Jimmy_D

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.

Remember it’s not in the EFL’s hands now. They have to prepare for the possibility it has to be moved or changed, but you can’t read anything into potential outcome from their actions at this point.

That’s the same reporter that was claiming high tech equipment was being used to spy.

Indeed, from the EFL’s point of view, they’re selling tickets while one team is facing a charge with a possible outcome of being expelled, so their communication and contingency has to reflect that. The independent panel’s timing of the hearing, however, strongly suggests that expulsion is an unlikely outcome from their point of view now.

Suggests that the independent panel aren’t inclined to think that the time needed to sort things should they kick us out is something that will have to be dealt with.

I've never thought they were bad owners. They've put more money into the club than any other owner we've had, and every criticism of them basically boils down to recruitment not working out in various areas, where there's always a certain amount of luck involved (for any team, see also Spurs, Man Utd, Chelsea, Leicester, etc), but it's never been though any sort of malicious intent that I can see. We certainly know what a bad owner looks like, both for us and elsewhere... (owners that leverage debt onto the club, move to a terrible stadium they don't own, ignore the history of the club, even the club's colours, set absolutely extortionate prices, don't actually exist... etc.) Sports Republic aren't any of that.

Or they just happen to have a PO postcode

It’s all Turkish, he’s the spy. That’s how he’s been so ITK about our unbeaten run. That the reason it’s called the Circle of Trust. It’s all so clear now.

I'd be less annoyed than I still am now by Liverpool's illegal tapping up of VVD.

They have sanctions for financial breach punishments to carry over in either direction now, after Leicester escaped punishment up into the Premier League, but not sure if that applies to all rule breaches. That's likely also complicated by there being no equivalent rule for this in the Prem.

Imagine the Boro fans headloss for the ones fully expecting us to be kicked out if it really all comes back as ‘nothing to see here’