Search results

No - City were being investigated. Rules very wide when there is an investigation or disciplinary.

This is not established or known so there is no definitely about it. We do know there were some disputes about disclosure but we don't have specifics or have knowledge of what happened post the High Court. I suspect City felt they complied but the PL believed their rules were wide enough to ask...

Not sure they are actually. But as you say barely matters. It appears to be a disciplinary "complaint"

It is a Disciplinary under rule W but I'd say for intents and purposes it is an arbitration. But I also agree that the parties will need at least a working week for the typo type checks. Simply can't be done quickly. I'm less convinced it will leak in that period - very, very few people will know.

The FT also appeared to confirm the split hearing in the Masters interview piece. I'd say it is 99% that the initial hearing was liability only. As of now there is almost zero chance a second hearing has happened in secret and a liability decision has been slipped out. I'd say the only...

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/what-man-city-could-beating-31251424 I am confident this is correct: “Whilst we know from the published Everton costs hearing that there is no restriction on the Independent Commission in terms of costs, it is likely to be...

FWIW, I don't think any guest (Murphy included) on White and Jordan gets told what to say or wears an earpiece. Perhaps it is different on MOTD. Maybe I will ask if I see him again. On Yaya, I just think they really believed that crap. That is often the reason for these shit takes - a genuinely...

A presenters role is quite different. The presenter is getting lots of direction and prompting. I don't really understand the point on Yaya - is it really so incredible that they were just wrong like Thompson was wrong on KdB? They are frequently wrong especially with foreign players because...

On the contrary - do you really believe this unequivocal summary dealt with the CAS situation for most observers. Absolutely not. And, as you know, I also disagree with point 2 here re APT. It was necessarily nuanced because that was the finding of the tribunal.

It is a pretty typical term and was not specifically, editorially related. It is a common myth that people are told what to say by "the bosses". There is no evidence in the Thompson case of that at all. On the contrary. The clause is far more about reasonable control of someone you are paying...

Not a silly question. In the High Court, we wouldn't be seeing a judgment this year in all likelihood. But we all assume the IC have been incentivised to deliver quicker than that.

This is a good point. So you will have a number of interpretations within the spectrum of reasonableness and then a whole load outside too. Chaos.

That para refers to this from FTT 50. Paragraph 4.1 of the Terms and Conditions for the 2013 Contract (substantially replicated as paragraph 4.1(a) of the Terms and Conditions for the 2015 Contract) which provides that, "the Services will be rendered to the best of the Company's and...

In fairness, the Tribunal didn't say that - that was a submission by HMRC's counsel. From what I can see the Tribunal rejected that... "The fact that the opinions remained those of Mr Thompson does not detract from this; the control arises from Sky's ability to control the output of the...

Up to the listener to decide. But people in that building seeking answers on timeline from me so clearly nobody knows (and The Sun and The Times are in the building too).

Yes and City say they did respond as required - certainly post the High Court. I don't think non-cooperation is a foregone conclusion. The PL process was very different to the UEFA process.

Imagine being that in the know to get this World exclusive (no doubt double sourced and verified) yet being followed on Twitter by less than 1,000 genuine accounts.

Never spoken to F365 although I admit to taking a fee from Football Insider which, if actually watched/read whilst ignoring the nonsense headlines, should be quite informative. Sadly, their SEO is a bit too good.

I'd say that silly piece qualifies as semi-soft signal.

I am heading into Central London in a bit and going on Talksport. But not currently to talk about City unless it breaks before 12.30!