Norwich City's Tough Operator.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

I don''t discount Bowkett but how has our image changed under McNally?

 

He couldn''t hold onto Lambert; perhaps that should read ''again'' and he maybe played hardball too much but, he has acted with speed and decisiveness to allay this supporter''s greatest fear that we would be slow to get a new manager in place. Not only that, but you believe that once again he has targetted a manager and got his man.

 

Lambert has got his move, but it is common knowledge how much he defers to Culverhouse, and he may get Cully on board, I can''t see how we can incorporate him into a new team, but along with Karsa he can wait. For the time being Lambert is isolated and despite his single-mindedness he might be feeling a little more vulnerable for a man who admits being driven by a fear of failure.

 

In the meantime, a solid character has been brought in with what appears to be a solid team. This is a man who appears to man-manage his players by respect rather than intimidation. Lambert was always one for little snipes at his players, but not about their game, but Hughton appears to be entirely different and has a recognised skill with young players of whom we have many.

 

In acting quickly, as much as Lambert wants to show he has moved on, McNally is making a clear statement that so have Norwich although I don''t expect any softening of his stance against Lambert and Villa. Upset McNally and you have an enemy for a long time be you Robbie Cowling or the local BBC.

 

So, family club Norwich, with that nice Delia Smith are an iron fist in a velvet glove these days and so far in this deal McNally has managed to create a sense of continuity with a hint of freshness and improvement; almost as if we have acted tactically for the second season in the EPL.

 

Who knows how it will progress but for now, for a so called small EPL side we are presenting a tough and businesslike attitude.  McNally, it does what it says on the tin.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,183]

Have to agree that McNally and the Board have played an absolute blinder. Compare how long it has taken us to sort out Hughton (about 4 days) with how long West Brom and Swansea are taking to sort out their new managers, not to mention Liverpool and Villa.

McNally and the Board have been quick and decisive and have gone out and got their man - and a very popular decision too.

Of course only time will tell whether or not it''s a good appointment, but McNally and the Board have fulfilled their part of the bargain.

[Mello Yello 2,302]

"OINK OINK!......SNORK SNORK......CAN I COME BACK TO CARRA, PERLEEEZE?"

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]Have to agree that McNally and the Board have played an absolute blinder. Compare how long it has taken us to sort out Hughton (about 4 days) with how long West Brom and Swansea are taking to sort out their new managers, not to mention Liverpool and Villa. McNally and the Board have been quick and decisive and have gone out and got their man - and a very popular decision too. Of course only time will tell whether or not it''s a good appointment, but McNally and the Board have fulfilled their part of the bargain.[/quote]

We can all stand there with raised arms and say thank you Paul Lambert for turning our club into a hot prospect for a top class manager to take over, For which we now have, And for what its worth we have the better deal and will finish yet again higher than them, IF Lambert has lost Cully and Karsa he could also lose out come Christmas    

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]

I don''t discount Bowkett but how has our image changed under McNally?

 

He couldn''t hold onto Lambert; perhaps that should read ''again'' and he maybe played hardball too much but, he has acted with speed and decisiveness to allay this supporter''s greatest fear that we would be slow to get a new manager in place. Not only that, but you believe that once again he has targetted a manager and got his man.

 

Lambert has got his move, but it is common knowledge how much he defers to Culverhouse, and he may get Cully on board, I can''t see how we can incorporate him into a new team, but along with Karsa he can wait. For the time being Lambert is isolated and despite his single-mindedness he might be feeling a little more vulnerable for a man who admits being driven by a fear of failure.

 

In the meantime, a solid character has been brought in with what appears to be a solid team. This is a man who appears to man-manage his players by respect rather than intimidation. Lambert was always one for little snipes at his players, but not about their game, but Hughton appears to be entirely different and has a recognised skill with young players of whom we have many.

 

In acting quickly, as much as Lambert wants to show he has moved on, McNally is making a clear statement that so have Norwich although I don''t expect any softening of his stance against Lambert and Villa. Upset McNally and you have an enemy for a long time be you Robbie Cowling or the local BBC.

 

So, family club Norwich, with that nice Delia Smith are an iron fist in a velvet glove these days and so far in this deal McNally has managed to create a sense of continuity with a hint of freshness and improvement; almost as if we have acted tactically for the second season in the EPL.

 

Who knows how it will progress but for now, for a so called small EPL side we are presenting a tough and businesslike attitude.  McNally, it does what it says on the tin.

[/quote]

 

It seems clear the search for a replacement for Lambert was well-handled. Whether Lambertgate, including the question of compensation, has been well-handled is not yet at all obvious. As to the bit I''ve highlighted in red, I don''t really understand that comment. The hard fact is that,  for all McNally''s hardball tactics,  Cowling and the BBC won. Colchester got much more compensation than we were offering, and we had to pay a fine and substantial legal fees, and the threat of a more  severe penalty now hangs over us, while the BBC never caved in over its source and we went back to allowing its access, having gained nothing but acres of bad publicity.

I am all for a tough attitude, and playing hardball, but with a bit of discretion. Sometimes that isn''t the best way to handle difficult issues.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Those are interesting points, Purple. Perhaps fairer to say McNally is belligerent. I have previously questioned his soft skills too.

[......and Smith must score. 1,360]

He might not be a very likeable guy but David McNally certainly gets results and gets them fast.Didn''t take him long to give dear old Bryan the heave-ho and bring in Paul Lambert and now he''s done it again.Had the previous regime still been in charge it would have taken weeks and weeks and we''d have ended up with some lame duck who just said all the right things at interview.When McNally leaves is when we should all start worrying........

[Icecream Snow 762]

To be fair to Robbie Cowling, he heavily backed Paul Lambert in the summer of 2009, and was subsequently furious when he sodded off after one game. Hence the ensuing vitriol.I like McNally and think he gets it right most of the time. Setting the police on a 17 year old who found pictures of the new kit, wasn''t one of times.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Those are interesting points, Purple. Perhaps fairer to say McNally is belligerent. I have previously questioned his soft skills too.[/quote]

 

Rudolph, I have made this point before but both McNally and Bowkett (who is probably just as important here) used the word "ruthless" at the outset to characterise how they would behave as our executive management. It was clear - with some reason - they saw the old regime as too soft, and wanted the polar opposite. But there is a danger in having ruthlessness as your default position. It doesn''t always work, and particularly when dealing with people who are just as tough in defence of the interests of their club.

 

 

 

[Bury Yellow 2]

Thing is Purple, how do we know what target McNally set himself for comp with Col U?

McNally is the real deal and from his record to date, not many will get one over him.

I assume no one really knows about this Cully thing but so far our CEO has played an absolute blinder.

Bowkett/McNally rule

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

It seems clear the search for a replacement for Lambert was well-handled. Whether Lambertgate, including the question of compensation, has been well-handled is not yet at all obvious. As to the bit I''ve highlighted in red, I don''t really understand that comment. The hard fact is that,  for all McNally''s hardball tactics,  Cowling and the BBC won. Colchester got much more compensation than we were offering, and we had to pay a fine and substantial legal fees, and the threat of a more  severe penalty now hangs over us, while the BBC never caved in over its source and we went back to allowing its access, having gained nothing but acres of bad publicity.I am all for a tough attitude, and playing hardball, but with a bit of discretion. Sometimes that isn''t the best way to handle difficult issues.

[/quote]

I agree with your points, but the pedant in me wishes to raise the point that Rudolph didn''t say McNally won vs those two, he said if you make McNally an enemy then you have an enemy for a long time, which seems to be pretty much on the mark imo. If you cross him once, you won''t get the opportunity to cross him again.

[I am a Banana 0]

McNally doesn''t seem to be too fussed about the compo that has to be paid out for a new manager. If he wants a certain man in then he will pay the price..and so far it has worked...Long may it continue too!

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Thing is Purple, how do we know what target McNally set himself for comp with Col U? McNally is the real deal and from his record to date, not many will get one over him. I assume no one really knows about this Cully thing but so far our CEO has played an absolute blinder. Bowkett/McNally rule[/quote]

 

I can''t say what target he privately set, of course. I can say what he offered, which was £160,000, which was then reduced to £120,000, which was then increased to £180,000, and with a final offer of £213,000. And I can say what the tribunal decided, which was compensation of £425,000, with legal fees and fines taking the total to £626,000.

I think it is a pretty assumption that even if (a big "if") McNally''s private target figure of compensation for a League One manager was higher than the final offer of £213,000 it was still nowhere near £626,000. And since Cowling had asked for £400,000 (which might well have been negotiable downwards) the hardball tactics employed by McNally cost us at least £226,000.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Just so long as McNally doesn''t to pyrrhic victories.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Just so long as McNally doesn''t to pyrrhic victories.[/quote]

 

Have they...

 

 

 

...ever been seen in the same room together?[;)]

[Nuff Said 5,176]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Those are interesting points, Purple. Perhaps fairer to say McNally is belligerent. I have previously questioned his soft skills too.[/quote]

 

Rudolph, I have made this point before but both McNally and Bowkett (who is probably just as important here) used the word "ruthless" at the outset to characterise how they would behave as our executive management. It was clear - with some reason - they saw the old regime as too soft, and wanted the polar opposite. But there is a danger in having ruthlessness as your default position. It doesn''t always work, and particularly when dealing with people who are just as tough in defence of the interests of their club.

[/quote]What I like about the word ruthless is that it implies a real sense of passion and that they care. Something I''m sure we can all identify with.More power to our board!

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

"OINK OINK!......SNORK SNORK......CAN I COME BACK TO CARRA, PERLEEEZE?"

[/quote]

 

That picture of donkey has been photoshopped, right?

[Billabong 0]

That picture of donkey has been photoshopped, right?"

Yes, photoshop took away his curly tail and forth chin!

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Thing is Purple, how do we know what target McNally set himself for comp with Col U? McNally is the real deal and from his record to date, not many will get one over him. I assume no one really knows about this Cully thing but so far our CEO has played an absolute blinder. Bowkett/McNally rule[/quote]

 

I can''t say what target he privately set, of course. I can say what he offered, which was £160,000, which was then reduced to £120,000, which was then increased to £180,000, and with a final offer of £213,000. And I can say what the tribunal decided, which was compensation of £425,000, with legal fees and fines taking the total to £626,000. I think it is a pretty assumption that even if (a big "if") McNally''s private target figure of compensation for a League One manager was higher than the final offer of £213,000 it was still nowhere near £626,000. And since Cowling had asked for £400,000 (which might well have been negotiable downwards) the hardball tactics employed by McNally cost us at least £226,000.

[/quote]Or maybe the hardball tactics played by McNally ensured that we snared the man who would lead us through the divisions when we might not otherwise have got Lamberts signature in which case they gained us a nine figure sum and still counting......?

[TIL 1010 4,791]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

 

[/quote]

That should be framed on put on the mantlepiece to keep the kids away from the fire.

 

That picture of donkey has been photoshopped, right?

[/quote]

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Thing is Purple, how do we know what target McNally set himself for comp with Col U? McNally is the real deal and from his record to date, not many will get one over him. I assume no one really knows about this Cully thing but so far our CEO has played an absolute blinder. Bowkett/McNally rule[/quote]

 

I can''t say what target he privately set, of course. I can say what he offered, which was £160,000, which was then reduced to £120,000, which was then increased to £180,000, and with a final offer of £213,000. And I can say what the tribunal decided, which was compensation of £425,000, with legal fees and fines taking the total to £626,000.

I think it is a pretty assumption that even if (a big "if") McNally''s private target figure of compensation for a League One manager was higher than the final offer of £213,000 it was still nowhere near £626,000. And since Cowling had asked for £400,000 (which might well have been negotiable downwards) the hardball tactics employed by McNally cost us at least £226,000.

[/quote]

The bottom line is that we got Lambert thanks to McNally and in retrospect I would say he was fantastic value !!

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Thing is Purple, how do we know what target McNally set himself for comp with Col U? McNally is the real deal and from his record to date, not many will get one over him. I assume no one really knows about this Cully thing but so far our CEO has played an absolute blinder. Bowkett/McNally rule[/quote]

 

I can''t say what target he privately set, of course. I can say what he offered, which was £160,000, which was then reduced to £120,000, which was then increased to £180,000, and with a final offer of £213,000. And I can say what the tribunal decided, which was compensation of £425,000, with legal fees and fines taking the total to £626,000.

I think it is a pretty assumption that even if (a big "if") McNally''s private target figure of compensation for a League One manager was higher than the final offer of £213,000 it was still nowhere near £626,000. And since Cowling had asked for £400,000 (which might well have been negotiable downwards) the hardball tactics employed by McNally cost us at least £226,000.

[/quote]

Or maybe the hardball tactics played by McNally ensured that we snared the man who would lead us through the divisions when we might not otherwise have got Lamberts signature in which case they gained us a nine figure sum and still counting......?
[/quote]

 

No. The moment Colchester gave us permission to talk to Lambert was the moment it was certain he would become our manager, unless he had a change of heart. We knew that and Colchester knew that, and Lambert knew that. At the most all we gained from poaching Lambert before compensation was agreed was a day or two extra. And if we had made a sensible offer to Colchester straight away, as we have obviously just done to Birmingham, we might well have got Lambert in just as quickly.

The hardball tactics used by McNally (and I suspect Bowkett in that case) were counterproductive and a failure. And you don''t have to take my word for it. McNally admitted as much afterwards:

"Maybe some lessons have been learned and we will attempt to ensure that they are noted for the future.”

Managementspeak for "We screwed up."

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Found this pic of the young Donkey -

 

[IMG]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRuXcWFQnXOc1WXWia3OlGOZPbPkaxXPZxuSGGiECYr8Kdm4AP7MTbWLHc_[/IMG]

 

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

"OINK OINK!......SNORK SNORK......CAN I COME BACK TO CARRA, PERLEEEZE?"

[/quote]

 

That picture of donkey has been photoshopped, right?

[/quote]

 

Amazing how much the Donk has changed in Mello''s pic since his time with us.  He''s put on a lot of weight -

 

[IMG]http://share2.co.uk/f/1182_727_lawl.jpg[/IMG]