Barham Blitz 714 Posted November 8, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, chicken said: You see, now in some ways that intrigues me. Especially the bit I put in bold. Isn't that exactly what did happen? We started the system with a new formation, a 4-3-3, and largely stuck to that until game 11, when people reflect we switched back to the 4-2-3-1 and won our first game of the season. Reportedly, the decision to sack Farke was made prior to that victory, so was based on the back of 10games with a return of just two points. Many people have reflected since then that the players we signed, didn't look like they were bought for a 4-3-3. Take Lees-Melou, for example. His most eye-catching displays had come from him playing in more advanced areas, or getting into more advanced areas. His career positions reflect that: I said when he signed that he looked like a sort of Vrancic meets Stiepermann. I think it is fair to say that he certainly played better when given license to get further forward. After all, 27 goal involvements from 119 starts as a CM is good going, 11 involvements in 36 as an AM is also very good. You could be forgiven if you thought he may have been brought in to play as the middle of the attacking 3 in a 4-2-3-1, and he certainly added height, as Stiepermann had, and experience - which we were lacking to some degree. When you start looking at it like that at least some of those signings look far more suited to the previous formation we played. Do I blame that on Farke alone? No. I think they both chose a different approach to the premier league after being unable to land the preferred targets that summer. As Webber predicted, it caused problems. Too many. The problem you have when ten games in to a season of 38, with just two points on the board, you can't change the players, so if you want to change something, it has to be the manager. That summer was messed up for a lot of reasons. As said before, I would suggest that it started with not getting it quite right the summer before either. That is exactly what happened, although I would argue that the players signed were entirely aimed at a 4-3-3. The question is whether the move to 4-3-3 was Farke inspired, Webber dictated or a combination of the two. Given Farke's reported transfer requests and general dogmatic (and I don't mean that in a necessarily negative sense) adherence to a structure of play best suited to a 4-2-3-1 my personal opinion [which to be fair I can't support with any evidence bar the reversion at Brentford and my general experience of Farke,] is that this was a Webber dictat. PLM could have worked in the Stieperman role and it is no coincidence that when played there he looked more effective. I actually quite liked PLM as a player. But he was bought - again in my view - as a midfield runner that would be necessary to make 4-3-3 work alongside two vertical passers in Gilmour and Normann. It comes down to the fact that the wide players in Tzolis and Rashica were not good enough to fulfill their roles, and Gilmour and to a lesser extent Normann to fulfil theirs, both offensively and defensively. Combined with the fact that all of the above actively diminished Pukki's threat - our weapon in Parma-speak - led to the season that we experienced. The sale of Emi led to the change of style led to the recruitment - albeit the first two points could be described as chicken and egg depending on your personal view of the drivers and motivation behind it. The failure of the recruitment, allied to the fixture list, led to the horrible start which led to Farke's dismissal. It might well not have been different had we stayed true to our principles but it my opinion we would have been in a lot better position now had we done so. Caveat: I'm on record as saying that whilst I don't agree with the 4-3-3 move I do understand (and I think few others given the benefit of hindsight actually do) where it came from. On paper it does make a kind of sense although even if it had worked I think we lost something intangible in pursuing it (which Parma has articulated previously and more succinctly than I can in his comments about wingers in the modern game amongst other things.) Even from my account above you can see how if Rashica and Normann and Gilmour and to a lesser degree Tzolis and Sargent as a striker had paid off, it could have been both effective and possibly not coincidentally an affirmation of Webber's transfer brilliance. I wouldn't have done it, but that was the gamble Webber made and lost and for which in my opinion we are paying the price. Edited November 8, 2022 by Barham Blitz 5 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,306 Posted November 8, 2022 (edited) Excellent post again @Barham Blitz. One point I would reiterate - and I remember an excellent thread from @PurpleCanary which linked to counter-intuitive data and analysis - is that football is a very low scoring game. The old boys - as I opened this thread with - used to say simply ‘both boxes’. It means that ultimately keeping them out and scoring a goal can camouflage a hundred other sins, or negate a vast amount of beautifully-constructed work. I remember a further thread - again it might have been @PurpleCanary - that dissected a good study on the rather disproportionate role of luck. Though how certain patterns of play tend to give rise to more ‘lucky’ events. Multiple FIFA studies show the huge power of set pieces. This is all certainly linked to weapons. The presence of a player that can do something repeatedly, that an opposition coach is forced to change his preferred shape and pattern of play to counter. It often includes set pieces, penalties, taking free kicks, getting free kicks, a constant ability to go past a man, to make repeated slide rule passes between centre back and full back. All things that are hard for an opposition coach to defend against and prevent, without issuing considerable instructions and detailed counter-measures. Thus detracting from one’s own ideal blueprint. Thus making the opposition stronger and more the ‘protagonist’. Thus increasing the odds of ‘luck’ falling in your favour. Just being ‘good’ does not nearly move the strategic dial so much. Don’t forget, in a low scoring game, just one thing makes the fundamental binary difference between ‘fantastic’ and ‘terrible’. Between ‘we’re brilliant, I’m buying a shirt’ and ‘clueless, I’m tearing up my season ticket’. All on the result. If you think I’m being extreme, listen to Canary Call. Players (instinctively) know all of that. They feel dial movers. They need them. The difference makers. Selling them is normal. Selling them at the point when we are all super excited, full of positivity, have just achieved our dream and brimming with the apotheosis that is football momentum, is self harm dressed as innovation. Parma post script: @chicken @Monty13 ultimately we sold Buendia (when we did) because Delia has no football money (sadly). Not because Buendia threw a tantrum. Edited January 5, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,169 Posted November 8, 2022 Really interesting thread. I can see the argument against selling Buendia when we'd just won promotion, but clearly he wanted a move away at some point. Would the alternative have been to offer him a much bigger contract, would that have been enough, or would we have had to agree to also let him go after another season in the Prem, the thinking being that if we stayed up, we could then invest seriously in a replacement for him ? And if we went down anyway, we'd sell him and look to rebuild again. I can understand Webber thinking it would be risky to gamble on building the team around him for another season and that it would be better to take the money and rebuild. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,852 Posted November 8, 2022 (edited) Norwich City season 2021-22 in Multiverse Number 3,735,984.23 Late May 2021. Reports in the EDP and The Athletic put Norwich City’s transfer budget at around £20m without any significant sales. What follows is that half that £20m is spent on Milot Rashica, with Farke enthusing: “He can play as a second striker as well as a winger so should provide some goals.” An £8m bid for Isaac Hayden to replace Olly Skipp is rejected by Newcastle, with manager Steve Bruce saying: “He’s a key player for us and it’s not like we going to get taken over by some oil-rich Gulf state anytime soon!” Farke calms fears that the key defensive central midfielder position will not be adequately filled by saying he is sure he can get another season out of Alex Tettey. “There is no substitute for experience.” With a bid for Celtic’s Ajer being rejected as too low Farke says he is confident he can get another season out of Zimmermann. “There is no substitute for experience.” He ****-poohs reports of a £4.5m bid for Bournemouth’s Ben Pearson, saying “Not our kind of player. He certainly wouldn’t win any Nobel Peace Prizes, for sure.” The remaining £10m is spent on Cristoph Tzolis. After patchy performances in pre-season he is loaned out to King’s Lynn. (In Multiverse Number 3,735,984.78 the £10m goes on Sargent, on the basis that he and Rashica know each other’s game from Werder Bremen.) July 4 2021. Aston Villa’s bid of £33m for Buendia is rejected, with Farke saying “No-one sells their best players after promotion to the Premier League. We have to keep him and Pukki together. Don’t forget they scored 41 league goals this last season.” July 16 2021. Buendia refuses to play against King’s Lynn in a pre-season friendly and is sent to train with the U-23s. August 7 2021. Buendia relents and plays against in the last friendly, against Newcastle United. August 14 2021. Norwich City lose 3-1 at home to Liverpool, with the consolation goal scored by Pukki from a pass by Buendia. Analysis shows Tettey and Zimmermann struggling to cope with the pace of the game. January 31 2022. Norwich City pay £6.5m for Bournemouth’s Ben Pearson. “He is just the kind of player we need,” says Farke. “The type who won’t win any Nobel Peace Prizes, for sure.” February 17 2022. Rashica scores his only league goal of the season, with a deflected shot in a 3-1 loss at Anfield. May 22 2022. Lunchtime. From his vantage point in his penthouse next to the ground Graham Paddon’s Beard notices a stretch limo draw up in the car park and seven men in suits get out and walk into the South Stand entrance. May 22 2022 Afternoon. As the fifth Spurs goal goes in Nutty Nigel gets up from his season in the South Stand and clambers over the surround on to the side of the pitch. This is a pre-arranged signal, and within minutes the only people left in the stand are the away fans and seven men in suits spaced out at intervals, looking bemusedly at one another. May 22 2022. Slightly later that afternoon. In the boardroom Smith and Jones are looking anxiously at their watches, with Michael Foulger pacing especially nervously. At the same time GPB sees the seven men walk hurriedly out of the back entrance of the South Stand and get into the stretch limo, which drives off at speed… Edited November 8, 2022 by PurpleCanary 2 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,169 Posted November 8, 2022 LOL but what was our league position on 22/5/2222 🤣? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mengo 826 Posted November 8, 2022 1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said: Norwich City season 2021-22 in Multiverse Number 3,735,984.23 Late May 2021. Reports in the EDP and The Athletic put Norwich City’s transfer budget at around £20m without any significant sales. What follows is that half that £20m is spent on Milot Rashica, with Farke enthusing: “He can play as a second striker as well as a winger so should provide some goals.” An £8m bid for Isaac Hayden to replace Olly Skipp is rejected by Newcastle, with manager Steve Bruce saying: “He’s a key player for us and it’s not like we going to get taken over by some oil-rich Gulf state anytime soon!” Farke calms fears that the key defensive central midfielder position will not be adequately filled by saying he is sure he can get another season out of Alex Tettey. “There is no substitute for experience.” With a bid for Celtic’s Ajer being rejected as too low Farke says he is confident he can get another season out of Zimmermann. “There is no substitute for experience.” He ****-poohs reports of a £4.5m bid for Bournemouth’s Ben Pearson, saying “Not our kind of player. He certainly wouldn’t win any Nobel Peace Prizes, for sure.” The remaining £10m is spent on Cristoph Tzolis. After patchy performances in pre-season he is loaned out to King’s Lynn. (In Multiverse Number 3,735,984.78 the £10m goes on Sargent, on the basis that he and Rashica know each other’s game from Werder Bremen.) July 4 2021. Aston Villa’s bid of £33m for Buendia is rejected, with Farke saying “No-one sells their best players after promotion to the Premier League. We have to keep him and Pukki together. Don’t forget they scored 41 league goals this last season.” July 16 2021. Buendia refuses to play against King’s Lynn in a pre-season friendly and is sent to train with the U-23s. August 7 2021. Buendia relents and plays against in the last friendly, against Newcastle United. August 14 2021. Norwich City lose 3-1 at home to Liverpool, with the consolation goal scored by Pukki from a pass by Buendia. Analysis shows Tettey and Zimmermann struggling to cope with the pace of the game. January 31 2022. Norwich City pay £6.5m for Bournemouth’s Ben Pearson. “He is just the kind of player we need,” says Farke. “The type who won’t win any Nobel Peace Prizes, for sure.” February 17 2022. Rashica scores his only league goal of the season, with a deflected shot in a 3-1 loss at Anfield. May 22 2022. Lunchtime. From his vantage point in his penthouse next to the ground Graham Paddon’s Beard notices a stretch limo draw up in the car park and seven men in suits get out and walk into the South Stand entrance. May 22 2022 Afternoon. As the fifth Spurs goal goes in Nutty Nigel gets up from his season in the South Stand and clambers over the surround on to the side of the pitch. This is a pre-arranged signal, and within minutes the only people left in the stand are the away fans and seven men in suits spaced out at intervals, looking bemusedly at one another. May 22 2022. Slightly later that afternoon. In the boardroom Smith and Jones are looking anxiously at their watches, with Michael Foulger pacing especially nervously. At the same time GPB sees the seven men walk hurriedly out of the back entrance of the South Stand and get into the stretch limo, which drives off at speed… Purple haze, all in my brainLately things they don't seem the sameActin' funny, but I don't know whyExcuse me while I kiss the sky and the rest is they say , is History. 🙈🙉🙊 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,306 Posted November 8, 2022 (edited) Absolutely love it @PurpleCanary….….were We two of the men in dark suits?…🙏🏽…🤣 Parma post script: see you Thursday 🤗 Edited November 8, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,852 Posted November 8, 2022 5 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said: Absolutely love it @PurpleCanary….….were We two of the men in dark suits?…🙏🏽…🤣 Parma If we had been that would have pushed the worth of the potential buyers from the hundreds of millions of pounds into the billionaire category…😍 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Don J Demorr 162 Posted November 14, 2022 (edited) This is a long post and is fairly challenging. My apologies to those who might find it also tedious. I have been lurking more or less undetected in this Forum for over a year – and I still know nothing about football in general or NCFC except what I read here. What I do read is often interesting and stimulating. Mr Parma and the Purple One are amongst half a dozen others right at then top of the scale by both criteria, for which due thanks, sirs, and to your like-minded colleagues. You know who you are. Parma's original posting is full of the sort of insight into the workings of the NCFC which makes fascinating reading. From my own experience I wonder if a rather wider viewpoint might be useful. WARNING – it contains Management Consultancy Speak, so if you don’t like that look away now (you probably won’t waste much of your life if you do). When I read the letters in this Forum I think I see evidence of a troubled and schismatic organisation, failing to motivate and energise its employees; failing to meet the expectations of its customers and inside which there are both blame laying and evasion of responsibility. If that is the case maybe it is worthwhile to consider how this might have happened and what if anything is possible to be done about it. Now for the Consultancy Speak: Every successful organisation has a clear purpose which is known to everybody involved. This purpose must be set by those who lead the company Once this is known then Constancy of Purpose is vital If the purpose is seen as important and valuable, employee motivation and voluntary energisation comes with the territory. If the purpose is known, clearly understood and valued by the employees they have no need to ask anybody what to do, they already know. The Management’s job is then to make it easier to do this than do anything else. · If the leaders of the organisation consider a change of purpose, any decision to do so is fraught with potentially serious difficulties and should only be made after very deep thought and diligent analysis. · Once the decision is made, several actions are essential: - o The new purpose must be made clear to everybody in the organisation itself and equally importantly to the customers o The whole organisational structure must be analysed and if necessary reordered to meet the new situation o This is very likely to mean changes both to management personnel and processes. o It will also probably mean replacement or retraining of all or some of the workforce o This will certainly mean trauma to all concerned. o It is also highly likely to cause animosity and resentment. This is where I step away from relatively comfortable ground and enter the unfamiliar (to me) land of NCFC. In doing so I rely solely on all those who post on here. If I am mistaken in my inferences I know I can rely on your wise and generous corrections. I think you have told me that until just a few years ago the owners’ purpose was that NCFC would be in the top 26 football clubs in England and Purpose always decides behaviour. Maybe I can purloin and comprehensively misquote a certain statement from elsewhere, which I hope is pertinent:- “We play good football here. We will win if we can, lose if we must – but we will always play good football” Several things follow from such a Corinthian stance: - Many supporters (the customers) have enjoyed these values and would like to see a return to them Achieving 26th position is a success, 27th is a failure Such a wide target zone gives a lot of scope to be recognised as successful Within these criteria Daniel Farke was successful The same breadth of possible acceptable outcomes allows for properly ethical behaviour both in the Boardroom and on the pitch NCFC customers have traditionally valued this behaviour. Maybe for you it is a “Unique Selling Point”? (It would be for me, but what do I know?) Then, if I have understood it correctly, the purpose was somehow changed to “We will always be a Premier League Club”. On the face of it this is a relatively small and subtle change from a field of 26 to one of 20 and so does not make much difference but I wonder if you agree with me that this is by no means so, because Purpose always decides behaviour. In the EPL the behaviour is different because the purpose is different. This post is already long enough and I doubt whether there is any need to expound on the egregious financial, moral and ethical mores of EPL clubs, which you probably know more about than I do. However, is that the environment in which you want your club to exist? If that scene is desirable then the present behaviour must change, the now inappropriate leadership must change, the management must change, the employees must change and the customers must be content with the outcome. When the purpose of NCFC was seemingly changed did anybody look into the necessary concomitant changes to support the essential revision of management structure? In this revised context Daniel Farke was judged a failure. Did he ever have a chance? Does Dean Smith now? In business it is always fatal to allow ambition to exceed capability. If you have the ambition you must provide the capability. (For confirmation refer to Icarus). You can be sure that this is familiar territory for Michael Attenasio. It will be most interesting to see how he deals with it. The picture I have in my head of NCFC is of a man standing with one foot on a boat and the other on the bank while the skipper has just cast off the mooring ropes. His choices are to jump either way or fall in the water. My best to all, DJD Edited November 14, 2022 by Don J Demorr 3 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert N. LiM 5,087 Posted November 14, 2022 On 06/11/2022 at 21:59, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said: I’ve thought about this @Taiwan Canary. No there are no weapons really. Though just to re-clarify you can have very good players that are not weapons, and conversely not very good players that are weapons. To explain by using extremes, I could probably argue that Kevin de Bruyne is not technically a weapon, he is ‘just’ brilliant (that is weaponish of course, I know I’m reaching, humour me), though Andy Carroll - who is now not the greatest footballer - still is a weapon. The weapon can do certain ‘special teams’ things that you cannot as an opposition coach ignore. You have to change your own preferred tactical blueprint for your own side, to take account of the the opposition’s weapon. Carroll gets thrown on in the 80th minute. They go high and long and hit early deep balls to him. He is not mobile, but he’ll win the headers. You definitely can’t sit deep and let crosses rain in. So you have to get one in front one behind, get your midfielders to be alert to second balls, try to get wide players alert - and quite possibly pressing a little higher - to stop full backs at source. Conversely what exactly are you going to do about Kevin de Bruyne? He’s just better than anything you’ve got (He is a weapon with his set pieces too, so you really can’t give free kicks away), you certainly have to go 3 in the middle if you don’t already and you have to keep a tight catenaccio 4 with very short spaces between them to prevent slide rule balls. Ok so he is a weapon, but you know what I mean now… 🤗 Anyhoo, we have nothing like either of them. Only Pukki. I won’t be disingenuous to @Petriix and - here’s some hope for you and @nutty nigel @Taiwan Canary - will acknowledge that when clumsy Sarge starts driving hard and cutting into spaces, looking to shoot, he can look hard to stop, though I’m afraid he is ‘a level’ player. With a fraction more time and space, and a fraction less diligent and counter-threatening opposition he can look quite a handful. Take those things away (higher level) and I am afraid he doesn’t and won’t. Sara and Nunez are interesting additions that represent gambles on a number of levels and have novelty value and some nice moments. We will see whether diligence and positional discipline come to both or either. I am not at all sure I have seen it yet. The good news: Love Nunez’ free kicks, that’s a weapon actually, as he genuinely strikes them all well and correctly. Sara’s corners also please me, they should be more weaponised, though I dislike our attacking of corners. I don’t yet see the quality of runs and movement I would expect. I am not knocking Alan Russell, who has good pedigree and valuable ideas, though Gibson and Hanley are simply not good enough at attacking headers (as opposed to defensive headers, two very different techniques). Kenny is the best at getting into good positions, though he is not as good at finishing as he might be either. Sarge is good in the air, though makes poor runs, gives free kicks away cheaply and is too ‘noisy’ about it all, often getting ‘tagged’ by referees (and thus treated sharper, to his and our own harm). It’s a wasted opportunity from one of our very limited weapon-like things (best phrase I could find). I imagine Alan Russell is a bit frustrated by it and Smith might well want to add someone who can profit from these deliveries better. It’s a huge source of cheap goals that we don’t get. Aarons can be weaponish when he is really on song. His advantage is his deep position - with often plenty of time and space - and his ability to cut both ways and accelerate past players. Wonderful in full flow. Hard to defend against sometimes, so opposition coaches have worked out not to. They actually overload his side, pump balls high and get him defending. Not a great compliment really. He’ll have to overcome that to move on (and not just be distant back up). His sliding last-ditch save was absolutely magnificent yesterday by the way, I thought it got a bit overlooked. Every bit as good as a goal I’d say. That’s what’s he can do. Cantwell I desperately want to do ….well?…better? It is there, striking cleanly off both sides, magnetising the ball at his best, though - sorry Todd - I do always think of Brian Clough when I watch him play, what he said about how he achieved his success with provincial players: ‘They come to me with false confidence, I strip that away and give them real confidence’ Onel flatters to deceive, Dowell doesn’t run hard enough and gets bypassed too easily, he also isn’t nasty enough. Psychologists studied the best players, trying to find out what really made them great. They found all the things you’d expect: drive, determination, will to win, an attitude of continual improvement…but that was just the averagely good ones…they found that the very best had all of that, though equally just hated losing, couldn’t bear it. It Pathologically troubled them. One doesn’t get any sense of that from Dowell. We have finally woken up - I think Smith totally knew it from the outset to be fair - to the fact that we need the role of CDM desperately. You need 2 good CDMs at least actually. To have none in the Premier was madness. The only way I could forgive it, is if we totally threw everything at getting Skipp and it fell through on us….though a Plan B was surely in a drawer somewhere too?…Quite how that drawer ended up marked ‘Gilmour’ is far beyond me. The Gunn-Krul axis is far too good - and surely too expensive - for this level. So that is a positive that must surely be fairly short-lived. The Hanley-Ono-Gibson triumvirate is super strong at this level. Though Gibson has been strangely below par, his passing can be quite sweet, with good range and accuracy. Perhaps Omo can start scoring a few more goals too, he has quite a decent presence and eye I think. Giannoulis-McCallum is of course good enough. McCallum has something about him too. I like him. Giannoulis can look dynamic and daft in the same minute. Bit frustrating for coaches that. Ramsey is a good player and it’s perfectly ok to have good loan players at 10 - or even 9 - if you don’t have them. Assist and scoring players don’t need to care much about the team, they can be selfish and just want to look good, get headlines and further their careers. It fits the space in the jigsaw anyway.. Pukki is brilliant. He is and always has been our weapon. The only issue - and anyone (any forward) that has dropped down the leagues from a good level knows this - is that you are reliant on everybody else. And they don’t and can’t think as fast as you. They make the right pass half a second too late. Lots of what you have doesn’t get used. It’s frustrating. It can make you snatch at what does come your way. Pukki is better than this, he has a world class temperament and a supreme level of movement. We’re just not good enough for him. And we are increasingly not completely set up to serve him either. Whisper it, but the way we are starting to play looks better suited (designed?) more for Sarge. That’s where the money went and we probably don’t have any more to spend. Strikers are bloody expensive. Personally I dread the day we don’t have Pukki anymore, though - as @chicken says - it is the model. Rinse and repeat. We have bet some of the farm on Sargent and we are - again - going to bank on him. If I was feeling a bit Norwich Private Eye, I would say this was fine. He will fit our requirements perfectly. Somewhere between 8th and 4th in the second tier. Parma I hate it when people quote a really long post, but this is so brilliant I'm just bumping it to the top of the board so anyone who hasn't read it can. A really clear-eyed assessment of our current squad. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,306 Posted December 19, 2022 (edited) On 02/11/2022 at 21:26, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said: Parma’s State of the Nation Farke brought us a precise, carefully-constructed philosophy, using intelligent positional play, Dortmund-esque fan engagement, attractive sporting entertainment, though clear top level failure. Webber - it must be assumed - also implemented this very particular methodology throughout the youth ages. Planning purchases based on that particular style (Or?). Delia - though passionate, loyal and committed - has no ‘football money’, so the self-sustaining model is a top down necessity, as shown by the £5m fan Bond to build the training ground (via the Tifosys finance model). Promotion to premier duly puts Webber in a difficult position: Do we accept the glass ceiling of our model or blame Farke? The external questions were clear: Were the new players good enough for now? Were they investment purchases to appreciate at some future date? The idea - surely - is that as you develop, the risk on buying youth is less, as you pay more, you buy experienced youth playing at higher levels already. Vid Tzolis, Sargent. You try to get a weapon. Vid Rashica (really?). The ‘Pissed up window wall’ window had Klose (longevity, good quality, value), Pinto (longevity, fair quality, value), Naismith (expensive here-and-now investment, Sat on contract, nightmare -£15m), Maddison +£18m, Godfrey +£20m), so an overall window balance of say +£20m? Did we do better than this under the new model? The top level is where we are judged, where our aims are focused as per our attractively-presented 2022 Report. Trotsdem , top level failure occurred despite implanting an excellent, attractive, coherent playing philosophy. Record points totals had been achieved, there was a clear identity, followed by a high spend on new players. The Sporting Director had had plenty of preparation time and a free operational hand. Including with the limited ring-fenced chequebook. Farke (despite recently-signed 4 year contract) was summarily replaced by Smith, who was suddenly available, opportunistically persuaded, so not pre-planned. Both parties fell into each others’ arms via timing. Webber - I think just about understandably - just could not accept that our structural ceiling (financial-operational-sporting) had been reached, plus the further implication that his big investment signings were not successful. He just couldn’t (be seen) to accept either at that point. However history shows that within the parameters of owner finance this was-is as good as we can expect (particularly after first Premier season failure, which was ‘taking the money, to come back stronger next time’) Thus the glass Norwich ceiling was concretised. No further dreaming was possible. Everything that could have been done, was done. Mistakes were perhaps the inevitable product of imperfect financial and sporting compromises. QED Attanasio? Or an acceleration-expansion of his involvement? Nevertheless Sportingly Smith replacing Farke looks like correcting yesterday’s mistakes. Thus everything is a step behind where it should be. Smith immediately tried to solidify an exposed defence, the over-committed midfielders (particularly out of possession). A desire to counter-press effectively, stay-in-shape, not be so vulnerable on transition. The flaw with this approach - which has been endorsed also by the Sporting Director whose *new* vision now also ‘aligns’ - is that the Premier League and the Championship are fundamentally, dramatically, operationally so different from each other. And for very good reason. At the top level you are one of the worst, so you have to defend a lot, so you come under lots of pressure and you lose a lot. So you must be pretty good at defending or have awkward weapons that others have to adjust for. In the second tier you are not punished much for your mistakes (relatively), you don’t need to set up to defend, lots of teams are hard-working but lack quality. And no one has any weapons (really). So you don’t need to defend so much or so well. Farke also knew the above perfectly well. What he did was no accident. As Guardiola has repeatedly stated (including in writing if you read his books), positional play is actually a defensive tool. If you keep possession and ‘do nothing with it’, no one else has it either do they? Passing it backwards and sideways for 90 minutes is a bloody good idea against most top level teams (nil-nil is better than you will do in about 25 games). Of course upon demotion, very few teams can live with positional play. It takes high intelligence and it requires a level of coordinated press and defensive shape to combat, that few teams in the championship have enough players of sufficient intelligence to achieve. So we now have a a pragmatic mercenary journeyman manager that might suit a top level team destined to defend every week and be attritional, with a structure that is hard to break down and shouldn’t get hammered every week (I appreciate that we are not seeing this, though it is-was the intention I believe). The problem is that we are solving yesterday’s problems again. We don’t need to ask the players - say Cantwell - to counter press like marines. You need this at the top level. There are limits to professional footballers (at our level). They cannot chase defensive shape chickens like Gary Holt, then magically make through passes like Buendia a second later. The very, very best can do this (sometimes). We cannot buy them. So we end up neither fish, nor fowl. The irony is that many accused Farke of doing something that needed top level players only. He proved many of you wrong. With coaching, teaching, studying of positional play principles, it spread through the club. It became second nature to many. I would suggest that what Smith is asking for is more geared towards top level players only. Be a machine out of possession, switch to Litmanen cool upon turnover. We’d all love to think we can do that, though try sprinting flat out for 200 metres, then beating the computer at Chess. It’s not really how the brain and body typically operates. Hence we often look disjointed, erratic and play in fits-and-starts. Farke chose a certain compromise. Smith is trying to pretend that no such compromises are necessary. That we can have all things. Furthermore both he and a Webber appear to think that we need ‘to be prepared for the Premier’ in the way we play now. In our current circumstances. I think that this is fundamentally flawed. We need to jump the Championship hurdle - whereby you can attack teams, be expansive and overwhelm opposition if you have Pukki and players who can score regularly - first. This methodology is then proved (within our parameters) not to come close to working at the top level. At which point you need different tactics, a far more mechanical, low-risk, high running, high physicality, couple of expensive and strategically-protected weapons (which is where you spend all your available money). However there is even a further flaw. None of our players would be good enough for the top level anyway (except Pukki who’ll leave shortly anyway). We couldn’t invest enough to buy what we’d need to reframe the squad make up and approach anyway (which would also require a coaching-sporting pivot). So we return to our nexus points. Our sale of Buendia, our sacking of Farke, our huge relative investments strategically in Rashica-Tzolis-Sargent. Our style pivot to a prosaic Smith-headed philosophy - even in the second tier (and is it now through the age groups? Does-can anyone teach positional play anymore?) As fans what do we have? Identity no. Entertainment not really. Continuity not obviously. Clarity of corporate future not yet. Dreams of top level success extinguished. Unique Fan led club no longer. Money no. Investment purchases unnrealised and seemingly mostly unrealisable. Large swathes of too-good-for-Championship yesterday’s men out of contract. A huge pivot on unproven new players that have not obviously improved anything. A much smaller, cheaper squad by necessity-design. We are chasing a chimera. Even success is just expensive and embarrassing. Though in its stead we are drifting into that awful, anonymous, disinterested purgatory of mid-table second tier quicksand. The ‘camels coming down Carrow Road’ were previously dismissed, now the Cowboys are embraced. Despite the planning, sporting strategy and legions of forecasters, it all starts to look a little ‘events dear boy, events’. Parma Focusing only on the sporting elements, the Blackburn game - awful as it was - just screamed out the bits highlighted above. Smith is a decent, capable, experienced manager so it must be assumed that this approach - flawed though I believe it to be - of preparing for defensive Premier football now is an agreed strategy. I noted some way through the second promotion season - and I think @Petriix also picked up on it - that Farke had actually dialled down his absolutist positional play adherence to actually improving - and visibly presenting - a more controlled and defensive solidity some months before Promotion second time around. It was not just the additions of Gibson and Giannoulis, it was very much a strategic change and a deliberate strategy to more-or-less win 2-0 and be ruthless and shut down the game, focusing clearly on preparing for a more defensive approach at the higher level. I certainly endorsed this idea and liked the pragmatic far-sightedness of it. Basically we already did what we’re doing now in preparation for ascent and it still wasn’t enough at the top level. We have removed so much of what was good about that time, sold off the weapons in return for a deep squad of lesser peaks and further diluted our identity to chase a solution that doesn’t fit our current requirements. Why on earth are we doing it now with worse players, no weapons, limiting service to Pukki and preparing for an eventuality that still wouldn’t be good enough at a higher level without a hugely costly overhaul of players? What we foresaw on this thread is now repeatedly happening in front of our eyes. We don’t need foresight anymore. We don’t have to guess if we can read the book. Why no change? Parma Edited December 19, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy 6 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midlands Yellow 4,343 Posted December 19, 2022 I recommend this thread for any insomniacs struggling to sleep at 2am on any given day. You’ll be fast off within 5 minutes. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Petriix 2,938 Posted December 20, 2022 I actually think it's worse now. At the beginning of November we'd seen some green shoots. We even gave the double pivot 4-2-3-1 a go before trying what looked like a 4-4-2 diamond. Now we're so devoid of creativity that people are ecstatic when Onel comes on. I think the reason we're seeing no change is because Smith and Webber are delusional in thinking that their plan is workable. It's like they imagine we just need to give it s few more weeks before everything falls into place. They obviously put a great deal of faith into that training camp. Maybe it's going to take some serious venom at the next two home games before we see any action. In any case the best hope of salvaging the season is through the lottery of the playoffs, if of course we can arrest the slump sufficiently to remain in the top 6. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barham Blitz 714 Posted December 20, 2022 1 hour ago, Petriix said: I think the reason we're seeing no change is because Smith and Webber are delusional in thinking that their plan is workable. It's like they imagine we just need to give it s few more weeks before everything falls into place. Firstly, although I haven't quoted it, Parma as always has absolutely nailed it in his assessment. Secondly in response to Petrix's post above (again, one with which I thoroughly agree) I think that Webber is now so invested in his big call regarding Farke and binning the approach that got us two promotions but struggled early last season that there is now a reluctance to admit that the call was wrong. We are now caught between two stools and actually defend less effectively than a Farke team at this level at least (and given the ease with which we are routinely turned over in possession and are routinely opened up I can't see it working at a higher level either) whilst simultaneously offering less of an attacking threat. If we are going with Webber-ball over Farke-ball at least go for it properly and invest in two wide players with pace and play Sargent at #9. I personally wouldn't - and have previously outlined how I would set up with this season's personnel in a 4-2-3-1 - but it would at least give an identity to the team that has been sorely lacking. At the moment we are neither fish nor fowl tactically speaking and are suffering as a result. 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,306 Posted December 20, 2022 (edited) Something that the old Masterclasses used to talk about is football as a balancing equation. It really isn’t ‘if we only did x everything would be alright’. Football isn’t like that. Pub wisdom simplicity was never right and it is even less so now that teams are better coached, drilled and more tactically aware. Not creating or being expansive - challenging the opposition to be better, open up and attack you - is a very strong strategy as every half decent chess player knows. However - as Guardiola says repeatedly - defending is a function of attacking and attacking is a function of defending. You are doing both at all times. Two questions exist simultaneously in this way. As an example: (a) ’How can we get Max Aarons fluid game driving into dangerous spaces between the lines, opening up angles for penetration?’ is also a function of: (b) ’How do we protect Max Aarons from overloads, high, deep balls beyond the centre backs into wider areas, where he can be doubled up and exposed?’ You would not have to be Cruyff to realise you like him in higher areas, though when he is in those areas he is vulnerable to precisely the kind of turnover attack and strategy that could really hurt us. Football management is about amortising all of these kinds of two-faced equations all over the pitch. What I find so difficult about the current situation is that it is underpinned by a false belief. ‘If only we defended better we could survive in the Premier League’. No. No we couldn’t. We don’t survive in the premier league because we are worse than nearly all the other teams, and a fair distance away even from those reasonably ‘close’ to our level as we would see it. We made lots of defensive ‘mistakes’ because we defended a lot. We defended a lot because everyone else was better than us. You make more mistakes when you defend more often. This is far more about finance than football. Defending ‘better’ (or more) in the Championship has no real bearing on any of this. It would still be a problem requiring a different answer, with different players and different money. Farke was ditched at the top level. Ok, I can live with it. Though his entire philosophy and teaching was wrong? An aberration in time? Or a blueprint, a DNA, a methodology for the ages and the different age groups? The coherent, interconnected, identity-driven club-wide approach is the very raison d’être of the Sporting Director. Ok go ahead, sack Farke. But what on earth are we now? Parma Edited December 20, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy 5 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Petriix 2,938 Posted December 20, 2022 Unfortunately, whatever we are now, it bears minimal relation to what we were. In abandoning Farkeball we were left with a bunch of players who hadn't played any other way combined with a bunch of new signings (many of them loanees). There was zero chance that they would gel right away. Farkeball was about engineering the situations where we could utilise our strengths through well drilled patterns of play. It was absolutely dependent on the underlying positional structure to both create (and exploit) the openings and contain the opposition threat. It worked spectacularly in the Championship but it wasn't the unmitigated disaster people would have you believe in the Premier League. There were fine margins, VARstards, injuries and then Covid conspiring against us. It's not beyond credibility that some pragmatic squad investment could have made it work at the second attempt - we will never know. So, here we are a year later. Lets call it Smithball has still not gelled. The players who were so effective at Farkeball don't seem to have the right attributes for their new roles. The positional structure which afforded their attacking play now removed, they lost the freedom to do what they did best, and don't really have the physicality for the demands now put on them. Of the new signings only Sargent has come close to the mark. Yet he is not able to play to his strengths - shackled by a dogmatic adherence to Smithball (whatever that means?). Nunez: not athletic enough, Sara: lacking...something (creativity?), Hayden: pace and skill on the ball. Rashica and Tzolis: shipped out (not good enough?). Then there's the players who apparently weren't good enough previously who are now in and around the first team. Sinani: looks lost and devoid of confidence, Onel: looks amazing apart from in and around the box. Together it's a shambles, with brief spells of coherence. Plenty of possession, some pleasing attacking but a lack of established patterns of play meaning that the through ball doesn't come, the final ball doesn't match the run, the shot comes a little late, more half-chances than real openings. Lots of shots but not many great chances. Worse still is that the lack of confidence means that fewer of these half-chances result in goals. Without the ball we're still leaving huge gaps - a function of the new positional structure - and conceding goals. Luck goes against us. But you make your own luck. A lack of belief perhaps? Smith still claims we 'dominated' those first three games this season and yet gained just 1 point. Delusional? He's had a fair crack of the whip. If it was going to work then it would have done so by now. He hasn't found a functional balance. The midfield is still a massive problem - the focus of all our transfer business yet still as broken as day 1. What has Smith delivered in his time in charge? In what ways have we improved? Where's the progress? But what would a new head coach bring? In my opinion we'd see an immediate bounce in confidence. Liberated from the Smithball dogma, players now in their favoured positions, unleashed to use their natural abilities without having to contort themselves into the unworkable demands. Small margins. No silver bullet, just a return to playing to our strengths while mitigating our weaknesses. Slightly better chances, slightly more belief. More than anything it would get the fans back on board and behind the team. Maybe restore some of that home advantage? There's no rowing back from Smith's comments. He's lost the fans. Time is up. 2 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 547 Posted December 20, 2022 On 14/11/2022 at 17:38, Don J Demorr said: This is a long post and is fairly challenging. My apologies to those who might find it also tedious. I have been lurking more or less undetected in this Forum for over a year – and I still know nothing about football in general or NCFC except what I read here. What I do read is often interesting and stimulating. Mr Parma and the Purple One are amongst half a dozen others right at then top of the scale by both criteria, for which due thanks, sirs, and to your like-minded colleagues. You know who you are. Parma's original posting is full of the sort of insight into the workings of the NCFC which makes fascinating reading. From my own experience I wonder if a rather wider viewpoint might be useful. WARNING – it contains Management Consultancy Speak, so if you don’t like that look away now (you probably won’t waste much of your life if you do). When I read the letters in this Forum I think I see evidence of a troubled and schismatic organisation, failing to motivate and energise its employees; failing to meet the expectations of its customers and inside which there are both blame laying and evasion of responsibility. If that is the case maybe it is worthwhile to consider how this might have happened and what if anything is possible to be done about it. Now for the Consultancy Speak: Every successful organisation has a clear purpose which is known to everybody involved. This purpose must be set by those who lead the company Once this is known then Constancy of Purpose is vital If the purpose is seen as important and valuable, employee motivation and voluntary energisation comes with the territory. If the purpose is known, clearly understood and valued by the employees they have no need to ask anybody what to do, they already know. The Management’s job is then to make it easier to do this than do anything else. · I think you have told me that until just a few years ago the owners’ purpose was that NCFC would be in the top 26 football clubs in England and Purpose always decides behaviour. Maybe I can purloin and comprehensively misquote a certain statement from elsewhere, which I hope is pertinent:- “We play good football here. We will win if we can, lose if we must – but we will always play good football” Several things follow from such a Corinthian stance: - Many supporters (the customers) have enjoyed these values and would like to see a return to them Achieving 26th position is a success, 27th is a failure Such a wide target zone gives a lot of scope to be recognised as successful Within these criteria Daniel Farke was successful The same breadth of possible acceptable outcomes allows for properly ethical behaviour both in the Boardroom and on the pitch NCFC customers have traditionally valued this behaviour. Maybe for you it is a “Unique Selling Point”? (It would be for me, but what do I know?) Then, if I have understood it correctly, the purpose was somehow changed to “We will always be a Premier League Club”. On the face of it this is a relatively small and subtle change from a field of 26 to one of 20 and so does not make much difference but I wonder if you agree with me that this is by no means so, because Purpose always decides behaviour. In the EPL the behaviour is different because the purpose is different. This post is already long enough and I doubt whether there is any need to expound on the egregious financial, moral and ethical mores of EPL clubs, which you probably know more about than I do. However, is that the environment in which you want your club to exist? If that scene is desirable then the present behaviour must change, the now inappropriate leadership must change, the management must change, the employees must change and the customers must be content with the outcome. When the purpose of NCFC was seemingly changed did anybody look into the necessary concomitant changes to support the essential revision of management structure? In this revised context Daniel Farke was judged a failure. Did he ever have a chance? Does Dean Smith now? In business it is always fatal to allow ambition to exceed capability. If you have the ambition you must provide the capability. (For confirmation refer to Icarus). The change from top 26 to top 20 could be viewed as not so small as top 20 effectively means top 17. There is no guarantees of staying in either but the latter is a lot lot more challenging. As a supporter I don't really understand the point of setting the target in exactly these terms. I would like to see my Club endeavour to perform at the highest possible level but at the same time retain its community identity. The current top 17 doesn't have a great deal of emphasis on the latter but being a member of it could perhaps still be possible for a while providing the Club absolutely maximises its inbuilt advantages. I think we may have lost our way a bit on that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,306 Posted December 23, 2022 (edited) Some friends and I were chatting about this again. Here are some of the thoughts for those who are interested: ..’….I take zero pleasure in any of the current discontent and sporting decline. I do also however think that Webber was highly compromised by our extreme zero external funds model. He was seemingly given too much of a corporate free rein - as x have all outlined - and the ‘We let our managers manage’ mantra has reared its daft head again. The difference this time is that the football momentum is a negative runaway train. I am afraid we have blown the budget, the momentum, the interesting (and historically successful) appreciated approach on the gamble and subsequent methodology change. And for what? To be Crystal Palace? QED Attanasio. Not quite the rather ugly (and racist) phrase ‘camels coming down Carrow Road’…but a long, long way from the puritanically high scratching post that was set for would be owner-investors for the past 2 decades. I hope Delia doesn’t fudge her equity gain - which currently stands at around +£43m. She’s left herself in an awkward position. She either takes it and the £5m training ground bond, the sale of Buendia and the ‘We don’t want a penny’ look a bit daft, or she passively hands it on to Attanasio to cash in another day. Even more ridiculous. It’s a huge issue and may be it is above Webber’s head. Though it is all absolutely central and fundamental to the forced decisions he had to make. And the position we find ourself in now. Any half-decent non-Exec would make the connection. It is a shame that there are not more sophisticated corporate finance minds engaged, because the effect on nexus point sporting decisions is far more acute than anyone sees or realises. All things are connected. Make no mistake. Attanasio will have his eye on all of it. He’s Smiling, credible, plausible, excited, family-oriented, food-lover, legacy-oriented… …yes. I’d be all of that for £43m. ——- On the tactical side I honestly think that there is almost zero chance of Webber forcing 433 on anyone. I like Petriix and Shef, though I completely fail to see this one. I can quite believe that 433 was the vision for the signings we made and the preferred idea for the premier season. It was a zeitgeist formation that Liverpool worked well with. I have advised repeatedly that nobody - not Liverpool or Man City - play with anything like chalk-on-the-boots wingers. It is strategic suicide even for the best. That we spent all the Buendia money on wingers and a striker who played wide (and actually defends wide quite a lot) is utterly bizarre to me. It didn’t work, but it couldn’t have. Ditto Gilmour popping it around freely in front of the defensive pairing á la a Paisley Pirlo. Again huge triumphs of wishful thinking over football reality. It looked flawed before a ball was kicked and even worse on grass. Farke simply cannot be excused his part in all of that, though he never wanted to lose Buendia, Skipp and he was by nature very collegiate. He knows the unwritten demarcation lines of the Sporting Director role and simply gave Webber too much flex. Webber thus certainly entered the green playing arena. 433 is also a paper formula. It’s not really how coaches create patterns on the pitch. The only exception to that is if - and it can - paint pictures in the players minds about where they should be and how they should move in certain situations. You do not need to be a genius coach to sense that this could be a good or a bad thing (depending on the player in question). Connecting to this last point, The future of player development and elite performance will come from something I have studied for the last 10 years (and am now writing a book connected to): neuroplasticity. The way that our grooved patterns fix us (‘neurons that wire together, fire together’) for good or ill. This is where the sale of Buendia comes in and how it connects to other points about Webber. Webber calculates carefully, though from the prism of his own mind, his own strongly-drawn red lines of certainty. He can easily create a well-reasoned argument - with a corollary list of justifying possible outcomes and negatives confirming his decision (say in the. case of Buendia) - though is commensurately unable to forecast the negative emotional effects on vast swathes of the squad left behind. Their subsequent ‘feeling’ - whether they ‘should’ feel that way or not, whether it is rational or not, whether it ‘ignores the noise’ or not - that all their hard work was wasted, the ground sold from beneath them, the club ambition limited, the finances ultra-restrictive, that the 2019 failure was NOT after all in preparation for a real go as promised, that the club is now on the slide, that ‘Guardiola won’t watch us anymore’. That is players for you. They have an acute sense for the way the football wind is blowing. It can be irrational, over-sensitive, simplistic and ‘street-rat’ wise. But THEY are the talent. THEY are what we are here for. THEY get up on stage and make your visions real or unreal. Nobody sells a Buendia at the point of promotion for THIS reason. You can sell him at other times no problem. Those intangibles don’t sit well on spreadsheets (which I love too), though they MUST be factored in and factored in large. The Cloughs and Fergusons probably did not study Neuroplasticity, though they instinctively placed it at the top of their agenda. Clough said ‘they come to me with false confidence, I strip that away and give them real confidence’. Ferguson said Beckham (ultra, ultra professional) ‘had to be sold, because he was too big for the club’ though he indulged Cantona (chaotic, violent, tormented) far, far worse and let him be bigger than the club. I do not criticise it at all. Wenger simply developed masterful ‘wilful blindness’ and simply didn’t see what didn’t suit. Actively, calculatedly, strategically. I do not criticise that at all either. It is football. These are hugely overpaid, hyper-competive, rich-beyond-Croesus, testosterone-fuelled young men. THEY are the talent that make the spreadsheets either tally or create circular references. An interesting subplot for context comes from a friend. FOI Government documents pertaining to COVID are interesting. They are vast and detailed. They’ve been studied closely of course, as all are now free to do. What was incredibly, remarkably striking to my friend - though in retrospect, and despite his first reactions, quite logical - was the huge weight (majority directional weight) given to Behavioural science. Not pure Science. Not medical Science. Behavioural Science. In effect ‘we know what’s true, we know what’s necessary, we know what will-should happen’, THOUGH ‘this is how people will actually act’. So they redacted, amended, distorted somewhat the advice and largely based it on the realpolitik of what people would do-reckon-think despite largely knowing it was wrong-flawed-compromised. Webber massively, catastrophically underestimated the impact on the remaining players (and their agents, friends and the wider footbal world and the ‘noise’ - which I note he could ignore then, though which he cannot now ignore even from fairly tepid local paparazzi) on what he already knew was a very fine line decision. He over-believed in his Midas touch. It was a huge self-justified gamble that even the much-lamented Smith would have made a back-me-or-sack-me moment. He sure as hell knows football momentum (and its black-hole sucking vortex opposite). Farke of course paid high for his collegiate nature (and inexperience?). I long counselled for the Sporting Director model. I firmly believe it to be fundamentally important for a provincial club, with limited funding, a somewhat closed-shop catchment clientele and particularly with the benign, credulous, hugely decent, though occasionally cultish-minded fine owners we have. I dread the thought that the lovely Delia will fudge the equity gain issue and allow Attanasio to hoover some of it. There is absolutely no need for this. He makes his money spotting assets and corporate carcasses that have been under-rated by more conservative financial institutions. Whether he is good, bad or indifferent as a person is utterly irrelevant. Asking whether he could switch-off, disown, forget it, or just simply get so enthusiastic or excited about Norwich that he forgets-forgoes his 40 years of carcass-picking, would be like asking a writer to forget how to spell, or to lose her sense of syntax, or to write with poor punctuation. If I was Delia, I wouldn’t want Webber protecting my interests on that one. Though I hope someone is. Hugely ironically ‘what’s best for the club’ could be a hugely-influential argument over her. Both Webber and Attanasio could use it on her for different reasons. She could have leveraged the equity gain differently with different advice. Though she has ignored it right up to the point of sale. She did it out of decency, though now huge errors could easily be made and painted as something different. By people with differing agendas. Again. Equity gain as it pertains to Norwich-Delia is reasonably straightforward. Regardless of intentions or motivations, you buy as asset (in this case the majority shares in a football club) for £8m. You enjoy it for 25 years, then an American comes along who wants to buy it. He buys other shares from other private individuals at about £30 and takes a C-Preference deal (that buys him leverage, gives the club cash, creates an internal due diligence process for him and his team, and allows time for everyone to smell each other, that provides a pathway to a full buyout. Caveat: in my experience minds are typically made up already) for about £100 per share. This means your original purchase asset (the majority shareholding) is now worth a likely minimum of £51m (and of course potentially more, depending on how you negotiate and project the future). So this is the equity gain. £51m (buyer to pay) - £8m (original purchase investment) = £43m (‘profit’) Now this is where the issue is. Delia never really wanted to think about this. Making a profit from the football club was ‘not her intention’. They were ‘never in it for the money’. She has - intentionally or otherwise - been the driver of the anti-sky, capitalism is bad, Football is crazy, self-sustaining model. Because she didn’t have any more ready cash. Because wages shot up. Because ‘camels came down (not Carrow) Maine Road’. Except football clubs became hugely valuable assets. People wanted to buy them. People did and do pay billions for them. Delia couldn’t believe it or foresee it. Glazer was crazy. Borrowing was awful. Risky. Remember administration? Then Glazer bought for £0.5bn (with Man United’s money) and will now sell for £5bn??!!? So - once again - everything we know to be true is wrong. A Mike Ashley would be hammered for making a huge equity gain then making the fans fork out for a new training ground because the portakabins leak. I love and respect Delia, but that money was there. It can be used. Other owners leveraged the equity - in effect funded improvements and used it to fund the football club, keeping Buendia at a key point say - because they considered that they were investing in the asset they owned and it was gaining value because of their investment. They also used club money to do this too - and ‘underwrote the risk’ via their own funds and of course the equity gain. Delia rejected these choices because she had no access to cash. She couldn’t risk leveraging the (theoretical-until-true) equity gain - like everyone else did. But she DID buy a football club. This IS the world she chose. All of this is actually a defence of Webber. He had to square some very difficult circles. Ironically of course it is the very Sky money that Delia despises that has kept Norwich sportingly competitive. The story of Webber, Farke, Smith cannot be told without the story of Delia. These are the corporate principles and economic drivers that create the fixed fence lines that dictate policy. That policy forces the imperfect compromises. Attanasio knows or senses all of this. As he has some access to funds, he does not have to force such autistically narrow operational lines. He can promise (and deliver) some flexibility. Some ‘keep Buendia-Skipp’ moments. Intoxicating . He likes stadiums. He might talk about expanding Carrow Road. He is excited and enthusiastic. He offers change. He offers a competitive future. Does he offer £51m? Does he offer £8m? Delia owns a Ferrari she hasn’t - and can’t - put petrol in. Webber might be excited about what Attanasio can bring (him). Attanasio will encourage and groom him (until he doesn’t). If anyone - for any reason - takes less than £51m - that is like putting that cash into Attanasio’s pension pot (or his children’s trust fund). He will not feel guilty about that. Though of course Delia might. She will know how that will all be presented. Do you see how that sense of guilt might be used against her? By both Webber and Attanasio (though he will happily hide blind and innocent behind Webber if he thinks he’s pushing it the right way) Delia is credulous, she rather loves a new Messiah. I worry for her….’… Parma Edited December 24, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Petriix 2,938 Posted December 23, 2022 (edited) I also have a great deal of respect for you and your writing @Parma Ham's gone mouldyand I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on neuroplasticity. I enjoy that we can have well reasoned discussions without having to agree on everything. I personally believe that you're putting too much emphasis on one single player. While I too mourn the loss of Buendia (moving to Villa is basically dead to me), I think the bigger picture of all the changes in the playing squad is far more significant. I think we could just about have recovered from selling Emi, had there been greater continuity in the rest of the team and tactics. But I absolutely agree with the concept that the remaining players will have struggled psychologically with the paradigm shift. None more so than Cantwell: his role was effectively deleted from the team sheet - those established neural pathways which instructed his instinctive play rendered useless, no wonder he 'lost form'. See also Dowell who was shoehorned into a wide attacking midfield role despite lacking the main attributes of pace and trickery and absolutely undermining his strengths as a central number 10. See also Pukki who was now the target of head-high crosses... I don't absolutely hold the view that Webber forced the 4-3-3 on Farke. I suspect that it was a collaboration. However I believe that Farke had a far greater ability to pick up the pieces of the failed plan and create something vaguely cohesive/coherent than anything we've seen since his departure. Here is crux: we can't go back in time and unsell Buendia or unsack Farke. We can only act now. I still think there's hope for this squad, but not under the current coach. But it's a very small window of opportunity before the squad is decimated* at the end of the season. As for Delia's equity: I believe there are lots of creative ways in which it could be reinvested into the club without gifting it to the new owners. It's really important that these conversations are had so that the wider fan base are made aware of the issue. But I strongly suspect (hope) that there is a plan in place. *It's actually worse than decimation because we'll lose more than 10% of the first team. Edited December 23, 2022 by Petriix 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,852 Posted December 23, 2022 A sort of reply to Parma and Petriix’s excellent posts. Rather like Petriix I idly wonder what kind of discussion we would be having if Webber had spent the Buendia money on the right kind of player, but we are very much where we are, and I want to muse (rather than be certain) on money and stuff. Firstly, it is easy to personalise this all down to Delia, but I imagine there are at least three people involved on the Norwich City side of Attanasiogate as it has gone up until now and where it might go in the future. The trio being Delia, Michael (who after all is joint holder of those shares) and Tom Smith, whose purported inheritance – in true Dickensian-style – hangs in the balance. Even if the image of Delia as sometimes too emotionally invested and naïve for the good of the club is true (which is a question in itself, as Jez Moxey and at least one other person who could testify to her occasional ruthlessness might argue) does that apply to Michael? Or Tom? I don’t know. But a guess would be that when it comes to the big decisions those three (and perhaps also Foulger) are having more of a final say in this than are either of the Webbers. Which brings me to Attanasio and to an extent his Americanness. Pretty much by definition anyone who has amassed enough money working in a branch of US big business or finance to buy a Major League baseball club and then have designs on an English football club is going to be hard-nosed and decisive to the point of ruthlessness. A point I made a while back. You can be overtly down to earth and cuddly and avuncular but still have something very close to “Greed is good” as your guiding philosophy. But two points. Firstly, if doing something stupid is roughly defined as forgetting your previous rock-solid adherence to “Greed is good” then sports franchises seem prone to make otherwise hard-headed businesspeople act stupidly. Not least by buying the franchise in the first place, and sometimes from that point on how they run it. Secondly, not all owners – American or otherwise – have exactly the same motivations and long-term and end-plans. I am again guessing but I doubt one would fairly ascribe the same aims to the Glazers at Man Utd (which seem to have been purely and cold-bloodedly financial) and to Berylson at Millwall, or those of the Hollywood duo at Wrexham to Boehly’s at Chelsea. What do we know about Attanasio? He made a great deal of money (by Delia’s standards, although not by those of Warren Buffett) and 17 years ago paid $223m for a baseball club. The 2022 valuation by Forbes is $1.28bn (up from 2021). That is not far short of a six-fold increase, bearing in mind inflation since 2005. If I was being provocative😍 I would point out that if naïve simpleton Delia has indeed somehow parlayed £8m into a £51m stake then that is also very close to a six-fold rise…* In that time Attanasio has apparently (I will defer to those who know baseball) dragged the Milwaukee Brewers up from being a bit of a joke club to one that is taken seriously, although perhaps now hitting a bit of a glass ceiling? Certainly it is worth more than he paid for it. But yet he hasn’t cashed in. He might tomorrow, of course. If this was just a business business he probably would have done, going by the Greed is good axiom. But it is a sports franchise and as said they can make people act stupidly, bearing in mind the above definition of acting stupidly. *Yes Parma, I know that’s not the point you have been making about that potential profit!🤓 And I see Delia less a Ferrari type and more a Facel-Vega girl... 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,746 Posted December 23, 2022 Great posts but a bit too much Delia as at least half of the last 25 years has been Michael and his visions. And was Farke Ball really Webber Ball Mk 1? Or is what we have now Smith Ball or Webber Ball Mk 2? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 547 Posted December 23, 2022 29 minutes ago, nutty nigel said: Great posts but a bit too much Delia as at least half of the last 25 years has been Michael and his visions. Absolutely correct but challenging at times for people to express themselves when Delia has down the years been far more vocal than Michael. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,746 Posted December 23, 2022 (edited) 28 minutes ago, essex canary said: Absolutely correct but challenging at times for people to express themselves when Delia has down the years been far more vocal than Michael. She actually hasn't. They do all the club media together. Just to add... In our little football club world Delia is viewed as part owner of our club and her books and cookery etc is an incidental. In the rest of the world that reverses. That's why Delia is more visible. Edited December 23, 2022 by nutty nigel 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,306 Posted December 30, 2022 (edited) I know some of you question the premise that selling Buendia deeply affected the remaining players (because of its timing)…. ….an insight into why some things have far deeper resonance for players - and even though it is rarely talked about - is hinted at today by Iwan Roberts in his Pink Un column. Iwan is in full lads-in-the-dressing-room mode, suggesting-tagging his mates for roles he knows they’d never get, but also pulling back the curtain a little on what players really think: ’If Steve Weaver walks in….I’m like ‘who is this bloke?’….’ ’A set piece coach?…(is that the best you’ve got?..).what does the manager do?’ ’…maybe the squad ISN’T good enough (after all)’ Rather simplistic, superficial, judgmental…and very, very common…… Now imagine 22 young men like Iwan, at the point of promotion, having been relegated unceremoniously a couple of years before, having been promised that pain was ‘to be set up this time’, having given everything to achieve a historical feat, knowing how important Buendia (and Skipp) are to what comes next…do you feel-judge (as Iwan does here) that the club is on the up or the down…?….this is the everyday currency of players. . Parma Edited January 5, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barry Brockes 150 Posted December 30, 2022 I've wondered for some time whether those players who've already been promoted once or twice with City really deep down have the appetite for another season of being thumped week after week. They know there's very little money in the kitty to strengthen the squad and even if we did have the money look at Nottingham Forest. Yes, they'll earn more in the Premier League but these young men are already wealthy by most standards and do the increased wages really make up for just a handful of wins a season? 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,852 Posted December 30, 2022 1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said: I know some of you question the premise that selling Buendia deeply affected the remaining players (because of its timing)…. ….an insight into why some things have far deeper resonance for players - and even though it is rarely talked about - is hinted at today by Iwan Roberts in his Pink Un column. Iwan is in full lads-in-the-dressing-room mode, suggesting-tagging his mates for roles he knows they’d never get, but also pulling back the curtain a little on what players really think: ’If Steve Weaver walks in….I’m like ‘who is this bloke?’….’ ’A set piece coach?…(is that the best you’ve got?..).what does the manager do?’ ’…maybe the squad ISN’T good enough (after all)’ Rather simplistic, superficial, judgmental…and very, very common…… Now imagine 22 young men like Iwan, at the point of promotion, having been smashed every week a couple of years before, having been promised that pain was ‘to be set up this time’, having given everything to achieve a historical feat, knowing how important Buendia (and Skipp) are to what comes next…do you feel-judge (as Iwan does here) that the club is on the up or the down…?….this is the everyday currency of players. . Parma Parma, I am having a marathon Luchino Visconti session chez moi this weekend, starting with his first film. Seemed the obvious choice.😍 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Petriix 2,938 Posted December 30, 2022 48 minutes ago, Barry Brockes said: I've wondered for some time whether those players who've already been promoted once or twice with City really deep down have the appetite for another season of being thumped week after week. They know there's very little money in the kitty to strengthen the squad and even if we did have the money look at Nottingham Forest. Yes, they'll earn more in the Premier League but these young men are already wealthy by most standards and do the increased wages really make up for just a handful of wins a season? The thing is they weren't thumped every week. It was only really Aston Villa that thumped them. They beat Man City, should have beaten Spurs (but for Pukki's erect nipple being judged off-side) drew with Arsenal, narrowly lost to Chelsea, and generally held their own half the time. The season is totally clouded by what happened with the lockdown and 'project restart'. We can all agree that the squad management for the second season was a disaster. But I don't think players would really be emotionally scarred by previous Premier League seasons when they have those massive Championship seasons in between. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badger 2,609 Posted December 30, 2022 2 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said: Now imagine 22 young men like Iwan, at the point of promotion, having been smashed every week a couple of years before, having been promised that pain was ‘to be set up this time’, having given everything to achieve a historical feat, knowing how important Buendia (and Skipp) are to what comes next…do you feel-judge (as Iwan does here) that the club is on the up or the down…?….this is the everyday currency of players. . Parma The fact that as you put it we had "been smashed every week a couple of years before" in a season in which Buendia contributed relatively little can be taken as an argument for selling him and using the money to bring in a number of new players who had not had this experience. It could be argued that 1. Buendia had contributed relatively little last time, so why would he be a game changer this time? 2. The club needed to inject new players of quality into the squad who as you suggest had been scarred by their previous experience. New players could have changed the dynamic. Why do you suppose that doing the same as we had done two seasons previously would have ended any better? Whilst clearly the new strategy failed, you could argue that it may have been "safer" to play "steady as she goes" it might also be seen as act of neglect or even cowardice. I was a calculated risk that failed, but perhaps it was felt that without a throw of the dice failure was pretty inevitable anyhow? Personally, I would have preferred an approach that did not leave us losing over £40 million in a season. which I think is gambling with the future but I see the speculative approach adopted more more consistent with the "go for it" mode than many on here advocate. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,306 Posted December 30, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, Badger said: The fact that as you put it we had "been smashed every week a couple of years before" in a season in which Buendia contributed relatively little can be taken as an argument for selling him and using the money to bring in a number of new players who had not had this experience. It could be argued that 1. Buendia had contributed relatively little last time, so why would he be a game changer this time? 2. The club needed to inject new players of quality into the squad who as you suggest had been scarred by their previous experience. New players could have changed the dynamic. Why do you suppose that doing the same as we had done two seasons previously would have ended any better? Whilst clearly the new strategy failed, you could argue that it may have been "safer" to play "steady as she goes" it might also be seen as act of neglect or even cowardice. I was a calculated risk that failed, but perhaps it was felt that without a throw of the dice failure was pretty inevitable anyhow? Personally, I would have preferred an approach that did not leave us losing over £40 million in a season. which I think is gambling with the future but I see the speculative approach adopted more more consistent with the "go for it" mode than many on here advocate. A nicely written counterpoint Badger. I think Buendia was the best, most influential, most game-changing, most infectious, most effective (given that football is a low-scoring game) player I’ve seen at Carrow Road for some time. I think he was our only top level weapon. He had remarkably good premier league stats. I think his relationship with Pukki was a fabulous weapon that was hard to stop. I think that he fitted well into our fluid methodology. I think he worked hard. I think he made other players look better, be better. I think Iwan would probably agree. What do you reckon the players themselves thought? Believed? Momentum spins on a dime. Not all dimes are created equal. It was indeed our Shakespearean fulcrum moment as I predicted before it happened. As my Father wisely says ‘you can make any choice you like, just be ready to pay the bill…’… Parma Edited December 30, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigFish 2,089 Posted December 30, 2022 49 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said: I think Buendia was the best, most influential, most game-changing, most infectious, most effective (given that football is a low-scoring game) player I’ve seen at Carrow Road for some time. Better than Maddison? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
