trousers

Is that a Middlesbrough bug on his lapel...?

"If you can't beat them...."

Ooh... I do like a plot twist! Leaving it a tad late though, aren't they...?

That's harsh, but if they can beat the EFL's 'disproportionate' sanction then why not...

The sponsors, who prop up our 'Financial Fair Play' status, probably do...

Yep, I don't think anyone is suggesting that any actual bias was likely but agree we should/could have used it to our advantage.... You can bet your bottom dollar Gibson and/or his legal team would've tried to capitalise on it if they were in our shoes...

I feel another Spiderman meme in my waters...

I'm not sure that citing Southampton's crack legal team for the initial hearing is quite the gotcha he thinks it is...?

Ah, yeah, forgot about that option 👍🏻

When I last complained about my wife's steak cookery she threw it on the roof in a fit of rage. The steaks were high that night, I can tell you.

Any guesses / hunches / ITK info on why the club has gone to ground again today and why no immediate action has been taken against those involved (if only interim suspensions rather than outright dismissal)? I think most of us expected heads to roll 'instantly'... But, no... Not a dickie bird... - something to do with due process on employment rights? - the club are still thinking about a legal appeal, and don't want to prejudice that? - they're inept and don't have a clue? - they need to mop down the boardroom first to clear up the carnage Dragan left in a wake of rage earlier? - something else?

Yeah, probably....

Please can we change the title of the thread to "Sport Republic's handling of the events"...? 'Southampton Football Club' is much more than the current custodians* of our club... (*Obviously the wrong choice of word given how much they've wreaked havoc, but you get my drift)

Yeah, but it's fun interacting with the handful of morally superior posters on here when they put us numbskulls in our place....

Fair enough... I'm just thinking out loud on possible "fairer" options that the EFL and/or the commission *could* have come up with at various points in the whole timeline... To be honest, I've got no idea what I'm talking about most of the time.... I think I've just about got away with it though....

Ha! That was you was it? I did wonder if it was anyone on here

The crux for me is that we were sanctioned upon the outcome of two games (both semi final legs) rather than for the single game we attempted to spy for (the first leg). This is why, for me, any sanction should have only applied to the first leg and not the second leg, hence the suggestions along the lines of forfeiting or replaying the first leg or having a further one off knock out match, would have been a "fairer" approach. Of course, given that could / would have endangered the date of the final, the EFL were never going to entertain a possible fairer solution in favour of preserving their timetable...

Was he duty bound to declare it, even if not classed as a "conflict" in legal terms? (He may well have done of course, just asking out of curiosity)

Yep, that sounds more proportionate than disqualification 👍🏻

Only two months in total...

At that stage of the timeline (which I wouldn't have let it get to if it was me) it's a choice between 'no sporting sanction' and an 'unfair sporting sanction' (IMO) For me, the 'lesser of two evils' in that scenario, is that no sanction is better than an unfair one. You're more than welcome to disagree of course 👍🏻

If that doesn't trigger the 'pony' klaxon I don't know what will...

I answered that question about 6 pages ago...

Bugger... You beat me to it and I had "fanny" on my bingo card too! Git!

I'd go as far to say we've all become unhinged