Yes. If they’ve been tapped up and want to leave then there is no point holding them hostage at the club, so they “abide by their contract”. It benefits no one. Negotiate a reasonable buy out, in line with the contract length and terms and be done with it. Newcastle’s demands are absolutely ridiculous and beyond what would be deemed a reasonable fee. Not that a Saudi run club would have any type of self awareness that they would actually care about their reputation, but I’m certain other football executives will look at their conduct with Ashworth, as being petty and unreasonable. Reputation matters, so if Newcastle want a satisfactory ending, find a replacement and let ashworth leave for a reasonable sum not £20 million.
He's not being held hostage. He's resigned and he'll get paid in full, until he can take up his new role at a direct competitor.
It benefits a club not to fold, because then you look like a soft touch and that (as we've seen at United in terms of transfers) is a major problem. It might also cause the team trying to tempt someone away to move on to other targets if they need someone in post quickly, and I'd be willing to bet that happens. They're clearly taking a stance generally that they won't be taken advantage of by perceived "bigger" clubs. That might them keep players and benefit them in negotiations generally. Whatever you think of those tactics, that's evidently how they're going to operate.
Nobody on here knows what Newcastle's demands actually are, or how "reasonable" they are, however you define that, but the point is he's under contract and if they want to keep him tied down for a period of time, they can. You're entitled to your opinion, but it won't put off other top executives because they're professionals who understand that signing a
highly lucrative contract comes with consequences, as it does for the top executives in business generally. Ashworth was willing to sign it, after all. The idea that top people in the field won't take the Saudi money, just because they want to enforce non-compete clauses, as per his contract is nonsense.
We're talking about the man who runs the sporting side of a whole football club and replacing him will result in all kinds of upheaval. These appointments are taken on for the long term. Why would they make it easy?
Mad that you'd expect United just to roll over if the shoe was on the other foot. I don't think INEOS would approach it that way given how they're operating in trying to bring in their own executive team. I'd be happy for the club to be difficult, personally.
And re Brighton, they had an option to pay him to do nothing for 9 months, or take the cash on offer. They took the cash, but that's not something Newcastle need.
