Parma’s State of the Nation

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

Worst job I ever had

Was pulling Lobsters......

[PurpleCanary 5,606]

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

‘Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated’ ?

Parma

As Snakepit girl Julian says: "All shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well."

[PurpleCanary 5,606]

7 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

As Snakepit girl Julian says: "All shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well."

I don’t know why this came into my head but there was a literary game one used to play, involving alternative events that killed off plays at the outset. Shakespeare was always  fertile ground:

Hamlet Act One scene one on the battlements at Elsinore. Hamlet: ‘’Sorry Horatio, I can’t see any ghost. Let’s go to the pub.’’

King Lear Act One scene one. Lear: ‘’I have decided not to split my kingdom among my three daughters. Really dumb idea.’’

But also Beckett. Waiting for Godot Act One scene one. Estragon to Vladimir:‘ Look, he’s here!’’

[PurpleCanary 5,606]

23 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don’t know why this came into my head but there was a literary game one used to play, involving alternative events that killed off plays at the outset. Shakespeare was always  fertile ground:

Hamlet Act One scene one on the battlements at Elsinore. Hamlet: ‘’Sorry Horatio, I can’t see any ghost. Let’s go to the pub.’’

King Lear Act One scene one. Lear: ‘’I have decided not to split my kingdom among my three daughters. Really dumb idea.’’

But also Beckett. Waiting for Godot Act One scene one. Estragon to Vladimir:‘ Look, he’s here!’’

Pride and Prejudice page one. Local doctor: "Congratulations Mrs Bennet - it's a fifth boy."

Oedipus Rex Act One scene one. Doctor to Laius, King of Thebes: "Congratulations, sire. it's a girl."

Or alternatively - Sphinx: "What animal walks on four legs in the morning, on two in the middle of the the day, and three in the evening?" Oedipus "Sorry, mate, no idea. I'm hopeless at riddles."

 

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

29 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Pride and Prejudice page one. Local doctor: "Congratulations Mrs Bennet - it's a fifth boy."

Oedipus Rex Act One scene one. Doctor to Laius, King of Thebes: "Congratulations, sire. it's a girl."

Or alternatively - Sphinx: "What animal walks on four legs in the morning, on two in the middle of the the day, and three in the evening?" Oedipus "Sorry, mate, no idea. I'm hopeless at riddles."

 

That’s fair comment that most will understand and appreciate on here. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,252]

I read Ben Lee’s piece assessing the rationale of transitioning through coaches from Farke  to Smith to Wagner.

I thought it generous and uncritical. 

It focused on an idea that positional play needing better technical players, that Smith was brought in as a stop-gap to make us more defensive and try to survive attritionally in the Premier League, then Wagner to implement a intensive, counter-pressing (gegenpress) methodology. 

The last paragraph intrigued me. That attritional promoted teams had survived. 

He said it would be interesting to see how Burnley would do this year. 

Though the paradox he rather missed out.

Burnley - having been the ultimate attritional survivors -  have now transitioned to positional play. 

Leeds - with money, backing and ambition - have gone for Farke, a strong, committed proponent of positional play.

And of course - by Norwich standards and finances - Farke was historically successful here. 

And Smith failed miserably. Both in results and aesthetics and identity. 

And Wagner - though I like him - has shown almost nothing of the traits ascribed to him this far.

What a very warm slant to put on things. I wonder why?

Parma

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,252]

Posted from elsewhere. Very good:

Petriix     2,202

 

Posted 6 hours ago

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

I thought it generous and uncritical.

I thought the same. I tire of reading the increasingly ridiculous assertion that a fundamental change in philosophy was required. While it's possible to imagine a different group of players and a different manager achieving Premier League survival using a more physical, less technical system, to attempt the paradigm shift with that group and those signings was never going to work. 

I can almost understand the theory. But to continue to defend it in light of the decline that followed is stretching credibility and, while it's wonderful to hear that there's actually some kind of plan behind the current setup, there remains some doubt as to the ability of both players and manager to realise these ideas on the pitch.

I remain open minded about the future, but I'm not going to allow the mistakes of the recent past to be so easily ignored. 

——————

canarybubbles     1,384

 

Posted 54 minutes ago

It was a desperate throw of the dice that didn't work. OK, it can be argued that hindsight is a wonderful thing. But after all the talk of smooth transitions, having a global list of potential head coaches in the event of a change, the footballing philosophy and strategy that might be tweaked but never abandoned, etc etc, it was an Emperor's New Clothes moment for Webber. Eleven games in, we were all beginning to doubt the summer recruitment, and the knee-jerk, panicked hiring of Smith showed us that Webber had feet of clay. It's all been downhill since and who knows if we've hit rock bottom yet.

———————

Excellent stuff @Petriix @canarybubbles

Parma

[lake district canary 4,562]

I just look on that second PL season and think what a farce.

A record breaking season, losing two of your two best players, no replacements for them, two supposedly key players in Kabak and Normann, brought in after the season started with no preparation for them to settle in, Cantwell being Cantwell, Gilmour being Gilmour, a couple of gambles on players with no PL experience with Lees-Melou and Placheta - and two clearly raw and not ready players in Sargent and Tzolis. It goes on - Covid upheaval, ridiculous starting fixture list, injuries to key players.............

Is it any wonder then that we struggled with all that, coming up against hardened PL teams with loads of resources?  And the person that has done the most to progress us on the field over four years is sacked, just as we are starting to get to grips with it all and starting to pick up points.....and sacked with no clear plan as to who was going to replace him, ending up with a dour ineffective manager who was clearly not going to be a good fit - a man who jumped into the job on the rebound from being sacked at Villa when he should have taken a break from things for a while.

It's all history now and it's very easy to blame Webber - and I do - but really some of those circumstances I mention above were unavoidable - but there is one main problem we have as a club and that is lack of resources for big transfers/wages and the ability to attract players who would rather go to a more fashionable club or prefer big city or London clubs. 

Webber handled it badly - his good work of the championship ruined by his attempts at recruiting the right kind of players for the PL - twice. The first PL season was ruined from the start with horrendous injuries and little back up and it was TOTALLY clear to anyone that for the second PL season our team was lacking in height and physicality.....yet we got Gilmour. It was TOTALLY clear we needed experience - yet we got Sargent, Tzolis, Lees-Melou, Placheta. Players who might be good given time, but thrust into the PL deep end and expected to fly.

No, Farke was given little or no chance to succeed in the second PL season - yet people still said "he gas to go". And for what? Nothing. A big fat nothing. 11 games in to a season ruined by all the above reasons, still able to get the players playing for him, as he proved at Brentford.

What did people expect??  All the circumstances  mentioned above were clear at the time, yet oh, no, it has to be because Farke is useless, so sack him. I still think that was the most ludicrous thing that has happened in my years of supporting Norwich going back to the late 60's. To sack a record breaking manager because everything was against him succeeding, in the forlorn hope that there was someone who could perform a miracle....when the person most likely to perform a miracle was already there...was just...just...I can't really find the words to express it......

Ok I can....it was naive, ludicrous, pathetic, annoying, short-sighted, feeble, lacking in common sense, nonsensical, premature, dis-loyal, weak, unbelievable, shocking, giving in to pressure, sad and just wrong. 

"Ooh, but he lost 197 games in a row" was the cry, well b*ll*cks to that, that season was always going to be a battle and what followed his sacking was predictable, obvious and inevitable and we're the worse for it. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by lake district canary

[shefcanary 2,503]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

but there is one main problem we have as a club and that is lack of resources for big transfers/wages and the ability to attract players who would rather go to a more fashionable club or prefer big city or London clubs.

On the first point above we spent nearly double what Brentford did on staff costs in that season. Brentford also did not spend more on transfers. There was a more fundamental issue than problems of resources! I assert once again a lack of corporate governance on the part of the Board was more important. The resource was there, they just allowed it to be "pissed up the wall"! 

As for the little old Norwich tag, most of the squad currently spend their downtime in London anyway, it's no longer that big an issue. A disconnected existing supporter base which is not the focus of the marketing team's efforts is more of a problem in my view.

[Don J Demorr 162]

Shef is absolutely right. Making staff changes (including players) is fiddling around at the margin. The existing corporate governance structure has failure baked in. It must be changed.

[Mengo 826]

42 minutes ago, Don J Demorr said:

Shef is absolutely right. Making staff changes (including players) is fiddling around at the margin. The existing corporate governance structure has failure baked in. It must be changed.

Responsibility

The board is responsible for the oversight of corporate matters and management activities. It must be aware of and support the successful, ongoing performance of the company. Part of its responsibility is to recruit and hire a CEO. It must act in the best interests of a company and its investors.

 

Accountability

The board must explain the purpose of a company's activities and the results of its conduct. It and company leadership are accountable for the assessment of a company's capacity, potential, and performance. It must communicate issues of importance to shareholders.

Caught in the 🕸 🕷. 

[Nuff Said 5,250]

1 hour ago, Don J Demorr said:

Shef is absolutely right. Making staff changes (including players) is fiddling around at the margin. The existing corporate governance structure has failure baked in. It must be changed.

Win a few matches and 99.9% of the club’s supporters wouldn’t give a stuff about corporate governance.

 

One season of mid-table mediocrity and it’s suddenly the cause of all our woes.

[nutty nigel 7,669]

7 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Win a few matches and 99.9% of the club’s supporters wouldn’t give a stuff about corporate governance.

 

One season of mid-table mediocrity and it’s suddenly the cause of all our woes.

Nailed it Nuff!

You can't compare other business to football business. It doesn't work. It can't work. Because a football club isn't measured by those parameters. It's measured by how often they win a game of football. Even if the business model is deeply flawed winning games will mean the flaws are acceptable.

The greatest example of this is Bob Chases ten years. If anyone thinks corporate governance now is poor just remember how it was back then. Nobody complained when we were at top of the PL or in Europe. But when we were relegated corporate governance became a thing. And after our club nearly went to the wall the BOD admitted it.

 

[aBee 152]

On play styles and Farke you might find this podcast by Leeds fanzine The Square Ball interesting. https://open.spotify.com/episode/1cKmv0LIWzzkI7LhQKZoTm?si=Dhi7GLs7Tz2fWFY_qhXMig
 

They discuss rewatching your 2-0 victory over them in Farke’s first promotion season (and Bielsa’s first season with them). The teams lining up don’t sound very different to the ones you both had in your first recent PL seasons. Yet somehow yours ended 20th and theirs 9th. 

[shefcanary 2,503]

6 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Nailed it Nuff!

You can't compare other business to football business. It doesn't work. It can't work. Because a football club isn't measured by those parameters. It's measured by how often they win a game of football. Even if the business model is deeply flawed winning games will mean the flaws are acceptable.

The greatest example of this is Bob Chases ten years. If anyone thinks corporate governance now is poor just remember how it was back then. Nobody complained when we were at top of the PL or in Europe. But when we were relegated corporate governance became a thing. And after our club nearly went to the wall the BOD admitted it.

 

Back when it was Chase, and probably when it is Attanasio (or at least his son Mike) charge, I had / have no reason to complain about corporate governance (that will be down to the Attanasio's if they blow all their cash), but as a shareholder of a Plc (and more as a Fan) I have a right to expect better things of this board. If I was just saying these things as a result of last season then fair enough to have a pop at me Nutty, but I've been saying these things since before Mrs Webber was made (more like asked for) the role of Executive Director.

The Board has looked rudderless since Balls departure, the Executive have pulled off quite a few good moves despite this I'll also accept, but all that has done has weakened the Board's hold on matters further (witness the behaviour of Webber, his description of the meeting he told the Board of his future "plans", their reaction recently over the announcement of his departure, etc, etc,).

Once Attanasio is in control, as I've said from the beginning of his interest, I'll have no reason to mention CG on here any more. But as eggs are eggs, you can be sure he will strengthen the Board to ensure there is better control of the executive than there has been over the past 5 or so years, to the club's benefit or not. 

I don't mind you pulling me apart over Kenny or Hanley, but hey, as I often say here I am no expert on playing in and managing football teams. I find your facile response to my well founded concerns based on nearly 40 years of professional experience a little difficult to take.

I remain a fan, and am looking forward to the next season with excitement as always.

OTBC

[nutty nigel 7,669]

6 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Back when it was Chase, and probably when it is Attanasio (or at least his son Mike) charge, I had / have no reason to complain about corporate governance (that will be down to the Attanasio's if they blow all their cash), but as a shareholder of a Plc (and more as a Fan) I have a right to expect better things of this board. If I was just saying these things as a result of last season then fair enough to have a pop at me Nutty, but I've been saying these things since before Mrs Webber was made (more like asked for) the role of Executive Director.

The Board has looked rudderless since Balls departure, the Executive have pulled off quite a few good moves despite this I'll also accept, but all that has done has weakened the Board's hold on matters further (witness the behaviour of Webber, his description of the meeting he told the Board of his future "plans", their reaction recently over the announcement of his departure, etc, etc,).

Once Attanasio is in control, as I've said from the beginning of his interest, I'll have no reason to mention CG on here any more. But as eggs are eggs, you can be sure he will strengthen the Board to ensure there is better control of the executive than there has been over the past 5 or so years, to the club's benefit or not. 

I don't mind you pulling me apart over Kenny or Hanley, but hey, as I often say here I am no expert on playing in and managing football teams. I find your facile response to my well founded concerns based on nearly 40 years of professional experience a little difficult to take.

I remain a fan, and am looking forward to the next season with excitement as always.

OTBC

You're welcome to your point of view but it doesn't trump mine or anyone else's. In fact I try to back what I post with examples and did that on my previous post.

I remember you questioned our club's corporate governance when Bowkett was chairman. I doubt any football club will ever come up to your standards. That's because they aren't measured by how well the business is run. In fact the opposite is true in football. A successful football club is more likely breaking all kinds of 'business ethics' let alone the rules of the competition they are playing in.

 

[shefcanary 2,503]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

You're welcome to your point of view but it doesn't trump mine or anyone else's. In fact I try to back what I post with examples and did that on my previous post.

I remember you questioned our club's corporate governance when Bowkett was chairman. I doubt any football club will ever come up to your standards. That's because they aren't measured by how well the business is run. In fact the opposite is true in football. A successful football club is more likely breaking all kinds of 'business ethics' let alone the rules of the competition they are playing in.

 

I'm not expecting to trump anyone, just express my reasoned point of view. I respect your views, I think you will find I never "mock" yours even if I don't agree with them. I reacted this time namely because there was no basis of fact in your rejecting my view, merely a snidey dig. 

I agree that football is a different beast, this brings out the weakness of Norwich's current plc model which has led to a loss of control at board level over a number of areas. I have repeatedly pointed out those shortcomings and expressed a view that it is straightforward to remedy them.

Do you hold the view that there's nothing worth changing at Board level until Attanasio takes control, if so we can agree to disagree again and leave others to debate?

[nutty nigel 7,669]

17 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I'm not expecting to trump anyone, just express my reasoned point of view. I respect your views, I think you will find I never "mock" yours even if I don't agree with them. I reacted this time namely because there was no basis of fact in your rejecting my view, merely a snidey dig. 

I agree that football is a different beast, this brings out the weakness of Norwich's current plc model which has led to a loss of control at board level over a number of areas. I have repeatedly pointed out those shortcomings and expressed a view that it is straightforward to remedy them.

Do you hold the view that there's nothing worth changing at Board level until Attanasio takes control, if so we can agree to disagree again and leave others to debate?

I respect everyone's point of view. I certainly don't have a problem with yours.

The post you didn't like was in reply to Nuff Said and didn't mention you.

 

[Don J Demorr 162]

5 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Win a few matches and 99.9% of the club’s supporters wouldn’t give a stuff about corporate governance.

Maybe they wouldn't but the immediate problem facing you all is whether that desired outcome is more likely with the present governance system or with a better one. I have no way of knowing and neither has anybody else. There are too many unknown confounding variables.

But I do know which way to bet.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Don J Demorr

[nutty nigel 7,669]

3 hours ago, Don J Demorr said:

Maybe they wouldn't but the immediate problem facing you all is whether that desired outcome is more likely with the present governance system or with a better one. I have no way of knowing and neither has anybody else. There are too many unknown confounding variables.

But I do know which way to bet.

There once was a poster called Mike who thought he knew which way to bet in 2018. He disappeared halfway through that season was never seen again. Thankfully others made good his bet debt.

I'm not suggesting you would do a similar thing Don. But I am suggesting that to predict the direction of travel of our club is a devilishly difficult thing to do. Many of our good seasons have come totally unannounced. Just as many of our poor seasons have come when much better was expected.

So which way to bet is a bit of a lottery. However as we finished last season on 62 points I'm willing to pledge to Rays Funds for the CSF a friendly £1 for every point we get less than 62 if you're willing to pledge the same for every point we get more than 62.

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,274]

You’ll be quids in, Don. Take the bet. The only way this lot will regularly get three points is if the coach driver has a heavy right foot. 

[Barham Blitz 666]

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

Posted from elsewhere. Very good:

Petriix     2,202

 

Posted 6 hours ago

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

I thought it generous and uncritical.

I thought the same. I tire of reading the increasingly ridiculous assertion that a fundamental change in philosophy was required. While it's possible to imagine a different group of players and a different manager achieving Premier League survival using a more physical, less technical system, to attempt the paradigm shift with that group and those signings was never going to work. 

I can almost understand the theory. But to continue to defend it in light of the decline that followed is stretching credibility and, while it's wonderful to hear that there's actually some kind of plan behind the current setup, there remains some doubt as to the ability of both players and manager to realise these ideas on the pitch.

I remain open minded about the future, but I'm not going to allow the mistakes of the recent past to be so easily ignored. 

——————

canarybubbles     1,384

 

Posted 54 minutes ago

It was a desperate throw of the dice that didn't work. OK, it can be argued that hindsight is a wonderful thing. But after all the talk of smooth transitions, having a global list of potential head coaches in the event of a change, the footballing philosophy and strategy that might be tweaked but never abandoned, etc etc, it was an Emperor's New Clothes moment for Webber. Eleven games in, we were all beginning to doubt the summer recruitment, and the knee-jerk, panicked hiring of Smith showed us that Webber had feet of clay. It's all been downhill since and who knows if we've hit rock bottom yet.

———————

Excellent stuff @Petriix @canarybubbles

Parma

Ok, playing devil's advocate here - and as I'm sure you have gleaned by now I am firmly in your camp regarding my preference for Farkeball over whatever that shambles was that followed - the more attritional style of play referred to here doesn't necessarily mean Dycheball.  It could be argued that had we not persisted with Pukki - and again in the right set up he was absolutely a weapon for us even in the premiership - then it may have stood a better chance of working.

A more physical presence up front is indeed a characteristic of most promoted teams staying up.  I'm thinking of the Ivan Toneys, Rickie Lamberts and indeed our very own Grant Holt.  All of whom could play in one sense or another - it doesn't have to be hoof ball - and could provide a focal point to hold on to the ball a bit longer to bring others into the game or draw a foul.  But if you are going to play the way in which we attempted to (for all my well documented opinions on its fundamental flaws) - with a low block and a bit more direct in transition - then Pukki for all his virtues isn't going to be the best option to lead the line.   Of course if your midfield and wide attacking signings are as inept as ours turned out to be and your physical striking option couldn't trap a bag of cement it really doesn't matter what you do tactically. 

I remain very much in the camp of possession football, but the term attritional football here has been possibly bandied about a bit loosely in that it can cover a fair spectrum of approaches.  I don't think you could term Toney's Burnley or Rickie Lambert's Southampton or indeed Holt / Lambert's Norwich team as purely grim / attritional long ball.  Or indeed (whisper it quietly) for all their sh*thousery the Blades under Wilder, at least in that first season. You can be more physical, more defensively minded in midfield and more concerned with the unglamorous side of football without fielding a team of Carlton Palmers and Ian Dowies.

As always recruitment is key and ours was shambolic.  Have we lost more in terms of the hard won identity, the project and all the rest of the intangibles that made that era so great as well as severely limiting our chances of coming back up last season ?  I absolutely believe so.   Would I have persisted with it a bit longer even if it resulted in relegation ?  Yes I would.  Would I have gone with Farke's few quality additions over a hatful of maybes and never were loanees ?  Absolutely and without the benefit of hindsight (considerable though that is !)  But if you are going to make that change, do it properly.  Persisting with Pukki in that approach - for all he was probably our only Premiership class player that season - was doomed to failure even if the rest had been right, although it would have been a brave manager who made that change.

 

 

[essex canary 516]

10 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

You’ll be quids in, Don. Take the bet. The only way this lot will regularly get three points is if the coach driver has a heavy right foot. 

...and they are taking the plane.

[BigFish 1,990]

14 hours ago, Don J Demorr said:

Maybe they wouldn't but the immediate problem facing you all is whether that desired outcome is more likely with the present governance system or with a better one. I have no way of knowing and neither has anybody else. There are too many unknown confounding variables.

But I do know which way to bet.

It is near impossible to point to any objective evidence that flaws in the club's governance in any way led to sporting under-performance last season. Lot's of subjective opinion yes and we will debate on here forever but nothing concrete. Equally improving governance wouldn't necessarily improve performance. Man City are not a beacon of good governance. The easiest picture of success to imagine is for MA to takeover the club, scrap all governance, take the club private and underwrite the sporting side's financial wishes. The harder route is to develop the academy, sporting facilities, scouting etc to organically develop new talent (pretty much the current model) while managing the finances to put out a competitive team. The club as a financial entity, and the club as a sporting entity are two very different things.

[Mella Yella 41]

23 hours ago, lake district canary said:

I just look on that second PL season and think what a farce.

A record breaking season, losing two of your two best players, no replacements for them, two supposedly key players in Kabak and Normann, brought in after the season started with no preparation for them to settle in, Cantwell being Cantwell, Gilmour being Gilmour, a couple of gambles on players with no PL experience with Lees-Melou and Placheta - and two clearly raw and not ready players in Sargent and Tzolis. It goes on - Covid upheaval, ridiculous starting fixture list, injuries to key players.............

Is it any wonder then that we struggled with all that, coming up against hardened PL teams with loads of resources?  And the person that has done the most to progress us on the field over four years is sacked, just as we are starting to get to grips with it all and starting to pick up points.....and sacked with no clear plan as to who was going to replace him, ending up with a dour ineffective manager who was clearly not going to be a good fit - a man who jumped into the job on the rebound from being sacked at Villa when he should have taken a break from things for a while.

It's all history now and it's very easy to blame Webber - and I do - but really some of those circumstances I mention above were unavoidable - but there is one main problem we have as a club and that is lack of resources for big transfers/wages and the ability to attract players who would rather go to a more fashionable club or prefer big city or London clubs. 

Webber handled it badly - his good work of the championship ruined by his attempts at recruiting the right kind of players for the PL - twice. The first PL season was ruined from the start with horrendous injuries and little back up and it was TOTALLY clear to anyone that for the second PL season our team was lacking in height and physicality.....yet we got Gilmour. It was TOTALLY clear we needed experience - yet we got Sargent, Tzolis, Lees-Melou, Placheta. Players who might be good given time, but thrust into the PL deep end and expected to fly.

No, Farke was given little or no chance to succeed in the second PL season - yet people still said "he gas to go". And for what? Nothing. A big fat nothing. 11 games in to a season ruined by all the above reasons, still able to get the players playing for him, as he proved at Brentford.

What did people expect??  All the circumstances  mentioned above were clear at the time, yet oh, no, it has to be because Farke is useless, so sack him. I still think that was the most ludicrous thing that has happened in my years of supporting Norwich going back to the late 60's. To sack a record breaking manager because everything was against him succeeding, in the forlorn hope that there was someone who could perform a miracle....when the person most likely to perform a miracle was already there...was just...just...I can't really find the words to express it......

Ok I can....it was naive, ludicrous, pathetic, annoying, short-sighted, feeble, lacking in common sense, nonsensical, premature, dis-loyal, weak, unbelievable, shocking, giving in to pressure, sad and just wrong. 

"Ooh, but he lost 197 games in a row" was the cry, well b*ll*cks to that, that season was always going to be a battle and what followed his sacking was predictable, obvious and inevitable and we're the worse for it. 

A very accurate picture painted of where we stand right now, as if I need reminding. Mismanagement of resources, both human & financial. Thanks LDC

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,252]

On 11/07/2023 at 22:09, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I read Ben Lee’s piece assessing the rationale of transitioning through coaches from Farke  to Smith to Wagner.

I thought it generous and uncritical. 

It focused on an idea that positional play needing better technical players, that Smith was brought in as a stop-gap to make us more defensive and try to survive attritionally in the Premier League, then Wagner to implement a intensive, counter-pressing (gegenpress) methodology. 

The last paragraph intrigued me. That attritional promoted teams had survived. 

He said it would be interesting to see how Burnley would do this year. 

Though the paradox he rather missed out.

Burnley - having been the ultimate attritional survivors -  have now transitioned to positional play. 

Leeds - with money, backing and ambition - have gone for Farke, a strong, committed proponent of positional play.

And of course - by Norwich standards and finances - Farke was historically successful here. 

And Smith failed miserably. Both in results and aesthetics and identity. 

And Wagner - though I like him - has shown almost nothing of the traits ascribed to him this far.

What a very warm slant to put on things. I wonder why?

Parma

 

Surely the answer couldn’t be that the Pink’un is now a constructive part of a Lego-style ‘everything is awesome!’  PR reset, taking advantage of new season shiny happy feelings to ‘move on’ - in return for some juicy new access access and a thawing of media relations?

What say you @Pete Raven? (careful, no bean-spilling allowed remember)….

Parma 

Did you ever hear of such a thing!? @PurpleCanary….

‘Say it ain’t so Joe!’ 🙏🏽

Edited July 13, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
☝🏼

[shefcanary 2,503]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

It is near impossible to point to any objective evidence that flaws in the club's governance in any way led to sporting under-performance last season. Lot's of subjective opinion yes and we will debate on here forever but nothing concrete. Equally improving governance wouldn't necessarily improve performance. Man City are not a beacon of good governance. The easiest picture of success to imagine is for MA to takeover the club, scrap all governance, take the club private and underwrite the sporting side's financial wishes. The harder route is to develop the academy, sporting facilities, scouting etc to organically develop new talent (pretty much the current model) while managing the finances to put out a competitive team. The club as a financial entity, and the club as a sporting entity are two very different things.

BF, accept all that, but for the moment the big difference with Norwich, even from Man City (although not ManUre) remains the acronym "plc". Whilst that remains the legal position of the club's status then governance is clearly a very important issue, irrespective of what happens on the pitch. That is my focus. Improved governance may or may not have improved last season's results, however you would anticipate that some of the issues fans face in their interaction with the club are consistently dealt with.

Attanasio may have other plans when he does eventually leave Mike to run things. 🙂 

[shefcanary 2,503]

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

Surely the answer couldn’t be that the Pink’un is now a constructive part of a Lego-style ‘everything is awesome!’  PR reset, taking advantage of new season shiny happy feelings to ‘move on’ - in return for some juicy new access access and a thawing of media relations?

What say you @Pete Raven? (careful, no bean-spilling allowed remember)….

Parma 

Did you ever hear of such a thing!? @PurpleCanary….

‘Say it ain’t so Joe!’ 🙏🏽

I'm sensing a rebuild in the relationship Parma, let's hope it continues, but not too comfortably.

[essex canary 516]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

It is near impossible to point to any objective evidence that flaws in the club's governance in any way led to sporting under-performance last season. Lot's of subjective opinion yes and we will debate on here forever but nothing concrete. Equally improving governance wouldn't necessarily improve performance. Man City are not a beacon of good governance. The easiest picture of success to imagine is for MA to takeover the club, scrap all governance, take the club private and underwrite the sporting side's financial wishes. The harder route is to develop the academy, sporting facilities, scouting etc to organically develop new talent (pretty much the current model) while managing the finances to put out a competitive team. The club as a financial entity, and the club as a sporting entity are two very different things.

The murky world of top 6 football clubs and their continental equivalents is however a little different from smaller, largely provincial, clubs. Looking at the examples from the latter perhaps more of a link could be established?

In deference to @nutty nigel 's point if we were to uncover the modern equivalent of Brian Clough, his observations are undoubtedly true but it would still be papering over the cracks. Building solid foundations and verifying their contributions to year on year performance must be the better way.

[PurpleCanary 5,606]

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

Surely the answer couldn’t be that the Pink’un is now a constructive part of a Lego-style ‘everything is awesome!’  PR reset, taking advantage of new season shiny happy feelings to ‘move on’ - in return for some juicy new access access and a thawing of media relations?

What say you @Pete Raven? (careful, no bean-spilling allowed remember)….

Parma 

Did you ever hear of such a thing!? @PurpleCanary….

‘Say it ain’t so Joe!’ 🙏🏽

Hear of such a thing, Parma? Of course. And as you seem to have worked out I am the twisted Machiavellian genius behind this sordid bit of mutual back-scratching.😛