trousers

Indeed... But the rules.... The rules....!

For the umpteenth time, I'm not interested in what rules he did or didn't break🤦🏼

Much like I can't understand why some cannot grasp that it's possible to compare the crime separately to the rules and punishments.... If I murder someone in country A and country B, its still murder whether country A has a rule that imprisons me for 20 years and country B has a different rule that hands down a death penalty. Ergo, I'll continue to compare Eckert's and Bielsa's crimes, regardless of what rules they broke and what their punishment are.

The EFL.... ergo, good question! Wouldn't it be 'interesting' if the Middlesbrough CEO (and EFL board member) was involved in the tender process for choosing the company that supplies independent panel members for the EFL...? We're all unhinged I tell you... UNHINGED!!!

ItS bECAusE tHe RuLeS ChaNGeD!!!!!

No, Sport Resolutions chose the panel members

....and pray 🙏

And they've both just started tweeting again, within minutes of each other... coincidence? Been behind the scenes taking to / being briefed by the club...?

A member of the independent disciplinary commission that expelled Saints from the Championship play-offs has dismissed claims of bias. David Winnie addressed some social media commentary, stemming from his brief spell playing for Middlesbrough more than three decades ago. Winnie, a former footballer turned solicitor, made a single appearance for Boro 33 years ago, and was one of three panel members on Tuesday. Saints were ruled out of the play-offs after the club was found to have spied on a Boro training session before the first leg of their semi-final. On Friday, Winnie told PA: "The suggestion that a single appearance for Middlesbrough Football Club more than three decades ago could in any way influence my judgment as a member of an independent disciplinary commission is wholly without foundation. "My involvement with the club consisted of one professional appearance approximately 33 years ago and has no bearing whatsoever on my ability to approach these proceedings impartially and objectively. "As with all commission members, my duty was to consider only the evidence, the applicable EFL regulations, and the submissions advanced by the parties. "The decision reached was unanimous and followed detailed legal argument, documentary evidence, witness testimony and careful deliberation by an experienced independent panel. "At no stage was any issue raised by either party regarding my independence or suitability to sit on the commission. "Had there been any legitimate basis for concern, the appropriate procedures existed for that to be addressed before the hearing proceeded. "Professional integrity in these proceedings is paramount. My role was to uphold the integrity of the competition and apply the regulations fairly, without fear or favour, and that is precisely what the commission did." It has also been raised that the law firm of another panellist, Lydia Banerjee, Littleton Chambers, was in 2018 contracted by Middlesbrough to represent them in cases relating to Garry Monk's dismissal and a contractual claim. Records show barristers from Littleton Chambers represented both sides of the dispute across two cases, while Banerjee appears to have no direct link. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing. With respect to the composition of the independent disciplinary commission, panel members are appointed by an external body - Sport Resolutions. Guidance to panel members covers when matters may constitute a conflict, with only work or other links in the past three years ordinarily considered. All parties - the EFL and Saints - were deemed to know the matters and had an opportunity to raise objections to the panel members, without doing so. The EFL declined to comment on the matter. Saints have been approached. Other observations related to the charge noted Middlesbrough chairman Neil Bausor's position on the EFL's board of directors since July 2021. Bausor did not attend board briefings on the matter, nor did he receive any papers issued. He was also not involved in any of the proceedings. This is standard practice in respect of conflicts of interest. The commission found Saints head coach Tonda Eckert authorised spying at Boro, and earlier visits to training sessions held by Oxford and Ipswich. The commission said it was “particularly deplorable” that junior staff were delegated to carry out the observations, with the intern caught at Boro’s training session telling the commission he felt pressured to do it. Winnie, the partner and head of sports at Gilson Gray LLP, acknowledged that the commission’s decision would have “serious ramifications” across football, but added: “The commission’s duty was not to consider popularity, reputation or consequence in isolation, but to uphold the integrity of the competition and apply the regulations fairly, independently and without fear or favour. “The commission unanimously concluded that the conduct in question represented a deliberate and organised attempt to obtain a competitive advantage in breach of fundamental principles of sporting integrity and good faith. “Football depends upon public trust. Supporters, clubs, players and stakeholders must have confidence that competitions are conducted on a level playing field. “This outcome reflects the seriousness with which the commission viewed repeated breaches of the regulations, particularly within the context of one of the most financially and competitively significant competitions in English football. The message is clear: cheating, in any form, has no place in the game and will not be tolerated. “Whilst the sanctions imposed are severe, the commission considered them necessary, proportionate and essential to protect the integrity and credibility of English football moving forward.”

P.s. just spotted a typo in my post above.... Apologies for the erroneous 'r' in 'proxy'....

Steady... you're in danger of straying back into "unhinged" territory here....

Is this the guy?

Says the club under sanctions for financial irregularities....

Yep, I floated this a while back... as you say, surely some players questioned where this wonderful new 'inside information' was coming from... human beings are naturally curious and inquisitive creatures... apart from football players, it would seem.... that said, maybe there's a good reason we've only seen statements from 3 players so far, and the rest are keeping quiet....?

I wasn't asking about the rules... we already know that the same 'crime' is treated differently now... that's not my point... I was just wondering who was more prolific at spying (regardless of the different punishments)... Bielsa or Eckert... I guess we'll find out in due course....

As many times as Bielsa spied, do you think?

Probably better to put this on this thread rather than the new manager thread... old news admitedly, but perhaps more relevant now than it was last year...? https://www.eureporter.co/lifestyle/media/2025/10/21/european-media-dragan-solak-loses-control-of-united-group-in-court-defeat/ Dragan Šolak’s (pictured) turbulent bid to regain control of United Group, the telecom conglomerate in Southeastern Europe where he remains minority shareholder, has ended in decisive defeat. Media outlets across Europe report last week’s ruling by the Amsterdam Enterprise Chamber as the final chapter in the billionaire’s struggle to cling to influence over the company he once dominated. As Bloomberg reported, “the ousted founder of… United Group BV failed to convince Dutch judges he could bring an unfair dismissal lawsuit.” The court in Amsterdam ruled his case inadmissible, rejecting his attempt to initiate an investigation into the company’s governance and leadership. The decision, Bloomberg noted, represents “the latest legal salvo stemming from a management fallout at the European telecom and media firm.” Šolak - who still owns 36% in the Group - had asked the court to appoint an independent investigator into what he described as alleged “abuse of governance” by the company’s new management. But the judges found that the dispute was not within their jurisdiction, as United Group’s parent company is registered in Luxembourg. Leading Dutch title Het Financieele Dagblad reported that Solak “has failed in his attempt to involve the Enterprise Chamber in the conflict surrounding the company.” The article pointed that Solak has tried to “involve Serbian politics in his campaign” and emphasised United Group’s position that there is “no management crisis whatsoever, but rather a fabrication by Solak to regain his influence and income at United Group.” The Times of London column section, entitled ‘Dragan roars in vain’, also covered the “failed bid to install a court-appointed representative to investigate” the company Solak was ousted from in June. The paper added that the ruling leaves Šolak “unsuccessful in his legal action against the European media conglomerate United Group”. According to Mobile Europe, earlier this summer the court rejected Solak’s attempt to fast-track his action, denying him an urgent intervention in July 2025. Greek business daily ProtoThema called last week’s outcome “a judicial victory for United Group,” signalling a stabilisation of the group after months of internal turbulence and legal drama. The outlet underlined that the decision “marks a clear end to the founder’s influence” and “confirms the strength of the company’s governance under new leadership”. United Group, in a statement quoted by Bloomberg, said the verdict “confirms what has been clear all along: this was never a genuine governance dispute, but another in a long line of distractions orchestrated by Mr. Šolak for his own ends.” The company added that “the court was able to see through it,” an apparent reference to a campaign by Šolak to regain his influence through litigation and media pressure. For Šolak, the loss is more than legal - it represents a dramatic decline in both his corporate and personal influence. Once hailed as the Balkan media mogul and self-styled defender of press freedom, he now finds himself shut out of the company that made his fortune. Solak’s insistence to the Times that “this has no impact on Sport Republic or Southampton” - the football club he owns - did little to shift attention from his mounting setbacks. Whether Šolak will pursue “other competent jurisdictions,” as his family office told Bloomberg, remains to be seen. It does appear to be contradicted by a subsequent statement issued by Solak and covered by N1, where he expressed his “hope that the new management delivers the same exceptional results for all stakeholders, as we did for all those years.” Perhaps this statement is a recognition that each successive defeat further isolates him while strengthening BC Partners’ position and reinforcing the legitimacy of United Group’s current management. For a company that has spent the past year under intense scrutiny, the ruling offers closure and the chance to move forward. For Šolak, it may mark the start of a more uncomfortable chapter: that of a founder-turned-outsider, decisively shut out from the empire he built.

Yeah... it's almost as if the situation has changed massively since your proclamation...

We engaged a decent lawyer a week too late....?

Fabrice? Bite on one of my tongue-in-cheek posts? Nah... can't see it myself...

Yep, becoming proxy Middlesbrough fans for a season in the PL makes total sense... so many synergies with us: Red and White, similar stadium, a likeable and honourable owner, likely to struggle in the PL, staff exchange scheme in the analyst department already in place, unhinged fans that post nonsense on internet football forums.... anything I've missed?