Search results

If they had a 'watertight' case then there would have been no need to suspend anyone, the wrong doers would have been instantly dismissed.

So erm breach his contract or pay the club £ to break it

But without knowing the background or the facts how is anyone meant to say that the club should not have suspended the 3. As soon as the club felt it necessary to suspended them the club had a duty to follow internal and the legal process, if that takes time it takes time.

Maybe but how are they meant to do anything differently? The club have to follow a process

Will this be enough to stop people demanding to know what is going on and will let the club get on with due process or has this just stoked the flames and people will now be demanding more answers.