Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Canary02 III

Gunn departure - Some background

Recommended Posts

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N.B. Forgot to mention two additional things. 1) McNally especially critical of the lack of firm direction given to Gunn by previous directors. Any instructions or agreements left very vague etc, 2) Lambert also looking at bringing players in IF he can get enough out, and wants to add pace which he believes we lack throughout, not just in terms of running but also pace in terms of ball movement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have made this up then you have too much time on your hands!! [:D]

Seems entirely possible and plausible..

Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a very plausible reason.

If you have made it up then 10 out of 10 for content and quality[:D]

It does match very well with characters and the known situation in our beloved club.

Thanks for the time taken in posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks - sounds genuine, or at least very credible. Maybe we''ve finally got the hard men at the top we''ve needed for a decade or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Gentleman Jim"]

An excellent summation McCanary of what we had already known or guessed, not too enlightning though [;)]

 

 

[/quote]

So are you saying the OP haas too much time on their hands then??

[:D][:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="McCanary"][quote user="Gentleman Jim"]

An excellent summation McCanary of what we had already known or guessed, not too enlightning though [;)]

 

 

[/quote]

So are you saying the OP haas too much time on their hands then??

[:D][:D]

[/quote]

If it helps, my Mrs would agree with that theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if Lambert does not sell our best players, we are up sh*t creek next season in terms of administration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like you have a solid source, and the information you''ve provided is very believable. It does perturb me slightly that McNally had to be brought in to have this shake up though, and if not the club would have pottered along into indifference!I''m glad we have someone who can hopefully organise us sufficiently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is all (largely) true, it seems that the decision to fire Gunn was something of an irrational one, i.e. a reaction to the 7-1 drubbing.It was irrational because Wes had still not gone, there was a financial problem, and they decided to worsen the financial problem by sacking Gunn (compensation), appointing Lambert (compensation), and also compensation for Lambert''s team and for Butterworth. I am not sure how much this would all come to, but it has to be several hundred thousand pounds. Keeping Gunn would have avoided this further drain.So it looks more and more as if despite the good pre-season one game was enough to get rid of Gunn, almost as an act of revenge and despite the cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Salopian"]If this is all (largely) true, it seems that the decision to fire Gunn was something of an irrational one, i.e. a reaction to the 7-1 drubbing.It was irrational because Wes had still not gone, there was a financial problem, and they decided to worsen the financial problem by sacking Gunn (compensation), appointing Lambert (compensation), and also compensation for Lambert''s team and for Butterworth. I am not sure how much this would all come to, but it has to be several hundred thousand pounds. Keeping Gunn would have avoided this further drain.So it looks more and more as if despite the good pre-season one game was enough to get rid of Gunn, almost as an act of revenge and despite the cost.[/quote]Alternatively it could be looked on as the final straw .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly a good read. The names mentioned are hardly a great surprise on the basis a) they are the few players we could actually expect a fee for and b) they would undoubtly be the biggest earners in the Club.

I''d much rather McNally actually had someone in place he felt he could work with and having a "team building plan" that the manager was working to, than someone who keeps changing his mind and probably doesn''t really know exactly what he wants.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks as though there will be players leaving and not just restricted to Hoolahan, Russell and Stefanovic as Lambert has already said that 30+ players is too many.

Also beteween 350K and 600K will be going out as compensation for Lambert appointment, plus paying off BG.

McNally has already said the financial situation is dire so can''t see many ( if any) additions to squad being made. May have to go with what is left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great post may i add but..

 

Many people will have heard that at both the Man Utd and Wigan game Delia played hostess for a far eastern businessman, a potential investor who is now in advanced talks over a possible takeover (some people may have read my other thread about this but if you haven''t my source is from some very reliable people in the BBC who want to keep this very hush hush before it all breaks.) One of the requirements before his consortiums investment was that a professional football manager had to be in place with the vision to make Norwich a Premiership club again and therefore Paul Lambert has been appointed accordingly. According to the same source, the board had already agreed to replace Bryan Gunn at the beginning of the season with Paul Lambert in mind, hence the quick appointment. The Colchester game disaster only made their plan much easier to execute and was not the real reason for Gunn''s sacking.

NCFCanary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent OP. The plot thickens. Let''s hope we can have some stability soon so that we can concentrate on what goes on on the football pitch, instead of side issues such as the machinations behind the scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="NCFCanary"]

A great post may i add but..

 

Many people will have heard that at both the Man Utd and Wigan game Delia played hostess for a far eastern businessman, a potential investor who is now in advanced talks over a possible takeover (some people may have read my other thread about this but if you haven''t my source is from some very reliable people in the BBC who want to keep this very hush hush before it all breaks.) One of the requirements before his consortiums investment was that a professional football manager had to be in place with the vision to make Norwich a Premiership club again and therefore Paul Lambert has been appointed accordingly. According to the same source, the board had already agreed to replace Bryan Gunn at the beginning of the season with Paul Lambert in mind, hence the quick appointment. The Colchester game disaster only made their plan much easier to execute and was not the real reason for Gunn''s sacking.

NCFCanary.

[/quote]

 

Give it a rest mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me the most concerning thing about the original post is that it seems that our board are now happy to let go of any and all of the players which we have who may be considered of Championship standard. That approach will see our squad looking like a bottom half league 1 club for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr. Bump"]Ashton > Earnie > Cureton
Clingan > Gill
Marshall > Theoklitos
Croft > Whaley
Hoolahan > ?????
[/quote]Hoolahan> probably a blank here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting article, but a lot of it seems subject to interpretation of what Gunn and McNally were each thinking. I find it a bit difficult to believe that McNally was not more of a part in the recruitment of players, but as I say, interesting all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good post. Heard rather much the same story so think there is something in it, although if I had posted it there would have been an uproar![;)] McNally seems the tough decision maker this club has been lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny that people who post baseless rumours of good news for the club are insulted no end and virtually chased off the message board with fire & pitchforks, then someone posts a baseless rumour saying that we''re in a smelly creek and they''re hailed as a champion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr. Bump"]Ashton > Earnie > Cureton
Clingan > Gill
Marshall > Theoklitos
Croft > Whaley
Hoolahan > ?????
[/quote]

That''s simplistic Mr Bump and doesn''t tell the full story. While it''s correct to point out that after relegation form the Prem the quality of players went down hill year in year out this happened at the other relegated clubs too. In my opinion, after Worthy was sacked the money we did have was totally wasted. So although Earnie to Cureton and Etuhu to Russell were steps down Cureton and Russell were surely not the best we could have done with our budget. £800,000 and a big three year contract for Cureton? It was these deals that accelerated our demise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...