Introduction
In this article, my goal is to compare Stuart Webber’s tenure against the previous regime under David McNally. I will be focusing on:
- Footballing success.
- Recruitment efficacy.
- Transfer revenues.
There are many limitations to this analysis, so here are all the caveats up front:
- Data is from Wikipedia and Transfermarkt. These two sources don’t always align.
- Transfermarkt transfer fees I would consider estimates. Perhaps with a 20 percent margin of error. However, I see nothing to suggest that error impacts one MD/SD more than another.
- Transfermarkt fees are in Euros.
- I have included the seven seasons of Webber (the last being partial), and the seven seasons prior to his joining. This excludes the League One season. You may argue this is the correct/incorrect method for many reasons.
- I refer to the pre-Webber period as “McNally”, fully appreciating it includes a little Jez Moxey too. I say McNally because the most important events in the seven years preceding Webber were performed by McNally (recruitment, manager changes, etc).
- It is hard to obtain loan fees for both periods, so these are excluded. Needless to say, Webber has vastly outspent McNally in loan fees.
If you’re already sceptical, don’t read on.
Firstly, the football…
Footballing success
During McNally’s tenure, City achieved greater success than Webber, specifically four seasons in the Premier League compared to two under Webber. What makes McNally’s tenure even more impressive is that he started in League One, with debts to clear and a weak squad. Webber’s peak finish (20th in PL) is nine places behind McNally’s best (11th PL). Webber’s worst finish (14th in the Championship) is six places lower than McNally’s (8th). At the time of writing, we sit 17th.
In moving to a Sporting Director set-up, they intended to create a Norwich-style of play that ran through the academy to the first team. A style that would withstand the changing of coaches and ensure major resets weren’t required. With that in mind, McNally had four managers in eight seasons, Webber has had three in seven, potentially soon to be four.
We remain no closer to a Norwich style of football now than in 2009. Under both regimes we have moved from manager to manager, never benefiting from the squad or style set up by the previous one.
Overall, in terms of footballing performance, it’s difficult to argue anything other than a decline under Webber.
Recruitment efficacy
A key selling point for the incoming Webber was his ability to use data and innovative methods to improve our recruitment.
Looking at the number of signings by season, we see Webber immediately increased the number of players entering the club, with an on-average increase of 31 percent more signings per season. I have no data on the optimal # of signings to allow squad improvement while retaining continuity, but in three of his seasons, Webber signed 16+ players per season, which feels high.
To ascertain the efficacy of these signings I looked at the number of players in Webber squads with 10+ appearances per season, meaning they played a significant role.
The chart above shows that despite Webber signing 45 players in his first three seasons (two whole squads), during Daniel Farke’s third season half of his outfield players were still in the club prior to Webber.
This can be seen in the 2019-20 top league appearances:
- Tim Krul (36)
- Max Aarons (36)
- Teemu Pukki (33)
- Kenny McLean (32)
- Ben Godfrey (30)
- Emi Buendia (28)
- Alex Tettey (28)
- Jamal Lewis (25)
You could, of course, argue the youth players were developed by Farke and Webber, which may be true, but they weren’t brought into the club by either and cannot be attributed to a recruitment strategy.
Webber has now signed 87 players for Norwich (vs 60 in the previous seven years), with this season being the first 100 percent Webber squad. His blunderbuss approach certainly unearthed some gems, but like any gambling, eventually, his luck ran out.
Webber was not without his successes, but his failures far outweigh them as can be seen in…
Transfer revenues
There is a perception that McNally had (as Webber put it) “pissed the money up the wall”. That perception is incorrect.
In the first three seasons of my comparison periods, Webber and McNally spent approximately the same (30m vs. 31m respectively). McNally was dealing with the club’s debts and climbing out of League One to the Premier League. In comparison, Webber still had the comfort of a season of parachute payments and plenty of assets to sell (more on that later).
When looking at the revenues obtained for players sold, it becomes clear that McNally-era signings were vastly more successful. Looking at the below chart it’s easy to see pre-Webber signings funded his first four seasons, with over £110m in revenue from McNally signings after McNally left.
If the chart wasn’t enough, here are some interesting stats:
McNally – gross revenue from transfers: £207.5m
Webber – gross revenue from transfers: £60.5m
McNally – revenue generated per player signed: £3.4m
Webber – revenue generated per player signed: £0.7m
McNally – net profit/loss from transfers: £49.3m
Webber – net profit/loss from transfers: £-63.8m
To be fair to Webber, some of his players may be sold after he leaves. Gabriel Sara, Josh Sargent, and a couple of others may yet turn a profit, but being a bottom-half Championship club in known financial peril means we’re unlikely to command the high transfer fees we once did.
Conclusion
I have been a vociferous Webber critic since long before it was popular to be one. I saw a man with a big ego who was living off the back of one purple patch from six years ago. That was a blip in an otherwise failed recruitment policy that failed us in the Premier League, left us languishing in the Championship, and financially crippled.
I’ve seen nothing to suggest the Sporting Director set-up has proven more innovative or more successful on or off the pitch. Hopefully, Ben Knapper can take a different approach and shake up our football departments.
In retrospect, McNally’s era was not perfect and it was time for him to depart (after resigning to a fan on Twitter no-less).
For me, McNally’s crime was loving the club too much, not wanting it to fail, and almost trying too hard. But Webber’s crime is loving himself too much. He can’t see he has failed and it’s time he moved on.
I think Webber can see he failed but the owners wanted him to stay.
Once the debt has been managed to a more reasonable level (I doubt it will be cleared under Attanasio) there is one thing that Webber’s tenure at the club will remain. that is the massive improvement to the training facilities. without that we wouldn’t have signed some of the players we have.
was it worth it in the short term? no,
was it worth it in the longer term? yes
it’s clear that the data models used by Webber didn’t work but the gap between the PL and Championship has grown so much over the last 7 years it’s not comparing like with like.
look at current clubs Burnley and Sheffield United who are going to struggle to get to 30 points.. The fact that established teams get relegated is more due to their problems than that the teams coming up are better than them.. as the PL table stands at the moment the bottom 7 consist of Everton, the 3 newly promoted teams and the 3 teams that stayed up last season. .
Thanks for the comment Philip. One point I’d make on this…..
” without that we wouldn’t have signed some of the players we have.”
I’d have to check the timeline, but I’m fairly sure Webber’s best signings were pre-training ground improvement. So personally I don’t see a correlation between the training ground and any footballing success. At least not yet.
Do you nesscersarily be more successful on the pitch if you have a top training ground?
Whilst I always thought that the McNally, January 2016 was judged harshly at the time, in the here and now, because it failed with its primary objective, retaining our Premier League status, it also saw the recruitment of Maddison and Godfrey, who clearly weren’t Premier League ready then. The unknown factor is whether they would have become Premier League players, or not, irrespective of who was the manager subsequently? Maddison, definitely, in my opinion, Godfrey I’m less sure about, without Farke’s management.
I guess the point I’m driving at, with McNally this has the benefit of having fully played out, in Webber’s case, not so. You can only judge him in the here and now. Give it a few years and the views may be different.
I don’t disagree. Webber may have unearthed some gems that we haven’t seen yet.
However, Webber transfer revenue comes from just a couple of players. I don’t see any indication of a clear and successful methodology in place.
Great piece. Although I try to leave numbers to my day job, this is really valuable analysis, and I’d agree with you on the data-based conclusions (and the emotive ones, actually).
Premier League training facilities, but League 1/2 players…..and the coaching????
One wonders what state we would be in now, had Farke not been able tocreate a silk purse from a sow’s ear, not once, but twice!!!
O T B C
Thank you Dave for putting the figures to my own suspicions regarding Webber.
I was aware of who each recruited but it’s surprising to see it’s a greater difference than I thought it would be.
Having been to this afternoons game it’s all to evident as to who was the better man for City.
I struggle to see how a posh training ground is a marker of success. I remember the tin shed at Trowse. Where you could go and see training and meet the players. No one around to remind you that you weren’t welcome. You were only a fan.
Ditto the original Colney. How many times did I take my kids up there and watch training in half terms and holidays. Lovely Nigel Worthington always invited the watching fans inside to warm up. What a genuinely lovely guy he was.
Can you imagine that happening now? I know with phones and social media the club wouldn’t allow it but this “oh well we’ve got the training ground” stuff from Webber? “It’s vital to give players a good impression”. Shame the players aren’t benefitting from it anymore.
I’ve never felt further away from my club than now. The fans are ignored, blamed and then for the ST renewal period, just about tolerated.
The only good thing about the Webber period is our wonderful football under Daniel Farke. Then Webber destroyed that to save himself.
Sometimes you don’t need stats. I’d have NcNally back here in a heartbeat. I hope never to see Webber again.
Spot on Jane, Ron Saunders and Railway sleepers, Running up mousehold, John Bond training his players caked in mud with him hollering his head off
Lambert had no soccer bot or other fancy kit, it was down to his and his staff coaching and man management that took us from L1 to Premier and kept us there, He didn’t buy star names, but he made many names that became stars for us.
If it had not been for the fans of the club Colney would not have been that upgraded
But football has changed somewhat since Trowse and all that nonsense.
I agree with a lot of this, but the training facilities have to be seen as a positive even if we all want Webber out of the way.
There are many who finally agree Chase did some good by buying land etc. it’s all relative and with hindsight. But the history part of Webber’s story hasn’t had the 10 years grace.
Great article and interesting comparison. The nickname for McNally was McNasty – perhaps he had the ruthless cutting edge we seem to have lost now?
I recall one player we tried to sign didn’t like the training ground but unsure if that justifies a top class one. Little point in a top class facility if you’re playing league one standard on the pitch but it’s infrastructure and an investment for longer term.
With this analysis, I can’t help but wonder if we should abandon the sporting director role altogether (put that money in the kitty) and go back to chief exec and traditional manager?
Thanks for the comment, Disco.
I don’t know whether an MD or SD is preferable and I’m not suggesting a change back.
Mostly because I don’t feel we’ve had a true Sporting Director as a comparison to MD/Manager. Perhaps Knapper will do a better job of creating footballing philosophies and recruitment practices.
Two joint owners whom need to let go and hand to Mark A new generation.
A Sporting Director whom has an ego and disowned media and has admirable done a job, off the grass with facilities, but thrown the dice with transfers. That double 6 hasn’t come up much.
Imbalance of books on allegedly the best run football club in the country that is now steeped in debt with many players out of contract, handy incase we go down to league one.
Works a 12mth notice period when arguably wanted a move to Europe after 3yrs but pandemic hit and handed notice in but delia and Michael wanted him to stay.
Owners leave everything to a sporting director whom it is plain to see has achieved similar to previous MD whom may have been ruthless but had proven success on the playing field and transfers and talent.
No conclusion other than to say difficult to compare in some ways but reality is league one beckons unless things are put in motion quickly otherwise we face years of mediocrity on owners whom were maybe too picky in interested investors over the years and wouldnt let go, and a sporting director whom does care but will be remembered for premiership facilities off the ptich but failure on the pitch since he sacked Daniel farke..
Daniel farke is proving at leeds he was pivotal to our success, webber spent the proceeds wisely off the pitch but on the pitch used a roulette wheel with transfers on occasion but the chips were with Delia and Michael and not enough chips were given when they were needed.
It can’t get any worse can it?
Joke of an article. You can’t state “I have been a vociferous Webber critic since long before it was popular to be one” and then present what I presume you want to be taken as unbiased statistics. Whether the premise of your argument is correct or not you have completely undermined the validity of your analysis.
To P-Dawg:
Let’s see your methodology and what you come up with.