Jimmy_D

By that logic you’d be arguing that yellow cards should be red in the playoffs because it’s a more valuable game.

Hmm. Being treated as the worst offence that’s ever occurred in the Football League then. No doubt we’ll appeal the scale of the punishment.

If there’s been a decision and they’re not worried about leaving announcing it until tomorrow, strongly suggests there’s no massive logistics operation required as a result of the decision.

It’s quite funny that Boro seem to have got it into their heads that this is apparently the worst offence that has ever occurred in football and so needs to be punished with the most severe sanction in the history of the Football League to make sure it can never happen again.

Is a yellow card a deterrent for a cynical foul?

The new rule makes no indication that it should be treated more seriously than the original acting in good faith rule that Leeds were charged with. It does, however, refer directly to that good faith rule, and the EFL's charge includes both the new spying rule and the original good faith rule, which gives a good indication that it's being treated as a similar level of offence.

Which they will do by applying an appropriate sanction if we're found guilty. Precedent for a similar offence comes from Leeds spying for every game for half a season. The new rule added clarifies that spying is an offence, but makes no indication that it should be considered more seriously. Since a full range of sanctions is technically available, newspapers have been able to create clickbait by pointing out that it's technically possible the harshest of sanctions could possibly happen, and Boro have been creating a lot of noise calling for that to happen, but all the smart money at the bookies points otherwise.

You’re right, we faced far more lasting long term demonstrable disadvantage on the pitch.

When VvD was tapped up, what was done to restore us having the best defender in the world on a five year contract and willing to play for us?

Sometimes there’s just the deterrent, for example, a retrospective ban for a player or a fine for failing to control players/staff. Boro don’t necessarily have to be given an unprecedented and undeserved free ride to a playoff final for a minor indiscretion.

https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/topic/10839-pompey-takeover-saga/

He tweeted something about that I think, but quickly deleted it after.

It’s possible he usually works remotely. Assuming it’s the one everyone thinks it is, add in that he was used to working for Villa in the Prem where there’s no rule against spying, and he may have wanted to impress as an intern by providing data that happens to turn out to accurate, it makes more sense that his assessment of risk vs reward may have led to him deciding to go for it, more so than perhaps Saints assessment of risk vs reward would have led to us sanctioning it, where we’d have known we were taking a massive risk for minimal gain, but of course that’s just speculation on my part.

Eh? You’re the one saying it should be different because it’s a much bigger game.