The court documents state the problems arose over Van Winkels appointment, as I and others said at the time. Nothing good was ever going to come out of that.
I would like to see how anyone suggesting McCabe should have seen this coming when the deal was signed arrive at that view.
Is it not reasonable to assume that a contractual stipulation that the appointment of any key staff would have to be ratified by both parties should have been in place? If KMc (and Wilder) were unhappy about Van Winkel's appointment, KMc could then just have vetoed it (and vice versa, if McC tried to bring in anyone the Prince was unhappy with).
Can’t disagree with that and also what Bully says H. My point was based upon a personal feeling that things were not as they should be behind the scenes, nothing more. The odd comment from Wilder, last summer’s and the January window, even McCabe’s own persona and the odd throwaway comments that we all hear now and again. It’s hard to quantify mate, like you say Van Winkle coming onboard was probably the or one of the catalysts to the current situation, but between HRH, Jim Phipps, Baki and the rest, I’ve just didn’t think they were convincing once the dust had settled.
I'm surprised that his counsel are advising him to release statements that are potentially damaging to the club. There again, there's a lot about law that continues to surprise me.
Has anyone asked McNulty for his opinions? A man of his experience and knowledge must have lots to tell us.