| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. 09:33 - Mar 6 with 2776 views | NotSure |
Actually I misread the tweet, we've got to sack him by April 6th or pay more! [Post edited 6 Mar 2020 9:35]
|  | | |  |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 09:56 - Mar 6 with 2608 views | HARRY10 |
Cost us more ?
If you have been reading various posts on here you will know there is a get out clause - which does not mean Evans telling Lambert to get out, but one where Lambert actually has to pay Evans for being sacked.....if the team does not finish 6th or above.
Due to a clause in a new contract that did not previously exist, but Lambert willing signed. Or so we are led to believe.
I expect there will be the same numbers to will be betting on this, just as they did with Redknapps supposed appointment.
And as the amount bet increases, so the odds will shorten which will cause more bets that the bookies know something - they have seen the contract perhaps.
Strange though, that if the bookies do 'know something' they are still happy to take bets. And if they did 'know something' (Redknapp was not joining us) why did they shorten the odds ? Why not actually lengthen them so as to draw in even more money ? |  | | |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:10 - Mar 6 with 2445 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 09:56 - Mar 6 by HARRY10 |
Cost us more ?
If you have been reading various posts on here you will know there is a get out clause - which does not mean Evans telling Lambert to get out, but one where Lambert actually has to pay Evans for being sacked.....if the team does not finish 6th or above.
Due to a clause in a new contract that did not previously exist, but Lambert willing signed. Or so we are led to believe.
I expect there will be the same numbers to will be betting on this, just as they did with Redknapps supposed appointment.
And as the amount bet increases, so the odds will shorten which will cause more bets that the bookies know something - they have seen the contract perhaps.
Strange though, that if the bookies do 'know something' they are still happy to take bets. And if they did 'know something' (Redknapp was not joining us) why did they shorten the odds ? Why not actually lengthen them so as to draw in even more money ? |
Due to your inability to string a coherent post together I’m struggling to follow all of that, but are you seriously suggesting there is a clause in Lambert’s contract that means he would pay us in the event he is sacked?
Or have I completed misread/about to be whooshed?
EDIT: the latter it seems [Post edited 6 Mar 2020 11:23]
|  |
| |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:15 - Mar 6 with 2396 views | Kieran_Knows |
Was going to say that would be a great birthday present! |  |
| |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:19 - Mar 6 with 2371 views | GeoffSentence |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 09:56 - Mar 6 by HARRY10 |
Cost us more ?
If you have been reading various posts on here you will know there is a get out clause - which does not mean Evans telling Lambert to get out, but one where Lambert actually has to pay Evans for being sacked.....if the team does not finish 6th or above.
Due to a clause in a new contract that did not previously exist, but Lambert willing signed. Or so we are led to believe.
I expect there will be the same numbers to will be betting on this, just as they did with Redknapps supposed appointment.
And as the amount bet increases, so the odds will shorten which will cause more bets that the bookies know something - they have seen the contract perhaps.
Strange though, that if the bookies do 'know something' they are still happy to take bets. And if they did 'know something' (Redknapp was not joining us) why did they shorten the odds ? Why not actually lengthen them so as to draw in even more money ? |
Does anyone really know that there is a get out clause? I thought it was speculation based on ME's business acumen. |  |
| |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:22 - Mar 6 with 2326 views | HARRY10 |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:19 - Mar 6 by GeoffSentence |
Does anyone really know that there is a get out clause? I thought it was speculation based on ME's business acumen. |
err, that is the point.....mere speculation
hence the pee take | | | |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:22 - Mar 6 with 2324 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:19 - Mar 6 by GeoffSentence |
Does anyone really know that there is a get out clause? I thought it was speculation based on ME's business acumen. |
Some poster called PhilTWTD, who generally has a closer idea on these things than most, has posted his understanding that we’d need to pay a couple of years in the event that we fail to reach the playoffs
So not the full contract but still a decent sum and more than we would have been on the hook for under his old deal, presumably (unless it weirdly meant a massive pay deacrease) | |
| |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:25 - Mar 6 with 2297 views | HARRY10 |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:22 - Mar 6 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Some poster called PhilTWTD, who generally has a closer idea on these things than most, has posted his understanding that we’d need to pay a couple of years in the event that we fail to reach the playoffs
So not the full contract but still a decent sum and more than we would have been on the hook for under his old deal, presumably (unless it weirdly meant a massive pay deacrease) |
'understanding', not 'know' | | | |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:29 - Mar 6 with 2259 views | SouperJim |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:25 - Mar 6 by HARRY10 |
'understanding', not 'know' |
 Warnock Linked Again But No Contact With Town 4th Mar 2020 15:03Neil Warnock is again being linked with the Town manager's job with the Blues claimed to be close to ending current boss Paul Lambert’s time in charge, however, we understand that as yet there has been no contact between the club and the veteran boss.  149
"While Lambert's contract, signed only two months ago, has five years left to run, break clauses were included in the deal, one of which states that the Blues boss would receive a greatly reduced settlement if he were to be fired at the end of the season with Town having failed to make the top six."
That's from Phil. No "understanding" included, written as a statement of fact. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:35 - Mar 6 with 2208 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:25 - Mar 6 by HARRY10 |
'understanding', not 'know' |
Yes, that’s why I used the word understanding, you right wing loons really need to learn to read
Although he has doubled-down on it and it echoes what others that would have some knowledge have said, so I think it’s a reasonable to assume something along those lines exists
The extension is still an awful decision in the first place, regardless | |
| |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:41 - Mar 6 with 2150 views | HARRY10 |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:35 - Mar 6 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Yes, that’s why I used the word understanding, you right wing loons really need to learn to read
Although he has doubled-down on it and it echoes what others that would have some knowledge have said, so I think it’s a reasonable to assume something along those lines exists
The extension is still an awful decision in the first place, regardless |
Doibled-down.....is that some kind of quilt
"To be fair, it's been known that there are break clauses in the deal since around the time it was signed. It would be exceptional if it wasn't the case.
" Phil TWTD
Why the conditional (?) ?
Surely if it is a known then there would not be any possibility of it not existng, however exceptional.
There either is such a clause or there is not.
My thought is that none of us outside of the club or Lambert/agaent knows, so it is speculation. | | | |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:42 - Mar 6 with 2140 views | SouperJim |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:41 - Mar 6 by HARRY10 |
Doibled-down.....is that some kind of quilt
"To be fair, it's been known that there are break clauses in the deal since around the time it was signed. It would be exceptional if it wasn't the case.
" Phil TWTD
Why the conditional (?) ?
Surely if it is a known then there would not be any possibility of it not existng, however exceptional.
There either is such a clause or there is not.
My thought is that none of us outside of the club or Lambert/agaent knows, so it is speculation. |
Everything is speculation unless officially confirmed by the club.
Phil says there is a break clause for not finishing in the top 6. That's good enough for me. | |
| |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:46 - Mar 6 with 2097 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:41 - Mar 6 by HARRY10 |
Doibled-down.....is that some kind of quilt
"To be fair, it's been known that there are break clauses in the deal since around the time it was signed. It would be exceptional if it wasn't the case.
" Phil TWTD
Why the conditional (?) ?
Surely if it is a known then there would not be any possibility of it not existng, however exceptional.
There either is such a clause or there is not.
My thought is that none of us outside of the club or Lambert/agaent knows, so it is speculation. |
Top tip. If you’re going to pick up on an errant hyphen, it does rather help to have your own spelling on point
Again I have no idea what your question is re Phil’s comments either as most of that didn’t make sense
Broadly agree on the last paragraph, but when people close to the club all have the same information and it relates to a fairly standard practice then I think it’s safe to assume it’s close to the truth | |
| |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:47 - Mar 6 with 2077 views | HARRY10 |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:42 - Mar 6 by SouperJim |
Everything is speculation unless officially confirmed by the club.
Phil says there is a break clause for not finishing in the top 6. That's good enough for me. |
or
" It would be exceptional if it wasn't the case. "
so it may not be the case | | | |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:48 - Mar 6 with 2066 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:41 - Mar 6 by HARRY10 |
Doibled-down.....is that some kind of quilt
"To be fair, it's been known that there are break clauses in the deal since around the time it was signed. It would be exceptional if it wasn't the case.
" Phil TWTD
Why the conditional (?) ?
Surely if it is a known then there would not be any possibility of it not existng, however exceptional.
There either is such a clause or there is not.
My thought is that none of us outside of the club or Lambert/agaent knows, so it is speculation. |
Phil and Watson have both said there are clauses in the contract and it is pretty much common knowledge that this is the norm across the football World. Why you insist on arguing against this over multiple threads I am not quite sure. Very strange. |  | | |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:49 - Mar 6 with 2054 views | SouperJim |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:47 - Mar 6 by HARRY10 |
or
" It would be exceptional if it wasn't the case. "
so it may not be the case |
Again, see my post above for the language Phil used on the Warnock story. I'm not sure why you're determined to split hairs so much, but believe what you like I guess? | |
| |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 12:12 - Mar 6 with 1957 views | HARRY10 |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:48 - Mar 6 by Harry_Palmer |
Phil and Watson have both said there are clauses in the contract and it is pretty much common knowledge that this is the norm across the football World. Why you insist on arguing against this over multiple threads I am not quite sure. Very strange. |
I'm merely pointing out that no one on here knows - otherwise there would not be a conditional word used
"Lambert signed a new five-year deal on New Year's Day, but it's understood there are performance-related break clauses in that contract" Stuart Watson
So why does Watson not state that there are break clause(s) in the contract if that is what he knows to be the case ? Why the same 'understood' ?
The treality is that contracts like this are extremely confidential, just as transder contracts are. So who knew the exact details and thought it suitable to make it public ? In whose interest would it have been ?
Certainly not the club's given the friction it is causing - something we could do without to be honest. | | | |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 13:17 - Mar 6 with 1829 views | haynes_toe1 |
| Waiting until the 6th April to sack Lambert. on 11:47 - Mar 6 by HARRY10 |
or
" It would be exceptional if it wasn't the case. "
so it may not be the case |
I understand you ripped into people for claiming there was a clause long before Phil confirmed it.
It's ok to be wrong, you don't need to start this ridiculous run-around. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
