NDAs in recent years have been breached on numerous occasions even from employees who were working for top law firms and received considerable payoffs. Admittedly, the main one was related to a sexual harassment case, but there was also an element of bullying involved. There has never ever been a mention about NDAs from anyone involved, only speculation on social media. There was certainly ones in place when Richardson left, as he and the club said there were.
I find it troubling that one day King is the big bad wolf, the next he is red riding hood and Robins is the bad guy. Think it is more complex than that, and I believe it would be healthily paranoid not to take everything King has said at face value. He is presenting his opinions on events that led up to the sackings. Maybe Adi and Mark would see it slightly differently and will use the right to reply, but I wouldn't hold your breath. King is in the main saying he has no liability for the footballing events at the club, as Robins had all the power on the footballing side? May be the case, but I find that hard to believe where the owner is the Chairman and CEO, in fact the whole Board. I thought that flouted the UK Corporate Government Code. He does not come across as someone who leaves the footballing side completely alone.
My concerns are King speaks of transparency but it is like the whole of the staff and players have been issued with edicts not to talk about anything regarding the club except when their pronouncements have more than likely been vetted.
Robins has been honest with us for years and it is only this season he has alluded to having less power than in the past. This does not square with what King told us.
I'm in the party that says Robins without Adi is unfortunately not as good, but to say everything that is bad at the club on the footballing side is Robins fault is unfair.