Have Villa jumped the gun?

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

This was taken from statements made by the Club and by McNally yesterday and I believe they were made after Villa''s announcement about Lambert having signed for them. The "gardening leave" bit puzzles me. The fact that no compensation has been agreed adds further to the confusion.

 

What with all the conflicting Press reports, SSN, Tweeting, club statements and message board rumours, it''s virtually impossible to make sense of it all. The best bet, in order to preserve one''s sanity, would probably be to hide away on a remote Scottish island (or Kelling Heath) for a while until the dust settles; but then an aeroplane would probably fly overhead with a streamer announcing that Lambert had signed Grant Holt.

 

Stetements from the Homepage:-

 

Earlier reports that compensation from Aston Villa had been agreed – rumoured to be about £1m – were denied by the club.

“We will continue to discuss this matter privately with Aston Villa,” the Norwich City statement said.

Norwich chief executive David McNally yesterday revealed the club were in the process of looking for a new manager, describing the former Carrow boss as being on “gardening leave”.

 

I''ve previously thought that this all might get messy and this could now be the case. 

 

[Shankslad 0]

I suppose having rejected his resignation they see him as technically still an employee and have suspended him.   In the meantime he''s chosen to do a "foreigner" ( working, usually for cash in hand, for someone on the side whilst employed by someone else).   I think they''re just deliberately being awkward and showing dissent for the manner in which the business was conducted.   I don''t blame ''em.

 

Paul Lambert is a young up and coming manager but still has much to learn.   He''s just proved it!!!

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

[quote user="Shankslad"]

I suppose having rejected his resignation they see him as technically still an employee and have suspended him.   In the meantime he''s chosen to do a "foreigner" ( working, usually for cash in hand, for someone on the side whilst employed by someone else).   I think they''re just deliberately being awkward and showing dissent for the manner in which the business was conducted.   I don''t blame ''em.

 

Paul Lambert is a young up and coming manager but still has much to learn.   He''s just proved it!!!

[/quote]

 

Like I said, it''s complicated and could get messy.

 

It doesn''t make sense that NCFC should agree to Lambert signing for Villa before compensation and other matters have been agreed to. Lambert''s signature on his contract at Carrow Road is our trump card. Villa''s claim that we broke the terms of this contact would seem to have little foundation with McNally stating that talks between the two clubs concerning the matter are ongoing. Neither do I believe that our own Club solicitors would drop such a clanger and allow McNally to commit himself the way he did. Villa tried this tactic over the McCleish affair, but ended up paying Birmingham a lot.

 

Lambert is free to sign any piece of paper he wants. He could sign-up for a Tesco Clubcard at the Five Ways in Edgbaston or for life membership of the Hotsie Totsie Club on the Soho Road, Handsworth (Tropical Linda is nice) and he could equally sign a contract with Aston Villa which enables them to claim him as their new manager the way they did. The difference with the latter is that he is acting in contravention of an existing contract with his current employers (NCFC) and they could challenge it, stand by their rights and have Lambo tending his window box for a year if they were unhappy with what was on offer.

 

From McNally''s noises, we have yet to cancel Lambert''s contract, despite Villa''s bravado. 

 

As I said, it could get messy either that or very lucrative for NCFC.

 

[Ruddygore 0]

I have no idea when Lambert''s 1 year rolling contract runs to - ie. when it ends but presuming there is still time on it and that terms have not been agreed between the two clubs then it will get messy for Villa. We can in the meantime employ whoever we wish on a separate contract and call him what we like to do the managers role while Lambert is still technically and to all intents and purposes contracted to us.

Bits of paper signed do count for something with the FA, if they didn''t the FA would be facing anarchy and the leagues could next try dual signing players!

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

[quote user="Ruddygore"]I have no idea when Lambert''s 1 year rolling contract runs to - ie. when it ends but presuming there is still time on it and that terms have not been agreed between the two clubs then it will get messy for Villa. We can in the meantime employ whoever we wish on a separate contract and call him what we like to do the managers role while Lambert is still technically and to all intents and purposes contracted to us. Bits of paper signed do count for something with the FA, if they didn''t the FA would be facing anarchy and the leagues could next try dual signing players![/quote]

 

A poster explained it very well on this board recently. It is an on-going one year commitment by either side. One year would have started from today. One year will start from tomorrow, and so on.

 

It is not to be taken lightly and carries more clout than some on here are beginning to think. It is indeed a trump card and hence the ''gardening leave'' reference, as this is how the trump card is utilised, if necessary.

[William Darby 0]

It''s all quite simple imo. The two clubs have agreed that a payment will be made, but haven''t agreed the actual amount. Mutually beneficial really, we can get on searching for a new manager.  As it stood, Villa would get Lambert whatever, while we were stuck in limbo, not technically able to search because we were claiming we hadn''t accepted Lambert''s resignation.

[AJ 0]

Before Villa announced his appointment. I''m 100% sure his contract will have been scrutinised by their legal team.

If, as has been reported Norwich broke the clause/agreement contained in it then I''ll be surprised if Villa end up paying any compensation at all.

The Norwich board will have to take the rap for that if so. Clauses are put in contracts for a reason. Same with Holt''s apparent pay rise, which the board seem to have gone back on too

[PurpleCanary 5,603]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

This was taken from statements made by the Club and by McNally yesterday and I believe they were made after Villa''s announcement about Lambert having signed for them. The "gardening leave" bit puzzles me. The fact that no compensation has been agreed adds further to the confusion.

 

What with all the conflicting Press reports, SSN, Tweeting, club statements and message board rumours, it''s virtually impossible to make sense of it all. The best bet, in order to preserve one''s sanity, would probably be to hide away on a remote Scottish island (or Kelling Heath) for a while until the dust settles; but then an aeroplane would probably fly overhead with a streamer announcing that Lambert had signed Grant Holt.

 

Stetements from the Homepage:-

 

Earlier reports that compensation from Aston Villa had been agreed – rumoured to be about £1m – were denied by the club.

“We will continue to discuss this matter privately with Aston Villa,” the Norwich City statement said.

Norwich chief executive David McNally yesterday revealed the club were in the process of looking for a new manager, describing the former Carrow boss as being on “gardening leave”.

 

I''ve previously thought that this all might get messy and this could now be the case. 

 

[/quote]

 

BroadstairS, it is not clear when that quote about gardening leave was made. It seems to have been a comment from a day ot two ago, when we had refused permission for him, rather than after Villa said he was now their employee rather than ours.. It certainly doesn''t appear in the NCFC statement that acknowledges Lambert has gone to Villa. The only question that raises is about compensation, which is a different matter, and could indeed get messy. And possibly emabarrassing. But we shall see.

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

Agreed Purple, the timing of the "gardening" reference is a bit unclear, although it looks to have been made sometime on Friday.

 

The piece about ongoing discussions with Villa was statemented yesterday and seemingly after Villa announced to one and all that Lambert was their manager. I contend that it would not make sense for NCFC to cancel Lambert''s contract until they were happy with the finances involved and with any other aspects of an agreement, such as a player embargo, that they would want inserted. Neither did it state that PL had been taken off this "gardening leave."

 

I smell a court case here (ala NotW) if Randy doesn''t cough up, especially as other factors are starting to enter into the equation, such as illegal tapping up. This latter remains circumstantial at the moment but could well mushroom. 

 

Protracted legalities would be the last thing our Club needs at this moment in time as they would be expensice and distracting. However, even though Randy has probaby got half a dozen attorneys working on it in LA "in order to crush that little soccer club in the east of Anglia called Norwich Town," I can''t see McNally allowing himself or the Club to be piddled upon.

[PurpleCanary 5,603]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

Agreed Purple, the timing of the "gardening" reference is a bit unclear, although it looks to have been made sometime on Friday.

 

The piece about ongoing discussions with Villa was statemented yesterday and seemingly after Villa announced to one and all that Lambert was their manager. I contend that it would not make sense for NCFC to cancel Lambert''s contract until they were happy with the finances involved and with any other aspects of an agreement, such as a player embargo, that they would want inserted. Neither did it state that PL had been taken off this "gardening leave."

 

I smell a court case here (ala NotW) if Randy doesn''t cough up, especially as other factors are starting to enter into the equation, such as illegal tapping up. This latter remains circumstantial at the moment but could well mushroom. 

 

Protracted legalities would be the last thing our Club needs at this moment in time as they would be expensice and distracting. However, even though Randy has probaby got half a dozen attorneys working on it in LA "in order to crush that little soccer club in the east of Anglia called Norwich Town," I can''t see McNally allowing himself or the Club to be piddled upon.

[/quote]

 

BroadstairS, one part of the situation is certainly murky. One would need to see Lambert''s contract to know if there is something to Villa''s supposed claim that they don''t need to pay compensation. But based on the official NCFC statement there seems to be no doubt that Lambert is now an Aston Villa employee and not an NCFC employee, but also that there has been no agreement on compensation. Whether that means just the amount of compensation or the question of compensation at all is not clear. Either way we are not in as strong bargaining position as we would be if Lambert was still our employee.

[Jacko 0]

I think the key argument may be based upon whether Lambert actually had this clause which allowed him to talk to other clubs. If he did then the club have committed a clear breach of contract by not allowing him to talk to other clubs. By going back on their word the club would also have breached an implied term of every employment contract which is a duty of trust and confidence between an employer and employee. Lambert could potentially all treat this as what is known as repudiatory (or fundamental) breach of contract. The effect of this that Lambert is allowed to bring the contract to an end himself and treat himself as dismissed. Thus he would technically be a free agent. But surely the board are too clued up to have made such an elementary mistake like that?  

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

We employed Lambert long, long before any compensation had been agreed with Colchester.

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

“We will continue to discuss this matter privately with Aston Villa,” the Norwich City statement said."          (Saturday pm.)

 

If our Club had balls''d the Lambert contract up in such a way as Villa claim then why are these "discussions continuing?" McNally would have had the "an yer boike mayt" by now.

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]We employed Lambert long, long before any compensation had been agreed with Colchester.[/quote]

 

I thought that compensation was imposed upon us, along with a hefty fine.

[PurpleCanary 5,603]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]We employed Lambert long, long before any compensation had been agreed with Colchester.[/quote]

 

Yes, but because we broke the deal, which was that Colchester allowed us to talk to Lambert on the condition that we would not poach him until compensation had been agreed. And that cost us £626,000. A £200,00 fine (£125,000 of it suspended), compensation of £425,000 and legals fees.

 

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]We employed Lambert long, long before any compensation had been agreed with Colchester.[/quote]

 

I thought that compensation was imposed upon us, along with a hefty fine.

[/quote]

 

It was, I can''t remember the time frame involved , but I believe it was quite a few months later and hence I don''t see anything in the no compensation agreed with Villa bit.

 

It could just drag on and on until Villa are forced to pay

[Jacko 0]

It puts a massive dent in the budget for the time being though. We have to find a replacement and we have no money from Lambert''s to do it with until Villa pay up. Swansea have about £5 million to do it with. So they are in far stronger position.

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="Jacko"]

I think the key argument may be based upon whether Lambert actually had this clause which allowed him to talk to other clubs. If he did then the club have committed a clear breach of contract by not allowing him to talk to other clubs. By going back on their word the club would also have breached an implied term of every employment contract which is a duty of trust and confidence between an employer and employee. Lambert could potentially all treat this as what is known as repudiatory (or fundamental) breach of contract. The effect of this that Lambert is allowed to bring the contract to an end himself and treat himself as dismissed. Thus he would technically be a free agent. But surely the board are too clued up to have

made such an elementary mistake like that?  

[/quote]

Norwich chief executive David McNally yesterday revealed the club were in the process of looking for a new manager, describing the former Carrow boss as being on “gardening leave”.

He told Sky Sports News: “We are looking for a new manager, that is likely what we concentrate on in the next few weeks.

“We were in a situation where we were approached by another club to speak to Paul Lambert, we didn’t grant them permission and we were very clear we wanted to keep our manager who has been incredibly successful.

“When it was indicated by our manager that he would like the opportunity to speak to this particular club the dynamics changed, and then it was about talking to them about compensation, agreeing compensation and sorting out a time frame, and we are still in that process."

IMO the Club and it''s legal advisers are far too clued up to get caught out like this. I think the above extract from the article in the Pinkun is revealing. It''s a carefully considered statement and one that I am sure would have been drafted or at least vetted by the Club''s solicitors. It states that Villa''s approach was rejected but when Lambert expressed a desire to talk to Villa the club acceded to his request in accordance with his contract.

[Aggy 766]

The Guardian article that Broadstairs posted a couple of days ago, with the headline "Villa believe they don''t owe compensation" or similar, actually contained no statement from Villa saying why they thought this. It quoted plenty from McNally, and said that Villa confirmed "there had been no further negotiations between the two sides." In fact, there was no mention of Villa believing they didn''t have to pay compensation in the article whatsoever, other than the journalist himself commenting that seemingly Lambert had made himself a free agent by handing in his resignation (although he then goes on to quote McNally saying we rejected the resignation).

What strikes me is that McNally''s words about us continuing to deal with the issue of compensation privately suggests that Villa do not think for one second that they owe us nothing and are happy to do so. If they weren''t playing ball, would we be keeping it private, or would we be shouting foul to the FA? I suppose it may be to limit embarrassment, but I doubt it. It seems far more likely to me that we are in talks with Villa now about the actual money.

That would also explain why it does seem odd that Lambert has been appointed at Villa after we had rejected his resignation. As TPRM says, if we have come to an agreement with Villa that Lambert will become their boss, but are yet to figure out compensation, it would explain the seeming confusion there. It would also suggest that the terms between the two clubs aren''t too bad, and we are indeed privately discussing compensation issues.

What also makes me think this is that the official Villa "club statement" on the issue is one sentence long and barely says anything more than "we have appointed Paul Lambert." It gives no more detail than that, doesn''t mention anything such as "appointed him after his resignation from Norwich" etc. That, to me, suggests negotiations are still on going between the clubs.

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

"IMO the Club and it''s legal advisers are far too clued up to get caught out like this. I think the above extract from the article in the Pinkun is revealing. It''s a carefully considered statement and one that I am sure would have been drafted or at least vetted by the Club''s solicitors. It states that Villa''s approach was rejected but when Lambert expressed a desire to talk to Villa the club acceded to his request in accordance with his contract."

 

Well spotted that man.

[Dodds 0]

If Norwich have breached a condition of Lamberts contract, then Lambert can, and appears to have, repudiated the agreement.

[PurpleCanary 5,603]

[quote user="Jack Slicer"]

 Norwich chief executive David McNally yesterday revealed the club were in the process of looking for a new manager, describing the former Carrow boss as being on “gardening leave”. He told Sky Sports News: “We are looking for a new manager, that is likely what we concentrate on in the next few weeks. “We were in a situation where we were approached by another club to speak to Paul Lambert, we didn’t grant them permission and we were very clear we wanted to keep our manager who has been incredibly successful. “When it was indicated by our manager that he would like the opportunity to speak to this particular club the dynamics changed, and then it was about talking to them about compensation, agreeing compensation and sorting out a time frame, and we are still in that process." IMO the Club and it''s legal advisers are far too clued up to get caught out like this. I think the above extract from the article in the Pinkun is revealing. It''s a carefully considered statement and one that I am sure would have been drafted or at least vetted by the Club''s solicitors. It states that Villa''s approach was rejected but when Lambert expressed a desire to talk to Villa the club acceded to his request in accordance with his contract.[/quote]

 

All of that, including the gardening leave bit, was from Friday, and Villa announced Lambert as manager yesterday. Actually it seems longer ago than that! But NCFC are not now saying Lambert is still on gardening leave.

[whoareyou? 0]

Villa have form for trying to take other club''s managers on the cheap......and then having to pay handsomely for it afterwards. [:D]How much did McLeish cost Villa in total in the end? I reckon it''s in excess of £10 million if you add on the pay up they have just given him.

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

The timing is not important here Purple, more the fact that we actually did eventually allow PL to talk to Villa, contrary to some reports. 

[Dodds 0]

And as somebody mentioned yesterday, Norwich have form for breach of contract.

[William Darby 0]

IMO people are reading too much into this. And it won''t get dragged out too much.Anyway if Lambert/Villa thought Norwich had breached the contract. Why did Lambert bother to tender his resignation? Why didn''t he just walk?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Dodds"]And as somebody mentioned yesterday, Norwich have form for breach of contract.[/quote]And?I don''t think "Karma" is legally recognised.

[Dodds 0]

He did walk.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Dodds"]He did walk.[/quote]Source and proof?

[Dodds 0]

He handed in his resignation, repudiating his contract. He is now employed by Aston Villa.

Whether an amicable settlement is reached on a commercial basis is by the by.