Parma’s State of the Nation

[aBee 151]

You may or may not find this interesting but Brentford’s accounts for last season are now out. 

The stand out number for Norwich is probably that your wage bill was £50m higher than ours. Your commercial income was £3m more but even if you took it to being the biggest outside the Big 6 by ground expansion etc as being discussed upthread and finished outside PL relegation spots to get a similar TV money income it’d not close that gap. We’ve been told it’d never be economically viable to grow the ground capacity. 
 

I suspect our wage bill will have rocketed this season but there’s £30m of last season’s profit (with minimal player sale revenue) to cushion that and probably £50m+ summer sale revenue this year. 
 

That’s where Webber’s job metrics should be pointing. 

[BigFish 1,986]

6 minutes ago, aBee said:

You may or may not find this interesting but Brentford’s accounts for last season are now out. 

The stand out number for Norwich is probably that your wage bill was £50m higher than ours. Your commercial income was £3m more but even if you took it to being the biggest outside the Big 6 by ground expansion etc as being discussed upthread and finished outside PL relegation spots to get a similar TV money income it’d not close that gap. We’ve been told it’d never be economically viable to grow the ground capacity. 
 

I suspect our wage bill will have rocketed this season but there’s £30m of last season’s profit (with minimal player sale revenue) to cushion that and probably £50m+ summer sale revenue this year. 
 

That’s where Webber’s job metrics should be pointing. 

Thanks @aBee, if anyone wanted data to illustrate the difference between the "Big Six" and the rest it comes later in the thread. Not a gap that either club could contemplate closing.

 

[essex canary 496]

11 minutes ago, aBee said:

You may or may not find this interesting but Brentford’s accounts for last season are now out. 

The stand out number for Norwich is probably that your wage bill was £50m higher than ours. Your commercial income was £3m more but even if you took it to being the biggest outside the Big 6 by ground expansion etc as being discussed upthread and finished outside PL relegation spots to get a similar TV money income it’d not close that gap. We’ve been told it’d never be economically viable to grow the ground capacity. 
 

I suspect our wage bill will have rocketed this season but there’s £30m of last season’s profit (with minimal player sale revenue) to cushion that and probably £50m+ summer sale revenue this year. 
 

That’s where Webber’s job metrics should be pointing. 

Thanks. Great stuff.

[essex canary 496]

52 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Thanks @aBee, if anyone wanted data to illustrate the difference between the "Big Six" and the rest it comes later in the thread. Not a gap that either club could contemplate closing.

 

Against Club's of our size we perform well in this context perhaps mainly down to good use of the ground eg. Delia's, Concerts etc. We should salute that providing we dont go over board with Corporate culture on match days.

Edited March 29, 2023 by essex canary

[aBee 151]

The full BFC accounts and supporters’ association messaging to support “don’t even think of trying to justify ticket price increases” is here: 

 

[KiwiScot 1,443]

Surely if this is good enough for the World Cup we can knock one up at Carrow road while we build.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

We can start to see patterns - and can start to ask questions - in the tactics and strategies employed by Wagner.

Thank you to @Jersey Canary for raising a point in his ‘3 into 1 doesn’t go’ thread. I have been thinking about this for a while - and raised an eyebrow at the perseverance with it.

As always in Italy when something ‘non Quadra’ - or doesn’t make obvious sense on the surface - we look for deeper or alternative reasons why something is consciously done. Here is the extract:

——————

Classic Italian school of thought - at a decent level - would have a 9 and a 10 (there are different kinds of each of course) and this would be quite attacking enough.

The ‘plusvalenza’ would be that anything more attacking than that structurally makes a compromise elsewhere defensively. 

I have repeatedly stated in Masterclasses over the years that there is no tactical reason why playing 3 strikers should or would be any more attacking than (say) playing none at all. 

The compromises in playing 3 strikers is very high elsewhere. Frankly given the skill sets and limitations of Sargent and Idah, I too think it is a very odd ill-balanced idea. 

In a perfect world - with him leaving - it would be ideal to simply leave Pukki out. The problem is he is our only decent level player. He looks to be protecting himself a little however. That is likely enough to lose the edge required.

Sargent has to be the future because of the money we spent on him. Idah has to be fully trialled as he cannot be potential (or potential value) forever.

If you were being a strategic analyst, you might almost think that - given the evidence in front of us - promotion is either not the absolute (or perhaps only) priority.

Not that anyone would ever say it of course. 

I think the above is what we are seeing translated onto the grass. 

Parma 

————————

I have not completely made up my mind - though when you add the fact that the midfield 3 behind the 3 striker has been Marquinhos, Sara and MacLean - it has been very hard to discern a meaningful defensive structural cohesion to that tactical and structural line up. 

Parma 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

On 18/03/2023 at 20:50, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Let’s play a game.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, that is the hope. 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Parma 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone

Some of you doubted number 7.

Here is an extract from Chris Sutton’s column today:

‘Do Norwich fans want another humiliating Premier League campaign? Would that be the best thing for this group of players? Especially when some of them have already had that experience in two seasons. The ones I speak to regularly certainly don’t.’

Parma

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

[Robert N. LiM 4,344]

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

‘Do Norwich fans want another humiliating Premier League campaign? Would that be the best thing for this group of players? Especially when some of them have already had that experience in two seasons. The ones I speak to regularly certainly don’t.’

Blimey. Subconscious is one thing. That's pretty amazing

[shefcanary 2,407]

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

Some of you doubted number 7.

Here is an extract from Chris Sutton’s column today:

‘Do Norwich fans want another humiliating Premier League campaign? Would that be the best thing for this group of players? Especially when some of them have already had that experience in two seasons. The ones I speak to regularly certainly don’t.’

Parma

That is pretty scary, and something the Board should have had strong conversations with Webber et al before the season started. Oh for proper governance rather than just letting people get on with things. 😉 

[BigFish 1,986]

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

Some of you doubted number 7.

Here is an extract from Chris Sutton’s column today:

‘Do Norwich fans want another humiliating Premier League campaign? Would that be the best thing for this group of players? Especially when some of them have already had that experience in two seasons. The ones I speak to regularly certainly don’t.’

Parma

 

2 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Blimey. Subconscious is one thing. That's pretty amazing

Sutton doesn't phrase that well. He could be referring to fans or the players?

[BigFish 1,986]

6 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

That is pretty scary, and something the Board should have had strong conversations with Webber et al before the season started. Oh for proper governance rather than just letting people get on with things. 😉 

No need.

Everyone knows where we are and how we got here. It is the inevitable emotional toll of two promotions, two relegations, selling your best weapon and Covid sucking all the money out of the lower leagues. The question is what we do about it.

[Robert N. LiM 4,344]

29 minutes ago, BigFish said:

 

Sutton doesn't phrase that well. He could be referring to fans or the players?

Fair point. For a journalist he was an excellent centre-forward 😉

[Barham Blitz 653]

On 04/04/2023 at 09:49, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

We can start to see patterns - and can start to ask questions - in the tactics and strategies employed by Wagner.

Thank you to @Jersey Canary for raising a point in his ‘3 into 1 doesn’t go’ thread. I have been thinking about this for a while - and raised an eyebrow at the perseverance with it.

As always in Italy when something ‘non Quadra’ - or doesn’t make obvious sense on the surface - we look for deeper or alternative reasons why something is consciously done. Here is the extract:

——————

 

Classic Italian school of thought - at a decent level - would have a 9 and a 10 (there are different kinds of each of course) and this would be quite attacking enough.

The ‘plusvalenza’ would be that anything more attacking than that structurally makes a compromise elsewhere defensively. 

I have repeatedly stated in Masterclasses over the years that there is no tactical reason why playing 3 strikers should or would be any more attacking than (say) playing none at all. 

The compromises in playing 3 strikers is very high elsewhere. Frankly given the skill sets and limitations of Sargent and Idah, I too think it is a very odd ill-balanced idea. 

In a perfect world - with him leaving - it would be ideal to simply leave Pukki out. The problem is he is our only decent level player. He looks to be protecting himself a little however. That is likely enough to lose the edge required.

Sargent has to be the future because of the money we spent on him. Idah has to be fully trialled as he cannot be potential (or potential value) forever.

If you were being a strategic analyst, you might almost think that - given the evidence in front of us - promotion is either not the absolute (or perhaps only) priority.

Not that anyone would ever say it of course. 

I think the above is what we are seeing translated onto the grass. 

Parma 

————————

I have not completely made up my mind - though when you add the fact that the midfield 3 behind the 3 striker has been Marquinhos, Sara and MacLean - it has been very hard to discern a meaningful defensive structural cohesion to that tactical and structural line up. 

Parma 

As always Parma, very little that i disagree with. 

Wagner has been pretty consistent with this rather gung-ho ratio of predominantly attacking players over defensive players though.

I raised an eyebrow for his first few games which had a front 5 (in whichever formation you felt they were arranged in) of Pukki, Sargent, Hernandez, Dowell and Sara, with two attacking full-backs and McLean dropping into that deep CDM / Quarterback role.  At times that resembled a 2-1-2-5 formation with predictable results in transition: Dowell and Hernandez may not be strikers in the same sense that Sargent and Idah are (or at least are supposed to be) but you probably wouldn't suggest that either would be who you'd choose to contest a 50/50 ball or be in the correct defensive position to snuff out a counterattack if your life depended on it either.

So I would amend "very hard to discern a meaningful defensive structural cohesion to that tactical and structural line up" to a frank admission that there is no defensive structural cohesion to our lineups.  Great if we score a couple early on.  Less good otherwise as it is pretty straightforward to play against, either through a high press or a rapid counter.

My question then @Parma Ham's gone mouldy would be why ?   Are we trying to put young attacking players into the shop window ?  (in which case, why play Marquinos - a loanee ?)   Are we trying to give Sargent and Idah gametime ? (in which case why is neither playing in their perceived best position and why play the patently departing Pukki there given that whilst he may be our best player the system still isn't suited to him, he isn't currently pulling up any trees anyway and he is evidently hampering the development of the two players we appear to be reliant on replacing him with ?)

If there is a pattern to be discerned, it is certainly eluding me at the moment - I can't believe that Wagner genuinely believes that this approach with our squad is going to get the best out of them but I'm genuinely unsure as to what he is trying to do. 

Unless you suggesting that the club as a whole are deliberately avoiding being promoted again ?  Whilst I might understand that there may be a quite real and justified subconscious concern amongst both the players and the fanbase about another Premiership campaign given the demonstrable weakening of the squad over the past couple of seasons I can't believe that the club as a whole wouldn't want the funding that comes with even immediate relegation given the state of the clubs finances. 

Unless you suspect that Attanasio's investment might be more geared towards an incremental rebuild than trying to fund a Premiership campaign ?

Or am i just missing something ?

[Robert N. LiM 4,344]

1 hour ago, Barham Blitz said:

If there is a pattern to be discerned, it is certainly eluding me at the moment - I can't believe that Wagner genuinely believes that this approach with our squad is going to get the best out of them but I'm genuinely unsure as to what he is trying to do. 

This has been the great frustration all season - I've really struggled to see what first Smith and now Wagner are trying to do. Personally I would have been supportive had Webber or Dean Smith come out in the summer and said that we needed to try a new approach after two PL relegations, and that we were going to try to adapt our style, even if that took a couple of seasons. Barring a dramatic turnaround, that's what's going to happen next season now anyway.

Thought your whole post was excellent, btw.

[BigFish 1,986]

2 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

As always Parma, very little that i disagree with. 

Wagner has been pretty consistent with this rather gung-ho ratio of predominantly attacking players over defensive players though.

I raised an eyebrow for his first few games which had a front 5 (in whichever formation you felt they were arranged in) of Pukki, Sargent, Hernandez, Dowell and Sara, with two attacking full-backs and McLean dropping into that deep CDM / Quarterback role.  At times that resembled a 2-1-2-5 formation with predictable results in transition: Dowell and Hernandez may not be strikers in the same sense that Sargent and Idah are (or at least are supposed to be) but you probably wouldn't suggest that either would be who you'd choose to contest a 50/50 ball or be in the correct defensive position to snuff out a counterattack if your life depended on it either.

So I would amend "very hard to discern a meaningful defensive structural cohesion to that tactical and structural line up" to a frank admission that there is no defensive structural cohesion to our lineups.  Great if we score a couple early on.  Less good otherwise as it is pretty straightforward to play against, either through a high press or a rapid counter.

My question then @Parma Ham's gone mouldy would be why ?   Are we trying to put young attacking players into the shop window ?  (in which case, why play Marquinos - a loanee ?)   Are we trying to give Sargent and Idah gametime ? (in which case why is neither playing in their perceived best position and why play the patently departing Pukki there given that whilst he may be our best player the system still isn't suited to him, he isn't currently pulling up any trees anyway and he is evidently hampering the development of the two players we appear to be reliant on replacing him with ?)

If there is a pattern to be discerned, it is certainly eluding me at the moment - I can't believe that Wagner genuinely believes that this approach with our squad is going to get the best out of them but I'm genuinely unsure as to what he is trying to do. 

Unless you suggesting that the club as a whole are deliberately avoiding being promoted again ?  Whilst I might understand that there may be a quite real and justified subconscious concern amongst both the players and the fanbase about another Premiership campaign given the demonstrable weakening of the squad over the past couple of seasons I can't believe that the club as a whole wouldn't want the funding that comes with even immediate relegation given the state of the clubs finances. 

Unless you suspect that Attanasio's investment might be more geared towards an incremental rebuild than trying to fund a Premiership campaign ?

Or am i just missing something ?

The patterns are there @Barham Blitz, just see Ben Mee's tactical analysis. Not to say there arn't improvements to be made. The issue is more that this team is running on empty, @Parma Ham's gone mouldy questioned the motivation of those who know there is no place for them if we went up, to which I would add those who will have options to leave should we stay down. Wagner is trying fit his best players into an 11 that plays the way he wants them to play. Unsurprisingly it is not a neat fit. Remember we started with the plan that Hayden would fill the CDM hole and Ramsey the 10 - both gone. Hernandez and Dowell  looked useful stop gaps and they are both out. Pukki is our best player but is protecting himself for his next deal. Looking at that it is less surprising that we are as low as 7th, rather it is surprising that we are as high. The team needs a reboot.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

6 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

As always Parma, very little that i disagree with. 

Wagner has been pretty consistent with this rather gung-ho ratio of predominantly attacking players over defensive players though.

I raised an eyebrow for his first few games which had a front 5 (in whichever formation you felt they were arranged in) of Pukki, Sargent, Hernandez, Dowell and Sara, with two attacking full-backs and McLean dropping into that deep CDM / Quarterback role.  At times that resembled a 2-1-2-5 formation with predictable results in transition: Dowell and Hernandez may not be strikers in the same sense that Sargent and Idah are (or at least are supposed to be) but you probably wouldn't suggest that either would be who you'd choose to contest a 50/50 ball or be in the correct defensive position to snuff out a counterattack if your life depended on it either.

So I would amend "very hard to discern a meaningful defensive structural cohesion to that tactical and structural line up" to a frank admission that there is no defensive structural cohesion to our lineups.  Great if we score a couple early on.  Less good otherwise as it is pretty straightforward to play against, either through a high press or a rapid counter.

My question then @Parma Ham's gone mouldy would be why ?   Are we trying to put young attacking players into the shop window ?  (in which case, why play Marquinos - a loanee ?)   Are we trying to give Sargent and Idah gametime ? (in which case why is neither playing in their perceived best position and why play the patently departing Pukki there given that whilst he may be our best player the system still isn't suited to him, he isn't currently pulling up any trees anyway and he is evidently hampering the development of the two players we appear to be reliant on replacing him with ?)

If there is a pattern to be discerned, it is certainly eluding me at the moment - I can't believe that Wagner genuinely believes that this approach with our squad is going to get the best out of them but I'm genuinely unsure as to what he is trying to do. 

Unless you suggesting that the club as a whole are deliberately avoiding being promoted again ?  Whilst I might understand that there may be a quite real and justified subconscious concern amongst both the players and the fanbase about another Premiership campaign given the demonstrable weakening of the squad over the past couple of seasons I can't believe that the club as a whole wouldn't want the funding that comes with even immediate relegation given the state of the clubs finances. 

Unless you suspect that Attanasio's investment might be more geared towards an incremental rebuild than trying to fund a Premiership campaign ?

Or am i just missing something ?

Love that @Barham Blitz

Honestly? I don’t know yet. I really think that there is a myriad of factors.

I would be lying if I said I don’t think a little bit of managing upwards is playing a role. 
 

Tzolis. Sargent bigged up. Idah repeatedly defended. Try to get value out of Dowell and Onel. Both nice sometimes,  both flawed. 
 

Wagner is very straightforward and quite black and white with the players too. They are all getting a chance. 

Tzolis MUST come good. He, Sargent and Rashica are the farm bets. The Buendia trade. The Premier surplus. Idah is primary back up, a valued asset, a great potential…or he isn’t. Somebody had to find out sometime. 

Reintegrating Gibson, making Hanley central, pushing Gunn forwards. These are decisions that have to be made because contracts can’t be cancelled, players are paid too much for any team that would want them…..others are not desirable. 

He is giving all a chance. Though it often looks a bit thrown together as you say. 

I would look to play Gibbs and Sorenson more often for structure. I would not play Onel ‘wide and open’ though he can be dangerous if you can create protection for his strategic weaknesses. 

Dowell is fine at what he does - you might argue we need him with our limited creative resources currently - though that cannot be with Pukki-Sargent-Idah (or even two of those I would argue)

Pukki has been protecting himself for months and he has been pushed to announce he is leaving now. Others have had  - and must have their chance to inherit the crown. There is little in the way of dynamic ascension to the throne. The hole he leaves is gaping. 
 

Honestly? Webber should be watching it all through his fingers. No wonder he has employed his old friends.

Switching 2021 Buendia-Skipp for this and £60m gone is very, very poor indeed. 
 

Parma 

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

[chicken 2,624]

Parma, a question if I may? One thing bouncing around in my head really, and I wondered what you thought. How much of the developments in regards to Attanasio do you think have played out on plans etc with the playing squad?

I say that as I wonder if they hoped that bringing back the players that had been out on loan - Hernandez(with his never say die disposition), Sinani, Hugill (run through walls, just not with the ball), McCallum in addition of Hayden, Ramsey, Sara and Nunez - would freshen up the team enough to revitalise them? Especially with so many others departing at the end of their loans or on loan. Perhaps with the hope that Rowe would be another to burst onto the scene?

In theory, if all things went well, the mix could be potentially good.

Could part of that approach have been the goings on in the background? Influenced by Attanasio - perhaps wanting to see how everything runs and works and wanting to have influence on any future rebuilding of the squad if he was to become majority shareholder?

The pointers for me would be holding on to Cantwell when I think it became clear that he wasn't ever going to settle again with us. Perhaps even Sinani who may have gone were it not for the departure of Rashica and the injury to Rowe.

Or just fear to take a bit gamble like Burnley, and sell assets like Cantwell, Pukki, Sinani, Aarons, Gibson, Krul etc and try to spread bet again? Accepting that this is far more difficult in a world where you are shopping in League 1, or trying to find a gem no one else has spotted in other countries top divisions or international sides high enough in international rankings.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

On 05/04/2023 at 22:44, chicken said:

Parma, a question if I may? One thing bouncing around in my head really, and I wondered what you thought. How much of the developments in regards to Attanasio do you think have played out on plans etc with the playing squad?

I say that as I wonder if they hoped that bringing back the players that had been out on loan - Hernandez(with his never say die disposition), Sinani, Hugill (run through walls, just not with the ball), McCallum in addition of Hayden, Ramsey, Sara and Nunez - would freshen up the team enough to revitalise them? Especially with so many others departing at the end of their loans or on loan. Perhaps with the hope that Rowe would be another to burst onto the scene?

In theory, if all things went well, the mix could be potentially good.

Could part of that approach have been the goings on in the background? Influenced by Attanasio - perhaps wanting to see how everything runs and works and wanting to have influence on any future rebuilding of the squad if he was to become majority shareholder?

The pointers for me would be holding on to Cantwell when I think it became clear that he wasn't ever going to settle again with us. Perhaps even Sinani who may have gone were it not for the departure of Rashica and the injury to Rowe.

Or just fear to take a bit gamble like Burnley, and sell assets like Cantwell, Pukki, Sinani, Aarons, Gibson, Krul etc and try to spread bet again? Accepting that this is far more difficult in a world where you are shopping in League 1, or trying to find a gem no one else has spotted in other countries top divisions or international sides high enough in international rankings.

Thanks for that @chicken ..interesting thoughts.

I had a bit of a stream-of-consciousness ramble upon reading the excellent @Barham Blitz ‘s thoughts…

..upon re-reading a few times I think most of it stands up and I thought particularly about the ‘managing upwards’ point in relation to your follow-on thoughts, where you somewhat introduce Attanasio into the playing sphere. 

The business is a football one after all. This is the life we have chosen. The fundamentals of football economics (not economics note), mean that the business and the grass are intrinsically linked, like it or not. 

Swiss Ramble has demonstrated multiple times with multiple clubs the horrible imbalance of broadcast revenues vs ‘commercial income’ (other stuff) and the destabilizing and fundamental impact it must inevitably have on strategic decision-making.

Strategic decision-making - be it financial forecasting, academy, capital investment, stadium expansion, branding, squad building - must be inter-connected. Like it or not. 

I think the answer to your question is therefore yes. Though it may not have been designed that way proctor hoc.

We are forced to have - and adhere strictly to - a self-sustaining financial model. Thus we have increasing legions of forecasters, simulating multiple models, outcomes and possibilities - then employ the data trying to navigate the best route through for the overall good of the club. 

We threw everything at the 2021 promotion team, by our limited financial standards. We wanted to buy Tzolis-Sargent-Rashica (and spread the squad wider), so we sold Buendia. We thought we had repeated the Maddison-Buendia idea. We hadn’t. We haven’t. 

We also prepared somewhat for relegation and an inevitable hangover by deliberately allowing a fair chunk of the senior squad to run down their contracts. They had provided value - Cantwell, Krul, Pukki - and others had filled gaps: Onel, Sinani, Dowell at al.

I think that this was a reasonably clearly calculated refresh in case of relegation. The wage bill would have to come down significantly  and these were significant earners.

That we ran a very averagely  wide squad  (as opposed to narrow  and qualitatively high) in the Premier - was a strategy I never liked and consistently advocated against (Brentford chose the strategic model I laid out years ago). Though one ‘advantage’ of this wide squad is that you can later ( upon demotion) lose quite a lot of quite ok players and not weaken the team, possibly at all. You just have less injury cover and - a positive and more feasible strategy at 2nd tier level - you can introduce Academy talent occasionally to fill the gaps. All Somewhat deliberate I would imagine.

Tutto sommato (as we say in Italy, sort of ‘all things considered and weighed up against each other) In this sense we have rather planned for the transitional year we have got. Clearly Sargent and Tzolis should be doing much better. Rashica should have - as Webber et al saw it contemporarily (‘we’ve done bloody well together him here’ was the internal vibe) - been a star at top level and got another lower Prem move for equal or more money (Internally I don’t think he was thought of as much of a gamble at all). 

Though - and this embraces your point @chicken - now that Attanasio is more firmly engaged on the scene Webber is also managing upwards.

What would you most want as a new owner? How about a nice clean slate? At a lower, competitive level? Where your money can make a real difference? A squad in need of some bums-on-seats eye-catching new signings perhaps? A nicely zero-benchmarked starting point where it is clearly your resources that have made the difference?

Too cynical again…? ..or?

Parma 

Edited April 30, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

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

 

What would you most want as a new owner? How about a nice clean slate? At a lower, competitive level? Where your money can make a real difference? A squad in need of some bums-on-seats eye-catching new signings perhaps? A nicely zero-benchmarked starting point where it is clearly your resources that have made the difference?

Too cynical again…? ..or?

Parma 

There is an old Turkmenistani saying: "To your proud father you're a cynic. To your doting mother you're a cynic. But to a cynic are you a  cynic?"🤩

[nutty nigel 7,534]

On 05/04/2023 at 11:00, shefcanary said:

That is pretty scary, and something the Board should have had strong conversations with Webber et al before the season started. Oh for proper governance rather than just letting people get on with things. 😉 

How do we know the board didn't have those conversations. That's a huge assumption to make followed by governance accusations based on that assumption. None of it holds water.

What is interesting is that Attanasio has 10m staked in the club and a place on the board. As far as we can see he's happy with those running the club. Its going to be interesting to see if the same people do this summer's business as it appears is happening. There's no governance like that of trusting folk with millions of your own money...

[shefcanary 2,407]

35 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

How do we know the board didn't have those conversations. That's a huge assumption to make followed by governance accusations based on that assumption. None of it holds water.

What is interesting is that Attanasio has 10m staked in the club and a place on the board. As far as we can see he's happy with those running the club. Its going to be interesting to see if the same people do this summer's business as it appears is happening. There's no governance like that of trusting folk with millions of your own money...

I'll take it you are unable to see the emoji on the end of my statement. My tongue was firmly in cheek Nutty, but glad it stirred your soul. 

I also like the "as far as we can see" comment - you're playing my game! Let's hope he isn't going to write off the £10m as a loss leader and will hang around to sort things out! 

😉😉😉 

[BigFish 1,986]

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

What would you most want as a new owner? How about a nice clean slate? At a lower, competitive level? Where your money can make a real difference? A squad in need of some bums-on-seats eye-catching new signings perhaps? A nicely zero-benchmarked starting point where it is clearly your resources that have made the difference?

Too cynical again…? ..or?

Parma 

That's not cynical at all @Parma Ham's gone mouldy, sounds like a glass half full of vintage champagne. If I understand you right it assumes much greater involvement (financially) from MA, planned run down of the old and a funded reboot of the team.

Are you sure you haven't spent too long in the sun? 😀

 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

I'll take it you are unable to see the emoji on the end of my statement. My tongue was firmly in cheek Nutty, but glad it stirred your soul. 

I also like the "as far as we can see" comment - you're playing my game! Let's hope he isn't going to write off the £10m as a loss leader and will hang around to sort things out! 

😉😉😉 

lol you and Jimbo are two of a kind but I love you both xx😍😍

I'm not playing your game, if I was I'd comment on "far as we can" see as fact. However it's probably as close as you can get to a fact because Attanasio's investment is fact, his seat on the board is fact and decisions are being made with Webber in situ.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

That's not cynical at all @Parma Ham's gone mouldy, sounds like a glass half full of vintage champagne. If I understand you right it assumes much greater involvement (financially) from MA, planned run down of the old and a funded reboot of the team.

Are you sure you haven't spent too long in the sun? 😀

 

Business is business @BigFish.  I am too grained and trained to favour positivity over negativity. I am an analyst.

Only fans have the luxury of choosing to be a happy-clapper or a pant-wetter. Adhering to either repeatedly is unlikely to be right all the time or we’d still have Roeder in charge and David Mooney up front. Mind you, we’d probably still have Buendia 🤗

Morally, culturally and mindfully I like, prefer and admire positivity, though commercially and strategically it is no more valuable than predicting 5 of the last 2 recessions. 

Parma 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

Wagner has been reading my mail:

“It shows it doesn’t depend how many strikers you have on the grass.….There are enough examples where teams play without a ‘number nine’, and they win 5-0’’

Little **** stole my line 😂

Parma 

 

[chicken 2,624]

On 06/04/2023 at 11:14, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Thanks for that @chicken ..interesting thoughts.

I had a bit of a stream-of-consciousness ramble upon reading the excellent @Barham Blitz ‘s thoughts…

..upon re-reading a few times I think most of it stands up and I thought particularly about the ‘managing upwards’ point in relation to your follow-on thoughts, where you somewhat introduce Attanasio into the playing sphere. 

The business is a football one after all. This is the life we have chosen. The fundamentals of football economics (not economics note), mean that the business and the grass are intrinsically linked, like it or not. 

Swiss Ramble has demonstrated multiple times with multiple clubs the horrible imbalance of broadcast revenues vs ‘commercial income’ (other stuff) and the destabilizing and fundamental impact it must inevitably have on strategic decision-making.

Strategic decision-making - be it financial forecasting, academy, capital investment, stadium expansion, branding, squad building - must be inter-connected. Like it or not. 

I think the answer to your question is therefore yes. Though it may not have been designed that way proctor hoc.

We are forced to have - and adhere strictly to - a self-sustaining financial model. Thus we have increasing legions of forecasters, simulating multiple models, outcomes and possibilities - then employ the data trying to navigate the best route through for the overall good of the club. 

We threw everything at the 2021 promotion team, by our limited financial standards. We wanted to buy Tzolis-Sargent-Rashica (and spread the squad wider), so we sold Buendia. We thought we had repeated the Maddison-Buendia idea. We hadn’t. We haven’t. 

We also prepared somewhat for relegation and an inevitable hangover by deliberately allowing a fair chunk of the senior squad to run down their contracts. They had provided value - Cantwell, Krul, Pukki - and others had filled gaps: Onel, Sinani, Dowell at al.

I think that this was a reasonably clearly calculated refresh in case of relegation. The wage bill would have to come down significantly  and these were significant earners.

That we ran a very averagely  wide squad  (as opposed to narrow  and qualitatively high) in the Premier - was a strategy I never liked and consistently advocated against (Brentford chose the strategic model I laid out years ago). Though one ‘advantage’ of this wide squad is that you can later ( upon demotion) lose quite a lot of quite ok players and not weaken the team, possibly at all. You just have less injury cover and - a positive and more feasible strategy at 2nd tier level - you can introduce Academy talent occasionally to fill the gaps. All Somewhat deliberate I would imagine.

Tutti sommato (as we say in Italy, sort of ‘all things considered and weighed up against each other) In this sense we have rather planned for the transitional year we have got. Clearly Sargent and Tzolis should be doing much better. Rashica should have - as Webber et al saw it contemporarily (‘we’ve done bloody well together him here’ was the internal vibe) - been a star at top level and got another lower Prem move for equal or more money (Internally I don’t think he was thought of as much of a gamble at all). 

Though - and this embraces your point @chicken - now that Attanasio is more firmly engaged on the scene Webber is also managing upwards.

What would you most want as a new owner? How about a nice clean slate? At a lower, competitive level? Where your money can make a real difference? A squad in need of some bums-on-seats eye-catching new signings perhaps? A nicely zero-benchmarked starting point where it is clearly your resources that have made the difference?

Too cynical again…? ..or?

Parma 

Green bits: Sort of. It's pretty clear we launched into the summer of 2021 looking to go the more qualitative route, several very protracted transfer attempts for the likes of Armstrong, Billings and Ajer for example, and attempts at a few more qualitative players on the continent too.

Had those come off I think we wouldn't have seen Tzolis or a number of the loans.

If that is taken into account, I think it's fair to say that the plan changed over that summer, which is divergent from the usual approach under Webber which had been to have targets lines up and well down the road in terms of transfer work. Usually meaning we had them signed earlier in the transfer window. The majority of the signings in '21 were signed on the back end of the summer, some within or after the Premier League had kicked off.

Either way, the most important part is that the hope was funds raised from the sale of Buendia would enable us to improve the squad. I'd argue we did improve the squad, but not to the levels needed and not enough to deliver last season.

[Taiwan Canary 144]

Delving into the micro more than the macro (albeit the two are linked) could @Parma Ham's gone mouldy enlighten me as to why Gibbs hasn't played more this season? He seems to have something about him; is there some kind of technical or tactical fault in his play that I am missing?  

Edited April 7, 2023 by Taiwan Canary

[Barham Blitz 653]

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

Wagner has been reading my mail:

“It shows it doesn’t depend how many strikers you have on the grass.….There are enough examples where teams play without a ‘number nine’, and they win 5-0’’

Little **** stole my line 😂

Parma 

 

Sorenson and Gibbs starting.  3 man central midfield. Single striker played through the middle rather than several shoehorned in out wide. Wagner has clearly turned to this thread as a whole for ideas ...

Not before time either ... 😉

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

I think interestingly the psychological malaise and lack of ‘boys brigade’ all-for-oneness - that managers always need to find a way to create and maintain and reinvigorate and protect - that has been palpably lacking, may get triggered by the backs-to-the-wall injuries to MacLean, Hanley and Gibson.

The fresh blood - with no premier scarring - the fact that both Gibbs and Sorenson are what I would term ‘structural’ players (with a clear sense of positioning, defensive-offensive balance and timing, spatial awareness, sense of responsibility and a strong element of ‘team’ to both), plus both with a justified sense of grievance that they haven’t had more minutes (I hope Sorenson isn’t too passive about this. Don’t be afraid to knock on the manager’s door), may just see a mindset seachange catalysed.

If you listen to Wagner’s post match analysis, you can almost hear him rubbing his hands and feeling-understanding this. 

A chance of a chance. That’s all you can ask. 

In my view The seachange and mentality will be exposed to stress once Norwich actually get into the play-off places. 

If we were right before about the collective endemic psychological hangover-subconscious fear, that is when it will resurface. 

Let’s hope I’m wrong. 

Parma