Webber still in control of the club?

[Big Vince 318]

On 09/01/2024 at 07:55, Midlands Yellow said:

A good reply Purple, enjoyed that. 

Don't let him get even more sanctimonious than he already is.

[Robert N. LiM 4,429]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Always fun how any thread that makes it past 5 or 6 pages will include a debate about whether we were right to sack Farke.

Our version of Godwin's Law.

I wonder how many inferior coaches we will have to hire before that debate withers away...

[Big Vince 318]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

It is a fair point, but as you say it was an off the cuff fit of pique, and how much what she says is a reflection of reality and how much she is now in control are questions. My view, with a certain amount of experience of how these things work, is that Attanasio and Knapper are now in effect in charge. And I don't see Attanasio in particular putting up with any maladministration he finds at Carrow Road. Reports from the AGM suggest he was not impressed by (or agreed with) Delia's statement that there are no governance problems.

As for Duncan (someone I have never met) he seems to have far less of an axe to grind (on either side of the debate) than many posters, and to be smart enough to understand what he is being told and - crucially - to assess its worth. The only poster I absolutely trust to do that is Bethnal, because he is a professional journalist, but I think Duncan is mainly to be relied upon.

And while this information is secondhand it does seem genuinely to come from the inside, and to be accurately relayed. As opposed to third- or fouth-hand "I have heard from someone who has heard from someone who has heard..."claims when there is no indication of how trustworthy the original source is, or if what they originally said has been accurately relayed through the various stages.

In those latter cases the original statement is almost always badly mangled, and usually something that is suggested only as a possibility becomes a probablility and then eventualy an established fact by the time it gets into the public domain.

Where was it reported that Mr Norfolk was not happy with Delia on the matter of governance, and by whom? What did he say, or was this just someone's impression based on not a lot?

[PurpleCanary 5,575]

12 minutes ago, hogesar said:

This has to be peak PinkUn.

"I know nothing about this person, her role, what's involved or what she does on a daily basis but here's a bunch of negative suppositions about her and her job anyway"

Quite. I have yet to see one knowledgeable and authenticated right-from-the-inside post about Zoe Webber's ability or otherwise to do her job.

I would say this, based on information that is in the public domain and some that is not, that the club (as I had predicted) struggled with what was a new experience of dealing with the Takeover Code and the Takeover Panel. And Zoe Webber has to take responsibility for certain missteps.

But that was a challenge outside her usual work experience, which doesn't excuse the mistakes but puts them into context. So it is not necessarily an indication of how she performs in the usual tasks of being CEO of a footbal club.

[shefcanary 2,435]

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

I would say this, based on information that is in the public domain and some that is not, that the club (as I had predicted) struggled with what was a new experience of dealing with the Takeover Code and the Takeover Panel. And Zoe Webber has to take responsibility for certain missteps.

The length of time it has taken and the number of public announcements of mis-steps taken during the process is evidence enough that the club has either not been advised correctly (and so questions over the selection of advisers - were they not our ED's former employer?), or that such advice has been ignored? As I have pointed out the departure of the club's senior legal staff during a key point in this process was interesting in itself. 

[wcorkcanary 4,336]

15 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

Delia sucks

That's why Michael loooks so content.  You'd be more content if you had the same treatment occasionally.

[essex canary 501]

11 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Quite. I have yet to see one knowledgeable and authenticated right-from-the-inside post about Zoe Webber's ability or otherwise to do her job.

I would say this, based on information that is in the public domain and some that is not, that the club (as I had predicted) struggled with what was a new experience of dealing with the Takeover Code and the Takeover Panel. And Zoe Webber has to take responsibility for certain missteps.

But that was a challenge outside her usual work experience, which doesn't excuse the mistakes but puts them into context. So it is not necessarily an indication of how she performs in the usual tasks of being CEO of a footbal club.

A more general observation is that her skill base seems to be on the Football side of the business which raises the question of why she is Head of Non-football.

[PurpleCanary 5,575]

35 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Don't let him get even more sanctimonious than he already is.

Oh I susoect most posters would think that ship sailed long ago!

[Soldier on 160]

12 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

The length of time it has taken and the number of public announcements of mis-steps taken during the process is evidence enough that the club has either not been advised correctly (and so questions over the selection of advisers - were they not our ED's former employer?), or that such advice has been ignored? As I have pointed out the departure of the club's senior legal staff during a key point in this process was interesting in itself. 

Any mention of how much longer we can be expected to wait for EFL to ratify MA as a proper person to complete share acquisition ?

[lake district canary 4,540]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

High time you stopped whining about Farke. He was good, but not that good. If our relegations count against Webber they count against Farke every bit as much as the guy who developed the squad over those years. Overall, the pretty football he could deliver at Championship level flattered to deceive, but ultimately we were still treading water financially and having to sell players even with the promotions.

"Flattered to deceive" ???  You must be joking.

The football was at times nothing short of sensational in the championship, with the movement, the fluidity and posession that often dominated games, purringly good on the eye, combined with a couple of potent weapons in Pukki and Buendia - which led to two convincing championship wins, the second one record breaking.

As for the PL, covid kyboshed our chances, hook line and sinker. After the lockdown football was a different animal, with no fans, no home advantage, momentum all lost.....and we were still competing right up to the start of lockdown. The second PL season was a mess of differing circumstances beyond Farke's control....but all we get is the simplistic "Farke failed" mantra. 

The club failed - and he happened to be the head coach - the fall guy (as managers/head coaches always are). Webber was never going to sack himself, the players who caused problems behind the scenes were never going to blame themselves, Delia/MJW were never going to pour money into the club to buy better players. 

So he went. I'm looking firwards now, what's done is done, but the anger still rises when I see people belittling what was a brilliant era in our club's history.

[Jim Smith 2,325]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

This has to be peak PinkUn.

"I know nothing about this person, her role, what's involved or what she does on a daily basis but here's a bunch of negative suppositions about her and her job anyway"

She hasn’t given anyone anything positive to say though has she. Most things customer facing/experience wise under her watch at the club have got worse. She does not seem comfortable speaking to fans or the media. My perception of her (rightly or wrongly) based on her cv is she was an administrator who is now in a vastly wider role that requires other skills. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

13 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

 

The football was at times nothing short of sensational in the championship, with the movement, the fluidity and posession that often dominated games, purringly good on the eye, combined with a couple of potent weapons in Pukki and Buendia - which led to two convincing championship wins, the second one record breaking.

 

To put it another way, it looked really nice at Championship level and delivered excellent results at Championship level, but completely fell apart at Premier League level to a level so bad we haven't seen a poor a points tally since 1903, underlining it wasn't really as good as it looked at Championship level.

Or in other words, it flattered to deceive.

Edited January 10 by littleyellowbirdie

[Jim Smith 2,325]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

To put it another way, it looked really nice at Championship level and delivered excellent results at Championship level, but completely fell apart at Premier League level, underlining it wasn't really as good as it looked at Championship level.

Or in other words, it flattered to deceive.

I remain pretty convinced that had we kept Buendia that summer and signed just a couple of decent players in the CDM (Skipp or a.n. other) and CB positions we would have had a very good chance of staying up that season under Farke playing the same way. Instead we sold our best player and signed a load of players to try and play a system that didn’t suit us. That wasn’t down to Farke 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

9 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I remain pretty convinced that had we kept Buendia that summer and signed just a couple of decent players in the CDM (Skipp or a.n. other) and CB positions we would have had a very good chance of staying up that season under Farke playing the same way. Instead we sold our best player and signed a load of players to try and play a system that didn’t suit us. That wasn’t down to Farke 

You're dreaming. There's nothing to support your belief. We had Pukki and Buendia in the Premier League playing with a squad that had walked the Championship who went on to deliver our worst season's points since 1903. You can make all the excuses for that you like, Covid, injuries, whatever, but every team has/had those challenges and the fact is that at the end of it the season we were so far away from survival it was a joke.

And Leeds are currently in fourth in the Championship under Farke, which begs the question whether more credit for our promotion should go to others at the club than just Farke.

Farke deserved the chance of his first season in the prem, but second, he should have been sacked as soon as we were promoted again, because he was doing the same all over again. Buendia would agree with that I reckon. Why else did he sign to play at Villa under Dean Smith instead of another season with Farke?

Flattered. To. Deceive.

Edited January 10 by littleyellowbirdie

[Big Vince 318]

4 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

She hasn’t given anyone anything positive to say though has she. Most things customer facing/experience wise under her watch at the club have got worse. She does not seem comfortable speaking to fans or the media. My perception of her (rightly or wrongly) based on her cv is she was an administrator who is now in a vastly wider role that requires other skills. 

The club is run by two socialists therefore it is going to be lefty and follow lefty trends. Therefore it has got to be seen to be inclusive at all levels. So to further that end, you have to have a woman given a chance to run the day to day affairs of a professional football club. It doesn't matter that the person has no relevant skills, so long as the inclusivity box is ticked. We see this on an even grander scale at the BBC. Most notably with Barbara Slater as director of sport.

[Big Vince 318]

15 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

To put it another way, it looked really nice at Championship level and delivered good results at Championship level, but completely fell apart at Premier League level, underlining it wasn't really as good as it looked at Championship level.

Or in other words, it flattered to deceive.

As Burnley are finding out.

[Jim Smith 2,325]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You're dreaming. There's nothing to support your belief. We had Pukki and Buendia in the Premier League playing with a squad that had walked the Championship who went on to deliver our worst season's points since 1903. You can make all the excuses for that you like, Covid, injuries, whatever, but every team has/had those challenges and the fact is that at the end of it the season we were so far away from survival it was a joke.

And Leeds are currently in fourth in the Championship under Farke, which begs the question whether more credit for our promotion should go to others at the club than just Farke.

Flattered. To. Deceive.

Buendia wasn’t the same force the first time we were in the prem and his relationship with Pukki was not as established but the key point in my post was we needed to keep Skipp or sign a replacement alongside a centre back. If you look at the majority of the teams that have gone up and stayed up they’ve had a way of playing and generally stuck to it. They’ve gone for continuity rather than ripping up the blueprint and trying to reinvent themselves.Forest perhaps the exception to this last season but that was forced on them. 

[lake district canary 4,540]

16 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

To put it another way, it looked really nice at Championship level and delivered excellent results at Championship level, but completely fell apart at Premier League level to a level so bad we haven't seen a poor a points tally since 1903, underlining it wasn't really as good as it looked at Championship level.

Or in other words, it flattered to deceive.

It did not flatter to deceive in any way, shape or form. It was totally fit for purpose - ie the championship. Saying that it flattered to deceive because it didn't work at PL level is bonkers.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

7 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It did not flatter to deceive in any way, shape or form. It was totally fit for purpose - ie the championship. Saying that it flattered to deceive because it didn't work at PL level is bonkers.

Flattering to deceive literally means looking better than it really is. The failure of a squad at Premier League level in such disastrous terms that did so well at Championship level proved that they looked better than they really were because they didn't have opposition that could exploit the weaknesses that were always there in the Championship.

Ultimately the inability to coach a team to survive in the Premier League is a massive failing in Farke's game that is the whole reason he was sacked, and his inability to do so makes promotion worthless in all terms other than a short term cash injection and a whole season of misery in the Premier League watching him fail.

I'd rather not go on and on about Farke's weaknesses, but the delusions you and others hold onto about how amazing he was are beyond a joke.

Edited January 10 by littleyellowbirdie

[Big Vince 318]

23 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

She hasn’t given anyone anything positive to say though has she. Most things customer facing/experience wise under her watch at the club have got worse. She does not seem comfortable speaking to fans or the media. My perception of her (rightly or wrongly) based on her cv is she was an administrator who is now in a vastly wider role that requires other skills. 

So we have a person who was promoted beyond her level of competency then being put in charge of appointing a new sporting director who, surprise, surprise, is also now at a level beyond his skill set.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,289]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Quite. I have yet to see one knowledgeable and authenticated right-from-the-inside post about Zoe Webber's ability or otherwise to do her job.

I would say this, based on information that is in the public domain and some that is not, that the club (as I had predicted) struggled with what was a new experience of dealing with the Takeover Code and the Takeover Panel. And Zoe Webber has to take responsibility for certain missteps.

But that was a challenge outside her usual work experience, which doesn't excuse the mistakes but puts them into context. So it is not necessarily an indication of how she performs in the usual tasks of being CEO of a footbal club.

Sure. 

But the key metric as CEO that she should be measured on, is the overall performance and health of the club. We're currently underachieving (by the clubs own targets), and supporter relationship and morale probably at a 10 year low. Financially, were in a perilous position too. So on that basis, she's hardly exceling in her role, is she?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

11 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Sure. 

But the key metric as CEO that she should be measured on, is the overall performance and health of the club. We're currently underachieving (by the clubs own targets), and supporter relationship and morale probably at a 10 year low. Financially, were in a perilous position too. So on that basis, she's hardly exceling in her role, is she?

She has barely anything to do with the footballing side of the club ffs. To suggest she should be measured by how we're doing on the pitch and the fact a lot of people are annoyed we're not doing well on the pitch is ridiculous. Football is financially perilous for any team that's not a fixture in the Premier League and doesn't have a billionaire sugar daddy to bankroll it.

Edited January 10 by littleyellowbirdie

[essex canary 501]

50 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

The club is run by two socialists therefore it is going to be lefty and follow lefty trends. Therefore it has got to be seen to be inclusive at all levels. So to further that end, you have to have a woman given a chance to run the day to day affairs of a professional football club. It doesn't matter that the person has no relevant skills, so long as the inclusivity box is ticked. We see this on an even grander scale at the BBC. Most notably with Barbara Slater as director of sport.

Indeed. Just look at the Post Office.

[PurpleCanary 5,575]

16 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Sure. 

But the key metric as CEO that she should be measured on, is the overall performance and health of the club. We're currently underachieving (by the clubs own targets), and supporter relationship and morale probably at a 10 year low. Financially, were in a perilous position too. So on that basis, she's hardly exceling in her role, is she?

Yes, but how much of that is down to decisions made by the sporting director and then actively approved or just rubber-stamped by the board of directors? I would say most of those problems, and I don't disagree in general although I don't things are quite as bad as painted, are football-related.

And the way the club split up the CEO role into two was to give the SD total power over that side of the business, which accounts for the great majority of its income. That is significantly different, particularly in terms of the balance of power, from the old system of the football manager having to give their spending plans to an all-powerful CEO, such as McNally, for their approval, before them going to the board.

[essex canary 501]

8 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, but how much of that is down to decisions made by the sporting director and then actively approved or just rubber-stamped by the board of directors? I would say most of those problems, and I don't disagree in general although I don't things are quite as bad as painted, are football-related.

And the way the club split up the CEO role into two was to give the SD total power over that side of the business, which accounts for the great majority of its income. That is significantly different, particularly in terms of the balance of power, from the old system of the football manager having to give their spending plans to an all-powerful CEO, such as McNally, for their approval, before them going to the board.

So the SD who wasn't on the SMT albeit his wife is and a Director to boot made all the decisions that were simply rubber stamped at Board level. A very strange textbook that preached that.

 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,289]

16 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, but how much of that is down to decisions made by the sporting director and then actively approved or just rubber-stamped by the board of directors? I would say most of those problems, and I don't disagree in general although I don't things are quite as bad as painted, are football-related.

And the way the club split up the CEO role into two was to give the SD total power over that side of the business, which accounts for the great majority of its income. That is significantly different, particularly in terms of the balance of power, from the old system of the football manager having to give their spending plans to an all-powerful CEO, such as McNally, for their approval, before them going to the board.

Fair.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,289]

39 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

She has barely anything to do with the footballing side of the club ffs. To suggest she should be measured by how we're doing on the pitch and the fact a lot of people are annoyed we're not doing well on the pitch is ridiculous. Football is financially perilous for any team that's not a fixture in the Premier League and doesn't have a billionaire sugar daddy to bankroll it.

Unbelievable. 

It's a football club "FFS", of course any senior person at the club should be measured by football results! 

[Midlands Yellow 4,018]

2 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

That's why Michael loooks so content.  You'd be more content if you had the same treatment occasionally.

That’s what’s been going on in the boardroom. No wonder this full takeover is dragging on. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,018]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Flattering to deceive literally means looking better than it really is. The failure of a squad at Premier League level in such disastrous terms that did so well at Championship level proved that they looked better than they really were because they didn't have opposition that could exploit the weaknesses that were always there in the Championship.

Ultimately the inability to coach a team to survive in the Premier League is a massive failing in Farke's game that is the whole reason he was sacked, and his inability to do so makes promotion worthless in all terms other than a short term cash injection and a whole season of misery in the Premier League watching him fail.

I'd rather not go on and on about Farke's weaknesses, but the delusions you and others hold onto about how amazing he was are beyond a joke.

Farke is no Smith, that’s for sure. 

[nutty nigel 7,555]

22 minutes ago, essex canary said:

So the SD who wasn't on the SMT albeit his wife is and a Director to boot made all the decisions that were simply rubber stamped at Board level. A very strange textbook that preached that.

 

Club has comoonikated about some of this. During the last transfer window Webber called Absentassio to get the ok to spend the money. Absentassio also said that even with third party investors that system will remain.

Our FPAs and business owners told me Webber was reporting to his wife…

Let love shine a light …