coalman

When you change managers and your leadership team so often there should be no surprise when you have no corporate governance.

He figured out how to get the players playing for each other which no one has done since Ralph. Then lost it all through stupidity and ignorance. It's a shame but he has to go as does anyone who was part of it. We've given the opportunity of a fair hearing. Next season we have the Sport Republic manager merry go round to look at again.

Because we didn't know what Saints would be presenting at the hearing. Everyone deserve a fair hearing. If you're the manager it's your job to know the rules in your league.

Thanks for letting us know, Karen.

It reminds me of last season when Martin blamed everything but his own tactics for what went on. That created a culture where people didn't take responsibility that carried over into this season. It meant that when anything went against us on the pitch our heads would drop and we'd give up because we knew it "wasn't our fault". Compare that to Hull's response. Which amounts to "we'll beat whoever you put in front of us on the pitch and please stop fucking with our fans".

That wouldn't alter the fact that we'd breached the rules as they stand but it would offer substantial mitigation of what happens next. Until the panel publishes its findings, we hear the sanction (if any) and from Saints it's all just speculation.

If it's taken by a club photographer it's likely to have been a long lens. Could've been a long way away.

As I see it - the only way we wouldn't contest the charge would be if we didn't have someone watching the train in the 72 hours leading up to the game. And if we have evidence of that the hearing would have been over already.

Which applies equally to what has been briefed to the press against us as much as it does to our own case.

Fair. And agreed.

The trouble with stupidity is that one stupid thing tends to lead to another stupid thing. Until all that's left are... stupid things. So if we were stupid enough to send someone to watch Karen FC training in the 72 hours leading up to the game (assuming no sane mitigation) we're quite likely to continue being stupid.

I do care what we say. As my mate's mum used to say "if you tell one lie you have to tell 1000". No sense winning the hearing only for it to turn up with did it nefariously later on. I'm also incredibly curious about what we're presenting to them.

Or it won't. Both sets of fans have a firm idea what they expect the sanction(s) to be. Either or both could be very wrong here.

Well, part of the regulations talk about how any punishment has to be perceived as maintaining sporting integrity. So influencing that perception is something they'd want to do. There's no contempt of court here as it's not a legal case. But it is run by lawyers so they may well look unfavourably on it.

It's an SEO play. This kind of article is written explicitly for the purposes of raising a company's ranking on Google in the hopes of attracting future business rather than as a statement of authority on the matter in hand. One of the signals that pagerank looks at is the amount of original content on the site. The legal firm in question don't even take on this kind of case according to their services offered.

Incorrect. This is page 86

The place to make that statement is to the independent tribunal. There will be time for public statements after they've decided.

#KarenFCForumWatch A lot of people are certain about a lot of things they couldn't possibly know for sure. It turns out that 2 + 2 = "Gibbo" in a shock reverberating with mathematicians the world over. As more KarenFC fans gather online the rage is reaching a fever pitch to the extent that Samaritans have cancelled all annual leave for the next few weeks. A nation watches on. Concerned.

#KarenFCForumWatch In news that will surprise no one Saints fans are vile, Fabrice29 has emerged as an unlikely hero and nobody messes with Karen Gibson, the Don of the northeast. A legal opinion agreeing with a forum poster has been taken as the final and conclusive proof that things are going their way. Many people are angry.

That is one of the many things about this case that we don't know and is being speculated about that we may or may not find out later. Ironically, had the person in question not deleted their footage - it would make compelling evidence either way as to whether that was the case. People who live in strawmen shouldn't throw straw. Or something.

It looks like an innovative use of SEO to expand a law firm's domain authority to me. Rather than a robust legal opinion that the law firm in question would be able to defend in court.

I would imagine we'll just shrug and get on with our lives if that happens. We broke a rule for which there is no clear punishment defined and were found guilty. While we may or may not agree with whatever punishment is handed out it doesn't get much clearer than that.

And bringing up the hypothetical case of a member of the public doing it is the kind whataboutery that would be harmful to our hearing if our lawyers brought it up.

One would fucking hope so.

According to the regulations then probably not. Just because a rule may not be well thought out or, indeed, practical doesn't mean it isn't a rule.