Understanding the short shelf life of the levy, racing should (just like ten years ago) take as much of broadcasting (the two fractured pay-tv channels) and betting as it can back in-house. It wants to look as a very low takeout tote, with frozen pools to increasing takeouts during the day, and some sort of tie-up with an exchange operator. Racing won’t do this, because the politics and personalities are adverse and its administrators frankly too short-sighted, but it’s at least a statement of strategy.

For their part, I think the bookies have got much more than the status quo out of racing. Under Savill’s dispensation they got wall-to-wall filler for their FOBTs and cover for keeping their shops open all hours (with the exception of mornings when they might actually have had to lay questionable or out-of-line prices). They are no friend to at least two types of genuine racing enthusiast–the winning form-student punter, who is limited, and the purist, who resents their interference. Extend a hand to them, one might think, and you get BAGS–a dismal product, an exploitative betting proposition and zero outreach to the wider public.

That was his choice, and he will live with the consequences, both positive and negative.

He didn’t have to act that way: any sympathy for the various parties (including Shearer) should be viewed in that context.

One consequence of Capello and the FA hiding behind a shared statement that the former “resigned” – and by “sticking to the script” thereafter – is that they invite precisely the interpretation made by Shearer, and by many others.

That is also part of “the deal”. Shearer may well be doing it naively – or he may even be doing it quite knowingly – but he is justified in taking them at their word. That’s what people tend to do, outside the corporate world at least.

Simon Rowlands

The ‘have your cake and eat it’ double speak is not Capello’s. Capello has been forced into a situation which he is then being told demonstrates that he is not passionate/leaves people in the lurch/walks away from a commitment, etc. I think that’s harsh and I don’t think it’s fair for people to criticise him for something that it seems clear was not in his control.

As to his “massive pay-off”: he will get what is due to him under his contract as if he had stayed in the job. That is only right. He didn’t leave the job of his own accord and he didn’t do anything wrong other than try to carry on dong the job, which his bosses made it impossible for him to do. He had an expectation that he would continue to be paid until his contract ran out, or he did something which breached it. He also had a fair expectation that he would be able to continue to the best of his ability without emasculation. When that no longer proved possible as a result of external circumstances, he left. This is totally standard practice across commercial contracts everywhere – from the lowest level of the employment ladder to the highest.

The legal requirement imposed on him to ensure that he gets the deal owed to him will be that he doesn’t stray from the script he has been given, and of course he will stick to that because he would otherwise lose the money due to him under his contract (the payment of which will almost certainly be deferred). But the corollary is that people inevitably make assumptions about his passion and his commitment which in my view are unfair on him.

When I left my last job, I was similarly wrapped up in legal requirements which led to people making all sorts of suggestions about why I had left which I was unable to defend. I can tell you it wasn’t fun, and that was when they were just said to me in private rather than plastered all over the media.

I can see no ambiguity in both parties to an incident stating that one of them resigned, even if we suspect that their real actions may be otherwise. Capello “technically” resigned. Redknapp was “technically” let off tax evasion. The qualifying term matters not one bit and should not be used: he resigned, and he was acquitted. Unless someone wants to prove otherwise.

Shearer might be ignorant and naive, but he should not be criticised for taking at face value an unambiguous statement which a corporate spin doctor would desperately, but unjustifiably, like people to view as nuanced. He would certainly not be alone in having no time for an attempt at such have-your-cake-and-eat-it doublespeak.

The real scandal will presumably be if Capello gets a massive pay off after “resigning”. That sort of behaviour might be part of what is deemed acceptable in the corporate world, too. But it shouldn’t be.

Simon Rowlands