'Farke Out' or 'the model' in the search box.

Edited June 28, 2023 by nutty nigel

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

Ouch.

Parma

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

Norfolk county motto: “Du different.”

Unnamed Norwich City director at job interview: “Do you think our fans would be happy with your brand of football?” Neil Warnock: “You mean winning football?”

Dialogue from Wesker’s Roots: “Who do you think’ll win today?” “Well Norwich won’t won’t.” “No.”

 

Re-reading this thread (and a more cent one) prompted the question – is the model dead? And not just the model but a certain Norwich City way of playing.

Certainly some posters seem to believe the events of two seasons ago – specifically the sacking of Farke and the subsequent hiring of Smith - have killed both off. That at a critical moment a terminal – and totally wrong-headed decision - was made.

Probably best summed up by these quotes from Parma:

“Football is an identity, a purpose, a style of playing, an approach to the game. Norwich is not rough-and-tumble. It is not low rent scrap for second balls. It is not even really counter-pressing and heavy metal football. It is passing angles, possession, elegance, control, through balls, number 10s, defenders comfortable on the ball, goalkeepers going short, through balls, springing offside traps, academy players being given first team chances earlier than most. Cruyffian ideals perhaps, though not - ultimately - requiring winning football. Just sometimes. ‘The right way’.“

“The shock and loss that I believe most fans felt when they heard the news after the Brentford game was very much mirrored in the boardroom. The decision to obsessively adhere to the revised and very public mission statement of Premier League before all else was driven hard. It was railroaded through via loud influential voice and passive ‘we let the managers manage’. It was the toxic confluence of our nexus point finding us out at our weakest moment, with the extremes of individual determination, obsession and ambition meeting misplaced messianic believers who are loathe to take the tiller. Even when they should. It was flawed process. Our Achilles heel seeing history repeating.“

Perhaps best to say what I think the model was. To make a virtue of our pauperism by redrawing senior roles and splitting the football side between a sporting director with a background on the playing side and a head coach. The aim being that the SD would ensure a continuity of footballing philosophy – and so a certain continuity of players/style – even though the head coaches changed.

Webber gets chosen and brings in Farke, who after a season of adjustment produces exactly the kind of football in the Championship Parma describes above. It fails in the Premier League - although to be fair there needs to be an asterisk against our low points total, since I doubt we would have lost all those quite winnable last five home games if there had been spectators.

Another imperial and imperious sashay through the Championship, followed by another season of EPL torment that looks bound to end in failure. So as Parma has it above the plug is pulled on Farke.

I assume the ambitious villain here (the Brutus figure) is Webber, but I confess I am struggling with the characterisation. Well over a decade ago I identified sentimentality as Delia’s weakness, and Parma has similarly argued that she seeks out and falls for messiah figures. Gets too attached to them and doesn’t act when she should. Yet Webber is the villain for forcing her to sack her latest messiah in an obviously failing Farke?

From the outside that looks the man with a footballing background who is chosen to make the tough footballing decisions simply making a tough footballing decision. Which was his job, even if the decision was wrong, and frankly it is very hard to make a case that it was plainly wrong. There is only so much losing that fans can take, however much they understand and even approve of the underlying philosophy. And not just the fans.

We were heading straight for relegation in a season when we didn’t have the previous excuse of lacking home support at a crucial time. That Webber may be overly ambitious and may have contributed to the problem with a flawed transfer strategy doesn’t mean Farke should have been kept on.

Of course what superficially complicates the argument is the choice of what crudely might be called the anti-Farke in Dean Smith, who can hardly be blamed for not avoiding relegation, but contributed to an underachieving season back in the Championship. But that still does not mean Farke shouldn’t have been sacked.

And it doesn’t mean the model is dead. If there is that pure Norwich City way of playing then Webber understood that with his choice of Farke. Smith was a panicky interim measure under extreme pressure and probably an aberration, since Wagner looks more like a return to if not pure utopia then utopia with a touch of pragmatism. Rather as Stringer’s Norwich City, which played the purest football I’d seen until Farke came along, had a touch of steel added by Mike Walker.

There is no sign that the management split of a sporting director and head coach is going to be dropped after Webber (who certainly seems to be doing his best for the club in this transfer window, irrespective of where he might end up later) departs. So the continuity of purpose and style should carry on. And presumably is being fostered for the future in the academy.

And even with money from Attanasio the club will in EPL terms still be paupers in that “too much and never enough” madhouse. Hence the emphasis on the academy and the infrastructure, for which the Webbers have to be given significant credit.

There is a question about what will happen if Norwich City get back to the EPL. What to do, in terms if spending and playing style and all that. The kind of schizophrenia about aims that contributed to our failings. I suspect Warnock would have a strong opinion. But no need to agonise about that dilemma just yet.

Edited July 5, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Norfolk county motto: “Du different.”

Unnamed Norwich City director at job interview: “Do you think our fans would be happy with your brand of football?” Neil Warnock: “You mean winning football?”

Dialogue from Wesker’s Roots: “Who do you think’ll win today?” “Well Norwich won’t won’t.” “No.”

 

Re-reading this thread (and a more cent one) prompted the question – is the model dead? And not just the model but a certain Norwich City way of playing.

Certainly some posters seem to believe the events of two seasons ago – specifically the sacking of Farke and the subsequent hiring of Smith - have killed both off. That at a critical moment a terminal – and totally wrong-headed decision - was made.

Probably best summed up by these quotes from Parma:

“Football is an identity, a purpose, a style of playing, an approach to the game. Norwich is not rough-and-tumble. It is not low rent scrap for second balls. It is not even really counter-pressing and heavy metal football. It is passing angles, possession, elegance, control, through balls, number 10s, defenders comfortable on the ball, goalkeepers going short, through balls, springing offside traps, academy players being given first team chances earlier than most. Cruyffian ideals perhaps, though not - ultimately - requiring winning football. Just sometimes. ‘The right way’.“

“The shock and loss that I believe most fans felt when they heard the news after the Brentford game was very much mirrored in the boardroom. The decision to obsessively adhere to the revised and very public mission statement of Premier League before all else was driven hard. It was railroaded through via loud influential voice and passive ‘we let the managers manage’. It was the toxic confluence of our nexus point finding us out at our weakest moment, with the extremes of individual determination, obsession and ambition meeting misplaced messianic believers who are loathe to take the tiller. Even when they should. It was flawed process. Our Achilles heel seeing history repeating.“

Perhaps best to say what I think the model was. To make a virtue of our pauperism by redrawing senior roles and splitting the football side between a sporting director with a background on the playing side and a head coach. The aim being that the SD would ensure a continuity of footballing philosophy – and so a certain continuity of players/style – even though the head coaches changed.

Webber gets chosen and brings in Farke, who after a season of adjustment produces exactly the kind of football in the Championship Parma describes above. It fails in the Premier League - although to be fair there needs to be an asterisk against our low points total, since I doubt we would have lost all those quite winnable last five home games if there had been spectators.

Another imperial and imperious sashay through the Championship, followed by another season of EPL torment that looks bound to end in failure. So as Parma has it above the plug is pulled on Farke.

I assume the ambitious villain here (the Brutus figure) is Webber, but I confess I am struggling with the characterisation. Well over a decade ago I identified sentimentality as Delia’s weakness, and Parma has similarly argued that she seeks out and falls for messiah figures. Gets too attached to them and doesn’t act when she should. Yet Webber is the villain for forcing her to sack her latest messiah in an obviously failing Farke?

From the outside that looks the man with a footballing background who is chosen to make the tough footballing decisions simply making a tough footballing decision. Which was his job, even if the decision was wrong, and frankly it is very hard to make a case that it was plainly wrong. There is only so much losing that fans can take, however much they understand and even approve of the underlying philosophy. And not just the fans.

We were heading straight for relegation in a season when we didn’t have the previous excuse of lacking home support at a crucial time. That Webber may be overly ambitious and may have contributed to the problem with a flawed transfer strategy doesn’t mean Farke should have been kept on.

Of course what superficially complicates the argument is the choice of what crudely might be called the anti-Farke in Dean Smith, who can hardly be blamed for not avoiding relegation, but contributed to an underachieving season back in the Championship. But that still does not mean Farke shouldn’t have been sacked.

And it doesn’t mean the model is dead. If there is that pure Norwich City way of playing then Webber understood that with his choice of Farke. Smith was a panicky interim under extreme pressure and probably an aberration, since Wagner looks more like a return to if not pure utopia then utopia with a touch of pragmatism. Rather as Stringer’s Norwich City, which played the purest football I’d seen until Farke came along, had a touch of steel added by Mike Walker.

There is no sign that the management split of a sporting director and head coach is going to be dropped after Webber (who certainly seems to be doing his best for the club in this transfer window, irrespective of where he might end up later) departs. So the continuity of purpose and style should carry on. And presumably is being fostered for the future in the academy.

And even with money from Attanasio the club will in EPL terms still be paupers in that “too much and never enough” madhouse. Hence the emphasis on the academy and the infrastructure, for which the Webbers have to be given significant credit.

There is a question about what will happen if Norwich City get back to the EPL. What do, in terms if spending and playing style and all that. The kind of schizophrenia that contributed to our failings. I suspect Warnock would have a strong opinion. But no need to agonise about that dilemma just yet.

I think the question of what will happens when we get back to the PL - is entirely theoretical at this stage. More worried about L1

[Yobocop 1,105]

4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Norfolk county motto: “Du different.”

Unnamed Norwich City director at job interview: “Do you think our fans would be happy with your brand of football?” Neil Warnock: “You mean winning football?”

Dialogue from Wesker’s Roots: “Who do you think’ll win today?” “Well Norwich won’t won’t.” “No.”

 

Re-reading this thread (and a more cent one) prompted the question – is the model dead? And not just the model but a certain Norwich City way of playing.

Certainly some posters seem to believe the events of two seasons ago – specifically the sacking of Farke and the subsequent hiring of Smith - have killed both off. That at a critical moment a terminal – and totally wrong-headed decision - was made.

Probably best summed up by these quotes from Parma:

“Football is an identity, a purpose, a style of playing, an approach to the game. Norwich is not rough-and-tumble. It is not low rent scrap for second balls. It is not even really counter-pressing and heavy metal football. It is passing angles, possession, elegance, control, through balls, number 10s, defenders comfortable on the ball, goalkeepers going short, through balls, springing offside traps, academy players being given first team chances earlier than most. Cruyffian ideals perhaps, though not - ultimately - requiring winning football. Just sometimes. ‘The right way’.“

“The shock and loss that I believe most fans felt when they heard the news after the Brentford game was very much mirrored in the boardroom. The decision to obsessively adhere to the revised and very public mission statement of Premier League before all else was driven hard. It was railroaded through via loud influential voice and passive ‘we let the managers manage’. It was the toxic confluence of our nexus point finding us out at our weakest moment, with the extremes of individual determination, obsession and ambition meeting misplaced messianic believers who are loathe to take the tiller. Even when they should. It was flawed process. Our Achilles heel seeing history repeating.“

Perhaps best to say what I think the model was. To make a virtue of our pauperism by redrawing senior roles and splitting the football side between a sporting director with a background on the playing side and a head coach. The aim being that the SD would ensure a continuity of footballing philosophy – and so a certain continuity of players/style – even though the head coaches changed.

Webber gets chosen and brings in Farke, who after a season of adjustment produces exactly the kind of football in the Championship Parma describes above. It fails in the Premier League - although to be fair there needs to be an asterisk against our low points total, since I doubt we would have lost all those quite winnable last five home games if there had been spectators.

Another imperial and imperious sashay through the Championship, followed by another season of EPL torment that looks bound to end in failure. So as Parma has it above the plug is pulled on Farke.

I assume the ambitious villain here (the Brutus figure) is Webber, but I confess I am struggling with the characterisation. Well over a decade ago I identified sentimentality as Delia’s weakness, and Parma has similarly argued that she seeks out and falls for messiah figures. Gets too attached to them and doesn’t act when she should. Yet Webber is the villain for forcing her to sack her latest messiah in an obviously failing Farke?

From the outside that looks the man with a footballing background who is chosen to make the tough footballing decisions simply making a tough footballing decision. Which was his job, even if the decision was wrong, and frankly it is very hard to make a case that it was plainly wrong. There is only so much losing that fans can take, however much they understand and even approve of the underlying philosophy. And not just the fans.

We were heading straight for relegation in a season when we didn’t have the previous excuse of lacking home support at a crucial time. That Webber may be overly ambitious and may have contributed to the problem with a flawed transfer strategy doesn’t mean Farke should have been kept on.

Of course what superficially complicates the argument is the choice of what crudely might be called the anti-Farke in Dean Smith, who can hardly be blamed for not avoiding relegation, but contributed to an underachieving season back in the Championship. But that still does not mean Farke shouldn’t have been sacked.

And it doesn’t mean the model is dead. If there is that pure Norwich City way of playing then Webber understood that with his choice of Farke. Smith was a panicky interim under extreme pressure and probably an aberration, since Wagner looks more like a return to if not pure utopia then utopia with a touch of pragmatism. Rather as Stringer’s Norwich City, which played the purest football I’d seen until Farke came along, had a touch of steel added by Mike Walker.

There is no sign that the management split of a sporting director and head coach is going to be dropped after Webber (who certainly seems to be doing his best for the club in this transfer window, irrespective of where he might end up later) departs. So the continuity of purpose and style should carry on. And presumably is being fostered for the future in the academy.

And even with money from Attanasio the club will in EPL terms still be paupers in that “too much and never enough” madhouse. Hence the emphasis on the academy and the infrastructure, for which the Webbers have to be given significant credit.

There is a question about what will happen if Norwich City get back to the EPL. What to do, in terms if spending and playing style and all that. The kind of schizophrenia about aims that contributed to our failings. I suspect Warnock would have a strong opinion. But no need to agonise about that dilemma just yet.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights on Norwich City's recent decisions and the footballing philosophy associated with the club. It's clear that you have a deep understanding and appreciation for the unique style of play Norwich City has traditionally embraced.

While there may be differing opinions on the specific decisions made, it's important to remember that football is a complex sport with many factors at play. The choice to part ways with Daniel Farke was undoubtedly a difficult one, but sometimes tough decisions are necessary for the sake of the team's progress and success.

The split management structure with a sporting director and head coach has been a notable feature of Norwich City's approach in recent years. This model aims to ensure continuity of footballing philosophy, which is commendable. The emphasis on the academy and infrastructure, as well as the club's financial constraints, demonstrate a long-term vision for sustainable growth and development.

While there may be uncertainties and dilemmas that arise, it's encouraging to see that the continuity of purpose and style is likely to be maintained even after Stuart Webber's departure. It's also worth acknowledging the credit due to the Webbers for their efforts in building the club's foundation.

As for the future, it's difficult to predict the exact path Norwich City will take if they return to the Premier League. The balance between spending, playing style, and aspirations can present challenges, but with a strong foundation and a clear footballing identity, the club can navigate these decisions effectively.

Your passion and knowledge about Norwich City are evident, and your contributions to the discussion are appreciated. Let's continue to support the club and hope for the best as we move forward. On the ball city!

[dylanisabaddog 4,987]

8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Norfolk county motto: “Du different.”

Unnamed Norwich City director at job interview: “Do you think our fans would be happy with your brand of football?” Neil Warnock: “You mean winning football?”

Dialogue from Wesker’s Roots: “Who do you think’ll win today?” “Well Norwich won’t won’t.” “No.”

 

Re-reading this thread (and a more cent one) prompted the question – is the model dead? And not just the model but a certain Norwich City way of playing.

Certainly some posters seem to believe the events of two seasons ago – specifically the sacking of Farke and the subsequent hiring of Smith - have killed both off. That at a critical moment a terminal – and totally wrong-headed decision - was made.

Probably best summed up by these quotes from Parma:

“Football is an identity, a purpose, a style of playing, an approach to the game. Norwich is not rough-and-tumble. It is not low rent scrap for second balls. It is not even really counter-pressing and heavy metal football. It is passing angles, possession, elegance, control, through balls, number 10s, defenders comfortable on the ball, goalkeepers going short, through balls, springing offside traps, academy players being given first team chances earlier than most. Cruyffian ideals perhaps, though not - ultimately - requiring winning football. Just sometimes. ‘The right way’.“

“The shock and loss that I believe most fans felt when they heard the news after the Brentford game was very much mirrored in the boardroom. The decision to obsessively adhere to the revised and very public mission statement of Premier League before all else was driven hard. It was railroaded through via loud influential voice and passive ‘we let the managers manage’. It was the toxic confluence of our nexus point finding us out at our weakest moment, with the extremes of individual determination, obsession and ambition meeting misplaced messianic believers who are loathe to take the tiller. Even when they should. It was flawed process. Our Achilles heel seeing history repeating.“

Perhaps best to say what I think the model was. To make a virtue of our pauperism by redrawing senior roles and splitting the football side between a sporting director with a background on the playing side and a head coach. The aim being that the SD would ensure a continuity of footballing philosophy – and so a certain continuity of players/style – even though the head coaches changed.

Webber gets chosen and brings in Farke, who after a season of adjustment produces exactly the kind of football in the Championship Parma describes above. It fails in the Premier League - although to be fair there needs to be an asterisk against our low points total, since I doubt we would have lost all those quite winnable last five home games if there had been spectators.

Another imperial and imperious sashay through the Championship, followed by another season of EPL torment that looks bound to end in failure. So as Parma has it above the plug is pulled on Farke.

I assume the ambitious villain here (the Brutus figure) is Webber, but I confess I am struggling with the characterisation. Well over a decade ago I identified sentimentality as Delia’s weakness, and Parma has similarly argued that she seeks out and falls for messiah figures. Gets too attached to them and doesn’t act when she should. Yet Webber is the villain for forcing her to sack her latest messiah in an obviously failing Farke?

From the outside that looks the man with a footballing background who is chosen to make the tough footballing decisions simply making a tough footballing decision. Which was his job, even if the decision was wrong, and frankly it is very hard to make a case that it was plainly wrong. There is only so much losing that fans can take, however much they understand and even approve of the underlying philosophy. And not just the fans.

We were heading straight for relegation in a season when we didn’t have the previous excuse of lacking home support at a crucial time. That Webber may be overly ambitious and may have contributed to the problem with a flawed transfer strategy doesn’t mean Farke should have been kept on.

Of course what superficially complicates the argument is the choice of what crudely might be called the anti-Farke in Dean Smith, who can hardly be blamed for not avoiding relegation, but contributed to an underachieving season back in the Championship. But that still does not mean Farke shouldn’t have been sacked.

And it doesn’t mean the model is dead. If there is that pure Norwich City way of playing then Webber understood that with his choice of Farke. Smith was a panicky interim under extreme pressure and probably an aberration, since Wagner looks more like a return to if not pure utopia then utopia with a touch of pragmatism. Rather as Stringer’s Norwich City, which played the purest football I’d seen until Farke came along, had a touch of steel added by Mike Walker.

There is no sign that the management split of a sporting director and head coach is going to be dropped after Webber (who certainly seems to be doing his best for the club in this transfer window, irrespective of where he might end up later) departs. So the continuity of purpose and style should carry on. And presumably is being fostered for the future in the academy.

And even with money from Attanasio the club will in EPL terms still be paupers in that “too much and never enough” madhouse. Hence the emphasis on the academy and the infrastructure, for which the Webbers have to be given significant credit.

There is a question about what will happen if Norwich City get back to the EPL. What to do, in terms if spending and playing style and all that. The kind of schizophrenia about aims that contributed to our failings. I suspect Warnock would have a strong opinion. But no need to agonise about that dilemma just yet.

I agree that Stringer's team played absolutely beautiful football but I don't think Walker added steel to it. Stringer's team had 3 or 4 players who, to put it politely, were hard nosed professionals. We've just brought 3 players like that to the club. Let's hope it works. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

Thanks @PurpleCanary excellent stuff.

You don’t mention money. 

And the contention that it wasn’t Farke who failed at the top level, rather that our finances were grossly insufficient regardless of model? That the club failed rather than Farke per se? 

That football has changed so dramatically, and is thus so distorted that ‘competing’ at that level with a rigid adherence to self-sufficiency simply is too great a sporting handicap?

That 2 championships in 3 years is - as Webber himself said - ‘historically successful’. That Farke paid for an ambitious personal gamble - and a desperate appointment of Smith - that only proved that what we had was the apotheosis with what we’ve got?

That selling Buendia at the point of the promotion - to get a juicy £40m sale on the CV - simply proved that the golden touch of conveyor belt replacements was a mirage? That it utterly destroyed all precious momentum and psychological high in players and staff alike? That ‘belief’ - the ultimate commodity - simply vanished overnight?

That subsequent evidence proves we have lost far more than we gained?

Parma 

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

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

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

Thanks @PurpleCanary excellent stuff.

You don’t mention money. 

And the contention that it wasn’t Farke who failed at the top level, rather that our finances were grossly insufficient regardless of model? That the club failed rather than Farke per se? 

That football has changed so dramatically, and is thus so distorted that ‘competing’ at that level with a rigid adherence to self-sufficiency simply is too great a sporting handicap?

That 2 championships in 3 years is - as Webber himself said - ‘historically successful’. That Farke paid for an ambitious personal gamble - and a desperate appointment of Smith - that only proved that what we had was the apotheosis with what we’ve got?

That selling Buendia at the point of the promotion - to get a juicy £40m sale on the CV - simply proved that the golden touch of conveyor belt replacements was a mirage? That it utterly destroyed all precious momentum and psychological high in players and staff alike? That ‘belief’ - the ultimate commodity - simply vanished overnight?

That subsequent evidence proves we have lost far more than we gained?

Parma 

Parma, I didn’t want to relitigate (as they say in US courtroom dramas) the Buendia Affair. As you know in the past I have put forward an opposing view, without I stress being convinced of its superiority.

The only underhand debating point I might make is that Brentford, used as an example (actually the only example…) of how the minimalist squad strategy could have worked for us in that season, were lucky the gambling crimes of their star striker were only discovered later on…

No-one can say what would have happened if we had kept Buendia. It might have worked. We might even have done worse. And the same uncertainty applies to whether we should have kept Farke in place.

I am happy to accept the possibility that both were horrendous mistakes. Although in the latter case the argument seemed to be getting close to giving Farke a permanent free pass.

You may be right that we have - recently - lost more than we have gained.  But what I don’t accept (and why I posted as I did) is that we have lost everything - that these supposed errors have destroyed beyond any hope of repair the club’s management/financial model or its footballing philosophy.

There was a touch too much apocalyptic catastrophism and also perhaps a touch of retrospective utopianism. And I started to feel I had stumbled across a Norfolk footballing version of Gladiator:

“Free my players. Daniel Farke is to be reinstated. There was a dream that was Norwich City. It shall be realised. These are the wishes of Delia Smith.”🤩

[Petriix 2,853]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

But what I don’t accept (and why I posted as I did) is that we have lost everything - that these supposed errors have destroyed beyond any hope of repair the club’s management/financial model or its footballing philosophy.

It obviously remains to be seen but, on recent evidence, I'd suggest that the apocalyptic fears are seeming more likely than the hope of a swift recovery. Of all the players who made the attacking side of Farkeball work, only McLean remains. In every other position we are significantly weaker and we have zero budget from which to improve.

At this point I believe that relegation is more likely than promotion, with the most likely scenario being a prolonged period of mediocrity. I hope I'm wrong. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

Daniel Farke has himself today spoken:

’“With Norwich, let’s be honest, I had one go a few years ago, with all respect I loved my players and I loved the club and Norwich will always be a big, big part of my CV and my history and we had amazing players who gave everything for the club, but if we’re really honest, it was not a Premier League side,” 

And then we sell Buendia? And buy Tzolis and Sargent and Rashica for £30m instead?

I am quite happy to accept that Webber had difficult choices to make to square the self-sufficiency circle. But it just didn’t come close to working did it?

In actual fact post Buendia-Skipp it’s all been about as poor as it could conceivably have been hasn’t it?

And now we buy in old sweats and lags to stop us sinking further. 

The worst thing about that is that it is probably right for our current circumstances.

And then Webber moves on.  And Farke goes to Leeds. 

 

Parma 

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

[Captain Holt 522]

Every time Parma posts it makes me just a little angrier with Stuart Webber.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,595]

7 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

Every time Parma posts it makes me just a little angrier with Stuart Webber.

Sounds a bit Pavlovian, that...

[Monty13 2,252]

On 04/07/2023 at 22:58, PurpleCanary said:

Norfolk county motto: “Du different.”

Unnamed Norwich City director at job interview: “Do you think our fans would be happy with your brand of football?” Neil Warnock: “You mean winning football?”

Dialogue from Wesker’s Roots: “Who do you think’ll win today?” “Well Norwich won’t won’t.” “No.”

 

Re-reading this thread (and a more cent one) prompted the question – is the model dead? And not just the model but a certain Norwich City way of playing.

Certainly some posters seem to believe the events of two seasons ago – specifically the sacking of Farke and the subsequent hiring of Smith - have killed both off. That at a critical moment a terminal – and totally wrong-headed decision - was made.

Probably best summed up by these quotes from Parma:

“Football is an identity, a purpose, a style of playing, an approach to the game. Norwich is not rough-and-tumble. It is not low rent scrap for second balls. It is not even really counter-pressing and heavy metal football. It is passing angles, possession, elegance, control, through balls, number 10s, defenders comfortable on the ball, goalkeepers going short, through balls, springing offside traps, academy players being given first team chances earlier than most. Cruyffian ideals perhaps, though not - ultimately - requiring winning football. Just sometimes. ‘The right way’.“

“The shock and loss that I believe most fans felt when they heard the news after the Brentford game was very much mirrored in the boardroom. The decision to obsessively adhere to the revised and very public mission statement of Premier League before all else was driven hard. It was railroaded through via loud influential voice and passive ‘we let the managers manage’. It was the toxic confluence of our nexus point finding us out at our weakest moment, with the extremes of individual determination, obsession and ambition meeting misplaced messianic believers who are loathe to take the tiller. Even when they should. It was flawed process. Our Achilles heel seeing history repeating.“

Perhaps best to say what I think the model was. To make a virtue of our pauperism by redrawing senior roles and splitting the football side between a sporting director with a background on the playing side and a head coach. The aim being that the SD would ensure a continuity of footballing philosophy – and so a certain continuity of players/style – even though the head coaches changed.

Webber gets chosen and brings in Farke, who after a season of adjustment produces exactly the kind of football in the Championship Parma describes above. It fails in the Premier League - although to be fair there needs to be an asterisk against our low points total, since I doubt we would have lost all those quite winnable last five home games if there had been spectators.

Another imperial and imperious sashay through the Championship, followed by another season of EPL torment that looks bound to end in failure. So as Parma has it above the plug is pulled on Farke.

I assume the ambitious villain here (the Brutus figure) is Webber, but I confess I am struggling with the characterisation. Well over a decade ago I identified sentimentality as Delia’s weakness, and Parma has similarly argued that she seeks out and falls for messiah figures. Gets too attached to them and doesn’t act when she should. Yet Webber is the villain for forcing her to sack her latest messiah in an obviously failing Farke?

From the outside that looks the man with a footballing background who is chosen to make the tough footballing decisions simply making a tough footballing decision. Which was his job, even if the decision was wrong, and frankly it is very hard to make a case that it was plainly wrong. There is only so much losing that fans can take, however much they understand and even approve of the underlying philosophy. And not just the fans.

We were heading straight for relegation in a season when we didn’t have the previous excuse of lacking home support at a crucial time. That Webber may be overly ambitious and may have contributed to the problem with a flawed transfer strategy doesn’t mean Farke should have been kept on.

Of course what superficially complicates the argument is the choice of what crudely might be called the anti-Farke in Dean Smith, who can hardly be blamed for not avoiding relegation, but contributed to an underachieving season back in the Championship. But that still does not mean Farke shouldn’t have been sacked.

And it doesn’t mean the model is dead. If there is that pure Norwich City way of playing then Webber understood that with his choice of Farke. Smith was a panicky interim measure under extreme pressure and probably an aberration, since Wagner looks more like a return to if not pure utopia then utopia with a touch of pragmatism. Rather as Stringer’s Norwich City, which played the purest football I’d seen until Farke came along, had a touch of steel added by Mike Walker.

There is no sign that the management split of a sporting director and head coach is going to be dropped after Webber (who certainly seems to be doing his best for the club in this transfer window, irrespective of where he might end up later) departs. So the continuity of purpose and style should carry on. And presumably is being fostered for the future in the academy.

And even with money from Attanasio the club will in EPL terms still be paupers in that “too much and never enough” madhouse. Hence the emphasis on the academy and the infrastructure, for which the Webbers have to be given significant credit.

There is a question about what will happen if Norwich City get back to the EPL. What to do, in terms if spending and playing style and all that. The kind of schizophrenia about aims that contributed to our failings. I suspect Warnock would have a strong opinion. But no need to agonise about that dilemma just yet.

It’s enjoyable read Purple, thanks.

My observation would be I find it interesting you mention Delia’s sentimentality and seeking out messiahs and then you attribute that to Farke.

Given the quotes from her and attributed to her over the last few years I’d have assumed Webber was the main messiah figure in that scenario.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

I still think the real issue is having owners who have clung to power far too long- mainly with good intentions and too much sentimentality - causing the club to stagnate and now decline. They belong to a different era. I still wonder if they hamper a proper takeover as they won’t relinquish control? 
 

The bottom line is lack of investment is what forced our hand so that we sold Buendia and replaced with lesser standard players instead of adding one or two more Buendia standard players on serious wages whilst keeping him too- that is what was needed to cement our place. See Brentford etc as examples of how it is done. Keep your best and add a couple. But we lacked ability to offer serious wages and went straight for bargain basement 
 

As Parma notes we really have slid since then in the most shocking way - only previous successes mask that- with almost no positives. Recruitment has been woeful and we are now having to sign journeymen with no resale value to shore up the team and avoid relegation to L1.
 

Which, btw, now seems more likely than promotion. We also have a serious gap in the main striker department and no budget to plug that gap. Barnes is not a replacement for peak Pukki. Yet when I point this out I am just attacked for being miserable- a realist more like! 

here is hoping the old battlers galvanise us and youth come good- otherwise it will be another long season. The tail end of the last one should have rung serious alarm bells for even the most clapping fan- but no-  they just make excuses about injuries etc as if they don’t happen at other clubs.

We were in relegation form for the last third of last season with a manager who looked clueless with tactics and substitutions. And we are now betting the house on ageing free signings and hoping that manager- who failed his audition and who failed at last two clubs- suddenly comes good.

people will argue we are yet to finish buying players- but only after selling our best ones. Let’s cross fingers for another miracle as happened when we signed Pukki and Emi. Because the slide needs to be halted

off field we seem in limbo. The plan has been ripped up- there doesn’t seem to be a vision to replace it and the takeover isn’t what most fans are pretending. Investment remains a problem. 

My hope is Sarge comes of age and remains injury free- a more realistic proposition than Idah ever doing so. Yet Barnes didn’t come here to warm the bench. Time will tell. It’s the hope that kills you. OTBC 

[essex canary 506]

5 hours ago, Monty13 said:

It’s enjoyable read Purple, thanks.

My observation would be I find it interesting you mention Delia’s sentimentality and seeking out messiahs and then you attribute that to Farke.

Given the quotes from her and attributed to her over the last few years I’d have assumed Webber was the main messiah figure in that scenario.

Delia wanted a messiah and dynasty from the beginning. Guy Roux of Auxerre was the example.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

On 05/07/2023 at 23:41, Captain Holt said:

Every time Parma posts it makes me just a little angrier with Stuart Webber.

Psychologists place enormous weight on motivation. Why did you make a certain decision?

This is what is key here. This is why I refer to the sale of Buendia as the nexus point. 

This is why I refer - as has been proven since - to where Webber (and he was the messianic driver here) placed importance and how he justified decisions internally. He took people with him.

Why they let him, what their tendencies and perennial weaknesses are @Don J Demorr @Dean Coneys boots are also of course relevant. 

Why we sold Buendia. What is now shown about what we knew - and how sensitive we were - to player psychology, to football’s water cooler, to Norwich’s own internal water cooler. Do not underestimate how influential some players are. Their agents on them. The powerful flow of ‘feeling’. Of ‘where we are headed’. Or ‘are we on the up?’. 

You try and turn that one round post hoc. 

Yes we were limited by funds,  but we didn’t have to sell Buendia. We didn’t have to buy expensively on Sargent and Tzolis. The money can go elsewhere. Differently. Rashica was ‘known about’ and perennially rejected. I am reasonably happy that he was just a mistake. 

The others are noisy model-proving, CV-embellishing, look-at-me scene-stealers. Is that what Norwich as a club needed?

We do not have to guess, we can read the book. 

It failed. It failed big. It failed horribly. 

Others kept their stars, spent forensically on more weapon-like choices. It worked. It continues to work. Read this thread from the start. Read the old masterclasses. This is all there before the event. 

This is not hindsightism or point-scoring. We’ve blown a historic moment. We are in for a period of retrenchment at best. That’s ok. It happens.

Though we have no money. So we need a Lambert miracle now. A Holt-Hoolahan. A Huckerby looks beyond us now. A Buendia-Pukki could do it. How often does that happen? Would most of them have happened without Murdoch’s millions? How often @ricardo?

Because make no mistake, Webber has bought - and not sold - the farm now. As Don and others say, the believers in the Messiah are also culpable. If someone argues more so, then i’d accept that argument as having merit.

Though to come full circle, why did we do it? Why did we do it like that?

That’s not an inquest. It’s not finger pointing. It’s not lashing out. It’s learning. It’s necessary. It’s how you move forward. 

Throwing a few old pre-season signing cake crumbs onto the streets is just not good enough. 

‘Move on’ the psychologists say. Indeed. And Webber moves on. And Farke goes to Leeds. 

And Gala give us slow pennies  in the pound for Rashica. And Tzolis lolls about. And Sargent clumsily does his best. And some gnarled frees pick up a last decent paycheck. 

Parma 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[canarybubbles 1,944]

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

We didn’t have to buy expensively on Sargent and Tzolis. The money can go elsewhere. Differently. Rashica was ‘known about’ and perennially rejected. I am reasonably happy that he was just a mistake. 

The others are noisy model-proving, Cv-embellishing, look-at-me scene-stealers. Is that what Norwich as a club needed?

We do not have to guess, we can read the book. 

It failed. It failed big. It failed horribly. 

Others kept their stars, spent forensically on more weapon-like choices. It worked.

 

 

Absolutely. But the club fed that hubris while the other clubs who kept their stars had checks and balances that prevented it.

And I don't see any signs that the lessons have been learned. There'll be another look-at-me cv-embellisher, highly talented but doomed to self-destruct through a mix of personal ambition, shallowness of vision, and lack of any deep guiding principle.