Yellow card for Isak but No Yellow card for Bruno.

I was given, by several survivors, a copy of the compensation agreement that survivors were obliged to sign. This include a "tariff" of money they would receive, from £5,000 from one incident of "indecent touching" to £65,000 for years of multiple rape by Bennell. 7/n

#ManCity  held early-stage settlement talks with the Premier League prior to confirmation of the verdict. Talks quickly fell apart, with the club consistently proclaiming its innocence. The settlement would have focused on a sizeable financial payment, rather than relegation and stripping of titles, and likely only decreased the size of the case rather than resolving it. Representatives for @ManCity and the Premier League declined to comment. [via @business] bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

I watched the F1 film with Brad Pitt the other day, and there’s a moment where his character asks to add something to the car that isn’t really in the rules. The FIA punishes it, but the team can still race with the earlier car. It made me think. In F1, the best teams live at the edge of the regulations. Sometimes the FIA allows what they’ve found, and sometimes it says that goes too far. Occasionally the rules are rewritten afterwards. Now, City. I’m not defending them. A commission found they entered into sham agreements and broke the spending limits. A sham is an arrangement that isn’t what it claims to be, so that’s a different thing from using a gap nobody had spotted. City deny it and will appeal. But I find it useful to ask/reflect on how people inside the club see it. From their point of view, PERHAPS they believe they were doing what elite competitors do: looking at the rules, finding the limits, challenging interpretations and moving faster than the regulatory system. From the outside, you might look at that and say, “That’s cheating.” From inside the organisation, they might say, “We found something nobody had thought of.” If you believe you’ve found a way to bring money in, more or less within the rules (and the commission said it was not in the rules and it was cheating), you might tell yourself you’re just being a sharp competitor. We are all asking “did City cheat?”. But I find this question interesting too: “how did City come to believe they weren’t?” And understanding a mindset, or trying to, isn’t excusing it.

Erling Haaland: "We have to stick together, stay with eachother, stay positive. No matter what happens in life, we always have to have a smile, stay positive, look ahead, and try to win football games, enjoy the situation. We have to stick together, spread the love to eachother, stick together, enjoy the ride, smile..." [via @ManCity]

So, just to clarify, the UAE are telling the British government that they're only willing to invest in Britain if they are allowed to break any rules they want? The only response should be: Bye bye, UAE.

I mean you can’t really try and take someone down and ruin their reputation and then ask them to give you money. Regardless of whether they win the appeal or not, the reputational damage is already done.

BREAKING: The UAE is warning British Prime Minister Andy Burnham it will pull billions of pounds of investment the Government was seeking for a hi-tech hub between Oxford and Cambridge, billed as the UK’s answer to Silicon Valley, in retaliation for the guilty verdict against #ManCity. [via @rmendick] telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10…

Journalists trying to be lawyers unfortunately. Etihad arguing against government subsides in the US so they do not get unfair trade restrictions doesn't equate to not recieving equity injections or loans from said government.

What is worse? 1. Match fixing 2. Performance enhancing drugs 3. An owner investing more than he is allowed