UK time is: 19:21:46
Vital Login
Social Login

Choose your club

Other Sites

Network Navigation

Vital Partners

'If It's Football, It's Vital'

Clarets Refused Permission To Speak to Lambert

Burnley confirmed on Thursday evening that the club had asked Norwich for permission to speak to Paul Lambert regarding their managerial vacancy.

The official statement read:

'Burnley Football Club can confirm that tonight a formal request has been submitted to Norwich City Football Club to speak to their manager Paul Lambert.

'The club has begun the process of targeting the shortlist of candidates to fill the vacant manager's role at Turf Moor.

'And club officials have subsequently requested permission from the Norwich City board of directors to discuss the position with Lambert.'

The Clarets though have been denied permission to speak to the 41 year old Scot

A subsequent Norwich club statement read:

'Norwich City wish to confirm, in response to Burnley's decision this evening to publish the fact that they have made a formal request for permission to speak to Paul Lambert about their managerial vacancy, that permission has not been granted.

'Under no circumstances would the club wish to grant permission.

'The club will fight tooth and nail to retain the services of Paul Lambert and his team, during this critical period of the season, and whilst they remain employed under a long-term contract.

'The club remain committed to Paul and his team in the long term, and see them as a vital part of our future plans.'

Lambert steered the Canaries to promotion as League 1 champions last season and this season has propelled Norwich City to 3rd place in the Championship just behind the automatic promotion places on goal difference.

Our earlier article on Lambert provided further detail on his career which you can read by clicking this link

Doing the Lambert Walk?

Rumours had been circulating that Lambert could be tempted by a move up North to be nearer his family so if he really is interested in the position, he may have to put pressure on the Norwich chairman to lift the ban on Burnley approaching him.

If the Norwich board continue to dig their heels in, the Clarets will have no option but to consider the other candidates on their short-list. About six names are thought to be on the list with Malky MacKay, the Watford manager believed to be one of the candidates they particularly wish to interview

Join The Vital Debate

Use your social login to comment on front page articles. Login using you Facebook, Twitter, Google or LinkedIn accounts and have your say!

Click here to join in the debate on the club forum.

The Journalist

Writer: turfmanphil Mail feedback, articles or suggestions

Date:Friday January 7 2011

Time: 7:43AM

Your Comments

Interesting development, let battle commence!
There were some issues with compensation when he went to Norwich (or there were later). He seems to learn from his mistakes according to my friendly local Norwich fan and he reckons the players like him. This would be backed by the Norwich response. Maybe the "hirers and firers" are working overtime at Turf Moor to get this one right. Positive sign in itself???
Hmmm Regulations of the Football League say 20.1 No Club shall take any steps (either directly or indirectly through any third party, including the making of statements to the media) to induce or attempt to induce another Club’s employee to terminate his contract of employment with that other Club, whether or not such termination constitutes a breach of that contract. Are we breaching these?
What happens if Lambert applied for the position?
Oh dear oh dear, how you boys moaned when we came looking at your Manager and now you are at it. Still you will have use for your bed sheets painted with Judas messages if he does come. You must be so proud.
Well, well, well. So now are Bolton forgiven? If we get Lambert is Coyle forgiven? What about the BK statement about managers in employment? Seemingly all is fair in love and war. So far as we are concerned he appears to be a good manager and although no experience of the Prem we are unlikely to get a good manager with proven Prem experience.
AndyHo yes you are in breach. Lambert's regular press conference is starting now so we'll find out what the craic is very soon!
Perhaps Catte we have decided that as it seems we can't beat the dirty, underhand, weasily Clubs like yours we simply have to use the same despicable tactics you so easily use. It still does not make you right.
If he applied I think it's OK BUT if there is any evidence of an approach we have been caught with out trousers down. Rule 20.3 says "The only exception to this Regulation is where the Club has obtained the prior written permission of the Chairman (or in his absence, a director or the Secretary) of that other Club. Any such permission must set out any conditions attaching to it." and we have been told to go away it seems.
Oh and well I'm at it Catte. you are welcome to that Pr*ck you stole from Turf Moor. I'll put money on it that he is going to do it again.
Oh and now I'm in trouble with the Mrs. She spotted my last post and said I should have said "obnoxious pr*ck".
Further to the last bit of info - she is a Leeds fan and as such is impartial. (And before you ask she kept that a secret for years)
The P*ick is probably going to Liverpool anyway if rumours are true! Although we have been told on here by some Bolton fans that he would go with Bolton's blessing and no hard feelings. Yeah right! The Bolton fans fail to realise that when Bolton came for Coyle, it was the fact he showed so much disloyalty and was in effect lying to the fans that got up our nose! At the moment we don't know what lambert want's to do, he has not issued any 'loyalty' statement as far as I know
Go on my son, AndyHo don't hold back give them both barrels, so if Lambert resigns from Norich and takes the post at Burnley do we still have to pay compo.
Probably will end up paying compo as it looks right now - (but if he initiated this you would have to say no and wonder what is going on here) my guess would be that he isn't getting the right vibes (in terms of the future) from Norwich. Extent of compo - as high as seven figures. Then again he isn't the only candidate by the sounds of things so the cost may be a big consideration if there are candidates with similar qualifications.
Agree Andy but unless we are going for Dowie Or Jewell there going to be compo payed anyway and if Lambo is the boards first choice i think we have to push for him until he says no i'm happy at Norich.
Well Lambert didn't give much away at the press conference and remained tight lipped over Burnley's approach. All he said was “You have seen the statement and I am happy with that,”
Fair point Fedup. We need to go for the best man - so if it's him then go in "boots an all". BUT we don't want another susan.
The Burnley Board previously said they hadn't made any approaches, which presumably they hadn't. I speculated at the time that this was because Delia had been on the phone telling them to leave her manager alone at a time when rumours had already started that he was leaving to be closer to his Scottish family. Now that the Burnley Board have made an approach they have said so. From the regulations thst AndyHo has helpfully provided, I am far from sure that that statement constitutes an inducement to breach a contract. LAmbert already knew the post was vacant. Widespread media, bookie and messageboard speculation, for which the Burnley Board cannot to held responsible, would previously have given him cause to consider things. It's been stated that he wants to live closer to Scotland. No promises have been made in Burnley's statement. So where's the inducement? But I am no more a lawyer than theguru is. Moreover, there is substantial evidence to confirm that I am a couch potato. By what evidence can theguru substantiate his claim not only to be a guru, but actually THE guru?
Couch Potato
The way I read it Couch we were a bit out of order by saying that we were refused. This is getting the media to tell a prospective candidate that we were looking at him (whoops better add her these days) with a view to do a bit of poaching. Which is not a good/noce thing to do.
For noce read nice. I seem to have gone a bit posh. (pish)
I thought they said they'd refused us and not in our statement. On the Coyle thing (I'll get over this when I die!), his statements of 'finishing the job' at Burnley etc, were where it all went wrong. His duplicity was the issue (well, Gartside was a bit...) and how he turned on us when he saw that he couldn't deliver - so much for his talent. His role at Horwich will end in tears...
Mike Mada
AndyH, the Burnley statement did not say we had been refused, did it? I thought that was said by Norwich, subsequently. Continuing to compare with the Coyle exit, Lambert has not said he was visiting his Mum in Glasgow while actually meeting others at the same time. There's currently no other evidence of clandestine trysts. Also, our statement only said he was being asked to interview along with others. I guess the one curious thing is why we've made a statement about approaching Lambert, but none about anyone else. It could be that we have made no other approaches to anyone in employment. It could be that only Norwich had previously perhaps made some sort of threat to us not to do anything undercover. Norwich's statement about 'fighting tooth and nail' certainly could be seen as suggesting all kinds of things. Who knows?
Couch Potato
Yeah I thought the expression 'tooth and nail' was a bit odd as though they knew something that worried them.
"Norwich City wish to confirm, in response to Burnley's decision this evening to publish the fact that they have made a formal request for permission to speak to Paul Lambert about their managerial vacancy, that permission has not been granted." They say we published it. I have a thing about "duplicity" (as Mike said - it's a bad thing) it sort of destroys anything that is anything. (if that sounds odd you don't know BFC and what we stand for).
I never claimed we were right and if you care to check back I have registered my embarrassment in the way Owen joined us. All of which does not excuse you and the once holy than though Burnley board from taking this step. Of course none of you will apologise for all the hypocritical mud that you have slung in our direction. Can't wait for the Judas blankets welcoming your new Manager if you indeed end up poaching one. Welcome to the dark side....
Funny thing is if you now don't get Lambert then the chap you do get will know he was at least 2nd choice. Your board know how to instill confidence in a fella.. Good luck, I have no ill feelings towards burnley but you are now sugar coating what you are attempting to do..
Don't know how you can read that into it Catte, for all you know we may have five candidates who are currently not in employment and the statement refers to the one that is! We could be speaking behind the scenes to those managers and some might even be higher priority than hooking Lambert!
AndyH - I don't read Norwich's statement as saying that Burnley's statement included a comment that Burnley had been refused permission. If you go back and read Burnley's statement it only says they asked, not what the outcome was. It was Norwich who subsequently said permission had been denied, in response to Burnley's statement. I share your dislike of duplicity, but I don't see any here, yet, and extend the core principle to the Burnley Board of being innocent until proven guilty. Catte seems to be missing several wider points. Current Claret dislike of Bolton is not particularly that we think Bolton poached, but that Coyle was duplicitious and treacherous in ways that knowingly hurt Burnley above and beyond his act of leaving, and after he had overtly courted our affection beyond that normally given to a manger. Our dislike of Bolton extends no further than our desire to see Coyle's betrayal punished. I share Catte's dislike of poaching. But a dislike of poaching does not exclude going through proper channels to ask about taking on the employment of someone employed elsewhere. At the moment, the only evidence that Burnley have done anything wrong is based on conjecture about their statement that they had entirely legally approached the Norwich Board. We do not yet know the context of the decison to make that approach public, and I have explained earlier why that publication is not a clear case of inducement. I choose not to moralise until the facts are known. Can we at least agree that the facts are not yet known?
Couch Potato
I just think its odd - As you mention TMP, the other five on the six man shortlist could all be unemployed at the moment - but I somehow would be surprised. It does seem strange that this has been announced.
I agree CP - I believe that in the football world the true FACTS are very rarely known by the average Joe.
Was he happy that people had seen the statement, or did he mean that he was happy with the statement ? :-)
But noit, CD, if there had been previous communication from Norwich telling Burnley not to do anything under cover... which could explain both of Bfc's statements, first that they had not approached anyone in employment, then that they had, when they did. At the moment, I cannot see any reason for Bfc to have issued either statement except in response to comments made to them by Norwich. Any suggestion that they did so stupidly, or in an underhand way, or just because they are poor at PR, is currently unfounded, and therefore unkind. But we do all get emotional at times like these.
Couch Potato
I have difficulty believing Burnley would have approached Norwich over Lambert if they didn't have an inkling he would be interested. Could it be he applied for the job or let it be known somehow he was up for it? Are we going to go through the same problem with Mackay?
By the way nip over to Vital Norwich and read some of the Lambert articles and the forum threads. They don't sound too confident Lambert will stay and are split about 50-50 in their poll! It seems they were hoping for more of a 'bugger off Burnley' statement from Lambert today and didn't get one
It seems to me the main problem is football's apparent general disregard for what a contract means. I think the honourable way would be for a definite no no for any approach by a club for anyone under contract. Probably impossible to enforce with leaks to the press, greedy agents etc. if only we could have faith in honourable people in and running football. If somebody under contract wishes to leave they should be completely honest with their employer. Welcome to cloud cuckoo land. So far I can see no evidence that BFC have acted in any way improperly and this is what I will believe until shown differently. Looking forward to the appointment of an honest, progressive, enthusiastic manager who will lead us back to the Prem with style.
Interesting comments from League Managers Association Chief Executive Richard Bevan today.He has called for manager appraisals, and said: "In these, the strengths and weaknesses of how the football-side of the club is performing might be assessed against realistic expectations and previously, mutually agreed goals. "In any other sector, there is a recognition that the highest performing organizations are those who build winning organizational culture - shared beliefs, goals and ways of behaving - coupled with a long-term vision. "Yet, in football, there is an incomprehensible belief that the continued sacrificing of the football manager, the 'scapegoat' and installing another will turn around a football club's performance." Bevan who said that an average manager's tenure in 2009/2010 was a year and four months, added: "It is clearly the decision of club chairmen whom they hire and fire and when they choose to do this. "But the statistics show that a club is likely to end up worse off when they sack their manager, they have less points and are often significantly out of pocket due to monies spent on compensation and paying up contracts. "Clubs in lower leagues simply cannot afford to keep sacking managers."
An interesting read that tmp.
Couch Potato
Think I remember saying, or meaning to say, last year that football contracts are to loyalty what tinned spaghetti hoops are to Christmas trees. Most of us know that players, managers and to a lesser extent directors will generally do what is right for themselves in the end. Owen Coyle did that when he joined us and again when he moved on and Paul Lambert will do what he thinks is right from him too. Most of us probably would in real life - I know I have done when moving jobs. Realise this is a simplistic approach and that sometimes people are tied in to contracts - but they don't seem to be in football. I accepted that Coyle would be approached by other clubs and accept that we are allowed to approach other clubs if we would like their manager's services. If Lambert does join us, and proves successful, then the likelihood is that he will attract interest from other clubs too. Just the way it works and we shouldn't kid ourselves that managers feel the same way about clubs as fans do.
Agree with all that RT!
Norwich City messageboards awash with strong rumours that Lambert has quit
Rumours are just that turfman. Lambert has said that he is concentrating on the game tomorrow and that is good enough for us at the moment. The problem I personally have is that Lambert left Wycombe for Col Utd and he left Col Utd for us. Loyalty is not what I would call his strongest trait imo. He had an opportunity at the normal press conference this morning to clear thing up but didn't. Therefore sparking all the rumours and speculation. Maybe we will find out mor after the game tomorrow and maybe we won't. I would be gutted if he did leave mind you. He's the best manager we have had for years.
screaming canary
Maybe he'll be off to visit his relations in Scotland and be unavailable to do the post match media...BTW, we DO want this guy, don't we?
Mike Mada
He's not coming, new statement put up on NCFC. Have to say I've never been convinced by this one, just can't see why he'd give up 16 months work to uproot to Burnley. I believe we offered a fantastic deal but too any Burnley fans have jumped to conclusions based on our own unfortunate circumstances a year ago.
Duped amd made to look like a bunch of amateurs again
As I'm sure he'd acknowledge, Turfman's is indeed one of the numerous possible interpretataions of the limited information available to us.
Couch Potato

Have Your Say

Log in...
with your social network     OR     with your Vital account

Recent Burnley Articles

Rumour Mill- Burnley Gun for Eboue? (Tuesday December 16 2014)

Will Burnley Earn Their Spurs? (Tuesday December 16 2014)

Rumour Mill- Raul Albentosa Anyone? Who? (Tuesday December 16 2014)

Rumour Mill-Ings Ajaxing Lyrical or Not? (Tuesday December 16 2014)

Chalo-Bah Humbug or Not? (Tuesday December 16 2014)

Devilish Burnley Excommunicate Saints!! (Monday December 15 2014)

Burnley Praying More Than Saints? (Friday December 12 2014)

Archived Burnley Articles

List All Vital Burnley Articles
Have your say
Click here to suggest an article
Click here to suggest a poll

Vital Members League (view all)

League Results (view all)

Latest Results
Spurs 2 - 1 Burnley
Burnley 1 - 0 Southampton
Q.P.R. 2 - 0 Burnley
Burnley 1 - 1 Newcastle
Burnley 1 - 1 Aston Villa
Stoke 1 - 2 Burnley

League Table (view table)

Team P W D L GD Pts
14. WBA 17 4 5 8 -6 17
15. Q.P.R. 17 5 2 10 -12 17
16. Sunderland 16 2 10 4 -10 16
17. Crystal Palace 17 3 6 8 -8 15
18. Burnley 17 3 6 8 -14 15
19. Hull City 17 2 7 8 -9 13
20. Leicester City 17 2 4 11 -14 10

Breaking League News

Two Points Dropped!
» Man Utd : 20/12/2014 18:32:00
» Q.P.R. : 20/12/2014 18:32:00
Liverpool: Sterling Lands Prestigious Award
» Liverpool : 20/12/2014 18:23:00
Sam`s Thoughts on Win over Leicester
» West Ham : 20/12/2014 18:04:00
» West Ham : 20/12/2014 17:43:00

Current Site Poll (view all polls)

Where will Burnley be in the Premier League on Christmas Day?
Suggested By:  Vital Burnley Admin
Still in Bottom 3 41%
11th-17th 57%
Top 10! 2%