Jump to content
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Parma’s State of the Nation

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, chicken said:

And that last bit, is what I don't get. If you put so much faith in Bailey and his reporting, how come he doesn't report it as Norwich having an actual choice? That's the point I have always made, I'm not really assuming anything, I am following all of the details reported upon. It takes a leap of faith to believe that there was an alternative option and Norwich had a, lets call it, 'balanced' choice to make. 

Nowhere, anywhere does it say Webber lied, that the player didn't want to leave, hadn't made it clear they wanted to go... even though that fits with the information you share that he then demanded a move to Villa.

The version you wish to follow - your choice - requires disbelief in the narratives of all journalism and anything from the club that seems to largely align with the journalism.

Again, thus leaving you with James T Kirk - there always has to be an alternative. And even if that is the case, the alternative is just as legitimate and as evenly weighted as the option taken. Even Kirk would accept his choices often were slim to none.

I’m not sure what you mean. If you listen to Bailey or the Pinkun teams podcasts they have both reflected on the choice to sell Buendia. Bailey’s article on the sale calls it a choice.

I’ve not seen any independent journalistic observer agree Norwich had to sell him, quite the opposite in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I’m not sure what you mean. If you listen to Bailey or the Pinkun teams podcasts they have both reflected on the choice to sell Buendia. Bailey’s article on the sale calls it a choice.

I’ve not seen any independent journalistic observer agree Norwich had to sell him, quite the opposite in fact.

To the contrary, I have seen none dismiss that he wanted to leave badly, something also widely reported, including the previous summer.

You were the one that put an interpretation of a choice out there in that calling it a choice must mean that there is an alternative and that the alternative must be viable. Again, there is no evidence for this to be the case and just because it is called a choice, doesn't mean that we would not end up with a player refusing to play (as seen in Leicester over the summer) etc. However, the assumption is that we did NOTHING to try and keep him.

Attaching ANY narrative otherwise is exactly the fan connection conspiracy approach. There must be something else. Something they didn't do. Spin. Anything but the exact narrative played out in front of us by all parties.

And we can even go to Buendia interviews, such as the one when he was away on an international camp, where he eluded to it all. But we have to ignore all of that, and create something to believe that this wasn't the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chicken said:

To the contrary, I have seen none dismiss that he wanted to leave badly, something also widely reported, including the previous summer.

You were the one that put an interpretation of a choice out there in that calling it a choice must mean that there is an alternative and that the alternative must be viable. Again, there is no evidence for this to be the case and just because it is called a choice, doesn't mean that we would not end up with a player refusing to play (as seen in Leicester over the summer) etc. However, the assumption is that we did NOTHING to try and keep him.

Attaching ANY narrative otherwise is exactly the fan connection conspiracy approach. There must be something else. Something they didn't do. Spin. Anything but the exact narrative played out in front of us by all parties.

And we can even go to Buendia interviews, such as the one when he was away on an international camp, where he eluded to it all. But we have to ignore all of that, and create something to believe that this wasn't the case.

😉

this-is-not-journalism.gif.5257ada329072e73e69b65c5921c4536.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

 

BigFish
   58 minutes ago,  Parma Ham's gone mouldy said: 

It is just what you say to the fans to keep them onside. 

 

Parma 

 

Well, that didn't work 😀
 

—————-

Rubbish @BigFish….!

It worked brilliantly on @chicken….🤣🤣🤣🥰

Parma 

🙄

Sure Parma. I agree with a lot of the rest of what you post but hand-waiving, which is exactly what it is, as "usual club spin" etc.

I was hoping, that rather than create an imaginary situation that would suit a fan-bias, you would have found real examples. Instead you created a story about a player at another club who may or may not have had firm interest in them and who may or may not wanted to have left and who's club may or may not have stood in his way.

Why? It's illogical - you say you like logic, the logic would be to find actual examples rather than concocting one. There are examples of club spin out there - Chase with Sutton, for example. There are examples of players demanding moves away - Huckerby in coming to us as an example. Club spin - harder to prove, much, much harder to prove. But your suggestion is that all of the reporting on the entire scenario from the summer of 2020 to the summer of 2021 is wrong... has missed the truth and instead has just towed the club line, because that's what they did.

I just tend to go with the facts as given until such a time as we shouldn't believe them. If, as Monty has said, the reporters were happy to criticise signings, and approaches etc, why would they not also criticise club spin and establish the truth that there was a viable option to keep Buendia? It would be the most damning piece they could write. It would be THE headline, would sell papers, and draw people to their app/online content etc. Logically, as of yet, there is no argument, logically to take the path you and Monty have.

It's your right, of course, it does not make you right. And the weight of evidence currently stands against both of you.

As for a timeline... more digging reveals more...

5th June Norwich agree deal with Villa, so we can cut back that week as said. He was unveiled on the 11th June. There are a host of articles from January linking Buendia with Arsenal. These are later referenced in articles in May. I can find articles linking him to both Arsenal and Villa together as competitors going back to at least April - coincidence, possibly, but doubtfully. 

This is from Farke in January 2021.

“No, nothing will happen [with Buendia]. In this business you can never say 100 per cent guarantee, but I would label it 99 per cent,” Farke told the official Norwich website.

“It makes no sense for any of my key players to leave at this moment. And it makes no sense for us as a club right now to sell any of my players. These players have the potential to play for one of the best clubs in this country, and Arsenal [are] definitely one of the best in this country and also Europe.

“They have the potential to play there one day, but it makes no sense in January. Let’s be honest we are in a great position.”
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mengo said:

😉

this-is-not-journalism.gif.5257ada329072e73e69b65c5921c4536.gif

Hahaha, yeah. In which case, it's all manipulation and none is truth.

You are Fox Mulder and I claim my £5.
Trust No One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chicken said:

To the contrary, I have seen none dismiss that he wanted to leave badly, something also widely reported, including the previous summer.

You were the one that put an interpretation of a choice out there in that calling it a choice must mean that there is an alternative and that the alternative must be viable. Again, there is no evidence for this to be the case and just because it is called a choice, doesn't mean that we would not end up with a player refusing to play (as seen in Leicester over the summer) etc. However, the assumption is that we did NOTHING to try and keep him.

Attaching ANY narrative otherwise is exactly the fan connection conspiracy approach. There must be something else. Something they didn't do. Spin. Anything but the exact narrative played out in front of us by all parties.

And we can even go to Buendia interviews, such as the one when he was away on an international camp, where he eluded to it all. But we have to ignore all of that, and create something to believe that this wasn't the case.

Again not sure your point as we keep going round in circles. No one is denying that in general he wanted to leave for a bigger club, or that once Villa’s bids had come in that’s where he wanted to go.

Yes there was a choice, not sell him. At the end of the window he would have been a Norwich player, if we didn’t sell him that’s a certainty as he had a long contract. We can speculate about how that would have gone, but it’s fact.

So if I’m understand the above correctly, your position is Buendia was always leaving, Norwich had zero power and to suggest otherwise is a conspiracy.

I’m honestly at a loss at this point if that’s your position. I think you will struggle to find a single independent football journalist who agrees(certainly not the Pinkun or Athletic correspondents), let alone a majority, but happy to be proved wrong with some evidence.

Edited by Monty13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, chicken said:

Hahaha, yeah. In which case, it's all manipulation and none is truth.

You are Fox Mulder and I claim my £5.
Trust No One

😉 Paranormal Activity. The truth is out there.

Edited by Mengo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/11/2022 at 17:44, TeemuVanBasten said:

Tim Krul was said to be on £70k a week last season. There will have been a relegation reduction, but he's not a free agent in the summer, he's got another year. 

Rashica is contracted until summer 2025, and Tsoliz is contracted until 2026. That's likely the two highest paid bits of deadwood at the minute.

Maths question for you @TeemuVanBasten 

Does a Rashica plus a Tzolis equal a Naismith?

Parma 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Buendia was under contract. 

Parma 

True, but part of our sales pitch would have been " we won't hold you back if you outgrow us,"  our model dictates that ....as does that of Ajax . Our commitment should be clearer, get  out clauses set etc. Leave no doubt, there was so much anguish about Emis sale. When the parameters could have been so much clearer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wcorkcanary said:

True, but part of our sales pitch would have been " we won't hold you back if you outgrow us,"  our model dictates that ....as does that of Ajax( albeit at a higher level) . Our commitment should be clearer, get  out clauses set etc. Leave no doubt, there was so much anguish about Emis sale. When the parameters could have been so much clearer. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Monty13 said:

"although there were brief discussions in November over a potential transfer to a club in Saudi Arabia. Nothing materialised there, nor were Norwich interested in sanctioning such a move.”

Don't remember hearing about this at the time.  If it was something Emi was actively pursuing it does suggest that furthering his Premiership ambitions were less important than a pay rise which does also imply that we could have kept him if we'd really wanted to.  Particularly given what I could imagine the combined wages of Normann, Tzolis, Rashica and Gilmour would come to ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwich had 48% possession yesterday. Away at Rotherham. 

Very limited data to extrapolate a wider point from I grant you, though rather a poignant indication of the State of the Nation isn’t it?

Rotherham were quite tidy and bright at times I thought, though even Smith bemoans our ‘lack of control’ in games. 

I am afraid that this also connects to our nexus point. 

We run around more, we counter-press better, we are more careful out of possession.

Though of course because we lack Weapons, we are ‘only’ good and a bit better than the opposition. Who are often not trying to ‘play’. 

They are set up to say ‘ok then, let’s see what you’ve got’. It is much easier to defend and shut spaces, than it is to oppress, open them and overwhelm teams. 

The best middle-ranking Premier teams - that we apparently aspire to be - are Palace-like in that they are physical, strong-running, give little away tactically, offer little in the way of cheap wins and have a weapon or two that might have a good day and that you certainly need to keep an eye on. 

As we have noted multiple times, almost everybody in the Championship (now also with plenty of decent managers) is an ersatz version of this. Just less coordinated, less squad deep, no weapons and a bit worse concentration. 
 

I thought we did ok yesterday, though again we had no real control of a game where we were superior and the opposition knew it and - at times - acted like it. I couldn’t help thinking of lovely Onel though and how we are becoming him….

Onel - on first viewing - looks like he’s a weapon. Someone that you cannot ignore as an opposition coach and have to change your ideal tactical plans to adjust for. Then - after a few times skinning your full back, charging into spaces and driving dangerously at the box. You realise. Nothing much then happens….

It would be trite to say that we chase too many chickens and are too tired to then play cool, brave, controlled possession football, though there is a compromise to be made with our quality of player. There is also what we have bought - mostly for Farke - and how they do play, want to play and (crucially) see themselves. 

There are the unseen psychological aspects of ‘being a chicken chaser’. You can regularly see Cantwell struggle with this for example. He either whizzes around the press or he swans about waiting to receive an accurate pass.
 

When you feel like the  ‘protagonist’ as Farke would say, it gives you a huge confidence boost, it feels so good. This feeling allows you to be brave, to get triggered by danger a half second later, to allow you ‘pop off’ the opposition like a matador.

We see very little of that now. We used to see it a lot. Even against Man City. 

We won yesterday and that’s great. But I’m not one for ‘playing the result’. 

We simply don’t have the threats, the oppressive quality, the weapons to force teams to really come away from their preferred methodology. 

Rotherham did quite well. They weren’t that afraid of us. They had more possession than us. 
 

The state of the nation indeed.

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Rotherham did quite well. They weren’t that afraid of us. They had more possession than us. 
 

The state of the nation indeed.

Parma 

Pretty damning indictment

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come now @Parma Ham's gone mouldy, that's all a little unfair. There were some genuine glimpses of (at least partial) weapons on display. Sargent is growing into his striker role and causes real issues for defenders - I thought it was a clear red card - and Sara is displaying some Onel like drive with an actual end product.

Rotherham had more possession because we were winning for much of the game. We didn't need to be cavalier while ahead. It was a pragmatic away win which probably should have been by a bigger margin. VAR would have helped us massively.

Crucially for me, those huge holes in our midfield during defensive transitions seem to have been adequately plugged. We're not seeing unmarked runners arriving at the far post for a tap in anymore. That's progress. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Norwich had 48% possession yesterday. Away at Rotherham. 

Very limited data to extrapolate a wider point from I grant you, though rather a poignant indication of the State of the Nation isn’t it?

Rotherham were quite tidy and bright at times I thought, though even Smith bemoans our ‘lack of control’ in games. 

I am afraid that this also connects to our nexus point. 

We run around more, we counter-press better, we are more careful out of possession.

Though of course because we lack Weapons, we are ‘only’ good and a bit better than the opposition. Who are often not trying to ‘play’. 

They are set up to say ‘ok then, let’s see what you’ve got’. It is much easier to defend and shut spaces, than it is to oppress, open them and overwhelm teams. 

The best middle-ranking teams - that we apparently aspire to be - are Palace-like in that they are physical, strong-running, give little away tactically, offer little cheap wins and have a weapon or two that might have a good day and that you certainly need to keep an eye on. 

As we have noted multiple times, almost everybody in the Championship (now also with plenty of decent managers) is an ersatz version of this. Just less coordinated, less squad deep, no weapons and a bit worse concentration. 
 

I thought we did ok yesterday, though again we had no real control of a game where we were superior and the opposition knew it and - at times - acted like it. I couldn’t help thinking of lovely Onel though and how we are becoming him….

Onel - on first viewing - looks like he’s a weapon. Someone that you cannot ignore as an opposition coach and have to change your ideal tactical plans to adjust for. Then - after a few times skinning your full back, charging into spaces and driving dangerously at the box. You realise. Nothing much then happens….

It would be trite to say that we chase too many chickens and are too tired to then play cool, brave, controlled possession football, though there is a compromise to be made with our quality of player. There is also what we have bought - mostly for Farke - and how they do play, want to play and (crucially) see themselves. 

There are the unseen psychological aspects of ‘being a chicken chaser’. You can regularly see Cantwell struggle with this for example. He either whizzes around the press or he swans about waiting to receive an accurate pass.
 

When you feel like the  ‘protagonist’ as Farke would say, it gives you a huge confidence boost, it feels so good. This feeling allows you to be brave, to get triggered by danger a half second later, to allow you ‘pop off’ the opposition like a matador.

We see very little of that now. We used to see it a lot. Even against Man City. 

We won yesterday and that’s great. But I’m not one for ‘playing the result’. 

We simply don’t have the threats, the oppressive quality, the weapons to force teams to really come away from their preferred methodology. 

Rotherham did quite well. They weren’t that afraid of us. They had more possession than us. 
 

The state of the nation indeed.

Parma 

So many great points in this assessment - particularly the Onel analogy which is harsh but absolutely fair.  I'll just add that when we used to monopolise possession we used to force the opposition to chase chickens because we did so - or at least carried the threat to move through midfield and do so - in dangerous positions in front of their defence. 

I don't think it is trite to say that when we (try to) do so now it tends to be possession in front of their midfield where chicken chasing is neither as necessary or as urgent so teams just sit off us.  This is one of the reasons we used to score so many late goals and why we don't now - we can't rest with the ball as my coaches used to say twenty plus years ago but we allow the opposition to both in and out of possession.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Maths question for you @TeemuVanBasten 

Does a Rashica plus a Tzolis equal a Naismith?

Parma 

I suspect not.

1. We won't know until we see the accounts but t is highly likely thatt we are getting a bigger loan fee wage contribution for Rashica and Tzolis than we ever did for Naismith.

2. We are also far more likely to be able to sell and recover a significant proportion of the initial investment.

3. Rashica and especially Tzolis may improve as players - this was never going to be the case with Naismith.

A Maths answer, Parma:

Rashica + Tzolis > Naismith

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy yesterday was first match this season where I was confident of winning throughout the match. Perhaps being on the terraces there was a buoyed up feeling, but felt we played generally within ourselves (witness the immediate riposte to their goal) and didn't need to find a higher gear at any time really. Certainly on the terraces it was a fun afternoon, not blighted with fear. Stepping performances up post World Cup to demonstrate we do have a couple of weapons is this season's next task! With 3 young players coming back from injury the pressure on everyone in the squad to perform consistently will give another view, even if the state of the nation remains as you have discussed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Badger said:

I suspect not.

1. We won't know until we see the accounts but t is highly likely thatt we are getting a bigger loan fee wage contribution for Rashica and Tzolis than we ever did for Naismith.

2. We are also far more likely to be able to sell and recover a significant proportion of the initial investment.

3. Rashica and especially Tzolis may improve as players - this was never going to be the case with Naismith.

A Maths answer, Parma:

Rashica + Tzolis > Naismith

I strongly suspect (given the wage bill shown in our last accounts) that both Rashica and Tzolis are on far more than Naismith was. I think it's extremely wishful thinking to assume we're recouping enough to offset a significant portion. 

So we're left looking at resale value or (unlikely) future value in our team. That's unknown but they're not at the end of their careers like Naismith. On the other hand there are two of them so the risk exposure is double. 

My instinct (based purely on having seen Rashica play a lot and barely seeing Tzolis) is that no one would ever stump up close to what we paid for Rashica while Tzolis has vastly more potential to come good.

So I'd say Rashica is almost certainly a worse signing than Naismith - in my opinion our single worst transfer ever - while Tzolis is very much unknown. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Badger said:

I suspect not.

1. We won't know until we see the accounts but t is highly likely thatt we are getting a bigger loan fee wage contribution for Rashica and Tzolis than we ever did for Naismith.

2. We are also far more likely to be able to sell and recover a significant proportion of the initial investment.

3. Rashica and especially Tzolis may improve as players - this was never going to be the case with Naismith.

A Maths answer, Parma:

Rashica + Tzolis > Naismith

Well done @Badger….I was being a little mischievous of course. Though only to make a reasonable point that @TeemuVanBasten hinted at. 

It was a bit Private Eye, though sometimes a little satire drives a point…

Parma 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy yesterday was first match this season where I was confident of winning throughout the match. Perhaps being on the terraces there was a buoyed up feeling, but felt we played generally within ourselves (witness the immediate riposte to their goal) and didn't need to find a higher gear at any time really. Certainly on the terraces it was a fun afternoon, not blighted with fear. Stepping performances up post World Cup to demonstrate we do have a couple of weapons is this season's next task! With 3 young players coming back from injury the pressure on everyone in the squad to perform consistently will give another view, even if the state of the nation remains as you have discussed.

I respect your view entirely @shefcanary. The feeling in the stands is hugely significant.
 

I wonder if you would have said the same if Rotherham had got a 95th minute equaliser. 

The overall pattern of play would not have changed, though the feeling and interpretation might have. 

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I strongly suspect (given the wage bill shown in our last accounts) that both Rashica and Tzolis are on far more than Naismith was. I think it's extremely wishful thinking to assume we're recouping enough to offset a significant portion. 

So we're left looking at resale value or (unlikely) future value in our team. That's unknown but they're not at the end of their careers like Naismith. On the other hand there are two of them so the risk exposure is double. 

My instinct (based purely on having seen Rashica play a lot and barely seeing Tzolis) is that no one would ever stump up close to what we paid for Rashica while Tzolis has vastly more potential to come good.

So I'd say Rashica is almost certainly a worse signing than Naismith - in my opinion our single worst transfer ever - while Tzolis is very much unknown. 

There you go @Badger. Another column for ‘Norwich Private Eye’

Well done @Petriix, I certainly lean more your way. At the very least it is another fair indication that the ‘pissed up the wall’ window was not awful and the ‘free hand, my way’ Webber window has risked - and failed - more so.

Parma 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I respect your view entirely @shefcanary. The feeling in the stands is hugely significant.
 

I wonder if you would have said the same if Rotherham had got a 95th minute equaliser. 

The overall pattern of play would not have changed, though the feeling and interpretation might have. 

Parma 

I was thst confident, we would have just gone straight up the other end and scored in the 97th! 😉 

Edited by shefcanary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I was thst confident, we would have just gone straight up the other end and scored in the 97th! 😉 

What has happened to you Sheff? You're turning into me😂

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Petriix said:

We're not seeing unmarked runners arriving at the far post for a tap in anymore.

Almost happened once in the first half. Overall, I thought we were strangely, simultaneously more solid AND more open yesterday. 

 

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

You can regularly see Cantwell struggle with this for example. He either whizzes around the press or he swans about waiting to receive an accurate pass.

Thought he was anonymous after he came on, yesterday was not a game situation/ "topic" which played to his strengths.

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy any green shoots of weapons/tactital situations which opposition coaches would need to take heed of on display yesterday? (Obviously plenty of watering/fertilizer needed.)

I fear that although I approach football from a pessemistic constitution; similar to your good pal @nutty nigel I may, in fact, be a hopeless romantic.

Edited by Taiwan Canary
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

What has happened to you Sheff? You're turning into me😂

That was the feeling yesterday. Half time v Middlesbrough I might yet revert to "normal"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

That was the feeling yesterday. Half time v Middlesbrough I might yet revert to "normal"!

Don't ever be normal. I've avoided that label all my life. We weren't put on this earth to be normal😂

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nutty nigel said:

Don't ever be normal. I've avoided that label all my life. We weren't put on this earth to be normal😂

Too true. Especially when being born in Norfolk!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Buendia was under contract. 

Parma 

Means literally nothing.

Honestly, and I hate to say this, but if you think contracts mean anything in the modern day footballing world, your concepts of football are probably 20-25yrs out of date.

As I have said, you created a completely hypothetical situation that suited your "fan connection" rather than relate to real examples of which there are plenty out there.
 

20 hours ago, Monty13 said:

So if I’m understand the above correctly, your position is Buendia was always leaving, Norwich had zero power and to suggest otherwise is a conspiracy.

I’m honestly at a loss at this point if that’s your position. I think you will struggle to find a single independent football journalist who agrees(certainly not the Pinkun or Athletic correspondents), let alone a majority, but happy to be proved wrong with some evidence.

My position is that once a player has made it clear that they want to leave, leaving is inevitable.

Not only that, we have a relatively good understanding of Buendia, the club had an even better one.

It takes a leap of faith to believe that the club didn't want to keep Buendia and had tried to do so. Like I say, we know something along those lines happened the summer before.

As I said before, the main issue is that you keep making it sound like a straight choice, an balanced choice. That you could simply say "No Emi, you are staying, tough. No move for you, no matter how much you want it, you are staying." And that's it. Dust your hands off as you walk away with a wry smile.

That's never, ever how it works. Again, we have examples. One example involves a far better model of player - Pukki. Another involves the player at Leicester that simply refused to play. Both kicked up a bit of a storm. Pukki through his agent (followed by a couple of weird posts on here and elsewhere) which ultimately ended with him saying he'd see out his contract.

However, the big difference with Pukki is that he is in the last year of his contract now and he is 100% in control. It is unlikely that we'll get a fee for him. Though it is likely we are not concerned about that due to his age and the fact we signed him on a free, not to generate funds but to be a longer standing member of the squad for the younger players to play with.

And that's the point. It isn't a 50/50 choice, not even close.

Conspiracy - sort of. You want to attach a narrative that is contrary to what appears to be the accepted narrative by the people who you say are reliable sources. No matter the timescales the one thing none of them have suggested is false is that the move was driven by the player wanting to leave.

As I said before, with Buendia, I don't believe there was much of a choice purely based on what we know. There isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise. You can choose to believe there is an alternative narrative, but there isn't anything that particularly corroborates that.

You also appear to refuse to believe that Buendia would become an issue if "forced" to stay. We actually have knowledge that he could become an issue - Aug 2020 for example, but also on the pitch when things weren't going his way. I'm not suggesting he would have completely gone AWOL, but I think the evidence is there that he would become an issue. We also don't know what his agent is like, and whether, like many agents it would seem, he would unsettle their player and continue to look for suitors no matter the clubs stance. Playing this out over a season that would already be difficult enough for us. Now, sure, this also takes a leap of faith, but there is more evidence for this than of Buendia accepting the decision happily and playing on as if nothing had happened - which is what your suggestion has been. Just a very simple and naive "we choose not to sell". 

I suppose I would also disagree slightly with one thing Parma says about Buendia too, in that he is a weapon, but so far, he appears to have been a weapon custom made for our use. Now, he could go on and shake that, but he isn't proving to be a weapon as of yet for Villa. That he was a weapon for us is key, not anyone else. But if Pukki is half a weapon, then I wonder what Buendia would have been like in last season's set up under Farke...then Smith. Would he have been reduced to half a weapon too? 

Like I say, it's all immaterial, it's the nexus point because we didn't uncover the next Buendia... in reality though, I think we had looked to find similar players before. I think they hoped Dowell could replicate some of it. They certainly hoped that Cantwell would continue to develop as well. Rashica was also clearly hoped to step up, and possesses more pace. That none of these happened just underlines how hard it is to find a player like Buendia. Arguably the last one we had was Hoolahan - I'd say Maddison but we had him for one season and again, was clearly going to play consistently at a higher level. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...