Apparently it's only a 'verbal agreement' and if so, then I don't take that. It's his word against the club's. If it's not in his contract then it's no different to Isak having his head turned and wanting away, based on being 'told' we'd renegotiate his contract.
There's 3 facts here 1.Paul Mitchell said the clubs recruitment is not fit for purpose. 2.Paul Mitchell has seen what good recruitment looks like. 3.I believe him.
Legally you're wrong. A verbal contract is as good as a written contract. But you are right in regard to proving it is more difficult if both parties disagree to the verbal terms.
It seems to be the thing now. Players want away while under contract and appear to hold all the cards. Isak, Wissa, Gyokeres...
Agreeing to renegotiate would again be subject to precisely what was agreed to be done eg timing, implementation etc. But not sure from what I recall there was anything more than we would look to do so as opposed to an agreement with Isak to do so. Ultimately, we don't know the specifics. Could change my view on Isak's stance TBF but would need more details. Wissa's seems more black and white verbal agreement.
Our recruitment team reminds me of watching my dad trying to use a games console control pad in a racing game.
No. It would just seem a strange thing to claim and if claimed would have expected a fairly quick rebuttal from Brentford.
