So, Mourinho had his fine cut by a whopping 125 grand, from 200 to 75 grand. Cole's fine was cut to the same amount, but from only 100 grand. Does anyone get this? All I've found so far is the statement "The panel ruled that Mourinho was less culpable for the meeting between Chelsea executives, Cole and his adviser Jonathan Barnett in January, since he had not instigated it." Less culpable than whom? My understanding was that Mourinho went there knowing he was meeting Cole, whereas Cole may not have known he was meeting Mourinho... so who's less culpable out of the 2 of them?

It seems likely ("very likely", according to his solicitor) that Cole will take the matter further and appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport on the basis of restraint of trade. While it's not directly relevant to that argument, and while I wouldn't want to appear to be supporting that appeal, it is kind of understandable if Cole's pissed off at this ruling. He may be 25 grand better off but in relative terms the fact that they were even softer on Mourinho doesn't reflect well on Ash. Still, we can only hope he can put all of this out of his mind now that the season's starting.