Should Webber Resign Immediately?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

Yes or no.

We've had the Dean Smith question and 95% of us feel that he should be sacked.

Now lets ask the Webber question. Should he go too?

[Mello Yello 2,572]

Yup....deffo!....

[lake district canary 4,830]

No of course not. Stupid idea. Give him the chance to repair the damage he did with the Farke/Smith change - which was motivated by pressure to do something to stay in the PL - and he's proven at this level. You can't sack everyone - just let those above Smith get on with what they have to do - they know the fans have turned and it will all work out. Webber is no fool, an ego, yes, but no fool. 

[horsefly 5,301]

The man who brought us Farke, cleared our debts, achieved promotion well before anyone considered possible, and has improved the club's real estate and player's training facilities to top PL standard. Yes! He should be sacked if you know of a director of football who has a blemish free record and something that approaches Webber's. So the answer is no.

[KeiranShikari 1,524]

He built the well and then spent 2 years poisoning it. He should probably go.

[The fog came down..! 5]

He will be moving on at some point, probably soon, but if he can rediscover the old magic for one more throw of the dice, get us the right coach for our current squad and situation then that's would be job well done on balance.

 

[Capt. Pants 5,008]

Despite his error of judgement on Smith he should not be sacked at the moment. It will of course be down to the (hopefully new) owners and the BOD when he should leave. His time will come.

[Mello Yello 2,572]

If Webbo is all that, he'd have been head-hunted by Chelsea.....Unfortunately the hurdle of their interview means he's still labouring at Carrow Road....

Although, I am genuinely curious to see where his next place of employment will actually be?.....

[Norfolk Mustard 106]

Absolutely not. I suspect he'll want to leave on a high, not a slump. 

[canarybubbles 2,199]

I still think he may resign if/when Smith is finally pushed out.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

On 22/12/2022 at 10:53, horsefly said:

The man cleared our debts

Last year we recorded our biggest ever financial loss, and our debt has never been higher in our history than it is right now after borrowing against future parachute payments and future transfer income.

Just in the interests of keeping things current and factual. 

Don't be coming on here bemoaning further season ticket price hikes as a means of trying to fill Webber's super deficit if they are stupid enough to try that.

Edited December 25, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

4 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Last year we recorded our biggest ever financial loss, and our debt has never been higher in our history than it is right now after borrowing against future parachute payments and future transfer income.

Just in the interests of keeping things current and factual. 

Don't be coming on here bemoaning further season ticket price hikes as a means of trying to fill Webber's super deficit if they are stupid enough to try that.

It's a bit misleading to call it a deficit given that it was one year's accounts, ignoring the years of surplus that mean we can take that deficit without too much worry.

At the end of the day, this loss was accrued from trying to upgrade players without it having paid off; it's a result of the wrong result being borne of decisions for the right reasons.

[Newtopia 573]

I said no, I think we need the stability until the take over is complete and the Attanasio’s can bring in their own sporting director, changing Webber now will mean 2 lots of change in a short period.

[Ulfotto 798]

He should sign up for another cycle at the club to oversee the rebuild of the squad and hire the guy who will replace Smith or if he’s not up for it he should go sooner rather than later.

Edited December 25, 2022 by Ulfotto

[chicken 3,086]

11 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Last year we recorded our biggest ever financial loss, and our debt has never been higher in our history than it is right now after borrowing against future parachute payments and future transfer income.

Just in the interests of keeping things current and factual. 

Don't be coming on here bemoaning further season ticket price hikes as a means of trying to fill Webber's super deficit if they are stupid enough to try that.

A bridging loan is a bit different from being straight up £20m in debt though isn't it? It's more like re-mortgaging. The bank knows your income and outgoings and has sorted out a package based on that.

Just in the interests of keeping things current and factual - as it's not an outright loan as such.

Oh, and the inflation calculator puts £20million from 1996 as around £37million.

Equally, the deficit includes the loan and loss of income through relegation. Again, just for the interests of keeping things current and factual.

In other words, not the time to be over-reactive about those things yet.

For me, no point moving on Webber until at least the summer. 

Edited December 25, 2022 by chicken

[chicken 3,086]

25 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

He should sign up for another cycle at the club to oversee the rebuild of the squad and hire the guy who will replace Smith or if he’s not up for it he should go sooner rather than later.

Or this. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

6 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's a bit misleading to call it a deficit given that it was one year's accounts, ignoring the years of surplus that mean we can take that deficit without too much worry.

So I've taken into consideration the proft / loss before tax figure for each year of Webber's reign and we're still minus £27m across that period. Clearly you haven't bothered. What now?

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

27 minutes ago, chicken said:

A bridging loan is a bit different from being straight up £20m in debt though isn't it? 

Providers of bridging loans are actually traditionally the lenders of last resort and its up there with the most expensive ways to raise capital. 

And it definitely is a debt, an external one, and one which makes a mockery of anybody who fancies mentioning the words "debt free" when it relates to our football club.

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[chicken 3,086]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Providers of bridging loans are actually traditionally the lenders of last resort and its up there with the most expensive ways to raise capital. 

And it definitely is a debt, an external one, and one which makes a mockery of anybody who fancies mentioning the words "debt free" when it relates to our football club.

It would appear that they are actually pretty commonplace when it comes to property purchases at auction or if you purchase and are yet to sell your old property... So yeah, not "last resort"... It's "expensive" because bridging loans are short term. Short term loans tend to be more expensive for the same reason short term lets can be. You are paying for the inconvenience of the landlord/bank. Though it is also fair to say that there are some that like to specialise in that area.

The reason it is short term for us is that a large chunk is repayable this summer with the parachute payments and league payments as well as further instalments of player sales etc. Longer term loans tend to have a slower or limited rate of repayment.

At least, that is my understanding from sources such as the CAB, Financial Reporter and a bunch of other sources which all say the same. 

Currently, no one is saying we are debt free. It doesn't make a mockery of it unless making a mockery includes making a statement today and applying it to one made several years ago.

Again, I also refer to the people who have heavily criticised the club for not taking out loans against the parachute payments to try and make a bigger go of it (spend more money) when promoted. As said before, I really hope those people shut up for good now.

In either sense, if we were really that far in financial schtum I'm really not convinced the £6m rising to £10m-12m signing of Sara would have been sanctioned - even with Attanasio's investment. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

6 minutes ago, chicken said:

In either sense, if we were really that far in financial schtum I'm really not convinced the £6m rising to £10m-12m signing of Sara would have been sanctioned - even with Attanasio's investment. 

Suprised you haven't put 2+2 together yet.

£10m of new C class shares issued. 

Circa £10m in initial fees for Sara and Nunez.

No Attanasio investment = no transfer budget. 

Self-financing failed under Webber's stewardship due to £27m in financial losses over his tenure and there was no option but to dilute other shareholders. 

It is clear evidence that we cannot sustain this level of football with Delia and MWJ remaining majority shareholders. Further investment in that fashion = further dilution, with Delia and husband falling below 50%. 

This is not complicated stuff.

Edited December 25, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[chicken 3,086]

2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Suprised you haven't put 2+2 together yet.

£10m of new C class shares issued. 

Circa £10m in initial fees for Sara and Nunez.

No Attanasio investment = no transfer budget. 

Incorrect.

Nunez essentially cost the same as Less-Melou's fee. Sara was £6m up front.

I get that, but if we were in desperate need of finances, would it not have been better to put that £10m towards the finances so we loan less and therefore pay less in interest? 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

4 minutes ago, chicken said:

Incorrect.

Nunez essentially cost the same as Less-Melou's fee. Sara was £6m up front.

I get that, but if we were in desperate need of finances, would it not have been better to put that £10m towards the finances so we loan less and therefore pay less in interest? 

You just told me that Sara cost £6m up front. 

Nunez is widely accepted to have cost just under £4m up front, which yes is similar to Lees-Melou who cost £3.5m.

What part of what I said is incorrect? Are you splitting hairs about half a million?

Fine.....

 

"Suprised you haven't put 2+2 together yet.

£10m of new C class shares issued. 

Circa £9.5m in initial fees for Sara and Nunez, plus £500k for the 5% football league transfer fee levy which funds footballers pensions.

No Attanasio investment = no transfer budget"

Edited December 25, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

24 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

So I've taken into consideration the proft / loss before tax figure for each year of Webber's reign and we're still minus £27m across that period. Clearly you haven't bothered. What now?

 

You could take up accountancy?

[chicken 3,086]

26 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

You just told me that Sara cost £6m up front. 

Nunez is widely accepted to have cost just under £4m up front, which yes is similar to Lees-Melou who cost £3.5m.

What part of what I said is incorrect? Are you splitting hairs about half a million?

Fine.....

 

"Suprised you haven't put 2+2 together yet.

£10m of new C class shares issued. 

Circa £9.5m in initial fees for Sara and Nunez, plus £500k for the 5% football league transfer fee levy which funds footballers pensions.

No Attanasio investment = no transfer budget"

 

34 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Suprised you haven't put 2+2 together yet.

 

Circa £10m in initial fees for Sara and Nunez.

 

Suprised that your 2+2 apparently didn't take into account the fee for Lees-Melou.

Not only that, it is reported that the up front fee for Nunez is around £3.5m. With some sources saying $4m or 3.9m Euros, both of which support the £3.5m. So he and Lees-Melou cancel each other out. The £10m would appear to be to just cover Sara.

However, as stated before this isn't the point. The point is, if we were desperate for cash, and needing to plug holes desperately would we not have spent that money on transfers but instead to reduce the amount of money needed to be loaned and therefore also save on a chunk of interest?

Not only that, we have reportedly agreed to sign a player from Brazil for £650k.

On top of that, plenty of people in the annual report thread suggesting that such loans etc are not unusual and are not particularly anything to be overly worried about. This isn't just people insisting the Titanic isn't sinking, it's relative... Have a look at the debts of other championship clubs. Those debts are not loans against future income. It's what sunk Derby, owing money to the HMRC and a US investment firm. 

[HazzaJet 267]

No. When he arrived we were in the same sort of state that we were back in the Grant-Roeder-Gunn era, which Webber sorted out. I know he’s just sent us back to how we were at the beginning, but as he managed to sort it out first time round I would give him a chance to see if he can do it again. If things don’t seem to be any better in about 18 months time, I think it will be time for him to depart

[Dean Coneys boots 1,531]

No but he should get out of recruiting 

[canarybubbles 2,199]

I'm trying hard not to let my personal dislike of Webber, because of what seems like his disdain for the fans, influence my thinking here.

I think Webber needs to be honest with himself and with the club - how much does he want the job anymore? There's no point staying on through a sense of duty to Delia and Michael, (if this is actually true). His record over the last 18 months has been poor and if his heart isn't in it, he won't do a good job.

Look at Pukki. He's still trying, but his heart doesn't really seem in it, so his performances have dipped. (And I say that as a passionate fan of Pukki who would rejoice if he decided that he had got his enthusiasm back, wanted to stay and got a new contract - no chance of that as long as Smith remains in post, I suspect).

Back to Webber. I get the feeling he wants to move on to a new challenge. If so, we should encourage him to do so. His successor may have less talent, but much more desire.

[kenfoggo 261]

Resignation is a personal decision. Webber may feel that his immense talents are being wasted at Norwich and that he is destined to move on to bigger and better things. He can already climb mountains, perhaps he can leap tall buildings is a single bound?  What he cannot appear to do is fulfill his stated goal, that of making Norwich a stable Premiership entity. Not happening. Probably never will . Certainly he may feel that he has done all that he can at Norwich and may feel a move is essential to maintain his own interest in a challenge. Stay or go is his decision. I’ve lost interest.

[horsefly 5,301]

23 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Last year we recorded our biggest ever financial loss, and our debt has never been higher in our history than it is right now after borrowing against future parachute payments and future transfer income.

Just in the interests of keeping things current and factual. 

Don't be coming on here bemoaning further season ticket price hikes as a means of trying to fill Webber's super deficit if they are stupid enough to try that.

So, in the interests of keeping things factual, did he clear our debts or not in those first years of his reign? Answer, he did, and avoided impending administration. Borrowing is not a problem if it is properly funded (ask Liz Truss). The clubs present plans do not threaten administration.

Edited December 26, 2022 by horsefly

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

51 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So, in the interests of keeping things factual, did he clear our debts or not in those first years of his reign? Answer, he did, and avoided impending administration. Borrowing is not a problem if it is properly funded (ask Liz Truss). The clubs present plans do not threaten administration.

Is this supposed to strengthen your argument? 😉