Unfortunately I agree with you on this as it would of been put to bed properly by actually talking to the media.
My main concern is that this happens after season and we miss out on a good coach and have to start all over again..
My Choice would be Michael M or Wayne Bennett (Only if Ivan leaves )
The problem with your interpretation is that when people in the public eye make categorical, unambiguous statements such as: (a) “I have not received any offer from the Panthers, nor have I asked the Wests Tigers for a release”; and “…. I intend to honour this contract”, I’m inclined to believe them.
The reason is that smart people don’t tell deliberate lies if there is a chance they will be caught out. They certainly don’t tell barefaced lies, which the above statements would prove to be, if he intended to take up a coaching position with the Panthers in 2019.
If Cleary intended to take up a contract with Penrith in 2019 he would not have been so unequivocal in his statement.
He has to deny any contract has been offered otherwise he would be in court with Gus. He also has to state he will see out his contract he is legally obliged to fulfil it.
This is where it gets murky if he is leaving likely at the end of his deal and has told Pascoe this it’s untenable and he will be released. Oldest trick in the book it will come out as mutual agreement. If Maquire is available I’d waste no time and get it done.
West’s have the cash Cleary can coach the Magpies.
Fair enough Tyga. My point remains that smart people don't normally tell bare-faced lies in public. They choose their words carefully.
Cleary didn't have to deny a contract had been offered and he didn't have to state his intention to honour his contract.
Take Seibold for example - he started his presser last night saying he wanted to make a statement about the coaching position. He expressed disappointment at the false news in the press; said he would not take any questions on the subject; and then said "I am contracted to the Rabbihos for the next 15 months". End of story.
Cleary could have done the same thing. Seibold's statement won't put the matter to bed; but then, Ivan's more fulsome statement hasn't either. So, rather than lie, Cleary could have done a Seibold.