Parma’s State of the Nation

[MrBunce 280]

Something to bear in mind, those sums spent on wages and transfers were for a team that were relegated. Those would have been substantially higher if Norwich had stayed up. Both player bonuses as well as transfer add-ons would have been due. 

[Monty13 2,710]

On 03/01/2024 at 16:50, king canary said:

@Barham Blitz, excellent summary.

I mentioned elsewhere that nobody else on promotion has successfully made a Farkeball style of play work and most haven't even attempted. Burnley have tried with a significantly larger budget and it isn't going much better than our attempt.

You've got to recognise that having the players to outplay most of the Premier League is highly unlikely, even with a good budget. A slow build up doesn't work if you're both vulnerable to pressing and not good enough to take advantage if the press is beaten. People remember the hammerings we got under Farke in the top flight but for me the writing was on the wall when teams like Palace and Burnley were able to handle us with relative ease because they knew they just had to do a bit of pressing and wait for an error or a long ball because we had no out ball.

Counter attacking makes sense because the best chance a team of largely Championship players has of taking apart Premier League defences is in transition when they are out of position. Pressing makes sense because while you likely can't be more talented then them you can be as fit as humanly possible and try and force those turnovers higher up the pitch.

This isn't to say I think Wagner is building a Premier League capable system- the 4-2-2-2, 2 false 9 set up would likely be demolished with relative ease. But if we want to actually compete in the top flight (and if we don't whats the point?) then a manager and SD need to recognise the type of players we need- basically more Josh Sargent's and less Moritz Leitners. 

The issue and catch-22 of the situation you are right, you probably can’t be successful playing that way on promotion because the required level to reach is just to far.

We played like Farkes team in that first championship season at times, like a team still working out the basics. The PL is far too ruthless to let you do that and avoid relegation.

However I would suggest an alternative, you might not be successful first time, but maybe second or third if you can maintain the yo-yo while continuing to progress the same setup.

I thought that’s what we were doing. Then Webber sold Buendia and tore it all up in a fools gamble.

[essex canary 601]

5 minutes ago, MrBunce said:

Something to bear in mind, those sums spent on wages and transfers were for a team that were relegated. Those would have been substantially higher if Norwich had stayed up. Both player bonuses as well as transfer add-ons would have been due. 

Indeed so our £50 million more than Brentford must be effectively double theirs when their staying up bonuses were taken into account. Also Watford spent only around £10 million more upon promotion.

[shefcanary 2,901]

1 hour ago, MrBunce said:

Something to bear in mind, those sums spent on wages and transfers were for a team that were relegated. Those would have been substantially higher if Norwich had stayed up. Both player bonuses as well as transfer add-ons would have been due. 

Agreed, but in past years, some players persuaded the club to write contracts that did not have "relegation" clauses, so they continued to be paid at EPL rates with the same bonuses and appearance uplifts etc after relegation. So to have been able to negotiate this is actually a big step forward. Although one might argue that the fact the players accepted a high salary initially made them complacent and manifested itself in a worse quality squad that inevitably got relegated, as Essex rightly points out Brentford didn't even require the uplift in the first place and survived!

It was a feature of previous accounts in the year after relegation that salary costs did not reduce as quickly as expected. I commend again the fact that despite Pukki & Gibson, they did achieve this last season. 

[BigFish 2,257]

4 hours ago, Don J Demorr said:

2)      @BigFish will no doubt say that this means that at least one of the Board should be a “Football person”. Well, maybe, but these are not entirely or even mainly football decisions, they are financial and risk management decisions.

 

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Not for an established EPL side, but yes, Norwich should have built up more slowly to that level of expenditure. But at least the salaries were reduced quickly.

Mmmmm, well @Don J Demorr I am not so sure. It depends what you mean by "football person". Traditionally this was an ex-pro who had been in the business from a playing perspective. Increasingly our Universities are churning out hundreds of bright new sports scientists. Not "football people", but academically trained. Webber's failure is rooted in the fact he was too much in the former camp and not enough in the latter. He paniced off the back of Covid and faced with another car crash EPL season. In part he became a lightening rod for fan discontent, tore up what had been a successful model and we saw the result.

The club needs continuity if it is to be successful. The alternative is to keep churning through head coaches, managers, sporting directors, playing styles, identities, models and projects in the hope of another Lambert, or another Farke. To do this we need a separation of accountabilities. We need proper business management, but proper football management as well. Business can set the financial envelope. football can spend it. That needs someone from the latter camp, but a proper Director of Football capable of operating at board level. They should set the ideology while delegating to others to deliver. They should here for the long run and near invisible (which is why I am encouraged by Knapper's low profile) rather than stroking the bellys of needy fans calling for better coms. It should be possible to change players, coaches, managers, sporting directors, back room staff etc without changing the ideology so to maintain a performance culture. It needs to be able to cope with relegations and losing streaks without needing to rip it up and start again.

[Fen Canary 1,450]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

 

Mmmmm, well @Don J Demorr I am not so sure. It depends what you mean by "football person". Traditionally this was an ex-pro who had been in the business from a playing perspective. Increasingly our Universities are churning out hundreds of bright new sports scientists. Not "football people", but academically trained. Webber's failure is rooted in the fact he was too much in the former camp and not enough in the latter. He paniced off the back of Covid and faced with another car crash EPL season. In part he became a lightening rod for fan discontent, tore up what had been a successful model and we saw the result.

The club needs continuity if it is to be successful. The alternative is to keep churning through head coaches, managers, sporting directors, playing styles, identities, models and projects in the hope of another Lambert, or another Farke. To do this we need a separation of accountabilities. We need proper business management, but proper football management as well. Business can set the financial envelope. football can spend it. That needs someone from the latter camp, but a proper Director of Football capable of operating at board level. They should set the ideology while delegating to others to deliver. They should here for the long run and near invisible (which is why I am encouraged by Knapper's low profile) rather than stroking the bellys of needy fans calling for better coms. It should be possible to change players, coaches, managers, sporting directors, back room staff etc without changing the ideology so to maintain a performance culture. It needs to be able to cope with relegations and losing streaks without needing to rip it up and start again.

I could be wrong here, but are you suggesting Webber should have doggedly stuck to the same method of playing and recruitment, even though it had failed twice spectacularly at a higher level?

I do find the contradiction baffling at times. The club is criticised for a lack of ambition, yet a number of the same people also then criticise the club for moving away from a system which to me had clearly hit a ceiling.

They appear to say the club should have been happy to play a system designed to yo-yo between the leagues (although to me without Buendia I think it’s unlikely we’d have pulled it off a third time anyway), whilst also being critical of the club not wanting to stabilise themselves in the top flight 

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

8 hours ago, BigFish said:

 

Mmmmm, well @Don J Demorr I am not so sure. It depends what you mean by "football person". Traditionally this was an ex-pro who had been in the business from a playing perspective. Increasingly our Universities are churning out hundreds of bright new sports scientists. Not "football people", but academically trained. Webber's failure is rooted in the fact he was too much in the former camp and not enough in the latter. He paniced off the back of Covid and faced with another car crash EPL season. In part he became a lightening rod for fan discontent, tore up what had been a successful model and we saw the result.

The club needs continuity if it is to be successful. The alternative is to keep churning through head coaches, managers, sporting directors, playing styles, identities, models and projects in the hope of another Lambert, or another Farke. To do this we need a separation of accountabilities. We need proper business management, but proper football management as well. Business can set the financial envelope. football can spend it. That needs someone from the latter camp, but a proper Director of Football capable of operating at board level. They should set the ideology while delegating to others to deliver. They should here for the long run and near invisible (which is why I am encouraged by Knapper's low profile) rather than stroking the bellys of needy fans calling for better coms. It should be possible to change players, coaches, managers, sporting directors, back room staff etc without changing the ideology so to maintain a performance culture. It needs to be able to cope with relegations and losing streaks without needing to rip it up and start again.

Unlike many clubs who use the title but don't allow the person to have the full responsibilities we have had such, in Webber, and by all accounts Knapper is too, with his hands on all the appropriate levers. But I agree that it should be a board position.

Under the old systen the chief executive (Doncaster, McNally etc) was a director. When we split the role up the non-football CEO ended up on the board but the foootball CEO did not. This may have been because they were husband and wife, but that situation no longer applies.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

Worth all remembering that - like it or not - the football is the business.

We are buying and selling expensive human widgets. The rest is fluff and small beans in context. 

Indeed the small beans are trotsdem affected by the feel and emotionally-invested success of the widgets - and might well barely exist or be profitable without the widgets.

These widgets can be acquired for next-to-nothing and sold for £35m.

Or lots of pointless, poorly-judged widgets can be bought for £10m, cost millions more in running costs, then ushered away for free.

Director of Football and Director of Business therefore cannot and should not be completely separated. 

If they are, one is running the canteen and the other has his or her hands on everything. 

Parma 

Edited January 5 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Morph 31]

5 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I could be wrong here, but are you suggesting Webber should have doggedly stuck to the same method of playing and recruitment, even though it had failed twice spectacularly at a higher level?

I do find the contradiction baffling at times. The club is criticised for a lack of ambition, yet a number of the same people also then criticise the club for moving away from a system which to me had clearly hit a ceiling.

They appear to say the club should have been happy to play a system designed to yo-yo between the leagues (although to me without Buendia I think it’s unlikely we’d have pulled it off a third time anyway), whilst also being critical of the club not wanting to stabilise themselves in the top flight 

Actually @Fen Canary I think there is evidence to suggest that you need to adapt your style of play to survive on promotion. You can play your way out of the Championship, City did it twice and Burnley did it last season - Southampton may do it this season. However, several people have alluded or pointed out the fact that you can’t do that in the EPL with your Championship squad, so you need a more pragmatic way of playing.

I think the suggestion is that the gegenpress quick transition style that Wagner wants to play could work at EPL level.

I guess the question I’m left with is the club capable of identifying the need to switch styles on promotion and get the right additions to make it really work.

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy could you see such an approach working?

[Fen Canary 1,450]

6 minutes ago, Morph said:

Actually @Fen Canary I think there is evidence to suggest that you need to adapt your style of play to survive on promotion. You can play your way out of the Championship, City did it twice and Burnley did it last season - Southampton may do it this season. However, several people have alluded or pointed out the fact that you can’t do that in the EPL with your Championship squad, so you need a more pragmatic way of playing.

I think the suggestion is that the gegenpress quick transition style that Wagner wants to play could work at EPL level.

I guess the question I’m left with is the club capable of identifying the need to switch styles on promotion and get the right additions to make it really work.

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy could you see such an approach working?

I agree, but that wasn’t the point I was making (albeit clumsily). I think Webber was right to try and change the style of play, I just don’t think he did it very well. However many on here criticise him for not having continuity and continuing the Farke style of football even though it had been an abject failure in the top flight. They were criticising the club for a lack of ambition, and also criticising the club for not being happy with the status quo.

In my opinion you’re better off trying to get promoted with a style of football that has more chance of surviving in the top flight then just improving the quality of players once you’re there, rather than playing pretty football to get promoted then having to completely alter your tactics and personnel over the close season 

[king canary 8,644]

12 hours ago, Monty13 said:

The issue and catch-22 of the situation you are right, you probably can’t be successful playing that way on promotion because the required level to reach is just to far.

We played like Farkes team in that first championship season at times, like a team still working out the basics. The PL is far too ruthless to let you do that and avoid relegation.

However I would suggest an alternative, you might not be successful first time, but maybe second or third if you can maintain the yo-yo while continuing to progress the same setup.

I thought that’s what we were doing. Then Webber sold Buendia and tore it all up in a fools gamble.

Personally I'm not convinced about the idea of gradually getting better relegation after relegation. 

Footballers careers are short. Convincing talented players that we might be able to stay up in 4 years isn't going to keep anyone here and then you end up hoping you can beat the odds and keep signing players for £5m who are actually worth £35m. 

[BigFish 2,257]

6 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I could be wrong here, but are you suggesting Webber should have doggedly stuck to the same method of playing and recruitment, even though it had failed twice spectacularly at a higher level?

I do find the contradiction baffling at times. The club is criticised for a lack of ambition, yet a number of the same people also then criticise the club for moving away from a system which to me had clearly hit a ceiling.

They appear to say the club should have been happy to play a system designed to yo-yo between the leagues (although to me without Buendia I think it’s unlikely we’d have pulled it off a third time anyway), whilst also being critical of the club not wanting to stabilise themselves in the top flight 

 

36 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I agree, but that wasn’t the point I was making (albeit clumsily). I think Webber was right to try and change the style of play, I just don’t think he did it very well. However many on here criticise him for not having continuity and continuing the Farke style of football even though it had been an abject failure in the top flight. They were criticising the club for a lack of ambition, and also criticising the club for not being happy with the status quo.

In my opinion you’re better off trying to get promoted with a style of football that has more chance of surviving in the top flight then just improving the quality of players once you’re there, rather than playing pretty football to get promoted then having to completely alter your tactics and personnel over the close season 

Well yes. @fen canary, I am suggesting that Webber should have maintained the the same approach during the window ahead of our last EPL season on the basis that it was already too late to change, one window is not enough to turn round something like this. Which is why your last paragraph is bang on the money, we need to go up playing the type of football that enables us to stay up.

As for the criticism, lets face it many fans, but not on this thread of course 🙂 are idiots. Ambition is largely spending money we don't have on players we can't afford. We need a system where someone is planning 4 windows ahead, that survives relegation and that focuses on performance improvement that is achievable not magical thinking. That includes succession planning. Smith was a mistake, we should have been able to replace Farke with a head coach to deliver within ideology, not a new ideology. It is probably not a coincidence that our most successful period coincided with a series of internal management appointments.

If all this means we yo-yo, so be it. That might be the best we can expect. As we see from last season and this one there are worse positions to be in.

[shefcanary 2,901]

8 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I could be wrong here, but are you suggesting Webber should have doggedly stuck to the same method of playing and recruitment, even though it had failed twice spectacularly at a higher level?

I do find the contradiction baffling at times. The club is criticised for a lack of ambition, yet a number of the same people also then criticise the club for moving away from a system which to me had clearly hit a ceiling.

They appear to say the club should have been happy to play a system designed to yo-yo between the leagues (although to me without Buendia I think it’s unlikely we’d have pulled it off a third time anyway), whilst also being critical of the club not wanting to stabilise themselves in the top flight 

Evolution not revolution.

Tweaking was certainly called for after two failures, but ditching Farke for Smith was revolution. It meant going from a coach who minutely coached all activity, including all tactical in-game decisions on the pitch, to one who admitted in interview he just coached players to make their own decisions and had no say in what happened once they crossed the white line! Too much change in too short a time. 

[Barham Blitz 839]

6 minutes ago, BigFish said:

 

We need a system where someone is planning 4 windows ahead, that survives relegation and that focuses on performance improvement that is achievable not magical thinking. That includes succession planning. Smith was a mistake, we should have been able to replace Farke with a head coach to deliver within ideology, not a new ideology [...] If all this means we yo-yo, so be it. That might be the best we can expect. As we see from last season and this one there are worse positions to be in.

Absolutely this. 

By all means tweak tactics to reflect the realities of the division that we are in, but those tweaks have to accommodate the various (and likely) outcomes involved. 

What we don't do - unless perhaps we are attempting to secure our short term legacy ...😉- is gamble the farm on players to fit a new system (especially if they don't actually fit that system - and / or the system doesn't work anyway) and in particular if those players have no intention of staying beyond a likely relegation which will adversely affect their resale value, either through underperformance or the discount that seems to be applied for wantaway players.

We certainly don't flip flop between systems for which different types of players are required because if the system "required" to stay in the Premier League is then incompatible with or negates the system on which our strengths at the level below is based, then basic maths will highlight the double whammy as we have to move on players who will in all likelihood have depreciated in value and replace them.  Or - as we've seen - end up less likely to bounce back.  And even relegation clauses won't mask the fact that you end up overpaying in the Championship for players that have had Premiership wages and can't move them on as a result.

As has been highlighted, there is a difference between what gets you up and what (may) keep you up.  But even throwing five times the budget that we have historically been able to afford at the issue offers no guarantees, so there has to be some notion of what comes after.  Which is why I'm not an advocate of tearing up the possession blueprint and throwing all our eggs in the low block gegenpressing basket to stay in a division that we aren't even in, given that it makes it more difficult to get there in the first place and more difficult to get back once the reality of financial gravity takes hold.

Plus it makes the whole experience just that little bit less fun.

[Indy 3,448]

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

Worth all remembering that - like it or not - the football is the business.

We are buying and selling expensive human widgets. The rest is fluff and small beans in context. 

Indeed the small beans are trotsdem affected by the feel and emotionally-invested success of the widgets - and might well barely exist or be profitable without the widgets.

These widgets can be acquired for next-to-nothing and sold for £35m.

Or lots of pointless, poorly-judged widgets can be bought for £10m, cost millions more in running costs, then ushered away for free.

Director of Football and Director of Business therefore cannot and should not be completely separated. 

If they are, one is running the canteen and the other has his or her hands on everything. 

Parma 

Indeed and those club’s similar to us who have become successful at buying low and selling big like Leicester, Brighton & Brentford have all built from very basic starts with good investment initially. Moved to new facilities and now reap the reward of buying at decent prices but sell for good profit. You can add Southampton to that list! Burnley & Stoke survived for a period at top level, but not really with that big transfers.

Note that all have or will have some success and all will come down, only clubs with mega money are safe and they are the ones generating the massive fees!

Not all clubs can become successful by just buying cheap and selling on as the market isn’t there! There must be investment behind it and the structure constantly moved forwards, Leicester expansion coming up! We have tried to be a self sustaining club but it’s not really viable, like I said those clubs I link all still have poor seasons! Just the nature of the game! As Nutty says we can’t all be a top 6 club, there’s a level we should be happy to be at and sustain, ambition is an evil expense which can bankrupt many a club!

Edited January 5 by Indy

[Barham Blitz 839]

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

These widgets can be acquired for next-to-nothing and sold for £35m.

Or lots of pointless, poorly-judged widgets can be bought for £10m, cost millions more in running costs, then ushered away for free.

 

I love this post for many reasons, but these two lines in particular - to choose two random values just plucked out of thin air and absolutely not referencing any transfer activity of the relatively recent past ...

In my line of work, when we are resourcing a contract we have to consider various potentialities across the duration of that contract - what happens if things don't go entirely according to plan, either positively or negatively - and so plan various entry and exit strategies to minimise risk and maximise the value that can be derived from the deployment of these resources.   Given the money spent on the likes of Rashica and Tzolis - and indeed latterly Forshaw, Batth and Duffy - I'm really not sure that is the case with some of our recruitment decisions, even accounting for relegation release clauses. 

Which given the likelihood - despite even our best efforts in terms of planning - of the negative outcome, seems somewhat negligent.  Three teams get relegated very year after all, even if all 20 plan flawlessly.

Perhaps, if a former Sporting Director is reading this, particularly one who has previously acquired a widget for next to nothing and sold it for say £35m, one might append a small disclaimer to any subsequent transfer decisions along the lines of "past performance does not guarantee future results." 

What is the plan if the plan doesn't go according to plan ... ?

Edited January 5 by Barham Blitz
Thumbs again

[Indy 3,448]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Evolution not revolution.

Tweaking was certainly called for after two failures, but ditching Farke for Smith was revolution. It meant going from a coach who minutely coached all activity, including all tactical in-game decisions on the pitch, to one who admitted in interview he just coached players to make their own decisions and had no say in what happened once they crossed the white line! Too much change in too short a time. 

Yes indeed and the model of the five year plan ditched in 11 games of that season!

It has to be said that Brexit killed our skill at targeting decent low cost young players from the EU! Had that not changed I do wonder if we would have been a little more successful?

But you’re correct Leicester though relegated are still evolving now looking at stadium expansion and new commercial opportunities around the stadium! Maybe we too should consider other options to Carrow Road if it’s feasible in the future?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

On 05/01/2024 at 09:09, Morph said:

Actually @Fen Canary I think there is evidence to suggest that you need to adapt your style of play to survive on promotion. You can play your way out of the Championship, City did it twice and Burnley did it last season - Southampton may do it this season. However, several people have alluded or pointed out the fact that you can’t do that in the EPL with your Championship squad, so you need a more pragmatic way of playing.

I think the suggestion is that the gegenpress quick transition style that Wagner wants to play could work at EPL level.

I guess the question I’m left with is the club capable of identifying the need to switch styles on promotion and get the right additions to make it really work.

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy could you see such an approach working?

There is no need for revisionism or hindsightism  to answer this for you @Morph….

1. I never thought we would stay up

2. I did not want us to spend hard-earned and rarely-obtained funds on such an objective

3. I do not believe it should have been the Board’s overriding objective (behind closed doors, agree @Don J Demorr ?)

4. We had a historically successful period under Farke

5. We were entertained and understood the philosophy and were proud of it and associated it with our inherent-instinctive culture under Farke

6. We adopted positional play methodology throughout the club under Farke. This is a huge time and ‘philosophical’ teaching investment

7. We sacked Farke after 10 games and 3 months at the top level. 

8. We did not replace like with like and brought in a different playing philosophy and coaching approach. 

9. We sold out the stadium in the third division

10. We didn’t have any investor money. Our self-sustaining model was just a corporate definition of a financial reality

11. Almost no clubs survive perennially in the top tier

12. Average wages and running costs are astronomical at the top level, which is virtually the ‘world league’.

13. The disparity between the top tier and second tier in both a sporting competitive sense  and average player standards is orders of magnitude different 

In my view Farke did not fail at the top level. The club (and its financial constraints) failed at the top level. We were forced into contorted artificial compromises as a result of essentially non-sporting factors.

Given all of the above - which is consistently referred to, acknowledged, accepted on this thread and the previous Tactics Masterclasses going back years - it makes zero sense to me to plan (at senior board level) for survival. 

At no point will my players or managers have any actual or tacit sense of this, nor does it mean that we actively endeavor not to get promoted or stay there, though we must act according to the odds as are available to us.

 

a. Increasing the size of the squad - almost trying to run-fund-curate two similar level teams - was a very, very odd decision. It is far more that that we are paying for now, than even paying Gibson too much. ‘Do the math’

b. Selling any weapons you might have lucked out on is an absolute last resort at any time. Lie, cheat, borrow, cajole, bribe, influence whatever you can, however you can, to avoid this. 

c. Selling goalscorers (or negating their particular catalyst) is a second last resort

d. Footballers always moan. They always want to move to Real Madrid. They have a very strong street sense for which way the wind is blowing. Learn from Alex Ferguson: have myriads of whisperers, spotters, influencers, spies and perfume sellers to keep things smelling good or talking about jam tomorrow. Selling your only weapon and negating your goal scorer at the point of promotion after promising to come back stronger is psychological football suicide. 

e. We can’t buy or attract players  good enough for the top level and we never could. Even if we could afford it they wouldn’t come. It is so easy to swallow football stories about a player ‘who Man Utd looked at’. They just confirmed they looked at 800 right backs before buying Wan-Bissaka (yes I know..insert joke here). Anyway the point stands. 

These are the horrible realpolitik look-it-in-the-eye calculations and decisions that @Don J Demorr consistently implores all to make.  And that football fans - and it seems even coaches and sporting directors - just can’t emotionally separate themselves from. As he wisely said, far too much of  ‘something must be done…and this is something!’

No, no, no. 

I liked our first Premier season ‘do nothing’ approach.

I liked the idea of trying to get high quality loans. Temporary high cost. Low back end risk. It didn’t work, but absolutely fine. Logical.  Based on the calculated odds. 

Though again this comes back to mis-identification of ‘good players’ when only awkward weapons are worth anything for us at the top level. 

In the second tier we can be better. We can set up to be better. At the top level you can’t. You aren’t better. Almost ever.

But…and this is the big but…it doesn’t mean throw your style and philosophy away. It doesn’t have to mean a prosaic, negating style completely anathema to everything you have done and taught and learned for years. 

Just try to get a weapon. Anyhow. Anyway. A Defoe, a Crouch, a Buendia-plus-Pukki….……then simply accept it often won’t work anyway. Because it often won’t. It can’t. Whatever you do. They are better than you. The odds are more in their favor than yours. 

Trying to smooth out the peaks and being a-big-squad-of-less-bad achieves nothing. This is what we did second time around. Spent a fortune on a massive squad that was less bad and trotsdem never hurt anybody. Of course it didn’t. No weapons. 

Where  the top level is different to the second tier - and where we have a willo-the-wisp of a chance - is that nobody wins many games. You need to win 9 or 10.

So just think about these.

Have a weaponised system that might win some games. 

It won’t be regularly competitive. It will be flawed. It will take some heavy beatings. But it will occasionally hurt someone with what it can do.

Throw everything at this. 

Risk injuries, dissatisfaction, frustrations on canary call on a Saturday evening, criticism…just keep a threat. Always keep a threat. Even brilliant boxers don’t like getting punched in the face, even occasionally. 

Re-arrange your all your financial, sporting, strategic, operational deck chairs in advance with only this in mind. Only this. At all costs. 

And if you can’t, don’t. 

I hate a passive do nothing. But an active do nothing can be a brilliant decision. 
 

Parma 

Edited January 6 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
paragraph inserted, edits, improvements

[Number9 272]

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

There is no need for revisionism or hindsightism  to answer this for you @Morph….

1. I never thought we would stay up

2. I did not want us to spend hard-earned and rarely-obtained funds on such an objective

3. I do not believe it should have been the Board’s overriding objective (behind closed doors, agree @Don J Demorr ?)

4. We had a historically successful period under Farke

5. We were entertained and understood the philosophy and were proud of it and associated it with our inherent-instinctive culture under Farke

6. We adopted positional play methodology throughout the club under Farke. This is a huge time and ‘philosophical’ teaching investment

7. We sacked Farke after 10 games and 3 months at the top level. 

8. We did not replace like with like and brought in a different playing philosophy and coaching approach. 

9. We sold out the stadium in the third division

10. We don’t and didn’t have any investor money. Our self-sustaining model was just a corporate definition of a financial reality

11. Almost no clubs survive perennially in the top tier

12. Average wages and running costs are astronomical at the top level, which is virtually the ‘world league’.

13. The disparity between the top tier and second tier in both a sporting competitive sense  and average player standards is orders of magnitude different 

 

Given the above - which is consistent referred to, acknowledged, accepted on this thread and the previous Tactics Masterclasses - it makes zero sense to me to plan (at senior board level) for survival. 

At no point will my players or managers have any actual or tacit sense of this, nor does it mean that we actively endeavor not to get promoted or stay there, though we must act according to the odds as are available to us.

a. Increasing the size of the squad - almost trying to run-fund-curate two similar level teams - was a very, very odd decision. It is far more that that we are paying for now, then even paying Gibson too much. ‘Do the math’

b. Selling any weapons you might have lucked out on is an absolute last resort at any time. Lie, cheat, borrow, cajole, bribe, influence whatever you can, however you can to avoid this. 

c. Selling goalscorers (or negating their particular catalyst) is a second last resort

d. Footballers always moan. They always want to move to Real Madrid. They have a very strong street sense for which way the wind is blowing. Learn from Alex Ferguson: have myriads of whisperers, spotters, influencers, spies and perfume sellers to keep things smelling good or talking about jam tomorrow. Selling your only weapon and negating your goal scorer at the point of promotion after promising to come back stronger is psychological football suicide. 

e. We can’t buy or attract players  good enough for the top level and we never could. Even if we could afford it they wouldn’t come. It is so easy to swallow football stories about a player ‘who Man Utd looked at’. They just confirmed they looked at 800 right backs before buying Wan-Bissaka (yes I know..insert joke here). Anyway the point stands. 

These are the horrible realpolitik look-it-in-the-eye calculations and decisions that @Don J Demorr consistently implores to make.  And that football fans - and it seems even coaches and sporting directors - just can’t emotionally separate themselves from. As he wisely said, far too much ‘something must be done…and this is something!’

No, no, no. 

I liked our first Premier season ‘do nothing’ approach.

I liked the idea of trying to get high quality loans. Temporary high cost. Low back end risk. Absolutely fine. 

Though again this comes back to mid-identification of ‘good players’ when only awkward weapons are worth anything for us at the top level. 

In the second tier we can be better. We can set up to be better. At the top level you can’t. 

But…and this is the big but…it doesn’t mean throw your style and philosophy away. It doesn’t have to mean a prosaic, negating style completely anathema to everything you done and taught and learned for years. 

Just try to get a weapon. Anyhow. Anyway. A Defoe, a Crouch, a Buendia-plus-Pukki….……then simply accept it often won’t work. Because it often won’t. It can’t. Whatever you do. They are better than you. The odds are more in their favor than yours. 

Trying to smooth out the peaks and be less bad achieves nothing. This is what we did second time around. Spent a fortune on a massive squad that was less bad and trotsdem never hurt anybody. Of course it didn’t

Where  the top level is different to the second tier - and where we have a willo-the-wisp of a chance - is that nobody wins many games. You need to win 9 or 10.

So just think about these.

Have a weaponised system that might win some games. 

It won’t be regularly competitive. It will be flawed. It will take some heavy beatings. But it will occasionally hurt someone with what it can do.

Throw everything at this. 

Risk injuries, dissatisfaction, frustrations on canary call on a Saturday evening, criticism…just keep a threat. Always keep a threat. Even brilliant boxers don’t like getting punched in the face, even occasionally. 

Re-arrange your deck chairs in advance with only this in mind. Only this. At all costs. 

And if you can’t, don’t. 

I hate a passive do nothing. But an active do nothing can be a brilliant decision. 
 

Parma 

Your comments about the size of the playing squad are refreshing Parma.

Too often I hear Farke referred to as a manager who had no funds at his disposal & was sent to war with no bullets.

Truth be told he bought many, many players. I'd have loved that money to have been spent on fewer,  better quality players who would have improved the first team and made a difference. 

 

[king canary 8,644]

14 minutes ago, Number9 said:

Your comments about the size of the playing squad are refreshing Parma.

Too often I hear Farke referred to as a manager who had no funds at his disposal & was sent to war with no bullets.

Truth be told he bought many, many players. I'd have loved that money to have been spent on fewer,  better quality players who would have improved the first team and made a difference. 

 

The reporting suggested he wanted that but Webber was concerned about Farke's training methods causing injuries so preferred a larger squad.

I'm still unconvinced that 3 or 4 players would have made Farkeball work but maybe those players would have helped him make the tactical transition we needed to. I was sceptical if he'd learn anything when he seemed to repeat the exact same issues at Gladbach but watching his Leeds team it is clear to see he's made some adjustments. 

[Number9 272]

6 minutes ago, king canary said:

The reporting suggested he wanted that but Webber was concerned about Farke's training methods causing injuries so preferred a larger squad.

I'm still unconvinced that 3 or 4 players would have made Farkeball work but maybe those players would have helped him make the tactical transition we needed to. I was sceptical if he'd learn anything when he seemed to repeat the exact same issues at Gladbach but watching his Leeds team it is clear to see he's made some adjustments. 

I wasn't in the building so wasn't privy to conversations between Webber & Farke. 

I have had a few conversations with Farke & base my opinion of him on them.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

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

 @Morph….

@Don J Demorr 

I hate a passive do nothing. But an active do nothing can be a brilliant decision. 
 

Parma 

Haha love that line 

[Robert N. LiM 5,944]

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

Have a weaponised system that might win some games. 

It won’t be regularly competitive. It will be flawed. It will take some heavy beatings. But it will occasionally hurt someone with what it can do.

Throw everything at this. 

Risk injuries, dissatisfaction, frustrations on canary call on a Saturday evening, criticism…just keep a threat. Always keep a threat. Even brilliant boxers don’t like getting punched in the face, even occasionally. 

Could Farke have been the coach with such a system in mind? 

[shefcanary 2,901]

3 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

consider various potentialities across the duration of that contract - what happens if things don't go entirely according to plan, either positively or negatively - and so plan various entry and exit strategies to minimise risk and maximise the value that can be derived from the deployment of these resources.   

And this is the role of the independent person on the Board to ensure that risk is managed. I just don't think board members with vested interest are up to ensuring risk management is applied correctly, I am surprised the ED doesn't ensure this but there was a close connection to the SD who was the source of the main risk!

[Don J Demorr 165]

7 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Unlike many clubs who use the title but don't allow the person to have the full responsibilities we have had such, in Webber, and by all accounts Knapper is too, with his hands on all the appropriate levers. But I agree that it should be a board position.

Under the old systen the chief executive (Doncaster, McNally etc) was a director. When we split the role up the non-football CEO ended up on the board but the foootball CEO did not. This may have been because they were husband and wife, but that situation no longer applies.

This is such a challenging and fascinating thread; so many well thought out, heartfelt and convincingly expressed opinions and insights. If you will allow me, I’d like to join in again with what I hope will be useful input from a different perspective (which is knowing little or nothing about football except what you all have allowed me to know).

Firstly @Parma Ham's gone mouldy - Much as I love Delia, the proudly worn self-pinned badge of  ‘We let the Managers manage’ was always a flawed, ill-conceived concept ….

Oh my goodness, this is so right. Let’s look at some basic legal and logical requirements of the organisation and management of a corporate entity.

1.       In any such enterprise the legal responsibility for all outcomes lies with the Board Of Directors.

2.       If the enterprise has shareholders the Board has operating responsibility to the shareholders for profits losses and dividends.

The understanding of these basics depends on some definitions.

1.       The Board has legal Responsibility

2.       The Board has the Power to carry out these responsibilities

The axiom is that you can always assign Power but you cannot ever assign Responsibility.

If the Board gives people power the responsibility for their action goes with it, but the the responsibility goes straight back to the Board – it does not transfer independently. If indeed the Majority Shareholder has said ‘We let the Managers manage ’ that person is not acting properly as a member of a Board of Directors. It would be interesting to know whether that was ever formally agreed by the Board. If not, it cannot be a proper Company Policy. If the company is being operated outside an agreed policy it is not only the major shareholder who is in dereliction of duty.

If it is true as alleged that the major shareholder has advised an employee that his position is in her hands then the power to make this decision is taken from not only (maybe) the Director of Football, but also from the Board. This is not really ‘We let the Managers manage’ is it?

@PurpleCanary- Unlike many clubs who use the title but don't allow the person to have the full responsibilities we have had such, in Webber, and by all accounts Knapper is too, with his hands on all the appropriate levers. But I agree that it should be a board position.

I find it utterly astonishing that it ever was otherwise - Don .

@BigFish  It depends what you mean by "football person". Traditionally this was an ex-pro who had been in the business from a playing perspective. Increasingly our Universities are churning out hundreds of bright new sports scientists. Not "football people", but academically trained. Webber's failure is rooted in the fact he was too much in the former camp and not enough in the latter.

That needs someone from the latter camp, but a proper Director of Football capable of operating at board level. They should set the ideology while delegating to others to deliver.

Amen to that, @BF except that, as above, I am not at all convinced that Stuart Webber the one to fail. He was given power to act by the Board. If he acted ultra vires he should have been disciplined or dismissed. If he was acting with the knowledge and agreement of the Board of Directors then he was in no way at fault. I should imagine he was very fed up, though.

Best to all, as ever

Don

[Indy 3,448]

20 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

And this is the role of the independent person on the Board to ensure that risk is managed. I just don't think board members with vested interest are up to ensuring risk management is applied correctly, I am surprised the ED doesn't ensure this but there was a close connection to the SD who was the source of the main risk!

The independent member would be best coming from a management background with knowledge of a continuous improvement process, one who can sit comfortably knowing that they can carry out a risk assessment on strategic choices without any relationship to the existing board members.

It’s a system I don’t know if it’s ever used in this industry but many big companies such as BP use risk management tools for optimal choices in their business. They’re doing OK…. Just saying my opinion.

[king canary 8,644]

While this is interesting I think there is a danger in suggesting football clubs be ran in the same way as other businesses. So much about football clubs isn't remotely analogous to any other type of business. Where else for instance do the managers and senior directors earn significantly less than the people they manage (the players). And where else, as @Parma Ham's gone mouldy notes can your expensive widget lose so much value in the blink of an eye. Or where else does the revenue you generate suddenly drop by 50% if you perform as the 18th best in your field? I think there are some principles you can take from the corporate world to football but there is a danger in thinking it can be lifted wholesale. Take this from @Don J Demorr...

Quote

I am not at all convinced that Stuart Webber the one to fail. He was given power to act by the Board. If he acted ultra vires he should have been disciplined or dismissed. If he was acting with the knowledge and agreement of the Board of Directors then he was in no way at fault. I should imagine he was very fed up, though.

Obviously the board needs to sign off on the general strategy but we've seen in football countless times that owners who want to get too in the weeds on actual football matters are often far more of a hindrance than a help. Fundamentally the owners of the club (and I'd suggest the owners of most clubs) aren't knowledgeable enough to be challenging the on the pitch strategy of a sporting director and, frankly, any reasonable sporting director or manager would be telling them where to shove it. We have a lovely example of this happening at Birmingham now. Sacking a manager who had them in 6th place because the owners and board decided they needed to be playing 'fearless front foot football' and then promptly plummeting when the Head Coach they chose to make this change failed spectacularly. 

Delia Smith & MWJ, Robert Chase or Mark Atanasio are fundamentally not qualified to pass judgement on whether a team should be built to press high and counter or keep possession and build from the back, and thus also can't sign off on whether spending £10m on Milot Rashica is a wise investment based on the teams needs.

Webber was the one to fail- he heads up the scouting team, he sets the strategy and he decides who is worth investing what in and that is how it should be- the other option of having owners vetoing signings would be a disaster.

I agree with @BigFish that a football person on the board to provide some oversite or accountability would be welcome. But I can't buy the idea that Webber isn't at fault because the board agreed to his strategy. That is a principle that makes sense in 'the real world' so to speak but not in football.

 

[Monty13 2,710]

7 hours ago, king canary said:

Personally I'm not convinced about the idea of gradually getting better relegation after relegation. 

Footballers careers are short. Convincing talented players that we might be able to stay up in 4 years isn't going to keep anyone here and then you end up hoping you can beat the odds and keep signing players for £5m who are actually worth £35m. 

We didn’t need to convince them all though.  We sold some players on relegation and we got some new players, but we progressed that second Championship season. The club moved forward, some individuals moved on.

As a long term tactic it’s pretty unlikely to be sustainable I agree, fatigue after 3, 4, 5 relegations would be pretty hard to avoid across everyone involved including supporters.

However I thought we had a real chance that second season of maybe sneaking staying up, certainly putting up much more of a fight. That is until we sold our best player on promotion.

 

Edited January 5 by Monty13

[Don J Demorr 165]

3 hours ago, Number9 said:

I do not believe it should have been the Board’s overriding objective (behind closed doors, agree @Don J Demorr ?)

I suppose I should get used to this but yet again an artfully simple question originating from @Parma Ham's gone mouldyknowing full well that the answer is not going to be a one-liner, So, here we go: - (Warning - this might get a bit metaphysical)

1.       A good corporation provides what the customer wants.

After following this Forum for about two years I have no more idea about what the NCFC fan base wants than when I started. The voice of the customer is a cacophony, a shapeless howl. How that would shape the overriding objective is beyond me.

2.       An excellent corporation provides what the customer needs

If the wants problem is a puzzle the needs conundrum is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.  The customer might not know what the needs are.  Needs are deeper than wants and are closer to the soul. The needs of a football crowd are hidden in it’s psyche. Is there a Football Psychologist in the House? Frankly, not ever having been a follower of the game, I have no idea.

Maybe we should forget about the customers and think about the overriding objective with respect to the organisation itself. These are of course prescribed by Law but the law says nothing about behaviour, nor about the problem of psychological needs of any of the Directors themselves. Whenever this is discussed the usual reference is to the seminal work “The Hierarchy of Needs” by Abraham Maslow. This relates to the behavioural motivation of living organisms but maybe it is not too much of a stretch to extend this to a corporation. Maslow would say that the most fundamental need is to survive. This does not sit well with a policy of “Self Financing” unless there is the provision of a ready safety net of available low-risk funding.

Best to all,

Don

Edited January 5 by Don J Demorr

[Don J Demorr 165]

23 minutes ago, king canary said:

Fundamentally the owners of the club (and I'd suggest the owners of most clubs) aren't knowledgeable enough to be challenging the on the pitch strategy of a sporting director

Sir, (or should it be Sire?)

That is not at all what I am referring to and it would be absurd for the Board to do that.

Don