The Kraken

I know he’s no mouthpiece of the club but Michael Owen was on the radio a week or two ago advocating for Liverpool going for Bowen if West Ham go down. Certainly makes some sense.

And nor should you be. You just remember that.

The electorate also historically don’t take too kindly to new leaders being parachuted in without being voted for at a general. Blair and Brown’s deal looked grubby. Truss was a complete and utter head case but nobody apart from a few Tory nutters wanted anything to do with her, Sunak did a poor job and was tainted by all that went before him. I think the visuals of getting Burnham in aren’t good at all.

I know the leaks have no guarantee of accuracy in them anyway, but in addition I haven’t seen anything from the leaks that says we have deliberately sent scouts up to view training specifically within 72 hours of the game. Just that we have sent scouts. Which, it would seem, we are somewhat within bounds to do. The other clubs things is, IMO, something that can only happen further down the line. No way at this stage to say it didn’t happen, but burden of proof much harder to meet.

I have it on good authority that the vast majority of those emojis were placed laughing at you, and not with you 👍

Which could be true. However, the rule is quite explicit when it says that a club are prohibited from “observing or attempting to observe another club’s training session”. So, again, it’s the difference between fact and mitigation. Don’t think it’s gonna wash that he was up there trying to watch their women’s team.

What you’re describing is a mitigation factor. What seemingly is factual is that our employee was there and he was pointing an iPhone at the Boro players training, which is blatantly against the rules. Mitigation is important, but the factual basis of “did you break the rules”? is first and foremost. Everyone but the most rose eyed spectalist would tell you we’ve more than likely broke the rules. So there should be a punishment. The mitigations will establish just how much was gained by us / lost by Boro and, one would think, issue a proportional punishment based on that. It’s the job of the panel to make a judgement based on our response to the EFL’s charges. Some of that will be the gain/loss. Much will be why we there in the first place.

Or mitigating it. There’s all sorts of variables that need to be established that will provide mitigation. Who sent him, who knew about, why was he there. Was anyone else there too? The facts seem to be it and dried that he was there. The level of punishment meted out will surely look to the mitigation factors.

I thought that too. Maybe because the infringement of the 72 hours rule also automatically brings the other one into play. Dunno lol. But the 72 hour rule is definitely written in such a way that one can assume watching training outside of the 72 hours is ok.

Is it? The 72 hour rule specifically mentions not watching or attempting to watch another club’s training session. Why impose the 72 hour limit if it’s still an offence outside of 72 hours?

Doesn’t tally with Boro’s statement. 6 points this season keeps us in the playoffs playing Boro, albeit the other way round. 6 points next season keeps us in the playoff final. This is getting very silly, can’t wait to get back to normality (whatever that is).

Jordan was on the radio today again saying that there is zero chance we get thrown out. As I see it, he’s been quite consistent in his approach. Said that it’s wrong but the penalties being suggested are nonsense. And that Gibbo would be better off negotiating for a financial settlement.

Not sure why. They’re in the final and playing us as far as they’re concerned. Until they get told otherwise, that’s what they’re preparing for. Their DOF publicly saying they don’t have us as suspects also confirms that they’re focussed solely on a Wembley game against us. Besides, as Luke Ayling said in his TV interview, this doesn’t really flow to the players.

That was Hull. Norwich just being reported in the Pink ‘Un.

Haven’t seen anything direct from Norwich but it’s been reported in their local paper. Hull have also confirmed they’re not involved and have no suspicions. https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/26107081.no-city-role-spygate-scandal-despite-social-media-claims/#:~:text=Norwich City are not among,on preparations for next season.

Having been at Hull away, nor do I. One of the most clueless, disorganised Saints performances I’ve ever seen.

You can’t tell from the video if it touches the hand. If it does, it doesn’t affect the trajectory of the ball and the defender heads it clear a microsecond afterwards. Tge ref is either paid off or just incompetent.

Absolutely disgraceful VAR decision to give that penalty.

This is where I’m at, realistically. A big fine, potentially a suspension of staff members directly responsible, and a small points deduction. As you say, the Leicester punishment is some form of benchmark for punishment that gets handed down. I’ve said it before but need to remind myself given the continual rot that comes out of NE based journos. We finished the regular season 9 points above 7th place, getting us in the playoffs. 10 points really because of goal difference. To throw us out of the playoffs, which Boro keep suggesting they want, means a ten point deduction. The EFL surely can’t just throw us out as they need to set a precedent for any future transgressions from other clubs who may or may not be in playoff contention. So a points deduction is the way to do that, and it has to be proportionate.

Thats true, but I just can’t see a realistic scenario where he’s done this off his own back. Even if that’s the line the club end up going with. I know it’s in the club’s interest to stretch this out as long as possible, but it would be quite nice to just have it wrapped up so we know where we stand.

‘Throw us out of the playoffs’ is a very woolly definition of what the EFL will be able to do. If we’re guilty, they have to set a precedent for any future misdemeanours by other clubs. So it’s either a fine at the lower end of the scale, or a points deduction at the higher end. The situation of us being in the playoffs makes it very complicated but they can’t just say ‘you’re eliminated from the playoffs’ surely, as that is no sort of precedent. If it’s a points deduction then that can only really happen from next season / the next time we start in the championship. We finished comfortably in the playoffs, 9 points clear of 7th place with a massive goal difference advantage. So, to knock us out of this seasons playoffs, they would have to apply a 10 point deduction, and have that as the precedent for whatever were found guilty of. I really wouldn’t fancy being in the EFL’s shoes. And without knowing just how deep spygate went up the chain for us, it’s ridiculously difficult to speculate. It’s been said various times, we absolutely need to consider what middle ground there is between a fine and a points deduction, such as individual suspensions and the like. But that simply can’t be done until all facts are laid bare. I can only imagine any punishment we get will not be retrospective and will apply to future Championship seasons. Unless it’s a fine and a slap on the wrists if the facts deem it so.

Gibbo will sort it out.

Is he? I’ve always found Starmer to be something of a wooden speaker. Relies heavily on his notes, certainly doesn’t have anywhere near the speed of thought and gravitas of Blair or Cameron. With Boris Johnson, what Starmer excelled at was baiting the hook and letting Johnson’s lies unravel. But an inspiring public speaker? Not for me.

The club have asked for more time to conduct an internal review. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cx21kpmdj97o

Do they? what have the rules of the football league set out about what we did? Apart from that it’s against the rules.