David McNally and his influence

[crabbycanary 2]

I do not get some people on here who think that McNally is the only voice at this Club, and who makes all the off field decisions.

He is the Chief Exec, and with any Club''s CE, he will have a major part in the decision making (as there are only a few people who can i.e. the Board) but it isn''t the David McNally show.

The Holt 3 year deal. The latest opinion is that McNally has lost face over this. FFS get real. He acts in the club''s best interest, with the board''s backing. I have said before, the CE is the guy who 9/10 fires the gun, but he hasn''t constructed the gun, made the bullets, and loaded it.

McNally does not do personal decisions at this Club, they are all made with £ signs, business acumen and influence on the team.

Holt was refused a 3 year deal. Holt now has a 3 year deal.It is not as black and white as some people make out. It doesn''t mean that the Club (McNally) has backed down (and lost face) over this. I would place my mortgage on the fact that both Holt and the Club have COMPROMISED (not lost face) on BOTH their original demands, to get where they are today. Anyone with any business sense would see that.

For me, and lots of other fans, this Club of ours needed someone like McNally to help turn us around (off the field), and he(for ''he'' - also read ''the Board'') has, imo, done a tremendous job, and long may it continue.

As romantic as it sounds, this is is not an ideal world, and not all players will get exactly what they want, when they want it, so situations like the Holt saga will rear their heads from time to time, and the CE of a Club will be under pressure from the fans to make sure their (on a pedestal) heroes are pampered and are never upset. But that is why McNally is in that job, and can more than handle the likes of Holt, and his agent.

  

 

[Norfolk Mustard 106]

[quote user="crabbycanary"]

I do not get some people on here who think that McNally is the only voice at this Club, and who makes all the off field decisions.

He is the Chief Exec, and with any Club''s CE, he will have a major part in the decision making (as there are only a few people who can i.e. the Board) but it isn''t the David McNally show.

The Holt 3 year deal. The latest opinion is that McNally has lost face over this. FFS get real. He acts in the club''s best interest, with the board''s backing. I have said before, the CE is the guy who 9/10 fires the gun, but he hasn''t constructed the gun, made the bullets, and loaded it.

McNally does not do personal decisions at this Club, they are all made with £ signs, business acumen and influence on the team.

Holt was refused a 3 year deal. Holt now has a 3 year deal.It is not as black and white as some people make out. It doesn''t mean that the Club (McNally) has backed down (and lost face) over this. I would place my mortgage on the fact that both Holt and the Club have COMPROMISED (not lost face) on BOTH their original demands, to get where they are today. Anyone with any business sense would see that.

For me, and lots of other fans, this Club of ours needed someone like McNally to help turn us around (off the field), and he(for ''he'' - also read ''the Board'') has, imo, done a tremendous job, and long may it continue.

As romantic as it sounds, this is is not an ideal world, and not all players will get exactly what they want, when they want it, so situations like the Holt saga will rear their heads from time to time, and the CE of a Club will be under pressure from the fans to make sure their (on a pedestal) heroes are pampered and are never upset. But that is why McNally is in that job, and can more than handle the likes of Holt, and his agent.

[/quote]

 

Collaboration is what they should have been aiming for; there is a distinct difference between compromise and collaboration http://www.cios.org/encyclopedia/conflict/Dvariables9_style.htm - providing both parties believe they have arrived at a negotiation point they are genuinely happy with, the relationship is lmore likely to remain harmonious...

[lake district canary 0]

Good post cc,  the idea that  McNally has somehow ''lost face'' is laughable.    As you say, we don''t know all the details, but the outcome is good for all concerned.     I don''t know where some people are coming from when they talk about their football club.  It seems as if people want to see incompetence in people - would rather knock them than credit them. 

 

 

Holt and the club have been in a negotiating position involving someone''s career and the well being of the club.   We got the right result - congratulations to all concerned.   Some people need to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

 

 

[crabbycanary 2]

Yep - that is a fair point NM. A better choice of  word I think

[Yelloow Since 72 56]

I agree with NM''s use of ''collaboration''. Having worked as a professional trainer in negotiation skills, I also know the damage that can be done by going down the ''absolutely not'' route during negotiations. We have all praised DM for his tough stances in situations, but this time it proved to be counter-productive. By effectively shutting the door, it left Holt with nowhere to go except his own tough stance - handing in a transfer request. With the management limbo at the time, this was the only route Holt had to re-open negotiations. The rest, as they say, is history, but thanks to the timely intervention of Chris Hughton, negotiations were opened again and a successful outcome achieved.

[Dubai Mark 0]

Nail on the head Crabby! In addition of course, despite the Holt situation becoming relatively public we will never know the exact facts, but it does appear that compromise happened. In no way did McNally lose face on this, the opposite probably. Regardless, what the end result proved to me, was that our club is in safe hands currently with this Board under McNally''s leadership, and long may it continue. 

[J 0]

Couldn''t agree more. The negotiation, as with any, starts with both parties wanting to achieve something and then coming together to meet somewhere in the middle if they can. A deal won''t be agreed if both parties aren''t happy with the compromise.As you state, not everything is black and white and whilst originally a 3 yr deal was turned down but achieved in the end, we have no idea what all the terms of that deal are - as the OP states, it doesn''t mean the club have backed down to all of Holt''s demands. I can''t see the original three year deal Holt wanted being turned down purely because of his age - he stated himself he felt he wasnt being rewarded enough for what he had done - the club was just not willing to meet the financial demands of the deal so wanted to restructure it some way - it was just unfortunate that Holt felt the need to hand in a transfer request as the club were unwilling to discuss the matter until later on.Things needed to be put into place on his contract and it needed to be negotiated in order that the club was happy, not just McNally, with the financial consequences of the deal. There is no egg on the face of anyone here, a deal was achieved and both parties are happy with the decision. Too many people seem to have taken this whole contract deal personally and as the above have said, it was the right result for both parties - so we should be happy and just get on with it.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="J"]

Couldn''t agree more. The negotiation, as with any, starts with both parties wanting to achieve something and then coming together to meet somewhere in the middle if they can. A deal won''t be agreed if both parties aren''t happy with the compromise.

As you state, not everything is black and white and whilst originally a 3 yr deal was turned down but achieved in the end, we have no idea what all the terms of that deal are - as the OP states, it doesn''t mean the club have backed down to all of Holt''s demands. I can''t see the original three year deal Holt wanted being turned down purely because of his age - he stated himself he felt he wasnt being rewarded enough for what he had done - the club was just not willing to meet the financial demands of the deal so wanted to restructure it some way - it was just unfortunate that Holt felt the need to hand in a transfer request as the club were unwilling to discuss the matter until later on.

Things needed to be put into place on his contract and it needed to be negotiated in order that the club was happy, not just McNally, with the financial consequences of the deal. There is no egg on the face of anyone here, a deal was achieved and both parties are happy with the decision. Too many people seem to have taken this whole contract deal personally and as the above have said, it was the right result for both parties - so we should be happy and just get on with it.

[/quote]

 

First real bit of sense on this thread for me. But the proviso that it was the right result for both parties can only be supposition. Nobody knows the facts and nobody ever did know the facts.

 

But I would just say that throughout the long drawn out process it was widely assumed that the extra year was the sticking point. In fact there were plenty of posters on here stating that McNally was spot on not giving that extra year and saying that Holt should be satisfied with the contract he already had. I found that blind support of McNally from football supporters incredible. I assume those who thought McNally was right and was looking after the clubs best interests in denying the extra year now feel that he''s acted against the clubs best interests in giving it.

 

Crabby''s idea that McNally is somehow not responsible for the decisions he makes must also be wide of the mark. Otherwise he could have no credit whatsoever for our success since he became CE. That would make him a puppet and that''s the last thing a CE should be.

 

 

[crabbycanary 2]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="J"]

Couldn''t agree more. The negotiation, as with any, starts with both parties wanting to achieve something and then coming together to meet somewhere in the middle if they can. A deal won''t be agreed if both parties aren''t happy with the compromise.

As you state, not everything is black and white and whilst originally a 3 yr deal was turned down but achieved in the end, we have no idea what all the terms of that deal are - as the OP states, it doesn''t mean the club have backed down to all of Holt''s demands. I can''t see the original three year deal Holt wanted being turned down purely because of his age - he stated himself he felt he wasnt being rewarded enough for what he had done - the club was just not willing to meet the financial demands of the deal so wanted to restructure it some way - it was just unfortunate that Holt felt the need to hand in a transfer request as the club were unwilling to discuss the matter until later on.

Things needed to be put into place on his contract and it needed to be negotiated in order that the club was happy, not just McNally, with the financial consequences of the deal. There is no egg on the face of anyone here, a deal was achieved and both parties are happy with the decision. Too many people seem to have taken this whole contract deal personally and as the above have said, it was the right result for both parties - so we should be happy and just get on with it.

[/quote]

 

First real bit of sense on this thread for me. But the proviso that it was the right result for both parties can only be supposition. Nobody knows the facts and nobody ever did know the facts.

 

But I would just say that throughout the long drawn out process it was widely assumed that the extra year was the sticking point. In fact there were plenty of posters on here stating that McNally was spot on not giving that extra year and saying that Holt should be satisfied with the contract he already had. I found that blind support of McNally from football supporters incredible. I assume those who thought McNally was right and was looking after the clubs best interests in denying the extra year now feel that he''s acted against the clubs best interests in giving it.

 

Crabby''s idea that McNally is somehow not responsible for the decisions he makes must also be wide of the mark. Otherwise he could have no credit whatsoever for our success since he became CE. That would make him a puppet and that''s the last thing a CE should be.

 

 

[/quote]

 

No Nutty, that''s not what I was getting at, at all.

I was putting another view to the posts that have used McNally as the ONLY decision maker in this Holt process and nobody else had a say. I may have missed them, but I have yet to see any posts having a go at Delia, Bowkett etc about this Holt transfer request/3 year thing.

McNally was an obvious part of the process, that is his job, but this notion that it was his little baby, and no body else was getting a  look in, was just wrong. Has McNally made any mistakes? Possibly. Has Holt made any mistakes? Definately.

There was a real danger of one employee of a company being given, almost carte blanche, to ask for what he wanted and when he wanted, without any challenge from up above, and once that happens in any company, respect/influence/control and a host of other things start to ebb away at the whole infrastructure, and then it is only going in one direction.

Of course the outcome of this particular process has been the right result for both parties, if not, Holt would not be pulling on a yellow shirt ever again, either by his own, or the club''s, design.

My opinion is trying to look at it from an Employer/Employee relationship. I have my own business and have employees, and there would be certain processes that I would go through, if an employee of mine wanted answers to questions. I would be fair to the employee, but also it would be dealt with to fit in with the Company. Not on the same scale I admit, but an employee is legally entitled to holiday time, but it isn''t always possible to let them have holiday when they choose or would like. 

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Well I have yet to see posts saying it''s Delia or Bowkett''s fault when Wes missed his penalty Crabby. But ultimately I guess the buck stops with them.

 

 

[crabbycanary 2]

Don''t be naughty Nutty! There was a rumour going around that Delia had been seen at Colney helping Wes and his penalty taking....

If McNally is seen by some, as the only decision maker, then it is the rest of the Board that are puppets, and we know that is not the case.

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="crabbycanary"]

Don''t be naughty Nutty! There was a rumour going around that Delia had been seen at Colney helping Wes and his penalty taking....

If McNally is seen by some, as the only decision maker, then it is the rest of the Board that are puppets, and we know that is not the case.

[/quote]

 

 

Responsibilities are delegated to certain people in companies.     You make decisions based upon your position.    But usually there will be meetings and consultations within that, therefore ensuring good decisions are made with all concerned knowing the position.

 

 

 

Regarding penalties, I dare say that there have been many meetings on the subject.   Wes will be a way down the list nowadays..............................

 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,902]

McNaslly and Bowkett are the executive directors charged with running the club. They are obviously answerable to the board and it''s been said that the board are very thorough in questioning their decisions. However, they are charged with running the club and don''t have to run to the board to get every decision ratified.

 

 

[crabbycanary 2]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

McNaslly and Bowkett are the executive directors charged with running the club. They are obviously answerable to the board and it''s been said that the board are very thorough in questioning their decisions. However, they are charged with running the club and don''t have to run to the board to get every decision ratified.

 

 

[/quote]

That is quite true, but when it comes to a decison, which will influence, if the POTS for the last 3 years will still/not, be at the Club, next season, then I am sure that the majority voted in favour. If the rest of the Board said ''no'' to something, but DM and AB said ''yes'', then it would have to take some pretty strong (viable) reasons if the ''Yes'' vote was then implemented. 

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="crabbycanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

McNaslly and Bowkett are the executive directors charged with running the club. They are obviously answerable to the board and it''s been said that the board are very thorough in questioning their decisions. However, they are charged with running the club and don''t have to run to the board to get every decision ratified.

 

 

[/quote]

That is quite true, but when it comes to a decison, which will influence, if the POTS for the last 3 years will still/not, be at the Club, next season, then I am sure that the majority voted in favour. If the rest of the Board said ''no'' to something, but DM and AB said ''yes'', then it would have to take some pretty strong (viable) reasons if the ''Yes'' vote was then implemented. 

[/quote]

 

Could be. Or it could be that the rest of the board challenged McNally and disagreed with him. We will never know.

 

I just find it incredible how many supporters blindly backed McNally when it came out. Holt has given nothing but his best for three seasons and will be a club legend long after people are saying "David who?"

 

[8]He wore a suit against the scum.....

 

 

[crabbycanary 2]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="crabbycanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

McNaslly and Bowkett are the executive directors charged with running the club. They are obviously answerable to the board and it''s been said that the board are very thorough in questioning their decisions. However, they are charged with running the club and don''t have to run to the board to get every decision ratified.

 

 

[/quote]

That is quite true, but when it comes to a decison, which will influence, if the POTS for the last 3 years will still/not, be at the Club, next season, then I am sure that the majority voted in favour. If the rest of the Board said ''no'' to something, but DM and AB said ''yes'', then it would have to take some pretty strong (viable) reasons if the ''Yes'' vote was then implemented. 

[/quote]

 

Could be. Or it could be that the rest of the board challenged McNally and disagreed with him. We will never know.

 

I just find it incredible how many supporters blindly backed McNally when it came out. Holt has given nothing but his best for three seasons and will be a club legend long after people are saying "David who?"

 

[8]He wore a suit against the scum.....

 

 

[/quote]

It is all conjecture, like you say, but for that alone, I think we must make a concession on the Legends list!

[Icecream Snow 777]

We signed Jamie Cureton on a three year deal when he was 32. A year later his legs had gone and we struggled to give him away for the final two years. I think McNally remembers that incident well.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

As what has often felt like McNally''s only critic on this board it''s been amusing to see him now attacked for something that may not have been his fault. I have seen all sorts of assumptions, including on this thread, but there is still only certainty here - that Holt wanted a third year, was refused, put in a transfer request, was the subject of interest from at least one PL club, and was then granted the extra year.

It may have been McNally who issued the rejection, but it will hardly have been his decision alone. I saw one poster (not on this thread) refer to "McNally''s budget". It isn''t McNally''s budget; it is the board''s budget, handed down to the manager. The manager will advise on possible contract extensions from a purely footballing perspective, but the board will decide whether they can be accommodated in the budget. In this case it was obviously decided a third year for Holt could not be justfified. Possibly from a financial viewpoint. Possibly from a footballing viewpoint. Probably from a combination of the two.

[J 0]

[quote user="BlueCanary"]The manager will advise on possible contract extensions from a purely footballing perspective, but the board will decide whether they can be accommodated in the budget. In this case it was obviously decided a third year for Holt could not be justfified. Possibly from a financial viewpoint. Possibly from a footballing viewpoint. Probably from a combination of the two.[/quote]I would assume it was from both viewpoints purple, and it clearly took some negotiation to ensure the financial side of giving Holt a third year was not an issue to the club.No less, I''m not sure it matters and I couldn''t care less about the whole contract issue anymore now that it has all been sorted. We should just be happy it''s been done and we can focus on other players now.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]As what has often felt like McNally''s only critic on this board it''s been amusing to see him now attacked for something that may not have been his fault. I have seen all sorts of assumptions, including on this thread, but there is still only certainty here - that Holt wanted a third year, was refused, put in a transfer request, was the subject of interest from at least one PL club, and was then granted the extra year.

It may have been McNally who issued the rejection, but it will hardly have been his decision alone. I saw one poster (not on this thread) refer to "McNally''s budget". It isn''t McNally''s budget; it is the board''s budget, handed down to the manager. The manager will advise on possible contract extensions from a purely footballing perspective, but the board will decide whether they can be accommodated in the budget. In this case it was obviously decided a third year for Holt could not be justfified. Possibly from a financial viewpoint. Possibly from a footballing viewpoint. Probably from a combination of the two.[/quote]

 

Well it''s interesting to fit your words to a logical scenario. How about this : -

 

Grant Holt asked for an extra year once he was an established Premier League striker. McNally decided it made sense from a financial point of view to give it to him. Paul Lambert for whatever reason decided against it for football reasons even though "Grunt''s been triffic for him". McNally and the board decide to back the manager being afraid he may walk or have a little wobble if he doesn''t always get his own way. He has a little wobble and walks anyway. So the board ask his replacement. Being the new boy Chris Hughton doesn''t want to start off by going against the board and being a bit more of a "yes man" he bows to their better judgement and agrees with the third year.

 

Right result, everyone happy, lovely old job!

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

Well, if we are going to speculate Nutty, please allow me to do a variation on your theme:

 

Grant Holt asked for an extra year once he was an established Premier League striker, also making it clear he is capable of an even greater contribution if he gets more starts. McNally decided it made sense from a financial point of view to give him the extra year with lots of incentives built in for even greater contribution, also reassuring Holt that he ( McNally ) will at least speak to Lambert regarding more starts. Paul Lambert decided against it because the thing that is most important in the way Lambert sees himself is that he, and he alone, is "The Gaffer" ( both words capitalised for emphasis ) and the ONLY way anyone will be on his team is to accept that he will decide who plays match to match, i.e. there are no names guaranteed to be on the teamsheet.  McNally and the board tentatively back the manager while trying to dissuade him from being rigid on the point. Lambert, who had already decided that Aston Villa was not worth making a switch for, does not remotely like his position on the football side being questioned and, against his earlier judgment, decides to walk anyway. Being the new boy Chris Hughton quickly picks up the lie of the land and, naturally supports the view of the board. McNally, not the least bit interested in media speculation regarding Holt leaving or overtures from West Ham, has a quiet word with our boy Grant, from whom no further serious comments emerge, astutely lets a couple of extra weeks go by, before announcing the new deal. No significant egg on the face for either side and it''s business as usual.

 

Any others? 

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="J"][quote user="BlueCanary"]The manager will advise on possible contract extensions from a purely footballing perspective, but the board will decide whether they can be accommodated in the budget. In this case it was obviously decided a third year for Holt could not be justfified. Possibly from a financial viewpoint. Possibly from a footballing viewpoint. Probably from a combination of the two.[/quote]

I would assume it was from both viewpoints purple, and it clearly took some negotiation to ensure the financial side of giving Holt a third year was not an issue to the club.

No less, I''m not sure it matters and I couldn''t care less about the whole contract issue anymore now that it has all been sorted. We should just be happy it''s been done and we can focus on other players now.
[/quote]

 

J, you cannot assume that the negotiations that went on produced a settlement in which giving Holt a third year wasn''t an issue and didn''t have unwelcome ramifications.

[J 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="J"][quote user="BlueCanary"]The manager will advise on possible contract extensions from a purely footballing perspective, but the board will decide whether they can be accommodated in the budget. In this case it was obviously decided a third year for Holt could not be justfified. Possibly from a financial viewpoint. Possibly from a footballing viewpoint. Probably from a combination of the two.[/quote]I would assume it was from both viewpoints purple, and it clearly took some negotiation to ensure the financial side of giving Holt a third year was not an issue to the club.No less, I''m not sure it matters and I couldn''t care less about the whole contract issue anymore now that it has all been sorted. We should just be happy it''s been done and we can focus on other players now.[/quote]

 

J, you cannot assume that the negotiations that went on produced a settlement in which giving Holt a third year wasn''t an issue and didn''t have unwelcome ramifications.

[/quote]Of course, there may well be unwelcome ramifications, but such ramifications are not an issue when looking at the greater picture; or in better terms, the deal outways the ramifications it has created, or it wouldn''t have gone ahead. Perhaps that would have been better replaced with... "and it clearly took some negotiation to ensure the financial side of giving Holt a third year was less of an issue than in the first place to the club."