Parma’s State of the Nation

[Monty13 2,494]

6 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Short of there being a legal document saying we had to let Buendia go, and I have never seen that suggested, then indeed we had a choice, to keep or to sell. The problem with claiming selling Buendia was a massive act of self-harm is that it rests on the absolute certainty that if we had kept him (and so not had that £33m extra to spend) then we would have performed better that season. But I know of no way of demonstrating that as a probability, let alone proving it as a certainty.😍

I do agree Purple in part. However I think the argument is, or at least mine would be, you’re right we don’t know if we would have still been relegated with him (I suspect we likely would) or whether we even would have been much better than the previous PL campaign.

The issue is his sale cut the legs off that season before it began, probably led to Farkes dismissal, Smiths appointment and a period of declining fortunes we are just now showing signs of recovering out of with the help of Attanasio.

It may be long term it kickstarted a series of events that leads to a stronger future, but that certainly wasn’t intentional. What’s undeniable is the money spent from his sale did nothing to improve our fortunes that season.

[BigFish 2,089]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

Yes, I wonder if those who argued the opposite will hold their hands up. Feels unlikely.

I don't mind admitting that I thought at the time it was likely that Buendia wanted to double his wages and avoid another likely unsuccessful releagation fight. As such it was logical to think the club had no choice. Events and @Parma Ham's gone mouldy have persuaded me otherwise. But the problem with alternate histories is they compare the subjective with the known outcome. Should we have kept Buendia our transfer budget would have probably amounted to 1 x EPL player (a CB or Skipp replacement) and 2 x loans. The likely outcome is another unsuccessful fight against relegation. In this situation the self same posters who rake up Buendiagate would have equal and opposite critiques. The fact I was wrong in my opinion doesn't necessarily mean I think they were right.

That said I take Parm's point on sporting momentum to heart. I see that, and now agree. This is a post about opinions, not of opinions.

Edited March 23 by BigFish

[PurpleCanary 5,852]

37 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I do agree Purple in part. However I think the argument is, or at least mine would be, you’re right we don’t know if we would have still been relegated with him (I suspect we likely would) or whether we even would have been much better than the previous PL campaign.

The issue is his sale cut the legs off that season before it began, probably led to Farkes dismissal, Smiths appointment and a period of declining fortunes we are just now showing signs of recovering out of with the help of Attanasio.

It may be long term it kickstarted a series of events that leads to a stronger future, but that certainly wasn’t intentional. What’s undeniable is the money spent from his sale did nothing to improve our fortunes that season.

Monty, the counter argument is that if we had held onto Buendia the lack of extra signings (which would have caused uproar here) would just as much have cut the legs off the season! I understand Parma's argument, and particularly the point about the psychological damage it may have caused.

But there was also the potential for psychological damage in going into an Premier League season with some glaring gaps in the squad (and yes, I get the claim that the extra money ended up being mainly wasted, but that is a side issue to the overall argument.) My point is that I don't see there is an absolute certainty here.

PS. Just seen that Big Fish is making a similar point.

Edited March 23 by PurpleCanary

[Monty13 2,494]

34 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Monty, the counter argument is that if we had held onto Buendia the lack of extra signings (which would have caused uproar here) would just as much have cut the legs off the season! I understand Parma's argument, and particularly the point about the psychological damage it may have caused.

But there was also the potential for psychological damage in going into an Premier League season with some glaring gaps in the squad (and yes, I get the claim that the extra money ended up being mainly wasted, but that is a side issue to the overall argument.) My point is that I don't see there is an absolute certainty here.

PS. Just seen that Big Fish is making a similar point.

I’m not sure. I agree it would have been met with much nashing of teeth on here but I doubt the psychological damage would have been so pronounced. It’s clear we bought Tzolis and Sargent with an eye in future value, a few older heads and freebies would have been far cheaper. Let’s not pretend there was no money to spend, we brought in more than Rashica, Sargent and Tzolis.

Of course nothing is certain, I would just argue the effect of losing Buendia was highly probable to be highly destructive and played out as expected IMO. Yes keeping him was also massively uncertain, I would simply argue it was less so.

[BigFish 2,089]

1 hour ago, Monty13 said:

I’m not sure. I agree it would have been met with much nashing of teeth on here but I doubt the psychological damage would have been so pronounced. It’s clear we bought Tzolis and Sargent with an eye in future value, a few older heads and freebies would have been far cheaper. Let’s not pretend there was no money to spend, we brought in more than Rashica, Sargent and Tzolis.

Of course nothing is certain, I would just argue the effect of losing Buendia was highly probable to be highly destructive and played out as expected IMO. Yes keeping him was also massively uncertain, I would simply argue it was less so.

Arguably this is true, but not the whole story. Sacking Farke which many fans, even maybe a majority, called for and appointing Smith, who nobody really called for, had a greater long term impact. That is not what the SD model is for. And as it happens the transfer business that Summer doesn't look so bad in hindsight. Sargeant is talismanic for our season this year. Tzolis is ripping up Bundeslegia II, PLM is knocking on the door of the French national team, Gilmour is a top end EPL player, Rashica won the League in Turkey. Who knows, we might even break even.

Webber was trapped by the idea another relegation was unacceptable. If we had accepted it was likely and planned ahead last season wouldn't have seen such a decline. He rolled the dice and failed, but it is understandable failure. The price we paid was that precious momentum. So yes keep Buendia, keep Farke, get relegated, bounce back better. Ultimately there isn't the patience in the club, or football for this.

[essex canary 547]

1 minute ago, BigFish said:

Arguably this is true, but not the whole story. Sacking Farke which many fans, even maybe a majority, called for and appointing Smith, who nobody really called for, had a greater long term impact. That is not what the SD model is for. And as it happens the transfer business that Summer doesn't look so bad in hindsight. Sargeant is talismanic for our season this year. Tzolis is ripping up Bundeslegia II, PLM is knocking on the door of the French national team, Gilmour is a top end EPL player, Rashica won the League in Turkey. Who knows, we might even break even.

Webber was trapped by the idea another relegation was unacceptable. If we had accepted it was likely and planned ahead last season wouldn't have seen such a decline. He rolled the dice and failed, but it is understandable failure. The price we paid was that precious momentum. So yes keep Buendia, keep Farke, get relegated, bounce back better. Ultimately there isn't the patience in the club, or football for this.

Of the 5 players you mention in the first paragraph the first 4 never really added anything to our team and the 5th. one wasn't able to at the outset. That together with the Farke to Smith change and lack of financial control ought to raise queries about the so dominant DoF model.

[Monty13 2,494]

7 hours ago, king canary said:

Yes, I wonder if those who argued the opposite will hold their hands up. Feels unlikely.

The amount of obnoxious abuse one poster gave for even suggesting this was a possibility…I also doubt it.

[Fen Canary 1,104]

22 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Arguably this is true, but not the whole story. Sacking Farke which many fans, even maybe a majority, called for and appointing Smith, who nobody really called for, had a greater long term impact. That is not what the SD model is for. And as it happens the transfer business that Summer doesn't look so bad in hindsight. Sargeant is talismanic for our season this year. Tzolis is ripping up Bundeslegia II, PLM is knocking on the door of the French national team, Gilmour is a top end EPL player, Rashica won the League in Turkey. Who knows, we might even break even.

Webber was trapped by the idea another relegation was unacceptable. If we had accepted it was likely and planned ahead last season wouldn't have seen such a decline. He rolled the dice and failed, but it is understandable failure. The price we paid was that precious momentum. So yes keep Buendia, keep Farke, get relegated, bounce back better. Ultimately there isn't the patience in the club, or football for this.

If you buy nobody and suffer another meek relegation there’s no guarantee that you come back up the following season though. Even if we had Buendia for one more Prem season he would have likely been off if we’d been relegated again, a player of that calibre isn’t going to be happy yo-yoing for eternity and then we’d be back to where we are now anyway having to alter the style of play because it simply didn’t work without him.

I don’t blame the club for rolling the dice. In hindsight Smith was a poor choice but I can understand the thinking of trying to switch to a more pragmatic style, it’s just that it’s taken a few transfer windows to alter the personnel on the pitch to play that way 

[essex canary 547]

13 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

What do you suggest ? 'the Not Completely Director of Football,'..... the.. 'He's Director but we dont let him Direct ,Director of Football', the  'Run it past Gollum first DofF'?.... The more you give your opinions the more i realise what a sad sad person you are.

I hope you are aware that all that bile, hate  and Negativity will be having an impact on your health, both physical and mental. Go feed the ducks, but dont expect a return on that feed, or any perks or thanks. 

Clearly you didn't read the thread concerning abusive posters earlier this week.

Edited March 23 by essex canary

[essex canary 547]

2 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

i did and i ignored it, you abuse the position you have, so ferk off.  oh, and by the way , nothing i wrote was abusive , but do feel free to tell teacher. ...which is no more than id expect from the likes of you..... a rather odd and sad man.

Parma himself made the report so I am happy to report you soiling his thread.

[wcorkcanary 4,447]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

Parma himself made the report so I am happy to report you soiling his thread.

Oooo, the great Parma, i'm scared now. Ive got the self regarding army after me. Clinging to the big boys coat tails for protection from the horrid mans truthful words? every word you write makes you look more pathetic.  Report what you like to who you like, but i guarantee they dont like you.

[essex canary 547]

39 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Oooo, the great Parma, i'm scared now. Ive got the self regarding army after me. Clinging to the big boys coat tails for protection from the horrid mans truthful words? every word you write makes you look more pathetic.  Report what you like to who you like, but i guarantee they dont like you.

The leader of the 15 year old playground gang in all his glory.

[BigFish 2,089]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

If you buy nobody and suffer another meek relegation there’s no guarantee that you come back up the following season though. Even if we had Buendia for one more Prem season he would have likely been off if we’d been relegated again, a player of that calibre isn’t going to be happy yo-yoing for eternity and then we’d be back to where we are now anyway having to alter the style of play because it simply didn’t work without him.

I don’t blame the club for rolling the dice. In hindsight Smith was a poor choice but I can understand the thinking of trying to switch to a more pragmatic style, it’s just that it’s taken a few transfer windows to alter the personnel on the pitch to play that way 

This is a valid point, and runs counter to what seems general opinion. Not that makes it wrong, back to the issue of counter factuals.

[wcorkcanary 4,447]

58 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The leader of the 15 year old playground gang in all his glory.

Whiney boy cries bullying when told the truth, grow some.

[Monty13 2,494]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

If you buy nobody and suffer another meek relegation there’s no guarantee that you come back up the following season though. Even if we had Buendia for one more Prem season he would have likely been off if we’d been relegated again, a player of that calibre isn’t going to be happy yo-yoing for eternity and then we’d be back to where we are now anyway having to alter the style of play because it simply didn’t work without him.

I don’t blame the club for rolling the dice. In hindsight Smith was a poor choice but I can understand the thinking of trying to switch to a more pragmatic style, it’s just that it’s taken a few transfer windows to alter the personnel on the pitch to play that way 

I don’t think anybody was suggesting we’d have kept Buendia after another relegation, perhaps even more unlikely we’d keep hold if he’d steered us to an unlikely survival. The fact we sold him wasn’t an issue given our model, the timing and manner was.

[RobJames 922]

We didn't 'sell' him, he left. Just as so many others have done. All we can do is get the most favourable deal.

The idea that we can sell a player at our choosing is ludicrous. If a PL club offers Rowe a deal - treble plus his current wages, a six figure signing on fee what should we do, assuming there is no release clause ? Dig our heels in and have a very unhappy player ? Great message that would send to any prospective youth player considering signing for us.

However, that does not fit with the image some like to hold about the club. One that has a grasping board selling off the brightest talent, usually against their wishes. Then using the money to keep the club afloat due to absolute financial mismanagement. They will point to other Championship (and PL) clubs where players are kept and not allowed to leave to further their career. Only at Norwich does this happen, they claim.

In reality City are not as big or important as some delude themselves. Even with PL money. Players are aware of this. If they see us as a stepping stone. So be it. We get the benefit of their ability and when they move upwards we gain extra funds to increase the playing budget.

[essex canary 547]

15 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Whiney boy cries bullying when told the truth, grow some.

FYI hot from today's press.

[BigFish 2,089]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

FYI hot from today's press.

Didn;t have you marked down as an Observer reader 😀

[essex canary 547]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

Didn;t have you marked down as an Observer reader 😀

Just proves how wrong you can be.

[essex canary 547]

2 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Never heard of the Correlation/causation conundrum you fool? You have no idea of my earnings or my behaviour at school. Its just another example of you pulling random shoite out of your arris and shouting'hey presto' as if you'd discover the cure for world poverty. Youve decided im a bully because i call out your horseshoite,  i am now suggesting that you are a 'financial bully' who thinks having a few quid allows you to ride roughshod over the rules and policies of the Club. Go suck on that while people snigger at your failings on the 18th.

Yes thanks. I picked up on it in my teen years when watching Columbo.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,306]

 

Posted just now

—————-

   2 hours ago,  Bethnal Yellow and Green said: 

Feel these rankings can be a bit deceptive. It is usually the decision of the club hierarchy whether they want a youth focus or not, as it requires a specific transfer policy, academy funding etc. 

Nordsjaelland are owned by the Right to Dream Academy - a football academy, primarily based in West Africa - with the focus of bring players from that part of the world to Europe and selling them for a significant profit. That is their business model and they bought Nordsjaelland to help facilitate this.

It would be impossible for any head coach at Nordsjaelland to play anything other than youth players, as that is the only type of player the club will sanction the transfer. Obviously, the club wouldn't appoint a head coach who didn't want to work with youth, or have a talent for it, but this isn't something driven by Thorup. 

Not saying Thorup isn't a good choice, but I don't really place much importance on this ranking as it is far more situational that individual driven.

————————————

Fundamentally important point.

Nordsjaelland‘s (Right to Dream’s) clarity of model and focus on youth is not in question. 

Thorup’s own contribution - and the weight applied to that contribution - within the model’s structure is a very live one.

Slot’s appearance on this list is interesting. He could be considered to have favoured youth as Feyenoord had and have other options. He chose youth. 

As Bethnal said, one must factor the situational: if you inherit Rooney, your youth stats look good. This could be ‘just’ situational.

I think the promotion of Lewis, Aarons, Godfrey and Omobamideoe would be good examples of ‘coach bravery’ with young players and carved -out team pathways, which is surely the KPI one is trying to isolate. 

That Thorup did well results-wise with the younger players is clear, though we must be cautious of levels here. 

I am not sad to see Wagner move on, though the Championship is rather unforgiving, physically, mentally and increasingly tactically.

When you are trying to create attractive stats-based assets - say by bringing players over from Ghana and giving them European first team exposure - I would suggest that there is also an optimal ‘league-level sweet spot’ for getting good stats, attracting buyers and making profitable sales. 

Leagues in Scandinavia - one could also argue Turkey, Holland, even Portugal - are respected, watched and studied ‘for data-driven advantages’. 

However they are not necessarily representative of the levels elsewhere. Say the Championship. 

As we have observed many, many times: ‘what you can do in a second, is not necessarily what you can do in half a second’.

I would not underestimate the business element inherent to the business model here either. Making your products look attractive is not illegal.

As Attanasio and his team know well, outside of TV money, the profits and excitement are all in player trading. 
 

Thus the seemingly odd and extravagant collecting of relatively minor league clubs in footballing groups, may not be quite as ‘greedy, showy-offy’ as it may have looked to ‘old ‘benefactor-typé eyed fans. 

Chelsea are a selling club as well as a buying club now. It’s just not quite how people have traditionally thought about it. 

Parma 

 

Edited May 28 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
Reposted from elsewhere. Key point.

[PurpleCanary 5,852]

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

 

 

Chelsea are a selling club as well as a buying club now. It’s just not quite how people have traditionally thought about it. 

Parma 

 

Some of us have:😍

 There were other clubs – sometimes big – that seemed more superficial. Chelsea, particularly. Man City to an extent. They would skeeter across the face of football, occasionally winning something (a cup, normally) and then fall back.

 

[Barham Blitz 714]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I would not underestimate the business element inherent to the business model here either. Making your products look attractive is not illegal

Absolutely this. All but the most optimistic / delusional City fan must accept that our best players will always move on at some point.  There is always a level above with more money or more glamour.  Even in that hypothetical world of bucking the financial trend and consolidating in the top flight for a few years, clubs from higher up the pecking order either here or abroad will come in for our best players.  It is the same for virtually every club in the world.

For me the - admittedly blindingly obvious - key would appear to be ensuring that we have a style of play which maximises this value, a financial structure sound enough to ensure that we don't need to panic sell and can maximise the transfer fee when we do sell and a scouting and coaching infrastructure in place to ensure that we have replacements either already on the payroll or shortlisted and ready to sign.  Incremental progress rather than betting the farm on a single season.

We seemed to have the makings of this in place before that second premiership season but it imploded for whatever reasons you wish to attribute.  If it is - as would appear to be the case - a relatively cheap buy in to a club which offers a potential profit on player trading whilst bouncing in and out of the Premier league with all of the attendant TV cash and parachute payments that makes us attractive to Attanasio's investment then I have no issue with that.  I doubt that even with a yellow-eyed rather than a cold-eyed investor our ceiling would be much higher. 

But it will require the club to hold it's nerve and be clear in it's objectives to achieve this.  To ignore the noise as somebody once said.  The subtext of this coaching appointment and Knapper's understated approach thus far seem to suggest that the club have recalibrated to a more sustainable longer term approach - hopefully the changes in in ownership, playing and coaching staff will support and demonstrate this over the next few seasons.  There will be players going that as fans we'd like to keep.  Hopefully our cold-eyed investor will enable us to optimise the moment when they do move on to our benefit rather than purely as a result of not being able to match wages or needing to pay the bills.  But they will go.

Of course the major issue with this in recent times has been the somewhat haphazard selection of replacements with any money generated.  Hence the need for a Sporting Director with a plan, a scouting network, an attractive and effective system which attracts players and enables them  to shine, a path to the first team and ultimately a lucrative transfer which suits all parties.  Rinse and repeat with the carefully assessed and scouted replacements ...

Improve that, and throw in some promotions, incremental squad improvements (and who knows, if it all goes to plan perhaps even a few consecutive seasons in the top flight) and everyone - investors and fans alike - will be happy.

Well, most of them.  Some you just can't please...

[Robert N. LiM 5,087]

Great post @Barham Blitz

On 28/05/2024 at 15:19, Barham Blitz said:

a scouting and coaching infrastructure in place to ensure that we have replacements either already on the payroll or shortlisted and ready to sign. 

This is the key point and what Brighton and I think Brentford have done so well - have the replacement already at the club.

 

On 28/05/2024 at 15:19, Barham Blitz said:

Improve that, and throw in some promotions, incremental squad improvements (and who knows, if it all goes to plan perhaps even a few consecutive seasons in the top flight) and everyone - investors and fans alike - will be happy.

Well, most of them.  Some you just can't please...

And remember the ones that aren't happy actually live for being miserable, so in one way they'll be happy too.