Paul Lambert - 3 year Deal vs 1 year Rolling Contract

[Wesbian 0]

Is it just me who is actually in favour of the 1 year rolling contract?From what i understand (and i may be wrong), but with a 1 year rolling contract, this means that his contract is always a year from expiration until it is bought out/cancelled etc. This therefore means that should a team approach Lambert, we will be entitled to, let''s call it ''X'' amount of compensation and this figure will never change and as long as Lambert plans on staying, this will never be an issue anyway.This surely makes more sense from a financial point of view as it means that his contract can be improved (like it has been revealed today) in correlation to the club''s success and that X figure will rise in correlation to this also. Another advantage to this as is that, god forbid, we ever wish to terminate Lambert''s contract, we will be saving ourselves more money in that we won''t have to buy out an expensive, long term contract. Therefore, we are left with a low-risk strategy where if we wish to get rid of an expensive manager for whatever reason, we are not forking out a lot of money in doing so. I mean, we don''t have to look beyond a neighbouring county to see an example of a highly paid manager doing badly and his contract needing to be bought out...When considering all this, i think this is also the sort of thing Mcnally considered when he first came in and hired Lambert. I''m not saying i wouldn''t like to see Lambert commit to a long-term future at the club by signing a 3/4 year deal, especially when he''s currently one of the hottest properties in football management and so the risk factor is even lower. But currently, as things are going so well, as Lambert has never even considered leaving NCFC and has no plans to in the near future, i can fully understand the board''s decision to stick with the rolling contract for the time being at least.Cheers to everyone who''s taken their time to read what i have to say and I''m interested to hear everyone else''s thoughts on this particular debate.P.s. WE ARE PREMIER LEAGUE!

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

I think it all depends upon the manager and the level of faith in him. Unlike many Norwich managers in the past i cannot see any circumstances whatever whereby the club will ever want to get rid of him . if he leaves it will be because he wants to. In that regard the balance between club and manager is very different. Lambert will want to balance security with an opt out should he wish to do so. The club will want to keep him or at least get massive compensation in the event of him being poached. In that regard a 3 year rolling contract would be my thoughts, always 3 years on the ticket. I suspect Lambert may think that constranes him too much unless he sees himself as a Norwich version of Ferguson or Wenger. Only time will tell

[shefcanary 2,392]

Curious I am with you on this.  I think the rolling 1 year works well all round (both manager and club).  I''m sure if there was a fixed contract there would potential be rstriction of trade clauses in them which the manager would usually exploit to get more than a years compensation out of a club anyway, even if the contract had less than a year to go.  I''m sure all that has changed today is an increase in remuneration and bonus arrangements.

[Syteanric 1]

Nigel worthington had a rolling contract.... look how it all ended up!

[Rob Sims 0]

1 year doesn''t offer the individual much job security.

I expect most managers knowing how fickle football is want as long a contract as possible so that when the enevitable axe falls after 1 bad season (or less if your board is managed by certain foreign owners.  They get a healthy payout to live on while looking for future work.

I imagine Lambert quite likes the idea of a 1 year rolling contract on improved terms for him and his team as they are on their way up.

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[quote user="Rob Sims"]

1 year doesn''t offer the individual much job security.

I expect most managers knowing how fickle football is want as long a contract as possible so that when the enevitable axe falls after 1 bad season (or less if your board is managed by certain foreign owners.  They get a healthy payout to live on while looking for future work.

I imagine Lambert quite likes the idea of a 1 year rolling contract on improved terms for him and his team as they are on their way up.

[/quote]

 

When that 1 year would pay about £1.6million or more I think that is plenty of security lol.

 

[Europe_93 11]

I would say that in the past Norwich have been stung by having to pay off manager''s when removing them from their post.  To mitigate this risk they would want to either limit the salary or duration of future managers contracts.  When Lambert signed, with belief in his own ability he would have taken a higher salary, rather than a longer contract, confident in the knowledge that there will always be a job somewhere for him if needed.

On promotion to the championship, we would have renegotiated but still not given him a wage fit for one of the  top 10-15 managers in the country, therefore he would have taken salary over duration again.  With promotion to the Premiership, funds are now available.  Lambert (and his team) are more important to us than any player and the board will now have the means to tie them down to longer contracts.  Enough dipping our toes in the water, a more serious long term commitment - and by no means a guarantee, but at least a statement of intent.  This is important for the stability of the club.

So now, when Bolton, Burnley, West Ham etc whoever else comes knocking, Lambert has one less reason to join them, because his salary is already competitive.  The fact that his player budget is in someway related to the teams performance is also important, it states our future ambition rather than being at the whim of some benefactor.

For me, I believe in Lambert''s ability, I would give him a contract for as long as he wanted one.