I think you are probably right with NCFC but surely football is being held to ransom per se. I can't think of many other businesses that, knowing they are losing money, would agree to give their employees an increase when in fact it is the employees who are at fault for the shortfall of income over expenditure.
Grant Holt or his agent held Norwich city to ransom the day he went on twitter saying the stuff he said, simple as. otherwise why tweet what he tweeted?
No, I don't think importing the language of hostage taking and ransom demands into the context of running a business (including a football club) really contributes any clarity, rather the reverse. When Jimmy Hill engineered the end of the maximum wage in football, the player--club relationship changed to something much closer to one of employee--employer. And when TV money and the growth of international club (as opposed to national) football further transformed the financial context within which all professional clubs operate, the balance of power at the negotiating table shifted significantly towards the players (hence the emergence of agents among other things). I don't think it is correct to say "it is the employees who are at fault for the shortfall of income over expenditure". True, staff, and particularly player wages, for the bulk of any club's expenditure, much as staff salaries form the bulk of the expenditure of many a business or other establishment, but that's rather different. What we have witnessed in recent years is the people in charge of clubs making unsound business decisions in the pursuit of a place on the gravy train of success etc.
Robbie, I agree with you that talk of 'holding the club to hostage' is not really productive. I think Holt was quite justified in doing what he did, especially as a guy coming towards the end of his career who had not been part of the gravy train of modern Premiership football. I just feel that Holt's actions over the summer broke some kind of special bond between him and the club, and we would have done better by selling him. I really do hope I'm wrong and I have to eat my own words, but I don't think he will be able to repeat his heroics of the last three years, yet because of his reputation as a club legend we will have to persist with him. Saturday was a perfect example. Jackson was causing them far more trouble than Holt and yet he had to go off first, because Holt is Holt and the club owes him so much.
Vietnam. If you said "special bond between him and the fans" I would agree. But I don't for a moment think that sentiment entered into it at all from the club's point of view. Nor do I agree with you when you say that "as a club legend we will have to persist with him". That's just not how things work, certainly not how McNally works -- quote "This club had become too nice" (or words to that effect) -- and I don't for a moment believe it is how Hughton, Calderwood and Trollop work. As for Jackson's substitution on Saturday, that would have been for football reasons (maybe including the fact that Jackson had just got back from international duty in North America), nothing to do with sentiment.
Just for interest, here is David McNally's answer from this afternoon's ongoing webchat to questions about Grant Holt's new contract and events in the summer: "David McNally: Dear Luke, Ben and others asking about Grant - it really is important to remember how your football club operates. The Board agree the strategy, the Chief Executive runs the business and the football manager is in control of football matters. Clearly it is essential that we all work closely together and are effective in getting the big decisions right. During the last close season we were not helped by the uncertainty over the position of our football manager and this developed at a time when we were about to re-negotiate contracts for a number of players, including Grant. Following weeks of speculation, Paul Lambert left the Club and Chris Hughton replaced him. Chris was clear from day one that Grant Holt was a big part of his NCFC plans. From here, we agreed a new contract in a matter of days, a contract that in my opinion Grant Holt fully deserves. We do not have an age policy at the Club - talent, hunger, commitment, desire and well-being are more important to us than the age on any birth certificate." [Hope I haven't broken any club copyright posting this!]
And more from McNally on the webchat, this time about our strikers: "David McNally: Hi Andrew, John and others, asking questions about our strikers and the development of our squad. Following Chris's arrival, we sat down with him and agreed the areas in which we planned to strengthen the squad. We agreed eight positions that needed strengthening and discussed names for each position. You may be interested to know that Paul Lambert had planned to strengthen in five or six areas. I'm delighted to say that we were able to sign the eight players. Additionally, and once Chris had had time to work with the squad during pre-season, we decided to bring in another striker and we were really pleased that we were able to secure the services of the highly-regarded Harry Kane from Tottenham on deadline day. It is worth pointing out that we've signed nine players this summer, two last January and eight last summer. In little over a year this means that we've strengthened the first team squad with 19 new players. Clearly the plan was to bolster our defence given the number of goals that we conceded last year and it should also be pointed out that we have lost just one goal from last year (scored by Aaron Wilbraham) from last year's strikeforce. We now have two senior players for every position. This includes five midfield positions which will allow for a number of different formations. For example in wide areas we have Bennett and Snodgrass on the one side and Pilkington and Surman on the other flank. For the two central midfield positions, we have Howson and Fox and Johnson and Tettey. If Chris decides to play with a player 'in the hole' or with a five-man midfield and a player in just behind the striker, we have two players in Hoolahan and Butterfield for this area. Up front we have Holt and Morison as a number 9 and Jackson and Kane as the other striker." [End quote] Interesting omission there -- no mention of Chris Martin. Does this suggest he may be loaned out again?
also, being a bit picky, of those 19 that have come in, we have loaned out Ayala and Vaughan this season. Either way, that's a huge change to the squad in a little over a year. not to go through the whole chris martin thing again robbie, but in my opinion his time at the club is unfortunately at an end.
Agreed max. Could be that he simply slipped from DM's mind on the live chat, or could mean more than that. No doubt we'll see in due course.
I also blame the "employers" unsound decisions. But they weren't all in the pursuit of the gravy train. NCFC made the mistake of adopting Nigel Worthingtons plan of keeping a team that wasn't good enough to stay in the Prem, on Prem wages. Not a good decision but made with the best of intentions. I can understand our squad looking for an increase this season after last years exploits. The club was in a healthier financial position and goodwill and common sense prevailed. We still don't totally know the reasons or in fact the actual requests that Holt made. I don't blame him for that and never would. Its business. But in reality, an increase in wages or conditions can only really be argued on productivity, relativity or cost of living. The second and third options are unlikely to be realistic in the Prem especially. Productivity is a fair and realistic argument. But as a group not as an individual. When a player argues for an increase over and above his team mates then he needs to back it up with reasons and facts. Not just because the club owner is wealthy or has gates of 50,000. Of course the employers don't have to agree but are now so worried about losing their star players for giveaway prices because of contracts, many of them cave in. Ransom, technically, is not the correct word of course but many people see antics of some players as akin to it. Grant Holt is not a hero for goodness sake. I don't give much credence to the worshipping because so many supporters have short or convenient memories. Or how else would Lee Croft have won POTY. He isn't owed anything by the club. He is a reasonably good footballer who has for the last 3 seasons brought us all a great deal of joy. But if he had left close season it wouldn't have been the end of the world. However, the club decided it could match his expectations. I presume this was based on what it would cost to replace him and whether that replacement would be as good. So in reality, by granting (sorry) his wishes they did cave in. Not dramatically of course but enough to leave themselves wide open if he doesn't perform for the next 3 years.
No negotiator will get very far without an accurate assessment of the "strength" of the person on the other side of the table (meaning by "strength" the factors which form the basis of the claim being negotiated). "Caving in" is only an appropriate description where one side agrees to something which is clearly unjustified relative to the strength of the other's claim. Otherwise you'd have to say that every successful negotiation involves one or other side "caving in", which is just silly. Regarding the club being wide open to criticism if Holty doesn't perform over the next 3 years, the club would have been equally open to criticism whatever they did. Imagine if they paid £7M for someone who turned out a dud! There will always be criticism if things go wrong. But if you look at how little has gone wrong since the current regime took over, there really isn't ANY justification for this talk of weakness, caving in, etc. etc., by DM and the board.
Surely the point isn't, as you put it, that "the club decided it could match his expectations" (although the new contract must have sufficiently matched his expectations for Holty to accept it); the important point is that awarding him the new contract (with those precise terms whatever they are) was, in the considered view of the club, the best course of action to take in the interests of NCFC. That is precisely what David McNally said in his answer to questions on this yesterday during the web chat session (see my posts above). Roll on Saturday. Then there'll be something new to talk about!
Of course it was and I doubt it was something that was decided quickly. It was all very well for people to say at the time that "it's only one more year". That is a long time in football and Holt will be close to his mid thirties at the end of his contract. I, along with EVERYONE else, hope that he is still banging in his fair share in the Prem. And the management used their judgement and lets hope that proves correct. If you remember the likes of Ljungberg at Arsenal who signs a 3 year deal, doesn't play as well as he used to, Arsenal offer him a free and he demands and gets the remainder of his 3 years because he has a contract. And the next week he's turning out for WHU. Footballers representatives ask that they be treated as any other employee but then wish to negotiate deals over and above the normal contract. NCFC did struggle for a while to really come to grips with contracts but obviously DMac has imparted his own personality on any negotiations. And yes, roll on St James Park. OTBC
redruth. Just as a final observation, a lot of people talk as if Holty held the aces. But in my opinion they were always held by the club. Firstly, he had two years left on his existing contract, which allowed McNally to say from the start "He'll only leave if we want him to and at a price we are prepared to accept". Secondly, despite Holty's transfer request, he had (so far as has yet emerged) no major reason for wanting to move other than length of contract. Thirdly moving to almost any other club would have had a lot of downsides to it from his and his family's point of view. As I see it, Holty made clear his principle concern, the club made clear they weren't going to be pushed around, Hughton on arrival immediately made it clear he wanted Holty in his squad, so (exactly as McNally said yesterday), the whole thing was tied up within three days. Both "sides" well satisfied, right outcome. Current lack of goals from Holty nothing to do with any of it!
From what I heard, he wanted to stay as long as he could. We extended his deal by a year and threw in a free pass to Delia's restaurant. Seemed a good deal at the time, no financial implications. As it turned out, he's already eaten £200k of pies and put on weight which has impacted his performances. Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Grant Holt is still an NCFC player, despite how we felt about the Transfer request saga in the summer. That means we should all get behind him. He'll come good.
Don't really get the anti-Holt sentiment (if its there at all), I had a go at him when it looked like he was going to upset the boat using Twitter and thought we should get rid of. He's been alright so far, just not scoring. I also think he's not getting the chances generated for him like before with this rigid system, West Ham the ball kept getting pumped long to him, scrappy balls, he's just not a flick on man, he wants chest height or to the wing.
