Can we please have some clarification?

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Over the past few seasons the Club has consistently praised the level of support at Carrow Road, citing this as one of the major reasons for our success. With maximum season ticket sales again expected, it really seems time for some clarification concerning certain matters that have arisen in the past two weeks.

 

The fans, and even us exiles who attend less often in body if not in soul, should really be privy to the following matters:

 

(1) Is NCFC entitled to any compensation from AVFC over the Paul Lambert affair or are Vill''a claims that his contract had been breached valid? If the answer is to the affirmative, then how much money is involved? If the answer is negative, then do the Board and McNally have any further action that they can take on behalf of our Club? Either through the FA or through the courts.

 

(2) Have Aston Villa/Paul Lambert the freedom to ''poach'' any of our players at will or has some provision been made to prevent this?

 

(3) Are Culverhouse and Karsa destined to follow Lambert? What is their situation at the Club at this moment in time and what are their exact contractual obligations towards our Club?

 

(4) If matters are still at a delicate stage then say so and say why this is still the case.

 

This Board is currently tying it''self in knots with speculation. Keyboard lawyers abound, facts do not. It is a football club not the KGB headquarters. 

[K Lo 246]

Villa (or any club for that matter) can only buy a Norwich player if Norwich sell. You''re not forced by anyone to sell you bike etc. and nor is Norwich any player under contract, forced to sell.

[Orford65 0]

You want facts coming out of the Carrow Road citadel - dream on.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

[quote user="K Lo"]Villa (or any club for that matter) can only buy a Norwich player if Norwich sell. You''re not forced by anyone to sell you bike etc. and nor is Norwich any player under contract, forced to sell.
[/quote]

 

True, but then the Club has an unsettled player on it''s hands a situation which could easily come about with the Holt stalemate.

[PurpleCanary 6,381]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

Over the past few seasons the Club has consistently praised the level of support at Carrow Road, citing this as one of the major reasons for our success. With maximum season ticket sales again expected, it really seems time for some clarification concerning certain matters that have arisen in the past two weeks.

 

The fans, and even us exiles who attend less often in body if not in soul, should really be privy to the following matters:

 

(1) Is NCFC entitled to any compensation from AVFC over the Paul Lambert affair or are Vill''a claims that his contract had been breached valid? If the answer is to the affirmative, then how much money is involved? If the answer is negative, then do the Board and McNally have any further action that they can take on behalf of our Club? Either through the FA or through the courts.

 

(2) Have Aston Villa/Paul Lambert the freedom to ''poach'' any of our players at will or has some provision been made to prevent this?

 

(3) Are Culverhouse and Karsa destined to follow Lambert? What is their situation at the Club at this moment in time and what are their exact contractual obligations towards our Club?

 

(4) If matters are still at a delicate stage then say so and say why this is still the case.

 

This Board is currently tying it''self in knots with speculation. Keyboard lawyers abound, facts do not. It is a football club not the KGB headquarters. 

[/quote]

 

But does that matter, BroadstairS? That is what posters on message-boards do. I am often critical of the way the club is run but I don''t think it has a duty to calm the fears of fans, especially if - as you indicate - some of these matters are at a delicate stage and might involve quasi-legal proceedings. If anything these questions should be being raised by the EDP, but relations between Archant Towers and Carrow Road have not been good, certainly in the recent past, and  there may be a reluctance to try to get answers.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Agree upto a point Purple, but the Club cannot take our money and make "let''s be ''avin you" type appeals to us whilst placating us with crumbs at such a critical time as this.

We deserve more than a few tweets and belated official statements. 

[Joanna Grey 0]

I can just imagine BroadstairsR having a meal in a top restaurant and then marching into the kitchen demanding the recipes.

[PurpleCanary 6,381]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

Agree upto a point Purple, but the Club cannot take our money and make "let''s be ''avin you" type appeals to us whilst placating us with crumbs at such a critical time as this.

We deserve more than a few tweets and belated official statements. 

[/quote]

 

I think the questions you raise are all important ones. But, as another poster suggested, the club under the new regime is not into the kind of genuine openness you''re talking about. And with the Lambert compensation case in particular it might be (this is a supposition only) that any statement it could make would be rather embarrassing. I come back to my point that it is the job of the local press to try to get answers.

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

Point 2 is a none point.  It''s been addressed a lot on here already.....

[BigFish 2,282]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

Agree upto a point Purple, but the Club cannot take our money and make "let''s be ''avin you" type appeals to us whilst placating us with crumbs at such a critical time as this.

We deserve more than a few tweets and belated official statements. 

[/quote]

But do you deserve more? Time was these things would drag on through an entire close season before being sorted. Now with 24 hour news the best you can expect is orchestrated PR spin from all sides until such point as the music stops and even then we might never know.

And as for "the Club cannot take our money and make "let''s be ''avin you" type appeals to us whilst placating us with crumbs at such a critical time as this." I think you''ll find they can and will.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

[quote user="Joanna Grey"]

I can just imagine BroadstairsR having a meal in a top restaurant and then marching into the kitchen demanding the recipes.

[/quote]

 

Hardly a valid correlation. Besides, mine was a rather polite request to the Club, surely?[:D] 

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Point 2 is a none point.  It''s been addressed a lot on here already.....[/quote]

 

The Club has not stated that this is the case (ie. no embargo)  though. It came through as fact from a newspaper report no less. Neither Villa nor NCFC have addressed the matter in public it seems.

[Aggy 944]

It sort of is a valid example though. We are customers, why should we be privy to contract dealings and compensation deals? The club is a business and we are it''s customers. If your energy provider changes management, do you expect to know the ins and outs of how and why the manager has left?

Most importantly for me, why exactly do we need to know? If there was something like we were very close to going under, then questions should be asked as to why, after all, as customers, we wouldn''t want our "provider" to suddenly leave us in the lurch by going bust. However, that isn''t the case here. As long as the club is in a healthy position, and we are getting what we paid for on the pitch, then what exactly would it achieve if we did know the behind the scenes stuff?

If we find out that we aren''t going to get any compo, what are we going to do about it? Answer - absolutely nothing, apart from have some people moan about the board, which will almost certainly have more negative impact on the club than if we didn''t know.

Contract disputes and financial dealings are not really any of our business, nor would we be able to do anything about it if we did know. As such, what is the point in the club telling us?

[Aggy 944]

And as for the transfer point, why are people getting so worried about it? The ONLY way that we will sell to Villa and lambert is if they make an offer that we find acceptable.

Now if an offer is acceptable, why does it matter where he goes? Would we be wetting ourselves if Sunderland made an acceptable offer for one of our players? How about if Fulham made an acceptable offer for one of our players? Why is it any different if Villa now do? If they want to come and rip the core of our side out and take it to Birmingham, then they''re going to have to pay a price that suits us, in which case it''s absolutely no different to whether any other team was making the offer. People are getting very worried about it because it''s Lambert, but seem to be forgetting that any other club COULD make the same offer. They also seem to be overlooking the fact that no ''Villa-sized'' clubs are making any offers for our players. Yet, apparently, Lambert is going to go to a bigger club and take all of our players with him, despite the fact that no other bigger clubs in the division seem remotely interested.

[PKC 0]

As Villa do not beleive they owe any compensation it would seem unlikely that any agreement on players would be in place.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

[quote user="Aggy"]It sort of is a valid example though. We are customers, why should we be privy to contract dealings and compensation deals? The club is a business and we are it''s customers. If your energy provider changes management, do you expect to know the ins and outs of how and why the manager has left? Most importantly for me, why exactly do we need to know? If there was something like we were very close to going under, then questions should be asked as to why, after all, as customers, we wouldn''t want our "provider" to suddenly leave us in the lurch by going bust. However, that isn''t the case here. As long as the club is in a healthy position, and we are getting what we paid for on the pitch, then what exactly would it achieve if we did know the behind the scenes stuff? If we find out that we aren''t going to get any compo, what are we going to do about it? Answer - absolutely nothing, apart from have some people moan about the board, which will almost certainly have more negative impact on the club than if we didn''t know. Contract disputes and financial dealings are not really any of our business, nor would we be able to do anything about it if we did know. As such, what is the point in the club telling us?[/quote]

 

I realise all this to be the case, but I was just requesting some clarification of some of the pertinent points that have arisen over the past few days and not demanding to know every dot and comma of Lambert''s contract. 

 

Do energy providers call themselves a ''family business'' in the same way that the Board like to depict NCFC as a ''Family Club?'' They cannot have it both ways surely?

[PurpleCanary 6,381]

[quote user="Aggy"]It sort of is a valid example though. We are customers, why should we be privy to contract dealings and compensation deals? The club is a business and we are it''s customers. If your energy provider changes management, do you expect to know the ins and outs of how and why the manager has left? Most importantly for me, why exactly do we need to know? If there was something like we were very close to going under, then questions should be asked as to why, after all, as customers, we wouldn''t want our "provider" to suddenly leave us in the lurch by going bust. However, that isn''t the case here. As long as the club is in a healthy position, and we are getting what we paid for on the pitch, then what exactly would it achieve if we did know the behind the scenes stuff? If we find out that we aren''t going to get any compo, what are we going to do about it? Answer - absolutely nothing, apart from have some people moan about the board, which will almost certainly have more negative impact on the club than if we didn''t know. Contract disputes and financial dealings are not really any of our business, nor would we be able to do anything about it if we did know. As such, what is the point in the club telling us?[/quote]

 

I disagree entirely with that, Aggy. Financial dealings are very much my business and that of all the other shareholders. The company and its directors are answerable to the people who have put money into the club. To take the extreme (and for now theoretical) example of what might happen, if we are paying Birmingham £2m for Hughton et all, and we get nothing for Lambert and at best a few hundred thousand for Culverhouse and Karsa. So we are - say - £1.5m out of pocket. Then that is serious money. How we reached that situation would certainly be something about which shareholders would have a right to know.

[Norfolk Mustard 106]

[quote user="Aggy"]And as for the transfer point, why are people getting so worried about it? The ONLY way that we will sell to Villa and lambert is if they make an offer that we find acceptable. Now if an offer is acceptable, why does it matter where he goes? Would we be wetting ourselves if Sunderland made an acceptable offer for one of our players? How about if Fulham made an acceptable offer for one of our players? Why is it any different if Villa now do? If they want to come and rip the core of our side out and take it to Birmingham, then they''re going to have to pay a price that suits us, in which case it''s absolutely no different to whether any other team was making the offer. People are getting very worried about it because it''s Lambert, but seem to be forgetting that any other club COULD make the same offer. They also seem to be overlooking the fact that no ''Villa-sized'' clubs are making any offers for our players. Yet, apparently, Lambert is going to go to a bigger club and take all of our players with him, despite the fact that no other bigger clubs in the division seem remotely interested.[/quote]

 

...and there''s nothing stopping Norwich making offers for Villa players either!

 

PS: I don''t think any of the other Premiership clubs are much fussed whether PL is managing us or Villa - outside of Norfolk and a small part of the West Midlands the event seems to have passed most people by.

[Cambridgeyellow 0]

OP - If what you are assuming does actually turn out to be correct surely it would be because the great Paul Lambert has simply shafted our club. He could say to Villa I dont think thats moral but in reallity he does not give a t**s about our club. Our board cant be blamed for some ruthless guy who does not bat an eyelid at who he stitches up or give a stuff about anyone other than himself.

IMO opinion we have done really well out of this. We probably have a better manager and had Lambert chose to go at some other time the only people available to to take his position would probably have been has beens and certainly nowhere the calibure of our new manager. If you dont think he would stitch us up why do you think he mentioned Holts twitter. He took the p**s by making an approach in front of the nation and no one could do anything about it.

Just like Lambert we could argue that we used him as a stepping stone - he did the job he was paid for and now we have an established premier league manager.

Would you prefer the information that came from Lambert that was clearly not the truth but probably led our board into a false sense of security.

[Aggy 944]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

I realise all this to be the case, but I was just requesting some clarification of some of the pertinent points that have arisen over the past few days and not demanding to know every dot and comma of Lambert''s contract. 

 

Do energy providers call themselves a ''family business'' in the same way that the Board like to depict NCFC as a ''Family Club?'' They cannot have it both ways surely?

[/quote]

Well, British Gas are "looking after your world", EDF "has a mission to bring sustainable energy solutions home to everyone", and NPower "always aim to achieve the highest standards in customer commitment" apparently. 

The family club argument doesn''t mean they have to divulge financial dealings to the fans though surely? Family club means we are a welcoming one to families, to children of all ages, good facilities for children and mums etc., not just for the 30+ year old blokes in the snake pit. Not really related to the financial aspect of the club at all.

Purple, I can certainly see the merit in your opinion there. However, informing shareholders is quite a different thing to making a public announcement. And for me, shareholders would get an end of year financial report or something sent to them. They don''t need to be informed of every financial dealing we carry out at every step of the process.

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Aggy"]It sort of is a valid example though. We are customers, why should we be privy to contract dealings and compensation deals? The club is a business and we are it''s customers. If your energy provider changes management, do you expect to know the ins and outs of how and why the manager has left? Most importantly for me, why exactly do we need to know? If there was something like we were very close to going under, then questions should be asked as to why, after all, as customers, we wouldn''t want our "provider" to suddenly leave us in the lurch by going bust. However, that isn''t the case here. As long as the club is in a healthy position, and we are getting what we paid for on the pitch, then what exactly would it achieve if we did know the behind the scenes stuff? If we find out that we aren''t going to get any compo, what are we going to do about it? Answer - absolutely nothing, apart from have some people moan about the board, which will almost certainly have more negative impact on the club than if we didn''t know. Contract disputes and financial dealings are not really any of our business, nor would we be able to do anything about it if we did know. As such, what is the point in the club telling us?[/quote]

 

I disagree entirely with that, Aggy. Financial dealings are very much my business and that of all the other shareholders. The company and its directors are answerable to the people who have put money into the club. To take the extreme (and for now theoretical) example of what might happen, if we are paying Birmingham £2m for Hughton et all, and we get nothing for Lambert and at best a few hundred thousand for Culverhouse and Karsa. So we are - say - £1.5m out of pocket. Then that is serious money. How we reached that situation would certainly be something about which shareholders would have a right to know.

[/quote]

That''s shareholders though, not season ticket holders, casuals or armchair fans.

[Salopian 1]

1)  I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine that the constant repetition of Lambert''s name as a target, instigated by someone at Villa Park or how else could the press know, could be construed as approaching a player without permission, and is certainly a practice frowned on by the FA. If my suggestion is accepted, then Villa induced Lambert to break his contract, effectively by saying "Get yourself sacked at CR, we are waiting for you!."

 

It has to be admitted that McN played into their hands by refusing him permission to speak - guaranted in his contract, so it may be a chicken and egg situation. They "advertised " for him by the press, and we put our foot in it. I imagine that the lawyers will have a field day on this, and it may be better to use the FA, who could exert some moral pressure on Villa. Any compensation would be limited to a year''s Lambert salary, presumably, as he was on a rolling one year contract. We would in any case expect to receive compensation for the removal of  Culverhouse and Karsa, unless we boobed again and dismissed them . They are contracted to us, not to Lambert.

 

2)  Poaching is a strong word. Do thy have the right to acquire our players? The answer is "No", because the players are contracted to us. What Swansea did was to bind Rodgers by a contract not to seek to buy players fior a length of time. I presume that we did not do this, as Lambert left in such a hurry. There is nothing to stop Lambert or Villa approaching us and offering to buy players, just as we have the right to say "No". It becomes trickier if the press do their work again and speculate that Holt, or some other player X, is a target for Villa, with higher wages, etc. The player can bcome sullen and unsettled, and in the end we may have to settle for what we can get for him, or go to arbitration which usually steers a middle path between our demanded price and Villa''s bargain bid.

 

3)  Culverhouse and Karsa are under contract to us, but are probably of  little interest to the new manager, who wishes to bring his own staff in. We could, if we wished send Culverhouse and Karsa on "gardening leave" until their contracts run out, which costs us but denies Lambert. Who blinks first? Or more likely the clubs will compromise in some way. Even if we got full compensation for both, at most it would be salary value for the remainder of their contracts.

 

I would expect us to receive some compensation for the managerial team, depending how it is resolved, but not so much as the £2m rmoured to be due for us to pay Birmingham