Cole released but at what cost?
On Friday Pompey released Andrew Cole from his contract, this is not a problem for me at all as I am more than happy with this in all honesty - the thing that does concern me though is at what cost was he released?
My thinking was it was mutually agreed by both parties to simply terminate his contract, basically tear up it and let everyone go their separate ways, but the talk in Saturday's Sun was that Pompey 'agreed to pay up the final 11 months of his £30,000 per week contract'.
Surely this cannot be the case!
If so, that will mean Pompey would have paid him more than £1.3m to leave the club, or if they simply carried on paying it weekly will pay that amount eventually.
Cole wants first team football, something Pompey could not offer him, so it was right for him to go but I find it very hard to believe that the club would have agreed to pay up the full amount of the remainder of his contract.
Rather than this Pompey would simply have made him available on a free transfer, but made him earn some of his money by playing in the reserves until he could secure a move away, rather than pay him a fortune to leave, would they not?
I did not give this much thought until my brother, who saw it in the Sun - which of course does not necessarily make it utterly so - brought it to my attention and it incensed me.
Yep, maybe he got some kind of 'golden handshake' but this cannot be true can it - why would Pompey want to pay him more than £1.3m to leave when they could have at worse let him go to another club for free, making him earn his money in some way until he went? It is not like he had been a loyal servant that was owed such a favour!
Terminate by 'mutual consent' in my thinking is an agreement by all concerned to end something, so Pompey would not have paid up his contract in full would they in this instance.
PLAY UP POMPEY!
To join the Vital Pompey debate - in the forum or with comments on articles - simply take a few seconds to register an account.