The_Lions_Roar Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If he has quit his job there then surely we don't owe anything. If they'd of agreed to let us talk to him earlier on in the week then he wouldn't of quit and then we would owe them something. If I quit my job then surely my company can't make me stay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villarich1982 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Aston Villa remain confident that Norwich City are not entitled to any compensation as they finalise preparations to make Paul Lambert their new manager. Lambert resigned from Carrow Road on Thursday once negotiations between the clubs over a settlement for his "transfer" reached an impasse. As he walked out without a formal job offer the 42-year-old technically made himself a free agent – although Norwich, who claim they have "refused to accept" his resignation, may yet test that view at a tribunal. Villa say there have been no further negotiations between the clubs since Lambert's exit but Norwich beg to differ. What is certain is that talks between the former Celtic and Borussia Dortmund midfielder and Villa were progressing smoothly on Friday with confirmation of his appointment as Alex McLeish's successor expected shortly. David McNally, the Norwich chief executive, conceded he was searching for a new manager but claimed Lambert was on gardening leave. "We were in a situation where we were approached by another club to speak to Paul Lambert, we didn't grant them permission and we were very clear we wanted to keep our manager," McNally said. "When it was indicated that he would like the opportunity to speak to this particular club the dynamics changed, and then it was about talking to them about compensation, agreeing compensation and sorting out a time frame, and we are still in that process. "Paul did tender his resignation but we haven't accepted it – that is our right and we will attempt to get to a conclusion on this. The lawyers will be involved and we will see if we can get through this as quickly as possible. Then we can focus on our search for a new manager." Committed to a brand of passing football – albeit one containing a touch more pragmatism than that practised by another name on Villa's shortlist, Wigan's Roberto Martínez - Lambert possesses a proven track record of radically improving unsung players. In three years at Norwich after joining from Colchester the Carrow Road side won successive promotions from League One to the Premier League where they finished 12th last season. Lambert, who earned £800,000 a year on a 12-month rolling contract in East Anglia, is likely to be warmly greeted by Villa fans underwhelmed by McLeish's rather more dour brand of football. Meanwhile the club's hierarchy trust they have identified the right coach to nurture the products of their highly promising youth system. A Champions League winner with Borussia Dortmund in 1997, when he famously subdued Juventus's Zinedine Zidane in the final, Lambert has the additional advantage of being able to show Villa's players his medals. McLeish had been told money was tight this summer at Villa but his successor has received a different message and can expect to be backed in the transfer market by the club's owner, Randy Lerner. Speculation that Lambert could be reunited with Grant Holt has intensified after Norwich's centre-forward tweeted his desire to depart Carrow Road this summer. McNally demurred. "Grant Holt is not for sale," he said before denying Norwich have made approaches to Celtic's Neil Lennon and Cardiff's Malky Mackay regarding their managerial vacancy. "We are in a very, very healthy situation – probably the best financial health we've been in for 109 years so we don't need to sell anyone." http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jun/01/norwich-aston-villa-paul-lambert It's never straightforward with Villa, is it? Randy has allegedly wasted £15m paying off the last 3 managers, so what's the problem with spending £1m to get his No1 choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Judge Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I wouldn't of thought it would make any difference. We may end up paying more going to tribunal , but bridges are burnt It would be a massive surprise if it wasn't announced in the very near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Depends how much they're demanding for him. We're assuming we just need to pay off his 800k yearly contract, but Norwich and their clever lawyers will probably be demanding much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubby Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If he has quit his job there then surely we don't owe anything. If they'd of agreed to let us talk to him earlier on in the week then he wouldn't of quit and then we would owe them something. If I quit my job then surely my company can't make me stay? An employer can refuse to accept a resignation on the grounds of an existing contract i.e. any normal employee might be subject to a 'permanent' contract with no fixed end date. The power is with the employer. In the example of PL and his rolling contract, it could be expected that this would reflect a 'fixed term' contract and although the employer might offer terms to extend the relationship, the employee does not have to oblige. The employee can leave at the end of the contract having met their obligations to the employer. In my mind Naaaaarich (like that) are scraping the barrell and are owed nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danceoftheshamen Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Thing is it is pretty clear that Norwich are purely trying to "Play" this situation to extract money from Randy... I understand they are angry at losing their manager of course & understandably so & indeed who can blame them for trying to get what they can from the situation? But then surely refusing to accept a resignation purely in a clear attempt to extract money from the situation when you will then happily accept that resignation will be rather a tough one to get through the courts? Who knows? i am certainly no expert in law so maybe i miss the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Take it there won't be an announcement until Wednesday now? I'm not worried and I know we'll get him but it will be nice when it's finally formally announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tismyk Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 They thought the same last year and still coughed up for he who shall not be named. No we didn`t, there was no compensation paid to SHA for McCleish, only the almost 2 million for his backroom staff contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FamousHolteUnion Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If he has quit his job there then surely we don't owe anything. If they'd of agreed to let us talk to him earlier on in the week then he wouldn't of quit and then we would owe them something. If I quit my job then surely my company can't make me stay? At the end of the day Lambert signed a 1 year rolling contract, if you quit your job there is likely a clause where you should give say 4 weeks notice (whether you uphold that or not is up to you I guess). Lambert's notice I guess would be 1 Year (if accepted), If he doesn't like that he shouldn't have signed a rolling contract. Luckily for him football contracts now favour the person and rarely work to the clubs advantage. It's not an ordinary job, he signed an official contract (and likely received a signing on fee for doing so) to say that every day he is in the job he is effectively committing himself to that club for another 365 days. From the clubs point of view he should uphold that. That said if they have broken a clause in his contract then it's their own fault and we can do as we please. (my ASSUMPTION is that this clause is something to do with him being allowed to talk to certain clubs and it was very well planned out that Villa would force their hand i.e. starting with our CEO leaking to Sky - I could be wrong but we clearly tapped Eck up in a similar way and tried the same thing with Blues). P.S im not against the Lambert appointment, very much in favour of it I just hate the contracts in football and how all the power is with the player (or manager in this case). Whether it works in our favour (like now) or against us (like every summer when somebody forces a move) I **** hate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerbs Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Daily Mail are running the story about him having a clause in his contract that allows him to speak any other Premier League club, he was denied this by Norwich so a breach of contract there? I still expect Villa to announce Lambert as new manager tomorrow regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If he has quit his job there then surely we don't owe anything. If they'd of agreed to let us talk to him earlier on in the week then he wouldn't of quit and then we would owe them something. If I quit my job then surely my company can't make me stay? At the end of the day Lambert signed a 1 year rolling contract, if you quit your job there is likely a clause where you should give say 4 weeks notice (whether you uphold that or not is up to you I guess). Lambert's notice I guess would be 1 Year (if accepted), If he doesn't like that he shouldn't have signed a rolling contract. Luckily for him football contracts now favour the person and rarely work to the clubs advantage. It's not an ordinary job, he signed an official contract (and likely received a signing on fee for doing so) to say that every day he is in the job he is effectively committing himself to that club for another 365 days. From the clubs point of view he should uphold that. That said if they have broken a clause in his contract then it's their own fault and we can do as we please. (my ASSUMPTION is that this clause is something to do with him being allowed to talk to certain clubs and it was very well planned out that Villa would force their hand i.e. starting with our CEO leaking to Sky - I could be wrong but we clearly tapped Eck up in a similar way and tried the same thing with Blues). P.S im not against the Lambert appointment, very much in favour of it I just hate the contracts in football and how all the power is with the player (or manager in this case). Whether it works in our favour (like now) or against us (like every summer when somebody forces a move) I **** hate it. Thank you for saving me the time and effort of typing that explanation up on an iPhone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lions_Roar Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Villa have had their legal team meet with Lambert today. Obviously looking at his contract a Norwich and looking for the loopholes. I don't want this dragging into next week, can we just pay them the £800,000 for his years contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCodfather Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I'd be interested in hearing a little more about his tactics and the way he sets sides up to play if you fancy obliging. Feel free to stick around, friendly away fans are welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I really hope we get him - I know its looks a done deal - but it only takes someone else to pay the compo and we are shafted (luckily no one of villa's stature is looking for a manager) Norwich played high stakes by refusing to let him speak to us (Randy and Faulkner only have a moderate record of snaring there man) - so when he resigned they lost out on both counts - Lambert and the Compo. I actually think there was tensions before the villa approach - and Lambert wouldn't have been at Norwich very much longer anyway. That said having paid out on Houllier, and Mcleish - were gonna be the laughing stock of football if miss out on lambert for around £800k...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Lambert will quite often change tactics and team depending on who your next opponent is, now that may sound obvious but there will be players going from the starting line up to the bench in consecutive matches and they and you'll wonder why, just trust him that he's right, coz he almost always is! Holt only started 24 matches last season from memory and yet scored 17 goals, the point being, Lambert knows what to do, and when to do it, very much a manager in the Martin O Neil mould and he still calls him the gaffer when he talks about him, so you know what I'm saying!Funny how you talk about Lambert being very tactically astute (by the way I believe you) then go on to say he's in the Martin O'Neill mould. The fact that he's tactically astute is one of the things that separates him from MON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villarich1982 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I really hope we get him - I know its looks a done deal - but it only takes someone else to pay the compo and we are shafted (luckily no one of villa's stature is looking for a manager) Norwich played high stakes by refusing to let him speak to us (Randy and Faulkner only have a moderate record of snaring there man) - so when he resigned they lost out on both counts - Lambert and the Compo. I actually think there was tensions before the villa approach - and Lambert wouldn't have been at Norwich very much longer anyway. That said having paid out on Houllier, and Mcleish - were gonna be the laughing stock of football if miss out on lambert for around £800k...... Robbie Keane, extra £500k, Coventry City Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 What I like about Lambert is that his sphere of influence will be greater than just coaching the first team. I still feel there is a gap of some footballing Nous on the villa board - and Lambert will at least partially bridge that gap. Martinez and OGS whilst both credible candidates - I think would have been shunted into the team manager role - I don't know so much about OGS - but Martinez has never struck me as having the forceful personality that Lambert has..... I don't see Lambert being Faulkners poodle...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FamousHolteUnion Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Martin '70th-minute-substitution-and-identical-XI-for-38-games-a-season' O'Neill wasn't tactically astute? HOW DARE YOU Mantis. Have heard Lambert is much better at squad management than MON, hopefully better football (didnt see them play much last season) they had some great results against the top clubs though something we havent seen in a while Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I'm hoping Lambert will have MON and Houllier's positives but none of their negatives. Stark contrast to McLeish all had all their negatives but none of their positives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I really hope we get him - I know its looks a done deal - but it only takes someone else to pay the compo and we are shafted (luckily no one of villa's stature is looking for a manager) Norwich played high stakes by refusing to let him speak to us (Randy and Faulkner only have a moderate record of snaring there man) - so when he resigned they lost out on both counts - Lambert and the Compo. I actually think there was tensions before the villa approach - and Lambert wouldn't have been at Norwich very much longer anyway. That said having paid out on Houllier, and Mcleish - were gonna be the laughing stock of football if miss out on lambert for around £800k...... Robbie Keane, extra £500k, Coventry City Good point. I don't think its the money - its the principle. To be fair to Randy handing over around £1m - when you don't legally have to - is perhaps hard to swallow. .....but should we loose him .....it would look pretty stupid if we then had to pay a similar figure for a lesser manager ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts