Holmes_and_Watson

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.

Coinciding with a flu outbreak amongst our interns? 🙂

The club referred them to the website for updates. They don't know yet. 🙂

I certainly enjoy the community connection with a smaller, local side. I had a post ready when someone mentioned Saville, earlier. As serious as this is, that was far worse. And I'm still here now. So, I guess I'll still be supporting going forward. That doesn't mean that, depending on the report, anyone in the current structure should still be here. @S-Clarke posted some detail of the mood darkening at 'boro, when Parsons fessed up. Unless Dragan has chatted to him and said "here's what I want you to say" then he's out the door. naive to the point of incompetnece and beyond in any competitive industry. Still processing it a bit. So, I'll see what comes out. It's certainly changed how I see myself as a supporter, and how I can express views on some subjects.

> Puts hand up in an instant. < Based on this... Spied v Boro - punted out of playoff Spied against 2 other clubs. 4 points deduction. I think 6, but -2 for our co-operation. So, following that, 2-3 points per game. At some point, they may just decide to relegate us, and void our matches. They have a new precedent set (appeal pending) Oh that's hard on them. They've only just got past their first glitter picture. joining the dots is months away... 🙂

Aha! Our cunning strategy of being kicked out in 3 days rather than being kicked out in 14 defense, since Parsons fessed up to it all. >sigh< Yeah. It has that feel to it. Making tea, I've had to turn the radio away from 3 mentions of us this evening. No doubt there was plenty more of it. I'm sure we wanted to be famous, not infamous. 🙂 "Gosh! Too busy to check into SaintsWeb. I'll just check the official site to make sure everything's fine after the appeal. Yup. Tickets now on general sale. All good... ... hey! Is this a new shirt the club have released just for Wembley? It looks just like a Middle...oh....noes...." 🙂 You're always looking for something to go with that Parsons tattoo. 🙂 Please check you're predictive text. The word "appear" seems to be getting added into sentences. 🙂

I had a moment of thinking that I had my local team to still support. @Gloucester Saint was having a similar path, I think, and probably others. But, for me, it was just a moment. That might change again, depending on what else comes out 🙂 Fine up until 72 hours for EFL. Beyond that, clubs are considered to be fine to work on specific game tactics. Whether it's behind walls or on a playing field. Formerly bad form, but now could be 3 points per game/ forfeiting the game. Or, if in a play off, lose it automatically. Had that been in the rulebook, perhaps people would have adhered more to the fair play aspect. Enter Scott Marshall QC! 🙂 If not exploring legal options, then certainly having a word with their agent. A possible 40% pay rise plus loads of bonuses and career opportunities gone. And the guy who may well be responsible (Tonda) is standing there trying to motivate you ahead of another season of it.

Noes! That's what li'l Parsons got told, when he was a kid! Look where that's got us! 🙂

Just wait for the news that the season he was there, is also now under review. 🙂

"ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a pretty basic one. One that no one seems to have told Parsons or anyone else, unfortunately.

I thought, due to the logistics of switching around the supports, we'd all be getting free 'boro shirts, and have to support them through gritted teeth. 🙂

It's not continuous. Occasionally LD types "chicks" 🙂

Gentlemanly, assuming responsiblity and sportsmanlike from parsons in communication with a peer. Like yourself, in my industry, he would never reach a position where he would be able to hold such a conversation. Niave, irresponsible and legally reckless from parsons in communication with a litigious competitor.

If true, it's more self inflicted all the time.

Where are you on the scale now? It will be nice to know when acceptance kicks in 🙂

I know where we can get a grassy knoll, and a lone intern, if that helps. #jokingbantz

Wasn't there a single person at our club to advise him otherwise? Or is this a result of SR having gutted all the scouting, into data led decisions, so we only had interns to send. "Southampton's key defence was that Tonda didn't know and it didn't come up at the garden centres our interns worked at." Tonda, unlike us, can always just move up to the PL, as I understand it's not a rule there.

I heard he'd been put off his game, by someone lurking behind a tree.

This is where I am. Yes, they have made a decision (appeal pending). Yes, if we did it, there should be punishment. If we did it often, it should be more. The jump from the pre-rule punishment to here just seems massive. Yes, the club should have taken the worst case scenario in the open ended list of sanctions as possible. But, had we missed out through results, I'd have been hoping to build on this season to get us over the line next season. So caught between the club accepting accountability and the pitfalls of tearing it all up again for next season. Mind you, if I had worked my butt off to be a match away from a 40% pay rise plus loads of bonuses and career opportunities, only for my bosses to screw it up, I'd be questioning my loyalties.

Yes, we will have analysts near other clubs training grounds. Not to watch their traing. Just to capture all the other clubs' analysts breaching the 72 hour rule. Although, this decision should put a stop to that.

Consider the rule having been in place, and then Bielsa popped up to say they'd always done it. Going by this result, Leeds would be:- Deducted a massive of points. But, if the play off result here is followed through, then automatically relegated. Either with matches voided or an automatic 3-0 victory awarded to all opponents. If it's systemic, at what point do you rely on individual clubs coming forward, before determining it was likely all of them, and punish accordingly.