hypochondriac

Cheers for your posts they are very informative.

If we were investigating who knew what and when how could we contest the charge if we didn't know the facts?

Once it was clear it was out intern it was always going to get to this point regardless. We may be kicked out or we may not but the timing of the hearing will have nothing to do with it.

That makes no sense. It's pushing to Tuesday (or just before) regardless. Plus if they are kicking us out it's in their interest to announce that at the earliest opportunity.

If we go by what is suggested in the media, this hearing is going to be led by different people from the ones doing the spying. If we assume that solak and the board were unaware of this thing.

It isn't dragging on. The deadline is Tuesday at the latest it's dragging on the exact amount of time it was yesterday.

Apologies if I phrased that poorly. What I mean to say is that I'm not bothered about statements to the media or anything like that. Of course we shouldn't blatantly lie to the panel. My assumption is that we won't do that.

Well of course but I was assuming we wouldn't be so stupid as to make it worse by lying in the hearing with something that can be proven to be false. My point is that nothing should be said by us until we've beaten the charges or are contesting them.

Not to mention if this young intern really was there at the request of the club and is effectively following orders it's pretty shameful to leak his image to the papers prior to any hearing regardless of what saints have done. Imagine if he did harm himself. I'm sure his mental health will have been affected.

The only taming we need to do is with the panel. I don't care what we say- assuming we aren't compounding things by lying- if we get off without expulsion.

As hull said, the Efl have to take their share of responsibility here for their poorly drafted rules that aren't specific enough about sanctions. Not that that absolves us of wrongdoing but I think if we get off this that will be the primary reason why because it's wooly and that invites legal action from us whereas Middlesbrough cannot appeal.

Witness statements-They may not have realised the significance of any sighting at the time. There is no obligation but if we are adamant that nothing took place and this other analyst is adamant that Mr salt was spying prior to a particular game then you'd think we would be keen to prove our innocence so that the balance of probabilities goes in our favour. All speculation obviously.

We know it goes on until Tuesday at the latest either way.

Already done that.

After my initial post. Witness statements from staff at other clubs, phone records, bank statements and maybe someone does have something on cctv if its a more recent game.

Who mentioned anyone had cctv footage?

Because they weren't aware of it obviously. Not sure why people keep bringing this point up.

If that is the case-not sure it is but if- then no chance are we kicked out for one instance of spying by an intern.

Yes depends if there are specifics in the statement that can be substantiated. Although I wonder if we will outright lie if we have done it before or consider it better to fess up and plead mitigation (ie it was a couple of people in the analysis team who have now been sacked.)

Agreed but the written statement from the ex analyst (and the betting guy on here who said he knows we've done it before) does rather suggest this isn't the first time

Maybe so but they wouldn't have the outcome yet would they.

How would anyone know? Have they had the hearing yet? I assumed they would be deliberating first prior to any outcome.

I think it would be hard not to. Presumably we would attempt to pin it elsewhere though and Tonda said he is eager to talk about it so I assume he isn't just going to fess up to being behind it.

If nothing else this episode has inspired some very funny posts.

@Turkish will be distraught.