My one decent source has given me some info regarding the recent events so here it is. Gunn''s departure was hastened spectacularly by his actions in the transfer market. At the beginning of the summer Gunn agreed his summer transfer budget with the existing board (albeit with big If''s based upon rebate money and possible player sales). This allowed his quick early movement in getting Gill, Tudur-Jones and Nelson and was seen by all as vital in adding numbers to the squad by getting in out-of-contract players without the need for a fee. The signings made after this were dependent upon a balance being struck between wages and fees going out and wages and fees coming in. Gunn had agreed that Clingan, Russell, and Hoolahan would be allowed to leave as there was considerable interest in all three at the time, whilst Stefanovic, Cureton, Drury and Doherty would be allowed to go if a decent offer or a club to take them found, and efforts were to be made to find clubs for them. On this basis the signings of Theoklitos, Maric, Whaley, Holt et al were made as deals were close for the players going out. Clingan departed, and Russell was close and may still go. Hoolahan however was set to go to Palace but the transfer embargo there muddied the waters. By this stage though, Wes had been having a good pre-season and was enjoying himself, and so in no rush to leave. Likewise Gunn was increasingly keen to keep him on board, and basically based more and more of City''s play around Hoolahan. This created a problem as it meant that the budget was flying out of the window and McNally was not happy. He and Joe Ferrari then set up a piece with Archant that came out a few weeks ago. It was along the lines of "Gunn - We''ll struggle to keep Wes if there''s an offer but so far there hasn''t been". Most of us wrote it off as Archant creating a headline out of nothing to flog papers, but the intention from the clubs point if view was to a) begin the process of hastening Wes'' departure and making the fans aware that despite the incoming transfers and the optimism there was still a financial need to shed some of the remaining big names, and b) advertise the fact that Wes Hoolahan was effectively available at the right price. The tone of the piece was meant to be a lot more "impending sale" however as premlinary talks were happening at the time. Gunn was responsible for saying that no offers had been received, and was effectively trying to make a departure as difficult as possible. Gunn and the board had talks where basically he admitted that he wanted to keep Hoolahan after all, and that pre-season results had shown how the club had turned a corner, and that with Wes he was certain that the team could go onto promotion. The board were not happy that he was effectively going back on the agreement and leaving them in such financial difficulties. However, the optimism at the time, and the fact that Palace were not able to come through as potential buyers, meant that the board ok''d Gunn to carry on UNLESS a firm offer was made, meaning that effectively the pressure was off for Gunn and co to actively find a buyer if possible, which is what they have been doing with Russell. This was against the wishes of McNally who was fuming at the about turn but agreed by the rest of the board (give or take). McNally believed that Gunn was gambling with the clubs future, and had lost confidence in Gunn keeping his word. This was further exacerbated by rumours Gunn had intimated to enquiring agents after this that Hoolahan was no longer available and that he had been allowed to hold onto him by the board. My source was unclear on this part and there was a lot of "he said to so-and-so", "but I heard from..." around boardroom level over this point, and my source wasn''t privy to all of these but basically a lot of bad feeling was created. Gunn for his part seemed to be behaving quite bullishly believing he was "playing hardball" with the board. Then, Colchester. And McNally led the call for Gunn to be sacked. For him it proved that Gunn was wrong in claiming that he had a squad guaranteed to win promotion and that if they continued with the squad as it was (as Gunn was looking to do), they would not go up but would also be in deep financial/administrative trouble next year. He also didn''t want to mess around with Gunn any more believing he was unprofessional and amateur and was taking his first chance to get rid of him. The rest of the board by this point were inclined to agree as the reality of not going up based on the optimism of a man who gets us tonked 7-1 at home in L1 hit home. They were also disappointed by Gunn''s (real or at least strongly perceived) actions. Lambert of course happened to be around at a propitious time for all. He did speak to McNally before and after the match (although not as a potential replacement at this stage) and made some unknowing comments that resonated with McNally, such as "You''ve got a massive squad for this level", but was also very complimentary about the club and fans, saying that he couldn''t believe the numbers we were getting following so little success, and that he''d kill to have that kind of support. Lambert is looking to reduce the squad (especially the wage bill) in line with the remit set out by McNally and don''t be surprised if Hoolahan departs next week despite the fact that Lambert is a fan. Karsa has been tasked with moving out the players unwanted by Lambert and has already made some headway in this. There is even the possibility that Lambert may use the extra media attention made by this being his first game to play some of the players he wants out as a "showcase" for potential buyers, although he is weighing this up compared to his need to make a winning start. The big wake-up at CR seems to have come from McNally and now Lambert who have both found the set-up to be half-arsed and shoddy, and Karsa again, will be given the remit to make big changes in infrastructure, specifically making sure that there is clarity between the board, the management and the players and that all three areas are working together and not messing around behind each others backs, as has been the case consistently in the past. There you go, now crucify me for making it up if you will!