Sheaf Saint

You're absolutely right. If an organisation becomes aware of a potentially damaging data breach then they are obliged to report it to the ICO. And in a twist of delicious irony here, they must do it within 72 hours. And it doesn't have to be the subject of the personal data that complains if they don't. Any concerned member of the public can raise the complaint.

I'm hoping earlier than that so my guess of 112 pages on this thread doesn't end up wildly out. We'll probably have surpassed that by 9am tomorrow though at this rate.

And not only would we challenge it, other clubs could start digging up any evidence they can of instances of other clubs doing it (assuming it really is as widespread as has been reported over the last week), if they know that the penalty for it is likely to be so high. I'm not sure the EFL would have much appetite for that.

I reckon you might be onto something. We've all been wondering why the club would do this and if it was actually just a setup. Maybe it was all staged by Steve and mods to generate site traffic and raise advertising revenue 🤨

Pretty sure it doesn't work like that. That would suggest this is a case of Saints v Boro. It's not, it's Saints v the EFL.

True, but I was just disputing the claim that his very presence there proves we gained an advantage. It clearly doesn't.

Yes but how does it prove we gained an advantage?

How does it?

Well, for starters it hasn't been proved that we gained any unfair advantage. Quite the opposite I would say. Secondly, Boro can argue all they like but they are not part of the proceedings. That's why they released that crybaby statement on Friday, whinging that the EFL (rightly) wouldn't allow them to be judge, jury and executioner.

Indeed

I wish it was. I'm very easily distracted and I need this to all be done with one way or the other so I can stop checking my phone for updates every 5 minutes.

Just playing devil's advocate here... I wonder if that was actually just a 'lost in translation' effect, and he was simply trying to say that he will only comment on the matter after the investigation is concluded and the EFL have issued their ruling.

Looks to me like it was taken from around head height. CCTV cameras would normally be mounted higher than that for better coverage.

Yeah we clearly haven't admitted or denied it publicly. Merely said that we are cooperating fully with the EFL and conducting an internal review. The closest thing we've got is an unofficial snippet from Blackmore that we're not contesting the charge, but there's been no statement issued saying we've admitted it.