Jump to content
norfolkngood

Get rid or trust Webber to Rebuild the Team ?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

From the Premier League site..

THE ROLE OF A SPORTING DIRECTOR

The sports director is responsible for the club’s overall philosophy beginning with the youth team all the way up to the first team. The sporting director will discuss the style of play with the team’s coach. The youth teams will follow the same style of play to make things uniform from top to bottom and bottom to top.

Sports directors attend training sessions and all games. They often travel and spend much of their time around the players, and are a common face around the dressing room. The sporting director will also work hand-in-hand with the club’s CEO to identify transfer targets, coaches, discuss budgets, buy and sell players, and offer existing players new contracts.

He is the main reason in my opinion, we are were we are. He is not doing a very good job. I think it's best we look for someone with new ideas. 

We can not keep replacing ( and wasting millions) of replacing coaches unable to get a tune out of his players.

If the scouts aren't doing a job, replace them. Weak argument to say it's not his main job recruitment.  

It doesn't say anything about having his wife by his side or finding new potential owners but then again why would it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

From the Premier League site..

THE ROLE OF A SPORTING DIRECTOR

The sports director is responsible for the club’s overall philosophy beginning with the youth team all the way up to the first team. The sporting director will discuss the style of play with the team’s coach. The youth teams will follow the same style of play to make things uniform from top to bottom and bottom to top.

Sports directors attend training sessions and all games. They often travel and spend much of their time around the players, and are a common face around the dressing room. The sporting director will also work hand-in-hand with the club’s CEO to identify transfer targets, coaches, discuss budgets, buy and sell players, and offer existing players new contracts.

He is the main reason in my opinion, we are were we are. He is not doing a very good job. I think it's best we look for someone with new ideas. 

We can not keep replacing ( and wasting millions) of replacing coaches unable to get a tune out of his players.

If the scouts aren't doing a job, replace them. Weak argument to say it's not his main job recruitment.  

So you agree then that his main job isn't player recruitment, it's sporting director - as you have outlined, it is far more than just player recruitment. For what it's worth, he doesn't solely identify transfer targets - we know that for a fact. Both he and Farke have explained that they all sit around a table and discuss transfer strategies and targets, but that he then goes on and gets on with it leaving the head coach to focus on the training and games, so he is not distracted.

Lees-Melou is case in point, Farke wanted him, they didn't think they could actually afford him but they landed him. Farke's pick. As said before countless times, it seems really odd people think Webber buys and sells players without any input from anyone else and just rocks up at Colney one day with a new player no one knows anything about. To that extent, they are not just his players. As already mentioned, he doesn't scout players - there is a department for that too.

He and the head coach might identify areas they want to strengthen, they'll then ask the scouts to look for players that fit that criteria, the scouts will feed back with stats and feedback on scouting trips such as watching players. Webber will then sit with the head coach, perhaps Neil Adams and other coaches and watch videos, look at stats etc and discuss which players to try and bring in. Webber may hold sway on what we can realistically afford, but he certainly isn't the only person to have a say in bringing in players. 

As people have already pointed out, he was happy to trust Farke that first and second season. It wouldn't make any sense for him to suddenly decide not to wouldn't it? Just decide two years in that he's going to go it alone and ignore the head coach. I suspect Farke would have walked if that was the case. Again, I believe Farke had knowledge of Fahrmann and Rupp too. So you could say three seasons.

It also isn't a weak argument, he has overseen a massive overhaul of the academy and the training ground. I think it's fair to say it's been the best part of 30yrs since we have seen the youth set up provide us with quite the number of players we have seen come through to the first team. Even ignoring Godfrey and Maddison who were purchased for millions prior to Webber's arrival we have seen the likes of Aarons, Lewis, Idah, Omobamidele, Springett, Rowe and Tomkinson come through to play a part in the first team squad. Hill has joined for the 2nd half of the season too, and Gibbs who was signed as a promising youngster as well. Wagner has hinted that there may well be others too.

It's a weak argument to say his MAIN role is player recruitment, it isn't.

As for him being the main reason we are where we are, I'm glad you accept that. When he arrived people were happy to avoid relegation after having to sell promising youngsters to balance the books left by the awful contracts handed out to the likes of Naismith.

Where we are now is a million miles from that. Alex Neil famously complained that we lost out on signings because of the poor standards of the training facilities. I believe McNally may have said the same too. I believe that there was suggestion that we missed out on Haller because he wasn't impressed by the facilities when he came to visit. That is now not an issue.

Also what isn't an issue is looking over our shoulder at league one. In fact, the main reason a bunch of people on here are upset is because for the first time in five seasons we may not be looking at promotion or playing in the premier league... and if the failure is all his, so is the success.

As Parma has put it so eloquently elsewhere - it is much harder for us to be as successful as the likes of Fulham, Watford, Nottingham Forrest etc when all the while they are throwing cash at it until it sticks. Southampton, Bournemouth and Everton are currently the bottom three in the premier league, Leeds are level on points with Everton, West Ham are in 16th only a point ahead of Everton and Leeds and only two ahead of Bournemouth in 19th. Wolves are a point ahead of West Ham. All of those teams have spent heavily, and are all in a relegation battle.

Perspective, relativity and logic need to be applied when looking at what we try to do with a much smaller piece of cloth to cut.

What Webber has achieved as part of a sporting team with this model and the financial constraints since his arrival, is pretty amazing really - when you look at the impact he has had at the club as a whole.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Monty13 said:

Yawn… the irony of you of all posters accusing others of creating strawmen, moving goalposts and ignoring others points.

Because you ignore the glaringly obvious.

You still haven't addressed the points made by Michael Bailey. Nor the fact we tried to sign better players but were unable to land them.

The fact is you make out as if there wasn't a different strategy, that we didn't try to get better players in and simply judge those that did come in. You have to take in the whole picture to realise where we are in terms of purchasing power, both in transfer fees and contract packages.

Billings, Ajer, Armstrong - three players we know we bid for and lost out on. Michael Bailey has more. Paddy all but confirmed it too.

I'm not the one who continues to profess their opinion as fact, as you have done many times before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chicken said:

Because you ignore the glaringly obvious.

You still haven't addressed the points made by Michael Bailey. Nor the fact we tried to sign better players but were unable to land them.

The fact is you make out as if there wasn't a different strategy, that we didn't try to get better players in and simply judge those that did come in. You have to take in the whole picture to realise where we are in terms of purchasing power, both in transfer fees and contract packages.

Billings, Ajer, Armstrong - three players we know we bid for and lost out on. Michael Bailey has more. Paddy all but confirmed it too.

I'm not the one who continues to profess their opinion as fact, as you have done many times before. 

You maintain these players made us competitive at the level they were brought in at, I’m suggesting given the evidence they did not and have not.

Now accepting that we can pick apart the reasons they didn’t/haven’t and how much was controllable, but that doesn’t change the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, essex canary said:

It doesn't say anything about having his wife by his side or finding new potential owners but then again why would it?

Other way around Essex old boy. She came to the club before him...

However, we also don't know the exact ins and outs of how this all came about. It's possible that the current owners saw an opportunity with Foulger wanting out, to find a new investor who could potentially want to take over the club. I know that goes against a somewhat conspiracy fed concept of what the owners really wanted.

It is also quite possible that they spoke to Zoe and Stuart about it, and like McNally (I think it was), before them, they may have been asked if they knew a way of reaching out into the world of sports to find potential new investors.

Last time round that had Fernandez sniffing, though he wasn't interested in a slower take over. He ended up at QPR and reading his comments leading up to selling them, he perhaps should have taken heed and listened to them as then he may not have been "ripped off" by agents and players and paid over the odds for them - his own words.

Anyhow, like I say, pretty sure it was under McNally's tenure that they appointed a consultancy to go out there and try and find interested parties who may wish to invest.

So why is it odd that Zoe would be asked? As sporting director I would suspect that Stuart would have been informed of the situation as you never know how it could potentially change the club - as we have seen it has done. They may even have been briefed that the current ownership were also looking to give up their joint majority holding.

It would make sense to speak to Zoe and inform Stuart, it may well be that Zoe decided that between her and Stuart they had enough contacts to explore before needing to turn to an agency or consultancy. It may well even be that they had knowledge of Attanasio before this even came up. After all, he has said he had been looking at the idea for 10yrs.

None of this is particularly hard to believe is it really? Nor is it a stretch to see that Zoe may have been asked in the same way that McNally was asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

From the Premier League site..

THE ROLE OF A SPORTING DIRECTOR

The sports director is responsible for the club’s overall philosophy beginning with the youth team all the way up to the first team. The sporting director will discuss the style of play with the team’s coach. The youth teams will follow the same style of play to make things uniform from top to bottom and bottom to top.

Sports directors attend training sessions and all games. They often travel and spend much of their time around the players, and are a common face around the dressing room. The sporting director will also work hand-in-hand with the club’s CEO to identify transfer targets, coaches, discuss budgets, buy and sell players, and offer existing players new contracts.

He is the main reason in my opinion, we are were we are. He is not doing a very good job. I think it's best we look for someone with new ideas. 

We can not keep replacing ( and wasting millions) of replacing coaches unable to get a tune out of his players.

If the scouts aren't doing a job, replace them. Weak argument to say it's not his main job recruitment.  

Convenient you didn't want to acknowledge how instrumental he was in getting the Attanasio's on board. Which is why you won't get what you want - they rate him and want him around.

As for "keep replacing coaches" we've made one excellent appointment in Farke and one poor appointment in Smith (which even you weren't too unhappy with at the time). Wagner could be another excellent appointment (the signs are good). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Convenient you didn't want to acknowledge how instrumental he was in getting the Attanasio's on board. Which is why you won't get what you want - they rate him and want him around.

As for "keep replacing coaches" we've made one excellent appointment in Farke and one poor appointment in Smith (which even you weren't too unhappy with at the time). Wagner could be another excellent appointment (the signs are good). 

I agree with most of that, but I don't think it's fair to label Smith as poor given we can clearly see that most of the complaints about him go down to personality and largely unfounded criticisms of tactical approach than anything of merit.

We sacrificed some attacking flair under Smith in the bid to be harder to beat with opponents; we had no wins as big as the last two games before Burnley, but we didn't have any losses as bad as the Burnley game either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I agree with most of that, but I don't think it's fair to label Smith as poor given we can clearly see that most of the complaints about him go down to personality and largely unfounded criticisms of tactical approach than anything of merit.

We sacrificed some attacking flair under Smith in the bid to be harder to beat with opponents; we had no wins as big as the last two games before Burnley, but we didn't have any losses as bad as the Burnley game either.

I'd rather win 2 and lose 1 than draw 3. Which is about as much as we could expect from Deano.Stop trying to defend him , he's almost certainly moved on. Why cant you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I agree with most of that, but I don't think it's fair to label Smith as poor given we can clearly see that most of the complaints about him go down to personality and largely unfounded criticisms of tactical approach than anything of merit.

We sacrificed some attacking flair under Smith in the bid to be harder to beat with opponents; we had no wins as big as the last two games before Burnley, but we didn't have any losses as bad as the Burnley game either.

I think this is where xG is more accurate to judge defensive solidarity than just the scoreline. 

Burnley had an xG of 1.2 - with their highest xG chance being Krul passing directly to their attacker. 

Burnley had an xG of 1.6 when we played them under Smith and lost 1-0. I.e we conceded better chances under Smith than we did on Saturday.

So the fact we haven't had any 3-0 losses under Smith isn't really down to anything other than sides not taking their chances, or in the case of Saturday, Burnley scoring goals they probably shouldn't have done.

For further relevance, in terms of xG against us under Smith...Watford, Reading, Luton, Swansea, Stoke, Sheffield United, Watford again, Sunderland all created better / more chances than Burnley did on Saturday

 

Edited by hogesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chicken said:

Other way around Essex old boy. She came to the club before him...

However, we also don't know the exact ins and outs of how this all came about. It's possible that the current owners saw an opportunity with Foulger wanting out, to find a new investor who could potentially want to take over the club. I know that goes against a somewhat conspiracy fed concept of what the owners really wanted.

It is also quite possible that they spoke to Zoe and Stuart about it, and like McNally (I think it was), before them, they may have been asked if they knew a way of reaching out into the world of sports to find potential new investors.

Last time round that had Fernandez sniffing, though he wasn't interested in a slower take over. He ended up at QPR and reading his comments leading up to selling them, he perhaps should have taken heed and listened to them as then he may not have been "ripped off" by agents and players and paid over the odds for them - his own words.

Anyhow, like I say, pretty sure it was under McNally's tenure that they appointed a consultancy to go out there and try and find interested parties who may wish to invest.

So why is it odd that Zoe would be asked? As sporting director I would suspect that Stuart would have been informed of the situation as you never know how it could potentially change the club - as we have seen it has done. They may even have been briefed that the current ownership were also looking to give up their joint majority holding.

It would make sense to speak to Zoe and inform Stuart, it may well be that Zoe decided that between her and Stuart they had enough contacts to explore before needing to turn to an agency or consultancy. It may well even be that they had knowledge of Attanasio before this even came up. After all, he has said he had been looking at the idea for 10yrs.

None of this is particularly hard to believe is it really? Nor is it a stretch to see that Zoe may have been asked in the same way that McNally was asked.

Would a Local Authority appoint a Husband and Wife CEO and FD?  I think the answer is no and a community Football Club ought to operate to the same principles. The order of recruitment should be immaterial.

On the second point I defer to your view to some extent in that clearly job remits of senior personnel must reflect local circumstances. Nonetheless there is still a 'dont give up the day job' consideration' here and I agree with you that it started under McNally. Why did he get paid a substantial bonus for Catering & Commercial performance in a relegation season? If he had spent more time on the day job we may not have got relegated and the financial benefits would have been far more substantial than squeezing an extra few quid from loyal supporters.

These are exactly the kind of reasons why change at the top is needed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think this is where xG is more accurate to judge defensive solidarity than just the scoreline. 

Burnley had an xG of 1.2 - with their highest xG chance being Krul passing directly to their attacker. 

Burnley had an xG of 1.6 when we played them under Smith and lost 1-0. I.e we conceded better chances under Smith than we did on Saturday.

So the fact we haven't had any 3-0 losses under Smith isn't really down to anything other than sides not taking their chances, or in the case of Saturday, Burnley scoring goals they probably shouldn't have done.

For further relevance, in terms of xG against us under Smith...Watford, Reading, Luton, Swansea, Stoke, Sheffield United, Watford again, Sunderland all created better / more chances than Burnley did on Saturday

 

It's really interesting that XG was so massively out regarding the Burnley game. The XG of any given shot is based on the probability of a shot scoring from any given position accrued cumulatively from historical data. Can anything be inferred about the the quality of our defending that the outcomes from those shots so drastically exceeded what you would expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

he's almost certainly moved on

I bet he took his missus out for Steak and Champagne on Saturday night. 

"Oh your mood has changed, love".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Would a Local Authority appoint a Husband and Wife CEO and FD?  I think the answer is no and a community Football Club ought to operate to the same principles. The order of recruitment should be immaterial.

On the second point I defer to your view to some extent in that clearly job remits of senior personnel must reflect local circumstances. Nonetheless there is still a 'dont give up the day job' consideration' here and I agree with you that it started under McNally. Why did he get paid a substantial bonus for Catering & Commercial performance in a relegation season? If he had spent more time on the day job we may not have got relegated and the financial benefits would have been far more substantial than squeezing an extra few quid from loyal supporters.

These are exactly the kind of reasons why change at the top is needed.

 

Husband and wife teams have done some pretty amazing stuff together. James Cameron's wife Gale Ann Hurd was alongside him for many of his productions. In fact, they got married during production planning for Aliens.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Google Bot said:

I bet he took his missus out for Steak and Champagne on Saturday night. 

"Oh your mood has changed, love".

Exactly, anyone with more brain than ego can accept  that it was a bad fit altogether. Unfortunately  someone is determined to make themselves look stupider by the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's really interesting that XG was so massively out regarding the Burnley game. The XG of any given shot is based on the probability of a shot scoring from any given position accrued cumulatively from historical data. Can anything be inferred about the the quality of our defending that the outcomes from those shots so drastically exceeded what you would expect?

The only thing I can immediately draw from is the fact that scoring from corners is a really low % typically, because there always tends to be so many players involved and between the ball / goal. So even if you win the first ball from a corner, the chances of scoring are pretty low. I think it was revealed after our ridiculous 20 corner game vs Blackburn in the cup that actually, the average is only 1 goal scored per 20 corners or something!

So whilst we can say, poor set-piece defending for the corners, the fact there were still so many players in a condensed area around the goal makes the chance of scoring that much lower, generally.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Exactly, anyone with more brain than ego can accept  that it was a bad fit altogether. Unfortunately  someone is determined to make themselves look stupider by the day.

In my view, it was less a bad fit and more a refusal of a minority to allow him to fit in by persistently agitating against him and what he was trying to do, regardless of results. I'd have more respect for those who desperately wanted him out if they'd started their campaign when we were a few games into our losing run instead of day one of the season, while quietly sulking during the winning run, with constant accusations of 'false positions' as a charge against him personally when that same 'false position' argument could be applied to the last few games if someone wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Husband and wife teams have done some pretty amazing stuff together.

100% yes!  Thats why we take a syringe and plastic cup up to bed with us EVERY night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

In my view, it was less a bad fit and more a refusal of a minority to allow him to fit in by persistently agitating against him and what he was trying to do, regardless of results. I'd have more respect for those who desperately wanted him out if they'd started their campaign when we were a few games into our losing run instead of day one of the season, while quietly sulking during the winning run, with constant accusations of 'false positions' as a charge against him personally when that same 'false position' argument could be applied to the last few games if someone wanted to.

Yes, we've heard what  you think, ad nauseum in fact. None of which alters the fact that as a Club , we are in a happier place with him gone.  You can argue the  opposite as much as you like, but there is hardly anyone ( if that many) that support even your less ridiculous assertions.  Now you could be the only person that is right......but its not likely. 

If you  dont feel that as supporters, people are able to voice their opinions, why do you voice  yours.?..is your opinion more valid than others? We both know the real answer to that. 

You dont like what  went on, and yes , it wasnt pleasant , but needs must sometimes. This was one such occasion. 

 

Edited by wcorkcanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Yes, we've heard what  you think, ad nauseum in fact. None of which alters the fact that as a Club , we are in a happier place with him gone.  You can argue the  opposite as much as you like, but there is hardly anyone ( if that many) that support even your less ridiculous assertions.  Now you could be the only person that is right......but its not likely. 

 

Yes, and I saw what Buh and his sympathisers had to say ad nauseum during this entire season win or lose. And you're missing the point that it won't take much for people to get disgruntled and to insist that sacking Wagner will answer all our problems, just as many did regarding Farke before that, which left a lot of fans very unhappy and unable to move on, which was a large part of Smith's problem.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And you're missing the point that it won't take much for people to get disgruntled and to insist that sacking Wagner will answer all our problems

There's a big difference in that fans like Wagner though, any disgruntlement will be heading Webber's way this time I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Yes, and I saw what Buh and his sympathisers had to say ad nauseum during this entire season win or lose. And you're missing the point that it won't take much for people to get disgruntled and to insist that sacking Wagner will answer all our problems, just as many did regarding Farke before that, which left a lot of fans very unhappy and unable to move on, which was a large part of Smith's problem.

The largest part of  Smiths problem was the football served up. If we'd  played anything approaching  exciting footy , there would have been much less ag. Yet you cling to concepts  imagined in your head. The footy caused the unhappiness, not the other way round. No amount of circular arguments will bring him back. Mourn and move on , youll thank us for it , once you  let your ego dissolve and let the truth in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

There's a big difference in that fans like Wagner though, any disgruntlement will be heading Webber's way this time I think.

They do like Wagner, which is great, which also leads us to the main thread question about 'should we sack Webber', because everybody loves a good 'sacking somebody will fix everything' argument except me, apparently.

Wagner is here because Webber recruited him as someone he has worked with before with demonstrable success and has a style incredibly similar to Farke's. He listened to fans to sack Smith simply because they really weren't happy with the change of direction. He has led the club to bring in a new investor who can hopefully give us the financial muscle to get players of a higher quality who make less mistakes to let down the technical style fans prefer overall.

So to answer the question, wanting Webber sacked is spectacularly moronic in pulling out a key cornerstone of why everything put in place since Tottenham can work. The question therefore is, why are so many people happy to entertain those who want to unreasonably go on about sacking Webber all of the time, but not so happy to entertain the thought that Smith wasn't as bad as some people make out?

 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

The footy caused the unhappiness, not the other way round

I can only speak for myself, but I just felt underwhelmed the minute Smith came in and just never took to him personally.  And that's totally regardless of the football being played.   I would come on here and try to sing his praises thinking it was just a hangup from Farke and my mood would change.  i.e. willing myself to change.

But it never did.   I just don't find him to be a very warm likeable guy, sorry to say.   Think he's a billy bull****ter and i work with enough of those every day of my life.

Edited by Google Bot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

They do like Wagner, which is great, which also leads us to the main thread question about 'should we sack Webber', because everybody loves a good 'sacking somebody will fix everything argument' except me, apparently.

But isn't this just going back to where we were pre Farke sacking?  The knives were out for Webber and Farke was the one to go... We were sold Smith as an improvement, but all he done* was sent a rift through the club.

(* That reads harsher that I meant)

And I think that same 'pre Farke sacking' hangup is now continuing where we have a manager who is more a continuation of what came before, and people are now questioning the recruitment and everything else... Just as before.

I'm with you in thinking that sacking is not the answer, mainly as we have people at this club far more experienced in our case study than anyone else around..  It's dumb to throw out those years experience, unless it is something fresh and a new approach that's needed.

Thing is, for a self sufficient club like ourselves, the only other avenue available is to go for bust and risk the longterm future of the club. 

Edited by Google Bot
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

But isn't this just going back to where we were pre Farke sacking?  The knives were out for Webber and Farke was the one to go... We were sold Smith as an improvement, but all he done was sent a rift through the club.

And I think that same 'pre Farke sacking' hangup is now continuing where we have a manager who is more a continuation of what came before, and people are now questioning the recruitment and everything else... Just as before.

I'm with you in thinking that sacking is not the answer, mainly as we have people at this club far more experienced in our case study than anyone else around..  It's dumb to throw out those years experience, unless it is something fresh and a new approach that's needed.

Thing is, for a self sufficient club like ourselves, the only other avenue available is to go for bust and risk the longterm future of the club. 

The knives were very much out for Farke with many at the time he was sacked; I revived a few threads recently illustrating that very point, which was not welcomed by those that wish to gloss over the point.

The decision to dismiss Farke was made at a time when we had secured 2 points from a possible 30 over the first 10 games of the season in his second attempt at the Premier League. Do you really think it's fair to argue that Webber was simply using Farke as a scapegoat to protect himself when we were failing so drastically but it was early enough in the season to potentially save the season if a change of manager could rescue the season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

I can only speak for myself, but I just felt underwhelmed the minute Smith came in and just never took to him personally.  And that's totally regardless of the football being played.   I would come on here and try to sing his praises thinking it was just a hangup from Farke and my mood would change.  i.e. willing myself to change.

But it never did.   I just don't find him to be a very warm likeable guy, sorry to say.   Think he's a billy bull****ter and i work with enough of those every day of my life.

I was being kind,  we were his consolation prize after losing his dream job. It was never gonna be skipping off into the sunset together.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

I was being kind,  we were his consolation prize after losing his dream job. It was never gonna be skipping off into the sunset together.   

You tell yourself that, but there's nothing to support the argument, but there's evidence that taking the job was a reversal of a decision  he'd publicly announced to take time out after his sacking at Aston Villa. Week after week, we had claims like this undermining Smith about his motives without anything to back them up.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The knives were very much out for Farke with many at the time he was sacked; I revived a few threads recently illustrating that very point, which was not welcomed by those that wish to gloss over the point.

They were out for Farke 100%, but that's because we brought into the belief that we had young European hopefuls, a Chelsea wonderkid etc.  so it reflected on the coach as to why we weren't performing.

But I felt before Farke being sacked the knives were had been out for Webber which then spread to Farke and the players in front of us.   I think that same discontent has just picked up from that point rather than being a new phenomenon, is basically what i'm saying.

Smith came in and just took it all to the body in the interim, he was a very unlucky man here in regards to selection availability - Injuries plus The Cantwell Conundrum(tm) for example.

11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Do you really think it's fair to argue that Webber was simply using Farke as a scapegoat to protect himself when we were failing so drastically

No that's not what i'm saying at all.  I think Webber was just reacting to the fanbase in that move, I don't think he personally had lost belief in Farke and would've stuck out the season with him.

His error was in placing too much belief in the players brought in and willing to undermine his own plan that had been laid, that Smith could come in, and actually turn this around.

Thing is, what an earth do you do in that situation?  If you dig in you risk putting the club in turmoil.  You can't win.

Edited by Google Bot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You tell yourself that, but there's nothing to support the argument, but there's evidence that taking the job was a reversal of a decision  he'd publicly announced to take time out after his sacking at Aston Villa. Week after week, we had claims like this undermining Smith about his motives without anything to back them up.

I'm only playing the same stupid game as you, fun isnt it .? Making shoite up and claiming its fact. I  see why you do it now.  As for time out..... thats just a footy  cliche , just as players say..." its a massive Club"... when joining a Club struggling in the champs. Aaaaanyway have a few things to do now so catch you later for the next instalment of " why Dean Smith should be next manager of Man City".....you know it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

But isn't this just going back to where we were pre Farke sacking?  The knives were out for Webber and Farke was the one to go... We were sold Smith as an improvement, but all he done* was sent a rift through the club.

(* That reads harsher that I meant)

And I think that same 'pre Farke sacking' hangup is now continuing where we have a manager who is more a continuation of what came before, and people are now questioning the recruitment and everything else... Just as before.

I'm with you in thinking that sacking is not the answer, mainly as we have people at this club far more experienced in our case study than anyone else around..  It's dumb to throw out those years experience, unless it is something fresh and a new approach that's needed.

Thing is, for a self sufficient club like ourselves, the only other avenue available is to go for bust and risk the longterm future of the club. 

Half the problem is the binary question in the thread title being assumed to encapsulate everyone’s positions on Webber.

Just because people think he’s made poor decisions does not immediately mean they are advocating him being sacked.

Some people who don’t want him sacked seem incapable of admitting mistakes have been made though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...