Strictly Come Dancing's Ed Balls and his world of spin

[Jim Smith 2,608]

“Alex Neil came in and got us up to the Premier League based on a contract which was negotiated when he arrived,” said Mr Balls. “If things do not work out fans want quick decision.

“When we did terminate his contract it cost us a lot of money, but that is what we have to pay.

“There was some stuff in the papers about how Alex’s contract was changed in the summer. That was never true.

“That contract in its basic form was unchanged. Alex and the players were all set to see their money fall sharply when we were relegated from the Championship. Because of the way the contract was negotiated Alex’s money was set to fall more sharply. The board judged that was unfair so there was a change made to ensure it was in line with the players.”

So his contract wasn''t changed but it was Ed?

I know that for those who have made their career in politics spin becomes second nature but come off it.

I fully believe that story or at least that the headline figure given in it to pay Neil off was accurate as the club has never denied it or taken action to force a retraction.

Balls was (we are retrospectively told) acting CEO for 3 months during which he made two fundamental decisions. One was to employ Moxey, the other was to amend Neil''s contract (to improve it following a relegation?).

Today''s accounts show that those two decisions have cost us a lot of money in compensation. How much exactly we may never know if the club retains its veil of secrecy over Neil''s payoff but its clear it seems almost certain it made it more expensive to pay him off which in all probability led to them delaying the decision to do so as well.

Still at least he got his £90K for doing such sterling work.

[Jim Smith 2,608]

Before the pedants here point out that the board made the decisions, he was clearly the one leading those decisions.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

Balls says that the payoff amount was not changed between the contracts, but Alex saw his relegation wage reduction altered (in his favour) to be in line with the players.

He wasn''t ''given a new contract'' as the headlines at the time stated, but had his existing one adjusted - slightly.

£2m compensation for a manager with a few years on a contract is pretty much standard.

The £90k was to work for the club between McNally leaving and Moxley being appointed. He did more than just apoint Moxley and renegotiate Alex''s contract in that time and the remuneration is fairly modest for someone in that role for that length of time.

I know that people carry over their political feelings to Ed Balls, but on the whole he has done good work for the club. He is the person who instigated the whole restructure and brought in Stuart Webber, which could be the best decision Norwich have made in their recent history.

The numbers in the account look huge, but they are fairly standard across the industry. They also show why people shouldn''t start demanding heads roll as soon as things look a little iffy. Sacking people costs millions and should always be the last resort.

[Jim Smith 2,608]

The story implied that his notice period was increased from 1 to 2 years.

Balls dances around that. In any event his compensation will have been linked to his salary so adjusting his wages does impact on compensation.

Why the hell would you give any improved contract terms to a man who has just failed and overseen relegation with barely a whimper? Its incompetence.

Its not modest remuneration for someone who is not a CEO (and indeed wasn''t ever referred to as the CEO until they retrospectively decided he was in order to justify the payment). Indeed its about what he would have earn''t in 1 year as an MP.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

I have always wished I could lead my life in millions the way these personas of football do.

Still, they pay tax at the highest rate. Hopefully.

[Mike 68]

The accounts show incompetence at the highest level and finally put pay to the "well run" b*ll*cks that is trotted out at every opportunity.

Whilst new owners invest in Wolves, where the gulf in class was all there to see, ours pay themselves handsomely and use the club we love to pass around family members.

The not looking for "investment" line is appalling.

Time to ditch the season tickets

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

I believe the story was that Neil''s contract was extended by a year due to clause that was triggered upon promotion (the same happened with numerous player like Bassong and Turner).

Balls explains that Neil''s contract differed from several players and that the Board wanted to adjust it for ''fairness''. I can see why they would, it would have also been something like altering a 20% wage reduction to 15% or something. Not additional millions.

The fact £90k is more than an MP''s salary shows how underpaid they are compared to CEO''s of large businesses. McNally was earning over £2m a year for a while. £90k sounds like the going rate for the work he did, if not a little under.

[Jim Smith 2,608]

What work did he do?

Liaise with headhunters to end up giving the CEO job to Delia''s mate''s right hand man who had just left Wolves? Very strenuous.

Appoint agents to oversee our transfer business? Incidentally would be interested to know who Jerome''s agent was at the time he got his new contract that summer.

The £90K is just an irritation to be honest, the consequences of the decisions taken during that period are much more significant in financial terms, including whatever they did to Neil''s contract. The story as that the changes they made to the contract meant we had to pay £2m to pay him off. The clear implication was that before those changes it would have been less. Whether that was because of a lengthened notice period or an increase in wages from what he would have been earning is not really relevant its ridiculous.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

The lengthening of the contract was triggered by promotion, due to a clause in his contract given to him by McNally. That has nothing to do with Balls.

Compensation for manager''s on being sacked is usually the value of the remaining time on a contract or a pre-agreed amount - whichever is less.

The £2m to pay off AN was the pre-agreed amount and therefore negotiated by McNally - not Balls.

AN did not enter a new contract in the summer after relegation, but the clauses in his existing one meant the length was altered and then Norwich reduced the amount of a wage cut he had to take.

Stop looking for ''scandal'' where there isn''t one.

[Jim Smith 2,608]

What do you mean by:

"but the clauses in his existing one meant the length was altered"

So his contract was reduced in length upon relegation?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

When Norwich were promoted, AN''s contract instantly was lengthen and his wage increased (it was pitched as a new contract at the time, but was just the clauses being triggered).

If his contract is extended by a year, the amount of time to pay off on the contract would also extend by a year. If his wage went up, the amount of the fixed payment to pay in compensation would also increase.

There would be no reason to raise the amount he would be paid off in the summer of 2016, other than clauses that Norwich were already bound by, even though his wage reduction was reduced slightly. The Sun''s ''story'' was a non-story. But the Sun will find any excuse to lay into Ed Balls for his politics, especially when he was rapidly becoming a very popular figure.

The fact they made this contract non-story the main headline on their sports page just shows how much they over inflated it.

Ultimately it seems Norwich paid something like £2m to sack him (although with a total bill of £4m and £700k of that going to Moxley and 13 other staff members who were also paid off, I wouldn''t be surprised if it was less tham £2m in the end). Not a sum that is particularly out of step with other managerial sackings.

Trying to string up Balls for £90k worth of salary and a managerial compensation bill that looks pretty normal, is a bit desperate.

[Badger 2,745]

BYG - "Trying to string up Balls for £90k worth of salary and a managerial

compensation bill that looks pretty normal, is a bit desperate."

It is rather desperate ... but I am sure that it won''t stop them! Confirmation bias. [:-*]

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]When Norwich were promoted, AN''s contract instantly was lengthen and his wage increased (it was pitched as a new contract at the time, but was just the clauses being triggered).

If his contract is extended by a year, the amount of time to pay off on the contract would also extend by a year. If his wage went up, the amount of the fixed payment to pay in compensation would also increase.

There would be no reason to raise the amount he would be paid off in the summer of 2016, other than clauses that Norwich were already bound by, even though his wage reduction was reduced slightly. The Sun''s ''story'' was a non-story. But the Sun will find any excuse to lay into Ed Balls for his politics, especially when he was rapidly becoming a very popular figure.

The fact they made this contract non-story the main headline on their sports page just shows how much they over inflated it.

Ultimately it seems Norwich paid something like £2m to sack him (although with a total bill of £4m and £700k of that going to Moxley and 13 other staff members who were also paid off, I wouldn''t be surprised if it was less tham £2m in the end). Not a sum that is particularly out of step with other managerial sackings.

Trying to string up Balls for £90k worth of salary and a managerial compensation bill that looks pretty normal, is a bit desperate.[/quote]

As will angry Jimbo and a few others on here[;)]

[Jim Smith 2,608]

Sorry but you said:

"AN did not enter a new contract in the summer after relegation, but the clauses in his existing one meant the length was altered and then Norwich reduced the amount of a wage cut he had to take."

Do you mean that the contract shortened again on relegation or are you still referring to the fact it was extended when we got promoted.

How do you know that he always had a fixed £2m pay off figure in his contract?

[Kidderminster Exile 0]

We are a socialist owned and controlled club, always due to end in debt. Tha''ts the way things are

[king canary 8,751]

"When Norwich were promoted, AN''s contract instantly was lengthen and his wage increased (it was pitched as a new contract at the time, but was just the clauses being triggered)."

I''d say it was more than ''pitched'' as that. If what you are saying is true then this from the official site is basically a lie from start to finish.

"CITY are delighted to announce that manager Alex Neil has agreed a new and improved longer-term contract ahead of the Club’s return to the Barclays Premier League.

Neil has been the driving force behind a remarkable improvement in the Canaries’ fortunes since his appointment in January.

After taking over with the team in seventh place in the Sky Bet Championship, the 34-year-old won 17 of his 25 matches from that point, losing just three times.

That sensational run of form culminated in City beating Middlesbrough 2-0 in the Play-Off Final at Wembley last month to earn an instant return to the top flight.

Ahead of his first full campaign in charge, the ex-Hamilton boss has put pen-to-paper on a new improved deal and said: “I''m delighted to sign a new contract with Norwich City.

“Both parties were taking a chance when I was appointed but it''s worked out very well for all involved, and I''m happy this has been sorted before the season gets underway.

“I''ve really enjoyed my five months at the Club, hopefully it is just the beginning as we now look forward to playing in the Barclays Premier League."

City Chief Executive David McNally added: “For us this summer it was the most important piece of business to ensure Alex had a much-deserved new contract. "

[Mike 68]

Nothing to do with politics but we will continue to go backwards with these owners & their appointmented successor. They put in nothing.

They need to go and we need to attract the investment (like Wolves, Leicester, Southampton, Palace) that will allow us a chance to get back to the levels this clubs fans deserve.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,220]

I am sure I read somewhere that it cost Liverpool £15M to sack Brendan Rodgers, so £2M (if it was even that much) for Alex Neil seems about right to me. I suppose I could get all angry about it, but not sure what I would be getting angry about.......

[City 2nd 193]

Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB wrote the following post at 2017-11-01 5:35 PM:

I am sure I read somewhere that it cost Liverpool £15M to sack Brendan Rodgers, so £2M (if it was even that much) for Alex Neil seems about right to me. I suppose I could get all angry about it, but not sure what I would be getting angry about.......

One would imagine that Brendan Rodgers was on a far better, and more lucrative contract than Alex Neil. It does not alter the fact that changing the managers contract after just five months in charge, and then sacking him was a ludicrous piece of business regardless of what the then CEO said, who let’s face it, lined his own pockets with a hefty bonus when promotion was gained, and also who received a hefty pay off when he left, all which has now left us over 2 million in debt. With little chance of promotion this season, I would suggest a certainty after the last two home matches, that debt will grow alarmingly next season when the further loss of our last parachute payment will kick in. It’s now a very vicious circle, as the only way City will survive will be to sell the likes of Maddison, Pritchard, Klose et al, for just a start. It will become a very steady downward spiral after that, with cheap signing on low wages being the norm coupled with any talent coming through, who in their turn will also have to be sold to keep the club afloat. Whilst many have decried our neighbours down the road, we are heading in exactly the same direction, with owners who like theirs, is not investing in the club. Whilst being careful in what “you wish for” seems to be the buzz word for many senior supporters and not wanting outside investment, we all need to realise that without some investment, we could well finish up once again with supporters being asked to bale the club out. Poor management by the current owners has been the essence at the club now for several years, and now it is catching them up! Get used to it, because it ain’t going to change. Last season we saw posts on this board that suggested “there isn’t any money”. Never more true than now, it’s been frittered away terribly.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,220]

Clearly this is something I should be really angry about....so I am.........

I went outside, ran about our yard shouting and screaming with rage (there was much wailing, gnashing of teeth and a startled gull or two).

I came back in, sat at my desk......and it would appear nothing has changed, the world is still spinning, so I am all chilled out again........

[daly 551]

[quote user="Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB"]I am sure I read somewhere that it cost Liverpool £15M to sack Brendan Rodgers, so £2M (if it was even that much) for Alex Neil seems about right to me. I suppose I could get all angry about it, but not sure what I would be getting angry about.......[/quote]

Don''t scan 1000 items an hour at Aldi and you are out of the door

Makes Alex Neil''s failure an overpayment,

Still Sky continues to rip off subscribers to pay for these overrated, overpaid and over here players

Bring back the leather ball, terraces and fags and decent beer

[Year of the tiger 66]

[quote user="City 2nd"]Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB wrote the following post at 2017-11-01 5:35 PM:

I am sure I read somewhere that it cost Liverpool £15M to sack Brendan Rodgers, so £2M (if it was even that much) for Alex Neil seems about right to me. I suppose I could get all angry about it, but not sure what I would be getting angry about.......

One would imagine that Brendan Rodgers was on a far better, and more lucrative contract than Alex Neil. It does not alter the fact that changing the managers contract after just five months in charge, and then sacking him was a ludicrous piece of business regardless of what the then CEO said, who let’s face it, lined his own pockets with a hefty bonus when promotion was gained, and also who received a hefty pay off when he left, all which has now left us over 2 million in debt. With little chance of promotion this season, I would suggest a certainty after the last two home matches, that debt will grow alarmingly next season when the further loss of our last parachute payment will kick in. It’s now a very vicious circle, as the only way City will survive will be to sell the likes of Maddison, Pritchard, Klose et al, for just a start. It will become a very steady downward spiral after that, with cheap signing on low wages being the norm coupled with any talent coming through, who in their turn will also have to be sold to keep the club afloat. Whilst many have decried our neighbours down the road, we are heading in exactly the same direction, with owners who like theirs, is not investing in the club. Whilst being careful in what “you wish for” seems to be the buzz word for many senior supporters and not wanting outside investment, we all need to realise that without some investment, we could well finish up once again with supporters being asked to bale the club out. Poor management by the current owners has been the essence at the club now for several years, and now it is catching them up! Get used to it, because it ain’t going to change. Last season we saw posts on this board that suggested “there isn’t any money”. Never more true than now, it’s been frittered away terribly.[/quote]

Oh dear would that mean we''d have to make do with say a journeyman striker from Shrewsbury rather than a winger from West Ham or a striker from Sporting Lisbon. Hope the scouting is good.

[shefcanary 2,950]

[quote user="Kidderminster Exile"]We are a socialist owned and controlled club, always due to end in debt. Tha''ts the way things are[/quote]

Errh aren''t we actually a professional football club that operates in the most widely abused capitalist market in the world? One where to all intents and purposes you are only as good as your last three results? And more money is bet in a single wager by each club''s directors than on a whole day at Cheltenham, at least twice a year!

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="king canary"]

Neil has been the driving force behind a remarkable improvement in the Canaries’ fortunes since his appointment in January.

[/quote]

Nothing like pouring approx. £30m. down the drain regarding the likes of Naismith, Jarvis, Andreau and McGovern

[king canary 8,751]

Yes, his record in the transfer market was spectacularly poor.

[FenwayFrank 2,716]

Yeah, that Pritchard lad is rubbish isn’t he ?

[king canary 8,751]

Well done, you''ve picked out one player. A player who that manager utterly failed to use in his time here, so hardly a great thumbs up for him.

How about

Mulumbu

Jarvis

Naismith

Bamford

Andreu

McGovern

Canos

[Guest]

This is the wonderful side of football.

Whatever happens at the end of this season, we will still exist. We won''t go out of business. We will have to get used to a different approach financially if we do not go up of course.

Some will see it as failure and demand heads. Others will say, the sun rises in the morning so hey ho.

Some will say the board are a bunch of amateurs who can''t make a good decision while others will say they are doing a good job all things considered.

Players will be hammered for their inability or injuries. Others will praised for their brilliance.

AF will be a hero, bang on course if we beat Bolton at the weekend and under the microscope if we lose.

To me, it is all part of the wonderful game that quite frankly was total boredom and frustration on Tuesday but was a tense, nail biter against Arsenal.

And I am enjoying reading the posts on this subject. Forget the chatter about Vrancic''s poor display or Maddison''s great goals. Get stuck into or defend the decision makers for a change. Love it.

[Baldyboy 1]

Keelansgrandad, who’s AF?

[Guest]

I don''t broadcast it, but now that Daniel and I are good friends he is quite happy for me to use his nickname Altar.