Doctoroncall

There could be an Agreed Decision. Regulation 86 allows the EFL and the club enter an Agreed Decision where it is appropriate in the circumstances to conclude a matter effectively and equitably without referring the matter to a Disciplinary Commission. Now, I don’t know if the independent tribunal will be considered as a Disciplinary Commission. Edit: yes the two are the same. So unlikely an Agreed Decision can be made.

It’s not a penalty to make an example of or deter, it’s a penalty for breaching two rules with specific context. Remember no other league has the intent to observe rule. If the EFL want to reflect the seriousness of a rule breach, the range of potential penalties should be a higher minimum or they’ll stated an aggravated breach. The current choice of penalty is wide, giving the tribunal flexibility based on evidence and context.

They may have the summary and result ready but the actual report of the meeting later. If it’s anything like regulatory inspections or company audits, documented reports are finalised after the meeting and the summary and result given on the last day.

How much did West Ham spend in January? A lot to recoup it feels. Nunes adds another PL team relegation to his CV.

That’s the squad sorted if we remain in the Championship. Young hungry players… can’t go wrong 😑

No other European league has this rule. Only the fair play one Leeds breached. Also, just because Boro training is more open doesn’t excuse the fact it’s still a breach to do so.

If the EFL and independent commission have followed due process, what is his claim? There is an appeal process which can be used by either side. That would be all.

What’s the age limit for academy players?

Leeds broke one rule. Saints have allegedly broken two, the same one as Leeds and a more specific one around observing opponents training. It’s the latter which seems to have more weight to any punishment. Any circumstantial evidence will not be public, so I don’t see any point guessing what the punishment could possibly be.

He’ll have more time than most to learn and adapt! Not exactly a 9-5 job.

Southampton FC would appeal. The punishment will need to reflect the rules broken given the evidence and circumstances, not regardless of the evidence.

So there was some high tech gear used! 👀

I think stating your point 2 was fair in your previous post. It makes the difference between a fine and sporting sanctions. Anything else is pure speculation with a disgruntled former employee with stolen documents from the club.

This is the only factor which makes it a big deal from a one off small time standpoint. For ordinary fans it’s all unknown, if MB is ITK, it is worrying. However, I would have thought Boro would have leaked something about it.

@coalman clearly made a mistake and meant the month of May. However, I will start a campaign to get him banned from posting this misinformation which people took seriously and in good faith!

Incentive to win if they ever needed one.

Doh! Of course… brain fart!

Good article about the rules being inadequate. not sure if posted. It’s from Mr Samuel at The Times. One point that keeps getting raised is this £200m benefit. I don’t see how, since most if not all will be spent on new players, current player bonuses and new contracts. To add to Boro’s media hype, they have got James Cordon to speak about it!

Comment on the Guardian match report which is a microcosm of football today: Football, for all its beauty, has a habit of behaving like a soap opera that’s been left unsupervised with a calculator. At the top end you’ve got clubs so deep in debt they make payday lenders look responsible, owners selling the stadium to themselves like they’re playing Monopoly on cheat mode, and sponsorship deals so inflated you half‑expect the logo to be “Definitely Not A Shell Company Ltd.” The transfer market isn’t much better: agents taking fees that could fund a small nation, clubs tapping up players with all the subtlety of a drunk uncle at a wedding, and “creative accounting” that would make an auditor weep into their spreadsheets. And then there’s the on‑pitch behaviour, where sportsmanship is more of a suggestion than a rule. Players collapsing like they’ve been hit by a tranquiliser dart, goalkeepers suddenly developing time‑wasting cramp at 89 minutes, and entire teams surrounding the referee as if they’re staging a very angry flash mob. Add in match‑fixing whispers, opaque ownership, and the occasional governing‑body scandal, and you’ve got a sport that somehow manages to be both the world’s favourite pastime and the world’s most chaotic group project. And…. in the context of all of that….a bloke with a phone causes a meltdown. The poll in the DT has 61% in favour of Saints being kicked out (3000 votes) and the article certainly reflects Gibson’s media campaign.

Dealers, unfortunately no, vaccines on the other hand… 😷

Insiders - It’s the new word for Experts which got a hammering during Covid so can’t be used anymore.

Yep, plausible deniability.

Slander not libel. Depends on the outcome of this case.

Just think how bad we’d be without the spying 🕵️

Leeds were doing for half a season, Bielsa gave an in-depth press conference on it. How it added to the overall information but wasn’t crucial.