[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

he would receive the payoff if he was sacked too, so ....

Mutual consent is the common term these days, but it's still the sack

I agree.

Even after the game on Sunday, he had no intention of going if he could stay.
He said until he was told otherwise, he'd be there for training from Monday onwards.

Clearly he got to hear the otherwise.
He had to go.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I agree.

Even after the game on Sunday, he had no intention of going if he could stay.
He said until he was told otherwise, he'd be there for training from Monday onwards.

Clearly he got to hear the otherwise.
He had to go.

That is just PR speak.

But you are wrong, he didnt have to go. He was the perfect man for the relegation struggle before the club was bought out buy the super wealthy who make the last owner look like phil Neville in an england top. No way did he have to go. Ten players have to go, and new ones have to come in. That's what has to go, him having to go was just a roll on effect from the original have to go, because to get ten players in, you need someone who can get good flair players in.

But that's the mistake, cause the relegation battle is the immediate priority, and bruce was the man for that.

Then, of course.He would have been sacked for keeping them up or failing to. But he would still have been the man for the job. So I do disagree thay he had to go.

[bots]

all mutual consent means is that as part of the payoff they agree not to bad mouth each other ... it's nothing more than that, it is still officially terminating employment. If Bruce had resigned, there would have been no pay off