That's true...

... I'm not at all convinced any company would have to be 100% accurate in detailing the lengths of employees' contracts, though. On the Cotterill thing: it depends, of course, on how serious you think the board truly were: you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to take Doncaster's explanation of how it all went Pete Tong with a good deal of salt. Why leave it so absurdly late in the day given the thinness of the squad, unless either a) the club was preparing the ground for NW's exit, or b) NW was just counting down the days himself?

As for him 'working for free from November onwards': sorry, come again? I realise what I've written is confusing - but what I'm saying is, if my theory's correct (and it almost certainly isn't), then to have sacked him last Nov would've entailed paying off the last nineteen months of an ?800,000/year contract, which works out at something like ?1.3m. Whereas sacking him with only nine months left would mean just a ?600,000 payout.

And I still go back to this key point: I just cannot see why he wasn't sacked last season if he was on a rolling contract, entailing the same amount of compensation whenever he and the club parted company.

Posted By: thebigfeller, Dec 1, 19:36:16