trousers

Are SR not responsible for leaving the club's 'Compliance Officer' post / team vacant for several months (as we've been led to believe is the case). One would have thought that was at least a contributing factor here...?

No. I'm under the impression that the lawyer(s) we've hired might not be the best available. Gibson 'went large' by hiring "one of the best" sports lawyers in the land, we (seemingly) didn't....

Hand the club back to Katharina... Bring back Cortese and Pochetino, and go again... (I must stop eating large quantities of cheese before going to bed... 😂)

Yep... Footballers aren't, in general, the brightest bunch, so it's plausible they took this intel at face value rather than being naturally inquisitive as to where this 'magic' new data came from. If my boss suddenly started giving me 'inside info' on our competitors, I'd certainly be curious as to how he obtained it...

They need to have a chat with @SaintlyAnd's mate!

Unfair Contracts Terms Act...? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/50 If only we had a top notch lawyer...

Ironically, if Millwall had lost to Middlesbrough in April, rather than beaten them, that points swing would mean that Millwall would now be in the final...

Another question... (Not rhetorical this time)... Is this new panel formed of people from the same arbitration company (i.e. Sport Resolutions) or from a different company / organisation? If from the same company, the instinct of the people on the new panel will be not to undermine the decision of their colleagues, won't it? Surely this new panel needs to formed from.a completely separate source for us to stand any chance of a significant overturn? (Whether or not we deserve anything at all from the appeal)

This is a key point... By allowing the semi-final matches to be played, the EFL were effectively declaring: "We don't think Southampton should be expelled". If they did think we should be expelled before the semi-finals then they shouldn't have let the games go ahead. Fast forward to yesterday's verdict and they've flipped 180 degrees. i.e. if they still believe we shouldn't be expelled, as they did, by implication, 2 weeks ago, then why haven't they appealed against the independent panel's decision? That would surely be the logical thing for them to do? (They're rhetorical questions because the answer is obvious....)

Obviously not excusing what we did, but we should have done this two weeks ago. Much like Gibson did. That's when we lost any chance of getting a proportional punishment. Sport Republic are amateurs at running a football club, Gibson is a veteran, and it shows.

Talking of hypotheticals, I've been pondering what our punishment would have been if we'd finished 2nd in the league, and these misdemeanors had still come to light during the playoffs. Doesn't matter, of course, but I guess that scenario could have been even messier for the EFL, which just further highlights how inept they were when establishing this new law in the first place.

Hasn't he admitted to not realising that he was cheating...? #subtledifference

Get a ticket for the circus?

Reading that, it's only just hit me that we haven't been fined at all. (If you don't count the potential loss of premier league revenue as a fine, per se). Isn't that a tad odd? It's almost as if the punishments have been contrived to match the EFL's desired outcome....

Indeed. Several of us have been highlighting that this whole whistleblower thing could have been a long time in the making trap, but it wouldn't surprise me if our crack defence team haven't joined up the dots yet....

Indeed... At least Cortese would've given Gibson a run for his money! (FFS Trousers... Don't open that floodgate you tart!)

I suspect Hull will be much happier to be playing Middlesbrough than us, despite the short notice, given how much better we are (on current form).

Have Ipswich and Oxford thanked us yet for highlighting security vulnerabilities in their training facilities...?

Indeed. There's an infinite number of rules that don't exist, ergo you can't expect someone who doesn't know about a given rule to ask if it exists...

As I'd hoped.... doesn't alter how livid I am about it all, but that's "less bad" than if he'd done it whilst knowing the rules.

Didn't someone post on here recently that we haven't had a 'Compliance Officer' in post since at least the start of the year, and that this is technically in breach of corporate regulations? And that it would have been the responsibility of the said Compliance Officer to ensure all departments and personnel were following the EFL regulations to the letter? Could this be the reason Tonda was seemingly blissfully unaware of the 72 hour rule?

Which makes the whole damn thing utterly pointless. You could perhaps understand the temptation to spy if the rewards far outstripped the risks, but there was almost nothing to be gained and everything to lose by engaging in such activities. Not that it exonerates the club, or changes the outcome, but I'm still hoping that whoever sanctioned this was blissfully ignorant of the rules, because it's unforgivable if it was carried out in willful floutation of the rules.

Why? Because they're also rule breakers and we therefore have something in common...?

This calls for one man.... He'd bring some respect back to the club....