Graffito

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvgy802y2n9o

Sub judice didn’t prevent Boro from calling publically on multiple occasions for Saints’ expulsion from the playoffs, which they were able to do with impunity. However, they had something to gain. I’m not sure Saints have anything to gain by making a public statement at this point.

So what might the punishment have been had Boro won the second leg? You can’t throw a team out of a competition if they’re already out, but the team still sought a massive advantage, as you put it. (I take it that “in reverse” is your apology for misquoting me. Thanks).

Apologies for pinning the 70mph on you. Likewise, I didn’t say “the EFL could be expected to set out sanctions for every rule breach”. That’s just not practical. But for serious offences where the sanction is so draconian and which many in football have said is wholly disproportionate, the punishment should have been clear and unambiguous and introduced with the rule. IMO. “Who could reasonably foresee that a club would have been so stupid etc…”, well a club was stupid enough to do it and I don’t believe it’s the only club that’s been observing training sessions. Could all have been avoided had the EFL set out the penalty with the rule. I’m not sure about this timing point either. A rule breach is a rule breach no matter when it occurs, isn’t it?

If the EFL were serious about deterring, post Bielsa, observation of training sessions they should have set out the sanctions in clear terms alongside the new rule, for those that are unable to think through the consequences of their actions, as they do for other serious breaches of the rules. In your example earlier, if we all know that driving at over 70mph brings a life term we don’t do it. The EFL didn’t set out the sanctions so it’s a moot point but they are not blameless in this. Secondly, points deductions are sporting sanctions (as are fines if they are sufficiently hefty in relation to the wealth of the club). They could have imposed a points deduction and large fine for the Middlesborough offence as there is now provision to apply these in the PL in the event that Saints were promoted.

I’ve no idea what influence it had last season and neither do you so I’m going to stfu about it.

Give it a rest.

Difficult to see from down the other end and the highlights are inconclusive but the linesman missed a few clear offsides, especially first half.

I remember it. There were fivers in circulation with Micky Thomas’s head on them in place of the Queen.

Bus replacement is a misnomer. There are rarely enough buses and rarely enough drivers. And when they do run they usually don’t keep to the timetable. There was an occasion a few seasons ago when they announced at St Marys there would be no buses back to Parkway and I ended up walking it.

Bit of a leap from what’s said in 27 and 40 to saying this means bullying (by TE or anybody else). It does not, in my opinion. They refer to evidence from the intern about how he felt. There’s no reference to any other evidence, from TE or anybody else, in those two paragraphs. If anything the paragraphs imply that there were inadequate procedures in place to enable junior staff to report concerns. I’d also point out that the Intern has accepted a permanent job with the club. I think the bullying tag attached to TE has been largely the press and media. If I were TE I’d be well pissed off with it.

He was in the Saints end with the rest of us at Wembley in 1976.

Seconded.

Agreed. Contrast with Neghli who I think is a very good player but who he outshone today.