Things are never dull around these parts. I’ll say that much.
From consecutive 0-0 draws to seven-goal thrillers, even if we did end up on the wrong end… and were pretty rubbish.
Typically there was a heavy fall-out from the latest setback – and there’s no disguising the paucity of performance for long spells of yesterday’s game – but against a background of Hull fighting for their Championship lives and us drifting to an Ipswich Town style season end, this was always a possibility.
That’s not an excuse, but in such circumstances – one team operating at 100 percent and the opposition at, say, 98 percent – the small differences end up making a huge difference.
That, of course, is no consolation to anyone who witnessed such an ordinary offering but let’s not write off the project and declare the decline terminal off the back of City’s first defeat in eight games.
Right now we are the epitome of an average Championship side – one that includes one exceptional player who sometimes takes us beyond the average and into the ‘good’. But in the greater scheme of things we are mid-table fodder.
Whether you see us as a mid-table club with a plan that has forward momentum or a club on the slide with dwindling resources depends on your glass being half full or half empty. Me? I honestly still can’t decide. Maybe we’re neither.
I, naturally, desperately want this to work and I admire both the vision and determination of Stuart Webber and the method and manner of Daniel Farke, but I genuinely can’t decide if the limitations within which they are working are just too restrictive for them to achieve their ultimate goal. What I do believe is it will require, at times, slices of good fortune and a prevailing wind.
In terms of what occurred on the rugby pitch of the KCOM, it was below par stuff and that we could easily have been 4-0 down in the first ten minutes says it all. In fairness, to find the wherewithal to rally at 1-0 down and, largely thanks to the brilliance of hat-trick man James Maddison, turn 1-0 into 1-3 says something about the character of this group, but at no stage was it a lead of any comfort.
Jamal Lewis – who for almost the first time, looked like someone still learning his trade – gave Hull a lifeline with that clumsy challenge just before half-time, and the scene was unfortunately set. City were, for once, unequipped defensively to repel Hull’s vibrancy and high tempo attacking thrust.
The equaliser straight after half-time was, by general consensus, a bit of a joke – even Nigel Adkins agreed – and quite how or why Tim Robinson awarded a penalty only he knows, but it shouldn’t be used as mitigation. Hull were well worth the win, and the winner was a counter-attack and finish right out of the top drawer.
So, no complaints. City weren’t at it. Hull were. The beauty of that well-drilled back three looks ever more beautiful when compared to yesterday’s bedraggled back-four, for whom even Alex Tettey struggled to offer an effective shield.
The shape didn’t look or feel right, and there were echoes of defensive horror shows of months gone by. I think we all know what needs to happen from here on in, even if that means blooding Sean Raggett into a back-three.
Let’s just hope Daniel has watched the video of last season’s trip to Barnsley ahead of Tuesday night. Another one of those and things will get tetchy.
****
For someone who writes about Norwich City for (part of) my living, I consider myself to have escaped fairly lightly in terms of online stick and verbals. Part of that comes with the thick skin you develop and the other part because I’ve just been simply lucky, especially when compared to colleagues who have been subject to particularly malicious forms of trolling.
But my initial reaction to the club’s announcement this week on the future funding of the Academy – through an issue of £3.5 million worth of bonds – has, I guess, dragged me into the real world of online aggro.
‘Uneducated’ … ‘professional moaner’ … ‘a hater’ … ‘baldie’ (couldn’t argue with that one) … were a few that I could repeat on a family website. I was also accused of not knowing the difference between a loan and a donation; quite a charge to level against someone who worked as an accountant for over a quarter of a century.
And the daft thing? I have no problem with the route that Stuart Webber and Steve Stone have taken with regard to the raising of this funding. None whatsoever. In the circumstances, I’d even go as far as to say both have played a blinder, based, apparently, on the premise of an idea from Tom Smith.
It offers those with the will and the ability to contribute to something worthwhile while earning themselves what looks a very decent return on their investment. I won’t, unfortunately, have said ability but in different circumstances, I’d have been happy to be a part.
Where I fell foul of some loud, vociferous and sometimes sweary online voices was when I expressed disappointment at the club having to undertake this bond issue in the first place.
Since 2011/12 the club has been in receipt of some form of Premier League funding – sometimes the full whack, other years parachute payments – supported throughout by a massive wedge of Murdoch (and BT Sport) millions. Am sure there’s someone out there who’ll tell me an exact number, but whatever it is it will make £3.5 million seem like small change.
Along the way, the club has haemorrhaged money at an alarming rate – as is the wont of every Premier League or wannabee Premier League club – all while Colney was falling into varying stages of disrepair. Worse still, through no fault of Messrs Webber and Stone, it continues to do so, albeit now at a diminishing rate thanks to some radical pruning.
So, I can see why £3.5 million is now beyond the reach of the club but given the money that has slipped through its fingers in the last few years, and squandered in several cases, I also feel a tad peeved that it has come to this. And all against the backdrop of that Times interview.
That was my point… I just was shouted down before I even had the chance to make it.
A ridiculous suggestion, but maybe we should just try and be a bit nicer to each other, and respect those whose opinions differ.
On the flip side, a relaxed team with no pressure should maybe perform better than an inferior team nervous for the need to win points. Yes I’m glass half empty….
With the benefit of hindsight perhaps David McNally was not the “Consummate Proffesional” that some thought he was. Lack of a fit for purpose Recruitment Department and ignoring investment in Colney have contributed to the mess we are in today.
Good luck with that last paragraph Gary. Call me a snow flake but I retreated from certain websites years ago because of that sort of thing.
Typical Delia, having charged me over £500 for a season ticket she now has the temerity to ask me to meet the costs of repair and maintenance of the training facilities.
Further proof that new owners with the necessary financial clout to stop the rot are desperately needed.
Good stuff on both topics, Gary.
No-one can dispute that we failed to invest in the Academy when we should have done. However, it seems to me an important point that the new initiative is central to the vision of Stuart Webber and Daniel Farke, neither of whom was part of the past failings. If we believe their plan deserves support, we surely shouldn’t withhold that support in order to punish others.
Reminds me of the time I was at Stamford Bridge when they unveiled new signing Michael Ballack (£80k per week) who then presented a cheque for £50k towards the Chelsea academy, the entirety of which was donated by fans. I think I was the only person in the ground who could see the irony.
Fair enough in that Chelsea case, but our situation is surely a bit different. Webber and Farke have come into a club having to cut its playing budget by £20m for each of two successive years. Their plan involves making the Academy produce, something they have the skill and commitment to do but which needs money. The could take that money out of the already-stretched playing budget, could appeal for donations – or do what they’re actually doing, offering fans an investment opportunity which also helps us re-build the club.
TBH I wasn’t really making a point about Norwich. I think if they need investment they’re entititled to ask for it in any way they see fit. Fans can’t moan about the club not seeking investment then moan when they do. And if there is a sugar daddy or mummy out there, we’d know about it whether Delia liked it or not. And there ain’t.
I have also thought long and hard as to where has all the money gone.Anyway yesterday’s performance had mid table security written all over it.Without Maddison and Gunn who made a couple of excellent saves we would have lost by a bigger margain.Our attack is non exsistant and quite what Watkins brings to the team is beyond me and Nelson was as much use as a chocolate fireguard.Perhaps someone can tell me why Ragget is not getting on the bench,3.1 up luckily but a shaky defence would have been an ideal time to go with 3 CB’s,especially when Leitner had to go off.I also wonder if anyone has the stats for when Reed is playing in midfield,it seems to me that area looks more vunerable when he is playing there.This season is fading fast and I can’t see an improvement now or next season,so how long should Farke get to get it right?A lot longer than a British coach I suspect!
Interesting point about the Times interview is that it seemed they only gave it to spite the EDP as it was around the time Paddy D in particular was putting the boot in to the team. A ridiculous notion? The point was made to the editor of the EDP who admitted it was possible they would have got that interview otherwise
A very interesting comment there Charles.
At that time PD only put the boot in gently imo It was more of a slipper really. I guess he and his colleagues are seriously restricted by various comfy Norfolk connections in what they are allowed to write – or what will actually be published of course.
They don’t earn godzillians but I don’t blame them for keeping “onside” and thus retaining their livelihoods.
The Times of course doesn’t have to depend on East Anglian advertising revenue and can print what it likes. The Smiths should have realised the difference. A big whoops that upset more of us than they will ever realise. And with MJW’s background in publishing, he at least has little excuse.
The Bond scheme has divided opinion and what I think of the audacity of the board for the mere suggestion of it cannot be stated on a forum such as this, so I will tone down my thoughts.
The club have had huge amounts of money and still (almost) sell out every week, yet have the nerve to ask for £3.5M from fans to support Colney. When Stone was FD, it was very clear the state Colney was in, but nothing happened.
The bottom line is Norwich City has been proven to be at worst reckless or at best inefficient with the money they’ve had, but want fans very hard earned. Anyone who knows the inner workings of the club wouldn’t give them a fiver because they know how bad the club has been run, with some of their ‘efforts’ worthy of a dark post watershed comedy.
You have to earn the right to ask fans for money – Norwich City – so far – have not.
While fans have every right to buy into this scheme, it is not without its risks. The club is going nowhere on the pitch and much more likely to head back to League One than the EPL, until the club has a manager who plays a system that suits the squad and does whatever it takes to get there, instead of the over methodical and convoluted style of football in the name of transition!
The fans of NCFC are almost too loyal and the bond scheme shows that their loyalty is being taken for granted, which is a very dangerous thing for the board to do.
Well said, my thoughts entirely. If the current owners remain in charge much longer it’s division one here we come.
Many fair points you make (though Steve Stone was completely overruled by Jez Moxey during his tenure).
However, Webber and Farke are trying to put the pieces together again from mistakes that weren’t their doing. The Academy is central to their plans. What would have them do, if not the current chance for fans to invest?
As the game . It became the Tim Robinson show. Hull wanted it more, we showed there is much much more work to be done .. with precious little money to do it.
As to the bond. true the club has had lots of money. the academy was in receipt of a lot of £19 pounds added to season tickets.
The stowmarket duo loaned money into the club, and have been paid back either in money or extra shares, further strengthening their tight grip. Those two sit with a few million quid in their accounts, a hell of o lot more than my pension will ever get near. The thousands of pounds I have checked into the club (willingly) since 1962/63 .
Who can afford to help the Academy, which share wise they own ? This is down to the mismanagement this club has been witness to
Out of interest, on what basis do you say they have “a few million quid” in their accounts? All we know for sure is that they gave up a great deal of money by giving long-term interest-free loans to the club. I’ve no idea what they have now.
it can be checked on line . google is your friend worth around £11 million ..
Looked it up online according to https://www.howrichest.com/delia-smith-net-worth/
Has a worth of $36 million figures at 2013 .
converted to British Pounds GBP
£25.987.320
So I think I would be correct in saying she has a few million quid in the bank ..
Cheers. I don’t know in this case, but such estimates have proved to be wildly inaccurate in others.
#SelfFundedClub
I wonder how much the reaction to the bond offer is informed by the run we are currently on?
Drawn 5, lost 1, and not surprisingly everyone’s feeling pretty grumpy right now, especially as 2 of those draws were very last minute and could easily have been defeats. Not a good moment to be asking for fans’ money in reality.
On the face of it one might certainly think that instead of wiping out all the debt when we had 3 years in the Premiership they should have retained some of it and spent it on the academy then. Maybe though it was less obvious then that the Academy needs work – I’ve no idea.
What I do know is that everybody was demanding the club up the wage bill and spend money on the likes of Naismith and Klose. I can imagine the reaction if they had, at that time, announced upgrading the academy instead. “Why don’t they spend money on players we need now not waste on kids who might never make it…?” that’s what the reaction have been. Still, 20-20 hindsight’s wonderful.
As far as the bond is concerned I’m quite happy that they are inviting fans to invest and have offered what looks like (subject to seeing the small print) a reasonable return. If you are offended that they’ve asked, and some clearly are, then ignore it.
Personally I’ll consider it. The big question is in what circumstances could I lose my money? I presume the simple answer is if the club went bust.
The other big question is do I believe we will get promoted within 5 years? Because if we do it’s win all round – the return on the bond will be very generous, and paying it back at the end will be a doddle for the club. I think there’s a reasonable chance that we can (I’d imagine Ladbrokes would offer very sort odds against it) but of course that’s a gamble. Even if we don’t 5% is a reasonable return in the current climate.
One other question is what happens if we don’t get promoted inside 5 years, are not in a financial mess, but are somewhere in between and don’t have enough surplus funds to repay at that point? I saw a suggestion elsewhere that such a situation might lead to a request to defer repayment by extending the term of the bond. I guess that could happen although presumably the terms would have to be at least as generous as with the original bond before anyone would agree to it.
My natural negativity is three fold. One – our esteemed owners cannot or will not stump up £3.5m for the necessary improvements to Colney. Two – How many have actually graduated through the academy in the last 10 years (Murphy x2 & Lewis?). Three – I am of the opinion that the plan is to sell anyone who is good enough in order to “self-fund” NCFC. On the last point, I want players who can have the ambition to play for City for many years,not a couple before being sold in order to fund D&Ms free football…….
“I want players who can have the ambition to play for City for many years,”
So you don’t want anyone potentially top class, such as James Maddison, to pass through for a couple of years then? You’d sooner they go and learn their trade with one of our rivals?
I never said that, please don’t put words in my mouth – I’m good enough at that myself!!
Re points two and three, it’s perhaps worth listening to Stuart Webber’s view (whether or not you end up agreeing with him). He says the traditional structure, with one football man (the manager) working alone and under pressure, will inevitably lead to attempted quick fixes and neglect of the Academy. That was clearly true of Norwich under Alex Neil, and even Paul Lambert.
The new structure, especially under Webber and Farke, will involve far greater focus on the Academy; already, individual development plans for players have been put in place. But they need a proper facility. The idea is that the Academy will deliver far more in the next five years than in the past five. Some might be sold, but a significant number would be expected to become first-team regular for City.
I truly hope so Stewart, we all want the best prospects to come through our academy and play for City ongoing…..
An excellent point regarding the two potential views of our current position, maybe the analogy I would use is flying a plane across the sea and whether we have enough fuel to reach the other side, the margins are small but with vastly different outcomes, I am naturally concerned but reassured by the fact Pilot Webber seems to feel he has enough in the tank. To my mind the Board have been very open about the massive drop in income coming up. As an accountant this is what has caught my eye over the past two AGMs including Steve Stone’s explanation of the magic surrounding player trading. Due to this I am relieved to see action in the form of the bond issue as in the absence of a new investor the only alternatives would the commercial equivalent of a Wonga loan or severe austerity. My irritation with the opportunity squandered (rather than money) arrived last Summer so the bond issue is maybe part 1 of the long road back. I would love to see a self financing club succeed even though I am not sure it is possible
Regarding the investment opportunity, then it appears to offer a good return. If you can afford it go for it. If not then don’t.
As for the football yesterday’s fare was as poor as I have seen for a while. Hopefully DF will return to the 3 at the back as soon as possible.