Parma’s State of the Nation

[Midlands Yellow 4,122]

5 hours ago, GMF said:

MA has put in over £40m in the past year. How’s that going?

Where would we be right now if he hadn’t? Webber had S&J in his pocket and fcuked up, has now filled his pockets and gone climbing. 

[essex canary 516]

3 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

All I ever expect is for the facts to base the narrative rather than a narrative based on myths. 

Can we get back to those catering facilities that 'Private Jet Pet' used to suggest the Bellamy fee was used for...

Why not focus on the latest investment they have made, the Lion and Castle? Why are new drinking opportunities needed when there are so many empty seats each match which they do nothing to resolve?

The reason they gave me for the shareholder issue was that it wouldn't be fair on other supporters. Clearly disingenuous in nature since other supporters are clearly not displaced nor own so many shares.

[nutty nigel 7,676]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Why not focus on the latest investment they have made, the Lion and Castle? Why are new drinking opportunities needed when there are so many empty seats each match which they do nothing to resolve?

The reason they gave me for the shareholder issue was that it wouldn't be fair on other supporters. Clearly disingenuous in nature since other supporters are clearly not displaced nor own so many shares.

Well mainly because we don't know what this latest investment resulted in. We do know what happened after the catering and conference facilities gift because it immediately put catering income up by 35% and that continued to provide millions in the following years. We know that because of the shiny graphs at the AGMs including those presented by Alan Bowkett. Why do you never mention the loans where interest was continually waived, the underwriting of the rights issue, the various loans converted into shares or the non-redemption of B pref shares that allowed the purchase of Dean Ashton or even the miserly 25k to buy Cedric? You never dispel myths you just help create new ones.

As for your insignificant shareholder issues, why ask me? Im just a bog-cleaning bingo caller by trade so you'd be better served by contacting the Football Ombudsman.

Oh...

Edited November 23, 2023 by nutty nigel

[PurpleCanary 5,606]

9 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Their ownership came in stages, starting with not being owners. And to an extent happened accidentally. And the football world was very different when they stepped in and stepped up. It was nowhere near as crazy as it has become. The start of the real insanity can be dated to 2003, with Abramovich buying Chelsea. But even then there was still some connection to financial sense.

There is an argument that they should perhaps have realised or accepted a few years earlier than they did that their self-sufficiency time was up. But that football finance has become as  absurd as it has done is hardly something one can blame S&J for not realising back in the mid-1990s. 

I hadn’t until now seen king canary’s post, which makes a similar point, and uses the Lambert era to illustrate that. That 2011-12 season all three promoted sides stayed up, and two comfortably, with Swansea finishing 11th, us 12th and QPR 17th.

From memory QPR went down the next season, but Swansea, who had never been in the Premier League, stayed up for some seasons, and we stayed up once more before the Hughton relegation.

Without looking it up, I doubt there have been many times more recently, in this era of crazy money, when all three have survived, and the troubles of the ‘lucky’ trio this season are par for the course.

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[ged in the onion bag 875]

24 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Without looking it up, I doubt there have been many times more recently, in this era of crazy money, when all three have survived, and the troubles of the ‘lucky’ trio this season are par for the course.

 

You mean like last season!!!!

Lambert kept us up and had us prepared properly that first season…. We had a squad that was balanced and more streetwise.     Under Hughton we stayed up the next season, but only by winning the last two games did it seem a respectable achievement…. We were awful.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by ged in the onion bag

[essex canary 516]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Well mainly because we don't know what this latest investment resulted in. We do know what happened after the catering and conference facilities gift because it immediately put catering income up by 35% and that continued to provide millions in the following years. We know that because of the shiny graphs at the AGMs including those presented by Alan Bowkett. Why do you never mention the loans where interest was continually waived, the underwriting of the rights issue, the various loans converted into shares or the non-redemption of B pref shares that allowed the purchase of Dean Ashton or even the miserly 25k to buy Cedric? You never dispel myths you just help create new ones.

As for your insignificant shareholder issues, why ask me? Im just a bog-cleaning bingo caller by trade so you'd be better served by contacting the Football Ombudsman.

Oh...

The new venture must be about more people drinking more alcohol. The question is from where when there are 3,000 empty seats in the ground each match, when those that do go may just redirect from Yellows or just drink cheaper in the Queen of Iceni?

As for the.loans where is the consistency and logic in inflicting NIL interest on yourselves and your fellow supporter shareholders then authorising a different logic for a foreign multimillionaire? (other than the much touted self-funding regime having falied because they ridiculously ceded control to the Webbers).

 

 

 

 

 

[BigFish 1,990]

21 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Indeed, so no disrespect to Delia and Michael (or Nutty & Hoggy), they have done their best but the last five years have underlined they cannot deliver the fans expectations, the EPL dealership has set out its terms and they are getting increasingly more expensive.

Smith & Jones can lower supporters expectations by dropping the Top 26 narrative (some are already arguing by getting in a "lad" like Knapper and retaining Wagner as head coach they have already), which will be acceptable to quite a large number of the older supporters who have been on the journey from Division 3 South onward, or hasten the inevitable sale to Attanasio and supporters have to accept all the risks attached to that (given the overseas ownership and corporate approach for a positive return) to appease the fans who have only ever known the Top 26 period!

Our fellow older supporters have to recognise that the latter group are growing in percentage terms. They can preach about the lessons they have learnt, but unfortunately this is a lesson those young'uns have to learn for themselves.

But what if they never have to learn it? We all, as supporters of the club, can only dream for now that could be the reality. We all want to own that Ferrari, don't we (unless of course cycling is your preferred mode of transport). 🙂 

I suspect we are not really talking about a Ferrari, unless the fans in question are truly delusional. More a case of an Audi on PCP while interest rates are low and precarious employment can be maintained. A club like Norwich can aspire to Top 26, but cannot expect it forever and constantly. That Audi gets older, interest rates rise, the PCP runs to its end, that job gets lost. Sustainability and self funding is possible, but precarious. And as for that Ferrari, it is just an impossible dream.

[essex canary 516]

12 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Well mainly because we don't know what this latest investment resulted in. We do know what happened after the catering and conference facilities gift because it immediately put catering income up by 35% and that continued to provide millions in the following years. We know that because of the shiny graphs at the AGMs including those presented by Alan Bowkett. Why do you never mention the loans where interest was continually waived, the underwriting of the rights issue, the various loans converted into shares or the non-redemption of B pref shares that allowed the purchase of Dean Ashton or even the miserly 25k to buy Cedric? You never dispel myths you just help create new ones.

As for your insignificant shareholder issues, why ask me? Im just a bog-cleaning bingo caller by trade so you'd be better served by contacting the Football Ombudsman.

Oh...

The attached is from an email I received from the Dons Trust associated with AFC Wimbledon earlier this week which is instructive in terms of the polite and inclusive way they have dealt with fan finance schemes. As further background their initial scheme invited original terms of 5,10 or 20 years as desired with return rates selected by the customer of 0,1,2,3 or 4%.

It puts us to shame by comparison.

[GMF 757]

14 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Where would we be right now if he hadn’t? Webber had S&J in his pocket and fcuked up, has now filled his pockets and gone climbing. 

As I’ve often said, D&M’s biggest “crime” is putting too much faith into the executive officers running the Club, without, in my opinion (and that of many others) adequate oversight and governance from independent non-executive directors.

We’ve been here before, but now the numbers are so big, falling back on the fans for support (public offerings, ST rebate schemes and bond issues) aren’t likely to cut it.

[GMF 757]

10 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

You mean like last season!!!!

Lambert kept us up and had us prepared properly that first season…. We had a squad that was balanced and more streetwise.     Under Hughton we stayed up the next season, but only by winning the last two games did it seem a respectable achievement…. We were awful.

 

 

This is true, although the irony is, before Everton’s points deduction, last season’s promoted teams were placed 18th to 20th in the table, whilst the three teams promoted the season before were placed 15th to 17th in the table.

[GMF 757]

28 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The attached is from an email I received from the Dons Trust associated with AFC Wimbledon earlier this week which is instructive in terms of the polite and inclusive way they have dealt with fan finance schemes. As further background their initial scheme invited original terms of 5,10 or 20 years as desired with return rates selected by the customer of 0,1,2,3 or 4%.

It puts us to shame by comparison.

So, you invested in the Dons Trust bond scheme, but not your own Club’s bond scheme? That’s quite insightful.

[king canary 7,705]

19 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Absolutely take the point, but it really does encapsulate the ridiculous upside-down world of the PL that to try to run a football club on the basis of the money you raise via football-related activities is somehow seen as naïve or unacceptable. Just crazy how the idea of billionaires or actual nation states just hosing money at football clubs has been normalised.

Yes I do agree but that is the world we live in I guess.

I think my frustration comes from the fact that Delia & Michael are uniquly well positioned to do something other than moan about football finances. Most of us complain about how money is ruining the game but we don't own a football club. I'd have more respect/sympathy if they'd actually walked the walk rather than just talk the talk. As we know we financially can't compete in the top flight then they could have come out and done a few things to benefit the fans instead- off the top of my head this could include...

• Making season tickets £50 cheaper in the top flight 
• Cap casual tickets at £30
• Try and work on recipricol agreements with other teams in the league to cap away tickets at the same point
• Refuse to get in bed with dodgy betting company sponsorships

Yes all of these would cost money (although not a huge % of revenue in a Premier League season) and I've no doubt a section of the fanbase would be annoyed that we weren't aiming to maximise revenue in order to stay up but it would at least be putting their money where their mouth is so to speak.

[king canary 7,705]

43 minutes ago, GMF said:

So, you invested in the Dons Trust bond scheme, but not your own Club’s bond scheme? That’s quite insightful.

In EC's defence, I think he's said he tried to invest but it was closed before he could.

[hogesar 9,820]

42 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes I do agree but that is the world we live in I guess.

I think my frustration comes from the fact that Delia & Michael are uniquly well positioned to do something other than moan about football finances. Most of us complain about how money is ruining the game but we don't own a football club. I'd have more respect/sympathy if they'd actually walked the walk rather than just talk the talk. As we know we financially can't compete in the top flight then they could have come out and done a few things to benefit the fans instead- off the top of my head this could include...

• Making season tickets £50 cheaper in the top flight 
• Cap casual tickets at £30
• Try and work on recipricol agreements with other teams in the league to cap away tickets at the same point
• Refuse to get in bed with dodgy betting company sponsorships

Yes all of these would cost money (although not a huge % of revenue in a Premier League season) and I've no doubt a section of the fanbase would be annoyed that we weren't aiming to maximise revenue in order to stay up but it would at least be putting their money where their mouth is so to speak.

Yep,  I think this is the biggest missed opportunity during their ownership, for me.

But I do understand why it wasn't done. Look at how much the media snarled at us for not giving it a "proper go" i.e "spending everything you have" at staying up that first season in the prem under Farke. They then doubled down on it the next time even though for us, we did spend a lot.

And the problem was, it did turn fans too.

So the question is, if we really "walked the walk" (which, for avoidance of doubt, I believe the ownership should have been brave enough to do), would the fans have walked with them? IF this forum is anything to go by then the answer is no. The "lack of ambition" and "what's the point" would have been the sticks long before it's ended up being the sticks now anyway!

[king canary 7,705]

10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Yep,  I think this is the biggest missed opportunity during their ownership, for me.

But I do understand why it wasn't done. Look at how much the media snarled at us for not giving it a "proper go" i.e "spending everything you have" at staying up that first season in the prem under Farke. They then doubled down on it the next time even though for us, we did spend a lot.

And the problem was, it did turn fans too.

So the question is, if we really "walked the walk" (which, for avoidance of doubt, I believe the ownership should have been brave enough to do), would the fans have walked with them? IF this forum is anything to go by then the answer is no. The "lack of ambition" and "what's the point" would have been the sticks long before it's ended up being the sticks now anyway!

I'm not as negative on our fanbase as you are so I disagree somewhat.

I've said before I think the fans get the worst of both worlds- the club doesn't compete financially at the top level, we get pilloried by  certain media and fans of other clubs for 'wasting a place in the league' yet we're still milked for every penny possible by the club via high ticket prices, costly membership schemes etc etc.

I think if the club just made a bold statement and said 'we're using this money to give back to the fans' then a good % of the fans would 'walk with them' so to speak. I agree some wouldn't but I don't see it being a huge number and at least it is setting down a marker about what we're doing. 

I also actually think doing something like this would have somewhat changed the media coverage of us. I'm sure the knuckle draggers at TalkSport wouldn't give a **** but a club being seen to take a stand and use the money to give back to their loyal fanbase would be something I think quite a bit of the merdia would have reacted positively to. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,274]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

The attached is from an email I received from the Dons Trust associated with AFC Wimbledon earlier this week which is instructive in terms of the polite and inclusive way they have dealt with fan finance schemes. As further background their initial scheme invited original terms of 5,10 or 20 years as desired with return rates selected by the customer of 0,1,2,3 or 4%.

It puts us to shame by comparison.

…another club to add to the bag…

[hogesar 9,820]

31 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm not as negative on our fanbase as you are so I disagree somewhat.

I've said before I think the fans get the worst of both worlds- the club doesn't compete financially at the top level, we get pilloried by  certain media and fans of other clubs for 'wasting a place in the league' yet we're still milked for every penny possible by the club via high ticket prices, costly membership schemes etc etc.

I think if the club just made a bold statement and said 'we're using this money to give back to the fans' then a good % of the fans would 'walk with them' so to speak. I agree some wouldn't but I don't see it being a huge number and at least it is setting down a marker about what we're doing. 

I also actually think doing something like this would have somewhat changed the media coverage of us. I'm sure the knuckle draggers at TalkSport wouldn't give a **** but a club being seen to take a stand and use the money to give back to their loyal fanbase would be something I think quite a bit of the merdia would have reacted positively to. 

1) Probably true, but I go to every home game and several away and hear what's said around me, it obviously influences me on that point. It's then reinforced when an admittedly small section of fans repeatedly call you profanities because you don't want to show hate on the current ownership or, more pertinent lately, Webber.

2) I'd love to agree with you on this but nothing about football journalism suggests to me any of the mainstream media would throw any more than a token gesture our way whilst we'd still have the problem of having alienated, I don't know, 25% of our fanbase who see the Prem as be-all-and-end-all?

[ged in the onion bag 875]

On 19/11/2023 at 18:57, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

It feels like time for a little predictive foresight.

What are we seeing and what does it mean for the future?

Joy upon joy we contrived a win at Cardiff and bought everybody breathing space and time to allow for an appropriate time to pass before ‘making a considered judgment’.

That Wagner is a holding pattern is a sine qua non to why Knapper was shipped in early. Contrarily Wagner temporarily doing well helps everyone clean house with propriety and allows Knapper to thumb his contacts book for candidates - and no doubt who they can bring with them.

This point is now more about players than back room staff. Smith and Shakespeare were well-connected, though just couldn’t attract enough to Norwich. The question is who realistically can? I’m afraid good players don’t need to come here. 

So Knapper’s appointment is very logical. He was loans manager at one of the best schooled clubs in the country, with access to London’s finest and a worldwide reach. He might not only bring a Mertesacker, he can certainly pad the weak squad with thrusting wannabes for whom any stage is a step forward. 

I cannot help - rather unfairly - thinking of Glenn Roeder. He actually kept us up quite well in his first season, attracting some quite reasonable loans (no need to list the grim). He too was without fixed asset budget and few permanent signings as per the club blueprint at that time. Tied hands you see. Lowering of wages. Self-sustaining.

Knapper is a deep data analyst, which will fit well with America. Attanasio has facilitated, commissioned and leant £40m odd (not all the same), which may form part of a shares-for-debt-or-further-investment type deal going forwards. I don’t suppose he’ll throw any soft money on the table until that kind of point nears (it could happen at any moment of course). The holding pattern extends to sporting and financial then.  

What is means for big picture thinkers is that ambition or true sporting success is not really on the menu. Welcome if somehow achieved, though a fair way from the realpolitik parameters of the status quo. As predicted in the summer and before. 

If player sales are required to balance - what decision would you make then Mark and Delia? How far can you let sporting levels drop? - then one only really has Sara and Rowe. A few bob for Gunn, some for Sargent, a little for Giannoulis maybe, but we’re scraping the pitch piggy bank aren’t we?

That Sara is flawed and that Rowe was a promising Academy player a few short months ago says much I’m afraid. The money we would want-need for Sara must come from the Premier and their data analysts are more than capable enough to see he won’t withstand middle-to-lower Prem defensive requirements. Is he a special teams sub? Not really…

Rowe you absolutely wouldn’t begrudge a good move. He has 18 months on his current lowball-wages deal. If you were his agent - not a Norwich fan - what would you tell him to do? If you signed a new deal you could really squeeze for big money couldn’t you? And just as everyone is reducing wages as hard as they can….why would you accept less than Ben Gibson (say)?…   Agents can be categorized as street rats, though they are paid to recognise value and strategic weak points in clubs…..

Knapper is going to have to sell jam tomorrow and a vision of Farke-esque building a positional play type integrated philosophy throughout the club. 

I have said before that robotic ultra-pressing without the ball, then Litmanen-cool penetrating passing in possession is a bit of a politician’s promise that forever gets repeated, whilst never actually materializing in the real light of day…it is football’s equivalent of ‘cutting red tape’. Everyone loves it. Everyone repeats it. Populist, though mostly rather meaningless. 

We need assists, goals and clean sheets. Not the nice bit in the middle. Both boxes. Like everyone. 

We’ll get some bright young players on loan. Some will be good and erratic, some will be erratic, others not that good. A Mertesacker will come with a vision of youth progression and tomorrow, though the gnarly old championship (and it’s better than that now), will still be dominated by teams scoring goals (not defending), who struggle upon ascension because dominating at the top level is not easy against someone better than you, with better players.

‘Mistakes’ are not really mistakes either. You just defend more. So more things go wrong. You were better at a lower level and now you’re not. This is true right across football as it improves. English football used to be ‘more exciting’ because it was more chaotic. Now it’s just better. In every way and by every parameter. The km run, the sprints, the closing of space, the speed of play, the analysis, the tactical nous, the negation of the opposition. And then it comes down to assists, goals, set pieces and the ability to shut space and repel good opposition. So not that different then. 

We are a huge distance below what we were and unfortunately a surprising distance below quite a few fairly average Championship sides. I do not see this changing for a while. Webber did brilliantly with Buendia and Pukki, though ISO:9001 gradual and incremental progression is a chimera. Your only chance is to stick with an extreme model - such as Farke or Hughton - or align yourself as a modern Crewe feeder club for Manchester City or similar. Similar like Arsenal (youth) reserves I suppose.

It’s a future. Of sorts.

Parma 

I enjoyed this read and appreciate its eloquence and insight.    @Christoph Stiepermann s reply also intrigued and all good comments, thanks, they provoke more thought on this.

Fundamentally, I want us to be competitive, ideally progressive too but always on our terms.    Sporting terms, not financial ones and yes, that puts us at a disadvantage over many clubs with financial backers.      
 

I am proud we tried to buck the trend without the finance and disappointed with the failure to learn lessons and our subsequent recruitment catastrophe but let’s remember, we weren’t far away from succeeding.     
 

Does anyone really see Attanasio’s finances making the kind of difference required to bridge the massive gap?   I’m not getting that this is the intention of their involvement.   
 

To compete on our terms it seems to me that it’s possible, but only with patience, transparency (they need the fans buy in) and quality personnel throughout the organisation.     The right professional standards and facilities seem set in place.  
 

It needs top drawer scouts, analysts and coaches and when you have them you make sure they don’t want to leave, you keep your Kieran Scott’s…..   It needs time to build (the patience), teams with sound defensive structure, athletes, pace and power in most areas….. horses for courses!     You don’t sign players that can’t run (Gibson, Duffy etc) for the Championship anymore, use players like McLean as holding midfielders and lightweight defenders like Giannoulis.   
 

We need a team that is hard to beat first and foremost!    That have a spine (usually decent CDMs for added insurance).  
 

By all means offer opportunities to these young players but there’s no need to throw in that we’ll sell them ‘if they succeed, then want to go’, that’s an unnecessary stretch too far in the deal.     Opportunity is rare, offering that alone is enough.
 

It’s all idealistic of course but we weren’t far away!    We just didn’t learn lessons, we didn’t make CDMs part of the requirements when it was always blatantly obvious they were fundamental…. We didn’t throw in at least a bit of a financial gamble when we got promoted, we let our best scouts and coaches leave without any apparent fight…. 
It’s been an absolute shambles since we last got promoted, management of the club completely lost its way having got well and truly caught up in that vicious EPL desperation.    The EPL money never really got us anywhere did it!   

So the options seem to remain as ever, try our best with the resources available but learn from the many mistakes, have a long-term strategy for team building, performance and don’t panic in future.

No point spending money on players and wages (especially old ones who’ve seen better days) or sacking managers when there’s no one in the house to source the best value.   

Even with Attanasio, there is no guarantee of improvement on the field.   

Edited November 24, 2023 by ged in the onion bag

[Robert N. LiM 4,667]

5 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

when you have them you make sure they don’t want to leave, you keep your Keith Scott’s

LOL

All the best

Big Bob Lim

[ged in the onion bag 875]

4 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

LOL

All the best

Big Bob Lim

Thanks for the proof read.   

[hogesar 9,820]

15 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

I enjoyed this read and appreciate its eloquence and insight.    @Christoph Stiepermann s reply also intrigued and all good comments, thanks, they provoke more thought on this.

Does anyone really see Attanasio’s finances making the kind of difference required to bridge the massive gap?   I’m not getting that this is the intention of their involvement.   
 

To compete on our terms it seems to me that it’s possible, but only with patience, transparency (they need the fans buy in) and quality personnel throughout the organisation.     The right professional standards and facilities seem set in place.  

It needs top drawer scouts, analysts and coaches and when you have them you make sure they don’t want to leave, you keep your Kieran Scott’s…..   It needs time to build (the patience), teams with sound defensive structure, athletes, pace and power in most areas….. horses for courses!     You don’t sign players that can’t run (Gibson, Duffy etc) for the Championship anymore, use players like McLean as holding midfielders and lightweight defenders like Giannoulis.   

By all means offer opportunities to these young players but there’s no need to throw in that we’ll sell them ‘if they succeed, then want to go’, that’s an unnecessary stretch too far in the deal.     Opportunity is rare, offering that alone is enough.
 

As usual some good points ged, but if I may:

 

1) I agree, I don't think Attanassio taking over is going to change the way the club works on a financial model. I think we'll see more off the pitch work on increasing revenues than anything else. Of course, I believe we're also going to go further down the data-based recruitment but I think that was happening anyway.

2) I agree you need fans buy in but that only works when things are going well. If not it doesn't matter how transparent you are. The club was incredibly transparent during Farke's first season but people still wanted him gone and thought all our signings were rubbish. That even continued at the start of his second season.

3) Staff are "easier" to keep than players but Kieran Scott clearly wasn't going to stay when he was offered the equivalent Sporting Director role at a similar / larger club. Throwing money wouldn't have solved the problem. The only possible option was Stuart sacking himself (or owners doing so) and then giving Kieran the position. Depending on the timeline will depend on how fans would have felt about that..

4) I agree re opportunity but we're not unique. Most clubs are offering opportunities to these young players and we're always hindered by our locality. We now have made up for that a bit with better training facilities than several Prem teams but the route to progress to bigger and better things is something most agents would look for now, when coming to a club like us if they have high potential.

[Big Vince 325]

15 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

I enjoyed this read and appreciate its eloquence and insight.    @Christoph Stiepermann s reply also intrigued and all good comments, thanks, they provoke more thought on this.

Fundamentally, I want us to be competitive, ideally progressive too but always on our terms.    Sporting terms, not financial ones and yes, that puts us at a disadvantage over many clubs with financial backers.      
 

I am proud we tried to buck the trend without the finance and disappointed with the failure to learn lessons and our subsequent recruitment catastrophe but let’s remember, we weren’t far away from succeeding.     
 

Does anyone really see Attanasio’s finances making the kind of difference required to bridge the massive gap?   I’m not getting that this is the intention of their involvement.   
 

To compete on our terms it seems to me that it’s possible, but only with patience, transparency (they need the fans buy in) and quality personnel throughout the organisation.     The right professional standards and facilities seem set in place.  
 

It needs top drawer scouts, analysts and coaches and when you have them you make sure they don’t want to leave, you keep your Keith Scott’s…..   It needs time to build (the patience), teams with sound defensive structure, athletes, pace and power in most areas….. horses for courses!     You don’t sign players that can’t run (Gibson, Duffy etc) for the Championship anymore, use players like McLean as holding midfielders and lightweight defenders like Giannoulis.   
 

We need a team that is hard to beat first and foremost!    That have a spine (usually decent CDMs for added insurance).  
 

By all means offer opportunities to these young players but there’s no need to throw in that we’ll sell them ‘if they succeed, then want to go’, that’s an unnecessary stretch too far in the deal.     Opportunity is rare, offering that alone is enough.
 

It’s all idealistic of course but we weren’t far away!    We just didn’t learn lessons, we didn’t make CDMs part of the requirements when it was always blatantly obvious they were fundamental…. We didn’t throw in at least a bit of a financial gamble when we got promoted, we let our best scouts and coaches leave without any apparent fight…. 
It’s been an absolute shambles since we last got promoted, management of the club completely lost its way having got well and truly caught up in that vicious EPL desperation.    The EPL money never really got us anywhere did it!   

So the options seem to remain as ever, try our best with the resources available but learn from the many mistakes, have a long-term strategy for team building, performance and don’t panic in future.

No point spending money on players and wages (especially old ones who’ve seen better days) or sacking managers when there’s no one in the house to source the best value.   

Even with Attanasio, there is no guarantee of improvement on the field.   

I like the hard to beat bit. Norwich City are going nowhere whilst they have this lingering soft underbelly that has been going on for years now. They need to have big, strong, athletic players who will cover every blade of grass and not leave big gaps for the opposition to exploit. The keys areas that need a complete rebuild are the two centre backs and the two players in front of them. Get those four positions sorted and you can build a team around them. It flabbergasts me that Delia and Wynnie can sit in the stand week after week and year after year and fail to spot the problems time and time again. They are the owners. It is their ultimate responsibility.

[essex canary 516]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

As I’ve often said, D&M’s biggest “crime” is putting too much faith into the executive officers running the Club, without, in my opinion (and that of many others) adequate oversight and governance from independent non-executive directors.

We’ve been here before, but now the numbers are so big, falling back on the fans for support (public offerings, ST rebate schemes and bond issues) aren’t likely to cut it.

In 1996 they could have gone down the AFC Wimbledon type road of a Club run by a Supporters Trust. Maybe then things will have evolved differently and/or utilising the AD initiative more constructively.

Edited November 24, 2023 by essex canary

[essex canary 516]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

So, you invested in the Dons Trust bond scheme, but not your own Club’s bond scheme? That’s quite insightful.

As one of the Club AD's I was one of the most prominent investors in 2002 and doubtless with a larger portion of my wealth than most. When the question was first asked not one of the AD's expressed any enthusiasm. I wonder why (perhaps not).

That said I would have got round to it if it hadn't been truncated 7 weeks earlier than the originally announced deadline.

Don't know whether  any AD'S did invest unless Stephan Phillips is included who did it the other way round and is now a net beneficiary from fan finance schemes. That says it all.

I had some discussions with Ben Kensell about the Wimbledon scheme who told me he had been consulted. My reaction was it is a pity we couldn't have done better ourselves. To be fair to Ben though he was engaging and learning which is much more than can be said for the current regime.

[essex canary 516]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Yes I do agree but that is the world we live in I guess.

I think my frustration comes from the fact that Delia & Michael are uniquly well positioned to do something other than moan about football finances. Most of us complain about how money is ruining the game but we don't own a football club. I'd have more respect/sympathy if they'd actually walked the walk rather than just talk the talk. As we know we financially can't compete in the top flight then they could have come out and done a few things to benefit the fans instead- off the top of my head this could include...

• Making season tickets £50 cheaper in the top flight 
• Cap casual tickets at £30
• Try and work on recipricol agreements with other teams in the league to cap away tickets at the same point
• Refuse to get in bed with dodgy betting company sponsorships

Yes all of these would cost money (although not a huge % of revenue in a Premier League season) and I've no doubt a section of the fanbase would be annoyed that we weren't aiming to maximise revenue in order to stay up but it would at least be putting their money where their mouth is so to speak.

A very well made point. What have they done in the last 7 years since their 'we feel sorry for the fans' comment in the Times interview.

Aside from the fan finance issues I have mentioned the 3 classics are:

1. Reneging on the 2019/20 pledge of holding home match prices at £30 in 2021/22 with Ben Kensell stating they strongly believed in the initial policy.

2. Refusing to spend £40,000 in facilitating fans going to Chelsea in 2021/22 whilst countenancing a £118 million wage bill.

3. The one on the horizon - ignoring all the Clubs membership frameworks in favour of the £250 bus to Ipswich.

 

[king canary 7,705]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

1) Probably true, but I go to every home game and several away and hear what's said around me, it obviously influences me on that point. It's then reinforced when an admittedly small section of fans repeatedly call you profanities because you don't want to show hate on the current ownership or, more pertinent lately, Webber.

2) I'd love to agree with you on this but nothing about football journalism suggests to me any of the mainstream media would throw any more than a token gesture our way whilst we'd still have the problem of having alienated, I don't know, 25% of our fanbase who see the Prem as be-all-and-end-all?

Obviously can't be proved but I think you're wrong.

Firstly the measures I mentioned above aren't actually all that costly- for instance £50 off 21,000 season tickets is about £1m, or 0.75% of our total revenue in our last Premier League season. Hardly going to be the difference between staying up and relegation. Similarly a price cap of £30 per casual ticket isn't going to be a huge financial drain- I'd guess it would be about £10/15 pounds less than our average price last Premier League season. We're not talking spending the entire transfer budget on these schemes, more the cost of a backup fullback at this point.

Secondly I don't believe you'd alienate 25% of the fan base by giving them £50 off their season tickets. People will always grumble if results aren't there but I think this sort of policy would buy a bit more goodwill from a section of the fanbase that feels taken for granted. 

Thirdly I do think you'd get some good media coverage- nothing crazy but I think the idea of a Premier League club doing something different would get some good press.

Edited November 24, 2023 by king canary

[GMF 757]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

In 1996 they could have gone down the AFC Wimbledon type road of a Club run by a Supporters Trust. Maybe then things will have evolved differently and/or utilising the AD initiative more constructively.

Of course they could have done so, but the Supporters Trust movement didn’t really get going until the early 2000’s, and I don’t recall anyone mentioning it at that time, probably because they were more focused on sorting out the legacy issues following the departure of the previous Chairman…

[GMF 757]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

As one of the Club AD's I was one of the most prominent investors in 2002 and doubtless with a larger portion of my wealth than most. When the question was first asked not one of the AD's expressed any enthusiasm. I wonder why (perhaps not).

That said I would have got round to it if it hadn't been truncated 7 weeks earlier than the originally announced deadline.

Don't know whether  any AD'S did invest unless Stephan Phillips is included who did it the other way round and is now a net beneficiary from fan finance schemes. That says it all.

I had some discussions with Ben Kensell about the Wimbledon scheme who told me he had been consulted. My reaction was it is a pity we couldn't have done better ourselves. To be fair to Ben though he was engaging and learning which is much more than can be said for the current regime.

It was truncated because it was fully subscribed, to its upper limit, by those who had expressed an interest before it was launched. The take up was sufficient to end it before it was actually scheduled to go on general sale.

[nutty nigel 7,676]

19 hours ago, essex canary said:

Why not focus on the latest investment they have made, the Lion and Castle? Why are new drinking opportunities needed when there are so many empty seats each match which they do nothing to resolve?

The reason they gave me for the shareholder issue was that it wouldn't be fair on other supporters. Clearly disingenuous in nature since other supporters are clearly not displaced nor own so many shares.

Is it fair on other shareholders that you get this season ticket for free for life? How much is a season ticket in the AD's area? Lets have some transparency on this interest you get on your shares.

 

[ged in the onion bag 875]

5 hours ago, hogesar said:

As usual some good points ged, but if I may:

 

1) I agree, I don't think Attanassio taking over is going to change the way the club works on a financial model. I think we'll see more off the pitch work on increasing revenues than anything else. Of course, I believe we're also going to go further down the data-based recruitment but I think that was happening anyway.

2) I agree you need fans buy in but that only works when things are going well. If not it doesn't matter how transparent you are. The club was incredibly transparent during Farke's first season but people still wanted him gone and thought all our signings were rubbish. That even continued at the start of his second season.

3) Staff are "easier" to keep than players but Kieran Scott clearly wasn't going to stay when he was offered the equivalent Sporting Director role at a similar / larger club. Throwing money wouldn't have solved the problem. The only possible option was Stuart sacking himself (or owners doing so) and then giving Kieran the position. Depending on the timeline will depend on how fans would have felt about that..

4) I agree re opportunity but we're not unique. Most clubs are offering opportunities to these young players and we're always hindered by our locality. We now have made up for that a bit with better training facilities than several Prem teams but the route to progress to bigger and better things is something most agents would look for now, when coming to a club like us if they have high potential.

Thanks for the justifiable response too.... 

1) speaks for itself, think you're right.

2) fans eventually bought into Farke's approach which was quite tedious and frustrating in the early stages - it became clearer that something was being set in motion.  Fact is without finance, then a plan is necessary and if communicated and clear, then its got more chance of acceptance...  I think most are proud of what Farke (and the club) tried to achieve and in that ideal world, its the best way to achieve in sport.      As long as we are looking to be as competitive as possible on a constant basis with a determination to improve the squad in a direction.... not flip flopping between youngsters are the way forward / we need a squad of journeymen (slightly exaggerated I know) but that was the panic call.   I'd buy into it as I did the last time. 

Without money, I'd rather we were patient and built something again.   Otherwise, we will exist just like everyone else more by luck than progress.

In any event, fans won't buy into the inevitable mid-table (or worse) that seems to be the reasonable expectation right now. 

3) I take you point on Kieran Scott being ambitious, and yes, we may not have been able to keep him but we have to try our utmost to do so.... isn't Neil Adams now in a more senior role that didn't exist then.   Now, I don't have any idea of the capability of the current scouts or the philosophy behind player selection but it's clearly failed time after time.... for that reason, considerable change in that department should have happened since Scott left and we need to ensure that our recruitment includes being on the look out for the best scouts / analysers and to bring in the best quality available - we have to be ruthless in that.    I don't think we have succeeded there at all.    Consequently, some of the signings are utter madness.   Without money, each signing has to be considered precious with due diligence carried out by quality people who know a player and can associate their output by eye as well as by data.  Essentially, this is a key area of the business and we need to be better at it than other clubs!    Only then, should we bother spending money on players and wages.   

The same applies throughout the club though, Buendia being an example.   We had to keep him.   He was worth £75k / 80k a week for that premier league season (and he deserved it too).... I doubt we offered it though!  Players like him make players around him better.

4) It still needs the club to allow the manager freedoms to be brave, to be able to bring through players by offering the experience at the risk / expense of results to a certain extent.   Speculate to accumulate, to have the patience of long-term thinking.   For example, had we played Gibbs instead of McLean, would he now be better at that CDM role (freeing up McLean to play further forward perhaps), had we played Omobamidele instead of Gibson more often, would he now be more effective for us.    My view is very probably yes.  Just a few examples and bear in mind, they often don't get to play because the club has been on this bizarre crusade to get back to the Premier League with this inadequate squad.     They should have recognised the team was not good enough to achieve the ambition, I did, well before we were even relegated.     

As we've seen, there has been no plan, just desperation this last two years and the squad has deteriorated as a consequence.   

I may be a little idealistic here but I still think these general principles are the only way we can progress this without money.     

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by ged in the onion bag