Some very interesting comments in today's League Weekly suggesting that Paul Cooke had a clause in his contract which set out to prevent him from signing for another Championship Club if leaving the Dons.

I wonder?

I was only thinking this morning if the club could mount a legal challenge to this.

As it was said that Carl Hall was disappointed that it was announced before the paperwork was completed, I would guess that the club agreed to the move

Clauses to try to prevent someone making a living elsewhere are very dodgy in my book.
The contract was with Paul Cooke ... would anyone be so vindictive as to try to pursue him?
Not Carl methinks.
Let's move on ... downwards, unfortunately.

They're not that rare though ... although are usually there (with timescales) to prevent someone jumping ship to a business rival ... oops!

I don't live in a vacuum.
Some people might argue that there is one between my ears.
Clauses like that have relevance when customers and vital information can be lost by the original organisation by transfer by the leaver.

No customers will transfer to Fev and the only information Cooke can transfer to Fev is that the Dons are useless.
lol

I think a judge would take a dim view about restricting his livelihood.

Besides it was a mutual separation, that's a euphemism for the sack.
They wanted rid and thus wouldn't stand in his way.
lol

His contract has been ripped up!
At least if I were Cooke that would be my attitude.

Yes, the oops

I have just spoken to cookey in morrisons on york rd and asked him if it was a surprise that andy hay left and he said yes to the players but andy was told some time ago and also they speaking to someone in the morning (not him lol) so sounds like its been lined up for some time