Why we shouldn't keep our best players

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,462]

The sale of Snodgrass for £7m was an excellent piece of business and represented the fruits of a successful strategy. Relegation is an ever-present risk for clubs from 10th - 25th in the pyramid, an area Norwich are destined to inhabit. The greatest danger - and one very real to Norwich following their meteoric rise - is that foundations are not laid and mercenary players are parachuted in as the club endeavours to bridge the gap from wide-eyed, nothing-to-lose first year survival to (reasonably) established members of football''s top table. The inherent danger here is that vast expense can be lavished on performers that either have premier pedigree or potential weapons. Such players command high fees that are often never realised again, and/or high wages that become a crippling albatross around championship necks. Recent football history is littered with examples of such well-remunerated players who were never again saleable assets near their purchase price.

Much gnashing of teeth has taken place over the need for us to retain our top names in order to have the best chance of an immediate return. I am thoroughly unconvinced that this is true.

In the first instance it should be noted that actually having saleable assets upon relegation is no automatic outcome. The players have by definition failed to define themselves as premier. That we have players we have recently purchased, such as Fer and Hooper, who would both likely command profitable returns is a commendation of our purchase strategy. There is absolutely no need to keep such players for the more prosaic environment of the championship if factors such as desire to leave, high sales price, desire to reduce wages, more suitable championship options exist.

We have been relegated, so rather than clinging to flawed investment theory over the value of our biggest names, let us freshen for freshening''s sake. What we need now is players that are practically (on grass) better than the championship, not players that have the game for the lower reaches of the premier league. They are not the same thing. Success in the Championship in more prosaic, repeated performers such as Martin, Howson, Johnson, Turner, ruddy if he stays and - to be fair - Snodgrass if he had, the adding to this group with the purchase of the best goalscorers in the championship, regardless whether they have a sophisticated enough game for the premier.

The jarringly obvious dissonance to this theory is the upsetting story of the wolf. We bet the farm on him, more strategically than monetarily in context, and he is a reminder of what can happen if you buy players for the top table that don''t have a higher resale value and which leave you unable to sell your bigger name players. This is far worse than getting £7m for Hooper or Fer, but it is the real world alternative.

[whoareyou? 0]

Sorry but that sounds a lot more like ''little old Norwich'' thinking to me.Were we to get promoted next May after selling Fer, Hooper, RVW, Snoddy, Ruddy. then there would be a huge spending spree required to have any chance of surviving if we had not replaced them with similar quality.

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]The sale of Snodgrass for £7m was an excellent piece of business and represented the fruits of a successful strategy. Relegation is an ever-present risk for clubs from 10th - 25th in the pyramid, an area Norwich are destined to inhabit. The greatest danger - and one very real to Norwich following their meteoric rise - is that foundations are not laid and mercenary players are parachuted in as the club endeavours to bridge the gap from wide-eyed, nothing-to-lose first year survival to (reasonably) established members of football''s top table. The inherent danger here is that vast expense can be lavished on performers that either have premier pedigree or potential weapons. Such players command high fees that are often never realised again, and/or high wages that become a crippling albatross around championship necks. Recent football history is littered with examples of such well-remunerated players who were never again saleable assets near their purchase price.

Much gnashing of teeth has taken place over the need for us to retain our top names in order to have the best chance of an immediate return. I am thoroughly unconvinced that this is true.

In the first instance it should be noted that actually having saleable assets upon relegation is no automatic outcome. 1) The players have by definition failed to define themselves as premier. That we have players we have recently purchased, such as Fer and Hooper, who would both likely command profitable returns is a commendation of our purchase strategy. There is absolutely no need to keep such players for the more prosaic environment of the championship if factors such as desire to leave, high sales price, desire to reduce wages, more suitable championship options exist.

We have been relegated, so rather than clinging to flawed investment theory over the value of our biggest names, let us freshen for freshening''s sake.2) What we need now is players that are practically (on grass) better than the championship, not players that have the game for the lower reaches of the premier league. They are not the same thing. Success in the Championship in more prosaic, repeated performers such as Martin, Howson, Johnson, Turner, ruddy if he stays and - to be fair - Snodgrass if he had, the adding to this group with the purchase of the best goalscorers in the championship, regardless whether they have a sophisticated enough game for the premier.3) The jarringly obvious dissonance to this theory is the upsetting story of the wolf. We bet the farm on him, more strategically than monetarily in context, and he is a reminder of what can happen if you buy players for the top table that don''t have a higher resale value and which leave you unable to sell your bigger name players. This is far worse than getting £7m for Hooper or Fer, but it is the real world alternative.[/quote]Parma, I agree in general, but not with some of the detailed argument.1) May be true as far as the overall squad goes (although I don''t think there is any doubt there was a significant managerial failing that contributed to relegation in this case) but not for all the individuals. That Snodgrass has gone straight back to the Premier League (or that Ruddy might) supports that. There is a difference between that kind of player, with several good years left, and a Finidi George.2) I''m not convinced, certainly as far as most NCFC players are concerned they are not the same thing! Apart from the oddity of van Wolfswinkel I can''t offhand think of a squad player we have who wouldn''t adapt to and do well in the Championship. Most have come from there, or even lower!3)  I think RvW is an exception in that we have lost most of his resale value, but not for the usual - Finidi George - reason of a marquee signing coming towards the end of his career. All the signs are we simply vastly over-estimated him as a footballer, in contrast to those other Premier League managers who had looked at him over the years.

[Yelloow Since 72 56]

I don''t think that''s what Parma meant. There''s a danger in thinking that the players from last season are the answer to this new season in the Championship. IMO, the most important thing is that every player who stays needs to be fully committed to the cause in a long hard season where the target is to finish as one of the top two teams. Grabban and Lafferty will provide new options up front which will be well suited to the Championship and the PL, should we achieve promotion.

Bassong and RvW both seem unwilling to commit to our new cause. Hooper may be another, if the rumours are true. If and when any of these leave, appropriate replacements will be needed. The classic example of complacency was Worthy''s approach when City were relegated back in 2005. We don''t want that again.

[# 0]

I can just imagine the bloody cook rubbing her hands with glee at the OP after reading that. [:@]

[whoareyou? 0]

There is also the more obvious problem that were we to sell many of these players then the club would be awash with cash which the taxman would take 21% next year as there is no way we could reinvest in similar quality players where we are now.

[Guest]

I don''t care if a player has been with us for 10 seasons or was brought in last season.

If they are unhappy with the club''s current position on the league ladder and feel they are better than that, then they should be shipped out.

Motivation is half the game. Hence we have seen England play abysmally at the WC and players like Ruiz play very well.

We have a tough start to the season and could possibly make a very ordinary start. We will need players who can handle that and improve, not look for excuses.

Too much vanity, instead of confidence, and we could end up with prima donnas and angry supporters.

If there are any players unhappy with their position and believe it isn''t down to them, then ship them out.

[Yelloow Since 72 56]

There is also the factor that any new manager will want to shape the squad to suit the style of play that he wants to use. The indications are that there is a major shift in this regard from Hughton''s more defensive emphasis to that of Adams'' on attacking football with more pace and penetration, which is why Grabban and Lafferty have come in. Both can play wide in a 4-3-3, for example, as can Pilks and Redmond and possibly Elliot Bennett and Josh Murphy as well.

[Essex Canary 0]

There is an article about this on a new football website.http://www.thematch.co.uk/painful-might-might-better-losing-best-players/There is also another interesting perspective at http://www.thematch.co.uk/relegation-positives/

[morty 0]

[quote user="Yelloow Since 72"]I don''t think that''s what Parma meant. There''s a danger in thinking that the players from last season are the answer to this new season in the Championship. IMO, the most important thing is that every player who stays needs to be fully committed to the cause in a long hard season where the target is to finish as one of the top two teams. Grabban and Lafferty will provide new options up front which will be well suited to the Championship and the PL, should we achieve promotion.

Bassong and RvW both seem unwilling to commit to our new cause. Hooper may be another, if the rumours are true. If and when any of these leave, appropriate replacements will be needed. The classic example of complacency was Worthy''s approach when City were relegated back in 2005. We don''t want that again.[/quote]Totally agree with this, there has to be change, I see the relegation as a catalyst for this, in a lot of respects.

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Yelloow Since 72"]I don''t think that''s what Parma meant. There''s a danger in thinking that the players from last season are the answer to this new season in the Championship. IMO, the most important thing is that every player who stays needs to be fully committed to the cause in a long hard season where the target is to finish as one of the top two teams. Grabban and Lafferty will provide new options up front which will be well suited to the Championship and the PL, should we achieve promotion.

Bassong and RvW both seem unwilling to commit to our new cause. Hooper may be another, if the rumours are true. If and when any of these leave, appropriate replacements will be needed. The classic example of complacency was Worthy''s approach when City were relegated back in 2005. We don''t want that again.[/quote]Totally agree with this, there has to be change, I see the relegation as a catalyst for this, in a lot of respects.[/quote]

But why the assertion that RVW is not committed ?

He hasn''t said this ,, nor has the club ,, in fact his tweeting is exactly the opposite .

I want RVW to stay , succeed and still be with us when we get promoted , obviously not the feeling of the Yellow

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Absolutely spot on, Barclay. There seems to be a growing number of people on here who are suggesting that RvW is not up for staying at CR, or ''not committed to the cause ''I am intrigued to know what evidence these people have to make that assertion. It may well be that RvW does leave between now and the start of the season. But I for one have not seen a shred of evidence implying that he wants to get the hell out of Norwich.

[Yelloow Since 72 56]

Don''t get me wrong, Barclay and Reggie - I very much want RvW to stay, but I don''t buy Adams or the Club ''forcing'' him out. Whatever he has said on Twitter, I''m inclined to think that, when asked by Adams if he wants to stay and fight for promotion, he has politely said No (as has Bassong and perhaps others as well). Adams has said that those who have said no will be kept confidential, as they should be.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Yelloow Since 72"]Don''t get me wrong, Barclay and Reggie - I very much want RvW to stay, but I don''t buy Adams or the Club ''forcing'' him out. Whatever he has said on Twitter, I''m inclined to think that, when asked by Adams if he wants to stay and fight for promotion, he has politely said No (as has Bassong and perhaps others as well). Adams has said that those who have said no will be kept confidential, as they should be.[/quote]Really everyone is basing their assumptions on not very much information at all.At best, uneducated guesswork.I suspect very few people know the actual truth, and in the case of Ricky, I shouldn''t imagine there are clubs queuing up to buy him, based on last season.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,462]

Ruddy and Snodgrass would indeed have been suitable as I stated.

That RVW''s playing characteristics are not suited to the championship is a football view, not a loyalty one. Investment theory dictates that there is an overwhelming desire in some fans to see him succeed. I understand this.

That Bassong may move on is as much a Napoleonic management strategy of shooting a general as football decision. Some change must follow failure. Some (any) new must necessarily occur. This renewal is healthy. That we have assets that are saleable - at or beyond their premier league purchase value - is really quite a success and the point of the piece. It ain''t necessarily so....

The distinction between too good for the championship and suited for the premier league are indeed often different points. This is due to what I would term weapons, rather than simply being a good player. What one can achieve with a second of time and space is not necessarily what one can achieve with half a second.

Thus we need Mr Right now, not necessarily Mr Right.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,462]

On the money YS72.

Let''s be clear, we have shit on RvW, under footballing law he owes us nothing.

He was a rising star in euro football, with a keen goalscoring record and a place in the Dutch squad.

We identified him as the cherry on a our (prosaic) cake and promised him star media billing. That he came to us was a feather in our cap (at the time) and a European eyebrow or two were raised at him having chosen us.

I wouldn''t exaggerate so far as to say that we bought a Ferrari and used it to plough a Norfolk field, but we expected him to perform in a fashion that was ill-suited to his tendencies and we have stunted his career and tarnished his brand.

He is not guilt free of course - as a selfish striker I winced at his allowing Snodgrass to take the villa penalty from him, both in a sporting, dressing room and psychological sense - he also did not develop his muscularity as he surely needed to do in the circumstances - though he is more sinned against than sinning and I hope that a reciprocally convenient solution can be found.

Whilst we all like to be purists, I prefer to win. As an opposition manager in the championship, I would wipe him out mercilessly early in every game. Then do it again.

Let''s not put him through it, he doesn''t deserve it.

[lake district canary 4,823]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]On the money YS72.

Let''s be clear, we have shit on RvW, under footballing law he owes us nothing.

He was a rising star in euro football, with a keen goalscoring record and a place in the Dutch squad.

We identified him as the cherry on a our (prosaic) cake and promised him star media billing. That he came to us was a feather in our cap (at the time) and a European eyebrow or two were raised at him having chosen us.

I wouldn''t exaggerate so far as to say that we bought a Ferrari and used it to plough a Norfolk field, but we expected him to perform in a fashion that was ill-suited to his tendencies and we have stunted his career and tarnished his brand.

He is not guilt free of course - as a selfish striker I winced at his allowing Snodgrass to take the villa penalty from him, both in a sporting, dressing room and psychological sense - he also did not develop his muscularity as he surely needed to do in the circumstances - though he is more sinned against than sinning and I hope that a reciprocally convenient solution can be found.

Whilst we all like to be purists, I prefer to win. As an opposition manager in the championship, I would wipe him out mercilessly early in every game. Then do it again.

Let''s not put him through it, he doesn''t deserve it.[/quote]

Interesting and thought provoking as always Parma.  But there is one problem.  RVW himself.  No premiership club is going to take him after last season, surely?    So where does that leave him? Back to Europe as a failure?  To me he has to prove himself - in this country - and in attacking team where space can be created more readily, he will surely score more.   Then in following seasons he will be more of  worth, whether he tries the premiership again or goes back to Europe......     

Put him through it? Yes. He needs it, imo. A test of character and ability - it will help him im the long run.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,462]

My heart feels it, but my head dismisses it LDC. Fan-based investment theory understandably wants success for RvW, but empirical evidence indicates he is entirely unsuited to the rigours of the championship.

Renewal is necessary and - in the context of a) the squad and b) the likely motivations of individuals - I would accept sales of any of the following players, at the following cash value (extras, conditional clauses to ve added):

Ruddy £7m (loyalty, opportunity, position less crucial 2nd tier)

Hooper £6m (desire to leave, high clauses)

Fer £6m (desire to leave, career, potential, desire will wane in 2nd tier)

RvW £4m or last-minute loan (sad story, Ill-suited, change per se)

Bassong £1m (wage reductions, change per se, if desire remains has suitable game for 2nd tier)

Redmond £8m (business case only, though not a natural goalscorer. High offer would tempt me)

When you add the £7m for Snodgrass to this equation, there is value in our playing assets. Even taking into account the failed gamble on RvW, I think recent purchases are of a good standard (in the context that we were relegated) and stand up to hindsight. It would be interesting to note how often this true for relegated sides. Many relegated clubs are more deeply hamstrung by holding onto players, not realising their market value upon relegation (even money back) and renewing. Your flawed investment theory in action LDC...

[Horse Renoir 1]

Nobody in England will take a punt on him after this, we don''t get much coverage and the media did their best to deflect all the blame off Hughton and onto our forward line so despite us all knowing he was completely shafted last season due to poor, monotonous, non nonsensical tactics so I''m sure most others in the game will just assume he''s a poor striker

He should realize if he has any sense his only way back to the Prem is through us. I''d love to keep him and see what he can do based further up the pitch, in a weaker league surrounded by a more fluid, motivated, direct and hopefully more incisive attack

[Horse Renoir 1]

Haha sorry, that made little sense I know, I was having a chat while typing :P You get what I mean though

[Salopian 1]

If we wish to win frequently, then we shall need our best players, or replace them with at least as good.

I am one of those who feel that the sale of Snodgrass was one with mixed blessings. Single-handedly he scored goals from free-kicks and even headers, but that is the whole point - single-handedly. He was not as good at creating goals for others - whether from crosses or from corners. I think that Bennett, and Redmond if he can learn to cross the ball, could wreak havoc down the right by involving other players, and Josh is already good.

Our better players, in particular Olsson, Howson, Surman,Tettey and Fer, could provide much more service, confronted with Championship midfielders and defenders.

[BigFish 2,282]

[quote user="Salopian"]If we wish to win frequently, then we shall need our best players, or replace them with at least as good.

I am one of those who feel that the sale of Snodgrass was one with mixed blessings. Single-handedly he scored goals from free-kicks and even headers, but that is the whole point - single-handedly. He was not as good at creating goals for others - whether from crosses or from corners. I think that Bennett, and Redmond if he can learn to cross the ball, could wreak havoc down the right by involving other players, and Josh is already good.

Our better players, in particular Olsson, Howson, Surman,Tettey and Fer, could provide much more service, confronted with Championship midfielders and defenders.[/quote]

I think the point that Parma was making is that we don''t necessarily need our "best" players we need the best players for the job in hand which is winning Championship matches, nor Premiership matches.

The rest is just business

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Salopian"]If we wish to win frequently, then we shall need our best players, or replace them with at least as good.

I am one of those who feel that the sale of Snodgrass was one with mixed blessings. Single-handedly he scored goals from free-kicks and even headers, but that is the whole point - single-handedly. He was not as good at creating goals for others - whether from crosses or from corners. I think that Bennett, and Redmond if he can learn to cross the ball, could wreak havoc down the right by involving other players, and Josh is already good.

Our better players, in particular Olsson, Howson, Surman,Tettey and Fer, could provide much more service, confronted with Championship midfielders and defenders.[/quote]

I think the point that Parma was making is that we don''t necessarily need our "best" players we need the best players for the job in hand which is winning Championship matches, nor Premiership matches.

The rest is just business[/quote]That was his point, and it can be true. But in the case of the current NCFC squad I don''t see there is any real difference. It is not littered with show ponies who thrive in the Premier League but will not be up for a wet Tuesday evening in Huddersfield. The one player who might have looked like that in prospect was van Wolfswinkel, and he was a total failure last season in the Premier League. Indeed the main argument being put forward for keeping him is that he might find it easier against less good defences. Myself I don''t buy that, but it has some logic to it.

[BigFish 2,282]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Salopian"]If we wish to win frequently, then we shall need our best players, or replace them with at least as good.

I am one of those who feel that the sale of Snodgrass was one with mixed blessings. Single-handedly he scored goals from free-kicks and even headers, but that is the whole point - single-handedly. He was not as good at creating goals for others - whether from crosses or from corners. I think that Bennett, and Redmond if he can learn to cross the ball, could wreak havoc down the right by involving other players, and Josh is already good.

Our better players, in particular Olsson, Howson, Surman,Tettey and Fer, could provide much more service, confronted with Championship midfielders and defenders.[/quote]

I think the point that Parma was making is that we don''t necessarily need our "best" players we need the best players for the job in hand which is winning Championship matches, nor Premiership matches.

The rest is just business[/quote]That was his point, and it can be true. But in the case of the current NCFC squad I don''t see there is any real difference. It is not littered with show ponies who thrive in the Premier League but will not be up for a wet Tuesday evening in Huddersfield. The one player who might have looked like that in prospect was van Wolfswinkel, and he was a total failure last season in the Premier League. Indeed the main argument being put forward for keeping him is that he might find it easier against less good defences. Myself I don''t buy that, but it has some logic to it.[/quote]

Well we may find, what do I know - I always hoped Mike Sherom might come good!

[BigFish 2,282]

find out & Sheron - doh

[Yelloow Since 72 56]

My doubt is the quality of players we could get in to replace those leaving. I''m pleased with the start that Grabban and Lafferty made yesterday. Elliot Bennett, Redmond, and both Murphys also did well.

[Donkey dangler 0]

If anybody comes for any of our players then NCFC should get their pound of flesh.

Nothing less than £20m for World Cup Netherlands international Fer

£15m (minimum) for Hooper as it will cost a fortune to replace him.

£10m for Ruddy

and so on.....

 

[Donkey dangler 0]

Big Fish,

Did you take into account Mike Sheron''s "hamstring"?

 

[BigFish 2,282]

[quote user="Donkey dangler"]

Big Fish,

Did you take into account Mike Sheron''s "hamstring"?

 

[/quote]

Don''t get the inference I am afraid DD, I just hang about longer than most expecting those times when he looked close to it happening before expertly putting it wide to turn into goals..........just like with RvW.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,462]

We of course won''t replace the big names with commensurately big names YS72, that is inevitable.

This leaves us with the somewhat binary choice of:

Invest heavily in wages to retain (failed?) stars, who may be a) disillusioned,b) lacking commitment c) feeling they are superior to 2nd tier d) in demand elsewhere

Or:

a) selling big names at high prices, b) selling to get wages off the books c) selling for the sake of squad harmony d) selling for the same of change/renewal (and no doubt some combinations of the above factors).

I am not sure that all the compromises and risks (both financial and in terms of harmonious balance) are favourable to keeping big names. I think we are lucky / deserve credit that they have intrinsic value (especially if it is above what we paid).

We "only" have to be better than other teams in the 2nd tier. Not better than we were.