Now, Cole's camp is saying that he's decided not to appeal against restraint of trade, but only against the facts of the matter.

As we suggested last week, this move makes his appeal look a bit more reasonable. Arguing that one ought to have had the right to break the rules undermines the argument that he never did break the rules. It's a very positive indicator as far as Cole's relationship with Arsenal and possible future with the club is concerned.

A lot of Arsenal fans seem to be saying that we should get rid of him, that we shouldn't want him anymore because of the way he's treated the club and the fans. In my opinion, those fans don't deserve Cole or any of our other world class players. They're swallowing what the press are telling them and allowing themselves to be captured pawns in the never-ending game of "undermining the Arsenal".

What really got my goat was headlines saying "Ashley Cole is a liar". The basis for these headlines? Well, read on of them for yourself (sorry for picking on them, should point out that it's just one of many, and it is a good site it's just this one article of theirs that's got my back up). Basically it reports Cole saying that he couldn't sign for any other English club because he couldn't imagine playing against Arsenal. Then it says, "So, why did you talk to Chelsea?". And the writer of this cr*p has the gall to call Ashley a "moron". Well, ok, Ashley himself admits that there are sharper tools in the box, but people who believe what the papers (or Chelsea FC officials) tell them about Arsenal transfer stories are the dullest of the lot.

Let's put it straight. Cole says that he was set up. That he never set out to talk to Chelsea. He still says that. Is he supposed to change that claim because the commission found him guilty? I don't think so. Changing his story would make him a liar, sticking to it does not. Today's news about the nature of his appeal only reinforces this view.

Seems to me that there ought to be a possibility for the appeal to work, It's not even clear to me that the commission in finding him guilty disbelieved he claim that he never set out to talk to Chelsea. They had to find him guilty whether they believed him or not. Note that in their report they said that Cole's behaviour was deemed to have been 'unacceptable', but 'manipulated to a large extent by his agent'. The way I like to read this, they knew he was a victim, but had to fine him anyway. Because whether it was Cole's fault directly, or his agent's fault, he did meet Chelsea and had to be punished. If not, the commission would have established a huge loophole in the rules: players could talk to who they wanted knowing that they could get off scot-free by saying their agent set it up. Perhaps the commission's verdict would have been different if either of the agents involved had come under their jurisdiction. It is a shame that Barnett and Zahavi's involvement could not be considered by the same body (they may yet be charged by the FA and the Israeli FA respectively).

Cole is understandably upset at having been found guilty despite feeling that he was a victim rather than a perpetrator. A lot of people might have responded by focussing attention on that fact, by passing the blame onto Barnett, even by trying to pass the fine on by sueing him. And if there is a believability gap in Cole's statements it's in the fact that he's sticking by the guy who got him into this mess. But Cole's a nice guy, he's not going to stick the knife into his mate, because he believes that Barnett was himself a victim of Zahavi's manipulation. Zahavi is, apparently, untouchable, and must be sitting back rubbing his hands together with glee at the mayhem he's caused. But if his goal was to bring the "restraint of trade" issue to a head, it is at least reassuring that it looks less likely that Cole will end up as his pawn.

When someone does challenge this aspect of English football contracts, it seems perfectly possible the challenge will succeed. Apparently, while the Premier League maintains that its rules do not illegally restrict trade, England is almost alone in Europe in applying such rules. FIFA regulations do not specify any restrictions on players talking to clubs. But whichever player ends up making that challenge is likely to end up alienating himself from the clubs over here.