Alex Neil secret deal

[Duncan Edwards 2,218]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]Being a fan normally supports dick menace''s stories according to many.[/quote]

Nice cast. Beautiful float.

😂

[Green and Yellow fellow 0]

Things just keep getting worse. I know it''s The Sun, however I wouldn''t be surprised if this is true. I''m sure this is another thing which will have to be answered sooner or later, given how bitter things are between the board and the fans. In all honesty though, In modern era of football, is this a lot of money? £2m does sound like a lot to me considering he''s still a young manager with little experience on his C.V. If this is the case, then I wouldn''t be surprised if Alex is given another shot at a transfer window.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Probably something in it, always costs money to sack someone, and if he is on a 12 month rolling contract (McNallys preferred option) then likely to be around £750k which is what Houghton was on, and it is highly possible with McNally''s departure Ed Balls stepped in on the board say so and renogiated a deal over a longer period of 2-3 years.

£2m won''t even buy you a Sergio Canos these days, so won''t take long to raise the money next week.

[City 2nd 191]

Duncan Edwards wrote the following post at 2016-12-30 3:20 AM:

Just to point out that people accuse Delia of lies and dishonesty despite being a fan and out majority shareholder but because Charlie Wyett is a fan, this has to be treated as gospel.

It could well be true, I mean it''s a risky thing to throw out there if it isn''t, but doesn''t that indicate some pretty obvious and rank hypocrisy amongst us fans?

It wouldn''t be printed without some legs to it, each and every newspaper now has a legal team in place and such items go through them.........for obvious reasons. So agree with you there DE, could very well have a resonance of belief to it.

[A Load of Squit 5,128]

Before signing a new ''longer term'' deal in June 2015 AN was on a 1 yr rolling contract, if he''s sacked the club would have to pay that up so £2M doesn''t seem a large amount.It looks like a typical tabloid piece from Charlie Wyatt, give his employers a chance to have a go at Ed Balls who they hate and also hate that he''s rebuilt his popularity by doing Scrictly, Charlie is no fan of Delia & MWJ also. The reporet doesn''t contain any direct quotes about AN''s contract and it''s padded out by quoting a large section of Moxey''s interview.Tabloids work on the ''Mark Twain'' principle that a lie travels half way round the world before the truth get it''s shoes on. It won''t take long for this to become a ''fact'' that will be quoted several times on message boards like this one.

[Herman 9,713]

[quote user="City 2nd"]Duncan Edwards wrote the following post at 2016-12-30 3:20 AM:

Just to point out that people accuse Delia of lies and dishonesty despite being a fan and out majority shareholder but because Charlie Wyett is a fan, this has to be treated as gospel.

It could well be true, I mean it''s a risky thing to throw out there if it isn''t, but doesn''t that indicate some pretty obvious and rank hypocrisy amongst us fans?  It wouldn''t be printed without some legs to it, each and every newspaper now has a legal team in place and such items go through them.........for obvious reasons. So agree with you there DE, could very well have a resonance of belief to it.[/quote]What normally happens with the S*n is that they print any old bollox, get a threatening letter from a lawyer, retract the article before it goes to court and then print an apology on page 28. But that time the lies have spread all over the internet and nobody gives a fig about the truth.In this case, I get the feeling a lot of people want it to be true, so they''re not going to bother finding out if it is or not.Quick rule of thumb, that people really, desparately need to start using; If it''s in the S*n or the Mail, FACT CHECK!!!

[lake district canary 4,531]

It''s a totally cobbled together article to give the Sun a reason to have a go at Ed Balls who has a good public profile after Strictly and who has been rumoured as wanting to get back into politics.

It''s as disgraceful a bit of so called journalism as it gets.

The Sun is a Murdoch newspaper. No more needs to be said.

[rock bus 850]

I expect that it is probably mostly true or they wouldn''t go with a backpage story. Lets be honest most of the general public couldn''t care less about Norwich so it''s hardly a paper shifter... ironically it''s only his appearance on strictly that makes it worthwhile for them publishing it.

I''m really not that fussed about it, £2m isn''t a lot in football these days and the board should be happy to pay this if they can get a decent replacement sorted before firing him. Doesn''t particularly makes it difficult, they just need to swallow their pride and admit they got the new contract wrong and get rid.

[Highland Canary 76]

Part of our 10 year plan to become a non-league team. Time to clap I suspect. You couldn''t make it up.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="vlad666"]Moxey did say it''s more complicated than just sacking him. Sounds like this could be the reason. If true it''s one too many mistakes from the board and they need to go.[/quote]

Moxey was talking about rebalancing the squad, with his comment about a busy January, meaning that the problems would not be solved just by swapping one manager for another.

[Herman 9,713]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Part of our 10 year plan to become a non-league team. Time to clap I suspect. You couldn''t make it up.[/quote]Are you slowly turning into a Littlejohn/Hopkins type writer?

[Highland Canary 76]

Faced with our reality it is increasingly difficult to suspend one''s disbelief abour our football club. Lambert''s golden legacy squandered with the outcome, at best, of championship mediocrity and a business model akin to that if 1p5wich. Now, what seems more likely is relegation to tier three this season on next and a path similar to that of Bolton or Blackpool. What a complete, goal and utter fiasco.

[A Load of Squit 5,128]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Faced with our reality it is increasingly difficult to suspend one''s disbelief abour our football club. Lambert''s golden legacy squandered with the outcome, at best, of championship mediocrity and a business model akin to that if 1p5wich. Now, what seems more likely is relegation to tier three this season on next and a path similar to that of Bolton or Blackpool. What a complete, goal and utter fiasco.[/quote]Lamberts Golden Legacy sound like a brand of real ale."Two pints of foaming Lamberts Golden Legacy please Mr Barkeep"

[hogesar 9,618]

Well, no idea if it''s true or not but if it is it''s really f*cking stupid.

[Fuzzar 1,702]

The only surprising thing is that, allegedly, the board had to persuade him to stay with this reported pay off. After we''d been relegated.

If AN''s inclination was to fall on his sword, then we should have taken a step back to avoid being splattered by the blood.

[Hairy Canary 668]

I assume there is some kernel of truth in the story for them to publish but we all know how tabloids will look to sensationalise to make the headline, ususally out of nothing very much.

My guess is that the "secret" change to his contract was to move him from the one year rolling contract McNally favoured to something with an end date. If he''s on £750k a year then extending his contract to the end of the 2019 season would mean that to sack him now would require £2million to pay up his contract.

It could well be that the decision to move him to a fixed term contract rather than a rolling one was taken when we were at the top of the table so wouldn''t have seemed like such a bad decision at the time.

Whatever is the truth behind it shouldn''t make any difference to the decision on whether to keep him or not.

[Mello Yello 2,279]

"Don''t look over here.......Look over there!"

[im spartacus canary 0]

No wonder they want to stick with him fookin buffoons. However like someone said 2m nowadays is no more than a loan fee for a failed journeyman. Shouldn''t even be an issue.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

The Sun is a master at taking a relatively innocuous half truth and spinning it into sensationalised muck-raking and celebrity-spiking all in the name of ''it''s the price you pay for fame''.

People buy it because they want to read it, whether they admit that to themselves or not.

Moving Alex Neil from a single-year rolling contract is not necessarily bad housekeeping. Nor is limiting the eventual payout, with a fixed sum that avoids court cases, tribunals and allows for a decisive, clean separation.

Elegant timing and mis-direction from a tabloid. The question of whether a contract renegotiation and extension was appropriate for Alex Neil post-relegation is another issue of course.

It may actually be that net-net-net £2m actually saves money. That isn''t such an exciting story though is it?

Parma

[A Load of Squit 5,128]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]I assume there is some kernel of truth in the story for them to publish but we all know how tabloids will look to sensationalise to make the headline, ususally out of nothing very much.

My guess is that the "secret" change to his contract was to move him from the one year rolling contract McNally favoured to something with an end date. If he''s on £750k a year then extending his contract to the end of the 2019 season would mean that to sack him now would require £2million to pay up his contract.

It could well be that the decision to move him to a fixed term contract rather than a rolling one was taken when we were at the top of the table so wouldn''t have seemed like such a bad decision at the time.

Whatever is the truth behind it shouldn''t make any difference to the decision on whether to keep him or not.[/quote]That was done in June 2015, he changed from a 1 yr rolling contract to a longer fixed term deal. No other details were released at the time. Wyatt is implying that AN''s contract was changed to mitigate any fall in his income due to relegation.

[komakino 272]

Wasn''t that surprised by this news, but anything to put pressure on the club and show them up for their incompetence is fine by me.

£2M isn''t a fortune, but it appears naive old Norwich overvalued Neil''s stock considerably. If he of kept us in the PL last year, then there may of been a case for it, but AN had got us relegated, so there was absolutely no reason for the club to have this deal in their minds.

Any professional and competent board would either sacked him and the end of last season, or offered him a much weaker deal because AN was in no position to ask for big bucks.

Obviously The Sun are using it as a slight against the failed ex Labour MP but there have been rumours for weeks that the club couldn''t afford to pay AN off. Obviously sales of Klose, Brady etc will make this much easier...

This deal was also pre Moxey and I''m sure if he of had his way, this deal as it stands would of never had happened.

[Mello Yello 2,279]

Damage limitation already in progress on this thread, I see......

[Len 74]

Instead of handing Neil a P45 the club handed him a pen to sign an improved contract. Delia''s comments about wanting her cuddly little failure in charge for 10 years begin to make sense.

[lake district canary 4,531]

If AN got a good contract with protection written in to it in 2015, it was a reward for the fantastic job he did in getting us promoted.  No one would have begrudged hm that at the time and as has been said by many on here already, this is a non story.    Nice yellow suit though........

[Herman 9,713]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]Damage limitation already in progress on this thread, I see......[/quote]It must be true because I want it to be true, I see........

[pliff 4]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Just what is it with us rewardfing employees for relegation?[/quote]

Absolutely agree slim give him an iron brew and a one way ticket to Glasgow most normal people who fail in their job get the push getting rather tired of my club at the minute.

[Mello Yello 2,279]

''Herman the German'' whined like a stutterin'' doodlebug with........

........''It must be true because I want it to be true, I see''........

I suppose then if it had been a feature on the back page of the Guardian or another paper of similar political leaning.......would it be a more credible story?........

[Herman 9,713]

Yes[Y]

[Year of the tiger 54]

Think it is a bit naive to say it''s only£2m just pay it. In PL no problem but I don''t reckon City have that sort of money just lying around at the moment. As one of the people who was involved with the Aviva sponsorship said on twitter, December is tradionally a poor month for NCFC cash flow & they would sometimes request sponsorship money early.

Daft as it may seem the twitter poster Norwich12435678 who most dismiss as as fantasist reckoned there was a meeting a couple of weeks ago but money was the problem.

Guess we have to wait for Klose/Brady to be sold

[Van wink 2,994]

pliff wrote the following post at 30/12/2016 8:51 AM:

norfolkbroadslim wrote:

Just what is it with us rewardfing employees for relegation?

Absolutely agree slim give him an iron brew and a one way ticket to Glasgow most normal people who fail in their job get the push getting rather tired of my club at the minute.

It''s a very odd decision to be seemingly rewarding relegation with a long term contract.

1) Why did we change our policy on this and shift from rolling contracts? Presumably this would have been during the time that we had an interim CEO. Why not offer another one year deal and look at possible new contractual arrangements having had the benefit of discussions and sounding out out new CEO.

2) Why reward failure?