Why Stuart Webber should stay... for now.

[Feedthewolf 4,948]

14 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I never took the 90% comment to be anything but it was, either through arrogance or honesty, an admission that taking on such a challenge would impact his finite time. You can be as driven and determined as you like, but ultimately you only have so many waking hours to dedicate to things.

He’s done a lot of good in terms of infrastructure and Championship titles, but his legacy is starting to crumble IMO and too many ill advised comments are coming back to bite him. I fear he reached his peak and found himself wanting. No one can deny Norwich is PL survival at its hardest but we look much further away from achieving that now than 2 years ago.

My main issue is regardless of the motivation for it there has been a change in the clubs relationship with the supporters and media, the wedge driven there is what’s hurting the club most IMO.

I absolutely can't argue with the bit in bold, and I don't really see how anyone can.

As for the club's relationship with the supporters, it's a strange kind of limbo at the moment. Historically, we are much more active and engaged with our fans than the average club – in fact, during the Farke era with Ben Kensell heading up the 'fan-facing' side of things, we were outstanding in that regard. Ask anyone who's been involved in fan groups for a good few years, and they'll more than likely back me up on that.

However, Norwich fans don't care if our fan engagement is 'better than industry average' or 'better than [x] clubs'; the only metric that interests them is how it is here and now compared to how it's been here in the past.

There's so much flux around the club at the moment, and so many unanswered questions, we're not going to magically fix everything overnight. A new dawn is creeping towards the horizon from the other side of the pond, and that is bound to bring with it many changes.

At this point, I think the best thing we can do is get a new head coach in, and allow the Webbers and Delia/Michael to continue handing over their knowledge to the Attanasios. It might not be pretty for a while, but this is clearly the edge of an era-defining transition for NCFC. If the boat is rocked too much then Mark and Mike might fall out, and that would be a disaster.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Feedthewolf

[PurpleCanary 5,608]

30 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

The logic is that we're a self-funding club, and we had £30m taken out of our cashflow. That's a colossal amount of money, which had to be accounted for somehow.

Of course everything in your second paragraph is contingent upon whether or not we actually could have kept Buendia. We'll never know for sure, but Parma (whose opinions I respect hugely) implied earlier that he thought it was a choice on our part to sell (i.e. agreeing with your point of view).

Never mind hindsight; if at the time you'd offered me a choice between keeping Buendia and spending £30m less on new signings, or selling Buendia and paying £30m more on new signings, I'd have 100% kept Buendia. We'll never know the ins and outs of it.

I don’t believe the non-Buendia transfer spend was £30m. More like £20m-£25m. Whether that alters the to-sell-or-not-to-sell argument is an open question.

Edited December 21, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[Tetteys Jig 831]

Guess we’ve just gotta keep the Webber thing going… it’s all an entirely predictable direction of being swallowed up by the self funding model though… might even do us a bit of good to not go straight back up and have another year of building  a side with our youth players and some clever recruitment. Seems to have worked a bit for Bournemouth.

imagine Big Andy with another 40 odd championship games, Gunn with a full season as number 1, Idah with a proper go at taking the number 9 shirt with Sargent establishing himself as a top young talent at this level a la solanke away from the high stakes premiership for an extra season.

Theres plenty there to work with at this level, we just get completely shafted trying to push it that bit more so perhaps we need to be more ready for a concerted effort at things next time with more experienced players that have earned their stripes at championship level?

[canarydan23 4,155]

16 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Of course everything in your second paragraph is contingent upon whether or not we actually could have kept Buendia. We'll never know for sure, but Parma (whose opinions I respect hugely) implied earlier that he thought it was a choice on our part to sell (i.e. agreeing with your point of view).

It was a choice to sell him. That's a fact. Whether or not keeping him would have reneged on a previously made pledge (though I seem to recall Webber saying in an interview that this wasn't the case) or run a genuine risk of Buendia refusing to play or not putting a shift in, but the fact is he was under contract and we had the ability to reject any and all offers we received for him. Webber chose to accept an offer. He then chose to spend the augmented transfer kitty on quantity over quality (allegedly against Farke's wishes, but that's another topic entirely) and in doing all but guaranteed yet another swift return to the Championship. Though this relegation did not come with the excuse that we'd only spent £750k. We outspent both teams we came up with and made ourselves worse than them. That alone is enough for me to expect Webber's removal. That's before you look at the atrocious handling of Farke's dismissal. Before you question whether sacking him was correct given the fact that it was largely Webber's, not Farke's, failings that caused our malaise. Before you question the unplanned, and now clearly incorrect, appointment of Farke's successor. Before you deal with the fact that many lay people said at the time what a bizarre appointment it was. Before you ponder the toxic environment that has triggered an exodus of off-field staff from the club. Before you consider the commitment issues his Everest campaign inevitably prompt. Before you consider the fact that we massively outspent our two fellow relegated teams in the summer window and yet find ourselves behind both of them. Considerably behind one of them.

It's just failure upon failure upon failure for the past 18 months. The damage these failures have caused is huge. Can we really risk allowing him another 6 months to monumentally balls up even more?

[Monty13 2,305]

14 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

I absolutely can't argue with the bit in bold, and I don't really see how anyone can.

As for the club's relationship with the supporters, it's a strange kind of limbo at the moment. Historically, we are much more active and engaged with our fans than the average club – in fact, during the Farke era with Ben Kensell heading up the 'fan-facing' side of things, we were outstanding in that regard. Ask anyone who's been involved in fan groups for a good few years, and they'll more than likely back me up on that.

However, Norwich fans don't care if our fan engagement is 'better than industry average' or 'better than [x] clubs'; the only metric that interests them is how it is here and now compared to how it's been here in the past.

There's so much flux around the club at the moment, and so many unanswered questions, we're not going to magically fix everything overnight. A new dawn is creeping towards the horizon from the other side of the pond, and that is bound to bring with it many changes.

At this point, I think the best thing we can do is get a new head coach in, and allow the Webbers and Delia/Michael to continue handing over their knowledge to the Attanasios. It might not be pretty for a while, but this is clearly the edge of an era-defining transition for NCFC. If the boat is rocked too much then Mark and Mike might fall out, and that would be a disaster.

I think if you want to keep the conversation about Webber, he came in full of bullish frankness and apparent straight talking, rubbishing the previous regime and setting forth a clear vision.

Now we have no vision, the club is in full on lockdown against scrutiny (has been since things started to come off the rails) and a lot of what was said by Webber about the previous regime is starting to look familiar about his.

The media is now laughably off message, because they have no reason to be on message.  Listening to Bailey he quite hilariously clearly doesn’t care anymore which is actually quite refreshing. The Pinkun lads are fair but also scathing of the club in many aspects. Was it worth it, just because egos were bruised?

Edit: As for the Attanasio’s I don’t think they care about Webber. You don’t invest in and look to take on a sporting project caring about such short lived things. They aren’t buying Norwich because Webber is here and I suspect at some point they will be more hands on and I can’t see such a savvy businessman being content with such an odd arrangement as we currently have between the Webbers. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Monty13

[canarydan23 4,155]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don’t believe the non-Buendia transfer spend was £30m. More like £20m-£25m. Whether that alters the to-sell-or-not-to-sell argument is an open question.

An open question with an easy answer.

[Mengo 826]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

It was a choice to sell him. That's a fact. Whether or not keeping him would have reneged on a previously made pledge (though I seem to recall Webber saying in an interview that this wasn't the case) or run a genuine risk of Buendia refusing to play or not putting a shift in, but the fact is he was under contract and we had the ability to reject any and all offers we received for him. Webber chose to accept an offer. He then chose to spend the augmented transfer kitty on quantity over quality (allegedly against Farke's wishes, but that's another topic entirely) and in doing all but guaranteed yet another swift return to the Championship. Though this relegation did not come with the excuse that we'd only spent £750k. We outspent both teams we came up with and made ourselves worse than them. That alone is enough for me to expect Webber's removal. That's before you look at the atrocious handling of Farke's dismissal. Before you question whether sacking him was correct given the fact that it was largely Webber's, not Farke's, failings that caused our malaise. Before you question the unplanned, and now clearly incorrect, appointment of Farke's successor. Before you deal with the fact that many lay people said at the time what a bizarre appointment it was. Before you ponder the toxic environment that has triggered an exodus of off-field staff from the club. Before you consider the commitment issues his Everest campaign inevitably prompt. Before you consider the fact that we massively outspent our two fellow relegated teams in the summer window and yet find ourselves behind both of them. Considerably behind one of them.

It's just failure upon failure upon failure for the past 18 months. The damage these failures have caused is huge. Can we really risk allowing him another 6 months to monumentally balls up even more?

Well if you put it like that then😡🤫🤣. Nice one canarydan  , spot on in all you say. 👏 

[Feedthewolf 4,948]

4 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

It was a choice to sell him. That's a fact. Whether or not keeping him would have reneged on a previously made pledge (though I seem to recall Webber saying in an interview that this wasn't the case) or run a genuine risk of Buendia refusing to play or not putting a shift in, but the fact is he was under contract and we had the ability to reject any and all offers we received for him. Webber chose to accept an offer. He then chose to spend the augmented transfer kitty on quantity over quality (allegedly against Farke's wishes, but that's another topic entirely) and in doing all but guaranteed yet another swift return to the Championship. Though this relegation did not come with the excuse that we'd only spent £750k. We outspent both teams we came up with and made ourselves worse than them. That alone is enough for me to expect Webber's removal. That's before you look at the atrocious handling of Farke's dismissal. Before you question whether sacking him was correct given the fact that it was largely Webber's, not Farke's, failings that caused our malaise. Before you question the unplanned, and now clearly incorrect, appointment of Farke's successor. Before you deal with the fact that many lay people said at the time what a bizarre appointment it was. Before you ponder the toxic environment that has triggered an exodus of off-field staff from the club. Before you consider the commitment issues his Everest campaign inevitably prompt. Before you consider the fact that we massively outspent our two fellow relegated teams in the summer window and yet find ourselves behind both of them. Considerably behind one of them.

It's just failure upon failure upon failure for the past 18 months. The damage these failures have caused is huge. Can we really risk allowing him another 6 months to monumentally balls up even more?

Okay, in that sense of course it was a 'choice'. But we don't know the full details, and I've already said that I would have done whatever was necessary to keep Emi short of reneging on a promise or risking him downing tools (whether either of those things were a factor, we will probably never know).

I think there are tons of mitigating factors for a lot of your criticisms (which I've already outlined in the OP), but the sacking of Farke and near-immediate appointment of Smith (who was still employed when Farke was sacked) is the one thing above all others that I find most difficult to forgive.

Setting aside the rhetoric of 'monumentally ballsing up even more', I think the key reasons for allowing Webber to continue are 1) his relationship with the Attanasios, and the vital importance of imparting his knowledge to them and keeping them on board; and 2) my belief that deep down he knows he backed the wrong horse with Deano, and will go back to his Wagner/Farke principles to appoint his successor.

There are so many replies floating around at the moment I can't possibly keep up with them all, and you got my last in-depth one of the night. Always good chatting with you.

[essex canary 516]

42 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

The logic is that we're a self-funding club, and we had £30m taken out of our cashflow. That's a colossal amount of money, which had to be accounted for somehow.

Of course everything in your second paragraph is contingent upon whether or not we actually could have kept Buendia. We'll never know for sure, but Parma (whose opinions I respect hugely) implied earlier that he thought it was a choice on our part to sell (i.e. agreeing with your point of view).

Never mind hindsight; if at the time you'd offered me a choice between keeping Buendia and spending £30m less on new signings, or selling Buendia and paying £30m more on new signings, I'd have 100% kept Buendia. We'll never know the ins and outs of it.

Why then did we spend as much as £118 million on Wages last season. 3 of the last 4 teams who have beaten us at home spend approx. £25 million per year and the other around £15 million. Haven't they got some good players he could have identified such as the Australian World Cup player at Middlesbrough or the guy with 17 Caps for Chile at Blackburn.

I don't necessarily see a problem in itself with Webber's 90% thing but in relation to TVB's comments, I was more than a little perturbed at the time with that video of Zoe in which she stated that she expects her staff to be 24/7 devoted to the Club. That came over as rather Johnsonian in nature whereas Richens comments in the last 'Insight" (albeit the principle of that initiative is good) were Trussonomic in nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chicken 2,695]

Brilliantly laid out and reasoned FDW. I agree.

I think people calling for wholesale sweeping change are passionate but certainly push the argument too far. Those that suggest the club is badly run largely are poorly informed.

If the magic wand was waved overnight, I very much doubt anyone coming here would have to do much to the footballing side of the infrastructure. We have a fantastic set up and we have an academy that is helping to identify youth targets to add to those here and bring them through with the real potential to contribute to the senior squad.

Financially, we don't do badly either, from what I can make out of the accounts, in terms of generating income as a club away from TV rights etc. Much of that is due to the passionate supporters on match days at Carrow Road and then spending money on non-match days for merch or in one of the clubs restaurants as well as evenings with speakers such as ex players etc.

I've said elsewhere that I would give Webber the chance to put it right with the managers position. As we know, these things are not an exact science. I really do believe that Farke and Webber arrived at the perfect moment of next to no expectations, a new young manager and a young director of football in a new system that had been mentioned in the years prior (as early as Worthington I believe, I think Hamilton was meant to make that step up and Worthington to operate as a head coach).

First season was ropey and folks heavily criticised those involved that first season. They were ruthless though. And I think it's fair to say that both Farke and Webber could be utterly ruthless and save no time for sentiment. That can cut both ways but for the most part the players that departed only had good things to say about it all.

I still hold to the issue not being Farke going, hindsight is a wonderful beast, and we only really lament his departure because the feeling is he wouldn't have done any worse than Smith last season (in getting us relegated at least), but that he would have gotten us performing better this season. We don't know that and can never predict that.

For me, the two biggest questions come around the contract given to Farke and then Smith's appointment. At the time I didn't have an issue with Smith being appointed. Certainly no worse than Lampard who was known to have been lined up for an interview but cancelled when it was clear we were after Smith.

The only area where I think things may be more progressed than we realise is with Attanasio. Purple may be able to shed more light on this, or even perhaps Parma. My personal feelings are that there is simply no way that they were in discussions for somewhere between 4-6 months on just some investment. I think there is more to this, I think there is a road map, a plan. Aggressive take-overs are a desperate thing, they can divide people.

When you consider the nature of the fanbase that are committed to home and away support in person, you wouldn't want to wreck that by bulldozing your way in. I believe the vast majority of the support have a lot of time for Delia and Michael and the hard work they have put into the club along with their passion, blood, sweat and tears etc. I feel most though, do feel it is time for that chapter to come to a close and for someone else to take the rains. Again, it doesn't have to be nasty, and I don't think Attanasio wants it to be.

It would not shock me at all if this time next year we are talking about Attanasio and his company being the owners of our club, it really wouldn't. It might take longer, but I think the plan is there, and that it could be sped up if the powers that be felt it was time for change.

Lastly, spend. It's interesting to see people talking about a loan that is offset against future payments for players and parachute payments etc. Many criticising how this impacts our spending whilst these payments are directed into paying back the loan. It was exactly the sort of thing people were demanding in years gone by, such as our first promotion with Webber and Farke, to generate funds to spend on the playing staff. Perhaps now, people will see how that can make a risky situation even more so.

 

[Monty13 2,305]

8 hours ago, Petriix said:

That's pretty easy to answer:

Webber wanted to be the only man to have taken a mid-table Championship club to becoming an established Premier League side with zero external investment. 

He didn't and doesn't care about the cost of failure. He'll walk away to other things regardless of the outcome. It's only our club on the line. He couldn't pass up the opportunity when he had everything to gain and nothing to lose. 

And, as @Feedthewolf says, Webber is 'driven' and ambitious. Sitting on his hands was never in his nature. Unfortunately the reckless choice has, and continues to, backfire. 

Nail hit firmly on head Petriix. It’s also why it’s important individuals of such nature have strong oversight.

[Petriix 2,860]

27 minutes ago, chicken said:

Lastly, spend. It's interesting to see people talking about a loan that is offset against future payments for players and parachute payments etc. Many criticising how this impacts our spending whilst these payments are directed into paying back the loan. It was exactly the sort of thing people were demanding in years gone by, such as our first promotion with Webber and Farke, to generate funds to spend on the playing staff. Perhaps now, people will see how that can make a risky situation even more so.

It's what some people were calling for. It was never a good idea. I don't think it was the same people who are now concerned about the loan repayments. It's the people who blame Delia for being too poor.

I'll go with the "let's let Webber appoint the new coach" argument. But there's a genuine fear that Webber himself has more control over the playing side of things than one might assume and that causes two problems: 1) it makes sacking Dean Smith less likely and 2) it means sacking him won't actually fix the fundamental issue.

Maybe it also makes sacking Smith less important, but Webber isn't likely to sack himself. So it comes down to the simple question of whether Webber will recognise the need to change the approach or if he's too stubborn to admit it yet.

And, of course, there's the unlikely possibility that we'll scrape up through the playoffs and lots of us will look a bit silly. That's my preferred option, but I genuinely think we're more likely to end up in League One than the Premier League while Dean Smith is here. 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Petriix

[BroadstairsR 2,235]

Webber doesn't want to be at NCFC any longer.

He should go. I'd rather have club man Neil Adams  ... and that's stretching it.

[canarybubbles 1,974]

3 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Webber doesn't want to be at NCFC any longer.

He should go. I'd rather have club man Neil Adams  ... and that's stretching it.

I'd happily take Adams with a shortish contract as long as it was in tandem with someone else to deal with the non-football stuff.

As for the football stuff, people say he was an absolutely terrible manager. But as someone pointed out somewhere on here, his record over the first half of his relegated season was marginally better than Smith's.

[PurpleCanary 5,608]

5 hours ago, chicken said:

Brilliantly laid out and reasoned FDW. I agree.

I think people calling for wholesale sweeping change are passionate but certainly push the argument too far. Those that suggest the club is badly run largely are poorly informed.

If the magic wand was waved overnight, I very much doubt anyone coming here would have to do much to the footballing side of the infrastructure. We have a fantastic set up and we have an academy that is helping to identify youth targets to add to those here and bring them through with the real potential to contribute to the senior squad.

Financially, we don't do badly either, from what I can make out of the accounts, in terms of generating income as a club away from TV rights etc. Much of that is due to the passionate supporters on match days at Carrow Road and then spending money on non-match days for merch or in one of the clubs restaurants as well as evenings with speakers such as ex players etc.

I've said elsewhere that I would give Webber the chance to put it right with the managers position. As we know, these things are not an exact science. I really do believe that Farke and Webber arrived at the perfect moment of next to no expectations, a new young manager and a young director of football in a new system that had been mentioned in the years prior (as early as Worthington I believe, I think Hamilton was meant to make that step up and Worthington to operate as a head coach).

First season was ropey and folks heavily criticised those involved that first season. They were ruthless though. And I think it's fair to say that both Farke and Webber could be utterly ruthless and save no time for sentiment. That can cut both ways but for the most part the players that departed only had good things to say about it all.

I still hold to the issue not being Farke going, hindsight is a wonderful beast, and we only really lament his departure because the feeling is he wouldn't have done any worse than Smith last season (in getting us relegated at least), but that he would have gotten us performing better this season. We don't know that and can never predict that.

For me, the two biggest questions come around the contract given to Farke and then Smith's appointment. At the time I didn't have an issue with Smith being appointed. Certainly no worse than Lampard who was known to have been lined up for an interview but cancelled when it was clear we were after Smith.

1) The only area where I think things may be more progressed than we realise is with Attanasio. Purple may be able to shed more light on this, or even perhaps Parma. My personal feelings are that there is simply no way that they were in discussions for somewhere between 4-6 months on just some investment. I think there is more to this, I think there is a road map, a plan. Aggressive take-overs are a desperate thing, they can divide people.

When you consider the nature of the fanbase that are committed to home and away support in person, you wouldn't want to wreck that by bulldozing your way in. I believe the vast majority of the support have a lot of time for Delia and Michael and the hard work they have put into the club along with their passion, blood, sweat and tears etc. I feel most though, do feel it is time for that chapter to come to a close and for someone else to take the rains. Again, it doesn't have to be nasty, and I don't think Attanasio wants it to be.

It would not shock me at all if this time next year we are talking about Attanasio and his company being the owners of our club, it really wouldn't. It might take longer, but I think the plan is there, and that it could be sped up if the powers that be felt it was time for change.

2) Lastly, spend. It's interesting to see people talking about a loan that is offset against future payments for players and parachute payments etc. Many criticising how this impacts our spending whilst these payments are directed into paying back the loan. It was exactly the sort of thing people were demanding in years gone by, such as our first promotion with Webber and Farke, to generate funds to spend on the playing staff. Perhaps now, people will see how that can make a risky situation even more so.

 

A good, considered post, chicken. As to 1) I have a bit of a general idea of how these things work but in this case no inside information. By his own account Attanasio has been looking to invest in English football for ten years, and from the interviews he has given it is obvious he has acquired useful background knowledge on the subject.

In that time many clubs from, say, the top three tiers of English football have become available or semi-available. He could have dived in at any time. But he waited, and chose us.

And the way the deal so far has been structured - buying a solid minority stake in the controlling Ordinary shares and with the ability to turn the Preference shares he has also bought into more Ordinaries - strongly suggests he is in this for the long term, and quite possibly eventually as owner.

As to 2), well, yes, quite. The fabled "calculated risk" I saw advocated so many times here by people who would never dream of taking such a gamble with their personal finances...🤓

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

10 hours ago, Monty13 said:

As for the Attanasio’s I don’t think they care about Webber. You don’t invest in and look to take on a sporting project caring about such short lived things. They aren’t buying Norwich because Webber is here and I suspect at some point they will be more hands on and I can’t see such a savvy businessman being content with such an odd arrangement as we currently have between the Webbers. 

One could argue that the descent towards mid-table obscurity and associated drastic cloth cutting is quite convenient to the Attanasio's if they do intend to make a move for Delia's shareholding as its going to bring down the value of the club substantially. 

And they would probably want the club to go through that period of pain before they take control, in the same way that Labour are secretly quite happy that the Tory's are having to embark on the first wave of belt tightening and tax rises, so Labour aren't associated with them.

Edited December 22, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

19 hours ago, Petriix said:

Well that's the fear: that we're still living through the consequences of Webbers gamble and the ongoing chasing of his losses; like a gambling addict who doesn't know when to stop. 

I was just about the type something incredibly similar to this, and now don't know whether I read this post yesterday or whether we are just on the same page.

But I too feel that Webber has made some big gambles which haven't paid off, and is now continuously trying to chase his losses. That's exactly how I perceive the last couple of years. 

Well now we've borrowed against our parachute payments and future instalment income and he's gambled £12m of that on Sara and Nunez. That horse doesn't look like its come in yet either. Somebody try and convince me that this isn't what we've done?

[Mello Yello 2,315]

...Club Damage Limitation plan A to be instigated...Blame the Support!...Blame the Support!...BLAME THE SUPPORT!...

                                                                                

[Don J Demorr 162]

A little while ago Mr Parma was kind enough to refer to an earlier post of mine: -

"@Don J Demorr pointed out the key roles of Boards and Non-Executive Boards was and is to recognise capability, capacity, sporting and financial ceilings and apply strategy and tactics accordingly."  

Yes, I did but perhaps the circumstances are much more complicated than we can deal with in a simple one-shot response in these limited pages. I will try to broaden the discussion in a manner that doesn’t intrude into the world of football, of which I know little. I’ll just look at the more normal field of working in or on organisational structures, wherein I think maybe I can get away with pretending to know at least something.

As the redoubtable Parma implies, such people apply their skills in the service of their employers.   As such, they will certainly have Contracts of Employment and maybe also Terms of Reference. These control and constrain their actions. I would be fascinated to know whether these have been changed since the apparent change of purpose from “Top 26” to “Top 17” (Thanks for the improvement here, Mr Essex). I think they should have been if they haven’t because the purpose has changed and purpose defines behaviour. Maybe what is taking place is an unexplained behavioural change.

In the “Top 26” space Mr Farke felt free to achieve his appointed objective whilst playing attractive and admired football. Once the “Top 17” becomes the governing constraint the motivation changes and the accumulation of points rules above all else. After the change he was no longer free because the club sought to join the whole egregious charade of money dominated elite “sport”, which is no longer sport at all. He “failed” in these terms and was dismissed. The EPL is only one element of the whole spectrum of professional sport which is now almost defined in terms of financial and ethical corruption, bribery, chemically enhanced performance, cheating, pressurisation or suborning of officials, simulation, gambling and general foul play. It is now becoming beneath contempt, in my view and I can’t watch much of it these days.

I wonder if the Terms of Reference of Dean Smith and Stuart Webber include any requirement for them to provide “Attractive Football”. If they don’t and if they are to be deemed to have failed because of their failure to gather “points” then it would not be surprising if that influenced their behaviour. Purpose defines behaviour.

So it looks as if the NCFC corporate objective is to garner “points”.  In direct contrast the vociferous cohort of Carrow Road customers are not protesting about the lack of points, they are becoming incandescent about the banality of the on-field product, which, seems to be "neither nowt nor summat”, as my grandad would have said.

I think there is indeed strong evidence of a serious disconnection within NCFC between what looks like an inadequately understood, planned and resourced ambition of somebody in authority (who, exactly?) and the paying customers, which is displayed as profound public dissatisfaction with two people who are possibly (or possibly not, how could I know?) the victims of poor corporate management. Maybe the objective is laid on them without being supported by the financial, personnel, planning or organisational resources for success to be possible. If indeed they are victims it follows that the removal either or both of them will change nothing - just as nothing changed when Daniel Farke was dismissed.

A wonderful Norfolk neighbour, who is even older than I am and has been a dedicated Canary for more than 70 years gave me the opinion (I won’t attempt to reproduce his accent) that: -

“ I don’t know what they're all a-playin’ at. We hint no more than a damn good Second Division team. Why don’t we just all settle down and play some good football”

Best to all,

Don

Edited December 22, 2022 by Don J Demorr

[essex canary 516]

5 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

 

Well now we've borrowed against our parachute payments and future instalment income and he's gambled £12m of that on Sara and Nunez. That horse doesn't look like its come in yet either. Somebody try and convince me that this isn't what we've done?

Sara and Nunez. Perhaps the reason why Spanish clubs and the like are interested is that they can see the talent but also think that their culture may help them settle better than ours. Same reason Rashica is enjoying himself in Turkey. In that sense if Farke hasn't had any ammunition, neither has Deano.

[essex canary 516]

14 hours ago, Petriix said:

I don't think it was the same people who are now concerned about the loan repayments. It's the people who blame Delia for being too poor.

 

I don't blame Delia for being too poor. I do blame her for playing Robin Hood in reverse by paying the fans money out as settlements to the likes of Moxey and McNally and when it comes to the Webbers x 2.

[shefcanary 2,504]

Thanks @Don J Demorr. Forgive me but my turn to post a long response.

If the only corporate strategy is to be Top 17, with the delivery being "points", then my previous concern over corporate governance has really only reared itself a couple of times this season - the executive as you imply continue to deliver. But the difference between delivering on this strategy and not achieving it is now wafer thin and just one bad result away from manifesting. Indeed you could say if Coventry and Millwall win their games in hand, albeit the latter have to by 5 clear goals, we are already outside the play-offs and the strategy looks like being delayed by at least a season.  

BUT, I thought it interesting to underline why I feel a clear lack of corporate governance has actually caused the delivery of the Club's strategy to be woeful, by reference to the recent annual report that states:

"Strategic Plan - Our infinite purpose: To make our football club and community better today than it was yesterday. While we focus on winning on the pitch we must remember that this only represents a moment in time and that every game we play is finite. We must consider our infinite purpose - this reflects a club that has been part of our community to be a part of our community in all the years to come."

"Our vision: To be an ESTABLISHED Premier League club, driven by our PROUD, PASSIONATE football community. Achieved by WORKING COLLABORATIVELY to create a FINANCIALLY STABLE CLUB while striving to remain COMPETITIVE through the effective RECRUITMENT and sale of players and the CONTINUED GROWTH of off-field revenues."

"Our strategic priorities:

1. To develop our football teams - Improve on-pitch performance and mentality; Create better squad availability, efficiency and value; Prioritise player and coach development and pathways; Increase squad value.
2. To create financial growth - Increase efficiency and profitability across all work areas; Increase player productivity; Maximise controllable income.
3. To develop our people - Encourage professional and personal development; Recruit high performing individuals; Be open to exploring new ideas.
4. To improve the club infrastructure - Improve the experience of everyone we interact with; Improve our physical facilities; Develop our work in safeguarding, EDI, health & safety, and sustainability.
5. To inspire & support our community - Improve community engagement; Boost mental health; Promote social mobility by supporting disadvantaged and vulnerable groups; Drive inclusion for people with disabilities."

Words the cynics may say, are just that - words. But the words above are the declared strategy of the club. In my view (and am happy for others to challenge this) but the priorities highlighted above are not being met, if anything the current situation at the club is weakening the chances of them ever being met in a reasonable timeframe with the current Executive. One would hope that corporate governance was strong enough within the club that the Board have a frank and open discussion on the evidence supporting the performance against these priorities with the executives, challenging them on how they propose to reverse the current trends. I'm just not convinced that the Board is able to do this in its current set-up. Attanasio, once fully ingrained in the ways of the club may well do so.  

If anyone thinks "the football club and community is better" than, say, at the beginning of the last EPL season (no more than 18 months ago) then please present the evidence. 

As @The Real Buh succinctly states, to achieve the corporate strategy as declared increasingly needs "a root and stem clear out". By re-presenting a couple of strategic priorities this can be done by "recruiting high performing individuals" and be "open to exploring new ideas", I'd argue implying a change in a the executive officers sooner rather than later. 

Time for Mark & Mike to start stepping up to the plate?

 

[essex canary 516]

4 hours ago, Don J Demorr said:

A little while ago Mr Parma was kind enough to refer to an earlier post of mine: -

"@Don J Demorr pointed out the key roles of Boards and Non-Executive Boards was and is to recognise capability, capacity, sporting and financial ceilings and apply strategy and tactics accordingly."  

Yes, I did but perhaps the circumstances are much more complicated than we can deal with in a simple one-shot response in these limited pages. I will try to broaden the discussion in a manner that doesn’t intrude into the world of football, of which I know little. I’ll just look at the more normal field of working in or on organisational structures, wherein I think maybe I can get away with pretending to know at least something.

As the redoubtable Parma implies, such people apply their skills in the service of their employers.   As such, they will certainly have Contracts of Employment and maybe also Terms of Reference. These control and constrain their actions. I would be fascinated to know whether these have been changed since the apparent change of purpose from “Top 26” to “Top 17” (Thanks for the improvement here, Mr Essex). I think they should have been if they haven’t because the purpose has changed and purpose defines behaviour. Maybe what is taking place is an unexplained behavioural change.

In the “Top 26” space Mr Farke felt free to achieve his appointed objective whilst playing attractive and admired football. Once the “Top 17” becomes the governing constraint the motivation changes and the accumulation of points rules above all else. After the change he was no longer free because the club sought to join the whole egregious charade of money dominated elite “sport”, which is no longer sport at all. He “failed” in these terms and was dismissed. The EPL is only one element of the whole spectrum of professional sport which is now almost defined in terms of financial and ethical corruption, bribery, chemically enhanced performance, cheating, pressurisation or suborning of officials, simulation, gambling and general foul play. It is now becoming beneath contempt, in my view and I can’t watch much of it these days.

I wonder if the Terms of Reference of Dean Smith and Stuart Webber include any requirement for them to provide “Attractive Football”. If they don’t and if they are to be deemed to have failed because of their failure to gather “points” then it would not be surprising if that influenced their behaviour. Purpose defines behaviour.

So it looks as if the NCFC corporate objective is to garner “points”.  In direct contrast the vociferous cohort of Carrow Road customers are not protesting about the lack of points, they are becoming incandescent about the banality of the on-field product, which, seems to be "neither nowt nor summat”, as my grandad would have said.

I think there is indeed strong evidence of a serious disconnection within NCFC between what looks like an inadequately understood, planned and resourced ambition of somebody in authority (who, exactly?) and the paying customers, which is displayed as profound public dissatisfaction with two people who are possibly (or possibly not, how could I know?) the victims of poor corporate management. Maybe the objective is laid on them without being supported by the financial, personnel, planning or organisational resources for success to be possible. If indeed they are victims it follows that the removal either or both of them will change nothing - just as nothing changed when Daniel Farke was dismissed.

A wonderful Norfolk neighbour, who is even older than I am and has been a dedicated Canary for more than 70 years gave me the opinion (I won’t attempt to reproduce his accent) that: -

“ I don’t know what they're all a-playin’ at. We hint no more than a damn good Second Division team. Why don’t we just all settle down and play some good football”

Best to all,

Don

Agreed.

I don't think there is any logical management plan for this Top 17 stuff. More likely it is born of the same culture as politicians and delusions of grandeur in boosting the incomes of the select few trying to create the false impression that they are something special. 

To the extent that any Top 17 stuff happens at Norwich, Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth or Burnley, it will emerge more organically and won't be all it is cracked up to be and certainly won't last forever. Hence ultimately your neighbour must be right.

Besides Top17 has already failed which is a good reason for Webber exiting imminently  (any mountains in Norfolk are an illusion) albeit perhaps there is a case for him to stick around briefly if he is a key cog in the Foulger/Attanasio wheel.

[Don J Demorr 162]

Thank you Shef and Essex. I had not seen this annual report until just now. I have seen similar things before, where the main objective seems to be to make the reader feel warm and comfortable that the far-sighted management has a strong hand on the tiller.

For a (very long retired) specialist in the subject matter, whereas I'm sure the intent is wholly well-meant the text is not a strategy (look it up) and there is no plan (look it up). What there is an unquantified directional wish-list of attractive and highly desirable outcomes but there is a very long way to go before the rubber hits the road.

These posts are lengthy because you folk are smart people with strong interests and the subject matter is complex. Pleased don't apologise, I am perfectly capable of making it worse! If there is any appetite for it I can deconstruct the Annual Report and provide an analysis of how to get from where you are to where you want to be - but it will be lengthy and hard going in places. All at no cost (except for your time and mine).

Don't suppose anybody with any responsibility for the outcome would either be aware of it take any notice if they did, though!

Best,

D

 

[sonyc 5,542]

3 minutes ago, Don J Demorr said:

For a (very long retired) specialist in the subject matter, whereas I'm sure the intent is wholly well-meant the text is not a strategy (look it up) and there is no plan (look it up). What there is an unquantified directional wish-list of attractive and highly desirable outcomes but there is a very long way to go before the rubber hits the road.

Spot on. That list is laughable. It reminds me of the game Bulls**t Bingo we used to play at corporate events. It's a mission (of sorts) but there seems nothing underneath those 'fine and dandy' words. Blimey. If they did mean it then as ShefC says they are failing on many counts.

It's meaningless tosh. And reading some of the reports about disaffected staff, people who can't wait to leave brings me back to my cynicism about their boosting mental health campaign. 

You have to actually live your values don't you....I'm probably cynical because I've seen this stuff since about 2002. I'm too old for it all probably. And I agree with that old supporter of 70 plus years, much the same as my old dad would have said too.

Happy and interested to read any deconstruction of the Annual Report though 🙂 if you ever wanted to do it. We used to get very decent financial guidance from posters about the accounts (plus excellent reports from AGMs) so a former specialist opinion on Corporate Speak would make for an interesting angle. I'm sure a laugh or two as well (even if the dry, dark sort).

[Don J Demorr 162]

Yes, Sonyc - we used to call it a "peeing in the welly" document. It makes you feel nice and warm, but....

And, err - "Too old", you say? in 2002 I was already four years into my retirement!

Edited December 22, 2022 by Don J Demorr

[Don J Demorr 162]

Well, @Sonyc, @Shefcanary, @Essexcanary, @Parma, @Purplecanary (and the rest of the aviary) I have now read the aforesaid manifesto several times with increasing incredulity. I honestly don't know whether to take it seriously or to poke unkind fun. The latter would be only too easy and might amuse Sonyc at least but the reality is troublesome.

In a document like this the opening paragraph is usually written to set the tone of what follows. Maybe this one does - but I hope it doesn't because it is borderline meaningless bafflegab. Let's do a bit of deconstruction: -

The opening paragraph reveals our "Strategic Plan - Our infinite purpose...." The three words Strategic, plan and purpose" are used as if they are the same thing. They are not, but that's a being bit nerdy. It is startling to realise that the club has an "infinite purpose". I had thought that this was God's thing but you live and learn. It's all a bit too metaphysical for me I fear, but that's football, innit?               The next sentence actually says "To make our football club and community better today than it was yesterday". This purpose is likely to fail, on the grounds that it is impossible. You could try to make tomorrow better than yesterday or today, but yesterday and today are already screwed up and unfixable, hence the mumbo-jumbo. Tomorrow needs thinking about. Time to start?

I must admit to being a bit bumfuzzled by the last sentence, which says: - "We must consider our infinite purpose - this reflects a club that part of our community to be a part of our community for all the years to come". I suppose one can make some kind of sense of it, but IMHO whether it is allegedly a Strategy, a Plan or a Purpose it should be clearly expressed in plain language.

The "Our vision" paragraph is similarly flawed but I'm getting a bit bored with it all by now. I don't know whether the UPPER CASE words are in the original or were emphasised by @shefcanary. Strangely the vision doesn't mention the revenue to be had by the development and sales of young players.

The rest of the document deals with "our strategic priorities". As a directional list of desired outcomes I suppose it is useful but of itself it is not a strategy nor is it a set of plans and a long way from either. Each desired outcome will require a lot of professionally guided co-operative effort to change it into an understood, measured resourced and scheduled programme of change. It could reasonably be argued that a Financial Statement would not be the place to explain all this, of course. It would be encouraging that this kind of work is going on in the background.

I wonder if it is though.

Best,

Don

 

 

[canarybubbles 1,974]

"Strategic Plan - Our infinite purpose: To make our football club and community better today than it was yesterday. While we focus on winning on the pitch we must remember that this only represents a moment in time and that every game we play is finite. We must consider our infinite purpose - this reflects a club that has been part of our community to be a part of our community in all the years to come."

 

OMG, did somebody really, seriously write that, and not as satire?

[Don J Demorr 162]

Well, cb, it is either a glorious spoof by Shef (who we know is clever enough) or the Far Sighted Management thinks that making a shopping list is actually the same as going to Waitrose and filling a whole bunch of trollies.

Alternatively, the conspiracy theorists in this Forum (who seem to be here in abundance) might conclude that this is all a smokescreen to deceive the unwary into thinking that change is imminent while the FSM continues to command and control.

Personally, unless Shef has fooled everybody I would be unhappy either way if was I a supporter.

Best,

Don

[sonyc 5,542]

2 hours ago, canarybubbles said:

a club that has been part of our community to be a part of our community in all the years to come

And especially away from home!

😂😂😂

 You have to love that phrase "our infinite purpose".

Thinking of Hanley's infinite purpose - to reach Row H at least with his header from an attacking corner. A bit unfair of me ... but in this (very) serious subject of strategies and plans (not), there are just so many little islands of humour.

Edited December 24, 2022 by sonyc