I think that's a fair point.

That sums it up for me as well.

If the contract was signed then fair enough but if t wasnt well this is wrong
The money could be spent on a player.bit like start of season when player money went on last.

If the contract was signed then fair enough but if t wasnt well this is wrong
The money could be spent on a player.bit like start of season when player money went on last.

No it's not a contract can be enforced through a verbal agreement

In contract law "a verbal agreement between gentlemen is as legally binding as a written one"
MC has done the morally right thing, whether you agree or disagree with it. One thing you can say for certain over the last 6-7 years MC has always acted in a morally right manor and as an ex-chairman of a community club I have had first hand experience of him doing so.
It backs up the fact the WT is a family orientated club

Does this means should Chester get another role within the duration of the contract we are due compensation?!

Don't understand why people are getting annoyed, it's an agreement between MC and C C.
Don't know why it was announced to the public in the first place.

I suspect MC wishes he hadn’t, probably just wanted to show we are an honourable club and he is an honourable man. Doesn’t seem to count with some, probably the same ones who’d moan if we hadn’t

Truth is I suspect a contract was agreed but the announcer was held back until results improved as players returned etc. That didn’t happen but CC will have planned his future based on that verbal deal so it would be unfair to penalise him.

Only if that is stipulated in a contract.
As long as he pays his taxes he can have as many jobs as he likes.

Vasfy these are the kind of things that really let MC down.

No these are the things that make him look good and make me delighted people like you aren’t in charge.

You don’t know the deal, you know nothing about running a RL club yet you feel the right to criticise someone who does and saved this club from bankruptcy. Try and think for once.

I don’t know how you arrive at that conclusion.
MC is, as usual where money is involved, doing the honourable thing.
Why shouldn’t he say he’s honouring the contract agreed? Why do people have an issue with an employer doing the right thing to an employee?
I can’t believe some of the moans on here.
I don’t know what some posters would say if we cut his wages now and ended up in a tribunal as has happened before.