No surprises for guessing who is making the headlines today. Yes, Mr Terry is the man and it’s all about whether he keeps the armband or not.
Matt Lawton at the Daily Mail questions whether we can actually trust Terry now.
Now John Terry really has some explaining to do. When he meets Fabio Capello today, the conversation will not just concern an England team-mate’s estranged partner but the legally binding contract he agreed with the FA when he became a Wembley box holder.
As the Daily Mail’s investigation reveals, Terry’s 12-seat box is available to anyone who has £4,000 and wants to watch England or their favourite rock band. Selling it on is strictly prohibited, but this newspaper was offered the box in exchange for a cash payment to Terry’s management company.
This is so much more serious than the sordid revelations Terry and his representatives tried to keep out of the public domain because this concerns what looks like a breach of trust between the England captain and the organisation he represents. He is given a major discount on the box in recognition of his status. Not, as Capello will now fear, to make money.
Over at the Independent, they’ve commented on another big breaking story that is actually a breaking story: Chelsea’s transfer ban being lifted. Nick Harris has this to say:
Yesterday’s apparently amicable settlement between Chelsea and Lens over Gaël Kakuta is a win-win situation for all parties – apart from Fifa, perhaps – but leaves more questions that answers. The whole deal is shrouded in confidentiality agreements but it is obvious from the statement released by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and in comments by Chelsea’s chairman, Bruce Buck, that the matter concluded after a process of arbitration, and some money changing hands.
We know Chelsea will pay Lens at least €910,000 (£793,000) because Buck said: “Chelsea has agreed to pay compensation costs for the training given to the player while at Lens, as mandated by Fifa in its original ruling.”
The figures in that original ruling were €780,000 liable from Kakuta to Lens (in joint liability with Chelsea), plus €130,000 directly from Chelsea to Lens. We don’t know who is picking up the case costs, but we can assume it is one or both clubs.
We know Chelsea don’t accept any legal liability for any wrongdoing, because Buck told us. What we don’t know is three key things. Why did Chelsea buckle and effectively “settle” if they thought they could win? Why did Lens effectively accept a compromise? And what does Fifa think about its own original verdict over a poaching allegation being found, effectively, baseless?
You might also find this interesting:
Leave a Reply