How many Head Coaches should a SD/DoF get to hire

[king canary 7,664]

An interesting discussion from the 'football is broken' thread that I thought was worth its own topic.

In the NFL the structure is pretty standard across all teams- you have your General Manager who is charged with constructing the roster/squad while the Head Coach is tasked with training and developing the players he's given and winning games.

Generally these hires are linked- when a new GM is hired they'll usually hire the Head Coach or if they are inheriting one from a previous regime they are usually considered to be on a short leash with a GM wanting to bring in 'their guy.' So @nutty nigel's point that sacking Webber a couple of months after letting him hire a new HC would potentially lead to us hiring a new SD who actually doesn't really want Wagner and doesn't think he fits his vision. Maybe there is a case where we have an underwhelming finish to the season and we bid goodbye to both Wagner and Webber and hit the full reset button.

But what if we decided to move on from Wagner without changing Webber?

In the NFL one of the general unwritten rules is that a GM rarely gets to hire more than 2 or 3 head coaches, with the logic being that if you keep ****ing up your main hire you should move on. Webber right now has one successful hire (Farke) and one failure (Smith). If Wagner fails then is Webber given the chance to hire his 4th head coach? 

[Pyro Pete 1,917]

Tl;dr - Webber out!

[Google Bot 3,299]

We're different to most football teams, let alone NFL franchises! 🙂

I think Wagner is his final roll, however.  I don't think Webber would want to stay on for a forth, regardless of what anyone else thinks he should or shouldn't do.

The abnormality in this instance is the potential new ownership coming in, and how importantly they view Webber in that transposition period, and would he take a different job role, or would the resources afforded be different to what came before?  Few questions there.

But even so, I just couldn't see him from a personal perspective wanting to oversee over a fourth appointment....  If he did, you'd have to question his motives, really - would the initial drive still be there?  Would it be to fulfil an agreement? etc.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Google Bot

[nutty nigel 7,602]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

An interesting discussion from the 'football is broken' thread that I thought was worth its own topic.

In the NFL the structure is pretty standard across all teams- you have your General Manager who is charged with constructing the roster/squad while the Head Coach is tasked with training and developing the players he's given and winning games.

Generally these hires are linked- when a new GM is hired they'll usually hire the Head Coach or if they are inheriting one from a previous regime they are usually considered to be on a short leash with a GM wanting to bring in 'their guy.' So @nutty nigel's point that sacking Webber a couple of months after letting him hire a new HC would potentially lead to us hiring a new SD who actually doesn't really want Wagner and doesn't think he fits his vision. Maybe there is a case where we have an underwhelming finish to the season and we bid goodbye to both Wagner and Webber and hit the full reset button.

But what if we decided to move on from Wagner without changing Webber?

In the NFL one of the general unwritten rules is that a GM rarely gets to hire more than 2 or 3 head coaches, with the logic being that if you keep ****ing up your main hire you should move on. Webber right now has one successful hire (Farke) and one failure (Smith). If Wagner fails then is Webber given the chance to hire his 4th head coach? 

I think the two leagues are so different the comparison can't be made. And the reason for this probably that football is broken that you laid out so well on your other thread.

Success at Norwich has to be measured by the club we are with the money we have. That would be a reasonable standard rather than fans expectations which are usually unreasonable.

The question I'd ask would be, if we could leave all personal dislikes and prejudices outside the door, has Webber been successful here or a failure?  

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

An interesting discussion from the 'football is broken' thread that I thought was worth its own topic.

In the NFL the structure is pretty standard across all teams- you have your General Manager who is charged with constructing the roster/squad while the Head Coach is tasked with training and developing the players he's given and winning games.

Generally these hires are linked- when a new GM is hired they'll usually hire the Head Coach or if they are inheriting one from a previous regime they are usually considered to be on a short leash with a GM wanting to bring in 'their guy.' So @nutty nigel's point that sacking Webber a couple of months after letting him hire a new HC would potentially lead to us hiring a new SD who actually doesn't really want Wagner and doesn't think he fits his vision. Maybe there is a case where we have an underwhelming finish to the season and we bid goodbye to both Wagner and Webber and hit the full reset button.

But what if we decided to move on from Wagner without changing Webber?

In the NFL one of the general unwritten rules is that a GM rarely gets to hire more than 2 or 3 head coaches, with the logic being that if you keep ****ing up your main hire you should move on. Webber right now has one successful hire (Farke) and one failure (Smith). If Wagner fails then is Webber given the chance to hire his 4th head coach? 

Of course the NFL is much more equal in terms of finance. The wage cap, although complicated is much more transparent than FFP. The draft system gives the worst teams a chance, especially by swapping picks. And of course there is only one prize.

The coach has a better opportunity to assess players because it is very much individual battles and easier to assess performance. And of course there are two distinct parts to each match and apart from special teams, you are unlikely to see offensive and defensive players on the pitch at the same time.

But your point about an SD being move on is worthy of discussion in comparison in as much as you say, the GM doesn't get away with just blaming the fans or away games. His performance is equal to the teams and he is as likely to be axed as any coach. In fact, football is way behind the NFL in the way it does so little in comparison when studying and evaluating players, opponents, finance, supporters and travel.

Webber has brought in more losers than winners even though the argument is subjective. Of course he may not be alone in that. Maybe every person in his position has a negative record. He told us, before him, the club had urinated the money up against the wall. And yet I would wager most supporters would believe he has done the same thing.

When he arrived we were in a position that was possibly better than where we will finish this season. But because we expected to go straight back up under Neil, and it didn't happen, we chose to go SD and not CEO. And Delia said that they changed it because they didn't like Moxey's omnipotence. And of course he brought us success. No arguing, he did a great job. But at the same time, he has had more bad seasons than good. This could be the fourth one.

So I don't see why he shouldn't be under as much pressure as anyone else in the club, especially as he offered his resignation because he wants to climb Everest. I believe only Delia would let the person running the club, potentially take his eye off the ball and not be held responsible. And he must have done that or we wouldn't be struggling like we are.

Just like Delia has to face facts that its probably time for her to consider selling so that new owners may choose a different way to run the club. There is a time for each and everyone to know and admit, what we had has gone and we need to change to try and resurrect it.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,589]

33 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Of course the NFL is much more equal in terms of finance. The wage cap, although complicated is much more transparent than FFP. The draft system gives the worst teams a chance, especially by swapping picks. And of course there is only one prize.

The coach has a better opportunity to assess players because it is very much individual battles and easier to assess performance. And of course there are two distinct parts to each match and apart from special teams, you are unlikely to see offensive and defensive players on the pitch at the same time.

But your point about an SD being move on is worthy of discussion in comparison in as much as you say, the GM doesn't get away with just blaming the fans or away games. His performance is equal to the teams and he is as likely to be axed as any coach. In fact, football is way behind the NFL in the way it does so little in comparison when studying and evaluating players, opponents, finance, supporters and travel.

Webber has brought in more losers than winners even though the argument is subjective. Of course he may not be alone in that. Maybe every person in his position has a negative record. He told us, before him, the club had urinated the money up against the wall. And yet I would wager most supporters would believe he has done the same thing.

When he arrived we were in a position that was possibly better than where we will finish this season. But because we expected to go straight back up under Neil, and it didn't happen, we chose to go SD and not CEO. And Delia said that they changed it because they didn't like Moxey's omnipotence. And of course he brought us success. No arguing, he did a great job. But at the same time, he has had more bad seasons than good. This could be the fourth one.

So I don't see why he shouldn't be under as much pressure as anyone else in the club, especially as he offered his resignation because he wants to climb Everest. I believe only Delia would let the person running the club, potentially take his eye off the ball and not be held responsible. And he must have done that or we wouldn't be struggling like we are.

Just like Delia has to face facts that its probably time for her to consider selling so that new owners may choose a different way to run the club. There is a time for each and everyone to know and admit, what we had has gone and we need to change to try and resurrect it.

 

This is wrong on so many counts.

Firstly, the Sporting Director is one component in a large structure; there are countless ways things can go wrong without the SD causing it. Secondly, the assertion completely ignores the fact that football is a competitive sport where winning's never guaranteed no matter what you do.

If a club has bottomless pockets and they're still failing then you can look more deeply at decision-making, but the reality is money is growing in its importance all of the time in football, and we're not a rich club. And even our stints in the Premier League have had to have large sums of money go on clearing debts and revamping infrastructure before it could go on players.

I really don't get why people go on an on about Webber. The board clearly supports him or he'd be gone;  nobody else knows enough to make any sort of worthwhile judgement on how he does.

[ridgeman 135]

After Saturdays match on Canary Call someone sent a text saying that Radio Norfolk's staff should ask Webber some tough questions on the standard of players available their reply "he won't talk to us".  Personally I would like to see Webber gone he threw Farke out when Farke (according to Michael Bailey) wanted 3 quality players Webber signed eleven average players none of who were premier league standard. He then signed Smith as head coach who couldn't do any better than Farke and the standard of football was worse and when the  crowd turned Smith was sacked.

Webbers attitude to local press and radio is poor, his attitude to spectators is if you don't like what you see go elsewhere. I would have liked to have seen Farke stay (after all he encouraged some of the best football I have seen in sixty years of support)and Webber gone we could have then offered Farke the Sporting Director role and if he accepted continue in the same mould.

Webber said that with the Sporting Director he could change the head coach and we wouldn't notice the change that's not true either we have gone backwards year on year since winningthe Championship for the second time. He has had two goes at the Premiership and failed.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

15 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

This is wrong on so many counts.

Firstly, the Sporting Director is one component in a large structure; there are countless ways things can go wrong without the SD causing it. Secondly, the assertion completely ignores the fact that football is a competitive sport where winning's never guaranteed no matter what you do.

If a club has bottomless pockets and they're still failing then you can look more deeply at decision-making, but the reality is money is growing in its importance all of the time in football, and we're not a rich club. And even our stints in the Premier League have had to have large sums of money go on clearing debts and revamping infrastructure before it could go on players.

I really don't get why people go on an on about Webber. The board clearly supports him or he'd be gone;  nobody else knows enough to make any sort of worthwhile judgement on how he does.

We are talking about the SD not the rest of the back room staff. If you really think Webber is fine then that is your privilege. Personally, I think he should have gone with DF. And that is the point of the topic. How many times does the SD get to be wrong before he should go. The OP has nothing to do with the Board. Its what we supporters believe.

[Google Bot 3,299]

8 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Personally, I think he should have gone with DF. And that is the point of the topic

But on the flip of that, the point of his job is to ensure a level of consistency.  If you're changing that role as often as the manager then it's no longer a role is it? 

I'm maybe wrong in presuming this but I see Webber as responsible for progressing our sporting aspetcs, therefore scouting and recruitment being the most critical areas when it comes to his decisions.

As such, he's not sitting atop many of these functions and looking down - he's integrated into the process himself.

But then the confusion comes when he's involved in things like this Attanasio deals and such like - I really don't know where the line is drawn with him.  In fact, I do wonder if that's a big part of the problem in that his focus is higher up the chain than it should be?

For example, who's really setting the budgets at this club?  ...To me, Webber just seems one of the few at the club capable of making a decision and taking pressure onto his shoulders, I think there's too many happy to just let him take charge.  Throw him out the club and it does concern me what we're left with.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

But on the flip of that, the point of his job is to ensure a level of consistency.  If you're changing that role as often as the manager then it's no longer a role is it? 

I'm maybe wrong in presuming this but I see Webber as responsible for progressing our sporting aspetcs, therefore scouting and recruitment being the most critical areas when it comes to his decisions.

As such, he's not sitting atop many of these functions and looking down - he's integrated into the process himself.

But then the confusion comes when he's involved in things like this Attanasio deals and such like - I really don't know where the line is drawn with him.  In fact, I do wonder if that's a big part of the problem in that his focus is higher up the chain than it should be?

For example, who's really setting the budgets at this club?  ...To me, Webber just seems one of the few at the club capable of making a decision and taking pressure onto his shoulders, I think there's too many happy to just let him take charge.  Throw him out the club and it does concern me what we're left with.

But the same as players and  coaches he would be replaced. Maybe an SD isn't right for us. Maybe we need a CEO and the rest left to the coaching staff. Delia changed it because of Moxey and his apparent omnipotence. Is it any different now?

Just as coaching styles change, so does the way football is operated.  I believe if Annatasio takes control, he will run things differently.

Have you ever watched Moneyball? Really good example of a different approach that worked.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

58 minutes ago, ridgeman said:

After Saturdays match on Canary Call someone sent a text saying that Radio Norfolk's staff should ask Webber some tough questions on the standard of players available their reply "he won't talk to us".  Personally I would like to see Webber gone he threw Farke out when Farke (according to Michael Bailey) wanted 3 quality players Webber signed eleven average players none of who were premier league standard. He then signed Smith as head coach who couldn't do any better than Farke and the standard of football was worse and when the  crowd turned Smith was sacked.

Webbers attitude to local press and radio is poor, his attitude to spectators is if you don't like what you see go elsewhere. I would have liked to have seen Farke stay (after all he encouraged some of the best football I have seen in sixty years of support)and Webber gone we could have then offered Farke the Sporting Director role and if he accepted continue in the same mould.

Webber said that with the Sporting Director he could change the head coach and we wouldn't notice the change that's not true either we have gone backwards year on year since winningthe Championship for the second time. He has had two goes at the Premiership and failed.

You are exactly right 

Webber's Recruitment is the problem 

you can hire as many head coaches as you want but if the players the DOF signs are not good enough most H/C 's will fail 

how the recruitment has gone from so good to so bad i have no idea 

look at Jack clarke at Sunderland compared to Rashica and Tzolis the players are still out there 

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,589]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

We are talking about the SD not the rest of the back room staff. If you really think Webber is fine then that is your privilege. Personally, I think he should have gone with DF. And that is the point of the topic. How many times does the SD get to be wrong before he should go. The OP has nothing to do with the Board. Its what we supporters believe.

But the whole point of the Sporting Director/Head Coach model is to allow changes for on pitch while keeping consistent strategy overall. If you insist on sacking both at the same time then that's no better than a single manager in charge of everything, which seems a largely discredited model now.

The point is, the fans have some idea what the manager's doing from the games; the fans really have no clue what the sporting director has done and why, just the board, so should have a bit of respect for the board's judgement based on more complete information.

Edited February 20, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

24 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

But the whole point of the Sporting Director/Head Coach model is to allow changes for on pitch while keeping consistent strategy overall. If you insist on sacking both at the same time then that's no better than a single manager in charge of everything, which seems a largely discredited model now.

The point is, the fans have some idea what the manager's doing from the games; the fans really have no clue what the sporting director has done and why, just the board, so should have a bit of respect for the board's judgement based on more complete 

Football for me just follows patterns and fashions.  So we have changed from a player negotiating his terms etc with his manager to an agent negotiating withan SD/DoF. So we are told the game is so important that we separate taks out and delegate, we are looking for an SD who knows football enough to spot good players and at the same time negotiate and form part of an executive with board members.

That sounds an important position yet we are allowing ours to work less than he should because he is concentrating on climbing Everest, a serious and difficult challenge. That is certainly a strange decision for a club wanting to return to the EPL and having already alienated much of the fanbase by sacking a popular coach and then having to sack his replacement within a year. Who is the common denominator apart from any of the players?

Remember, every supporter is valid, has their own opinion and not all like us who think we know all the answers.

 

 

[Mengo 825]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Football for me just follows patterns and fashions.  So we have changed from a player negotiating his terms etc with his manager to an agent negotiating withan SD/DoF. So we are told the game is so important that we separate taks out and delegate, we are looking for an SD who knows football enough to spot good players and at the same time negotiate and form part of an executive with board members.

That sounds an important position yet we are allowing ours to work less than he should because he is concentrating on climbing Everest, a serious and difficult challenge. That is certainly a strange decision for a club wanting to return to the EPL and having already alienated much of the fanbase by sacking a popular coach and then having to sack his replacement within a year. Who is the common denominator apart from any of the players?

Remember, every supporter is valid, has their own opinion and not all like us who think we know all the answers.

 

 

I think the last paragraph  is from his job description. 

Stuart Webber joined Norwich City to take the newly-created post of Sporting Director in April 2017 as part of a restructuring process at the Club. He moved to Carrow Road from Huddersfield Town, where he had held the position of Head of Football Operations since 2015.

Prior to joining the Terriers, Webber spent two years as Head of Recruitment at Wolverhampton Wanderers following previous stints at Queens Park Rangers, Liverpool and Wrexham.

He leads all aspects of the Club's recruitment strategy, working with the Head Coach to identify players with the commitment and hunger to improve performances on the pitch.

ALL ASPECTS OF THE CLUBS RECRUITMENT STRATEGY .

Commitment and hunger 😉

[essex canary 504]

What is the shelf life of a Sporting Director or CEO before they go stale?

[Dean Coneys boots 1,406]

He’s good at off the field stuff but woeful at on field. Imho he should have been sacked after wasting our biggest spending window in history on absolute dross. None of those signings have been worth it. Has anyone ever spent so much for so little in return? 

[Google Bot 3,299]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Maybe we need a CEO and the rest left to the coaching staff. Delia changed it because of Moxey and his apparent omnipotence. Is it any different now?

For me, this is night and day better, and i'm really positive on the club still because we do have people here with the ideas, passion and vision to push us forwards. 

However, if you compare Webber and McNally there's not so much in it - but in regards to characters Webber is of much healthier mind as he grounds himself with other activities and makes a point of not being full absorbed personally.

I don't think you'll see him getting on social media after a few wines and having a meltdown, for example.... And it was from that event that we ended up in the Moxey period.

In the grand scheme of things, I think most of our downfall is mindset and that's across the supporter base and longer term key players at the club - And as that's something you can't fully qualify, we're trying to find something more absolute to point the finger at.

If we hadn't been to the prem league for decades, and signed the same players we did last season there's every chance we could've done a Brentford.   But we came up with so much baggage, and media attacking our management, playing style and players, not to mention that the club had relieved Farke of pressures the previous prem league season as a 'bonus' so that was biting them in the ****.

The mindset is our biggest fight right now, not the board or executives....  But then maybe a mighty cull also addresses that?

Edited February 20, 2023 by Google Bot

[chicken 2,642]

4 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I believe only Delia would let the person running the club, potentially take his eye off the ball and not be held responsible. And he must have done that or we wouldn't be struggling like we are.

I always absolutely hate this sort of sentiment. It's always Delia, no one ever mentions Michael. I guess he just sits idly by. And in the past Foulger. They are 'silent' partners. As if Delia is some odious ogre of a person who stamps her feet until she gets what she wants.

I have to say, I really don't get where it comes from. On paper, Michael is the one who's line of work has more in common with the running of the club, contracts with authors, printers, working with agents etc etc etc. Yet not one Michael out chant ever.

Why? Where did this originate?

[chicken 2,642]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

But the same as players and  coaches he would be replaced. Maybe an SD isn't right for us. Maybe we need a CEO and the rest left to the coaching staff. Delia changed it because of Moxey and his apparent omnipotence. Is it any different now?

Just as coaching styles change, so does the way football is operated.  I believe if Annatasio takes control, he will run things differently.

Have you ever watched Moneyball? Really good example of a different approach that worked.

First of all, and I would have to do some serious digging, I am pretty sure that Delia and Michael spoke about wanting to model our club around a more European model in the 2000's. I think that was the original plan with Hamilton and Worthington, I could be misremembering but I certainly recall that being something they said back then, but that it would be a hard sell (at that time) to British managers who were used to the total control approach (and with Harry Redknapp making money like he did, not surprising).

The model we use is common in Europe, with Sporting Directors such as Leonardo at PSG, having far longer careers than the managers they oversee. It's also an increasingly popular model in the premier league. Arsenal, Man City and Liverpool are just three examples off the top of my head. So whilst some may pine of days gone by, this certainly isn't something "new" or even uncommon in the English game anymore, and simply isn't the problem.

Attanasio has connections with the Liverpool owners, was identified and essentially invited to the club by Stuart Webber and Zoe Ward. Whilst things 'may' change, it's not like Attanasio will not know Webber. In fact, I would suggest that Webber is a reason why he may have been interested in us as a club.

As for Moneyball... It was released in 2011, over a decade ago. The actual moment in time it is based upon starts in 2002. "Moneyball" in football is and has been a thing for some time now, again, it's not new. It's also pretty clear that we have made some signings based on some aspects of it. For example, Placheta was brought in for his pace, obviously with the belief that other elements of his game could be improved with the ability of a coach like Farke. After all, we had certainly seen an improvement in Tettey in terms of his passing.

[chicken 2,642]

1 hour ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

He’s good at off the field stuff but woeful at on field. Imho he should have been sacked after wasting our biggest spending window in history on absolute dross. None of those signings have been worth it. Has anyone ever spent so much for so little in return? 

Not woeful at on the field at all.

He was part of a sporting team, important to remember not the only part of it, that built a Championship title winning team for two seasons.

As has been mentioned before, if you are hell bent on only looking at part of that summer then sure, you can judge him on only half of the facts. But in reality, it would appear that Rashica was possibly the only first choice target we landed. As I have said elsewhere countless times, you can ignore the Michael Bailey article at the Athletic on players we missed out on and for what reasons (mainly wages, and relegation clauses), you can ignore that we had confirmed bids for Armstrong, Ajer and Billings at least. And then sure, yes, it does start to look iffy.

Again, that's not the entire picture, the true reality. Which means the rest is backed up just with emotion. And whilst we are humans that love our club - it's not a fair or objective stance. 

[nutty nigel 7,602]

56 minutes ago, chicken said:

I always absolutely hate this sort of sentiment. It's always Delia, no one ever mentions Michael. I guess he just sits idly by. And in the past Foulger. They are 'silent' partners. As if Delia is some odious ogre of a person who stamps her feet until she gets what she wants.

I have to say, I really don't get where it comes from. On paper, Michael is the one who's line of work has more in common with the running of the club, contracts with authors, printers, working with agents etc etc etc. Yet not one Michael out chant ever.

Why? Where did this originate?

It's prejudice. Michael's been going to Carrow Road since before I was born. Delia's started going with Michael over 50 years ago. They are both extremely successful people in their own fields and jointly were majority owners of the club. You'll notice, although others claim differently, that they do any club media duties as a couple.

Other myths on this thread are that Webber did exactly the same as what he criticised his predecessors for. Ignoring the fact that the quote was about how many years PL money the club had received 'with nothing to show for it'. And while we can have views about whether Webber's signings were peeing the money up the wall it's an inarguable fact that the club has something to show for it.

And I listened to Canary Call on Saturday and the text about interviewing Webber and asking serious questions was not answered by Rob Butler saying "he won't talk to us". Rob said something along the lines of 'we don't get to talk to Stuart as much as we'd like but he did give an interview to Radio Norfolk not long ago and Chris asked the questions that needed to be asked. Rob then told the texter where he could find that interview and added something about they'd talk to Webber every week if they could.

Chris Goreham - Stuart Webber wants a new Norwich City identity - BBC Sounds

Edited February 21, 2023 by nutty nigel

[nutty nigel 7,602]

21 minutes ago, chicken said:

First of all, and I would have to do some serious digging, I am pretty sure that Delia and Michael spoke about wanting to model our club around a more European model in the 2000's. I think that was the original plan with Hamilton and Worthington, I could be misremembering but I certainly recall that being something they said back then, but that it would be a hard sell (at that time) to British managers who were used to the total control approach (and with Harry Redknapp making money like he did, not surprising).

The model we use is common in Europe, with Sporting Directors such as Leonardo at PSG, having far longer careers than the managers they oversee. It's also an increasingly popular model in the premier league. Arsenal, Man City and Liverpool are just three examples off the top of my head. So whilst some may pine of days gone by, this certainly isn't something "new" or even uncommon in the English game anymore, and simply isn't the problem.

Attanasio has connections with the Liverpool owners, was identified and essentially invited to the club by Stuart Webber and Zoe Ward. Whilst things 'may' change, it's not like Attanasio will not know Webber. In fact, I would suggest that Webber is a reason why he may have been interested in us as a club.

As for Moneyball... It was released in 2011, over a decade ago. The actual moment in time it is based upon starts in 2002. "Moneyball" in football is and has been a thing for some time now, again, it's not new. It's also pretty clear that we have made some signings based on some aspects of it. For example, Placheta was brought in for his pace, obviously with the belief that other elements of his game could be improved with the ability of a coach like Farke. After all, we had certainly seen an improvement in Tettey in terms of his passing.

It was Auxerre buddy...

“On the academy side I feel very passionate. Not many people listen to me much but when I first became a board director [in 1996] I went to visit a football club called Auxerre and their manager, Guy Roux. The first thing he said to me, and he didn’t speak much English, was: ‘I never buy footballers.’ The academy had their own little stadium, they had houses built on site. Roux knew all the youngsters by name. And the record is there, isn’t it? They played in Europe, they never went out of Ligue 1. And Auxerre is the size of Thetford. Wow. That’s the kind of club I want Norwich to be. I want it to feel like it is part of the community.”

[Canaries north 151]

I was always of the opinion that a sporting director was supposed to create continuity. The sporting director would decide on a style of play and players and managers who would fit this. The main advantage being you can sack managers but can't sack a whole playing squad. This is my main problem with Webber. He appears to have lost the belief in what he was doing. He signed a manager and players to play one way. Then he flipped when he lost faith in this style working in the prem signing players who probably didn't fit the style. He then changed the manager to try and fit the players. Now he has signed another manager who plays a different but more similar style to the first manager but we don't have the players for his style. Flip flop flip. He's not done what I would consider his main job and that's to set the style of play and recruit to that. 

[repman 635]

I think Webber's appointments have been fine on paper, but the problem has been in him placing too much faith in them/not acting decisively to get rid of them.

I can't blame him for hoping or thinking that Farke would be better 2nd time around in the PL, I think every fan thought that too. He acted pretty swiftly to remove him imo.

Appointing Smith made sense, he did make us look more like a side that could survive in the PL but that was only a short term firefighting solution. Webber also kept Smith in post far too long, the fact he put his faith in him not only in the summer but also during the WC break was a major mistake.

Wagner is a better appointment and again on paper makes plenty of sense, it doesn't strike me as a massively long term option but I view Wagner as somewhere in the middle between Farke and Smith and that ultimately might be what's required should we return to the PL.

Looking back, I do wonder whether the original plan going into 19/20 was to put all the young players on show and if we stayed up then great, if we went down then we would sell them all and retool, looking to come back with a new look squad. However with the pandemic transfer prices fell drastically and most teams were generally more cautious in their recruitment. I also imagine that there was quite a bit of pressure to get promoted again to make any post-covid financial issues easier. That at least explains some of the short term thinking we have seen since our first relegation, where most of our transfer business was to address squad depth and ensuring championship success, with no thought as to how these players would pan out in the PL. That in turn left us with too much to do going into last season.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

8 hours ago, essex canary said:

What is the shelf life of a Sporting Director or CEO before they go stale?

Hopefully longer than a Bean Counting whinger, who  moans about perceived slights on his status a a bigshot shareholder. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,589]

8 hours ago, chicken said:

I always absolutely hate this sort of sentiment. It's always Delia, no one ever mentions Michael. I guess he just sits idly by. And in the past Foulger. They are 'silent' partners. As if Delia is some odious ogre of a person who stamps her feet until she gets what she wants.

I have to say, I really don't get where it comes from. On paper, Michael is the one who's line of work has more in common with the running of the club, contracts with authors, printers, working with agents etc etc etc. Yet not one Michael out chant ever.

Why? Where did this originate?

Whisper it... Could it be... misogyny?

[Capt. Pants 4,276]

Webber might have a bit more mileage in him yet, possibly another Head Coach. This is assuming Attanasio fully takesover and appoints is own people. I think he holds Webber in high regard and won't be looking to make an immediate change.

Had it not been for that I feel Webber himself may have made the decision to move on. He still might, but this feels a new project he may want to be involved in.

[hogesar 9,733]

13 hours ago, ridgeman said:

After Saturdays match on Canary Call someone sent a text saying that Radio Norfolk's staff should ask Webber some tough questions on the standard of players available their reply "he won't talk to us".  Personally I would like to see Webber gone he threw Farke out when Farke (according to Michael Bailey) wanted 3 quality players Webber signed eleven average players none of who were premier league standard. He then signed Smith as head coach who couldn't do any better than Farke and the standard of football was worse and when the  crowd turned Smith was sacked.

Webbers attitude to local press and radio is poor, his attitude to spectators is if you don't like what you see go elsewhere. I would have liked to have seen Farke stay (after all he encouraged some of the best football I have seen in sixty years of support)and Webber gone we could have then offered Farke the Sporting Director role and if he accepted continue in the same mould.

Webber said that with the Sporting Director he could change the head coach and we wouldn't notice the change that's not true either we have gone backwards year on year since winningthe Championship for the second time. He has had two goes at the Premiership and failed.

To be fair he done an entire separate interview with Radio Norfolk when we appointed Wagner.

It's certainly not his job to talk to the local media upon their request. And I don't know a single CEO or Sporting Director in football who does that?

[nutty nigel 7,602]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

To be fair he done an entire separate interview with Radio Norfolk when we appointed Wagner.

It's certainly not his job to talk to the local media upon their request. And I don't know a single CEO or Sporting Director in football who does that?

I linked that interview in the post above. Rob Butler told the texter where it could be found and didn't say "he won't talk to us".

[shefcanary 2,446]

I've spelt out my issues in the past on this, my main beef being as a public limited company I do not think there is sufficient governance and accountability at senior levels within the club to meet current best practise (or at least demonstrable visibility of this to avoid direct criticism of both Board and Executive which would perhaps "connect" fans to the club). That is not to say I have direct criticism of the Webber's, or indeed the Board, how can I when I not privy to what goes on behind closed doors at the Carra' and Colney. The rest of the football world seem quite enamoured with the leadership of the club pouring plaudits aplenty on them, so all is good then? Well, until we look at the where things matter most, on the field of play and in the club's finances. 

As I have said many times in the past, I remain uncomfortable with the Board not having an independent chair at the moment. As a plc there should be someone on the Board, without a substantial interest in the club, challenging their colleagues on the Board and also challenging but supporting the Executive in the decision making process. The Chair can take on the position of figurehead for the club in front of the media (previous Chairs have been very good at this) taking pressure off the executive to deliver the Board's strategy. Without a Board member experienced in delivering sporting excellence I believe the Board at present is extremely weak in terms of ensuring accountability of the team's performance. I am also uneasy with the role of Executive Director given to Zoe Webber, in that as discussed in official statements from the club she is merely a reporter / conduit of the executive team, not having any responsibility over managing the rest of the executive, just her direct line reports. If a fellow executive is performing poorly, under the current structure it is not for her to deal with it (albeit I am sure she will report her concerns to the Board). This scares me.

Stuart Webber by all accounts then reports directly to the Board (as does Richens). This leaves a big hole as far as I am concerned from corporate accountability. As others on here have said this allows Webber to set and manage his own budgets, with little comeback from his fellow executives over his budget management performance. If he wants to **** his budget up the wall, he can, as confirmed by Richens when I directly asked him that question! That scares me big time, and has resulted in the poorest set of financial results for the club in many years. A true accountable CEO would have hopefully avoided this!

The Sporting Director needs to have regular scrutiny and challenge on a daily basis from an executive person, backed up by proper challenge from the Board. At the moment, unless Stuart Webber is invited to a Board Meeting, formally this cannot happen. That does not mean this doesn't happen, but the visibility of this is murky at best. This weakens Stuart's position as much as anything because how can he demonstrate how well he is doing to the outside world, and thus why he has cut off ties with the local press? As the reams of threads on here demonstrate, it leads to lots of "ill informed" speculation which has helped no-one.

You will note I have not mentioned anything about the relationship of the Webber's. If proper governance and accountability exists, their relationship should not be an issue. It only becomes an issue in the absence of visible challenge and leadership from the Board, which I am sure an independent Chair would provide.

However any criticism I have of the current regime is increasingly a moot point, with Attanasio relatively soon to complete a takeover and effectively take the club private. At that point he will surely invoke the US style of GM and all bets are off then as to whether those in the current set-up survive in a situation where on-field and off-field performance disappoint the owners.