Is player trading working?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
Symbolic gestures won't prevent illegal working
T he Home Office's latest move to crack down on illegal working in the gig economy feels more like political theatre than a serious solution. Announcing a plan to share data with food delivery businesses such as Deliveroo, Just Eat, and Uber Eats, specifically around asylum hotel locations, sounds bold on paper. But in reality, it is unlikely to achieve much. The government wants these companies to flag and cancel accounts repeatedly active in 'high-risk' areas. But this relies on the flawed assumption that such monitoring will deter or even detect illegal workers. It won't. The simple fact is that account sharing is incredibly easy to get around. More information will be shared with food delivery companies such as Just Eat, Uber Eats and Deliveroo ALAMY And the reality is that these companies do not have a genuine incentive to stop it. Unlike traditional employers, they are not subject to a penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. So why would they invest in better checks or policing their own systems? The simple fact is that gig economy companies do not know who is using their apps, and who is engaging with their customers under their brand name, making illegal work easy, effortless and undetectable. If ministers were serious about tackling this issue, they would demand more — facial recognition or real-time identity verification every time a job is accepted could make a real difference. Illegal workers simply would not be able to operate. But until that's mandated, and until companies face real consequences, nothing will change. Worryingly, the issue does not end with gig economy firms. There is a troubling lack of understanding among traditional employers about their own compliance risks. Since 2022, businesses have been allowed to use digital verification services for right to work checks on British and Irish nationals. But many are using the same checks for foreign workers without realising that doing so leaves them legally exposed. Employers are surprised to learn that they are not establishing the all-important statutory excuse for their foreign workers. Large organisations — including NHS trusts, local authorities, universities and household organisations — are unknowingly putting themselves at risk. They believe using digital verification is enough — but it does not give them the legal protection they think it does. When foreign workers lose their right to work, or even exceed their permitted hours, employers are shocked to be slapped with penalties from the Home Office. Both the gig economy and traditional employment are riddled with loopholes. And while the government focuses on symbolic gestures such as data sharing, illegal work will continue, unchecked and undetected. If this crackdown is to mean anything, there needs to be more enforcement, starting with the government holding the platforms and third-party providers accountable. Emma Brooksbank is a partner at the law firm Freeths
Metro
29 minutes ago
- Metro
Man Utd make contact with Brighton over deal to sign £100m star
Manchester United have approached Brighton over a potential transfer deal to sign their £100m midfielder Carlos Baleba, according to reports. United have 'made contact' with Brighton via intermediaries to explore the conditions of a summer move, The Athletic's David Ornstein has reported. Posting the story on X, Ornstein credited Indykaila, with that transfer insider claiming Brighton want £90m plus 10m in add-ons to sell Baleba. Man Utd, though, value Baleba at £70m and it's thought the player will ask Brighton to reduce their asking price to secure a switch to Old Trafford. The Athletic have stated that 'all sides' have recognised that a move may be 'unrealistic' at this moment in time – especially if the Red Devils sign Benjamin Sesko from RB Leipzig as expected. In The Mixer: Exclusive analysis, FPL tips and transfer talk sent straight to your inbox every week – click here and sign up before Friday to make sure you don't miss the first edition. It's believed United would need to sell a number of players before making a formal offer for Baleba. Offloading Alejandro Garnacho, Antony and Jadon Sancho – for example – is reported to be enough for United to make a bid. United are keen to recruit a new No.6 ahead of the new Premier League season – and have made Baleba one of their main targets. Brighton have no desire to sell the 21-year-old midfielder, who is under contract at the Amex until 2028 with an option to extend by 12 months. The Cameroon international joined the Seagulls in 2023 from Lille and has made 77 appearances for the south coast club to date. There's set to be updates in the 'coming days' if United's interest in Baleba will develop or not. Baleba was named Brighton's Young Player of the Season last term after a number of impressive performances. He scored three Premier League goals in the 2024-25 campaign against Chelsea, Fulham and West Ham respectively. United supporters have been reacting to the news of the club's approach for Baleba on social media. More Trending 'If we get Baleba and [Senne] Lammens on top of [Matheus] Cunha, [Bryan] Mbeumo and Sesko, this will have been a serious, serious summer window,' @123cwahoo posted on Reddit. 'Easily the best window we've had post-Glazers,' @Immersivist added. 'And I mean a window where we're actually buying players with an idea of where they fit in.' 'My head tells me that this is going to be prohibitively expensive for us to do this summer, and we may just be doing the legwork right now to then come back next year for him,' @arnm7890 opined. 'I'd think the idea of getting Baleba is so we can use Bruno [Fernandes] alongside him,' @s_D088z said. 'And then we look like a very potent threat to anyone in terms of attacking football.' MORE: Mikel Arteta drops major hint over Max Dowman ahead of new Premier League season MORE: Chelsea striker joins Sunderland on season-long loan deal with special clause MORE: Arsenal and Man Utd told they should have 'taken a chance' on £46m Liverpool star
