Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CJ

Malky issues

Recommended Posts

The morale of this story is that we should trust the board to do what they believe is best for NCFC. We cannot know what really goes on in closed discussions even though there is a lot of entertainment to be had in speculation. Most of us were aghast at the appointment of NA but perhaps the board know more than we do despite ludicrous about scouring Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is unusual to apologise for making a claim for unfair dismissal as normally these matters are resolved privately. It appears that this is what MM did and therefore accepting he was not compliant with his employment contract.

However, it would not be unusual to apologise for any public allegations that he had made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Michael Starr"]I can''t help but speculate on this. My theory is that Malky may have been our first choice as manager. Negotiations may have been very advanced when VT possibly boycotted it by tipping off our board about this story. That would explain the sudden unreserved apology by Malky around the time he was being linked with the Norwich post, then the extended level of radio silence with appointing our man. I think our board got wind of the story and did a dramatic U-turn. Adams was in the right place at the right time.

If this is how it panned out then credit to the board for acting accordingly. Ironically, it''s beginning to seem that Adams is a good appointment. He''s tactically strong, good with the players and, although inexperienced, seems to be learning.

Of course, these are only allegations with Malky, we don''t know whether or not they are true.[/quote]As explained to I.S. there is nothing significant in Mackay''s grovel to Tan. If you start legal action and then stop it you have to withdraw unreservedly anything you have said.Almost certainly the reason for Mackay dropping his legal action, and so having to grovel like that, is the obvious one - that he wanted to end the case so he could get back into management.We knew all about Tan''s public allegations and Mackay''s grovel when we interviewed him as - almost certainly - first choice. For your theory to stand up we would then have had to have been tipped off about something secret that has taken another three months to get into the public doman. And - bear this in mind - has come about as the result of an investigation/raid seemingly focused on Moody rather than Mackay, although there may well be a link.Not to mention that if I was Vincent Tan and wanted to do the dirty on Mackay - and a promotion rival - I would have waited until we had started the season with Mackay in charge.The likely explanation is still the obvious one, as given by the only two national reporters with any inside track on affairs at Carrow Road. That Mackay played too hard to get because he fancied a job in the Peremier League.At least, for a while, this may stop Jas the Barclay King stating as A FACT that Mackay turned us down because we were trying to force Adams on him as a coach...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very interesting thoughts there Purple.

In the space of twenty four hours it''s quite bizarre how Vincent Tan has gone from something of a mentalist with some very strange ideas to full on Bond villain.

Something which I saw amongst all the recent hubbub is how

Mishcon de Reya used what appears to be a firm of private investigators/detectives to implement a Warrant.

Truth be told I always though it was only the Police that could this sort of thing, perhaps I''ve misunderstood this point.

One sure thing is with Vincent Tan using Mishcon de Reya he most certainly isn''t messing about in his quest to erase MM from football for ever and seems to be well on their way.

We will never know I it does seem quite likely that our own Board of Directors might have had a whiff of this back in May.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can not think of any other examples of someone apologising for making a claim for unfair dismissal and there is no apparent legal requirement to do so.

We do not know why the Board chose NA over MM. Sometimes when you interview some you don''t know the reasons yourself and you often don''t disclose them. What we do know at this point in time is that it appears that the board made the correct decision for what ever reason and that some people are not man enough to admit their wrong for criticising the board for this decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Michael Starr"]I can''t help but speculate on this. My theory is that Malky may have been our first choice as manager. Negotiations may have been very advanced when VT possibly boycotted it by tipping off our board about this story. That would explain the sudden unreserved apology by Malky around the time he was being linked with the Norwich post, then the extended level of radio silence with appointing our man. I think our board got wind of the story and did a dramatic U-turn. Adams was in the right place at the right time. If this is how it panned out then credit to the board for acting accordingly. Ironically, it''s beginning to seem that Adams is a good appointment. He''s tactically strong, good with the players and, although inexperienced, seems to be learning. Of course, these are only allegations with Malky, we don''t know whether or not they are true.[/quote]

 

Would be nice if what you speculate was what actually did happen regarding Malk''e pitch for the job but I suspect it''s rather more mundane than that.

 

Chances are City knew nothing about all the latest shenanigans and were desperate to get Mackay. Luckily for us he turned us down. Of course now NCFC will have to adopt a " no comment " stance which can be taken two ways. They knew or they didn''t. I suspect they were in blissful ignorance about it all but naturally won''t be too upset if people now assume they were a bit too sharp for Malky and ditched him before the s*it hit the fan.

 

A bit of free kudos never goes amiss......[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bury Green"]Very interesting thoughts there Purple.

In the space of twenty four hours it''s quite bizarre how Vincent Tan has gone from something of a mentalist with some very strange ideas to full on Bond villain.

Something which I saw amongst all the recent hubbub is how

Mishcon de Reya used what appears to be a firm of private investigators/detectives to implement a Warrant.

Truth be told I always though it was only the Police that could this sort of thing, perhaps I''ve misunderstood this point.

One sure thing is with Vincent Tan using Mishcon de Reya he most certainly isn''t messing about in his quest to erase MM from football for ever and seems to be well on their way.

We will never know I it does seem quite likely that our own Board of Directors might have had a whiff of this back in May.[/quote]Indeed. It is not entirely clear but presumably this investigation by Cardiff is aimed at leading up to a civil claim against Moody, and perhaps Mackay. If it was the police in a criminal investigation they would have carried out the raid. Of course it is not unknown for a civil case to lead to criminal proceedings.  And as you say Tan has hired a heavy-duty and high-profile law firm to do his work.Myself, I am still very dubious that we had heard anything about Mackay beyond what was publicly known when he talked to him. If we had suddenly changed our mind on Mackay because of new information I suspect a (carefully-worded and vague) sense of some kind of unforeseen problem would have leaked out from Carrow Road to explain the volte-face.What I am sure is a red herring, and any theories based on it,  is Mackay''s grovel. That was a standard apology he had no choice but to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''d be disappointed if our NCFC board / McNally didn''t contact Malky''s ex-employee (Cardiff) for some form of internal feedback as part of the interview process. Okay so Malky didn''t get along with Tan but "how did he operate, how was he with the players" that kinda stuff, removing the personal clash.

Also, many of the board members from various professional clubs interact with each other at events / FA meetings etc. So there''s a likely chance that Norwich / Cardiff would have at least had the opportunity to talk "off the record", perhaps not directly with Tan but associates.

Again, speculation I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bury Green"]Very interesting thoughts there Purple.

In the space of twenty four hours it''s quite bizarre how Vincent Tan has gone from something of a mentalist with some very strange ideas to full on Bond villain.

Something which I saw amongst all the recent hubbub is how

Mishcon de Reya used what appears to be a firm of private investigators/detectives to implement a Warrant.

Truth be told I always though it was only the Police that could this sort of thing, perhaps I''ve misunderstood this point.

One sure thing is with Vincent Tan using Mishcon de Reya he most certainly isn''t messing about in his quest to erase MM from football for ever and seems to be well on their way.

We will never know I it does seem quite likely that our own Board of Directors might have had a whiff of this back in May.[/quote]Indeed. It is not entirely clear but presumably this investigation by Cardiff is aimed at leading up to a civil claim against Moody, and perhaps Mackay. If it was the police in a criminal investigation they would have carried out the raid. Of course it is not unknown for a civil case to lead to criminal proceedings.  And as you say Tan has hired a heavy-duty and high-profile law firm to do his work.Myself, I am still very dubious that we had heard anything about Mackay beyond what was publicly known when he talked to him. If we had suddenly changed our mind on Mackay because of new information I suspect a (carefully-worded and vague) sense of some kind of unforeseen problem would have leaked out from Carrow Road to explain the volte-face.What I am sure is a red herring, and any theories based on it,  is Mackay''s grovel. That was a standard apology he had no choice but to make.[/quote]

Purple. Malky''s apology may have been standard in the context of an "out of court settlement" scenario but what is not "standard" is the "claimant" having brought the claim for wrongful dismissal issuing such an apology having also dropped any claim for compensation and (so far as we are aware) not received any pay off as a settlement.

I take your point that MM may have wanted to work in football again but having regard to the supposed terms of his contract that was a massive amount of money to walk away from just like that and had he won the case then surely there would have been jobs waiting for him to walk into. One can only assume, therefore, that he must have been advised he would lose his case, possibly on the basis that tan had some information that was highly damaging to it.

I very much doubt NCFC oor Mcnally knew anything about the racism and sexism allegations at the time we were looking for our manager but i would be very surprised if McNally was not aware via "the grapevine" of Tan''s allegations transfers and improper payments to agents etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael you are correct. It is standard procedure when you are recruiting someone at this level to perform due diligence including performing background checks and obtaining information from other people who know the candidate. What is not normal and is not a legal requirement is to issue an apology when you withdraw a claim for unfair dismissal.

What is normal is that some people can''t accept is that the club will typically have more experience, qualifications and more information than they do and therefore are correct and they are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]Purple. Malky''s apology may have been standard in the context of an "out of court settlement" scenario but what is not "standard" is the "claimant" having brought the claim for wrongful dismissal issuing such an apology having also dropped any claim for compensation and (so far as we are aware) not received any pay off as a settlement.

I take your point that MM may have wanted to work in football again but having regard to the supposed terms of his contract that was a massive amount of money to walk away from just like that and had he won the case then surely there would have been jobs waiting for him to walk into. One can only assume, therefore, that he must have been advised he would lose his case, possibly on the basis that tan had some information that was highly damaging to it.

I very much doubt NCFC oor Mcnally knew anything about the racism and sexism allegations at the time we were looking for our manager but i would be very surprised if McNally was not aware via "the grapevine" of Tan''s allegations transfers and improper payments to agents etc.[/quote]Jim, two points. Mackay''s claim against Tan was heavily publicised. If you drop such a public claim then the defendant, Tan in this case, is almost certainly going to insist on the kind of statement Mackay made. This was not some factory worker at an obscure industrial tribuanl. This was a Premier League manager and a wealthy club owner. Not disimilar to libel where losing or dropping an action usually involves a pretty grovelling apology, and - bear in mind - one dictated by the winner! It is a reputational thing.As to stuff on the grapevine, of course we knew about Tan''s earlier allegations about general overspending, and still went ahead and made him our first choice. The conspiracy theory from some posters is that, having done that, we suddenly got a whiff of the new allegations about improper payments to agents. I am still dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One particular point that Tan raised about MM tenure that doesn''t quite make sense is how he supposedly overspent and that he paid way over the odds for certain players.

Pretty much every club can be accused of this at some point (mentioning no names) but who actually signs the cheques, It is highly unlikely MM did so surely somebody must have questioned this if it was such an issue?

To moan after it had happened sounds a little bit hollow to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]Purple. Malky''s apology may have been standard in the context of an "out of court settlement" scenario but what is not "standard" is the "claimant" having brought the claim for wrongful dismissal issuing such an apology having also dropped any claim for compensation and (so far as we are aware) not received any pay off as a settlement.

I take your point that MM may have wanted to work in football again but having regard to the supposed terms of his contract that was a massive amount of money to walk away from just like that and had he won the case then surely there would have been jobs waiting for him to walk into. One can only assume, therefore, that he must have been advised he would lose his case, possibly on the basis that tan had some information that was highly damaging to it.

I very much doubt NCFC oor Mcnally knew anything about the racism and sexism allegations at the time we were looking for our manager but i would be very surprised if McNally was not aware via "the grapevine" of Tan''s allegations transfers and improper payments to agents etc.[/quote]Jim, two points. Mackay''s claim against Tan was heavily publicised. If you drop such a public claim then the defendant, Tan in this case, is almost certainly going to insist on the kind of statement Mackay made. This was not some factory worker at an obscure industrial tribuanl. This was a Premier League manager and a wealthy club owner. Not disimilar to libel where losing or dropping an action usually involves a pretty grovelling apology, and - bear in mind - one dictated by the winner! It is a reputational thing.As to stuff on the grapevine, of course we knew about Tan''s earlier allegations about general overspending, and still went ahead and made him our first choice. The conspiracy theory from some posters is that, having done that, we suddenly got a whiff of the new allegations about improper payments to agents. I am still dubious.[/quote]

Yes hence I agree an apology where a claim is dropped is not unusual but in my book it is unusual for a claim to be dropped in the way that one was without some form of monetary settlement having taken place.

I don''t think the allegations about improper payments are new. I think that was what Tan was referring to when he spoke of "general overspending" but he was probably being guarded with his language in public given the legalities of the situation. I''m pretty sure that those within premiership/championship football circles will have known what he was getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]I can not think of any other examples of someone apologising for making a claim for unfair dismissal and there is no apparent legal requirement to do so.

We do not know why the Board chose NA over MM. Sometimes when you interview some you don''t know the reasons yourself and you often don''t disclose them. What we do know at this point in time is that it appears that the board made the correct decision for what ever reason and that some people are not man enough to admit their wrong for criticising the board for this decision.[/quote]

precisely my thoughts and understandingit is further absurd to suggest that MacKay dropped his £7m claim because he wanted to get back into football management as soon as possiblehad it not occured, or been told, to him that any such action would take up to a year or more to settle ?so why the sudden about face ... there was no job pending ?it suggests that Tan provided evidence that would be highly damning to MacKay''s case - but why would Tan do that if a court case would bring everying out in the open, therefore proving him to be the innocent partyperhaps there was something(s) that he didn''t want ''washed in public''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"][quote user="T"]I can not think of any other examples of someone apologising for making a claim for unfair dismissal and there is no apparent legal requirement to do so.

We do not know why the Board chose NA over MM. Sometimes when you interview some you don''t know the reasons yourself and you often don''t disclose them. What we do know at this point in time is that it appears that the board made the correct decision for what ever reason and that some people are not man enough to admit their wrong for criticising the board for this decision.[/quote]

precisely my thoughts and understandingit is further absurd to suggest that MacKay dropped his £7m claim because he wanted to get back into football management as soon as possiblehad it not occured, or been told, to him that any such action would take up to a year or more to settle ?so why the sudden about face ... there was no job pending ?it suggests that Tan provided evidence that would be highly damning to MacKay''s case - but why would Tan do that if a court case would bring everying out in the open, therefore proving him to be the innocent partyperhaps there was something(s) that he didn''t want ''washed in public''

[/quote]

This probably closer to the truth. An apology like this is usually conditional i.e. in return for dropping the claim, withdrawing unreservedly Tan would have offered something to MM - probably that no further action would be taken. It is fanciful to assume that MM would walk away from £7.5m even if he wanted to work in football again in such a humiliating manner.

I am sure that City were aware of this along with further info we didn''t have and that it was a factor in MM not being offered the job. Well done to them for that.

I suspect that Cardiff are now after Moody and the agents with the fact that it cost MM another job more a bonus for Tan rather than his actual aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you make public allegations which you subsequently decide you can''t successfully substantiate then you may well apologise to avoid a claim against you but not for an unfair dismissal claim which are normal if you can not agree settlement, not unusual for football managers and are usually a private contractual matter.

If I was interviewing someone I would not think it unusual of the company or employee that there was an unfair dismissal claim. Contractual disputes happen. I would want to know why someone apologised when withdrawing an unfair dismissal claim though as I would be concerned that they had breached their employment contract and the other party had potential claims against the employee. If these concerns were not adequately addressed in an interview then I would not appoint the candidate and I would also not give this as the reason publicly. Just standard practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]I don''t think the allegations about improper payments are new. I think that was what Tan was referring to when he spoke of "general overspending" but he was probably being guarded with his language in public given the legalities of the situation. I''m pretty sure that those within premiership/championship football circles will have known what he was getting at.[/quote]Jim, I don''t want to belabour the point, but if improper payments (which hadn''t been mentioned publicly until now) are what Tan was referring to and people in football, which must have included McNally, knew that, then how come we even interviewed him? He would never have got through the door in the first place, let alone be first choice.No. Either we somehow got wind of this new illegal, for want of a better word, stuff during the interview process, which I think unlikely. Or we had decided not to be too bothered about any legal, for want of a better word, overspending at Cardiif, because we knew we wouldn''t let that happen, but then Mackay decided he could do better than a Championship club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what firm evidence do we have that Norwich City interviewed MacKay for the job of manager ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was clear that MM was accused of being party to unauthorised payments. It would be very surprising if the Board did not consider this as part of the recruitment process.

What we do know for sure is that the board appointed NA and not MM and those that advocated appointing MM have less knowledge and experience than the board and they were wrong but no doubt they will remain in denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]I don''t think the allegations about improper payments are new. I think that was what Tan was referring to when he spoke of "general overspending" but he was probably being guarded with his language in public given the legalities of the situation. I''m pretty sure that those within premiership/championship football circles will have known what he was getting at.[/quote]Jim, I don''t want to belabour the point, but if improper payments (which hadn''t been mentioned publicly until now) are what Tan was referring to and people in football, which must have included McNally, knew that, then how come we even interviewed him? He would never have got through the door in the first place, let alone be first choice.No. Either we somehow got wind of this new illegal, for want of a better word, stuff during the interview process, which I think unlikely. Or we had decided not to be too bothered about any legal, for want of a better word, overspending at Cardiif, because we knew we wouldn''t let that happen, but then Mackay decided he could do better than a Championship club.

[/quote]

Did we interview him because I''ve never seen it acknowledged that we did and when Mcnally was asked about him on Radio Norfolk he said he didn''t really know him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leaving all this aside I didn''t want him anyway. Think his style of football was not what we needed post Hughton or particularly suited to our club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LMA Issue statement on behalf of Malky. It''s been brewing since January. Did Norwich know? I absolutely believe Malky was interviewed for the role.

http://www.leaguemanagers.com/news/news-7418.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]I don''t think the allegations about improper payments are new. I think that was what Tan was referring to when he spoke of "general overspending" but he was probably being guarded with his language in public given the legalities of the situation. I''m pretty sure that those within premiership/championship football circles will have known what he was getting at.[/quote]Jim, I don''t want to belabour the point, but if improper payments (which hadn''t been mentioned publicly until now) are what Tan was referring to and people in football, which must have included McNally, knew that, then how come we even interviewed him? He would never have got through the door in the first place, let alone be first choice.No. Either we somehow got wind of this new illegal, for want of a better word, stuff during the interview process, which I think unlikely. Or we had decided not to be too bothered about any legal, for want of a better word, overspending at Cardiif, because we knew we wouldn''t let that happen, but then Mackay decided he could do better than a Championship club.

[/quote]

Did we interview him
because I''ve never seen it acknowledged that we did and when Mcnally was asked about him on Radio Norfolk he said he didn''t really know him.[/quote]Yes, Jim, unless you think Mick Dennis, who is closer to Norwich City than any other national journalist,  and who is often acting as a kind of unofficial explainer of events, was making it up:"Tonight he [Adams} was handed a three-year contract after a week in which talks with former Cardiff manager Malky Mackay stalled...it became a two-horse race between Mackay and Adams. Norwich thought

Mackay was stalling to see what other vacancies might become available."And Charlie Wyett, the other national journalist with good Carrow Road contacts, said Mackay was initially the favourite and we were close to getting him to agree to take the job. That wouldn''t have been the case it we hadn''t talked to Mackay. No, we didn''t say we had talked to Mackay, but it is common practice not to name the candidates who don''t get the job. None of the other failed candidates got named either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]It was clear that MM was accused of being party to unauthorised payments. It would be very surprising if the Board did not consider this as part of the recruitment process. What we do know for sure is that the board appointed NA and not MM and those that advocated appointing MM have less knowledge and experience than the board and they were wrong but no doubt they will remain in denial.[/quote]

 

Having '' scoured Europe '' and narrowed it down to NA or MM I''m pretty certain that MM would have been the preferred choice. I think he turned us down rather than the Board got cold feet about any alleged skeletons in his cupboard.

 

For whatever reason the Board went with NA but that doesn''t mean that those outside the Board who wanted MM were wrong. All it does mean is that they had a different opinion to those that made the decision.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The board never claimed to scour Europe so that is just false.

That MM was the preferred choice and he turned us down is just the usual accusations based on speculation rather than fact.

That NA rather than MM is a better appointment is a matter of fact not opinion.

There were concerns about MMs involvement in player purchases and style of play. There were concerns about NAs lack of experience. The board with their greater experience and knowledge made the right call. The critics as usual think they know better and do not have enough integrity to acknowledge that their criticisms are based on speculation and less knowledge and that they were wrong and the board was right.

Apologies if any poster on here actually a board member, conducted interviews or performed due diligence but otherwise you attempting to criticise the board based on pure ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it''s proven that Malky has indeed made racist remarks in his texts, even though he has appologised, should he not be banned from all grounds like fans who make racist comments? 

Just think that if you set a standard should it not be for everyone? Not having a dig at Malky but just be interesting to see what happens after all this has now come out.

 I have to say in light of all the campaigns to stamp out racism and other victimisation I think he could well find it hard to stay in football. Stupid and sad really that people can''t view everyone the same! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK Indy but then if you really wanted the same standards you''d have to go through the text messages and emails of all the fans and if you found anything racist, sexist or homophobic then you''d have to ban them from all stadiums. You''d get a lot of empty seats if you tried that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if it''s company monitored and made public then it makes no difference.

It''s come out and he''s no different to anyone on the terraces talking......it''s offensive and should be treated the same.

That''s all I''m saying I hope if he is found guilty he would face the same punishment as you me or anyone else!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The LMA statement suggests only two items related to Malky so the reports floating around are rather unclear.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...