Gunn departure - Some background

[CaptnCanary 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[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.

 

[/quote]

Simplistic but accurate and tells the basic story. The contracts and wages are details which don''t change what he is saying.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

[quote user="CaptnCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[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.

 

[/quote]

Simplistic but accurate and tells the basic story. The contracts and wages are details which don''t change what he is saying.

[/quote]

Well I''m afraid I disagree Captain. Unless yoiu are a club like Chelsea or Man City a budget can only be spent once. Our budget was big enough to afford a team that could challenge for the play-offs regardless of whether you consider money was wasted elsewhere. It''s amazing how the purcheses of Etuhu and Hughes can be heralded as a waste of money while the millions wasted on Cureton and the like, without a chance of any return, are glossed over. To me it smacks of spinning the facts to fit an agenda.

 

[CaptnCanary 0]

Not at all. He is saying that we have sold good players and replaced them with rubbish. That is true. The fact that money has been wasted on silly contracts and fees is relevant but does not change the story. It is still a case of did have good players, now have worse players and no money.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

[quote user="CaptnCanary"]Not at all. He is saying that we have sold good players and replaced them with rubbish. That is true. The fact that money has been wasted on silly contracts and fees is relevant but does not change the story. It is still a case of did have good players, now have worse players and no money.[/quote]

Yes, I''m sorry, we are in agreement Captain. At the end of the day football failure is usually down to football reasons. If we had a playing budget three times the size we had in 2007 it would still have brought failure if it was wasted. By not wasting it is how other clubs do better with less money.

 

[hurricane 0]

I have heard some things on a similar line. When Mcnally joined the club he was pretty shocked at how the club was being run. His visits to the training ground escalated this. Having been at some big clubs he was shocked at what he was seeing.

The training facitlities were open to all and sundry including friends of players and management using the facilities for various purposes including using the sports gym and even using one of the pitches for a kick about whilst the players trained opposite.

Having heard this i can see why he must have wanted gunn to go, sounds like we had returned to costa del colney and you have to admit must have looked pretty damn shoddy to a new ceo-i know if i invited my mates to where i work for free internet access and food if my boss walked in and wanted to know what they were doing id feel like a right idiot!!

[scents60 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="CaptnCanary"]Not at all. He is saying that we have sold good players and replaced them with rubbish. That is true. The fact that money has been wasted on silly contracts and fees is relevant but does not change the story. It is still a case of did have good players, now have worse players and no money.[/quote]

Yes, I''m sorry, we are in agreement Captain. At the end of the day football failure is usually down to football reasons. If we had a playing budget three times the size we had in 2007 it would still have brought failure if it was wasted. By not wasting it is how other clubs do better with less money.

 

[/quote]

You have a point Nigel but surely the fact that the budget we had did not increase, in spite of the sale of players for high profit, had an effect?

Yes the selection of players that we spent the money on has been questionable since relegation but the climate has changed since relegation too. You have to pay more money for players of a lower calibre now, be that wages or transfer fee. A fair proportion of money from transfer profit should have gone into the playing budget, that clearly hasn''t happened.

 

[Holtys revenge 0]

This is far too detailed for it to be a fabrication. I think it''s very plausible and clearly interesting times lie ahead, especially so when yo look at the team PL has put out today! Obviously he wasn''t impressed with what he saw at Brentford the other night, and has gone for a bit of pace (Otsemobo and Smith) as well as experience (McVeigh and Curo).

C''mon Naaaarwich!!!!!

[Lord Flashheart 0]

I had a couple of scouts say next to me in the Jarrold today so I imagine players will be on their way out soon. However they were Watford scouts so I doubt we''ll get much money for them. [:P]

[Yobocop 1,099]

good read that.

the only bit that gets me is about Lambert using his first game as a showcase, well I hope not after today, that squad deserves to be the one going forward...

Our squad is too large, but I hope he doesn''t make it wafer thin as that has been a problem for Norwich in the past.

[Lambo 0]

After Lappin''s performance today i''m going to go on a whim and say that i''m fine with Hoolahan leaving. Lappin''s delivery is first class and while he may not have a whole lot of pace and trickery neither does Beckham and he''s probably got the best assist record in modern football.

 

Very good read though mate.

[Robert Ketts Yellow Army 15]

[quote user="Canary02 III"]

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!

[/quote]

Well briefed account. Have you a contemporaneous shorthand note of that?

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="refjezhitchin"]

good read that.

the only bit that gets me is about Lambert using his first game as a showcase, well I hope not after today, that squad deserves to be the one going forward...

Our squad is too large, but I hope he doesn''t make it wafer thin as that has been a problem for Norwich in the past.

[/quote]This is strange that doesn''t sit right with me.  Play the players you prefer to move on, yet, Hooligan came off the bench and Russell was nowhere to be seen.

[Bill 1,788]

As you do not know the correct figures on wages, agents fees or transfer fees it is rather pointless to make claims based on that lack of knowledge - remember the supposed £750,000 transfer fee for Dave ''Striker''.Most transfer fees are not a wodge of cash handed over as you might do at a car auction but a speculative figure arrived at by adding all the posibily liabilities and fees together - remember the supposed £6m for Bellamy.So until you can tell us what that " transfer profit" was and what the player budget (wages, plus transfer/agent fees)is all you are doing is using fabrications to justify your attack on the club.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr McNallys Alter Ego"][quote user="refjezhitchin"]

good read that.

the only bit that gets me is about Lambert using his first game as a showcase, well I hope not after today, that squad deserves to be the one going forward...

Our squad is too large, but I hope he doesn''t make it wafer thin as that has been a problem for Norwich in the past.

[/quote]This is strange that doesn''t sit right with me.  Play the players you prefer to move on, yet, Hooligan came off the bench and Russell was nowhere to be seen. [/quote]Monday''s game with the TV coverage, lack of clashing games and no real expectation of being able to beat the premiership opposition which can mask players frailties is surely a much better shop window that this 3pm saturday kick off.

[scents60 0]

[quote user="City1st"]As you do not know the correct figures on wages, agents fees or transfer fees it is rather pointless to make claims based on that lack of knowledge - remember the supposed £750,000 transfer fee for Dave ''Striker''.

Most transfer fees are not a wodge of cash handed over as you might do at a car auction but a speculative figure arrived at by adding all the posibily liabilities and fees together - remember the supposed £6m for Bellamy.

So until you can tell us what that " transfer profit" was and what the player budget (wages, plus transfer/agent fees)is all you are doing is using fabrications to justify your attack on the club.
[/quote]

 

If you are under the impression that it''s my belief that someone makes a deal and turns up with a suitcase full of cash when a player is sold, then perhaps it''s you that''s making the assumptions to base an attack on.

It was never any secret that we paid a substantially smaller figure for Dean Ashton than we received from West Ham. It is also no secret that part of the profit made went to Crewe. It is therefore not a major jump to say that there was money left over after this transfer as a profit, as well as recouping the original transfer sum. This was exactly the argument that Phil Thompson was making this afternoon on Sky over Rafa Benitez''s situation at Liverpool. Any money he has spent has been recouped by the sale of players and yet his original transfer budget seems to have evaporated. I believe that this is the frustration that most fans have, especially when the clubs accounts are released and they see not insignificant amounts being spent on conservatories at the training ground.

And for the record, if you consider that an attack I suggest you steer clear of me on a bad day

[Bill 1,788]

It was not an assumption merely a like minded response to your rather simplistic view of the club''s finances - something you appear happy to continue with.You talk of the Ashton transfers as if they happened isolated in a bubble away from the rest of the finances of the club. For you I doubt it is, as you say, a major jump to claim there was money left over. Back to the old wads of cash view of things. A simple minded view that suggests that you may have a different agenda to that of questioning how the money is spent. Conveniently no mention that the Ashton transfer inwards was funded by borrowing against future ticket sales. No mention as to whether that loan was to be paid back in the event of Ashton''s sale. No explanation either as to when that loan would be paid back.In fact nothing other than some back of the fag packet calculations to show how wicked everybody is at Carrow Road. Everybody willingly involved in this incompetence and/or corruption - depending on who you are having a go at.  One suggestion I would make is that if the club accounts are capable of showing us all how much has been frittered away on ''conservatories'' then perhaps last year''s might actually show how much was spent on, and received from, transfers. That way you could substantiate your farcical claims and maybe ease the ''frustration that most fans have''.I shan''t hold my breath though.

[scents60 0]

It would appear then, according to your good self, the club have been over extending themselves since the promotion to the Premier League and we should all be immensely grateful for the situation that we now find ourselves in as the pennies have been pinched so tightly the queen''s head can now be heard to scream.

My knowledge of the transfer dealings is quite clearly inadequate as you are far more knowledgeable of and privy to the clubs financial situation than a mere mortal that pays to attend the games.

I have no agenda, my viewpoint is one that suggests that the club has been poorly managed by misguided individuals for some time now, but that is merely my viewpoint. Heaven forbid that someone actually question things.

 

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="City1st"]It was not an assumption merely a like minded response to your rather simplistic view of the club''s finances - something you appear happy to continue with.You talk of the Ashton transfers as if they happened isolated in a bubble away from the rest of the finances of the club. For you I doubt it is, as you say, a major jump to claim there was money left over. Back to the old wads of cash view of things. A simple minded view that suggests that you may have a different agenda to that of questioning how the money is spent. Conveniently no mention that the Ashton transfer inwards was funded by borrowing against future ticket sales. No mention as to whether that loan was to be paid back in the event of Ashton''s sale. No explanation either as to when that loan would be paid back.In fact nothing other than some back of the fag packet calculations to show how wicked everybody is at Carrow Road. Everybody willingly involved in this incompetence and/or corruption - depending on who you are having a go at.  One suggestion I would make is that if the club accounts are capable of showing us all how much has been frittered away on ''conservatories'' then perhaps last year''s might actually show how much was spent on, and received from, transfers. That way you could substantiate your farcical claims and maybe ease the ''frustration that most fans have''.I shan''t hold my breath though.[/quote]Not sure where you get your facts from but I''d be surprised if the Ashton purchase was funded by a loan secured against future ticket sales because they were part of the securitisation deal and thus already ''borrowed against''. Maybe it was the £6m we quietly picked up from the Chase land sale that year that funded Ashton but attributing his purchase to the ''Evil RC'' just wouldn''t have fitted the agenda. You also mention the accounts, I suggest you get a copy yourself and read them. Pay particular attention to the ''profits on player trading'' which stand at around £15,000,000 since relegation from the Premiership. That an eight figure sum has been plundered from the squad and squandered at this club is indisputable, any argument simply centres around where the money went.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="City1st"]It was not an assumption merely a like minded response to your rather simplistic view of the club''s finances - something you appear happy to continue with.

You talk of the Ashton transfers as if they happened isolated in a bubble away from the rest of the finances of the club. For you I doubt it is, as you say, a major jump to claim there was money left over. Back to the old wads of cash view of things.

A simple minded view that suggests that you may have a different agenda to that of questioning how the money is spent. Conveniently no mention that the Ashton transfer inwards was funded by borrowing against future ticket sales. No mention as to whether that loan was to be paid back in the event of Ashton''s sale. No explanation either as to when that loan would be paid back.

In fact nothing other than some back of the fag packet calculations to show how wicked everybody is at Carrow Road. Everybody willingly involved in this incompetence and/or corruption - depending on who you are having a go at. 

One suggestion I would make is that if the club accounts are capable of showing us all how much has been frittered away on ''conservatories'' then perhaps last year''s might actually show how much was spent on, and received from, transfers. That way you could substantiate your farcical claims and maybe ease the ''frustration that most fans have''.

I shan''t hold my breath though.
[/quote]

Not sure where you get your facts from but I''d be surprised if the Ashton purchase was funded by a loan secured against future ticket sales because they were part of the securitisation deal and thus already ''borrowed against''. Maybe it was the £6m we quietly picked up from the Chase land sale that year that funded Ashton but attributing his purchase to the ''Evil RC'' just wouldn''t have fitted the agenda. You also mention the accounts, I suggest you get a copy yourself and read them. Pay particular attention to the ''profits on player trading'' which stand at around £15,000,000 since relegation from the Premiership.
That an eight figure sum has been plundered from the squad and squandered at this club is indisputable, any argument simply centres around where the money went.
[/quote]

Bucketman.. you make some good points but your shot in the dark is no more a fact than those you are rubbishing. In each case it could be said they "fit an agenda".

The point I was making yesterday was that failure on the football field can usually be attributed to poor football decisions. If we take the Ashton transfer then probably the poorest decision was when the board didn''t find a way to finance his transfer in August 2004. Had we done that I believe we would have stayed up comfortably. There was just so little in some of those early season results we surely would have picked up enough points for that. If people would just take the blinkers off and look back at how we played and were honest they would remember that we actually weren''t that bad and certainly that season wasn''t the failure that it''s made out to be now.

Now the point I was making about how the quality of our squad went down in such a short time from being good enough for a play-off challenge to not being good enough to stay in the Champs was not down to lack of money. It was down to poor football decisions from the board and the managers, especially those that followed Worthy. To listen to some on here you''d think there''d be no point in playing the 46 games each season. Some would have you believe that the league positions are pre-determined by the size of the player budget. But in the real world the league table is decided by football results and how good the football teams perform. If we measured our performance in 2007/8 compared to where we''d have been expected to finish in the "player budget league" it will surely show where the failure was. Hence my comments about £800,000 and a big 3 year contract for Curo. If our player budget had been twice as big as it was do you believe, since Worthy, we have had the right football managers for it to have made much difference. After all, I don''t believe Palace have had bigger player budgets than us since relegation, they have just used what they had more effectively.

 

[Barclay Kid 0]

"Gunn - We''ll struggle to keep Wes if there''s an offer but so far there hasn''t been".  When This Article First Appeared There Was A Lot Of Speculation About It, Why Would Gunn Send Out A Message Basically Saying, You Want Hoolahan, Come Get Him, We Won''t Stop You!? Especially When Gunn Had Previously Made It Clear That We Had To Keep Hoolahan. If He Wanted To Keep Hoolahan He Should Have Done What Anyone Else Would Have Done And Kept His Mouth Shut!! So It Does Make Sense Now To Be Honest! :)

[ur just a man in a jacket 0]

i know the gunn had to get a train home by himself from exeter!! didnt even fly with flybe!!

[Barclay Boy 0]

[quote user="refjezhitchin"]

good read that.

the only bit that gets me is about Lambert using his first game as a showcase, well I hope not after today, that squad deserves to be the one going forward...

Our squad is too large, but I hope he doesn''t make it wafer thin as that has been a problem for Norwich in the past.

[/quote]

Agreed- spot on.

[Dronny Canary 0]

I suspect that there''s some truth in this story but some of it is just too far fetched.  It''s as if Gunn had free rein to sign people and McNally was happy for him to get on with signing and transferring people regardless of the finances.  Especially if he had such a poor impression of Gunn''s professionalism he would have been all over him like a rash.  After all, who did all the work on the contracts of these players?  Do we believe that, in the state that we probably are in, that nobody has even a rough idea of what is coming in and going out? Was Gunn really allowed to spend cash on a "promise" that players were leaving.  This doesn''t sound like McNally to me at all!  There''s obviously a lot that we''ve not been told and will never hear.  If, however, someone is finally getting to grips with running this club as a proper concern and managing the players effectively then that''s all I really want.  It would certainly make a really refreshing change!