Farke to Leeds

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Yes, but at times like these, some of the message-board dwellers suffer from what we in the trade call Close Your Eyes and Put Your Fingers in Your Ears syndrome - "If a seemingly well researched article from a credible source prints something you don't like, you can just ignore it out of hand".

 

I haven't seen Bailey's piece, but are you saying he was saying we could have afforded £60,000 a week for Andrich? As far as I can see all he said was we rejected his wage demands. That doesn't mean he said we could or should have agreed to them.

[Branston Pickle 3,687]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't seen Bailey's piece, but are you saying he was saying we could have afforded £60,000 a week for Andrich? As far as I can see all he said was we rejected his wage demands. That doesn't mean he said we could or should have agreed to them.

If “well researched articles” weren’t behind a paywall we’d perhaps all be able to read them. It does seem rather easy to write negative pieces, at least that appears to be Michael Baliey’s forte at the moment.  

Of course we all make perfect decisions with hindsight, but had we signed a guy on £60k a week there’s nothing to say a) he’d have been any good for us or b) that we’d not still have been relegated, and with that huge weight around our necks…with the club being criticised for making such a stupid move.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[komakino 274]

7 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

If “well researched articles” weren’t behind a paywall we’d perhaps all be able to read them. It does seem rather easy to write negative pieces, at least that appears to be Michael Baliey’s forte at the moment.  

Of course we all make perfect decisions with hindsight, but had we signed a guy on £60k a week there’s nothing to say a) he’d have been any good for us or b) that we’d not still have been relegated, and with that huge weight around our necks…with the club being criticised for making such a stupid move.

It was not an opinion piece, MB was just stating the facts. How Webber spent the budget is obviously a matter of opinion, but my view has always been it should have been quality over quantity, but Webber had a different view to that and of course, Daniel Farke, who wanted a 4 pack of premier lager but SW came back with 11 cans of shandy, metaphorically speaking. 

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't seen Bailey's piece, but are you saying he was saying we could have afforded £60,000 a week for Andrich? As far as I can see all he said was we rejected his wage demands. That doesn't mean he said we could or should have agreed to them.

Yes, that's exactly what he said. It's me who is saying we could have paid him £60,000 if we chose to, and in particular if we had followed Farke's preferred recruitment route. He ended up going to Bayer Leverkusen for 6.5 million euros, so the transfer fee was not prohibitive. Whether or not he would have accepted a sizeable relegation reduction clause I don't know, it doesn't sound like we even got to that stage of the negotiation.

Andrich ended up going to a club willing to pay his worth and played a key part in getting them to 3rd in the Bundesliga, so it's likely he'd have been a decent signing for us. It's inconceivable he would not have been better than Gilmour and Normann.

[king canary 7,669]

9 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't seen Bailey's piece, but are you saying he was saying we could have afforded £60,000 a week for Andrich? As far as I can see all he said was we rejected his wage demands. That doesn't mean he said we could or should have agreed to them.

What was stated is that article is we didn't want to pay him that and thought we could get similar for less. When that didn't happen we ended up panic signing Normann who Bailey said was on basically the same wages we refused to pay Andrich.

[king canary 7,669]

8 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

If “well researched articles” weren’t behind a paywall we’d perhaps all be able to read them. It does seem rather easy to write negative pieces, at least that appears to be Michael Baliey’s forte at the moment.  

Of course we all make perfect decisions with hindsight, but had we signed a guy on £60k a week there’s nothing to say a) he’d have been any good for us or b) that we’d not still have been relegated, and with that huge weight around our necks…with the club being criticised for making such a stupid move.

Do you think there might be a reason why well researched articles usually end up behind paywalls?

Edited June 26, 2023 by king canary

[chicken 2,642]

12 hours ago, komakino said:

MB’s piece in The Athletic was pretty conclusive at the time - Farke’s targets weren’t signed and he told SW at the start of the season the squad wasn’t good enough. It doesn’t sound anything other than Webber did his own thing with the resources he had, so it was of no surprise their relationship came to its natural conclusion. 

No. You know how we know this is wrong?

Lees-Melou. Farke wanted him.

Everyone knew the squad wasn't good enough. But 3-4 players of quality doesn't mean we wouldn't sign others.

Rashica was signed early on so we can assume he was one. Why? We know we prep targets a long time in advance and he was fairly quick.

Purple is spot on.

[chicken 2,642]

17 minutes ago, king canary said:

Do you think there might be a reason why we'll researched articles usually end up behind paywalls?

I'm not sure 'well researched' is correct here. Baily might have good connections but being a journalist, there is still a fair amount of lisence.

Still needs a pinch of salt at times. And people are still adding 2 and 2 and coming up with answers that aren't 4.

[Branston Pickle 3,687]

21 minutes ago, king canary said:

Do you think there might be a reason why well researched articles usually end up behind paywalls?

I can think of very few but I’m sure you’ll enlighten me.  Tbh I doubt it is any more ‘well researched’ than anything else, full of conjecture and heresay. And of course it presumably has the obvious confirmation bias that everything is crap, Farke was great and Webber is the devil.

5 minutes ago, chicken said:

No. You know how we know this is wrong?

Lees-Melou. Farke wanted him.

Everyone knew the squad wasn't good enough. But 3-4 players of quality doesn't mean we wouldn't sign others.

Rashica was signed early on so we can assume he was one. Why? We know we prep targets a long time in advance and he was fairly quick.

Purple is spot on.

I think you’re right - it’s all well and good trying to claim that signing DF’s targets would have made a huge difference, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t. PLM is a prime example, he was no more a PL footballer than Tzolis was.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[canarydan23 4,060]

6 minutes ago, chicken said:

Lees-Melou. Farke wanted him.

Lol, based on his words when we signed him. What were you saying about taking things with a pinch of salt?!

[The Real Buh 3,480]

Lol

Its not that it’s pathetic that some people are still defending Webber

its that you are doing it for free

[hogesar 9,743]

34 minutes ago, king canary said:

What was stated is that article is we didn't want to pay him that and thought we could get similar for less. When that didn't happen we ended up panic signing Normann who Bailey said was on basically the same wages we refused to pay Andrich.

I wonder how much is true. MB is normally pretty good but wonder who his source would be when Webber was keen for him and others not to know too much. 

[komakino 274]

27 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I wonder how much is true. MB is normally pretty good but wonder who his source would be when Webber was keen for him and others not to know too much. 

MB’s piece was available after the seasons end and when reading it, it came across that he’d had the information for a long time, not something he’d hacked up in 24 hours after the seasons end.

Being a professional, he wasn’t saying whether SW was right or wrong, just showing the clear difference in approach of how the budget was spent and how Farke didn’t think the squad was good enough. While 3 quality players may not have been enough to keep us up, Webber ‘more is more’  strategy was a disaster. 

[Branston Pickle 3,687]

2 hours ago, komakino said:

It was not an opinion piece, MB was just stating the facts. How Webber spent the budget is obviously a matter of opinion, but my view has always been it should have been quality over quantity, but Webber had a different view to that and of course, Daniel Farke, who wanted a 4 pack of premier lager but SW came back with 11 cans of shandy, metaphorically speaking. 

 

Facts?  Those do tend to be in the eye of the writer/reader.  It is a fact that Webber stated we’d be looking for ‘quality over quantity’, that wasn’t Farke.  The reasons it didn’t happen could be many and varied.  It’s funny how DF doesn’t seem to carry any of the blame, yet at the time many said he was behind most transfer targets. The problem is that we as supporters don’t know.

[komakino 274]

29 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Facts?  Those do tend to be in the eye of the writer/reader.  It is a fact that Webber stated we’d be looking for ‘quality over quantity’, that wasn’t Farke.  The reasons it didn’t happen could be many and varied.  It’s funny how DF doesn’t seem to carry any of the blame, yet at the time many said he was behind most transfer targets. The problem is that we as supporters don’t know.

We don't know everything, but MB clearly had sources very close to Farke. 

Put yourself in Farke's shoes for a moment. Got the club promoted again as he famously went in to previous battle 'without a gun' to quote SW. This time was meant to be a bit better. Farke gives SW various key targets. Webber not only gets none of them, but then gets far more players than Daniel wanted, but SW as we now know wanted bigger squad. Farke tells SW before the start of the season that they aren't good enough. No surprise the way it ended, as you had two very difference philosophies between Coach and SD. That never ends well. 

I personally wished Farke had walked at this point, as he stock was high. He could have done a press conference to briefly explain this, but that is not his style and he was on a long contract, so clearly he decided to stick around until the trigger was pulled. 

As I've stated previously, I was told by somebody at the club towards the end of that season that it was the 'worst recruitment they had ever seen' and could not understand why the big holes left by Skipp and Emi weren't filled instead of buying many more lesser players of generally Championship standard. Unless MB is lying or was fed duff information (You would expect he would have had more than one source), SW was responsible for the purchases. 

Edited June 26, 2023 by komakino

[Branston Pickle 3,687]

Just now, komakino said:

We don't know everything, but MB clearly had sources very close to Farke. 

Put yourself in Farke's shoes for a moment. Got the club promoted again as he famously went in to previous battle 'without a gun' to quote SW. This time was meant to be a bit better. Farke gives SW various key targets. Webber not only gets none of them, but then gets far more players than Daniel wanted, but SW as we now know wanted bigger squad. Farke tells SW before the start of the season that they aren't good enough. No surprise the way it ended, as you had two very difference philosophies between Coach and SD. That never ends well. 

I personally wished Farke had walked at this point, as he stock was high. He could have done a press conference to briefly explain this, but that is not his style and he was on a long contract, so clearly he decided to stick around until the trigger was pulled. 

As I've stated previously, I was told by somebody at the club towards the end of that season that it was the 'worst recruitment they had ever seen' and could not understand why the big holes left by Skipp and Emi weren't filled instead of buying many more lesser players of generally Championship standard. Unless MB is lying or was fed duff information (You would expect he would have had more than one source), SW was responsible for the purchases. 

I think that summarises the point nicely: Bailey clearly had an in with Farke, but this means he/we get only one side of the story, ie his, which could be full of very dubious “facts”.

You don’t need to have an ‘in’ of any kind to realise the summer 21 window was a disaster, but imo they were both to blame.

[KiwiScot 1,460]

Didn't have much luck finding a Leeds forum debating farke in much detail however they were talking about the transfer to the new ownership causing a delay in getting the League to sign off on any appointment.

[The Bristol Nest 517]

What we can afford is not good enough for what we want.

[tea total 79]

24 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

Didn't have much luck finding a Leeds forum debating farke in much detail however they were talking about the transfer to the new ownership causing a delay in getting the League to sign off on any appointment.

I've had a look and tbf most Leeds supporters would be happy with Farke. Proven at Championship level, plays a good brand of football and gets on well with the fans, although managing Leeds and their expectations is a different beast to managing us...whether we like it or not. The only thing is that they are unsure of his PL quality. Plenty of plaudits for getting us promotion x2 on a shoestring budget but not really given chance to take his philosophy to the next level with better players. They generally see Farke as the person to get them promoted. If they get to the PL, and Farke gets financial backing then I reckon they could be on a winner. 

I looked at the comments from Leeds fans in The Athletic site.

Edited June 26, 2023 by tea total

[komakino 274]

42 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I think that summarises the point nicely: Bailey clearly had an in with Farke, but this means he/we get only one side of the story, ie his, which could be full of very dubious “facts”.

You don’t need to have an ‘in’ of any kind to realise the summer 21 window was a disaster, but imo they were both to blame.

I also agree that Farke was not blameless. The important thing for me is that DF and SW were not on the same page when they needed to be, though as SW was fond of pointing out, he had the ultimate say. Oh well. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, komakino said:

We don't know everything, but MB clearly had sources very close to Farke. 

Put yourself in Farke's shoes for a moment. Got the club promoted again as he famously went in to previous battle 'without a gun' to quote SW. This time was meant to be a bit better. Farke gives SW various key targets. Webber not only gets none of them, but then gets far more players than Daniel wanted, but SW as we now know wanted bigger squad. Farke tells SW before the start of the season that they aren't good enough. No surprise the way it ended, as you had two very difference philosophies between Coach and SD. That never ends well. 

I personally wished Farke had walked at this point, as he stock was high. He could have done a press conference to briefly explain this, but that is not his style and he was on a long contract, so clearly he decided to stick around until the trigger was pulled. 

As I've stated previously, I was told by somebody at the club towards the end of that season that it was the 'worst recruitment they had ever seen' and could not understand why the big holes left by Skipp and Emi weren't filled instead of buying many more lesser players of generally Championship standard. Unless MB is lying or was fed duff information (You would expect he would have had more than one source), SW was responsible for the purchases. 

It was utterly bizarre. When you consider that the second title-winning season we'd adapted Farkeball to be much more resolute defensively (21 less goals conceded), we could have played hardball with Emi, gone big on a Skipp replacement and a centre-back upgrade and given Farkeball a second stab at the EPL. Even if Emi would have refused to play (very unlikey, we've seen plenty of players forced to stay when agitating for a move and this has never happened, Kane being the biggest example) then a direct replacement for him could have been sought.

Instead, Webber actually wanted to sell Emi so that he could splash some cash around the squad and assemble a group of players that was completely incompatible with Farke's philosophy. Despite the fact that all the evidence of the second title-winning season suggested he had improved it's biggest area of weakness.

It makes me laugh about the "Farke cannot adapt" garbage; the two title-winning teams were quite clearly very different in their approach. But people can't look beyond the formation.

[Ulfotto 643]

Any discussion on Farke is not fair unless you separate his Premier League record out by pre project restart, post project restart and then 21/22.

Pre Project restart we at times very good particular at Carrow Road we beat Man City, drew with Arsenal etc… The issue was we didn’t invest in the team and we’re light weight for what was required and weren’t helped by a massive injury crisis particularly at centre half. 
 

Post Project Restart- Well looking back it was a strange time and I think the club after the defeats to Everton and Southampton kinda of threw in the towel. 
 

21/22 - To be honest I’m totally done with discussing 21/22 imo one of the worst season the club has ever had literally nothing went right on or off the pitch. BK8, covid destroyed pre season, a ridiculous fixture list which again after a ridiculous var called meant to lost to Leicester instead of a much needed point meant the Watford game became a must win and we lost. Little changed covid again reared its head we had lots of injuries meaning we rarely able to pick out best eleven. More VAR against us. A totally car crash the shadow which is still over the club now.

Personally if I was Leeds I would bite Farke hand off. 

[chicken 2,642]

1 hour ago, komakino said:

It was not an opinion piece, MB was just stating the facts. How Webber spent the budget is obviously a matter of opinion, but my view has always been it should have been quality over quantity, but Webber had a different view to that and of course, Daniel Farke, who wanted a 4 pack of premier lager but SW came back with 11 cans of shandy, metaphorically speaking. 

 

So you start of by saying Bailey said 'x'. You are now stating that Bailey's piece is 'fact' when it's journalism and a piece by a Norwich fan who may have bias and we have few ways to verify it.

You then say that Bailey didn't say what you suggested he did and it's your opinion not his...

If we only signed 4 players that summer we would have needed to keep players we let go or allowed out on loan. Why is it impossible to consider that 4 quality players also meant we still needed others?

[chicken 2,642]

5 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Lol, based on his words when we signed him. What were you saying about taking things with a pinch of salt?!

Based on Farke's and Webber's words, otherwise known as the proverbial horses mouth... Yes, still with a pinch of salt.

Still better than a conspiracy theory.

[The Real Buh 3,480]

For free

[littleyellowbirdie 2,593]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

It was utterly bizarre. When you consider that the second title-winning season we'd adapted Farkeball to be much more resolute defensively (21 less goals conceded), we could have played hardball with Emi, gone big on a Skipp replacement and a centre-back upgrade and given Farkeball a second stab at the EPL. Even if Emi would have refused to play (very unlikey, we've seen plenty of players forced to stay when agitating for a move and this has never happened, Kane being the biggest example) then a direct replacement for him could have been sought.

Instead, Webber actually wanted to sell Emi so that he could splash some cash around the squad and assemble a group of players that was completely incompatible with Farke's philosophy. Despite the fact that all the evidence of the second title-winning season suggested he had improved it's biggest area of weakness.

It makes me laugh about the "Farke cannot adapt" garbage; the two title-winning teams were quite clearly very different in their approach. But people can't look beyond the formation.

A club of our stature can't play 'hardball' with a talented player in high demand who wants out to move onto better things. Firstly, there's the risk they'll not be motivated; secondly, it will act as a deterrent to other potential talents who want to use Norwich as a stepping stone to bigger things.

On the strategy, benefit of hindsight is all well and good, but we did have abnormally bad injury problems under Farke, so it's not unreasonable to think that a strategy needed to be built that tackled that.

Why did we have such ridiculously high injury rates, anyway? Is it simply a reflection that the players were being pushed too hard?

[komakino 274]

16 minutes ago, chicken said:

So you start of by saying Bailey said 'x'. You are now stating that Bailey's piece is 'fact' when it's journalism and a piece by a Norwich fan who may have bias and we have few ways to verify it.

You then say that Bailey didn't say what you suggested he did and it's your opinion not his...

If we only signed 4 players that summer we would have needed to keep players we let go or allowed out on loan. Why is it impossible to consider that 4 quality players also meant we still needed others?

A lot depends on whether one thinks we needed a bigger squad. SW thought we did. I've always generally been of the view that an over large squad create their own issues. Better to work with a tighter unit and bring the kids in if you get a big problem, but I appreciate not everyone subscribes to that view. 

As I've previously said, MB's piece offered no opinion. He gives you the facts as he sees it and lets the reader draw their own conclusions. What is does make clear is that you cannot have a coach/manager and SD with opposing views and the evidence suggests from that piece that there was. MB is probably the best of an indifferent bunch and as the old saying goes, you are only as good as your sources of information...

Edited June 26, 2023 by komakino

[chicken 2,642]

28 minutes ago, komakino said:

A lot depends on whether one thinks we needed a bigger squad. SW thought we did. I've always generally been of the view that an over large squad create their own issues. Better to work with a tighter unit and bring the kids in if you get a big problem, but I appreciate not everyone subscribes to that view. 

As I've previously said, MB's piece offered no opinion. He gives you the facts as he sees it and lets the reader draw their own conclusions. What is does make clear is that you cannot have a coach/manager and SD with opposing views and the evidence suggests from that piece that there was. MB is probably the best of an indifferent bunch and as the old saying goes, you are only as good as your sources of information...

If it leaves it for you to interperet then it's your interpretation that the SD clashed with the head coach.

We know they didn't. We know SW didn't overall DF because we know the club tried to land fewer, quality targets. We couldn't do so within the financial/time constraints.

It is more likely that plan B was more, cheaper players, hoping that some would get better/prove themselves and be a worthy of their signing.

It doesn't make any sense at all for a SD to overide their head coach and then to try and sign quality signings on the approach to the summer they supposedly disagreed with.it also ignores that at no point in their reign had SW or DF brought in an impulse by that hadn't been scouted or watched...

[komakino 274]

8 minutes ago, chicken said:

If it leaves it for you to interperet then it's your interpretation that the SD clashed with the head coach.

We know they didn't. We know SW didn't overall DF because we know the club tried to land fewer, quality targets. We couldn't do so within the financial/time constraints.

It is more likely that plan B was more, cheaper players, hoping that some would get better/prove themselves and be a worthy of their signing.

It doesn't make any sense at all for a SD to overide their head coach and then to try and sign quality signings on the approach to the summer they supposedly disagreed with.it also ignores that at no point in their reign had SW or DF brought in an impulse by that hadn't been scouted or watched...

You know as well as I do that SW always had the 'final say' and was on record from day one. 

If your plan 'b' theory is correct, why did Farke tell SW that the players weren't good enough? I can't imagine any coach asking their SD to go after somebody - whether is was part of a A, B or C list - that he didn't rate. Webber may have got to the stage of 'We've got to do something' even if that 'something' consists of the collective dross that eventually arrived. 

Many things at Norwich City have made no sense over the years, but it doesn't mean they don't happen. 

Edited June 26, 2023 by komakino

[chicken 2,642]

17 minutes ago, komakino said:

You know as well as I do that SW always had the 'final say' and was on record from day one. 

If your plan 'b' theory is correct, why did Farke tell SW that the players weren't good enough? I can't imagine any coach asking their SD to go after somebody - whether is was part of a A, B or C list - that he didn't rate. Webber may have got to the stage of 'We've got to do something' even if that 'something' consists of the collective dross that eventually arrived. 

Many things at Norwich City have made no sense over the years, but it doesn't mean they don't happen. 

You need to look at the bigger picture of the entire summer.

Your theory at least ignored until this post above, that we even targeted those players you said we should have targeted. It is also largely naive about how the 'team' involved in signings works.

Were the players we ended up with ALL our primary targets? Doubtful. Highly doubtful, and MB even evidences this as false.

So we KNOW Webber didn't dismiss that approach, he actively sort it. But like others at Norwich in a similar position before him, he found obstacles.

Parma calls these 'resources' and I think that is spot on. In the past we missed out on a young Koulibaly, Alderweireld and Halle, two were not impressed by our brick and morter resources at Colney.

We couldn't land others with McNally because they refused to sign a relegation wage clause. He eventually caved and in came Klose, Naismith and Pinto. Naismith being a massive warning to the future of taking such risks.

The better argument has nothing to do with this and more to do with comparible teams doing better in scouting and signings whilst appearing to pay a lot less in wages and agents fees. Namely Brighton and Brentford.