That doesn't answer the question. 20 people, 20 minutes. Everyone else 21 words. Give me one fathomable justification for that. If they were legally allowed to spend 20 minutes telling you what happened then they sure as hell were allowed to say more than 21 words to everyone else. Do you not agree?
For God's sake man. I was the one who told Dane what was done was reprehensible. I didn't like the answer that was given and told him so in no uncertain terms. And he acknowledged the fact. It was asked that the the club put out what was said to us.
I heard this, he was saying goodbye to staff like he’d got the job, it does seem Cowleys turned it down initially, so maybe cross wires or Huddersfield hedged their bets...,
We need to move a few on in January to trim the squad. The wording on twitter was: "those on heavy contracts might be moved on if not in the picture". Call me suspicious but is this the reason that Thiam and Pinillos haven't even been on the bench in recent weeks i.e. so that we can justify them going in January?
Cowleys were the first to turn the job down, that I know for a fact. I also know that very quickly Huddersfield went back to them to reopen dialogue and the end result was they took they job.
My interpretation would be that there's an unfair dismissal claim, which from my understanding would mean that it wouldn't be prudent for them to comment on the reasons for the dismissal as there's nothing to be gained from commenting and potentially a lot to lose.
Don't be silly they have told us that they sold 3 to bring in 12 and don't want to sell anyone. Oh and that we need to trim the squad down and will be looking to sell a few. Seems clear to me.
Might as well have sat facing a mirror and watched your hair grow for 2 hour instead of turning up because the information gained from that meeting sounds none-existent.
So i wonder who instigated legal proceedings against who? Its hardly going to be for him being tapped up by huddersfield.....the board cant wait for it to happen to our players. Tbh that had Cowley written all over it.
If it had happened I can't see why the board can't mention it. PNE did re. Stoke. Also they would have gained money and not had to pay him off.