That's not what you were saying initially. When I first posted the articles about the £100k per week payments, you said that he and the club had tweeted information to suggest 'otherwise'. When I challenged you to provide evidence, you couldn't. Now you're backtracking and saying that you only said that they'd tweeted to say that they'd reached an agreement to terminate the contract, but I'd already stated quite clearly in my posts that the contract had been terminated. It wasn't even being disputed. Just admit it, you didn't know about the severance package or the £100k payments, and you jumped in without really understanding what I was posting, hence your 'Titanic' comments and 'doesn't hold any water' fail
Absolute bollocks! All I ever said was that the club and the player had stated, tweeted, whatever, that agreement to terminate had been reached and agreed. Anything else is a product of your usual fevered and wishful imagination.
Then you got confused about the severance package, not realising that the terms weren't a simple end of contract. I'd already said that the contract had been terminated. That wasn't disputed. Why would you come back and say that the contract had been terminated when that's what I was already telling you ?
I'm confused?? About what? About the unsubstantiated bollocks that you spout? There is no statement from either club or player about a severance package, merely that the contract has been terminated. Really, your behaviour borders on narcissistic, you just literally cannot conceive the possibility that you're wrong, about anything!
I think that accusation is more aptly directed at you. Like I said, when I posted the articles initially you went off on one about the contact being terminated, when I'd already told you that the contract had been terminated. You were trying to use the contract termination as some kind of evidence of the £100k per week being wrong, but in the process you didn't understand that the severance package was a different thing altogether. Why else bang on about the contact termination, when I'd already told you that the contract had been terminated ? It wasn't even being disputed.
As you seem to continually struggle with the meaning of the word termination, I see no point in continuing this pointless and increasingly tedious argument. You have no evidence to back up your original claims. The rest is pure speculation.
Are you being dense on purpose ? I told you initially that the contract had been terminated, that was never being disputed. What you seem to be continually struggling with is the terms of that contract termination. I've provided several different sources, all credible, one from the chief football writer for the Telegraph, who also works for SKY and the BBC due to his inside football knowledge, that all say Spurs are paying Adebayor £100k per week as part of that severance package. That is completely in fitting with what would happen if an organisation terminate a contract before then end of the initial agreement, they are liable. You have then said 'he would not have been released from contract on full terms' but you are the one who has no evidence to back up that claim.
Rant You asked for evidence and I'm giving it to you. You just don't like what you're hearing. You said that 'he would not have been released from contract on full terms'so where is your evidence for that ?
You can give it the old 'talk ****e and hope that it sticks approach' if you want, but I have quite calmly and clearly explained about the contract termination and severance package with Adebayor and Spurs, and you spuds have blathered on for pages and pages about how every source reporting the story must be wrong and a couple of angry spurs fans on a football forum are right
You said that 'he would not have been released from contract on full terms' so where is your evidence for that ?
Because it would be pointless. He could move to another side for free and play against us. If we're paying him the full amount, then there must be some reason to let him go, rather than hold him to his contract.
