This doesn't make any sense

If PL had such a clause then he could just activate it at will: If NCFC refused permission to speak to AV he could still do so, without resigning and remain within the terms of his contract.

I think that it is much more likely that a clause would permit talks with another club with the prior consent of NCFC and that such consent would not be "reasonably refused". The argument regarding breach of contract might therefore hinge on the interpretation of "reasonable" - did NCFC breach because they failed to allow talks or did PL do so by speaking to AV without consent.

Of course this may be bollox but it makes more sense than the bollox being touted in the press. I don't spose we'll ever know he truth but I'm sure that the lawyers will sort out something.

Posted By: Waddockhunt, Jun 3, 09:58:35