Nowhere in the article was it suggested that he needed direct communication from the CEO or Boehly. They just included those two in the list of people he had not heard from, including any department heads.

He was basically given no communication at all until just before the season and even then it was sort of a gradual reduction of duties with no reason given.

It’s definitely a non-standard way of letting someone go.

It’s not really another way though is it? Or rather, or it’s not adding more decisions to be made. Previously it was “Do I give this person a a yellow or nothing for saying that to me” and now it’s “Do I give this person an orange or nothing for saying that to me”.

It won’t be millionaire footballers doing this lol. Why would they?

face a three-match ban

I don’t think that’s right. Van Dijk only got an extra game for “personally abusive” language, so I’d bet Dunk gets the same.

10 of those 23 minutes were to Liverpool as well, until Grealish turned into the best player in the world.

The headline is accurate if that’s what you’re asking.

That’s pretty much how all UK papers work, yeah.

De Vrij’s agent took a commission on his transfer to Inter that he didn’t tell him about. De Vrij was awarded half of that commission and now the agent is appealing that.

This is asking for the opposite. Fewer soft penalties.

There is one maxim of /r/soccer.

If a headline has “How” in the title, there will be at least one snarky comment in the replies oversimplifying the point of the article.