Holmes_and_Watson

The confidence that brought us Will Still. 🙂

Yes. And when we win, we can humbly award the victory to Hull, before folding up the club and reforming as the St Mary's Martyrs. 🙂

Wine

Yeah. When Parsons mentioned change, I don't think he was referring to a new slide on the new joiner presentation pack around scouting rules. The reaction, apparently, from players and staff did not indicate they were willing to rally behind him for next season. If we act quickly SR can get in their standard 3 managers in a season award. 🙂

I miss that jacket of mine. 🙂

I've seen 48 hours and Police Academy, if that helps. Actually, I might be Parsons successor, with that kind of knowledge. 🙂

Good to see you post again, Gio. All the on field cheating have rules in place around them already. So, don't apply here, as blatant as they can be. The panel are not being swayed by the reward at stake. They are seeing it as a straight rule breach. Since the punishment is open, they've removed us from it. Double standards and various forms of cheating/ gamesmanship are rife. The EFL could argue that this rule was helping to remove one aspect of it. Shame they didn't get round to setting out punishments at the time. This was a very rare occasion I decided to be optimistic. That's not happening again. Parsons change will be happing part of his statement, p,us the player reaction really means Tonda is gone. The potential wage increases, bonuses, sponsorship deals and career progression that's just come to a screeching halt, mean there's little chance of them supporting Tonda going forward. Parsons being the lightning rod for their frustrations, and his chat with Gibson should see him depart too. Spors, who brought Tonda in, will potentially be another one. Especially, if he knew. The £200 million is potential revenue. The panel deemed we were trying to unfairly influence and outcome against the rules. The other examples are whataboutery. Parsons is toast. Sorry, but I think Watford now have him. Proven promotion-getting manager with no cheating involved. By the time Parsons is through, we'll have fessed up to enough to ensure our relegation. Yup. Looks as though all sides were using whatever leverage they could get. Fingers crossed Boro have over extended themselves. But, I doubt it will help us. N Clinton Morrison can only do so much. 🙂

This post is just to show I caught up with the thread. Myself and Sherpa Watson will be making base camp here, ahead of stormy weather ahead.

Engineering hasn't changed in all that time. @Whitey Grandad read it in 1968. I read it in 2026, just after he typed "engineering." Just the same. 🙂 This post was brought to you by the Give @trousers more posts to catch up on foundation.

Is my final ticket valid for this event?

There! Some light at the end of it all. Support the Southampton Phoenixexes..um..Phoenicee... Southampton Big Birds (sponsored by @Lord Duckhunter I was going to type "Up The Southampton Big Birds!" but it sounded very wrong.

Just wait for the reaction when Hull play suprise guest stars, Bayer Leverkusen. 🙂

"And just listen to those Hull supporters. Easily out singing the 30 000 Southampton fans having to watch the Middlesbrough team."

Nope. All good. Just some technical issues. As the Official Site says, everything going ahead. See you Saturday! 🙂

The club have not done any risk assessment ahead of their prolonged activity. They've not considered the range of potential sanctions, thinking that at worst they would get a slapped wrist. Leeds' fine was so low, as there wasn't the 72 hours rule in place. Once it was in, and with any punishment on the table, we did it anyway.

A payment for "analytical work" to the whistleblower that he actually does report on, if for quite an expensive sum, would be more likely. After all, he did work for them.

After a summer of EFL panels, it will be an odd looking table, as everyone works their way back from a variety of minus points.

Thanks also to Pep leaving, Spurs being in difficulty and Sarah's parting comments.

He was more than happy to do what he thought lots of clubs do, to get an advantage. All the silly bits of subterfuge are just part of a game he certainly felt others do all the time. It's considered to be a bad look, and lots of clubs have secured premises or do the important work behind closed doors. The EFL are the ones with rules in place about it. The club's shock at the lack of clarity on sanctions beside the offence, tells us that they would have probably done it anyway.

"Club sources told The Athletic that they felt the hearing should have taken place after the final, rather than being expedited by the EFL. They thought there were too many rules that had no defined sanctions, which left too much open to interpretation, and if the rules had been clearer, the incident would have been resolved more speedily." Like a lot of us, they looked at the punishment as being Leeds based. Not that the panel could use any number of sanctions it had left open. Obviously, if Tonda is banned, he's toast. But things internally will come to a head before then.

We only give statements to opponent chairpersons. 🙂

B` The reaction I've had this morning has been one of surprise and shock at us being booted out. Then back to their concerns about their own clubs and their issues. I'll be getting more annoyed by the media going on about it. Opposings fans on match days will obviously milk it. But that's expected, and we'd do that. Hopefully it will be lots of "You're only winning, 'cause you cheat!" Lots of internal processes and contracts will be getting a look at. If we don't actually have someone to do that, a job as should be their first step. However, despite the impact, football is a bit warped. For example, if they thought Tonda was the guy to promote us next season, they may be reluctant to part company with him. Likewise Spors. Not so much lack of faith in our players. But a desire to skirt around rules to get the most advantage. Seemingly based on it being allowed elsewhere, and it being an open secret in the analysts world. If anything, we've shown lack of faith in our analysts. We couldn't trust the SR data we'd captured. We needed people on the training grounds as well. Aside:Loads of great posts on the VA page, I'm going to get around to responding to. Thanks for those. Thanks for that. I was thinking about all the Italian corruption scandals, and their impacts. Good to s ee the summary. A simple one would be that we got to see how they would defend against our set pieces. Then on the day, we do something different and oh look, THB gets another one. Sure, he has to do the work. But, if we know what to expect, then that gives us an edge. It's rubbish that it casts a shadow over goals like that, and the players will feel that too. They hot desk between shifts at garden centres and posting FM videos. 🙂 SR's analysis is now another thing that looks shoddy. Noone with experience This will be part of the internal discussions. On one side Spors brought him in and we've done well (shadow over some of it). We're assuming that Tonda thought it was acceptable practice and/or widespread. Tonda may not have been told a trying to the contrary. He may even have told others, and they okayed it. And then there's the financial and reputational cost. The potential breakdown in internal relationships both backroom, and with the squad and club staff.

The only thing I've read is that we're saying we should have had 14 days for our admission of guilt to be punished, and not the 3 or whatever it was. Is there another loophole, as that one is doomed?

This. The panel knew we had broken a rule. Ignorance or everyone does it really are meaningless. This was put in place to prevent gaining an unfair advantage. So, they were left with, as you say, the same decision they'd make in a cup tie. We also admitted to two other counts. Whether that's from a whistleblower or not, is meaningless. The panel docked us the equivalent points, with what I think was a reduction for cooperation. It's come as a shock. And I didn't think they'd impose what seemed like such a leap from the pre rule Leeds episode. But there's clear logic in their process, and as you say, follows what you'd expect. There will be clubs, like Millwall, doing what if games. But we've been punished for next season to avoid that upheaval, much like previous decisions whether it feels fair to those impacted this season or not. That also retains the final placing for this season, keeping 'boro in the final. I'd much prefer they docked us 4 points off of this season's total. But it's in their remit to not retroactively go through the season's results.

Probably would have seen that fine come back in. That and the 4 points. That's assuming Boro would have presented all the evidence, if say they had been 4-0 up after the first leg. But then, Parsons would have probably already confessed all by then to them.