Tom NCFC 0 Posted October 9, 2007 As it''s by mutual constent, does that mean that he quit and was not sacked......therefore Norwich didn''t have to pay the rest of his wages as he gave them up with his resignation? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gingerpele 0 Posted October 10, 2007 often they agree a sum, whick wouldnt be the whole wage, mabey his wages up till januray or something Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZLF 261 Posted October 10, 2007 It usually means some money was paid but not necessarily all of what was owed on his contract. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shack Attack 0 Posted October 10, 2007 If we had have sacked him we would have had to pay the contract up in full and if he had resigned he would have walked away with nothing. As far as I can see ''mutual consent'' is just a fancy way of saying that the two parties have agreed a financial settlement somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dicky 0 Posted October 10, 2007 £600K according to the papers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted October 10, 2007 This morning Talksport mentioned that Grant received 600,000 pounds Share this post Link to post Share on other sites