Villa waiting for us to release culverhouse and karsa

[RonnieCorbet 0]

[quote user="Jacko"]

Ultimately we have our backroom team in place. Lambert is the one who needs them in before pre season (assuming he wants them). We are in the superior bargaining position here. If we keep our nerve Villa will eventually have to buckle and pay up. For a so called giant of the game they really have been two bob and tinpot over this situation.

[/quote]Would you in the same situation? Why waste money when you might be able to get them free or cheaper very soon? Can see why Villa are playing a canny game, they''ve reportedly spent £14 million on compensation and buy outs for managers in past 24 months.

[Supermarket Prodigy 0]

I don''t think it matters what Villa have had to do in the past, the fact of the matter is we''re looking after our own interests here.

We don''t have to do anything to help them out.

We can be as awkward as we like, though I firmly believe that Culverhouse and Karsa want to stay.

[Officer Tillys small Willies (Nigel,lappy) 0]

[quote user="RonnieCorbet"][quote user="Jacko"]

Ultimately we have our backroom team in place. Lambert is the one who needs them in before pre season (assuming he wants them). We are in the superior bargaining position here. If we keep our nerve Villa will eventually have to buckle and pay up. For a so called giant of the game they really have been two bob and tinpot over this situation.

[/quote]

Would you in the same situation? Why waste money when you might be able to get them free or cheaper very soon? Can see why Villa are playing a canny game, they''ve reportedly spent £14 million on compensation and buy outs for managers in past 24 months.
[/quote] Well thats our fault then. So thats why theyre ripping us off b3ll 3nd

[RonnieCorbet 0]

[quote user="Grantham Canary"][quote user="RonnieCorbet"][quote user="Jacko"]

Ultimately we have our backroom team in place. Lambert is the one who needs them in before pre season (assuming he wants them). We are in the superior bargaining position here. If we keep our nerve Villa will eventually have to buckle and pay up. For a so called giant of the game they really have been two bob and tinpot over this situation.

[/quote]Would you in the same situation? Why waste money when you might be able to get them free or cheaper very soon? Can see why Villa are playing a canny game, they''ve reportedly spent £14 million on compensation and buy outs for managers in past 24 months.[/quote] Well thats our fault then. So thats why theyre ripping us off b3ll 3nd[/quote]It ain''t our fault, but you can see why they are holding out to await developments if that is the case. Sure they''ll pay up if Lambo really wants them.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="RonnieCorbet"][quote user="Jacko"]

Ultimately we have our backroom team in place. Lambert is the one who needs them in before pre season (assuming he wants them). We are in the superior bargaining position here. If we keep our nerve Villa will eventually have to buckle and pay up. For a so called giant of the game they really have been two bob and tinpot over this situation.

[/quote]

Would you in the same situation? Why waste money when you might be able to get them free or cheaper very soon? Can see why Villa are playing a canny game, they''ve reportedly spent £14 million on compensation and buy outs for managers in past 24 months.
[/quote]

A big club would pay up as this is pocket money to them, and they have a reputation to protect as this may come back to bite them in future dealings throughout the football world. I think they''ve got far less money than they are letting on. After all they are 120 million in debt, reducing wages and it has been rumoured that they may need to sell Bent to finance Lambert''s plans.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="RonnieCorbet"][quote user="Jacko"]

Ultimately we have our backroom team in place. Lambert is the one who needs them in before pre season (assuming he wants them). We are in the superior bargaining position here. If we keep our nerve Villa will eventually have to buckle and pay up. For a so called giant of the game they really have been two bob and tinpot over this situation.

[/quote]

Would you in the same situation? Why waste money when you might be able to get them free or cheaper very soon? Can see why Villa are playing a canny game, they''ve reportedly spent £14 million on compensation and buy outs for managers in past 24 months.
[/quote]

A big club would pay up as this is pocket money to them, and they have a reputation to protect as this may come back to bite them in future dealings throughout the football world. I think they''ve got far less money than they are letting on. After all they are 120 million in debt, reducing wages and it has been rumoured that they may need to sell Bent to finance Lambert''s plans.

[/quote]

 

With respect, Paul, that is nonsense. Villa have a duty not to get a reputation as a soft touch. That would affect their future dealings. And they have a duty to their shareholders not to throw money away when they don''t have to.

[RonnieCorbet 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="RonnieCorbet"][quote user="Jacko"]

Ultimately we have our backroom team in place. Lambert is the one who needs them in before pre season (assuming he wants them). We are in the superior bargaining position here. If we keep our nerve Villa will eventually have to buckle and pay up. For a so called giant of the game they really have been two bob and tinpot over this situation.

[/quote]Would you in the same situation? Why waste money when you might be able to get them free or cheaper very soon? Can see why Villa are playing a canny game, they''ve reportedly spent £14 million on compensation and buy outs for managers in past 24 months.[/quote]

A big club would pay up as this is pocket money to them, and they have a reputation to protect as this may come back to bite them in future dealings throughout the football world. I think they''ve got far less money than they are letting on. After all they are 120 million in debt, reducing wages and it has been rumoured that they may need to sell Bent to finance Lambert''s plans.

[/quote]If Villa can get them free or cheap, they''ll wait for them for free, if not then they''ll pay up if Lambo really wants them. Big club or small club. You don''t have to throw away money if you are big/biggish/medium sized club. Villa not money bags like Man City or Chelsea.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="RonnieCorbet"][quote user="Jacko"]

Ultimately we have our backroom team in place. Lambert is the one who needs them in before pre season (assuming he wants them). We are in the superior bargaining position here. If we keep our nerve Villa will eventually have to buckle and pay up. For a so called giant of the game they really have been two bob and tinpot over this situation.

[/quote]

Would you in the same situation? Why waste money when you might be able to get them free or cheaper very soon? Can see why Villa are playing a canny game, they''ve reportedly spent £14 million on compensation and buy outs for managers in past 24 months.
[/quote]

A big club would pay up as this is pocket money to them, and they have a reputation to protect as this may come back to bite them in future dealings throughout the football world. I think they''ve got far less money than they are letting on. After all they are 120 million in debt, reducing wages and it has been rumoured that they may need to sell Bent to finance Lambert''s plans.

[/quote]

 

With respect, Paul, that is nonsense. Villa have a duty not to get a reputation as a soft touch. That would affect their future dealings. And they have a duty to their shareholders not to throw money away when they don''t have to.

[/quote]

Paying up what is due and being fair does not make someone a soft touch. It makes them honourable. We are not asking for more than FAIR compensation for loss of one of our most valuable assets. Remember, Villa want to pay us nothing. Is that fair and honourable ? Villa are showing themselves to be a dishonourable club and I hope they reap the deserved karma rather than Karsa !!!!!  

[Blofield Canary 11]

The whole scenario does point towards Villa really having next to no cash to spend. They could solve the current issue with a cheque to us for around £1M but are choosing to risk a tribunal where they could end up paying a significantly higher amount in compensation, costs and fines. (Remember what we ended up paying Colchester) If the bulls**t coming out of Villla is to believed they have taken more than that in additional season ticket sales since he joined.

What is even more puzzling is the Culverhouse situation. Normally if a manager is taking his backroom staff they move on mass or within a day at most. Lambert is nothing without Culverhouse and surely he realises this or is he so arrogant he believes the success was down to him despite Cully taking first team training and looking as if he was making most of the tactical decisions during matches. Lambert is a motivator and gets the best out of players but take away  Culverhouse''s  tactical brain and the wonderboy may well be found somewhat wanting.

McNally should wheel out Culverhouse at a press conference next week announcing he has been awarded a new improved 3 year contract and then we can all sit back and watch a financially crippled midland team finish lower than they did last season.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="RonnieCorbet"][quote user="Jacko"]

Ultimately we have our backroom team in place. Lambert is the one who needs them in before pre season (assuming he wants them). We are in the superior bargaining position here. If we keep our nerve Villa will eventually have to buckle and pay up. For a so called giant of the game they really have been two bob and tinpot over this situation.

[/quote]

Would you in the same situation? Why waste money when you might be able to get them free or cheaper very soon? Can see why Villa are playing a canny game, they''ve reportedly spent £14 million on compensation and buy outs for managers in past 24 months.
[/quote]

A big club would pay up as this is pocket money to them, and they have a reputation to protect as this may come back to bite them in future dealings throughout the football world. I think they''ve got far less money than they are letting on. After all they are 120 million in debt, reducing wages and it has been rumoured that they may need to sell Bent to finance Lambert''s plans.

[/quote]

 

With respect, Paul, that is nonsense. Villa have a duty not to get a reputation as a soft touch. That would affect their future dealings. And they have a duty to their shareholders not to throw money away when they don''t have to.

[/quote]

Paying up what is due and being fair does not make someone a soft touch. It makes them honourable. We are not asking for more than FAIR compensation for loss of one of our most valuable assets. Remember, Villa want to pay us nothing. Is that fair and honourable ? Villa are showing themselves to be a dishonourable club and I hope they reap the deserved karma rather than Karsa !!!!!  

[/quote]

 

But that is the question, Paul. Is anything legally due to us? If it is, then Villa  will pay. But if it isn''t, because we made some mistake over Lambert''s contract (which is yet to be decided) then there is absolutely no reason for them to pay. And we certainly would not if the situation was reversed, whether it was a manager or a player we could get for nothing because of some error by another club.

PS. Liked the karma/Karsa play on words...

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="RonnieCorbet"][quote user="Jacko"]

Ultimately we have our backroom team in place. Lambert is the one who needs them in before pre season (assuming he wants them). We are in the superior bargaining position here. If we keep our nerve Villa will eventually have to buckle and pay up. For a so called giant of the game they really have been two bob and tinpot over this situation.

[/quote]

Would you in the same situation? Why waste money when you might be able to get them free or cheaper very soon? Can see why Villa are playing a canny game, they''ve reportedly spent £14 million on compensation and buy outs for managers in past 24 months.
[/quote]

A big club would pay up as this is pocket money to them, and they have a reputation to protect as this may come back to bite them in future dealings throughout the football world. I think they''ve got far less money than they are letting on. After all they are 120 million in debt, reducing wages and it has been rumoured that they may need to sell Bent to finance Lambert''s plans.

[/quote]

 

With respect, Paul, that is nonsense. Villa have a duty not to get a reputation as a soft touch. That would affect their future dealings. And they have a duty to their shareholders not to throw money away when they don''t have to.

[/quote]

Paying up what is due and being fair does not make someone a soft touch. It makes them honourable. We are not asking for more than FAIR compensation for loss of one of our most valuable assets. Remember, Villa want to pay us nothing. Is that fair and honourable ? Villa are showing themselves to be a dishonourable club and I hope they reap the deserved karma rather than Karsa !!!!!  

[/quote]

 

But that is the question, Paul. Is anything legally due to us? If it is, then Villa  will pay. But if it isn''t, because we made some mistake over Lambert''s contract (which is yet to be decided) then there is absolutely no reason for them to pay. And we certainly would not if the situation was reversed, whether it was a manager or a player we could get for nothing because of some error by another club.

PS. Liked the karma/Karsa play on words...

[/quote]

How could we make a mistake ? If Lambert had that clause in his contract all he had to do was show it to McNally and there could have been no argument. I cannot see how McNally would make such a basic error. Unless of course Lambert knew the clause was there, McNally did not, and Lambert did not tell McNally until after he resigned. Then it was a fait accompli and Lambert had deliberately used underhand tactics to exit his contract without compensation.  This scenario is probably why it is heading to the courts and why we are confident of winning. Just my opinion of course.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="paul moy"]

How could we make a mistake ? If Lambert had that clause in his contract all he had to do was show it to McNally and there could have been no argument. I cannot see how McNally would make such a basic error. Unless of course Lambert knew the clause was there, McNally did not, and Lambert did not tell McNally until after he resigned. Then it was a fait accompli and Lambert had deliberately used underhand tactics to exit his contract without compensation.  This scenario is probably why it is heading to the courts and why we are confident of winning. Just my opinion of course.

[/quote]

 

That is a different argument! And the truth is neither of us knows what was in the contract, or what happened at the time and what discussions there were. It might be the contract was open to different interpretations. I assume Lambert took legal advice of his own before jumping ship. Possibly from the LMA.

But I think you have touched on the subtext here, which is that some fans have absolute faith (a common phrase) in McNally and can''t imagine him making a mistake, let alone one that might cost us a million pounds or so. And so are trying to find an argument to obscure that. Not having that faith, I can. So far the new regime has dealt with three managerial switches. One (Hughton) was impeccably handled. One (Colchestergate) was badly handled and cost us dearly. As to Lambertgate, we don''t yet know, but it is not as if we have so far had an error-free record.

[Supermarket Prodigy 0]

My gut feeling is there''s ambiguity in what this ''clause'' was about, a difference in opinion between board and Lambert - hence the debate.

[priceyrice 123]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

How could we make a mistake ? If Lambert had that clause in his contract all he had to do was show it to McNally and there could have been no argument. I cannot see how McNally would make such a basic error. Unless of course Lambert knew the clause was there, McNally did not, and Lambert did not tell McNally until after he resigned. Then it was a fait accompli and Lambert had deliberately used underhand tactics to exit his contract without compensation.  This scenario is probably why it is heading to the courts and why we are confident of winning. Just my opinion of course.

[/quote]

 

That is a different argument! And the truth is neither of us knows what was in the contract, or what happened at the time and what discussions there were. It might be the contract was open to different interpretations. I assume Lambert took legal advice of his own before jumping ship. Possibly from the LMA.But I think you have touched on the subtext here, which is that some fans have absolute faith (a common phrase) in McNally and can''t imagine him making a mistake, let alone one that might cost us a million pounds or so. And so are trying to find an argument to obscure that. Not having that faith, I can. So far the new regime has dealt with three managerial switches. One (Hughton) was impeccably handled. One (Colchestergate) was badly handled and cost us dearly. As to Lambertgate, we don''t yet know, but it is not as if we have so far had an error-free record.

[/quote]Sounds like the legal department could be the ones who made the mistake here, wish we had more details about this clause. I expect we will receive compensation, tribunals tend to take into account how hard done one party has been done and the cost to bring both parties back to an equal footing, something along those lines anyway, tribunals are a bit of a joke.

[whoareyou? 0]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

[quote user="whoareyou"][quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]So, why haven''t Culverhouse and Karsa simply resigned?[/quote]Because they then have to pay us a year''s money under the terms of their rolling contract, most likely.[/quote]

 

Really?

[/quote]That''s how rolling contracts work. If City end it early by sacking someone we have to pay up a year''s salary. If the employee breaks it, he has to pay us a year''s salary.It''s done to avoid manager''s and their team walking out to go and work for a rival without any recompense for the club they leave.

[Ghost of Pongo Waring 0]

[quote user="Supermarket Prodigy"]My gut feeling is there''s ambiguity in what this ''clause'' was about, a difference in opinion between board and Lambert - hence the debate.[/quote]This would make most sense and is why I think there will eventually be a compromise worked out.Neither club would want to spend/lose more than necessary and the more ''official'' it gets the more expensive it''ll be. I don''t know who sits on these tribunals but I doubt they do it for free.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

How could we make a mistake ? If Lambert had that clause in his contract all he had to do was show it to McNally and there could have been no argument. I cannot see how McNally would make such a basic error. Unless of course Lambert knew the clause was there, McNally did not, and Lambert did not tell McNally until after he resigned. Then it was a fait accompli and Lambert had deliberately used underhand tactics to exit his contract without compensation.  This scenario is probably why it is heading to the courts and why we are confident of winning. Just my opinion of course.

[/quote]

 

That is a different argument! And the truth is neither of us knows what was in the contract, or what happened at the time and what discussions there were. It might be the contract was open to different interpretations. I assume Lambert took legal advice of his own before jumping ship. Possibly from the LMA.

But I think you have touched on the subtext here, which is that some fans have absolute faith (a common phrase) in McNally and can''t imagine him making a mistake, let alone one that might cost us a million pounds or so. And so are trying to find an argument to obscure that. Not having that faith, I can. So far the new regime has dealt with three managerial switches. One (Hughton) was impeccably handled. One (Colchestergate) was badly handled and cost us dearly. As to Lambertgate, we don''t yet know, but it is not as if we have so far had an error-free record.

[/quote]

You are in effect arguing that Villa are using good sharp business practice.  I think they have a reputation to uphold and are failing woefully and this will come back deservedly to bite them. I will settle for no compensation as long as we keep Cully, as Villa will earn their just deserts. As another poster said, if I was McNally, I''d be offering Cully an improved contract and at least equality with Calderwood.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

How could we make a mistake ? If Lambert had that clause in his contract all he had to do was show it to McNally and there could have been no argument. I cannot see how McNally would make such a basic error. Unless of course Lambert knew the clause was there, McNally did not, and Lambert did not tell McNally until after he resigned. Then it was a fait accompli and Lambert had deliberately used underhand tactics to exit his contract without compensation.  This scenario is probably why it is heading to the courts and why we are confident of winning. Just my opinion of course.

[/quote]

 

That is a different argument! And the truth is neither of us knows what was in the contract, or what happened at the time and what discussions there were. It might be the contract was open to different interpretations. I assume Lambert took legal advice of his own before jumping ship. Possibly from the LMA.

But I think you have touched on the subtext here, which is that some fans have absolute faith (a common phrase) in McNally and can''t imagine him making a mistake, let alone one that might cost us a million pounds or so. And so are trying to find an argument to obscure that. Not having that faith, I can. So far the new regime has dealt with three managerial switches. One (Hughton) was impeccably handled. One (Colchestergate) was badly handled and cost us dearly. As to Lambertgate, we don''t yet know, but it is not as if we have so far had an error-free record.

[/quote]

You are in effect arguing that Villa are using good sharp business practice.  I think they have a reputation to uphold and are failing woefully and this will come back deservedly to bite them. I will settle for no compensation as long as we keep Cully, as Villa will earn their just deserts. As another poster said, if I was McNally, I''d be offering Cully an improved contract and at least equality with Calderwood.

[/quote]

 

Yes, Paul, absolutely right. I am arguing that Villa are guilty of no more than exactly what McNally gets praised to the skies for! Shall we agree to differ on this?[:D]

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

I also think that Villa have been ''unprofessional'' if not ''illegal'' in their dealings. I would hope that any tribunal will uphold the fundamental principle of ''natural justice'' in any case like this. It may roll along for a bit like the claim Colchester made against City, but I suspect the result will end up similar whether Vanilla like it or not.

[snake-eyes 13]

My thoughts are that, if there was such a clause that stated the manager must be allowed to talk to a Premier League Club, if they offically approached, this was written in early in PL''s contract and with the intention of being, whilst the club were in the ''Lower Divisions''.  It is probably the spirit of this clause that is being argued here.

It would be of no use to the club to have agreed a clause like this, that effectively gave the easy exit of a major asset, to a direct rival.

This, however, may have been lost in the speed of transition the club made from League 1 to the Premiership.

Although contracts are usually judged by the written word, there are precedents for the upholding of the spirit in which an agreement is made.

From what I have seen so far of tribunals involved in sporting employment and disagreements, the Spirit of the sport and any agreements are strongly considered.

I await the outcome of this with great interest!

Snake

[paul moy 235]

It''s accepted throughout football that if you take a manager under contract to another club then compensation is paid. Villa approached Lambert while he was under contract. Simples !!!!!

[RonnieCorbet 0]

Kevin MacDonald, who was first team coach last season at Villa and has been bringing through the youth at Villa for 17 years has now left the club. It''s expected Lambert will come in for Culverhouse now.

[Muddy funster 0]

[quote user="snake-eyes"]

My thoughts are that, if there was such a clause that stated the manager must be allowed to talk to a Premier League Club, if they offically approached, this was written in early in PL''s contract and with the intention of being, whilst the club were in the ''Lower Divisions''.  It is probably the spirit of this clause that is being argued here.

It would be of no use to the club to have agreed a clause like this, that effectively gave the easy exit of a major asset, to a direct rival.

This, however, may have been lost in the speed of transition the club made from League 1 to the Premiership.

Although contracts are usually judged by the written word, there are precedents for the upholding of the spirit in which an agreement is made.

From what I have seen so far of tribunals involved in sporting employment and disagreements, the Spirit of the sport and any agreements are strongly considered.

I await the outcome of this with great interest!

Snake

[/quote]

 

I think they also argue the "loss" of that person to the club they are leaving.  Two subsequent promotions and a 12th place in the Prem should boost the figure  I would have thought

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S9ecXWCBCc&feature=related

 

Paullambert Humperdink!

[paul moy 235]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-l5FyA3pgo

.. and KCMcNally

[Neutral 0]

Paul Lambert and Gary Karsa  related?  Don''t think so...source??

[Yellowbeagle 0]

Will be interesting to see how this pans out regardless of whether McNally told him he couldnt speak to Villa or not, he exercised his right to speak to them. Of course he resigned and it was rejected but he still exercised that right to speak to Villa and i assume he wasnt disciplined in anyway for speaking to Villa. There are lots of things that muddy the waters and i''m sure there are things on our side that we should have handled better, but most law is based on the concept of what feels like the right thing once the facts are laid out. Villa taking a manager from a rival for free was not part of PL''s contract i would assume and would be inherently unfair on us on the information we have seen.

I would imagine also the Culverhouse and Karsa issues might yet change the complexion of the whole thing aswell.

 

[Icecream Snow 761]

It''s going to a tribunal, but I can''t see Villa getting away with this. "So Mr Lambert, you resigned to take up a position you''d already been offered?"

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,429]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

How could we make a mistake ? If Lambert had that clause in his contract all he had to do was show it to McNally and there could have been no argument. I cannot see how McNally would make such a basic error. Unless of course Lambert knew the clause was there, McNally did not, and Lambert did not tell McNally until after he resigned. Then it was a fait accompli and Lambert had deliberately used underhand tactics to exit his contract without compensation.  This scenario is probably why it is heading to the courts and why we are confident of winning. Just my opinion of course.

[/quote]

 

That is a different argument! And the truth is neither of us knows what was in the contract, or what happened at the time and what discussions there were. It might be the contract was open to different interpretations. I assume Lambert took legal advice of his own before jumping ship. Possibly from the LMA.

But I think you have touched on the subtext here, which is that some fans have absolute faith (a common phrase) in McNally and can''t imagine him making a mistake, let alone one that might cost us a million pounds or so. And so are trying to find an argument to obscure that. Not having that faith, I can. So far the new regime has dealt with three managerial switches. One (Hughton) was impeccably handled. One (Colchestergate) was badly handled and cost us dearly. As to Lambertgate, we don''t yet know, but it is not as if we have so far had an error-free record.

[/quote]

If "we " have made a mistake with the contract then a certain nameless Norwich based solicitor would be chatting to their PI insurers. I suspect this is more in line with a clause we dont know about giving some trigger to allow Lambert to speak to certain clubs. It was possibly written in after "Burnley-gate" but that is pure guess work on my part.

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

How could we make a mistake ? If Lambert had that clause in his contract all he had to do was show it to McNally and there could have been no argument. I cannot see how McNally would make such a basic error. Unless of course Lambert knew the clause was there, McNally did not, and Lambert did not tell McNally until after he resigned. Then it was a fait accompli and Lambert had deliberately used underhand tactics to exit his contract without compensation.  This scenario is probably why it is heading to the courts and why we are confident of winning. Just my opinion of course.

[/quote]

 

That is a different argument! And the truth is neither of us knows what was in the contract, or what happened at the time and what discussions there were. It might be the contract was open to different interpretations. I assume Lambert took legal advice of his own before jumping ship. Possibly from the LMA.

But I think you have touched on the subtext here, which is that some fans have absolute faith (a common phrase) in McNally and can''t imagine him making a mistake, let alone one that might cost us a million pounds or so. And so are trying to find an argument to obscure that. Not having that faith, I can. So far the new regime has dealt with three managerial switches. One (Hughton) was impeccably handled. One (Colchestergate) was badly handled and cost us dearly. As to Lambertgate, we don''t yet know, but it is not as if we have so far had an error-free record.

[/quote]

 

As you say, Purple, none of us posting are likely aware of what was in the contract, however, I find it difficult to follow your line of thinking regarding McNally as being reasonable. If he made a mistake ( very possible ) then it is more difficult to believe he would have compounded that mistake by making another and hiding it from the Board by pursuing something that was not well-founded. That would be foolish, particularly, as you say, given the Colchester experience. It would also seem improbable to me that the Board would be complicit in going along a path that was a) not well justified and b) demostrating poor character given the service they had just experienced with Paul Lambert over the past three seasons. These latter points are, in my view, supported by the very point you made, namely, that the acquisition of Hughton was impeccably handled. Therefore, I am left to conclude that NCFC believe there was something in the contract that justifies their taking a position with Aston Villa. We shall see.