Mozz

I suspect as part of a complete kit with the plain shorts/socks and name/number the back won't look too bad, but as a plain shirt on it's own the back is absolutely honking.

It's a weird one as different comps will have different rules. Back when we were in the Europa League there was definitely a UEFA rule with a colour contrast formula. More recently we're rigidly stuck to plain backs whilst others in the same league with similar stripes haven't always done the same. Off the back of Parsons comments last night I had a very quick scan of the EFL handbook and couldn't see anything specific, but a google search through up this line from Stoke's kit launch this year: "Supporters will notice that, in response to strong supporter feedback and to prepare for upcoming EFL regulation changes, merchandise shirts feature fully striped backs whereas players' shirts will comprise a plain panel, enhancing visibility of names and numbers for supporters, officials, and broadcasters on matchdays." So looks like they're may be something more formal for the EFL coming.

I wondered similar. In the Chelsea case the written reasons from the initial hearing are dated 12th January, the appeal hearing was held on 18th May, and the written decision/reasons from that (and the initial hearing) have not been released until today. I'm not suggesting the Tonda case will have anything near as extended a timeline, but it seems notable that it in the event of an appeal the intial decision doesn't seem to be released.

If the charges are admitted, the commision would still be required, it would just move straight to the second paragraph below: "The Regulatory Commission will consider its decision in private, and first consider whether or not the Charge of Misconduct is proved. If it is so proved, then the Regulatory Commission shall inform the person or Club subject to the Charge of this decision and invite them to raise matters in mitigation. However, if the Charge is admitted the Regulatory Commission shall deem it proved and move straight to considering submissions as to mitigation. Having heard such submissions as to mitigation, the Regulatory Commission shall retire to consider the appropriate sanction."

Yes. By the FA to inform their decision as to whether to bring a misconduct charge. I presume the content of their interview with him would be included within their evidence to the commission.

Nope, not even close to that point. Yesterday was essentially the deadline for Tonda to respond on two points: Whether he admits or denies the charges brought by the FA. Whether he wants the matter dealt with on written submissions alone or at a personal heaing (both by an independent regulatory commission). I presume we'll be going down the full hearing route, at which point that will need to be scheduled, evidence/arguments submitted, witnesses called etc, so would still have time to rumble on. The commision will then decide: If the charge has been proven (if denied in step 1 above). The sanction. Following this, either side (Tonda or the FA) have right of appeal against the decision.

Seeing as the home shirt is predominantly red given the back, I suspect we'll wear that, possibly with the red alternate shorts that are on the online store.

Just to note that this was two different sanctions to two different elements. The £200k was the sanction from the EFL to the club. The written warning (to club, Bielsa and an analyst) was from the FA.

I was just wondering how the FA dealt with the Bielsa incident: "A statement from the Football Association read: “The FA has on this occasion decided to conclude this matter by issuing formal warnings against Leeds United, Leeds’ manager, Marcelo Bielsa, and a club video analyst. “Notwithstanding the FA’s decision on this occasion, the FA will take appropriate action should further evidence of this nature come to light in the future.”" Not even a charge!

I don't think we know that. The pulled statement said we "acknowledged" the charge, nothing around "admitting". Though I suspect given the wording of the regulation we will be in the territory of admitting, and attempting to apply mitigation to the sanction (though hopefully a bit less naively than the first time round with the EFL).

Not that I can see. Given Saints initially pushed the statement at bang on 10am, I presume the charge has been made, but the public communication is embargoed until a certain date/time which we've got wrong (hence the hasty deletion).

It will be because that's not how the process works. The FA will bring a charge following an investigation (the point it seems like we are at now). An independant disciplinary commission will then hold a heraring to decide on guilt (if charge not admitted) and sanction.

If footy headlines are reporting it I have no doubt it’s the actual the shirt, but I’m 99% the images are the same as from the other leak, just cut out from the previous background.

In the Fan Advisory Board minutes from 11th May (between first and second legs) it says: "P&O to remain front of shirt if staying in same league, and Midnite to remain also. Betting likely to be on sleeve or training kit. Having lots of conversations which will conclude at the end of the season." Which I would read as us having the option to get something more lucrative than P&O if in PL.

Could be a combo of essentially treating the EFL Cup first round as a final warm-up hame now it's on the weekend, and planning based on being in the PL which would have meant having an extra couple of weekends before the first game.

We can't. The third placed team that will play the winner of England's group will come from one of group E, H, I, J or K (Scotland are in Group C).

I'd go Hearts. Ambitious, in CL qualifiers next season and have just lost their main striker (Shankland) to Rangers.

The full written decision in the Swindon case from earlier this season contains: "Further, the EFL submitted in the Referral that, in the event the Alleged Breaches were found proven, the appropriate sanction would be for the Club to be expelled from the EFL Trophy for the 2025/2026 season and forfeit the prize which would otherwise have been awarded from winning the Fixture." That indicatres that even though the EFL don't dictate the sanction (the independant commision does), they may have already advised the commision what they deem an appropriate sanction to be as part of the rererral.

The BBC's article this morning contains "Only the EFL or Southampton can appeal, which would be heard by an Independent League Arbitration panel with three new members. An appeal should be held within 14 days, but the EFL is expected to ask for a resolution by Friday."

All of the above, though it seems A unlikely to be required as reported unlikely we contest breach. I know it’s lengthy, but the Swindon case linked on the previous page is very much worth a read to understand how the process works and the considerations that go into deciding the sanction.

There is a Hull kits account on Twitter who says he has been told that kits for the final were agreed before Semis, with the higer placed league finisher getting to wear primary kit. As such we'll be in home kit, and Hull will wear home shirt, but will change shorts from black to amber (so similar to when we were at Hull earlier in the season and wore home shirt but, changed shorts from black to white).

We gave them the minimum required allocation of 2,000 so there were seats either end of the away section that weren't ever put on sale. The ones Kingsland side (in that photo) were left empty, so presume some Boro fans from the other blocks moved into them. The ones Chapel side were covered over with black 'level one' netting.

Unsure. I am a season ticket holder with 0 aways, so my window started at 9:30 this morning. I joined the queue just after 9:20, got to the front and was let on to the site about 9:40, and then was checked out and complete with no issues at 9:45. Though thinking back, I wasn't already logged in. When I got to the front of the queue and was let on to the site I then had to log in. Might be relevant, might not.

More numerous, plus the impact of the goal itself given it was basically point blank into an empty net. Opta have a total xG for Portsmouth of 1.66 of which half (0.885) comes from the goal itself with the remainder coming from 13 other shots. By comparison they have us at 1.18 xG from 6 shots, from which Leo's goal was 0.554 and Armstrong's missed one-on-one 0.421.

You should be able to get it via the separate Sky Sports app I think.