Alex Neil secret deal

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Replied quicker than a V2 re-entering the atmosphere......good skills.....

[ZLF 274]

Its a story written and placed purely to create discord. from an fan and journalist who has made his agenda very clear; this is no more than him using is position inappropriately in a way that comes straight from the Donald Trump sensationalist playbook. Undoubtedly there are elements of truth but its another unbalanced piece.

Depending on the open length and size of the

contract and whether the £2m is proportional to the remaining contract term; this may actually be a good deal for the club. When we sack AN we will pay significant compensation; its the nature of contracts.

The Sun & Wyett are interested in sales and agenda only and knew that the social media storm in Norfolk would be negative. If its proven to be ok the damage has been done and sticks, and sod the consequences for the club because there will be none on its authors.

As always Parma eloquently explains it accurately and, to use the current ugly vernacular, gets it.

[Herman 9,754]

Thanks[Y]

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Was the deal secret then?.......What happened to the 30 year rule?

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="Herman"]Thanks[Y] [/quote]

Now reward yourself.....have a nice cup of coffee with a brexit biscuit......scrummy......

[Guest]

One of the reasons I no longer read a daily newspaper is that the news is now only there to keep the adverts apart. Space on pages has to be filled and little stories remain on hard drives until a suitable size space becomes available or needs to be filled.

Although I want AN replaced, I bear no grudge and would expect him to try and negotiate a decent deal from his employers. And his employers don''t appear to be adept at playing hard ball e.g. Neil Adams.

So that area of the club''s dealings is their business. If not we might as well all publish our private business on here. In other words it is private until it is approved by the board and appears on the annual balance sheet.

And don''t believe that the Telegraph employs any different journalists than the Sun. It is just the calibre of sub editors who make the difference.

[AJ 1,218]

Surely if this isn''t true the club would be after him for slander or defamation pretty sharpish...

[JF 694]

Haven''t read through all the comments but no one has picked up on the line in the article "She has refused to sell to Chinese investors, believing a deal could be bad long term. Instead, she will hand it down to her nephew Tom Smith"

Wonder if there is any truth in this?

[dibbler 0]

For that money I thought we could could of got someone decent and with experience.

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

[quote user="VanWink"]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?[/quote]The change from a rolling contract to a fixed deal was made in 2015 after we were promoted."He signed a new “long-term” contract in 2015."The change made in 2016 (implied by Wyatt) is that if AN was sacked he would receive 2 yrs money."Neil agreed new terms on his contract after relegation from the Premier

League last season and Norwich will have to pay the £1million-a-year

manager TWO YEARS’ money if they are to dismiss him."

[Badger 2,405]

My recollection is that he was given a long-term contract after promotion and therefore we are liable to the full amount - just as we are with players - e.g. Turner/ Lafferty. So if it was a 4 year deal at £750 per annum as someone suggested (sounds a bit low to me) he had a 3 million pound contract and well over 2 million of this is still outstanding. Mostly when sacking a manager a deal is done so ("pay off") that the manager can go off and get a contract elsewhere, but sometimes managers, like players sit tight because they don''t expect to get contracts anywhere near as good elsewhere.The Secret Footballer claims to have got a 90% pay off by sitting tight.Seems a bit of a non-story to me and that if we sacked Neill and his staff (as is the norm) it will cost us well over 2 million. I think that it would be worth it tbh.

[Van wink 2,994]

Thanks LOS for some facts.

Puts things into a better perspective for me.👍

[Lessingham Canary 99]

The bit I cant get my head round (and I accept the Sun likes to sensationalise ) is Ed Balls agreeing a secret deal, if AN agreed a new contract from his rolling 12 month one in 2015, ED didn''t take up his post until December 2015, so any "other" bits would have been in 2016 you would think.

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

[quote user="JF"]Haven''t read through all the comments but no one has picked up on the line in the article "She has refused to sell to Chinese investors, believing a deal could be bad long term. Instead, she will hand it down to her nephew Tom Smith"

Wonder if there is any truth in this?[/quote]Yes it is true. In the Times article they said they wouldn''t sell to foreign investors and that their shares were being passed onto Tom with a caveat that a trust will be involved.In tabloid world this means that you can write that they will not be selling to ''chinese investors'' because they are using the term hypothetically, It''s also true to say that they won''t be selling to ''Arab investors'', ''Russian Investors'' ''Finnish investors'' or ''insert name of nationality here investors''. Wyatt does not have any evidence of any ''chinese investors'', if he did he would name them. It''s a common tactic along the lines of ''When did you stop beating your wife?".

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]The bit I cant get my head round (and I accept the Sun likes to sensationalise ) is Ed Balls agreeing a secret deal, if AN agreed a new contract from his rolling 12 month one in 2015, ED didn''t take up his post until December 2015, so any "other" bits would have been in 2016 you would think.[/quote]It''s only considered a ''secret'' deal because were talking about a football contract and people seem to believe that these things should not be private. Your contract between you and your employer is ''secret''. What seems to have changed is the part of the contract that deals with AN''s sacking. Would anyone have been that interested if last summer the club announced that the terms of his termination of employment have been changed? It could just be some tidying up of a legal clause that needed to be made clearer to avoid any future problems in the event of AN being sacked (as most managers are).

[lake district canary 4,531]

Squit is absolutely correct. The word "chinese" has been chosen arbitarily, purely for maximum effect.

[JF 694]

I''ve tweeted him to see if he will expand on it

[Jim Smith 2,317]

They would not run this story on the back page if they were not confident it is true as we would sue them. Seems highly plausible to me and is utterly staggering ineptitude from our board once again. Balls paid £90k for this idiocy plus recruiting the odious Moxey. Couldn''t make it up.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="lake district canary"]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........

[/quote]

He did, but the story is suggesting that like our player contracts it (rightly) had a wage reduction on relegation so Balls gave him a new improved contract to mitigate for that and which includes a 2 year notice payment. Giving a failure of a manager an improved contract as a reward for relegation is the story here. Not the actual amount of money to pay him off.

[Herman 9,754]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]They would not run this story on the back page if they were not confident it is true as we would sue them. Seems highly plausible to me and is utterly staggering ineptitude from our board once again. Balls paid £90k for this idiocy plus recruiting the odious Moxey. Couldn''t make it up.[/quote]Blimey Jim, the press does it every day.They literally can make it up.

[SwindonCanary 455]

Thinking about it, Alex Neil signed new ''longer term'' deal in June 2015, at that time he was ''the bee''s knee''s''  Norwich board would have wanted to keep him, as Delia has said in the past ''it would be good to have a manager for 10 years'' to do this they would offer the world.

[JF 694]

I would say that it''s likely true and fair play to Neil if it is. Just looking out for his own future and that of his families. We would all do the same. I''m getting to the point of not caring anymore to be honest. I watched us throw away a golden opportunity in the early nineties and we''ve now thrown away another

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Lessingham Canary wrote:

The bit I cant get my head round (and I accept the Sun likes to sensationalise ) is Ed Balls agreeing a secret deal, if AN agreed a new contract from his rolling 12 month one in 2015, ED didn''t take up his post until December 2015, so any "other" bits would have been in 2016 you would think.

A load of squit;

It''s only considered a ''secret'' deal because were talking about a football contract and people seem to believe that these things should not be private. Your contract between you and your employer is ''secret''. What seems to have changed is the part of the contract that deals with AN''s sacking.

Would anyone have been that interested if last summer the club announced that the terms of his termination of employment have been changed? It could just be some tidying up of a legal clause that needed to be made clearer to avoid any future problems in the event of AN being sacked (as most managers are).

I accept a lot of that, having worked in a PLC my contract was agreed between myself and the CEO, however shareholders (and non exec''s) could have access to such information, so therefor not ''secret''.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="lake district canary"]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........

[/quote]

He did, but the story is suggesting that like our player contracts it (rightly) had a wage reduction on relegation so Balls gave him a new improved contract to mitigate for that and which includes a 2 year notice payment. Giving a failure of a manager an improved contract as a reward for relegation is the story here. Not the actual amount of money to pay him off.[/quote]Jim gets it!Why are others struggling to get it?  or are they deliberately just not seeing it?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]They would not run this story on the back page if they were not confident it is true as we would sue them. Seems highly plausible to me and is utterly staggering ineptitude from our board once again. Balls paid £90k for this idiocy plus recruiting the odious Moxey. Couldn''t make it up.[/quote]Of course there''s some truth in it, but if you see it as idiocy and are using it as a reason to attack the club, then you are ignoring the fact that there is nothing unusual in having to pay off managers and that the Sun has sensationalised,twisted and manipulated the known facts to create a story that fits with it''s right wing agenda - using it''s back page to try and discredit an ex-labour politician whose stock has been rising and who has hinted he may return to politics.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="A Load of Squit"][quote user="Lessingham Canary"]The bit I cant get my head round (and I accept the Sun likes to sensationalise ) is Ed Balls agreeing a secret deal, if AN agreed a new contract from his rolling 12 month one in 2015, ED didn''t take up his post until December 2015, so any "other" bits would have been in 2016 you would think.[/quote]It''s only considered a ''secret'' deal because were talking about a football contract and people seem to believe that these things should not be private. Your contract between you and your employer is ''secret''. What seems to have changed is the part of the contract that deals with AN''s sacking. Would anyone have been that interested if last summer the club announced that the terms of his termination of employment have been changed? It could just be some tidying up of a legal clause that needed to be made clearer to avoid any future problems in the event of AN being sacked (as most managers are).

[/quote]

Yes I would have been. A two year notice period in any circumstances is quite unusual I think. Yes if you sack them out of the blue then you pay up the contract but I would hope Neil''s contract had some vaguely sensible targets in it with the ability for us to terminate if he failed to meet them. In that scenario two years pay seems a lot. But more than anything why were we improving his contractual position after he oversaw relegation?

[Mr Apples 1,320]

I wonder if there''s any coincidence in this story running straight after Jezza''s recent ''interview''?

Apples

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="lake district canary"]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........

[/quote]

He did, but the story is suggesting that like our player contracts it (rightly) had a wage reduction on relegation so Balls gave him a new improved contract to mitigate for that and which includes a 2 year notice payment. Giving a failure of a manager an improved contract as a reward for relegation is the story here. Not the actual amount of money to pay him off.[/quote]Jim, Wyatt only implies this. He says that AN took a pay cut on relegation. Then he says that he was given a new deal, he doesn''t mention wages re the new contract.

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Lessingham Canary wrote:

The bit I cant get my head round (and I accept the Sun likes to sensationalise ) is Ed Balls agreeing a secret deal, if AN agreed a new contract from his rolling 12 month one in 2015, ED didn''t take up his post until December 2015, so any "other" bits would have been in 2016 you would think.

A load of squit;

It''s only considered a ''secret'' deal because were talking about a football contract and people seem to believe that these things should not be private. Your contract between you and your employer is ''secret''. What seems to have changed is the part of the contract that deals with AN''s sacking.

Would anyone have been that interested if last summer the club announced that the terms of his termination of employment have been changed? It could just be some tidying up of a legal clause that needed to be made clearer to avoid any future problems in the event of AN being sacked (as most managers are).

I accept a lot of that, having worked in a PLC my contract was agreed between myself and the CEO, however shareholders (and non exec''s) could have access to such information, so therefor not ''secret''.[/quote]

When would the shareholders and non-exec''s benn made aware of your contract and any changes to it?

[OldRobert 38]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Squit is absolutely correct. The word "chinese" has been chosen arbitarily, purely for maximum effect. [/quote]The Times is not a tabloid newspaper, so Squit''s argument of them using the tabloid''s world ''insert name of nationality here investors'' is spurious.  Neither do you or he/she have any evidence to state that Charlie Wyett has just chosen the word ''chinese'' arbitrarily, it''s just your opinion.