Doctoroncall

Balance of probabilities is that he knew about it but didn’t do anything about it.

But there were some that didn’t like it hence the new rule which Saints breached three times. If the punishment was clearly stated rather than the wishy-washy could be anything from fine to sporting sanctions, people I’m sure would have taken more responsibility. Not a defence but certainly would focus the minds.

NTT20 take on Spygate 2.0

If Priestman got 12 months ban, how long for Tonda? 18 or 24 months considering the punishment the club got?

If it’s rife, the balance would turn to capture the spy as that would be more beneficial because of the punishment now out weighs the benefit.

Well, we won’t be playing in any EFL competitions next season if that’s the case! Pretty sure there is an undertaking to abide by the rules which will also include any disciplinary measures.

Well you could argue on the basis probabilities of the other two games (noted) spied.

@stfrancisofbenali has been more or less right.

Get a couple of points back for next season perhaps. The trouble is there were multiple breaches. Maybe even more than the three reported for this IDC. Also need to see if the FA ban any staff.

Get a couple of points back for next season perhaps. The trouble is there were multiple breaches. Maybe even more than the three reported for this IDC. Also need to see if the FA ban any staff.

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!