Toadhall Saint

So what judgements mean we don’t play in the final on sat other than expulsion from the comp?

Yes

Makes sense but the 24 hours means the judgement will fed back on Weds.

Good tick tock tick tock, the further this gets in the week the less likely for the game to be changed

And I genuinely believe you shouldn’t read anything into it. Normal stuff on normal day from the media team.

So the defence is “I’m thick sorry”? As that wouldn’t be so bad for our reputation? Seriously hope we have more than that.

Yep but it would need to be documented - emails, voicemails, text messages etc.

He works for Saints.

Thing was he represented himself 😉

Just had my email from the club letting me know when (as a member) I can purchase my ticket.

It doesn’t matter if we knew about the rule or not it’s someone’s job to know hence why we have roles that cover regulatory compliance. Not knowing is not a defence.

So I have tried to find who is responsible for Regulatory Compliance. There seems to be two roles neither of which are currently filled and from as far as I can see they have been vacant since around the new year. my reason for looking is that it would be those roles that would come under scrutiny in this. In effect the buck stops with them not the head coach. It is these roles that need to ensure compliance to the regulations. if Saints can evidence that they have processes/ training in place that deals with the regulations (this can be as easy as taking a multiple choice test at the end of relevant training) and potentially the individuals in effect agree to abiding by said regulations then although not off Scot free that would be genuine mitigation for rule 172. Unfortunately or fortunately that puts the onus firmly on the individual ie Mr Salt. the only reason I mention the above is that most of my working life I have been working in heavily regulated industries where regulatory compliance or not complying has huge implications. some of this has already been highlighted earlier in this thread by A N Other.

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