CSA96

The game’s terrible. I’ve tried 3/4 times but it’s just not good and lost a tonne of its immersiveness which was its charm. I’ll give FM27 another try but 26 was barely worth releasing, I’ve spent the whole season carrying on my FM24 saves

Crazy really. He sued Derby for £40m-£45m in 2019 and settled three years later in 2022 for £3m but you'd think he'd won them some sort of king's ransom by the way they bleat on about it

Latest update in the Northern Echo In ordinary circumstances, it could take an independent commission up to a fortnight to publish their judgement along with the written explanations for their findings. Given that the Championship play-off final is due to take place on Saturday, though, the hope is that the verdict in this case will be issued within 24 hours of the hearing taking place. Written conclusions will then be published later in the summer. The judgement will initially be delivered to the two legal teams involved in the case, before being more widely released. Both the EFL, who are effectively mounting a case on Middlesbrough’s behalf, and Southampton, as the defending party, have a right of appeal against the judgement. An appeal would almost certainly mean that Saturday's final would have to be rescheduled.

Squad Cost Rules (SCR) are calculated as... Clubs are allowed to spend 85% of their total revenue on football costs: - Head Coach and Players salaries - Agent fees - Transfer fees (amortised) Excluded from the calculation is: - Women's squad costs - Academy squad costs - Infrastructure costs Club owners are allowed to inject £10m over and above the 85% as an annual equity injection, should they wish.

Yes and the reciprocal agreement between PL/EFL was born out of the fact that they kept running into issues around implementing financial management penalties, rather than specific competition rules

You're right, the charge right now only relates to before the first leg at the Riverside and that's all that is being determined and ruled against at this stage But I think the point that's being made is, if we go in to not contest the charge re: Boro incident as is being reported, but our mitigation is to defend ourselves by saying the analyst(s) went rogue, he wasn't instructed to do this by management, it's not club policy etc, the board are surprised and disappointed at the conduct, then that will all come tumbling down if/when the panel is in possession of solid evidence from Boro via their whistleblower (if that is what they have) They sound suitably confident that their ex-SFC employee's statement/evidence will indicate that actually, the rule breaking inside the club re: spying was systemic and was directed by a person or persons at management level. In that event, we'll be found to be guilty of the first charge of spying at Boro, but more concerningly, our attempt at mitigation will be shown to be a load of shit and then there'll be further charges to follow (and separate legal actions, presumably) based on the fact this would then become a lot bigger than it first appeared As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I am pretty relaxed about the individual charge for the transgression at Boro's training ground. We'll be found guilty and I don't see the EFL removing our right to contest the final based on one transgression, as it would be disproportionate. But the concern should be if Boro do have a smoking gun(s) from the whistleblower with a paper trail up to somebody senior at the club. It's pretty easy to believe a disgruntled ex-employee who left under a cloud might have made copies of exchanges onto personal devices IMO

Re: the photo of the 'spy' It was explained when the story first broke that security staff in the main building spotted him on a CCTV camera and alerted the club photographer, who was out photographing the training session and asked him to get a clearer, front-on shot of the person filming before security staff would approach him, so that if he ran off (and hadn't bought a coffee in Gibson's golf club.. FFS lad) then they would've been able to try and identify him still

Stefan Borson pretty dismissive of the possibility/appropriateness of Boro attending the hearing

There we go

You would assume Middlesbrough wouldn't be telling all and sundry that they have strong evidence and feel confident if that was the case, but then I remember the photo of Inspector Gadget and his high tech surveillance equipment, so who truly knows

That will obviously be considered but if they genuinely do have the receipts in terms of communications from Spors to the analysis team (which he pointed out he was assuming responsibility for when he was appointed) then it's fair evidence

Well it's being claimed there is a written statement from a former Saints employee that spying was a mandated tactic from the club and that there's a paper trail leading back to Johannes Spors, so that would be pretty solid if it can be put in front of the committee...

As it stands, there are clearly two issues at hand: 1. The original incident against Middlesbrough last week - We are clearly guilty, it's widely known that we won't contest it and the punishment won't be expulsion for an isolated incident and a first offence 2. Have Saints been cheating throughout the season? - If this is provable and can be traced back to orders from on high, then the gloves are off and our entire season is called into question Gibson already knows that we are not contesting Point 1 but he also knows that it won't lead to us not being allowed to have the chance to carry on and win the playoffs and return to the Premier League. So now he has been frantically building a case around Point 2, trying to submit as much permissible and substantial evidence to prove that Saints have been up to no good all season and simply cannot be allowed to win the playoffs by the EFL I am not concerned by Point 1 but Point 2 is concerning, especially with the reports re: the whistleblower and being confident in having significant evidence that will lead to our removal from the playoffs

Josh Simons, Labour MP for Makerfield has announced that he is standing down in order to create the opportunity for Andy Burnham to re-enter parliament

It would only be new to us, though. They've been saying for a few days that he has an ex-employee willing to go on the record and so he has presumably shared that with the EFL for the hearing already. It's just being kept out of the public domain (presumably to protect whoever this whistleblower is)

You're right. They are just covering their arses in event of something unprecedented happening. The actual Ts and Cs will be pretty much identical to what they usually are

He does. They are claiming he has an ex-Saints employee with a written statement and proof of mandated spying at Saints that goes beyond the isolated incident at present

BBC Look North having some fun with Spygate from a Hull perspective

That's a holding statement by Hull, really. I wouldn't attach too much importance to it at this stage re: EFL trying not to sell tonnes of tickets before communicating the outcome, understandable. In an ideal world that would happen

Because Gibson's got an eye on preparing for what comes next. Once he doesn't get the EFL punishment he's stomping his feet for and demanding - Saints to be removed and our place at Wembley gifted to Boro - he'll take direct legal action against SFC to claim damages instead so that we have to pay him to fuck off. Just ask Derby.