Toadhall Saint

They need to prove it. Just need to look an org chart to cast doubt on that as there is probably 2-3 levels from Salt to Tonda and a further one from Tonda to Spors.

I think the reason the other clubs have not come forward is that they do not want to out themselves in the cross hairs of outside scrutiny - why would they?

As did the titanic and looked what happened there.

Martin Keown said he had looked at a few of their previous matches before the 1st leg and had found no discernible differences with the way they set up - like him or hate him he was a professional that played at the highest level and therefore would have more of an idea so Turks I concur with what you say re Millwall.

Tonda being in the shit was a report on how the FA (not EFL) might view it - that would happen after the disciplinary process has happened.

Show or tell me where it made a provable difference.

How is it open ended? By Tuesday hence erm by Tuesday.

Nope

Has that ever happened before?

Anyone know if SFC have a compliance dept or a head of compliance?

And that is where the crux lies with this specific rule - the disciplinary committee needs to provide both proportionality and precedence. You can bet your house that whatever they decide it will not sit well with all. I’m just glad it’s between us and the EFL as the EFL are less likely to go to further litigation as it would be going against the body they put in place to “adjudicate”.

Yes.

Exactly. It’s not were you successful in the attempt gaining an advantage (or not) when you attempted to observe - the attempt in itself is enough. it’s not how sophisticated your equipment was when you attempted to observe - the attempt in itself is enough its not were you in a public place when you attempted to observe - the attempt in itself is enough

Exactly - advantage keeps being referred to, the rule (127) has no words relating to gaining an advantage. Boro will say (after the game ended nil nil) we had to change our tactics because of spying - that cannot be proven one way or another. We will point to them not scoring when they totally controlled the first half and had 21 shots. They will say that’s because our defence was aware of stuff they had been practicing and so it would go on as none of it can be proven and so if would go on. the rule is about observing and that is a yes or no answer.

Yep - it’s not just about proportionality it’s about precedent.