Can't argue with this

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

Seems a fair assessment of SW's time at NCFC, nice to see a detached view from a 3rd party.

https://trainingground.guru/articles/evaluating-stuart-webbers-six-years-at-norwich-city

 

[Jim Smith 2,339]

Not sure they are that detached, he’s done various interviews with them previously and spoken at conferences etc. he clearly has a link with them.

There is no doubt he’s improved the facilities and training ground significantly and that will be a legacy of his. That said, I do think he is prone to over exaggerating how bad the state of the club was when he came in and the quality of the players coming through from the academy was actually better then (ie those already in the system that he has benefitted from) than it is now. 

[king canary 7,680]

I read this and while, yes, tough to disagree with any of it, it isn't really an assessment- more of just a list of things he's done.

It also doesn't mention in any great depth the recruitment of players which is obviously one of our biggest issues. 

On the flip side it also doesn't paint a great picture of the previous leadership and the owners when talking about the state of Colney. You have to wonder how it was allowed to get to that state in the first place.

[It's Character Forming 1,167]

Interesting but definitely a pro-Webber piece.  You've only got to spot them quoting that we paid 1.5m euros for Buendia, but even I can remember that was the initial number and the total fee ended up around 5m.  Still a fantastic buy, but the 1.5m number makes it look like a complete steal.

[hogesar 9,760]

17 minutes ago, king canary said:

I read this and while, yes, tough to disagree with any of it, it isn't really an assessment- more of just a list of things he's done.

It also doesn't mention in any great depth the recruitment of players which is obviously one of our biggest issues. 

On the flip side it also doesn't paint a great picture of the previous leadership and the owners when talking about the state of Colney. You have to wonder how it was allowed to get to that state in the first place.

I guess because, contrary to belief, our owners haven't got involved with footballing matters. I actually think there was something said about McNally not wanting our owners at the training ground and the owners respecting that.

Any new owners are going to want to be involved more than likely and it'll be interesting to see how much better (or in my likely opinion worse) things will be as a result.

[BroadstairsR 2,209]

23 minutes ago, king canary said:

I read this and while, yes, tough to disagree with any of it, it isn't really an assessment- more of just a list of things he's done.

It also doesn't mention in any great depth the recruitment of players which is obviously one of our biggest issues. 

On the flip side it also doesn't paint a great picture of the previous leadership and the owners when talking about the state of Colney. You have to wonder how it was allowed to get to that state in the first place.

Almost non-league (with extra Portakabins) from the sound of it. I suppose it is how it compared with others that might be the real yardstick as we had not been short of attracting decent talent over the years.

Not only has the recent decade or so seen the explosion of new and slightly futuristic stadia, led from the top but also in the lower leagues, it has also seen the enhancement of training facilities throughout the game.

City are by far from unique ... but it is clear that some groundbreaking innovation has been applied to Colney. 

The money must have come from somewhere, so I suppose the financing of team building and recruitment might well have been inhibited on occasions.

Edited June 14, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[king canary 7,680]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

I guess because, contrary to belief, our owners haven't got involved with footballing matters. I actually think there was something said about McNally not wanting our owners at the training ground and the owners respecting that.

Any new owners are going to want to be involved more than likely and it'll be interesting to see how much better (or in my likely opinion worse) things will be as a result.

There is literally nothing you can't try and spin into a positive for the owners is there?

[hogesar 9,760]

Just now, king canary said:

There is literally nothing you can't try and spin into a positive for the owners is there?

There's plenty, you've just not offered one yet. But if the question is am I generally happy with our owners during my time supporting the club then the answer is most certainly yes.

[king canary 7,680]

7 minutes ago, hogesar said:

There's plenty, you've just not offered one yet. But if the question is am I generally happy with our owners during my time supporting the club then the answer is most certainly yes.

So you don't think that, on their watch, the training ground being allowed to fall into a state that it put off potential signings and the academy almost losing Category 1 status is a negative for them?

That is just willful blindness. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 minutes ago, king canary said:

So you don't think that, on their watch, the training ground being allowed to fall into a state that it put off potential signings and the academy almost losing Category 1 status is a negative for them?

That is just willful blindness. 

Or that we had to sell Maddison to possibly avoid administration. That is a very serious matter. 

Webber has some good things on his CV with us. No dispute there. But now he has some pretty **** things on it as far as the position the club is in. And he knows as much as anyone that in football a week is a long time. He has to produce results and he hasn't He has sacked two coaches recently because of bad results. So you might get away with sacking one and apportioning all the blame. But two and its time to look deeper. And when the third chap comes in, the opinion was that the results and performances were no better.

[lake district canary 4,549]

30 minutes ago, king canary said:

So you don't think that, on their watch, the training ground being allowed to fall into a state that it put off potential signings and the academy almost losing Category 1 status is a negative for them?

That is just willful blindness. 

The issue - as always - is and was money.  From 1996 through to 2009, we were totally held back by huge inherited debt, even though the owners had put in a large amount at the start of their tenure. Remembering how we just managed to get Huckerby through fans contributing money - football as a whole was in a debt crisis that peaked in the 2008 financial crisis, that continually threatened the very existence of clubs - and we were no exception.

When we finally did get some money through on the field success with McNally - he insisted every penny spent was on players, not infrastructure, to make sure we could do well in the PL.

So fighting to exist, followed by a CEO who would only spend on players were the reasons for lack of investment in the poor infrastructure - not negligence.

 

[king canary 7,680]

1 minute ago, lake district canary said:

The issue - as always - is and was money.  From 1996 through to 2009, we were totally held back by huge inherited debt, even though the owners had put in a large amount at the start of their tenure. Remembering how we just managed to get Huckerby through fans contributing money - football as a whole was in a debt crisis that peaked in the 2008 financial crisis, that continually threatened the very existence of clubs - and we were no exception.

When we finally did get some money through on the field success with McNally - he insisted every penny spent was on players, not infrastructure, to make sure we could do well in the PL.

So fighting to exist, followed by a CEO who would only spend on players were the reasons for lack of investment in the poor infrastructure - not negligence.

 

I agree it comes down to money- which is again why it is so frustrating that they've refused to recognise that they are ill equipped to be the owners of a modern football club.

You shouldn't need to be borrowing money from fans to sign players or for basic infrastructure upgrades. That is a sign that something isn't working. 

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

18 minutes ago, king canary said:

I agree it comes down to money- which is again why it is so frustrating that they've refused to recognise that they are ill equipped to be the owners of a modern football club.

You shouldn't need to be borrowing money from fans to sign players or for basic infrastructure upgrades. That is a sign that something isn't working. 

The thing that isn't working is modern football financing.

[hogesar 9,760]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

So you don't think that, on their watch, the training ground being allowed to fall into a state that it put off potential signings and the academy almost losing Category 1 status is a negative for them?

That is just willful blindness. 

Including the teams just relegated, I believe there's 10 Cat 1 academies in our division. So we also became cat 1 under the ownership, and it's not just a given that clubs at our level accomplish that.

I do think that with the hands-off approach our owners take to the footballing stuff, that they need an intermediary. It appears Ed Balls convinced them off that to and hence the Sporting Director model that has seen a complete transformation when it comes to the training ground and off-field infrastructure.

So I think yes, they made a mistake and then rectified it. 

Edited June 14, 2023 by hogesar

[Worthy Nigelton 1,068]

29 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

The issue - as always - is and was money.  From 1996 through to 2009, we were totally held back by huge inherited debt, even though the owners had put in a large amount at the start of their tenure. Remembering how we just managed to get Huckerby through fans contributing money - football as a whole was in a debt crisis that peaked in the 2008 financial crisis, that continually threatened the very existence of clubs - and we were no exception.

When we finally did get some money through on the field success with McNally - he insisted every penny spent was on players, not infrastructure, to make sure we could do well in the PL.

So fighting to exist, followed by a CEO who would only spend on players were the reasons for lack of investment in the poor infrastructure - not negligence.

 

Yep. The ironic thing is it worked better than Webber's way of getting the infrastructure right. 

[hogesar 9,760]

6 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Yep. The ironic thing is it worked better than Webber's way of getting the infrastructure right. 

In the short-term. In the long-term it was almost catastrophic post McNally leaving.

Jury is still out but I'm pretty confident long-term Webber has left us in a better place than McNally, or any CEO we have had under Delia and Michael ownership.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,041]

Having read the article the OP is correct, you cannot argue with it, Stuart Webber has done a wonderful job on the non football side but the footballing side has not been so wonderful. Failure to meet the self imposed target of making Norwich City a top 26 side and failing to carry out his mantra of "succession", I understand the sacking of Daniel Farke, I did not like the way it was done but it would have been easier to take if his successor had been a Head Coach with a similar ethos, for me Dean Smith was never the natural successor to Daniel Farke, never in a million years, his appointment was an extremely strange one...............

[lake district canary 4,549]

14 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

for me Dean Smith was never the natural successor to Daniel Farke, never in a million years, his appointment was an extremely strange one...............

He lost his nerve under the pressure from outside and from the self-imposed pressure of wanting to succeed.  No disgrace in that, pressure from within football, from the media and financial pressure is huge at PL level.  He pulled off a master stroke in getting Farke into the club, he should have backed him to carry on instead of trying to be Mr Fixit.

I'd love to know the ins and outs of Smith's appointment, it just looked such a poor rush job to get him in. Pressure, I guess....that word again.

[Worthy Nigelton 1,068]

43 minutes ago, hogesar said:

In the short-term. In the long-term it was almost catastrophic post McNally leaving.

Jury is still out but I'm pretty confident long-term Webber has left us in a better place than McNally, or any CEO we have had under Delia and Michael ownership.

We won't know that until a few years down the line.

I'd argue the team and youth players McNally left were of a significantly higher value to the club than the Soccerbot and the new swimming pool are. Unless the Soccerbot is now valued more than James Maddison!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Webber but he's not perfect and his record compared to McNally's is not as good despite the constant slagging off he did over the years.

[lake district canary 4,549]

6 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Webber but he's not perfect and his record compared to McNally's is not as good despite the constant slagging off he did over the years.

Depends how you quantify success.  McNally's policy left us in a parlous state financially. At least this time, we are still viable enough to be able to build another squad without threat of financial disaster.

For some, success on the field is all that matters, but if success is avchieved at the expense of almost ruining the club a year or two later, was it worth it? Leeds lived the dream for a few years, reaching European semi-final success, but ended up almost at the bottom of league one and only just survived as a club. We don't want to be in that kind of position.

[Danke bitte 967]

I think Webber said early on in his tenure, he was merely a stepping stone towards a greater goal or words to that effect. I appreciate the Farke football and I appreciate the academy upgrades. I’m not fussed he’s off, he did what he needed to, and has provided a base for a new DoF to come in without having to run from a standing start. Just hope whoever comes in can kick on

[Badger 2,412]

39 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Having read the article the OP is correct, you cannot argue with it, Stuart Webber has done a wonderful job on the non football side but the footballing side has not been so wonderful. Failure to meet the self imposed target of making Norwich City a top 26 side and failing to carry out his mantra of "succession", I understand the sacking of Daniel Farke, I did not like the way it was done but it would have been easier to take if his successor had been a Head Coach with a similar ethos, for me Dean Smith was never the natural successor to Daniel Farke, never in a million years, his appointment was an extremely strange one...............

I think that with regards the Head Coach, continuity in terms of playing style was not an option. Farke's failure at premier league level demonstrated pretty clearly that you cannot play the style we wanted to against established premier league clubs and expect to survive.

To survive in the Premier league, newly promoted clubs have to be more pragmatic, with greater emphasis on being "defensively tight" and not seek to dominate the ball. We've discussed finances endlessly on this board but to my mind, it is largely irrelevant - the real key to staying up lies in playing style - e.g defensive organisation being the priority, prepared to play the long ball + greater physicality.

[hogesar 9,760]

1 hour ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

We won't know that until a few years down the line.

I'd argue the team and youth players McNally left were of a significantly higher value to the club than the Soccerbot and the new swimming pool are. Unless the Soccerbot is now valued more than James Maddison!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Webber but he's not perfect and his record compared to McNally's is not as good despite the constant slagging off he did over the years.

Fair points but i'd argue the players left by McNally didn't really realise their value until Webber and Farke developed them into having that value. So it's a bit split on that.

I think the amount of stories of ex-players and ex-never-became-players about not signing due to the Training Ground and general infrastructure of the club leaves me hopeful that our impressive new complex will have the opposite effect and who knows? Maybe we wouldn't have got Nunez or Sara without it?

[aBee 152]

Apologies for stepping in during the close season!

I think investing in your training facilities made sense on a long term basis. There’s an interview with our Technical Director, Lee Dykes on The Beautiful Game podcast (I won’t link as I suspect few of you have an hour to spare to listen but it’s very good!) from just before last game of the season where he describes the difficulty of attracting players when he joined in summer 2019. Back then our facility was even more L2 than yours without even the luxury of 49 portacabins! When potential targets came to visit they’d make excuses to not even go to the training ground and to avoid going to the stadium too. The real daily work environment and symbol of the development players can expect is the training facility. 
 

It’s notable that with all their billions, the very first thing Newcastle’s new owners did was upgrade theirs. It was also a big immediate task at Leeds when Bielsa joined (although they’ve since converted back the player dormitories he had put in to let the players start training earlier!). 
 

But there does also need to be prioritisation if you’re not a super rich club. Our upgrade plans were finalised in 2021 but the first phase not actioned until this season because it was too big an investment cost to bear until staying up was secured. The buildings are still semi-permanent only and there’s another phase to complete to enable the new academy to colocate fully and go up the categories. 
 

The other interesting thing from the interview, compared with the piece on Webber is how we don’t just rely on the Sporting Director to do everything. Whereas the Webber piece described him immediately sacking the recruitment director et al, Dykes has that role and described working as a team with the Sporting Director, Performance Director and Head Coach. Maybe the thing for the future for you is to develop that division of labour. 

[NewNestCarrow 203]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

So you don't think that, on their watch, the training ground being allowed to fall into a state that it put off potential signings and the academy almost losing Category 1 status is a negative for them?

That is just willful blindness. 

Whereas your view is totally objective?

[king canary 7,680]

13 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

Whereas your view is totally objective?

Never claimed it was?

[king canary 7,680]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Fair points but i'd argue the players left by McNally didn't really realise their value until Webber and Farke developed them into having that value. So it's a bit split on that.

I think the amount of stories of ex-players and ex-never-became-players about not signing due to the Training Ground and general infrastructure of the club leaves me hopeful that our impressive new complex will have the opposite effect and who knows? Maybe we wouldn't have got Nunez or Sara without it?

I think it is tough to ever know how to split credit. I'm of the opinion that had we kept with the model we had pre Webber that someone like Maddison who's talent was obvious even in that loan spell at Aberdeen would have found their way through but players like Lewis, Aarons and Godfrey less likely.

We've seen Harry Toffolo and Calton Morris develop into upper Championship/lower Premier League type players. I don't doubt that could have happened here with the right management and structured pathways into the first team when they were in their late teens/early 20's. Instead short termism meant they were never given that chance. So I think Webber/Farke deserve an awful lot of credit for the development of those players even if they were signed before they arrived. However the same will be true of whomever the next SD manages to bring through.

[Yobocop 1,105]

5 hours ago, king canary said:

I agree it comes down to money- which is again why it is so frustrating that they've refused to recognise that they are ill equipped to be the owners of a modern football club.

You shouldn't need to be borrowing money from fans to sign players or for basic infrastructure upgrades. That is a sign that something isn't working. 

Proper double edged sword this because there will be folk who moan about us not spending money on transfers then not spending money on the infrastructure of the club…can’t have it both ways 

[Worthy Nigelton 1,068]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

Fair points but i'd argue the players left by McNally didn't really realise their value until Webber and Farke developed them into having that value. So it's a bit split on that.

I think the amount of stories of ex-players and ex-never-became-players about not signing due to the Training Ground and general infrastructure of the club leaves me hopeful that our impressive new complex will have the opposite effect and who knows? Maybe we wouldn't have got Nunez or Sara without it?

The part in bold is fair.

On the second paragraph, call me cynical, but I think money talks with players more than facilities.  However, if you're level pegging with another club on salary, facilities might sway a player.  I think having top facilities is more about developing potential you've bought or players from the yoof team, which backs up your first point in bold to a degree.

[king canary 7,680]

2 hours ago, Yobocop said:

Proper double edged sword this because there will be folk who moan about us not spending money on transfers then not spending money on the infrastructure of the club…can’t have it both ways 

Well the point is that most other clubs can have it both ways, to an extent. Infrastructure specifically sits outside of FFP so its an area owners can spend on without concern from that angle.

This is where a lack of owner cash flow hurts us.