Hypothetical: Emi was willing to stay

[The Great Mass Debater 1,116]

Imagine for a moment that Emi wasnt desperate for a move. Aston Villa make their bid, but with Emi's blessing we reject it. Instead of buying Rashica and Tzolis, we put the money saved into a sweet new contract for Emi that keeps him happy.

Would keeping Emi have made a difference that season? Imagine we no longer had the money to bring in the players we did bring in. Most of whom were cr*p anyway

Edited January 11 by The Great Mass Debater

[Google Bot 3,461]

Yeah of course he would've made a massive difference, not just through what he brings as a player but it would've changed the job being asked of Farke which was basically to find a way of coaching and fitting many inexperienced pieces to make a jigsaw that was lacking the central pieces even if fully assembled.

I don't know if we would've survived, as there's too many factors at play, but we would've been a better rounded team for sure.  That transfer window was just crazy in hindsight and fuelled by the money of his transfer.    I think the whole approach would've been far different otherwise.

[AJ 1,238]

The squad was still probably not good enough to stay up but Emi would have given us a fighting chance, especially if we'd have invested in keeping him, signing Skipp and bringing in a couple more PL quality/ready players maybe even on loan would have given us a much better chance than the garbage Webber came up with

[The Great Mass Debater 1,116]

4 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Yeah of course he would've made a massive difference, not just through what he brings as a player but it would've changed the job being asked of Farke which was basically to find a way of coaching and fitting many inexperienced pieces to make a jigsaw that was lacking the central pieces even if fully assembled.

I don't know if we would've survived, as there's too many factors at play, but we would've been a better rounded team for sure.  That transfer window was just crazy in hindsight and fuelled by the money of his transfer.    I think the whole approach would've been far different otherwise.

The Emi-Pukki link up was the main way we scored goals. With Emi gone we essentially lost Pukki as well. 

I imagine the plan was that Billy Gilmour would replicate Buendia's playmaking.

[Nexus_Canary 1,063]

Blame Dean Smith, he signed Emi
SO technically Smith completely fcuked us on every level. 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,116]

1 minute ago, AJ said:

the garbage Webber came up with

I maintain that we just cant compete with other clubs in the transfer market. We only get to sign players our rivals dont want. And then tell ourselves that we have stolen players like Ricky van Wolfswinkel, Milot Rashica and Christos Tzolis from under the noses of the big boys

[Google Bot 3,461]

16 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

I imagine the plan was that Billy Gilmour would replicate Buendia's playmaking.

I think the plan was to buy as many hopefuls as possible in the hope that one would become a 20-30m player within a season or too, and Gilmour was bought in more on name and reputation than any kind of conducive plan.

In hindsight we lost Emi, and we gained a pot of cash that was slapped around in an attempt to prove the doubters wrong.  But it had the opposite effect.

God it's depressing to think back to that season, the 'bonus' season two years before where we didn't change the squad very much was far more enjoyable.  And I think that was mainly down to Emi/Pukki.  Always felt like we had a chance, even if we didn't.

With his injury he's like the forgotten man now, I don't know when he's due back for Villa or what chance he has of being integral to their starting 11.

Edited January 11 by Google Bot

[chicken 2,719]

4 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

I maintain that we just cant compete with other clubs in the transfer market. We only get to sign players our rivals dont want. And then tell ourselves that we have stolen players like Ricky van Wolfswinkel, Milot Rashica and Christos Tzolis from under the noses of the big boys

I think we do better when we are bigger dogs in the championship buying players who see us as a stepping stone or launchpad, go up with momentum and then build on that further with more of the players described in two ways by Lambert and Karsa "young and hungry", "inbetweenies".

Surman, Pilkington, Holt, Hoolahan, Howson, Bennett, Bennett, Ward, Ruddy, Crofts, Morison...

Players at the top end of the Champs, lower end of the prem, with a sprinkling on genuine quality and a lot of graft.

Under Farke we played one way brilliantly, but even in the championship we had a very mixed set of results against other top six sides.

In hindsight, I almost feel the way we wanted to play was almost perfectly designed for the championship where the quality told on ball retention and posession.

But in the premier league, we didn't have that grafting edge of a Lambert side and without the ball we looked soft and fragile. We were too predictable.

Also, Buendia 'fed' Pukki less than people suggest, it was more that Buendia was the epitomy of our style, philosophy at his best. He was more central to things than simply assisting Pukki, he was our playmaker.

 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 592]

32 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Imagine we no longer had the money to bring in the players we did bring in. Most of whom were cr*p anyway

We were obliged to purchase Giannoulis and Gibson upon promotion, so that would account for most of what we spent above the Emi fee.

Critical in this discussion is whether we'd have had enough left in the pot to sign Angus Gunn I feel, as if we didn't that would have meant Michael McGovern playing 9 games. That would probably have cancelled out any benefit to keeping Emi?

Also have to consider that in the season we did have Emi in the Premier League we didn't see any more goals from Pukki than we did in the season that we didn't have Emi in the Premier Leaugue, it was 11 in each. Granted he'd probably improved significantly in the year which fell inbetween.

[Terminally Yellow 2,563]

I don't see it would have made a material difference in the outcome of the season. It may have made it more palatable given the football would have likely been better. Would have been interesting to see if Buendia could have had a greater impact than the first Premier League season. 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,504]

£80k per week on 5 year contract. I can’t see any other outcome . 

[Sufyellow 247]

9 hours ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Imagine for a moment that Emi wasnt desperate for a move. Aston Villa make their bid, but with Emi's blessing we reject it. Instead of buying Rashica and Tzolis, we put the money saved into a sweet new contract for Emi that keeps him happy.

Would keeping Emi have made a difference that season? Imagine we no longer had the money to bring in the players we did bring in. Most of whom were cr*p anyway

Not without skipp , or a replacement.  You can't attack down the wings with your fullbacks without a cdm to cover. The Watford home game was a perfect example,  they got us wide all the time. 

[Sufyellow 247]

9 hours ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

The Emi-Pukki link up was the main way we scored goals. With Emi gone we essentially lost Pukki as well. 

I imagine the plan was that Billy Gilmour would replicate Buendia's playmaking.

And Cantwell to be fair. 

[Ulfotto 678]

Hypothetically would we have been better selling him in the summer of 2020.

[Fen Canary 935]

1 hour ago, Ulfotto said:

Hypothetically would we have been better selling him in the summer of 2020.

No, because then we wouldn’t have been promoted next time round

[Ulfotto 678]

11 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

No, because then we wouldn’t have been promoted next time round

Might have saved the embarrassment of the season after  though which lets be honest still casts a shadow on the club today.

Edited January 12 by Ulfotto

[Jim Smith 2,374]

I don’t think it’s that hypothetical because I don’t believe that he would not have knuckled down and performed had we said no you are not leaving. I don’t believe he was as desperate for a move as has been made out.

it was Webber spin to justify the fact he wanted to/had to sell him to fund the rebuild of the squad he felt was needed to change style a d which we got so badly wrong.

Dont get me wrong, I’m sure Emi was up for a move once it was in the offing but if you listen to what Webber said in that interview he chose his words very carefully in order to give the impression he wanted to give and lessen any heat over the sale. 

Edited January 12 by Jim Smith

[mrdi 382]

It wasn't so much that Emi was sold; it was more that of the money we did get (which should have been more), we wasted on inadequate paste like Lees-Malou, Kabak, Rashica, Tzolis, Gilmour etc. Even Sargent seemed like a duffer in that first season (remember the Brighton miss?). 

 

[Fen Canary 935]

6 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

Might have saved the embarrassment of the season after  though which lets be honest still casts a shadow on the club today.

I’ve sat through enough forgettable seasons so I’ll always take a promotion or cup run when it’s available. We were awful the year after but in time that will be forgotten and the good results will stick in the memory.

Which do you think Wigan fans look back on more fondly? The top flight mid table finishes or the promotion campaigns and winning the cup? I’ll wager the latter ones 

[hogesar 9,895]

Considering the stick some of the players are getting now, are we now claiming that some of those players, not least a back four including Gianoullis, Gibson and Hanley would have been good enough to keep us up?

And equally as we wouldn't have had the Emi money to spend, a midfield including the likes of Rupp, Mclean and Sorensen?

A strike force of Pukki and Idah? Dowell as our left winger? 

[Google Bot 3,461]

3 minutes ago, mrdi said:

Even Sargent seemed like a duffer in that first season

Looking back, It's a bit of a headscratcher how two of our most expensive signings that season were wide players, yet we were playing Sarge as a wide man.

[mrdi 382]

3 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Looking back, It's a bit of a headscratcher how two of our most expensive signings that season were wide players, yet we were playing Sarge as a wide man.

Hence the 'paste' theory - it was as though we brought in quantity instead of genuine quality, then employed them in roles which didn't work, in a 4-3-3 system previously alien to us, which didn't work either. Sargent only started to look like value when moved into the middle, for sure. 

[Ulfotto 678]

I get Webber is the bad guy but following the narrative that he wanted to sell Emi to fund a rebuilt is a bit far fetched.

Firstly why Emi he could have sold Todd or Aarons both you have got decent fees for at the time and we’re less important than Emi.

 Secondly did we really have to sell to buy we had shipped out Godfrey and Lewis for big money the season before.

[hogesar 9,895]

50 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I don’t think it’s that hypothetical because I don’t believe that he would not have knuckled down and performed had we said no you are not leaving. I don’t believe he was as desperate for a move as has been made out.

it was Webber spin to justify the fact he wanted to/had to sell him to fund the rebuild of the squad he felt was needed to change style a d which we got so badly wrong.

Dont get me wrong, I’m sure Emi was up for a move once it was in the offing but if you listen to what Webber said in that interview he chose his words very carefully in order to give the impression he wanted to give and lessen any heat over the sale. 

I'm pretty sure with Villa interested and Emi already wanting to leave before the Championship season started, he was pretty desperate to go.

[horsefly 4,366]

Given that Emi did stay with City for that first season back in the PL. Given that he had an excellent season. Given that his partnership with Pukki was still working. Given that we were still relegated. No!

[Google Bot 3,461]

1 hour ago, Ulfotto said:

Firstly why Emi he could have sold Todd or Aarons both you have got decent fees for at the time and we’re less important than Emi.

I think that's quite simple to answer,  Emi was 100% a Webber project, and therefore a standout highlight to place on his CV as a sporting director.   He was already overdue on his exit plans here, too, so I really wouldn't put it past the man to have that in the back of his mind.

He'd also argue that its to allow the player to progress, and brings money into the club.  I think the real question in regards to supporters is whether it was absolutely necessary and there was no way we could hold on to him, as I have never believed that.  If he went to an Arsenal or Liverpool then yes, I get that more.

You also have to ask why we spent the most on a player like Tzolis in a season where we were building for survival, yet he was clearly one for the future.  Too much focus/belief went into thinking we can simply turn more rocks into diamonds, and that was very much ego driven.  In my opinion, anyway.

Webber is that kind of guy that dreams that he will take a seat at Carrow Road, with his lad by his side and watch European football - he's said so himself.  Anyone thinking like that is also taking that same mindset into buying these young hopefuls and how well received he will be in the media for uncovering all these gems.

But back down on earth, we needed to build a solid, cohesive squad to survive that season, and keep the gems that have already only cost us the price of a rock.

Edited January 12 by Google Bot

[Mason 47 1,468]

I don't think we would have stayed up if Emi stayed.

I understand the (perceived) reasoning behind him going. The error was not using the money to invest in something solid for the now, too much spent on potential potential. I'd argue Tzolis, Gilmour, Kabak, Normann, Williams, Sargent were all the latter, 7 'maybes' with Lees Melou + Rashica the only ones with genuine PL credentials. 

That, and the manager not being suited to the change in style. A counter hypothetical I might suggest is, would we have done better sacking Farke at the start of the summer and bringing in a coach with a track record in that style to build the squad? 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,116]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I don’t think it’s that hypothetical because I don’t believe that he would not have knuckled down and performed had we said no you are not leaving. I

Otherwise known as 'doing a Todd'

[It's Character Forming 1,167]

All too easily it could have ended up similar to Cantwell, with Emi going off the boil, we have a poor season anyway, we end up selling him for a fiver and get relegated in deep ****.

 

And the fans would be slating Webber for not cashing in on him when we had the chance.

[Mello Yello 2,328]

We needed the munny....he was orft.....