Both parties would have agreed on it, yes.Is that mutual?
Guesswork.Both parties would have agreed on it, yes.
Absolutely not guesswork. He had two years left, so assuming no gross misconduct Bloom could not sack him without a mutually agreed termination agreement. The alternative is to put him on gardening leave until it expires.Guesswork.
The official line was mutual agreement not sacked. RDZ wanted to leave.Absolutely not guesswork. He had two years left, so assuming no gross misconduct Bloom could not sack him without a mutually agreed termination agreement. The alternative is to put him on gardening leave until it expires.
If he does, he did.Depends on whether he knew he was going there before he left us doesn't it?
Did you never notice, that while he did a good job for us, he never looked like a club player? Always looked like a contract/temp, same with Ben White . . . . .Still the only person I'm booing is that twerp Trossard - he started all this dicking around with us
……..our our gain in the next windowI wouldn't boo. He was right that we needed to reinforce in January, I absolutely love our way of doing things but we had the unique circumstances of being in Europe and making an obscene amount of money from Chelsea. We should've backed RDZ and ourselves. Our loss.
We would not have been able to sack him without gross misconduct. If if was Bloom that had wanted to get rid - which is looking dubious right now - he’d have had to offer a settlement of some sort. RDZ wouldn’t have been obligated to accept that settlement.The official line was mutual agreement not sacked. RDZ wanted to leave.