Having read some of the message boards and had time to consider it I do think the whole mutual consent thing might have been more Aidy saying he'd had enough than the board sacking him.
Its obvious we need to buy in January rather than sell. Aidy might have gone with buying and selling but if he was told the only option was to sell without bringing anyone in he might have decided he'd had enough.
Maybe as part of the settlement mutual consent was agreed on rather than resignation to protect the board from venom that would come their way. After all whenever mutual consent is mentioned everyone assumes that it really means the sack.
In a perverse way the board would probably get less flack for sacking Aidy than if he'd gone of his own accord 'cos about a third of the message boards seem to say it was time for a change.
