G
morty
Moderator
Staff member
I will take this with a pinch of salt until the club comments.
It is The Sun after all.
It is The Sun after all.
Gaffer
Active Member
Rings true though, doesn't it? The club are very underhand about these things. McNally quit, then 'unquit', then left with a huge payout. What was that all about?
Keeping Neil having lost 8 in 10 is completely irrational and unjustifiable from a footballing perspective so the only real explanation must be financial. Don't hold your breath for the club to comment.
Keeping Neil having lost 8 in 10 is completely irrational and unjustifiable from a footballing perspective so the only real explanation must be financial. Don't hold your breath for the club to comment.
ZLF
Well-Known Member
Sacked managers usually get their contracts paid up. I cant find it but he had signed a proper contract in the close season of 2015, which I think was extended last summer. I think he has 2-3.5 years of his contract (+bonus' - I know..) left - can anyone confirm? Managers wages dont match the clubs best players but nor are the lowest paid - given most of the first team squad are on £10-20k+ per week its not hard to see a basic salary of £500k+, His take home likely to be more - sacking usually means paying that contract out.
It just highlights the size of contracts the club have signed. And why we are stuck with the likes of Turner, Bennett, Matrin, Bassong etc. etc. etc.
Any local hack worth their salt should provide some context around this before commenting one way or another - even if the clause is true is true it may not be a bad deal, and may contain a run down value proportionate to the outstanding period of the contract. Charlie Wyett is happy to publish as it suits his sensationalist manager change agenda and he gets no consequences while whipping the unthinking naive "take the sun as gospel" millions on social media in an even more hysterical mood.
Great pic of Ed though.
It just highlights the size of contracts the club have signed. And why we are stuck with the likes of Turner, Bennett, Matrin, Bassong etc. etc. etc.
Any local hack worth their salt should provide some context around this before commenting one way or another - even if the clause is true is true it may not be a bad deal, and may contain a run down value proportionate to the outstanding period of the contract. Charlie Wyett is happy to publish as it suits his sensationalist manager change agenda and he gets no consequences while whipping the unthinking naive "take the sun as gospel" millions on social media in an even more hysterical mood.
Great pic of Ed though.
G
GJP
Well-Known Member
Mud sticks.
ZLF
Well-Known Member
it does - and that was the aim of the article, just to undermine the owners & board - not the truth of the matter.
In many ways its a pointless article - the owners are not going to change as a result and we are as unanimous as can be expect i recognising a manager change is needed. The owners are entitled to a (strange) different view.
The key decision was always going to be post Derby (12 days between league games, window open, less disruption across festive matches, sales possible and new man able to refresh)
All it has done is start more thromboses in city fans; it is a classic example of media manipulation.
In many ways its a pointless article - the owners are not going to change as a result and we are as unanimous as can be expect i recognising a manager change is needed. The owners are entitled to a (strange) different view.
The key decision was always going to be post Derby (12 days between league games, window open, less disruption across festive matches, sales possible and new man able to refresh)
All it has done is start more thromboses in city fans; it is a classic example of media manipulation.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
GJP
Well-Known Member
After that pretty pathetic Moxey interview the club have probably got what they deserved.
Canaryboy
Well-Known Member
If it is true, then that can't have gone down too well with the players (or indeed won't do now, if they didn't previously know).
The claim is that Ed Balls gave him an improved contract because he got a pay cut upon relegation.
The playing squad also got a pay cut upon relegation, its 30% or 40% isn't it?
So when Alex Neil gets in front of the camera and starts blaming players and is loathe to take any responsibility himself (that mud also sticks) then we can't blame Alex Neil for not taking any personal responsibility. If he was exempt from the cut in salary post-relegation, then it is in fact the board who don't hold Alex Neil responsible.
The board have not given him his relegation pay cut, and have told him not to quit. There have been a subsection of fans who have been calling for a new board of directors, the more I see and hear about Ed Balls and Jez Moxey, and knowing and hearing so little about or from Tom Smith, I'm beginning to think along the same lines.
And if it is true, I bet Jez Moxey is highly annoyed that he has to be the one making a fool out of himself to defend the manager that somebody else made too expensive to sack. Could hardly blame him if he insists that Ed Balls or Delia Smith is the one who takes an interview with Mustard TV or whoever to try and justify any new Alex Neil deal in the summer!
Easy solution though Jez mate. Ask Delia and Foulger to return the money they took as directors loan repayments, also paid back whilst Ed Balls was as being paid for an interim role I believe, didn't this amount to several million? Foulger and Delia have got the money to sack Alex Neil, we now that because Ed Balls confirmed that they'd had their loans settled?
If it isn't true, then lets sue The Sun and get our 3 line apology at the bottom of some page that nobody ever reads or our 3am tweet apology. The club took compensation from the NOTW under McNally, so lets do the same now. If it isn't true...
The claim is that Ed Balls gave him an improved contract because he got a pay cut upon relegation.
The playing squad also got a pay cut upon relegation, its 30% or 40% isn't it?
So when Alex Neil gets in front of the camera and starts blaming players and is loathe to take any responsibility himself (that mud also sticks) then we can't blame Alex Neil for not taking any personal responsibility. If he was exempt from the cut in salary post-relegation, then it is in fact the board who don't hold Alex Neil responsible.
The board have not given him his relegation pay cut, and have told him not to quit. There have been a subsection of fans who have been calling for a new board of directors, the more I see and hear about Ed Balls and Jez Moxey, and knowing and hearing so little about or from Tom Smith, I'm beginning to think along the same lines.
And if it is true, I bet Jez Moxey is highly annoyed that he has to be the one making a fool out of himself to defend the manager that somebody else made too expensive to sack. Could hardly blame him if he insists that Ed Balls or Delia Smith is the one who takes an interview with Mustard TV or whoever to try and justify any new Alex Neil deal in the summer!
Easy solution though Jez mate. Ask Delia and Foulger to return the money they took as directors loan repayments, also paid back whilst Ed Balls was as being paid for an interim role I believe, didn't this amount to several million? Foulger and Delia have got the money to sack Alex Neil, we now that because Ed Balls confirmed that they'd had their loans settled?
If it isn't true, then lets sue The Sun and get our 3 line apology at the bottom of some page that nobody ever reads or our 3am tweet apology. The club took compensation from the NOTW under McNally, so lets do the same now. If it isn't true...
Last edited by a moderator:
Canaryboy
Well-Known Member
Surely you can just put a manager on gardening leave though, where you continue to pay their wages as normal?
Canaryboy
Well-Known Member
The Sun seems more than happy to just lie and then settle out of court, almost as if they budget annually for the amount of lies that they can tell and then settle for.
But it would be bizarre if their Norwich supporting journo was the one lying, for that reason I'm going to lean towards this one being true.
Rewarding relegation would make me think less of our board. And it wouldn't just have been an Ed Balls decision would it? It would be a board decision. It would definitely be the type of thing which would have to pass a boardroom vote.
But it would be bizarre if their Norwich supporting journo was the one lying, for that reason I'm going to lean towards this one being true.
Rewarding relegation would make me think less of our board. And it wouldn't just have been an Ed Balls decision would it? It would be a board decision. It would definitely be the type of thing which would have to pass a boardroom vote.
hogesar
Well-Known Member
AN refused to comment in his contract specifically but did say that all players and staff contracts changed somewhat post relegation.
If it were not true you think he'd simply say it was untrue.
If it were not true you think he'd simply say it was untrue.
morty
Moderator
Staff member
I think the salient point is that it's nobodies business other than the clubs, players and manager. I completely understand that they don't want to discuss it further.
What this boils down to, hysteria removed, is that our manager has a payout clause, the same as probably every single other manager. And the whole article was just sexed up a bit with a picture of Ed balls.
We are literally one step away from it being revealed that the board go away on bonding weekends together, where they stamp on kittens.
People need to calm down a bit.
What this boils down to, hysteria removed, is that our manager has a payout clause, the same as probably every single other manager. And the whole article was just sexed up a bit with a picture of Ed balls.
We are literally one step away from it being revealed that the board go away on bonding weekends together, where they stamp on kittens.
People need to calm down a bit.
G
GJP
Well-Known Member
Whether there's truth in it or not I can't remember too many times an article about Norwich has taken up so much of the back page on a big national - especially when it's not about a specific match.
morty
Moderator
Staff member
The wider football community / general public are probably more interested in the Ed Balls strictly link, than they are about Norwich City.
G
GJP
Well-Known Member
They probably are but I would still say it's indicative of the club being in a bit of a mess.
Too many people have been getting looked after - whether they're on the pitch, in the dugout, in an office or in the directors box.
Too many people have been getting looked after - whether they're on the pitch, in the dugout, in an office or in the directors box.
Keckers
New Member
Morty, the salient point here, hysteria removed, is the competence of people employed by the club. If AN was handed an improved contract upon relegation it calls into question even further the ability of this board to steer the club in the right direction. No more (other than the fact that it will hugely irritate a large number of people who out hundreds of pounds into the club annually only to see it frittered away without any real care by the stewards of the club).
As for Ed Balls, the guy is an embarrassment on so many levels, and has done nothing at all to begin to show he knows what he is doing. He is more interested in his celebrity than he is the club.
As for Ed Balls, the guy is an embarrassment on so many levels, and has done nothing at all to begin to show he knows what he is doing. He is more interested in his celebrity than he is the club.
morty
Moderator
Staff member
Who says it was an improved contract? Do you know the fine details of his contract, both pre, and post relegation? Or are you just assuming a Sun "journalist" has all the facts?
Keckers
New Member
No need to be aggressive Morty. If you read my post, I did say if. Are you saying we shouldn't discuss matters that are reported and that affect the club? Isn't that kind of the point of message boards? Discussion?
None of us know the details, but given that Delia et al are majority owners, not exlusive owners, the other shareholders are entitled to ask questions. And as fans, we should hold the club to account if there is mismangement.
As for the Sun journalist, I have no idea what inside info he has. None of us do. But given the fact that he is a Norwich fan, I would not rule out him having some inside knowledge as this story only really interests Norwich fans. I also would not rule out the possibility that it is mere speculation.
Canaryboy
Well-Known Member
I think people are just feeling uncomfortable with how disconnected they currently feel with the club, not helped by a lack of transparency from the board, it does give people the uneasy feeling that something is amiss.
But it does follow a period whereby we had McNally, who for a long time was unusually accessible for a football executive. E.g. using social media, never afraid to get in front of a camera, plus he was very good at making people feel positive. He did go missing towards the end of his reign however.
I think we had a nice balance with McNally and Bowkett for a period, where the board made fans feel part of things and could sometimes be fairly open with what the board was thinking, and everybody felt like the board and fans were signing from the same hymn sheet.
When the board are locking themselves away and attempting less than subtle spin tactics, it is naturally going to make people speculate as to what problems there may be behind the scenes and make them feel a bit patronised or mugged off. We should probably also acknowledge as fans though that sometimes people can be too free with information. If we are skint for example, then it is understandable why the club wouldn't want to make that too obvious just ahead of a transfer window where we are going to be trying to get the best possible price for a few players. I suspect that not wanting to weaken the clubs hand in this window is the reason for current sketchiness.
Maybe some stuff will come out in the wash at some time in the future. Disruptive influences in the dressing room perhaps? I suspect there are a few players that the club can't wait to get rid of, and not just for financial reasons.
Last edited by a moderator:
Keckers
New Member
I would be inclined to agree CB. I have often wondered if this was in part behind Adams losing the dressing room, and I have to extend that to the current situation. I could be wrong but I think Adams was undermined by a few players (100% speculation on my part pieced together from watching reactions / listening to comments made), and it is absolutely conceivable that those same players, buoyed by the arrival of one or two other voices, may have become active again. I don't think AN has helped himself here though by being so quick to publicly point the finger of blame towards the players and away from himself.
i just hope that whatever happens, we navigate a way through these waters very soon.
Sit with the City fans who turn up
Free to join, free to read. Introduce yourself, pick a player thread, and get stuck into the next match thread.