Parma’s State of the Nation

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,176]

59 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Love all this but struggle to see an alternative.

So what should we have done in 2017/18? We had Maddison, Gunn, Klose, Hanley, Pinto, Vrancic, Stieprmann, Zimmermann Lewis,Tettey, Trybull Leitner, Murphy, Hoolahan, Oliviera and Srbenny managed by Farke and finishing 14th. A place and 2 points less than last season. The following summer we released Hoolahan and sold Maddison and Murphy. There was huge anger that we were going to hell in a handcart. There was a thread on here stating the only asset we hade left to sell was Lewis.

I guess we then got lucky with Krull and Pukki on frees, a loan for Rhodes and a gamble on Buendia.

A bad injury to Buendia or Pukki in August 2018 would have resulted in a complete different history. So we got lucky again. Or weren't unlucky. Luck is massive when you can only spent the kitty once. 

So it seems to me we have to be lucky to get anywhere near top 17 which many see as our rightful place. And not just lucky because at least another ten clubs have to fail in order for it to happen.

Perhaps Norwich is not the club to support if the bar is set at 17th?

 

 

I really enjoy this thread as well. Some fantastic and knowledgeable discussion lead by @Parma Ham's gone mouldy but in some ways because all perspectives are covered and the talk is so detailed and multifaceted every reply almost necessitates a bit of a mini essay and it's hard not to keep going over old ground so I mostly sit this one out but I love reading the thread.

Anyway on what's the alternative? For me it would be the same type of model that Webber employed when he first took over here aided by some more modern stats based recruitment and using potential investment from our new owners not to go on massive spending spree's but to keep a Maddison for a year or two longer and have players like Godfrey and Omobamidele stay a bit longer term so we can build around them and hopefully be able to offer a Bunedia high enough wages to prevent him from demanding moves away. 

So not a spend our way to success approach, nor the somewhat idealistic totally self funded approach we took before (That yes we were quite lucky to have so much relative success with, but luck plays a huge part for every club so I'm not disparaging) and not existing solely as a glorified B team either. 

Have a clear defined playing style that the fanbase enjoys even if it's not completely suitable for what would work for a club trying to survive in the PL. That's pretty much priority number one for a club who's fans called Dean Smith's football 'hoofball' so the club doesn't have much of a choice there. Bring through young players but try to keep them here for a few years and build around them, if you have to sell one or two occasionally that's fine but don't build the model around selling. Supplement with loans from top clubs but only if the player is an improvement not just to demonstrate that we're a good club to develop players at and try to make use of stat based scouting and clever recruitment to get value for money. So basically what we were doing in Webber's first few years but aided by a bit of investment to keep players and a more modern scouting approach that other smaller clubs have had success with. It might not lead to us finishing 17th every year, it might not get us promoted either but I think that's an approach that if communicated well would get the fans onside and would allow us to build something. 

Parma's right when he says incremental building is a bit of a chimera because if you build too slowly you lose assets too fast and if it goes too well too quickly a lot of players and staff struggle to keep pace but you aren't building anything if you want to go down the Crewe route of focusing mostly on developing talent for other clubs. Finishing 17th or above every year for a club like us is unrealistic and if all you want from the club is to be part of the PL gravy train then maybe it is the wrong club to support, but we should be able to have hope that the club is trying to punch above it's weight and that it wants it's own success. Turning into a Championship Crewe is basically an admission that we're not trying to compete anymore and are just existing. If there's little to hope for or get excited about then what's the point? Winning games becomes meaningless and then the dreaded apathy word comes back into the equation. 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Christoph Stiepermann

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,306]

2 hours ago, Big O said:

I agree with the sentiment of this and the original post but it does slightly walk past the fact that virtually every other championship club is in exactly the same boat. We are all effectively feeder clubs for the premier league, it’s not just happened. When historically tiny clubs like Bournemouth can spend £27-£30m on defensive midfielders like Tyler Adam’s from traditionally bigger clubs like Leeds then it should ring alarm bells. 

We are not unique to not having the ability to compete at the highest level either through playing ability or financially and this won’t change until wider changes are made in football such as capping the amount of players that clubs can sign to stop the practice of hoovering up young talents from everywhere with no intention of every plying them or heaven forbid closing the financial gap.

This for me is one area of optimism, we have proven once already that a good philosophy, brave management and some good youth development and sage player purchases can take you to be competitive. We just have to find a way to get back to it and accept that one or two players a year will continue to move. Ipswich have rebuilt from being a mess so it can be done. We are not In a great position I agree but we will have to find a way as we always do and the fans will have to understand the reality of the situation.

secretly I am hoping that @Parma Ham's gone mouldy is a secret billlionaire who wants to take over the club but failing that it’s going to be hard and steady progress again

Another super post.

Parma 

[Monty13 2,494]

That’s a great post @Christoph Stiepermann

Personally I like what was started in the early Webber years, we’d had recent success with Lambert and Neil but we always ended up back at the start again.

It was a plan to invest in something more long term both physically in infrastructure but also in footballing philosophy and approach.

Without billionaire level riches you’ll never compete at the top table and without 100s of millions you’ll likely never achieve even a sustained period in the PL. That sucks but it’s also reality. We had a plan as a club to acknowledge that and do things differently.

I’m disappointed we deviated from that and just had another boom and bust period like the previous two promotions where we are arguably worse off than when we started after.

I think relegation is unavoidable, many older wiser heads than me point out how cyclical football fortune is. So you try to compete in a way that works for the long term, we didn’t do that though and are reaping the rewards of that failure.

I think you can point at some pretty obvious root causes as to why that happened and there’s few in the leadership structure that come off well.

Personally while I’m disappointed where we are right now, I’m far more disappointed how we got here.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,306]

2 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

I really enjoy this thread as well. Some fantastic and knowledgeable discussion lead by @Parma Ham's gone mouldy but in some ways because all perspectives are covered and the talk is so detailed and multifaceted every reply almost necessitates a bit of a mini essay and it's hard not to keep going over old ground so I mostly sit this one out but I love reading the thread.

Anyway on what's the alternative? For me it would be the same type of model that Webber employed when he first took over here aided by some more modern stats based recruitment and using potential investment from our new owners not to go on massive spending spree's but to keep a Maddison for a year or two longer and have players like Godfrey and Omobamidele stay a bit longer term so we can build around them and hopefully be able to offer a Bunedia high enough wages to prevent him from demanding moves away. 

So not a spend our way to success approach, nor the somewhat idealistic totally self funded approach we took before (That yes we were quite lucky to have so much relative success with, but luck plays a huge part for every club so I'm not disparaging) and not existing solely as a glorified B team either. 

Have a clear defined playing style that the fanbase enjoys even if it's not completely suitable for what would work for a club trying to survive in the PL. That's pretty much priority number one for a club who's fans called Dean Smith's football 'hoofball' so the club doesn't have much of a choice there. Bring through young players but try to keep them here for a few years and build around them, if you have to sell one or two occasionally that's fine but don't build the model around selling. Supplement with loans from top clubs but only if the player is an improvement not just to demonstrate that we're a good club to develop players at and try to make use of stat based scouting and clever recruitment to get value for money. So basically what we were doing in Webber's first few years but aided by a bit of investment to keep players and a more modern scouting approach that other smaller clubs have had success with. It might not lead to us finishing 17th every year, it might not get us promoted either but I think that's an approach that if communicated well would get the fans onside and would allow us to build something. 

Parma's right when he says incremental building is a bit of a chimera because if you build too slowly you lose assets too fast and if it goes too well too quickly a lot of players and staff struggle to keep pace but you aren't building anything if you want to go down the Crewe route of focusing mostly on developing talent for other clubs. Finishing 17th or above every year for a club like us is unrealistic and if all you want from the club is to be part of the PL gravy train then maybe it is the wrong club to support, but we should be able to have hope that the club is trying to punch above it's weight and that it wants it's own success. Turning into a Championship Crewe is basically an admission that we're not trying to compete anymore and are just existing. If there's little to hope for or get excited about then what's the point? Winning games becomes meaningless and then the dreaded apathy word comes back into the equation. 

Magnificent post. The bit highlighted is perfect.

As @Christoph Stiepermann says, Let us not be polemic, these are nuanced discussions. 

It is not rigid self-sustainability with no shareholder investment or working capital injections  at key moments versus profligacy or autocrats and petro-states. 

Nor is it Cruyffian perfection versus brutal architecture results only.

We are running a football club. Not a corner shop. There is a market place. We can compare ourselves, our results, our investment, our structures, our squad strength, our capacity, our fanbase, our wage structure, our transfer fees received and spent (if-when transparent), our good players and our poor players, our good managers and our weaker ones.

This is not being a poor fan, it is the life we have chosen. Not every David Gow is Grant Holt, nor every Glenn Roeder a Daniel Farke.

We support and love the club whatever, though some decisions are good and others sometimes aren’t. It is not a poor fan who notes such things as empirically as possible.

Rather it is ‘The Loving Push’ as the marvellous Temple Grandin promotes.

Parma 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Robert N. LiM 5,087]

2 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Anyway on what's the alternative? For me...

Really liked this post @Christoph Stiepermann - and most of your contributions on here. Thanks for taking the time

[nutty nigel 7,745]

3 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

I really enjoy this thread as well. Some fantastic and knowledgeable discussion lead by @Parma Ham's gone mouldy but in some ways because all perspectives are covered and the talk is so detailed and multifaceted every reply almost necessitates a bit of a mini essay and it's hard not to keep going over old ground so I mostly sit this one out but I love reading the thread.

Anyway on what's the alternative? For me it would be the same type of model that Webber employed when he first took over here aided by some more modern stats based recruitment and using potential investment from our new owners not to go on massive spending spree's but to keep a Maddison for a year or two longer and have players like Godfrey and Omobamidele stay a bit longer term so we can build around them and hopefully be able to offer a Bunedia high enough wages to prevent him from demanding moves away. 

So not a spend our way to success approach, nor the somewhat idealistic totally self funded approach we took before (That yes we were quite lucky to have so much relative success with, but luck plays a huge part for every club so I'm not disparaging) and not existing solely as a glorified B team either. 

Have a clear defined playing style that the fanbase enjoys even if it's not completely suitable for what would work for a club trying to survive in the PL. That's pretty much priority number one for a club who's fans called Dean Smith's football 'hoofball' so the club doesn't have much of a choice there. Bring through young players but try to keep them here for a few years and build around them, if you have to sell one or two occasionally that's fine but don't build the model around selling. Supplement with loans from top clubs but only if the player is an improvement not just to demonstrate that we're a good club to develop players at and try to make use of stat based scouting and clever recruitment to get value for money. So basically what we were doing in Webber's first few years but aided by a bit of investment to keep players and a more modern scouting approach that other smaller clubs have had success with. It might not lead to us finishing 17th every year, it might not get us promoted either but I think that's an approach that if communicated well would get the fans onside and would allow us to build something. 

Parma's right when he says incremental building is a bit of a chimera because if you build too slowly you lose assets too fast and if it goes too well too quickly a lot of players and staff struggle to keep pace but you aren't building anything if you want to go down the Crewe route of focusing mostly on developing talent for other clubs. Finishing 17th or above every year for a club like us is unrealistic and if all you want from the club is to be part of the PL gravy train then maybe it is the wrong club to support, but we should be able to have hope that the club is trying to punch above it's weight and that it wants it's own success. Turning into a Championship Crewe is basically an admission that we're not trying to compete anymore and are just existing. If there's little to hope for or get excited about then what's the point? Winning games becomes meaningless and then the dreaded apathy word comes back into the equation. 

Sometimes I have difficulty translating the excellent points on this thread with the reality of what I see read and hear. For instance I think there was a clearly defined playing style emerging in 17/18 (I left Reed out of that team btw) but it wasn't a style the fanbase enjoyed in the stadium. The opposite was the case. I guess we didn't win enough. And then early the following season this clear and defined playing style was booed in the stadium. For the majority of people 'winning football' is the easiest on the eye. But come the autumn as the wins racked up the style was lauded. This has always been the case. Ron Saunders played attritional football but when we started winning in his third season some still say that was our best team ever.

So I'm not saying we shouldn't have aspirations to see a successful winning team playing a clearly defined style that fans buy into. But I'd just say that's what I call hopes and dreams. I think most clubs have to find a way of getting the most out of their players in any particular season. I thought we were doing that this season early doors. But it's fair to say the injury to Sarge scuppered that as I'm sure a similar injury to Pukki would have scuppered 2018. Going back to Ron Saunders he won the league in 71/72 with a team built on a strong defence yet as far as I can remember he didn't sign a single defender. He just got more from those already at the club.

 

 

[king canary 8,085]

18 hours ago, hogesar said:

 

Whilst both of the above are good posts, how does that differ us from literally every similarly sized club?

It is a bit of a vague concept but for me it comes down to purpose.

I understand we're a Championship club, we'll have to sell players, it is the nature of the game.

In my view everything we do as a club should be in service of getting the best results on the field. There have been times in recent years where I've felt the model, system, whatever you want to call it, has been more about generating income than it has about improving us as a football team. Yes we have to sell players sometimes but we should be doing our damndest to hold onto our best players for as long as possible because otherwise whats the point? The end goal for us signing or producing a great player should be to keep him and improve around him as much as possible and too often of late it has felt like the end goal is generating a big fee so we can have nice looking accounts. 

I think @Christoph Stiepermann put it really well with this line...

Quote

Bring through young players but try to keep them here for a few years and build around them, if you have to sell one or two occasionally that's fine but don't build the model around selling.

Selling to service the model is fine, making the entire model based around selling though isn't. I hated seeing Webber basically slap a giant for sale sign on our best players after our last promotion, I also really didn't like him essentially issuing giant 'come make an offer' pleas for Aarons and Omobamidele this summer. It isn't how a club should opperate in my view. Selling a player like Emi, Aarons, Omobamidele, maybe Sara or Rowe in the future should be something we try and avoid where possible, not something to be celebrated. 

[PurpleCanary 5,850]

I think there is a bit of a danger of binary thinking – both in terms of what kind of football at any one time and what kind of football over time. Plus a touch of catastrophism.😍

Leaving that aside, a question is whether the current economic/financial model of English football will continue. To summarise and to bring up to date a post from 12 years ago:

There have been two game-changing shifts in English football since world war two. The status quo then, essentially inherited from the Victorian era, was based on the great industrial areas and what are now called the inner cities.

But then came the decline of British industry. North-eastern shipbuilding. The Lancashire cotton mills. Car production.  Even fishing. Into that vacuum caused by industrial decline moved, for want of a better phrase, the Middle Classes. Clubs from areas not tied to one industry. Such as ourselves. It is no accident that our best years were the seventies and eighties, edging into the nineties.

But there was a second game-changing shift.  The sexification of football.  TV money. The internationalisation of the English game.  Not just players but owners too. Clubs as status symbols for the mega-rich. With another re-ordering, based on how much spare cash there was in the owner’s back pocket, or, more often, their numbered offshore account.

At that time I contrasted S&J putting in close to half of their £24m wealth and Randy Lerner at Aston Villa splashing out £200m of his £950m fortune. Back then Lerner was one of the richest. Now £950m would place him very much in the middle to lower ranks of the Premier League, money-wise. All but Brentford, Forest and Sheffield United are owned by billionaires, and just when you thought the limit had been reached with Abu Dhabi buying Man City along comes Saudi Arabia to take over Newcastle United.

S&J’s resistance (by design or just because they couldn’t find anyone suitable) to selling out to filthy lucre can be seen as admirable. Or pig-headed. Or a bit of both. Either way, events have moved on. Attanasio’s £500m puts him around 10th in the Championship Rich List, which included nine billionaires. There are even three in League One and at least one down in League Two.

This could now go one of three ways. That Saudi/Newcastle is the peak and we are in a steady-state universe. That Saudi/Newcastle sets off another Big Bang of excess. That a combination of a football regulator, FFP and a few spectacular collapses (plus possibly the elite few actually quitting domestic football for a real European Super League) forces a third re-ordering, back to sanity.

A world in which our purist model would be feasible. But sadly one of the first two scenarios is more likely. Yes, Attanasio has more money than S&J, but not so much more that the club will be run in a totally different way, financially speaking. Nor, as a result, will the footballing model, of developing and buying young talent before selling on, alter much.

And as before success will depend on pretty much every major decision being got right pretty every time. Which no club does. And some get nowhere near. Man Utd have won the top flight title 18 times since WW2. But only with two managers – Busby and Ferguson. One of the biggest clubs worldwide, able to attract the very best managers. Yet the 11 others – including the likes of Mourinho and van Gaal – have all failed.  Something to bear in mind when examining S&J’s record, as they loosen their control of the club.

[hogesar 10,051]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

And as before success will depend on pretty much every major decision being got right pretty every time. Which no club does. And some get nowhere near. Man Utd have won the top flight title 18 times since WW2. But only with two managers – Busby and Ferguson. One of the biggest clubs worldwide, able to attract the very best managers. Yet the 11 others – including the likes of Mourinho and van Gaal – have all failed.  Something to bear in mind when examining S&J’s record, as they loosen their control of the club.

Excellent point.

[hogesar 10,051]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

It is a bit of a vague concept but for me it comes down to purpose.

I understand we're a Championship club, we'll have to sell players, it is the nature of the game.

In my view everything we do as a club should be in service of getting the best results on the field. There have been times in recent years where I've felt the model, system, whatever you want to call it, has been more about generating income than it has about improving us as a football team. Yes we have to sell players sometimes but we should be doing our damndest to hold onto our best players for as long as possible because otherwise whats the point? The end goal for us signing or producing a great player should be to keep him and improve around him as much as possible and too often of late it has felt like the end goal is generating a big fee so we can have nice looking accounts. 

I think @Christoph Stiepermann put it really well with this line...

Selling to service the model is fine, making the entire model based around selling though isn't. I hated seeing Webber basically slap a giant for sale sign on our best players after our last promotion, I also really didn't like him essentially issuing giant 'come make an offer' pleas for Aarons and Omobamidele this summer. It isn't how a club should opperate in my view. Selling a player like Emi, Aarons, Omobamidele, maybe Sara or Rowe in the future should be something we try and avoid where possible, not something to be celebrated. 

Yeah I get that. I suppose the most obvious example is us selling Emi whilst Watford kept hold of Sarr. Didn't actually save Watford in the end but I guess the point is there that they done everything possible to keep the talent at the club. But I'm not sure that's some big permanent model issue, I think Webber genuinely believed he could do more with that money than he ended up doing.

[essex canary 547]

22 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Yeah I get that. I suppose the most obvious example is us selling Emi whilst Watford kept hold of Sarr. Didn't actually save Watford in the end but I guess the point is there that they done everything possible to keep the talent at the club. But I'm not sure that's some big permanent model issue, I think Webber genuinely believed he could do more with that money than he ended up doing.

Does the 'model' encourage the Sporting Director to engage in excess trading over and above what is strictly necessary thereby causing excessive disruption to building a team?

[essex canary 547]

41 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Excellent point.

It is an excellent point and an excellent case made in general by @PurpleCanary. An issue with S&J though has been the hype (see attached from 1998) and the easy bit re the supporters hasn't exactly been that prominent in recent years with the autocratic styles of McNally and the Webbers.

[shefcanary 2,622]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Attanasio’s £500m puts him around 10th in the Championship Rich List

Just to finesse this.

The corporate vehicle that has purchased 40% of the club is Norfolk LLP, which is not owned fully by Attanasio although is potentially "controlled" by him. Why only potentially, and who are the other owners? Norfolk is owned 28% by Canaries (controlled by Attanasio), 27% by Footloose (controlled by Attanasio) and 28% by Orchard (controlled by Attanasio's business partner Richard Ressler).  Attanasio is quoted as worth $0.9bn, Ressler $1.4Bn, meaning they personally may have access to a combined $2.3Bn. Sure, paper money mainly, but £200m could still be considered relatively small change out of that. 

We also know that 17% of Norfolk LLP is in the hands of a consortium of US individuals, trusts and corporate entities. Unfortunately as a Delaware inc. company we cannot identify the breakdown of this consortium as certainly as we could if it was a UK registered company. But the likelihood is it creates access to many billions of dollars although those providing it may not be passive investors. The big fear is that they will want returns for their investment, this being applied not to the club directly, but via Attanasio. 

So, I think Purple is underplaying Attanasio's financial strength here with that statement, but alternatively Nutty's worst fear of the club being taken further away from the fans, if not from Norfolk itself (franchise football for those outside the traditional Northern city clubs is going to be an ever growing feature if you ask me).   

As we have seen with his stewardship of the Brewers, Attanasio is seemingly not swayed by the views of the ordinary fans in the way he manages that outfit. I still think the creation and long term pursuit of a playing philosophy rests ultimately with Attanasio's view of life. He is still biding his time over the imposition of this at present in deference to Smith and Jones, but at some point there will be only one game in town and what we see on the pitch will be that person's preference. And who knows what kind of football philosophy that will be .... 

[PurpleCanary 5,850]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Just to finesse this.

The corporate vehicle that has purchased 40% of the club is Norfolk LLP, which is not owned fully by Attanasio although is potentially "controlled" by him. Why only potentially, and who are the other owners? Norfolk is owned 28% by Canaries (controlled by Attanasio), 27% by Footloose (controlled by Attanasio) and 28% by Orchard (controlled by Attanasio's business partner Richard Ressler).  Attanasio is quoted as worth $0.9bn, Ressler $1.4Bn, meaning they personally may have access to a combined $2.3Bn. Sure, paper money mainly, but £200m could still be considered relatively small change out of that. 

We also know that 17% of Norfolk LLP is in the hands of a consortium of US individuals, trusts and corporate entities. Unfortunately as a Delaware inc. company we cannot identify the breakdown of this consortium as certainly as we could if it was a UK registered company. But the likelihood is it creates access to many billions of dollars although those providing it may not be passive investors. The big fear is that they will want returns for their investment, this being applied not to the club directly, but via Attanasio. 

So, I think Purple is underplaying Attanasio's financial strength here with that statement, but alternatively Nutty's worst fear of the club being taken further away from the fans, if not from Norfolk itself (franchise football for those outside the traditional Northern city clubs is going to be an ever growing feature if you ask me).   

As we have seen with his stewardship of the Brewers, Attanasio is seemingly not swayed by the views of the ordinary fans in the way he manages that outfit. I still think the creation and long term pursuit of a playing philosophy rests ultimately with Attanasio's view of life. He is still biding his time over the imposition of this at present in deference to Smith and Jones, but at some point there will be only one game in town and what we see on the pitch will be that person's preference. And who knows what kind of football philosophy that will be .... 

Very fair point, shef.

[Robert N. LiM 5,087]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

Selling to service the model is fine, making the entire model based around selling though isn't. I hated seeing Webber basically slap a giant for sale sign on our best players after our last promotion, I also really didn't like him essentially issuing giant 'come make an offer' pleas for Aarons and Omobamidele this summer. It isn't how a club should opperate in my view. Selling a player like Emi, Aarons, Omobamidele, maybe Sara or Rowe in the future should be something we try and avoid where possible, not something to be celebrated. 

Good post. I sometimes wonder whether this is the biggest drawback of the Sporting Director model, which, I should say, I am strongly in favour of overall. Webber (or whoever) playing his infinite game wants to sell Emi, Omo, Sara, etc to keep funding the club, keep funding the academy, keep the model going. Think he could argue with some justice that in doing so, he's doing what he gets paid for.

[Monty13 2,494]

18 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Sometimes I have difficulty translating the excellent points on this thread with the reality of what I see read and hear. For instance I think there was a clearly defined playing style emerging in 17/18 (I left Reed out of that team btw) but it wasn't a style the fanbase enjoyed in the stadium. The opposite was the case. I guess we didn't win enough. And then early the following season this clear and defined playing style was booed in the stadium. For the majority of people 'winning football' is the easiest on the eye. But come the autumn as the wins racked up the style was lauded. This has always been the case. Ron Saunders played attritional football but when we started winning in his third season some still say that was our best team ever.

So I'm not saying we shouldn't have aspirations to see a successful winning team playing a clearly defined style that fans buy into. But I'd just say that's what I call hopes and dreams. I think most clubs have to find a way of getting the most out of their players in any particular season. I thought we were doing that this season early doors. But it's fair to say the injury to Sarge scuppered that as I'm sure a similar injury to Pukki would have scuppered 2018. Going back to Ron Saunders he won the league in 71/72 with a team built on a strong defence yet as far as I can remember he didn't sign a single defender. He just got more from those already at the club.

 

 

You’re not wrong Nutty, football is almost mob rule. If you aren’t winning it’s inevitable to end up with a big thumbs down from the crowd and throw him to the lions.

I think that’s when communication becomes so important and it can, if not completely nullify as that’s impossible, at least placate the desire for winning above all else with a clear strategy and vision. I didn’t see too much negativity above grumbling level about that first PL relegation under Farke for instance.

I also think that entertainment is an important factor, even an exciting loss is acceptable to the hopes and dreams crowd (as long as it doesn’t become a habit).

It’s not all about results though, Dean Smith was a great example of that. Even when winning there was a massive undercurrent of discontent.

As for this season, I agree it seemed like Wagner had hit on something but it’s also become clear that was so reliant on a few key players, namely Sargent and Barnes. Not sure that’s all Wagner’s fault but it does show just how fragile the system was with the players we have.

2018 without Pukki, I suspect you may be right. There’s always an element of luck involved for a club like ours when resources are so tight. 

[Robert N. LiM 5,087]

2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I didn’t see too much negativity above grumbling level about that first PL relegation under Farke for instance.

Indeed. Think there was a sense that we were still building something at that point. Although, given covid was in full swing, perhaps people were a bit more conscious that usual that some things are more important than football, whatever Bill Shankly said.

[nutty nigel 7,745]

34 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Indeed. Think there was a sense that we were still building something at that point. Although, given covid was in full swing, perhaps people were a bit more conscious that usual that some things are more important than football, whatever Bill Shankly said.

The grumbling at the end of that season didn't matter. There were no supporters to witness it. The last game I saw we beat Leicester. Then we got to the FA Cup quarters after that memorable penalty shoot out at Spurs. We were on a high when COVID struck. Looking forward to an FA Cup quarter final at home to Man Utd. Now you could say had supporters been in the stadium Farke most likely wouldn't have survived ten consecutive defeats. But perhaps they wouldn't have happened if COVID hadn't happened. I don't even remember that FA Cup quarter final. It would have been massive in a full stadium and I think we could have won it. I'm definitely of the view that we would at least have made a fight of relegation too had supporters been in for those last ten games. 

COVID impacted the next season too. At least this time in our favour. But you can never underestimate the positives and negatives of playing football in full stadiums. We all thought we'd improved defensively that season but that improved defence made more mistakes when the crowds returned. It's much easier to reproduce  training ground football in an empty stadium. And the better team will win more games.

 

[Midlands Yellow 4,342]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

The grumbling at the end of that season didn't matter. There were no supporters to witness it. The last game I saw we beat Leicester. Then we got to the FA Cup quarters after that memorable penalty shoot out at Spurs. We were on a high when COVID struck. Looking forward to an FA Cup quarter final at home to Man Utd. Now you could say had supporters been in the stadium Farke most likely wouldn't have survived ten consecutive defeats. But perhaps they wouldn't have happened if COVID hadn't happened. I don't even remember that FA Cup quarter final. It would have been massive in a full stadium and I think we could have won it. I'm definitely of the view that we would at least have made a fight of relegation too had supporters been in for those last ten games. 

COVID impacted the next season too. At least this time in our favour. But you can never underestimate the positives and negatives of playing football in full stadiums. We all thought we'd improved defensively that season but that improved defence made more mistakes when the crowds returned. It's much easier to reproduce  training ground football in an empty stadium. And the better team will win more games.

 

This reply is so back to front you’d have be schizophrenic to fully get it! Love it Nutty!! 

[king canary 8,085]

4 hours ago, Monty13 said:

You’re not wrong Nutty, football is almost mob rule. If you aren’t winning it’s inevitable to end up with a big thumbs down from the crowd and throw him to the lions.

I think that’s when communication becomes so important and it can, if not completely nullify as that’s impossible, at least placate the desire for winning above all else with a clear strategy and vision. I didn’t see too much negativity above grumbling level about that first PL relegation under Farke for instance.

I also think that entertainment is an important factor, even an exciting loss is acceptable to the hopes and dreams crowd (as long as it doesn’t become a habit).

It’s not all about results though, Dean Smith was a great example of that. Even when winning there was a massive undercurrent of discontent.

As for this season, I agree it seemed like Wagner had hit on something but it’s also become clear that was so reliant on a few key players, namely Sargent and Barnes. Not sure that’s all Wagner’s fault but it does show just how fragile the system was with the players we have.

2018 without Pukki, I suspect you may be right. There’s always an element of luck involved for a club like ours when resources are so tight. 

Without rehashing old points I think the issue with Smith is everyone could see what was happening on the pitch wasn't sustainable- we were winning games but the performances weren't passing the eye test and it felt inevitable that the results would catch up in the end. I think we could have been not hugely entertaining (in an attacking football sense) but winning games with a bit of comfort and it wouldn't have turned like it did.

[Midlands Yellow 4,342]

8 minutes ago, king canary said:

Without rehashing old points I think the issue with Smith is everyone could see what was happening on the pitch wasn't sustainable- we were winning games but the performances weren't passing the eye test and it felt inevitable that the results would catch up in the end. I think we could have been not hugely entertaining (in an attacking football sense) but winning games with a bit of comfort and it wouldn't have turned like it did.

The appointment of Smith exposed Webber’s bullsh1t, thankfully they are both not here now. 

[nutty nigel 7,745]

2 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

This reply is so back to front you’d have be schizophrenic to fully get it! Love it Nutty!! 

You've had the translator. If you remember to apply it to all my posts rest assured you will be fully tuned in to my thoughts!!

Edited November 22, 2023 by nutty nigel

[Duncan Edwards 2,306]

3 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

This reply is so back to front you’d have be schizophrenic to fully get it! Love it Nutty!! 

Wow. This will save the NHS some money. You’re a Paranoid Schizophrenic. 
 

Delusions. These are persistent false beliefs. A person who has a delusional belief usually won't change their mind even if faced with strong evidence. Delusions involving paranoia are often "persecutory," which means a person believes that someone is trying to harm them or negatively affect their life.

Hallucinations. These are events a person imagines (usually in the form of something that a person hears or sees). A person who has a hallucination typically can't tell that what they're experiencing isn't real. These commonly feed into delusions by giving the person additional "evidence" to confirm that someone is trying to harm or upset them.

Lack of insight

A common feature of schizophrenia is a symptom known as anosognosia. This condition, often described as “lack of insight,” means that a person’s brain can’t recognize any signs, symptoms or other evidence of a medical condition that they have. This lack of insight is very common with schizophrenia, which is why people with schizophrenia often don't believe that they have the condition and are more likely to resist treatment.

 

Delusions, hallucinations and lack of insight. 
 

Quite the accurate self-diagnosis. Maybe that smacking of your head outside the BerStrete Gates had more of an impact than you thought.

Of course, I don’t mean it. I’m sure that you are perfectly rational spending your life on the message board of a club you have no connection to. But, Ronnie Kray was a paranoid schizophrenic and look what happened to him.

I apologise to anyone that suffers with ANY mental health condition because I’ve reacted to a moron making fun of such illnesses.

If your translator is broken:

*** *** * ******* ****

 

[essex canary 547]

14 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

The grumbling at the end of that season didn't matter. There were no supporters to witness it. The last game I saw we beat Leicester. Then we got to the FA Cup quarters after that memorable penalty shoot out at Spurs. We were on a high when COVID struck. Looking forward to an FA Cup quarter final at home to Man Utd. Now you could say had supporters been in the stadium Farke most likely wouldn't have survived ten consecutive defeats. But perhaps they wouldn't have happened if COVID hadn't happened. I don't even remember that FA Cup quarter final. It would have been massive in a full stadium and I think we could have won it. I'm definitely of the view that we would at least have made a fight of relegation too had supporters been in for those last ten games. 

COVID impacted the next season too. At least this time in our favour. But you can never underestimate the positives and negatives of playing football in full stadiums. We all thought we'd improved defensively that season but that improved defence made more mistakes when the crowds returned. It's much easier to reproduce  training ground football in an empty stadium. And the better team will win more games.

 

This may be true. Why though were other clubs able to find more resilience than us?

No fans in stadiums favoured away teams. That doesn't explain our home capitulations since fans have been back in stadiums.

Edited November 22, 2023 by essex canary

[nutty nigel 7,745]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

This may be true. Why though were other clubs able to find more resilience than us?

No fans in stadiums favoured away teams. That doesn't explain our home capitulations since fans have been back in stadiums.

You've made a big assumption there. I guess no fans can help away teams. But that's a different pressure. 

All I can do is suggest that what was thought a better defence in 20/21 made more mistakes in future seasons. 

 

[Morph 23]

Quote

Have a clear defined playing style that the fanbase enjoys even if it's not completely suitable for what would work for a club trying to survive in the PL. That's pretty much priority number one for a club who's fans called Dean Smith's football 'hoofball' so the club doesn't have much of a choice there. Bring through young players but try to keep them here for a few years and build around them, if you have to sell one or two occasionally that's fine but don't build the model around selling. Supplement with loans from top clubs but only if the player is an improvement not just to demonstrate that we're a good club to develop players at and try to make use of stat based scouting and clever recruitment to get value for money. So basically what we were doing in Webber's first few years but aided by a bit of investment to keep players and a more modern scouting approach that other smaller clubs have had success with. It might not lead to us finishing 17th every year, it might not get us promoted either but I think that's an approach that if communicated well would get the fans onside and would allow us to build something.

Can I ask how would the posters on here, and the fans in general feel if the club adopted the approach put forward in the excellent @Christoph Stiepermann post?

would you be happy to the club periodically make it to the top table but invariably came down? Or would you rather City strived for more?

I see so many posts from certain posters on here bemoaning the lack of money injected by D&M, but I think we can all agree thatches don’t have it and it doesn’t guarantee success. Gone are the days of City sitting in 4th Place in the Premier League.

I think what many would hope is that the methodology was stuck to through good and bad in the vain hope that it’s a repeated cycle with the occasional successful lengthy stay in the promised land.

[Big O 228]

1 hour ago, Morph said:

 would you be happy to the club periodically make it to the top table but invariably came down? Or would you rather City strived for more?

Edited November 22, 2023 by Big O

[Big O 228]

I think the answer to that question has to be yes. It would be nice to sustain it for a couple of seasons but invariably pretty much most clubs will come back down at some point.

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,306]

2 hours ago, Morph said:

Can I ask how would the posters on here, and the fans in general feel if the club adopted the approach put forward in the excellent @Christoph Stiepermann post?

would you be happy to the club periodically make it to the top table but invariably came down? Or would you rather City strived for more?

I see so many posts from certain posters on here bemoaning the lack of money injected by D&M, but I think we can all agree thatches don’t have it and it doesn’t guarantee success. Gone are the days of City sitting in 4th Place in the Premier League.

I think what many would hope is that the methodology was stuck to through good and bad in the vain hope that it’s a repeated cycle with the occasional successful lengthy stay in the promised land.

Let us not be disingenuous.

The impression that everything has some kind of fatalistic predestination and we should all just turn up at Carrow church with religious fervor and we’ll enjoy whatever communion we receive - be it David Gow or Grant Holt, Glenn Roeder or Daniel Farke - that any attempt to analyse and critique decisions made is somehow contrary to supporting or disloyal, or even somehow deleterious to player and club performance is taking things far too far. Some decisions are good and the others aren’t. 

We have done superbly well in recent history precisely because we accessed the huge Murdoch Premier wealth at the right moment in time: sums that propelled Bournemouth and other smaller teams into stratospheric financial power by worldwide standards. Rendering turnstile revenues almost meaningless. Ours is 10% compared to broadcast in a typical top level season. The Lambert miracle and the first Farke phenomenon were wonderful, unexpected roller coasters against the odds at the exact right point each time. Wonderful. 

Delia and Michael have not put any meaningful funds or investment into the club for some time. I deeply admire and respect Delia, but this is the life she has chosen. 

To equate c£8m net paid for shares to majority own a major football club over 25 years with any other ownership of a different club because it represents 50% of their wealth is to take a very warm lens to proceedings. Call it self-sustaining, call it community-focused, call the rest of the football world mad capitalist ne’er do wells all you like, Mike Ashley would not have got away with putting in so little and allowing some serious  self-inflicted sporting harm on events in the meantime. 
 

We have recently done many things wrong and it has hurt us

We had key Shakespearean fulcrum moments and we were hamstrung by lack of finances and forced into convoluted positions that forced us to make ugly compromises in a ruthlessly competitive environment to which we are rather ill-equipped..

Let us not pretend that Farke was happy to sell Buendia, that the £20m spent on two wingers was not a huge and stupid tactical mistake, that selling Buendia didn’t betray the promise ‘to come back stronger’, that the remaining players were not hugely psychologically affected, that Pukki our only other weapon was not neutered, that running a wide lower quality squad was not a poor strategic decision versus a narrow higher quality for a club like ours (for all its attendant risks), that Webber did not want to prove himself as an alchemist and so needed a big profitable sale like Buendia to polish his own buttons, that Skipp wasn’t a key role that needed filling, that maybe with some of the £30m Sargent-Rashica-Tzolis money he might not have been somehow persuaded to stay (even on an expensive loan), that some of that £30m couldn’t have gone to Buendia to keep him here an extra 12 months, that all of that wouldn’t have improved our odds and……

….that with a little more money we wouldn’t have acted differently. 

Parma 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Midlands Yellow 4,342]

Delia and Michael have not put any meaningful funds or investment into the club for some time. I deeply admireand respect Delia, but this is the life she has chosen. 
 

At any time really?