it's too simplistic a view

Wyatt has (a) (I assume) not seen the relevant provision(s) and (b) is not a lawyer.

I'd need to see the clause itself but it doesn't automatically follow that just because we may have breached it, that the contract is torn up and he becomes a free agent. I don't see that it would be viewed as such a fundamental breach of contract.

If such a clause exists then we wouldn't be able to stop him moving or talking to people, but I cant see why we would lose the right to compensation. I'd expect the contract to expressly refer to compensation being payable in any event.

It's typical Chinese whispers. Of course Villa are going to take a robust view on it and feed that line to the press, but we will also have a robust view on it.

There'll be a legal bunfight which will be good for the litigators, but my gut instinct is that Villa are being wildly optimistic here. And Wyatt is just parotting Villa's party line as he is in no position to know or judge.

Posted By: CWC, Jun 3, 10:01:00