Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Gingerpele

Lambert tribunal

Recommended Posts

" .... with these contracts every single word is there for a reason"

 

exactlly, and that''s is why I have no cause for concern that the club would have drwan up a contract with such a glaring ommission in it

maybe a few of the not too bright on here might care to consider how long it took to resolve our contract dispute with Colchester

as to how it will affect the club perhaps I could remind the same not too bright that it will be being dealt with by a law firm, not the players, manager, coaches or anyone on that side of things

 

so let the get on with it

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"]

nearly two and a half hours

 

rather slow I would say

 

 

[/quote]It could have been there ages, I have only just got in from the pub.And frankly is it even newsworthy to anyone apart from Villa fans and us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"]

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]I saw it live.[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bowkett was on business on the Isle of Man when he received a call from McNally about the situation so Bowkett flew back having asked McNally to get Lambert to meet him either at his house or Carrow Road at 5.30pm but by the time he got back Lambert had gone.

The interesting and untold part is what happened whilst Bowkett was hot footing it back to Norwich .

Bowkett mentioned briefly Lamberts agent but it was more what he did not say than what he did say about him that made me aware he played a major part in the affair and Bowkett added that for all he knew whilst he was heading back to Norwich Lambert may well have been already sitting in the Aston Villa car park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It smacks very much of a contrived and premedidated action.

 

If Lambert had been ''wanting permission'' then he would have arranged to meet the necessary board members - be they the CEO, the chairman or the full board. I doubt there was any time limit on the Villa offer, as there theoritically should not have been an offer from Villa at that stage, so again why the rush ?

 

My suggestion would be that lamberts agent had already done the deal, though this may have not included compensation to City, so a means of getting out of his contract was contrived.

 

Whether the deal with Villa was caused by recent events at City that we don''t know at this stage, but my thought is that Bowkett would not have laid himself open to such a big fall were he not to be certain of his and the clubs position, as any silence on the matter would at this point be accepted at it was still waiting to go to tribunal.

 

Lamberts counter claim smacks of a desperate last ditch attempt to deflect from the inevitable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let''s say that Lambert was sacked by McNally.

And to be honest, i''m 100% behind him if that''s the action he took, 2 Mil can be wasted quite easily in modern football so let''s not get caught up on money being the be all and end all, this comes down to ethics.

It does, kinda, tie in to Holt''s issue in wanting a commitment from the club shortly afterwards, to which it looked McNally went into a rage about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let''s say that Lambert was sacked by McNally"

 

why ?

 

so you can make up some old guff to have a go at the club with ?

 

It was stated at the time that Paul Lambert resigned from Norwich City. He has never claimed otherwise.

 

Alan Bowkett stated at the fans meeting yesterday (Thurs) that Paul Lambert resigned. Why would he say that in an open meeting if it was a lie ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I can have a go at the club? Yeah, i hate this club, can''t wait to slag them off!

You going for this years completely miss the point and act like a twat award again?

I''ll be voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh dear

 

hit a raw nerve ?

 

perhaps you could explain to us all, this point

 

the one that has Bowkett lying, that is

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having not seen Lamberts contract I have no idea which part of it the club could have breached. Can''t really think of anything plausible really, unless as people suggest the club has made a bit of a blunder.

I can''t help but think Lambert maybe playing a few mind games here with the Norwich fans and club. I sometimes thinks he wants to be hated by his previous clubs. Not sure how he left Wycombe, but left Colchester by being a real d1ck to the fans, and rubbed it in their face and stole their best players. Despite him leaving and most Norwich fans accepting it and understanding his decision, seems like he is back to try to make everyone hate him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Bowkett said last night - it''s just a job for Paul whereas we are Norwich City supporters.

Lambert is all about winning football matches. I''m sure in his mind if it helps to create a furore around his departure and help to destabilise one of Villa''s competitors - he way well have taken the opportunity to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty obvious but it all depends on what happened and the detailed wording of the contract. For example (and this is paraphrasing):

 

The contract could say "NCFC will not withold permission for PL to enter into discussions [with any premier league club wishing to enquire about employment opportunities]"

 

or it could say "NCFC will not unreasonably withhold permission for PL to enter into discussions [etc etc]"

 

That little extra word would make all the difference as it gives City the element of discretion. We just don''t know what the wording actually says, it could be more complicated and for example require requests to be in writing, submitted to the Board, responded to within a certain period of time etc. Unless the wording enters the public domain we can only speculate. Even the existence of such a clause is not certain.

 

Nor do we really know how things evolved and when. The Villa request could have come in after McLeish was sacked or even before. Maybe Lambert had put in his request days or weeks ago and got fed up, giving Bowkett 3 hours to finally make his mind up. Maybe lambert was promised cash for players and that was revoked or the amount downgraded.

 

The point is that we can only speculate with only few and partial facts about this. I was already pretty pee''ed off about how Lambert left and my respect for him had largely gone. This doesn''t really change that, just an extra increment of pee''edoffness. The guys gone, its left a sour taste and he should expect a rough time when he comes here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments on this for what they are worth:

 

1. The timing of the revelation is interesting and a cynic might think there is an element of distraction tactics going on here given our current on pitch struggles. I can''t believe that Bowkett has made this up (as it would be too easy to prove if it was not true) but interesting that they choose now to put it into the public domain. That said Bowkett is always a bit more forthcoming at forums than McNally and it may simply be that this is the first time he has done one since Lambert left.

2. If Lambert does have a claim going to tribunal against us I suspect is a tactical claim as part of Aston Villa''s attempt to avoid having to pay compensation and (at the very least) muddy the waters in that respect.

3. I have no idea if either Mcnally or Bowkett made errors which enabled him to walk away but its very clear to me that Lambert and Villa manufactured his departure from us with a view to trying to avoid compensation. I have no doubt whatsoever that he had been in contact with them well prior to his resignation and the deal was in essence done when he walked. he walked straight into what I am sure is a better paid job and (unless we haven''t paid him some old wages) I cannot believe has suffered any kind of financial loss. Even if this claim is just a tactic as part of the wider dispute the fact he is claiming/seeking anything at all from us shows a complete and utter lack of class and shows up Lambert for the type of man he really is. He may be a good football manager but he burns his bridges everywhere he goes and is clearly a complete ****. The jury is out on the Hoot in terms of whether he will prove to be as adept a manager but he is clearly in a different league as a man and in integrity terms as evidenced by the fact he made Brum aware that he wanted to join us but supposedly insisted that we agree fair compensation for him and his staff first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

Is this a major c0ck up by McNally?  Not only not compo, but Lambert trying to sue us for millions![:O]

 

However, like I said unfair dismissal, if they are the correct terms, suggests that we got rid of Lambert.  After his ''wobble'' the summer before, perhaps we got sick and with his demands to speak to Villa, we sacked him?[:^)]

[/quote]

Well, I''ve thought that scenario was possible and stated it here many times.  McNally could have had Hughton already lined up. Hence, no contract improvement was offered to Lambert and neither Holloway nor anybody else was ever spoken to. All IMHO.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]

My comments on this for what they are worth:

 

1. The timing of the revelation is interesting and a cynic might think there is an element of distraction tactics going on here given our current on pitch struggles. I can''t believe that Bowkett has made this up (as it would be too easy to prove if it was not true) but interesting that they choose now to put it into the public domain. That said Bowkett is always a bit more forthcoming at forums than McNally and it may simply be that this is the first time he has done one since Lambert left.

2. If Lambert does have a claim going to tribunal against us I suspect is a tactical claim as part of Aston Villa''s attempt to avoid having to pay compensation and (at the very least) muddy the waters in that respect.

3. I have no idea if either Mcnally or Bowkett made errors which enabled him to walk away but its very clear to me that Lambert and Villa manufactured his departure from us with a view to trying to avoid compensation. I have no doubt whatsoever that he had been in contact with them well prior to his resignation and the deal was in essence done when he walked. he walked straight into what I am sure is a better paid job and (unless we haven''t paid him some old wages) I cannot believe has suffered any kind of financial loss. Even if this claim is just a tactic as part of the wider dispute the fact he is claiming/seeking anything at all from us shows a complete and utter lack of class and shows up Lambert for the type of man he really is. He may be a good football manager but he burns his bridges everywhere he goes and is clearly a complete ****. The jury is out on the Hoot in terms of whether he will prove to be as adept a manager but he is clearly in a different league as a man and in integrity terms as evidenced by the fact he made Brum aware that he wanted to join us but supposedly insisted that we agree fair compensation for him and his staff first.

[/quote]

 

Jim, I concur with all your thoughts.  We really need more information before conclusions can be made - it is not good to all parties (including supporters) if things are going to trickle out like this.  It is a tribunal situation so matters are strictly between the parties involved, so it would have been better to have this heard first without any details being aired in public.  Sorry but it smacks of distraction tactics, which some may welcome, but it looks a cheap shot from my view. 

 

I suggest we calm down and focus on what happens on the pitch, concentrate on supporting our team, and wait for the tribunal process to be completed and encourage some journalist worth their corn (not necessarily Archant given connection to NCFC board - how about Wyett & Nursey joining up?) to do some proper digging to see if there is anything in this other than claim and counter claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bang on Jim.

There are only two things to say about this:

1) Looks like a fairly standard counter-suit in response to our pursuit of compensation from Villa.

2) Really interesting that NCFC - normally so secretive - have chosen to make this public. Surely an attempt to shore up support for Hughton by publicly criticising PL. Canny McNally...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t quite agree with your assessment of Lambert, though, Jim. We just don''t know what happened around his leaving. My suspicion is that it was simply that he wanted to manage a bigger club, which Villa undoubtedly are. We can''t really complain at that, otherwise we would never have had him here in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"]

oh dear hit a raw nerve ?  perhaps you could explain to us all, this point

 the one that has Bowkett lying, that is

[/quote]

lol you goat.

I never claimed anyone was lying, i was simply being hypothetical.  The whole issue with Holt pre-season still has me confused, and there''s clearly been a clash (No brainer) that he (Holty) either tried to profit/secure himself from... Or was truly a victim of (Who''s to say who''s ear Lambert had been whispering in).

Something is going to come out of this, and it''s going to be interesting.  I would love to hear Lambert give his thoughts on why he left, probably never will though.

At the end of the day, it''s business, and we''re talking big money contracts.  As i''ve already said i will back McNally 100% over anyone at this club right now.  Even IF (<--NOTE!) he did breach the contract in the final hour which is leading to claims that ''technically'' Lambert was released/sacked.

I imagine that it went along the lines of "If you don''t let me speak to Villa i''m off regardless as it''s a breach of contract" and the reply was "I don''t care, i''m not allowing it and that''s final".

100% behind him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×