ricardo 7,384 Posted November 1, 2017 Dear oh dear, £712,000 for seven months work.FFS lost for words. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted November 1, 2017 Hope Norwich got their money back from the head hunters they employed to find a suitable candidate.The £4m spent on terminating staff contracts show just how committed Norwich are to the new structure - it is good to see they aren''t just dabbling around the edges for once. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kanadyan Kanary 121 Posted November 1, 2017 Yep - as Trump would say .... That was a bad deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,317 Posted November 1, 2017 Actually Ricardo that wa his compensation. He also got £417k in wages. So all in all it''s over £1.1m for 7 months work.Still at least a Balls got his £90k for overseeing the headhunters! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TIL 1010 4,737 Posted November 1, 2017 Some fool will come along shortly i am sure and tell us it is the going rate. [:(] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ricardo 7,384 Posted November 1, 2017 We went into the wrong game Jim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capricorn1 18 Posted November 1, 2017 ricardo wrote the following post at 01/11/2017 9:42 AM:Dear oh dear, £712,000 for seven months work.I hate to break it to you, but that was just the pay off. I think you''ll find there were wages on top of that, so a lot more for 7 months pay.That said, our fans were chanting ''Moxey Out'' at several games, especially when Wolves showed up with their banners. We got what we wanted, but unsurprisingly it came at a price! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,528 Posted November 1, 2017 This is a football problem rather than a Norwich problem. These are the contracts that the club has to award and abide by. If we didn''t we''d never get anyone to join. I wouldn''t give Moxy tuppence if I could choose. There are far more worthy causes. Capricorn''s point is a good one. You people who demand change quicker would be paying these millions more often. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bradwell canary 109 Posted November 2, 2017 Truth is the person or persons who recruited him should go as well. In essence they are to blame, as they had not carried out the research and character of him in the depth required for such a high paid position Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TCCANARY 263 Posted November 2, 2017 [quote user="Bradwell canary"]Truth is the person or persons who recruited him should go as well. In essence they are to blame, as they had not carried out the research and character of him in the depth required for such a high paid position[/quote]So you''re suggesting that we get rid of all of the current hierarchy except Stuart Webber as they were here at the time Moxey was appointed ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,317 Posted November 2, 2017 [quote user="Bradwell canary"]Truth is the person or persons who recruited him should go as well. In essence they are to blame, as they had not carried out the research and character of him in the depth required for such a high paid position[/quote]It''s ridiculous. He also would have been known to Delia and MWJ because he was Steve Morgans right hand man at Wolves and he is a friend of theirs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairy Canary 696 Posted November 2, 2017 Agree with that Bradwell. Appointing a manager, coach etc is not an exact science and I think we all understand that sometimes it just doesn''t click as it''s the nature of the job. But CEO is a totally different kettle of fish. To c0ck up so badly with that appointment that the board are looking to pay him off after just a few months takes some doing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hogesar 9,657 Posted November 2, 2017 A very costly mistake, unfortunately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,528 Posted November 2, 2017 If we''d have got rid of the folk who appointed Moxey then who''d have appointed Webber? It''s not lost on me that many of the people who are all angry about these contracts being paid up are the same people who are first to call for someone''s head. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rustyboy 2 Posted November 2, 2017 So how much did we pay to get Webber? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TCCANARY 263 Posted November 2, 2017 [quote user="Hairy Canary"]Agree with that Bradwell. Appointing a manager, coach etc is not an exact science and I think we all understand that sometimes it just doesn''t click as it''s the nature of the job. But CEO is a totally different kettle of fish. To c0ck up so badly with that appointment that the board are looking to pay him off after just a few months takes some doing.[/quote]Employing anyone is always a gamble and saying appointing a CEO is an exact science is silly.This is not a unique situation, employees at any level in a company are hired and fired for a multitude of reasons. I worked in an organisation that had a CEO for 3 weeks, came highly recommended but turned out to be a terrible choice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairy Canary 696 Posted November 2, 2017 Not sure I said it was an exact science TC, just that appointing a Manager/Head Coach wasn''t. Agree that all appointments are a gamble to some degree but I still maintain that a CEO has a clearly identifiable skillset, less volatile working environment in which to adapt into and an easily researched track record. It remains a costly error of judgement even if your past organisation managed to surpass it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TCCANARY 263 Posted November 2, 2017 If you say ''a'' isn''t an exact science but ''b'' is ''is a totally different kettle of fish'' then you are implying that ''b'' is an exact science. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairy Canary 696 Posted November 2, 2017 Fair enough I guess I phased it poorly but that wasn''t what I meant to imply.A carrot isn''t a banana but because a raspberry is a "totally different kettle of fish", it doesn''t imply the raspberry is a banana. :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 2,159 Posted November 2, 2017 Cue: Mr. Apples. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,160 Posted November 2, 2017 This reminds me of that quote from the Apprentice years ago "You''re not a big fish in a small pond... you''re not even a fish..." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lessingham Canary 99 Posted November 2, 2017 Had McNally not gone the way he did, we would not have appointed Moxey, and appointing Moxey really made the board sit up and look at the structure, so i suppose you could say that we have Moxey to thank for the new structure, so at £750k not bad, we have wasted a lot more in recent times, especially giving bonuses for being relegated [;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TCCANARY 263 Posted November 2, 2017 [quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Had McNally not gone the way he did, we would not have appointed Moxey, and appointing Moxey really made the board sit up and look at the structure, so i suppose you could say that we have Moxey to thank for the new structure, so at £750k not bad, we have wasted a lot more in recent times, especially giving bonuses for being relegated [;)][/quote]To be fair Mr McNally was given his bonus for meeting financial targets, relegation wasn''t the reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwindonCanary 455 Posted November 2, 2017 It''s clear that changes cost money, let''s stick with what we''ve got for a long time ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
daly 501 Posted November 2, 2017 MOXLEY Waste of our, the supporters moneyRVW Waste of our, the supporters moneyJARVIS Waste of our, the supporters moneyNAISMITH Waste of our, the supporters moneyMULUMBU Waste of our, the supporters moneyMONEY Waste of our, the supporters moneyLAFFERTY Waste of our the supporters money MILLIONS down the drain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,528 Posted November 2, 2017 Sorry to disappoint you Daly but the money''s not ours. The supporters don''t even get cheaper tickets from th PL millions. If these people hadnt had the money other players would have had it. In fact if some of the supporters on here had their way it would have been more. Despite the fact that we spent 55m last year? there were calls on here to go into debt and spend more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,160 Posted November 2, 2017 Yes, we should never have signed Money, a complete waste of money he was... And as for that Moxley, well... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nuff Said 5,118 Posted November 2, 2017 So, it looks like the conclusion is that we should only sign players and back room staff who are guaranteed sure things. And despite being clearly excellent at their job when we sign them, we should screw them down to contracts that work massively in our favour and are therefore nothing like as good as they could get elsewhere. Simples. Or is that that a description of some posters on here? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219 Posted November 2, 2017 A more interesting question is why the current structure was not implemented at that time and Moxey appointed instead.Parma Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Feedthewolf 4,846 Posted November 2, 2017 [quote user="daly"]MOXLEY Waste of our, the supporters moneyRVW Waste of our, the supporters moneyJARVIS Waste of our, the supporters moneyNAISMITH Waste of our, the supporters moneyMULUMBU Waste of our, the supporters moneyMONEY Waste of our, the supporters moneyLAFFERTY Waste of our the supporters money MILLIONS down the drain[/quote]This reads like a drunk trying to imitate the Daily Star. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites