This is actually a really good article from Sachin Nakrani which makes this small blunder stick out all the more:
What's that you say? This isn't a grammar blog with a soccer theme? You wouldn't know it from the content of this post:
"While he has no complaints with the new manager at Stamford Bridge, Luiz Felipe Scolari, relations with Kenyon appear to have broken down, leaving the midfielder with three options: sign a pre-contract agreement with Inter to join under the Bosman ruling next summer, or relax his stance and sign the four-year deal on offer at Stamford Bridge. The third path - to leave under the Webster ruling - would be the most complicated, and most inflammatory in terms of his relationship with the club's supporters."
Dear Guardian writers, why not just write "...sign a pre-contract with Inter, relax his stance and sign the four-year deal at Stamford Bridge, or leave under the Webster Ruling. Without a doubt, the third path would be the most complicated...". If you're going to precede your list with a clause which includes three options, you should provide each one of the options within the parameters of that sentence. Otherwise, I say to myself, "Shit, the Guardian totally left out one of Lampard's options" until I read the next sentence and realize you're all idiots.
File this one under pedantry.
