I don’t get sacking Darren just to get Jones out.
It’s not logical to me, as there are a number of other ways to have gotten rid of him and kept Darren in post.
For instance, if we are to believe press reports, it is a done deal that Jones will takeover at Luton in the summer and this was agreed before we sacked him. Now, as I understand it, he is under contract to us and would need the clubs permission to have spoken to Luton about their vacancy and for us to agree to release him from his contract to takeover in June.
Two issues, firstly, if he didn’t seek permission from us to speak to Luton and he went ahead anyway and agreed to take the job, then we could have terminated his contract, surely?
Secondly, we could have refused him permission to speak with Luton knowing that, probably, he would have taken humpage and, hopefully, walked out anyway.
Have I missed something? Why sack Darren to achieve a parting of the ways with Jones. I believe it was about Darren and not Jones, I don’t refute that Jones leaving may have been a bonus to some in the hierarchy of the club.
Please enlighten me on this Jones conspiracy theory