Appointment of Paul Lambert

[Oz Canary 0]

The thing that is frustrating me (and I am sure everybody else) is the silence coming out of the club about Sir Paul.

Why can''t we get on the front foot and offer him a contract for 2,3,4,5 years and lock him in.

That would ease everybody''s tension and allow us to move forward.

I just can''t understand why we are not doing that.

All we have had is McNally saying we are going to fight to keep him, well let''s get him off these "rolling contracts" and sign him up, he deserves the pay day and the commitment from the club.

[Lets be aving you! 0]

The contract will be agreed by both parties. If Lambert felt the club were trying to "lock" him in to limit his future opportunities, why should he sign it?

 

Concluding a very long contract wouldn''t put off many other clubs anyway. And probably not the richer clubs, one of which is likely to be the next step in Lambert''s career, wherever that will be (but hopefully not yet).

[AndyCanary 0]

I agree, but it takes two to tango.

My opinion is that Lambert is committed to Norwich, but not emotionally so. He uses the speculation as leverage to get himself a better deal and more money to spend on players.

He''s come a long way with us. But it''s still only 3 years of a massive career in football where he''s always achieved highly and never shown real emotional loyalty to any club.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

I agree that a long contract would have no real effect on the chances of a bigger club taking him. Reports curculating that Brendan Rodgers is on Liverpools shortlist and he apparently signed a new contract in January taking him to 2015. Liverpool will have no worries about the composation required if they decide he is the right man for them, why would it be any different for Lambert.

 

 

[Bryangunnshairline 0]

Rodgers has turned down the chance to speak with Liverpool according to sky sports

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Oz Canary"]

The thing that is frustrating me (and I am sure everybody else) is the silence coming out of the club about Sir Paul.

Why can''t we get on the front foot and offer him a contract for 2,3,4,5 years and lock him in.

That would ease everybody''s tension and allow us to move forward.

I just can''t understand why we are not doing that.

All we have had is McNally saying we are going to fight to keep him, well let''s get him off these "rolling contracts" and sign him up, he deserves the pay day and the commitment from the club.

[/quote]

A rolling contract does not mean lack of commitment from the club, and a 3 year rolling contract is more of a commitment than a 3 year contract, as one runs down and the other does not.   

[Mr Brownstone 0]

[quote user="AndyCanary"]He uses the speculation as leverage to get himself a better deal and more money to spend on players.[/quote]

 

Disagree completely. Every spare penny the club has already goes in to the playing budget. There is nothing to be gained from any speculation other than an improved contract for Lambert, which you would think the club would have no problem in offering, although I suspect personal wealth is not high on the list of Lambert''s priorities.

[JKUIL 0]

[quote user="AndyCanary"]I agree, but it takes two to tango.

My opinion is that Lambert is committed to Norwich, but not emotionally so. He uses the speculation as leverage to get himself a better deal and more money to spend on players.

He''s come a long way with us. But it''s still only 3 years of a massive career in football where he''s always achieved highly and never shown real emotional loyalty to any club.[/quote]

I think this is a really good point. Time and time again over recent weeks and, indeed, years I have been left feeling disappointed after hearing a Lambert interview in which he refers to Norwich, the club, its supporters rather than us, we and our supporters. It does seem to demonstrate a rather cold detachment and lack of identication. A bit of a cold fish.

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Oz Canary"]

The thing that is frustrating me (and I am sure everybody else) is the silence coming out of the club about Sir Paul.

Why can''t we get on the front foot and offer him a contract for 2,3,4,5 years and lock him in.

That would ease everybody''s tension and allow us to move forward.

I just can''t understand why we are not doing that.

All we have had is McNally saying we are going to fight to keep him, well let''s get him off these "rolling contracts" and sign him up, he deserves the pay day and the commitment from the club.

[/quote]

A rolling contract does not mean lack of commitment from the club, and a 3 year rolling contract is more of a commitment than a 3 year contract, as one runs down and the other does not.   

[/quote]

 

Spot on there Mr Moy, there does seem to be a distinct lack of understanding towards rolling contracts at times on this message board. 

 

If we take as given that one day Lambert is going to leave for another club, and the club is not going to sack him, a rolling contract is perfect for the club as it optimises how much compensation we will be able to obtain from Lambert''s next club, be it Liverpool, Man Utd or Barcelona!