Are we all missing a trick and could this actually have been a work of genius from Evans? Let's say that Lambert was on, I don't know, £10,000 a week when he came in, a 3 year deal and it included £500k to keep us up or £1m to get us promoted (not unlikely given the circumstances and finances involved). Perhaps it included a drop to £8,000 if we went down (returning to £10,000 if we went back up). After relegation, Evans decides we need to stick with one man and we are currently right up there, having had a great start to the season. So he renegotiates a new deal instead of the now £8,000 to make it £8,000 rising to £12,000 if we get promoted and rising again to £20,000 if we make the Premier League during those 5 years. In it are included clauses that allow us to sack him without compensation if we miss out on the top 6 in this division in any year or if we are in the bottom three of the Championship at the turn of the New Year at any time. It could also include an agreement that at any time he may be dismissed with 1 years pay on current terms - more than what most managers walk away with. This is giving Evans too much credit and some of the above is likely unrealistic, but the point being that we could have allowed Lambert a really lucrative contract that allows him to stay and build the club if we keep progressing but also allows us an easy way out if he falls below what he himself would have to admit to Evans would be the minimum expected. I mean it could happen right? What manager would possibly argue in such a negotiation they wouldn't allow a clause that sacks them for being absolutely useless. Arguing the removal of such a clause would be admitting you aren't sure you can achieve more than the minimum! |  |