Lambert/Hughton one year rolling contract

[Well I Never 0]

Sorry, this is a little late but I just got back from holiday. Haven''t really seen any discussion on the following issue. Apologies if I have missed something.

Just wondering about how we supposedly lost Lambert to Villa for no compensation but paid 2 mil for Hughton, when both were on 1 year rolling contracts?

Happy with McNally''s swift work in getting a quality manager in, but how did we lose one of the most highly rated managerial prospects in the prem without receiving a penny?

Surely, either Lambert''s contract would have required buying out, or, if Hughton wanted to quit Birmingham to come here, we could have taken him for free a la Villa?

Somewhere along the line we seem to have missed a trick.

[Branston Pickle 3,678]

We haven''t missed a trick on anything; it was widely reported that after the McLeish thing that Brum had a slightly ''prohibitive'' clause to deter approaches, hence the higher than normal figure. Imo we have done our business professionally, Vila seem intent on looking like miserable small-timers, but that is up to them.

[Mahogany 0]

We rejected Villa''s approach for Lambert which they, and Lambert say was a breach of his contract which entitled him to resign. I read a story today, can''t remember where, which says that we argued a technicality in the contract allowed us to reject their approach, not sure what that was though.

This is now going to a tribunal so who knows what will happen. As for Hughton I''m not sure what his contractual situation was but we agreed terms with Brum before speaking to him. We also got his backroom staff as part of the deal. Also there''s no real proof that we paid £2 million only speculation.

In a wider context a few years ago Wigan paid Brum £3m for Steve Bruce so I think 2 for Hughton is a steal!

[Ghost of Pongo Waring 0]

Apparently Lambert had a clause in his contract that allowed him to talk to any Prem club if an approach was made. Norwich refused Villa permission to talk to Lambert which broke his contract and meant he was a free agent and no longer contracted to Norwich. Therefore Villa owed no compensation to Norwich.Hughton was given permission to talk to Norwich, so even if he had the same clause it was not breached. He remained contracted to Birmingham and Norwich had to pay compensation to terminate that contract. Of course this all centers on the issue of the clause in Lamberts contract, which is all speculative, but as there have been no denials from Norwich regarding it, it seems likely that it is the situation.

[Well I Never 0]

Thanks for the clarification. Still think we should have had a clause similar to Birmingham''s if, as it seemed, we were to somewhere along the line, going to lose Lambert to a bigger club.

[Ghost of Pongo Waring 0]

[quote user="Mahogany"]

In a wider context a few years ago Wigan paid Brum £3m for Steve Bruce so I think 2 for Hughton is a steal![/quote]When you consider the amounts average players sell for, and the vital importance of the managers in a clubs success, 2mil for Hughton is the bargain of the century.

[Supermarket Prodigy 0]

I think we can speculate over Lambert''s contract all we want, what''s done is done.

It''ll go to tribunal and we''ll all have to accept whatever happens there.

[gorlestongirl 0]

Ghost: What it is more likely to mean is that, while Norwich are happy to give factual info, ie that Culverhouse and Karsa are staying at NCFC, thereby linking Cully up with his old fullback colleague at Spurs, the Club is not willing to make its legal case in public; it is a matter, rightly, for the Premier League to decide, and it is they who need details of Norwich''s case.

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

[quote user="kiwigreenandgold"]Sorry, this is a little late but I just got back from holiday. Haven''t really seen any discussion on the following issue. Apologies if I have missed something. Just wondering about how we supposedly lost Lambert to Villa for no compensation but paid 2 mil for Hughton, when both were on 1 year rolling contracts? Happy with McNally''s swift work in getting a quality manager in, but how did we lose one of the most highly rated managerial prospects in the prem without receiving a penny? Surely, either Lambert''s contract would have required buying out, or, if Hughton wanted to quit Birmingham to come here, we could have taken him for free a la Villa? Somewhere along the line we seem to have missed a trick.[/quote] Its quite simple really kiwi it all comes down to the fact were a proper club who does things the correct way something we learnt after colchester. Where as Villa think they are a big club who can trample on everyone in their quest for sucess the problem with this attitude is, more often than not this attitude comes round to bite you on the backside. Also im sure other clubs will think twice about doing busness with them like selling players with ''''ADD ONS'''' they have shown they cant be trusted to the whole of the U.K possibly the world. Also it can only have a negative effect for them not a possitive one in any way shape or form. OTBC

[Salopian 1]

Lambert had a rolling one-year contract, so if he left of his own choice compensation would be the value of one year''s salary. He also slipped in a clause, according to Villa, allowing him to speak to any club which approached him. Whatever the wording, Villa are claiming that we broke the contract by forbidding him to speak to them, and he then resigned. I assume that the lawyers will have a "field day" on this.

 

Chris Hughton is on a fixed three year contract, so if he leaves before that time we would be entitled to compensation for the rest of the time, and if we sacked him, heaven forbid, we would be liable to compensate him.

 

It seems that rolling contracts are not uncommon, and perhaps Hughton''s fixed contract is a reflection of the fact that our fingers were burned on the Lambert one.

 

I have read nothing on the nature of the contracts of Lambert''s assistants.The fact that McN seems unprepared for them to speak toVilla may indicate that they did not have the clause Lambert insisted on, and that so long as we do not dispense with their services we should receive compensation if they depart.

[Ghost of Pongo Waring 0]

[quote user="gorlestongirl"]Ghost: What it is more likely to mean is that, while Norwich are happy to give factual info, ie that Culverhouse and Karsa are staying at NCFC, thereby linking Cully up with his old fullback colleague at Spurs, the Club is not willing to make its legal case in public; it is a matter, rightly, for the Premier League to decide, and it is they who need details of Norwich''s case.[/quote]Fair point Gorlestongirl.

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

[quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"][quote user="Mahogany"] In a wider context a few years ago Wigan paid Brum £3m for Steve Bruce so I think 2 for Hughton is a steal![/quote]

When you consider the amounts average players sell for, and the vital importance of the managers in a clubs success, 2mil for Hughton is the bargain of the century.
[/quote] Also PONGO fu*k off back to your own board u pest KNOW IT ALL CNUT

[Jacko 0]

1. You
   have to take into account that we have effectively bought 4 people with
   that money while Aston Villa have bought 1 so far. It isn''t a like for
   like replacement. Aston Villa have just taken Paul Lambert at the moment.
   While the reported £2 million Norwich have paid includes not only taking
   Chris Hughton, but coaches Paul Trollope, Colin Calderwood and chief scout
   Ewan Chester. This is why we might see a lot of brinkmanship over
   Culverhouse and Karsa because that would increase any compensation amount
   should Villa decide they want them.

 

2. We also don''t know the terms
   of Hughton''s contract or whether there was a clause in his contract
   stating that he could leave for a certain amount. It could be possible
   that Birmingham were paying him a higher salary than PL (not impossible
   giving that he has won the Championship and has Premier League experience)
   and this is rightfully reflected in the compensation.

 

3.      Whether they will actually get

Lambert for free or for the reported £1 million which represents a year''s

notice on his contract is the main bone of contention. If you believe the media

Lambert had a clause in his contract allowing him to speak to other clubs. If

you believe the media the board subsequently breached this term by refusing him

permission to speak to Aston Villa.

 

 In order for

Aston Villa to prove he is a free agent Lambert would have to prove that the

breach of contract was repudiatory. Essentially this means in plain English

that the breach was one which went right to the heart of the agreement between

the two parties. Effectively destroying the implied term of mutual trust and

confident between employer and employee. As a result he was able to treat

himself as dismissed (so technically he isn''t actually resigning as has been

wrongly stated in other threads. This would technically then actually give

Lambert a claim for wrongful dismissal.

 

But I

must stress that is all paper talk and idle speculation. No one actually no

knows what genuinely happened apart from the two parties involved.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"]Of course this all centers on the issue of the clause in Lamberts contract, which is all speculative, but as there have been no denials from Norwich regarding it, it seems likely that it is the situation.[/quote]I''d be taking that more as a sign of our class and professionalism than any admission of guilt. We''ll argue our case in the tribunal not the gutter press and twitter thank you very much.

[PurpleCanary 5,579]

[quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"]Apparently Lambert had a clause in his contract that allowed him to talk to any Prem club if an approach was made. Norwich refused Villa permission to talk to Lambert which broke his contract and meant he was a free agent and no longer contracted to Norwich. Therefore Villa owed no compensation to Norwich.

Hughton was given permission to talk to Norwich, so even if he had the same clause it was not breached. He remained contracted to Birmingham and Norwich had to pay compensation to terminate that contract.

Of course this all centers on the issue of the clause in Lamberts contract, which is all speculative, but as there have been no denials from Norwich regarding it, it seems likely that it is the situation.
[/quote]

 

There is an interesting line in The Mirror''s story yesterday saying that the League Managers'' Association has taken Lambert''s side:

Aston Villa face a stormy Premier League tribunal with Norwich as their bitter row looks set to drag on. New Villa boss Paul Lambert is being backed by the League Managers’ Association over his decision to quit Carrow Road. Lambert claims he had a clause in his contract allowing him to speak to other clubs which Norwich chief ­executive David McNally ignored. The manager feels McNally tried to wriggle out of it on a ­technicality and he believes he was well within his contractual rights to then resign. But as Villa have paid no compensation for Lambert, Norwich are fuming. A Premier League tribunal now looks set to decide the matter.

 

 

[Mr Brownstone 0]

I don''t believe for a second that McNally & the Club''s Solicitor weren''t fully aware of any clauses in Lambert''s contract, and that they would willfully break the terms of the it.

 

I have no doubt that Villa will end up coughing up.

[Branston Pickle 3,678]

That sounds about right, Jacko. The thing is that I don''t see how this supposed clause breach by the club would be so fundamental to allow Lambert to walk for nothing, and in any case by resigning there is surely a minimum notice period. Even if there was a breach, we also had months of tapping up by Vanilla via the media, which the club will use in its defence. Any tribunal will look at it all and surely find that we are owed something, it seems amazing to me that Vanilla and their fans think otherwise.

But at the end of it all, it is conjecture, we''ll find out what''s what in due course and anyhow who cami to know more is almost certainly talking crap.

[Ghost of Pongo Waring 0]

[quote user="Grantham Canary"][quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"][quote user="Mahogany"] In a wider context a few years ago Wigan paid Brum £3m for Steve Bruce so I think 2 for Hughton is a steal![/quote]When you consider the amounts average players sell for, and the vital importance of the managers in a clubs success, 2mil for Hughton is the bargain of the century.[/quote] Also PONGO fu*k off back to your own board u pest KNOW IT ALL CNUT[/quote]Thanks for that insightful response. Why the mixture of lower and upper case letters? It looks like a dyslexic ransom note.

[Branston Pickle 3,678]

*But at the end of it all, it is conjecture, we''ll find out what''s what in due course and anyone who claims to know more is almost certainly talking crap.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

The circumstances of McLeishs departure from birmingham to villa and allegations of tapping up are startlingly similar to those of the PL saga.perhaps we can draw some small satisfaction from the fact Villa bottled it and paid an undisclosed sum to make the allegations go away before it reached tribunal?[:D]

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]That sounds about right, Jacko. The thing is that I don''t see how this supposed clause breach by the club would be so fundamental to allow Lambert to walk for nothing, and in any case by resigning there is surely a minimum notice period. Even if there was a breach, we also had months of tapping up by Vanilla via the media, which the club will use in its defence. Any tribunal will look at it all and surely find that we are owed something, it seems amazing to me that Vanilla and their fans think otherwise.

But at the end of it all, it is conjecture, we''ll find out what''s what in due course and anyhow who cami to know more is almost certainly talking crap.[/quote]

You''ve nailed it for me Branston. Not just saying this through being biased but I have spoken to people who actually practice or study law who know their stuff and they have all said that they think Lerner''s lawyers would waste him a lot of money if they tried to argue that a breach of this kind was completely fundamental to the contract. If it had been over non payment of wages or fundamentally changing his job role by making him just wash the kick then it would have been completely different.

[Jacko 0]

kit sorry. Need an edit button please archant.

[Ghost of Pongo Waring 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]*But at the end of it all, it is conjecture, we''ll find out what''s what in due course and anyone who claims to know more is almost certainly talking crap.[/quote]Hopefully it''ll be sorted out as quick as possible and both clubs can move on.Anyone have an idea how long it takes these tribunals to set up?

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]*But at the end of it all, it is conjecture, we''ll find out what''s what in due course and anyone who claims to know more is almost certainly talking crap.[/quote]Hopefully it''ll be sorted out as quick as possible and both clubs can move on.Anyone have an idea how long it takes these tribunals to set up?[/quote]

When this last happened to Lambert. We took him off Colchester in August 2009. A settlement at tribunal was finally reached in June 2010.

[Supermarket Prodigy 0]

[quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]*But at the end of it all, it is conjecture, we''ll find out what''s what in due course and anyone who claims to know more is almost certainly talking crap.[/quote]Hopefully it''ll be sorted out as quick as possible and both clubs can move on.Anyone have an idea how long it takes these tribunals to set up?[/quote]

When we took Lambert from Colchester in August 2009, it wasn''t sorted until mid May.

[Ghost of Pongo Waring 0]

[quote user="Jacko"]

[quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]*But at the end of it all, it is conjecture, we''ll find out what''s what in due course and anyone who claims to know more is almost certainly talking crap.[/quote]Hopefully it''ll be sorted out as quick as possible and both clubs can move on.Anyone have an idea how long it takes these tribunals to set up?[/quote]

When this last happened to Lambert. We took him off Colchester in August 2009. A settlement at tribunal was finally reached in June 2010.

[/quote]So not the fastest process in the world, although I suppose the complexity of the claims will have a bearing on it.To be fair I think, as another poster said,it''s all like a game of Poker. Eventually a compromise will be agreed between the two clubs before it reaches tribunal.

[Jacko 0]

Well I am not sure about that to be honest Pongo. Ultimately Norwich and Colchester was a completely different scenario. There was big difference in opinion over the actual value of Lambert which caused the debate. Colchester valued Lambert at £500,000 while Norwich valued him at £165,000, which our board believe represented the fact that he was a largely unproven manager with a fairly modest record in League 1 and League 2 up until that moment. The tribunal came to an agreement of £425,000 with an additional fine on top. Who knows whether the decision over compo would have been completely different had we finished 16th rather than running away with the League and finishing 1st.

 

Here the situation is completely different. Its effectively not about how much people believe Lambert is worth but whether he was actually under contract or not. If Norwich are right they are owed around £1 million and if Villa are correct the amount owed is £0. I don''t really see how you can come to compromise really. Its either got to be one or the other. You cant really budge from either position.

[Ghost of Pongo Waring 0]

[quote user="Jacko"]

Well I am not sure about that to be honest Pongo. Ultimately Norwich and Colchester was a completely different scenario. There was big difference in opinion over the actual value of Lambert which caused the debate. Colchester valued Lambert at £500,000 while Norwich valued him at £165,000, which our board believe represented the fact that he was a largely unproven manager with a fairly modest record in League 1 and League 2 up until that moment. The tribunal came to an agreement of £425,000 with an additional fine on top. Who knows whether the decision over compo would have been completely different had we finished 16th rather than running away with the League and finishing 1st.

 

Here the situation is completely different. Its effectively not about how much people believe Lambert is worth but whether he was actually under contract or not. If Norwich are right they are owed around £1 million and if Villa are correct the amount owed is £0. I don''t really see how you can come to compromise really. Its either got to be one or the other. You cant really budge from either position.

[/quote]I don''t know much about the situation when Lambert left Colchester to Norwich, apart from what I''ve read on here, but yes it seems a different scenario.However there is always room for compromise. Both clubs could agree a compromise figure while stating that though their respective positions is correct it''s in the best interests of all parties to come to agreement.Whatever the outcome we''ll probably never hear the full story anyway.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"]To be fair I think, as another poster said,it''s all like a game of Poker. Eventually a compromise will be agreed between the two clubs before it reaches tribunal.[/quote]Change of tack duly noted.Mind you Villa do have serious recent  form in bottling such matters before they reach tribunal don''t they and unlike your cousins down by Morrisons we haven''t made any allegations of tapping up  (yet) have we?Do you think the undisclosed fee you paid the bluenoses for McLeish was worth it, how much is it costing you to get rid of  McLeish on top???? LOL!!And Villa fans still think they''ve some kind of genius at work in the boardroom.......

[Ghost of Pongo Waring 0]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"][quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"]To be fair I think, as another poster said,it''s all like a game of Poker. Eventually a compromise will be agreed between the two clubs before it reaches tribunal.[/quote]Change of tack duly noted.Mind you Villa do have serious recent  form in bottling such matters before they reach tribunal don''t they and unlike your cousins down by Morrisons we haven''t made any allegations of tapping up  (yet) have we?Do you think the undisclosed fee you paid the bluenoses for McLeish was worth it, how much is it costing you to get rid of  McLeish on top???? LOL!!And Villa fans still think they''ve some kind of genius at work in the boardroom.......[/quote]I haven''t changed tack at all. Nowhere have I said that Villa wouldn''t pay, or end up paying, any compensation. Simply that IF, and I did put IF, the situation regarding the clause is correct Lambert was arguably a free agent. Yes we paid an undisclosed fee to Blues but whether thats ''bottling'' it or not is subjective. Without knowing all the details it''s hard to really make a judgement on that.Was it worth it?  If Blues had paid us 10 million to take him off their hands we''d have still been the losers. The appointment was a disaster that everyone, apart from the board, saw coming.I think you''ll find it very hard to find any Villa fans claiming Faulkner and Lerner are geniuses in the boardroom. Lerner has got many things right at the club since he took over but has certainly lost his way in the last two years. Culminating in the appointment of McLeish which I can''t honestly find any good reason for.