Toadhall Saint

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.

Is there a sweepstake for timing of announcement? I’m going for between 3:30 and 4:00 pm tomorrow.

👏

Cool just wanted to understand how much weight to give your comment.

Possible club insider? Either they are or they aren’t surely

You’d love that wouldn’t you

😂

AKA Small man syndrome- remind me how tall is Steve Gibson 😉

Never do your dirty washing in public.

It’s ok I worry about our keeper constantly going walkabout to the center circle 😂

Proof?

Hallelujah

Hope your right as we did not gain any in my book - especially looking at the stats and watching the match. But from what I can see in the rules there is no mention of gaining an advantage. The assumption would be that we had but that would need to be proven one way or another as it’s just an assumption. I’m just not sure how you prove it one way or another.

Yep by posting the wording of the rules we have broken.

Been caught observing. Which breaks the rules.

How on earth could it be proved that we did gain and advantage ( not what we are charged with but hey ho)

Which is what the charge relates to. Observing not gaining an advantage. Gaining an advantage (or not) is very subjective whereas Observing with the 72 hours is objective - it’s a yes or no. With everything that’s out there we have broken the rule end of. Anything we put forward as mitigation may or may not lessen whatever the decision is but it will not change the fact that we broke the rule.

Yep I get all that and either way it’s pretty idiotic.

I’m not one for conspiracy theories to be honest. Just pointing out some things I find strange.

I just think the whole thing is a bit strange. - timing just before our first leg play off - allegedly all clubs do it - ex Boro/saints analyst - the actual picture of Will Salt - not sure if there are any more junior roles than an intern role - the feeding of info to journalists - the expectation that they would get a seat at the hearing where they can produce further evidence in regard to us doing this all the time. etc etc other than it being a bit shabby of us it really doesn’t smell right.

Look I’m the first to have a go at Mannings defensive capabilities but he has been excellent recently. No need to change that as it’s working - Wellington will get another chance when the time is right but for me, Manning starts.

Could be. Hence the weird picture angle. Almost like the photographer knew he would be there.

Was that the league cup sponsored by pampers?

As this seems to be a common phrase on here - this boils my piss. We have not been charged with breaking a regulation about gaining an advantage - we have been charged with breaking a regulation about observing another clubs 1st team training within the 72 hour period. We may or may not have gained an advantage but that is very much open to interpretation the observation within 72 hours is not it’s very yes or no.