You know what, I'm not sure she has anything to worry about. Masters was there from Nov 2019, Brittain was only appointed in Jan 2023 and our case was dumped in her lap pretty much fait accompli. I wonder if she's smarter than Masters and has played a blinder, making sure that she's not the (intended?) scapegoat?Yes. I read it too quickly. On reflection the story is pretty neutral. That said her job will be at risk if they lose the case. Perhaps it is more gossip than a leak. This case is driving me up the wall!
Yeah and Benjani is flying it and Mido is serving the on board meals.He's still at Barton Airfield waiting for Isco's plane to arrive.
You would imagine the Board would have oversight of a decision of this magnitude against a leading club.
My point is, the Exec is responsible for delivery of good governance / running the business etc. Not every decision a business makes goes through the Board.
Masters wouldn’t be acting as a loose canon if enforcing financial governance (ie, charging clubs with breaches etc) is considered to be in the remit of the Exec and not something that requires Board oversight.
Nah, that’s Di Rossi’s job surely?Yeah and Benjani is flying it and Mido is serving the on board meals.
Hope he's not run out of corned beef sandwiches.He's still at Barton Airfield waiting for Isco's plane to arrive.
Undeniably true. People get confused by the difference between executive and non-executive. At City as well. And by the use of the word board to just mean an executive committee.
Mind you, at the PL the non-executives seem to work as executives: carrying out FMV assessments, lobbying for the Chairman etc ... So I am not surprised there is confusion.
If the executive asked me, as a non-executive, to do executive work, I would have quit long ago.
Undeniably true. People get confused by the difference between executive and non-executive. At City as well. And by the use of the word board to just mean an executive committee.
Mind you, at the PL the non-executives seem to work as executives: carrying out FMV assessments, lobbying for the Chairman etc ... So I am not surprised there is confusion.
If the executive asked me, as a non-executive, to do executive work, I would have quit long ago.
Fyfield sits on a sub-committee to approve (or not) the recommendations of the Regulatory Committee. She is not preparing the report, she (and another NED) are considering it and asking questions in the way sub-committees often offer independent oversight of an exec function. Not sure there is much to see or unusual in that. The thing that surprised people was that she seemed to take the sub committee responsibilities seriously and carefully considered the information. Not a popular opinion here but if we take City out of it, this seems to me to be something worthy of praise rather than criticism. Nobody wants NEDs that don't even read the papers.Agreed.
The problem is the PL seems to be a shambles, so all bets are off in terms of them following what we would consider to be normal business practice.
“My candle sputtered out at 1 am. I was very tired doing what Masters told me to do, finding the worst possible benchmarking cases.”… Or something similar in her evidence.Yes I forgot Fyfield was a NED when she’s claiming to be working long & hard on the Etihad sponsorship.
“My candle sputtered out at 1 am. I was very tired doing what Masters told me to do, finding the worst possible benchmarking cases.”… Or something similar in her evidence.
Fyfield sits on a sub-committee to approve (or not) the recommendations of the Regulatory Committee. She is not preparing the report, she (and another NED) are considering it and asking questions in the way sub-committees often offer independent oversight of an exec function. Not sure there is much to see or unusual in that. The thing that surprised people was that she seemed to take the sub committee responsibilities seriously and carefully considered the information. Not a popular opinion here but if we take City out of it, this seems to me to be something worthy of praise rather than criticism. Nobody wants NEDs that don't even read the papers.
I’d say it’s very unsurprising that the largest ever PL sponsorship gets a lot of committee considerationIt all seems very convenient what to ignore & what to zoom in on.
I’d say it’s very unsurprising that the largest ever PL sponsorship gets a lot of committee consideration
“My candle sputtered out at 1 am. I was very tired doing what Masters told me to do, finding the worst possible benchmarking cases.”… Or something similar in her evidence.
Fyfield sits on a sub-committee to approve (or not) the recommendations of the Regulatory Committee. She is not preparing the report, she (and another NED) are considering it and asking questions in the way sub-committees often offer independent oversight of an exec function. Not sure there is much to see or unusual in that. The thing that surprised people was that she seemed to take the sub committee responsibilities seriously and carefully considered the information. Not a popular opinion here but if we take City out of it, this seems to me to be something worthy of praise rather than criticism. Nobody wants NEDs that don't even read the papers.
In the meantime the Chair position needs deciding with or without the result of the 115+ case or indeed who controls the policies.Yes, that all makes sense.
My original question was in response to people saying Alison Brittain would be under scrutiny if the 115 goes against the Premier League.
I’m not sure that is the case because I’m not sure how involved the chair would be in the decision to move forward with charges against City.
To be clear, I don’t know the answer to the question - just that it isn’t a foregone conclusion Britain’s position becomes untenable in that scenario.
Yes, that all makes sense.
My original question was in response to people saying Alison Brittain would be under scrutiny if the 115 goes against the Premier League.
I’m not sure that is the case because I’m not sure how involved the chair would be in the decision to move forward with charges against City.
To be clear, I don’t know the answer to the question - just that it isn’t a foregone conclusion Britain’s position becomes untenable in that scenario.
In the meantime the Chair position needs deciding with or without the result of the 115+ case or indeed who controls the policies.
She might have completed her next 3 year term by the time we get to that point ;-(It doesn't matter, really. They can re-appoint her and then kick her out, if they want, after the 115 goes tits-up for them. Which it inevitably will.