Gone

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Yes I’ve made clear that I think it’s on both. Not buying into this idea that it’s one persons fault and all anger should be at them

Neil should have dealt with it better
Speakman should have tied him down better
KLD should have been giving the oversight and backing to Speakman to tie him down
He was offered what the club think he’s worth, he accepted it, he then wanted more, we’ve been here before, bye Alex.
 
Of course not.

But a title is a title. This bloke clearly doesn't value managers and thinks they are an easily replaced cog in a wheel. A worker bee among many.

He isn't. A good one is the most important person at the club. We were sinking like a stone when AN turned up, despite being high in the table. Everyone who was going to matches could see it

How many managers are on short term deals? Even the bloke at Watford is on a two year deal.

If it was Neil who insisted on both a rolling deal AND a "go when I like" clause, which I consider unlikely unless it was because the club were very , very slow to reward him , then Speakman should have said no.

He should have said that the club needs more commitment. But Speakman couldn't really say that, because any manager then would say back, " Fair enough, but I want commitment from you".

But Speakman likes to be the big man and have managers as an expendable hired hand, replaced as easily as a cheap labourer. He'll undervalue the next manager too.

Second outright farce in six months. No manager at the AOL. No manager for the under 23 team. He is getting recruitment right, which is all he has ever done before. He is failing everywhere else. He isn’t doing his job. He's a bullshitting chancer who is out of his depth.
Sure I’ve heard this some where before and it was quite boring the first time.
 
You can't remove it if the other person insists it's in there though

No that is true, if Neill insisted on it being in.
That should not have been accepted by Speakman though. We have behaved very small time if we just allowed that to happen.
 
So Neil signed a contract in February which had uplifts based on promotion which he got. We then wanted to reward him so he got another slight uplift 4 weeks ago (which appears to be not as much as he wanted). Then we've made a counter offer when Stoke have approached and he's not interested.

What I don't understand is why those criticising Speakman are talking about "promises" made to Neil. Why didn't he get the pay rise he wanted put in his initial contract contingent on promotion? He's taken what we were offering and then tried to leverage us to pay more. Fair enough, that's his prerogative, but it doesn't mean we should break a whole structure to keep him either.

Neil has done well with us, but given that nothing but promotion was acceptable from League One, is his performance significantly beyond what our expectations are?
 
Catch 22 then, the club can't win, take the clause out and he doesn't sign it, leave the clause in and we are exposed

Speakman should just have said he wanted more commitment. But then he would have had to show it himself.

It's his job, the most important part of it. If it couldn't be resolved, then he should have made it clear, publicly if necessary, that the club had to protect itself from what was bound to happen with such a clause.

Maybe they are common, but I've never heard of it before. It suggests that a manager would come to a little club until he got a better offer.
 
Speakman should just have said he wanted more commitment. But then he would have had to show it himself.

It's his job, the most important part of it. If it couldn't be resolved, then he should have made it clear, publicly if necessary, that the club had to protect itself from what was bound to happen with such a clause.

Maybe they are common, but I've never heard of it before. It suggests that a manager would come to a little club until he got a better offer.
How have we not shown commitment? Look at the players we have brought in and are being linked to.

What more commitment does the coach need?
 
How have we not shown commitment? Look at the players we have brought in and are being linked to.

What more commitment does the coach need?

A contract. And money. They all do, as they all know they are a bad spell from the sack

Player recruitment has been fine by me, though we are still short IMO.
 
I'm with you on this one. The part i cant understand is the "release clause" quoted on he website or contractually obliged to let him speak to Stoke - once the new agreement was reached 4 weeks ago (assuming it was still on a 12 month rolling basis) remember there's been no word on this until now, wouldn't you remove that to give you some extra protection to a scenario such as this - you have given him what he wants ultimately ?

Good point mate but we've all seen what contracts are really worth if a manager or player wants to leave. There's a Dutch player just gone 'on strike' to force a move to Man Utd ...

... and who can forget this <doh>

Newcastle news: Former Crystal Palace chief Simon Jordan recalls when Steve Bruce walked out on the Eagles. The former Palace chairman took Bruce to court in 2001 after he tried to quit and join Birmingham three months into his contract with the Eagles.

"Bruce looks set to quit Sheffield Wednesday after just three months in charge – and he pulled a similar stunt back in 2001."
 
Last edited:
Bit odd if he signed a new deal only 4 weeks ago, and then he’s still buggering off elsewhere.

Greedy little toad.

‘**** Alex Neil’ chants were agreed by Danny Baath mind. Anyone else notice him enthusiastically clapping it at full time near the Roker End?

Seems some of the players are really ****ed off at Neil.
 
Last edited:
Are we listening to different things?
I’ll see if I can find the clip I heard as I’m sure Speakman explicitly says he signed a deal four months ago.

it’s here:
"
You must log in or register to see media
"

We had a really well structured contract for when he [Neil] moved into the Championship," explained Speakman

"It had the appropriate up-lifts, etc. We had a discussion in the summer because we wanted to reward him and almost provide a well done. That contract was redrawn up and was only signed four weeks ago.

"And then obviously on yesterday's news, naturally for us wanting to retain that coach and retaining that person within our football club, we made a further move to offer another set of terms and unfortunately that doesn't look like it's going to be enough for him to stay.

"In the background, we've always been running a process of identifying and tracking coaches like you would do with players. I think that's certainly reasonable for a club of our stature. Once this matter concludes with Alex, then we will embark on that interview process and we will try to do that in the quickest possible time.

"We've spent a lot of time in the last vacancy period on doing some due diligence so I don't feel like we'll need quite as much time to turn that around. Naturally, we need to make the right decision and we need to get the right person in post."

To me that reads like he's had his pay increased along with maybe some other bonuses. There's no mention of a long term contract.

If they had increased his length of service it would have been all over the news.
 
Bob, I have a lot of time for you and the other people who try to keep us informed, because I know what you hear is second, third or fourth hand and subject to change, but I believe that you are wrong on this one.

At the beginning of a legal process that may become acrimonious and end up in a court of law, there is no way that Speakman would come out on video in an interview and state that Neil signed a contract four weeks ago if he hadn’t.

If Speakman is subsequently proven to have lied about Neil signing the contract 4 weeks ago, of course I will apologise to you and never doubt your word again :emoticon-0105-wink:

You must log in or register to see media
 
Bit odd if he signed a new deal only 4 weeks ago, and then he’s still buffering off elsewhere.

Greedy little toad.

‘**** Alex Neil’ chants were agreed by Danny Baath mind. Anyone else notice him enthusiastically clapping it at full time near the Roker End?

Seems some of the players are really ****ed off at Neil.

We've heard suggestions that the players are fuming at Speakman and gutted about Neil, but there was no signs of their heads dropping yesterday.

We've either got some brilliant professional and resilient young players or they felt like proving they were up to the challenge without Neil. Either way, I was happy with the response.
 
We've heard suggestions that the players are fuming at Speakman and gutted about Neil, but there was no signs of their heads dropping yesterday.

We've either got some brilliant professional and resilient young players or they felt like proving they were up to the challenge without Neil. Either way, I was happy with the response.
Agreed, players were spot on yesterday with their effort. Keep that up and we are fine.
 
Interesting thread this and some interesting views.

To me its quite simple, weather Speakman has ****ed up the contract / promises or not. I have never ever heard of a manager, turn up the day before a game, take training, pick the team, then **** off to talk to another club.

I have also never heard of another manager ever sitting in the stand of the other team while the club he is employed by are playing a game.

Dress it up how you want and blame the club all you want but Alex Neil pulled a ****s trick Friday and continued it yesterday. The bloke is a grade one ****er

Totally agree mate. He did one hell of a job here, but it will forever be tainted by his departure now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DH4 and Chunksafc