hypochondriac

Anyone know the answer? The case is about breaking the rules which we will admit to clearly. They will then look at mitigating and aggravating factors. Is the aggravating factor done on the balance of probabilities? Therefore if we deny it was systemic and that we routinely spy within the 72 hours and that the coaching staff knew but this ex analyst contradicts that will that be enough for them to say we are bang to rights?

Well if the oracles Ashley Williams and Cundy have spoken I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

They will be able to prove that the offence occurred. Will the balance of probabilities test apply to the aggravating factor or if being systemic without a smoking gun? Assuming we sack the analysts involved and deny that other members of the coaching staff had prior knowledge and Middleborough do not have proof of that beyond the statement of an ex analyst, I wonder if they would still go for it and look to boot us out. Unlikely in my view.

They are aggravating factors. Proper evidence that suggests this is systemic and a campaign of cheating to gain an advantage is obviously more serious and deserves a harsher penalty.

Someone reported a couple of days ago that he'd been given a few days off due to this but is now back at the club.

So if we look at some of the ITK posters on here I think we can make a reasonable assumption about where we are. 1) someone has clearly spied on Middlesbrough from Southampton and broken the rule. I think we can also assume that this isn't the first time this has happened based o na few posts from here and presumably a statement from an ex employee. Not good. 2) It is likely that some of the coaching team will have been aware of this and very unlikely Imo that nobody other than the analyst knew about it. Also not good. The key then becomes in this hearing can Middlesbrough's evidence prove with 100% certainty that not only has this happened before but that what has happened is systemic. Do they have evidence in the form of instructions from higher ups or tonda or spors perhaps instructing someone. Do they have footage from other clubs of this occurring. Imo this is unlikely. Will the club statement say that this was a problem with the analysts and that the other coaching staff were not aware? Or that we did send people previously but that it wasn't in the 72 hour window? Personally I think Middlesbrough are going to have a tough time to convince a panel that we did this repeatedly with the approval of the coaching staff and that we instructed the analyst to break the rules by spying in the period when it isn't allowed. In summary I think on the balance of probabilities we did spy on other clubs - or at least some within the analyst part of the club did, I think it's possible that some more senior people within the coaching setup knew it was going on but I think both of these things are going to be rather difficult for Middlesbrough to prove definitively. A statement from an ex employee isn't going to cut it unless they have some sort of smoking gun communication.

Boro won't be there at all. As I understand it they submit their evidence then Southampton and the efl have a hearing with the independent panel.

Another thought is that if you wanted to make an argument that the spying had no material affect on the games in mitigation, you couldn't have asked for the games to have gone any better than for them to absolutely dominate us in the first half of the first game with numerous chances to score and then a fairly even second leg with superior fitness winning out.

It's not in his interest unless we make it in his interest. They mentioned he had some time off and is now back at the club. I'm sure we've had discussions.

I wonder if Salt will make a statement in the evidence himself. Maybe he will say its not systemic and he did it off his own back or one other person in the coaching team knew about it. I expect something like that would counter any statement from the ex boro employee.

He left in January and joined us from Middlesbrough prior to that.

Eh? The offence was entirely wrong and they shouldn't have done it. Subsequent to that you are right they are being instructed by their lawyers, keeping quiet and doing exactly what they should be doing which is getting a case ready in private. There is nothing they could say prior to that that would do any good. Prevent expulsion and they have done their job.

Give it a rest. You pissed all over us for the first half of the first game and you couldn't finish your dinner

They've done exactly the right thing. Any meaningful comment at all would just feed the story and allow Boro to counter with more newspaper bollocks.

There will be plenty of complaint in the form of strong legal action. No one on the entire forum has suggested we aren't in the wrong or culpable but attempting to kick us out of the playoffs is absurd.

I imagine we'd protest in the strongest terms.

@Miltonaggro wouldove to hear your thoughts given what you'd posted previously.

Lol. If they allowed that I am sure we would have so many avenues for appeal.

Imo he's spoken to Gibson who is fully aware that it's unlikely we will get thrown out but he wants his financial pound of flesh for the wrongdoing.

He didn't say that's what we should do, he said that's what it would probably take for Middlesbrough to drop it. We can conclude that it's pretty likely that that figure came from direct discussions with Gibson given he was ringing him on air the day before.

It would but if that were true it would be pretty dumb to drag this all on and potentially unsettle all the players for no reason. That clearly hasn't happened.

We are seeking to mitigate the charge of spying. The idea that this has all come out, that we have a photo of him at the ground, that he's used his bank card with his name at the hotel and that name matches the name of an intern at saints who can be seen in the photo and that we aren't denying it (not a chance would the efl be charging us if the person involved wasn't that employee) and that this is all made up is mental. What possible reason would Adam and Alfie have to lie? You're insane.

If that was really the case then you would have expected us to deny it already. Alfie House I think also said that wasn't true.

I don't think Simon Jordan is anyone's pet. My point was regardless of what you think of Simon Jordan, his allusions on the radio are clearly shaped by having spoke to Gibson directly so we can infer a lot from what he says.

Is this confirmed? Alfie House denied that was the case earlier I believe. I've seen no evidence other than that website to say he isn't still working for the club.