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.

More important than Leeds winning a Championship title?

Leeds, by their own admission, were facing a charge of spying on every game. As much as Boro would like it to be more serious, the only charge we’re facing is for the one game.

I know it’s now a specific rule, but there’s a reason we’re defending both the clarifying rule and the original good faith rule.

The new rule just clarifies that spying breaks the good faith rule. It removes some of the mitigation that Leads had in terms of claiming they didn’t see it as breaking any rule, but it doesn’t automatically mean it’s a more serious offence or that Leeds case doesn’t act as any precedent at all.

We’ve not actually said anything publicly other than we’re cooperating fully and we’re doing an internal investigation. I don’t think it’s likely, but I really would laugh if we’ve just kept our powder dry and we have something like the rumour of him actually not being employed by us that gets us off the hook completely.

No chance they’d be letting Saints fans in with Boro fans, it’d be all tickets automatically void and an automatic refund.

And then they’ll take masks off and reveal that they’ve both been Noel Edmonds all along.

There’s absolutely no precedent for changing the outcome of a match for any reason that doesn’t occur during the match in question.

It's quite funny how far out of proportion it's blown up. At the end of the day, after Leeds, the EFL added in a regulation to put in black and white to say 'yes, spying specifically counts as not acting in good faith', hence referring to the good faith rule (while also stating that following the 72 hour rule doesn't mean other actions can't be covered by the good faith rule.) It has exactly the same guidelines (ie. none, with the exact same range of sanctions available.) The idea that it magically means the Leeds case doesn't act as any sort of precedent is silly, mostly brought about by Boro whipping up the press hoping to get a free pass to the final.

Even if spying on other clubs outside the 72 hours does fall under that, there's at least the Leeds case of spying for an entire season, which does act as precedent for that, which was a 200k fine.