coalman

They needed to say that to avoid future litigation from anyone who bought tickets. And "Gibbo" of course as they'll need to show they've taken it seriously if, ahem when he throws his toys out of the pram

It's interesting just how differing the views of the two sets of fans are. Boro fans seem increasingly convinced that the EFL have already decided to kick us out. We're increasingly convinced it's a fine and points deduction.

"Gibbo" needs to get on the phone sharpish and nip this kind of thing in the bud. At this rate he's going to spend so much money currying opinion in the court of public opinion that he's never going to be able to extort it back through litigation.

I feel dirty for saying this because Ayling should've been off on Tuesday. The fact he and THB made up mid game instead of getting added to the post match shit storm speaks well of him. He's one of those players opposition is going to hate whomever he's playing for.

Not just the prosecution. They've also been judge and jury too.

He was employed by us for maybe three months.

Ideal outcome Saints get a fine and 3 points deduction. The panel recommends sanctions for Boro for their attempts to undermine the process.

Obvious Pompey troll is obvious.

There is a general concept in law around whistleblower protection though that's more for people still employed in the role and history shows that people who have relied on that protection have had a bad time. The question would be whether he has the evidence or has said that there is evidence. If he still has evidence is it because we sent it to his personal phone or because he kept confidential information after he left. If it's the former then we're idiots and whoever is running our IT security needs shooting (see all the Tory ministers using WhatsApp during COVID). If the latter then he's unemployable because all future employers will know that he keeps confidential information after he has finished his role.

Same. I think his reaction to whatever Hellberg said on the touchline was pretty telling in terms of whether he has been involved or not.

I love the way Hull are completely focused on beating us on the football pitch. They've conducted themselves perfectly in this situation.

That's more interesting. The EFL could organise this in such a way that we could appeal but we'd wind up being liable for everyone's costs if we lost. For example - we'd have to pick up the bill for lost revenue from the match. By the same token if we took them to court and demonstrated any punishment was completely disproportionate the EFL would have a similar liability plus liability for our losses. Nobody wants to go to court. This whole dance is, in some ways, a piece of performative art around every seeming to get something out of it without anyone having to exercise the nuclear option.

There is no appeal process to the EFL for this. Middlesbrough would have to take it to court if they disagreed that much. As would we.

Nonsense. The only event that may come close is the persecution of a small group in Western Europe last century and, even then, it's a close run thing.

I think the EFL are playing a shitty hand the best they can at the moment. They don't have any good options here.

The EFL's job right now is to somehow get the last promotion spot decided while having it blow up in their face legally as little as possible. If they let the final just go ahead without having some kind of hearing Boro would be up in arms and "Gibbo"'s army of lawyers and media stooges would be all over it. If they kick Saints out without due process then they have a similar problem. Add to that the fact that they _really_ don't want to set a precedent where clubs seek to change competition outcomes in either the media or court with any realistic chance of success. I doubt that Boro get reinstated for that reason. If we get thrown out then I suspect Hull go straight up. Though again, it has to be proportional and they'd have to be confident that the advantage we've gained by doing whatever dumbass things we did is reflected by whatever is decided. In Swindon's case they broke the rules and it was decided they gained significant advantage. I think that's harder to say in our case.

To be fair to the EFL they can't say much more than that. Otherwise they would be putting pressure onto an independent tribunal. The tribunal may have enough information to make a decision quickly or it may be more complicated than that. This is a pretty epic turnaround given the circumstances.

They changed the rules after Leicester so it's possible.

That would spoil the ambience of his golf club.

Middlesbrough FC just published their updated organisation chart with a structure which, they believe, allows them to compete for promotion from the Championship this season and beyond. The new club motto is "Either win or lawyers in" apparently.

Still equally prone to getting stuck between your teeth though.

Jesus Christ. That beach ball could have bounced back and really done some damage to someone. Thanks for pointing that out 1-post-Mick_Channon.

There are two tiers to GDPR fines which indicate the possible maximum. The lower one is 10 million Euros or 2% of the firms global revenue (whichever is higher). The higher is 20 million Euros or 4% of the firms global revenue (whichever is higher). Either of those fines is going to bankrupt a golf club. https://gdpr.eu/fines/ However there are factors which might alter the fine sought and it's up to the regulator in each country how to apply this. For example Meta "only" got fined 1.2 billion Euros for mishandling user data. Instead of maximum fine of 4% of their global revenue which would have been over 5 billion.

Yup. Dates are hard