CanadaSaint

Most of us are happy to concede that we screwed up badly and deserved a significant punishment. We also handled the matter very poorly, so - in some ways - we got what we deserved. We should take it on the chin and move on, chastened but looking forward. What I find much harder to accept is a mealy-mouthed, chicken shit, “tail between our legs” statement that glosses over the fact that the judge, jury and executioner had clear connections to the party that benefitted massively from the ruling. That’s a disgrace which warrants further follow-up. It would change nothing resulting from the ruling, but it would whistle bullshit on an organisation that’s okay with enforcing integrity and fairness principles but piss poor at following them.

I hear you, but any ruling they hand down from on high will almost certainly use those words. Quite what they had for evidence we don't know, but it clearly infuriated them, as part of Section 31 shows: It involved far more than innocent activity and a particularly deplorable approach in its use of junior members of staff to conduct the clandestine operations at the direction of senior personnel. It's almost as though we were hammered because we failed their "sniff test" (with their nostrils inflamed by Gibson's antics and a counsel who articulated those views), rather than because they had a sound legal basis for hammering us. It doesn't really matter any more, but it would be interesting to know how an appeal to a proper court would turn out. They might find that the decision was based more in umbrage than legality.

The EFL's reasons for the ruling suggested that the alleged bullying didn't factor into their determination of the punishment, but I suspect that the FA's focus on the integrity of the game might cause them to focus much more on it.

What are the thoughts on Garner? The dramatic turnaround happened after his arrival, and he must have been an integral part of the team selection, tactics and substitution decisions. Some of the names being suggested scare the shit out of me - especially if we'd like to keep playing the kind of attractive football we've seen since January.

All of this keep him/sack him/depends on what the players think stuff is academic if the question of whether he's available next season is in the hands of the FA. We don't know yet if he's going to be suspended, so the players don't know who their manager would be. It's a circular mess, and I'm not sure we have the credibility to ask the FA for some insight into where they might be headed.

Hope you’re right. But he’s got himself noticed with us, and he’s about the play in the biggest shop window in football.

What they do with Tonda might revolve around what they've found out about further vulnerability. If he’s “fessed up” about multiple other instances that could still come out, they might sack him to show that they’re determined to clean up the club. Waiting for the FA to do it doesn’t get us any brownie points. But it might not be about just that, or even how much the players like him. He might not have been entirely honest in claiming ignorance of the rule. The committee was highly critical of him supposedly pressuring young Will over his reluctance to “spy”, which suggests he knew it was illegal all along. That heightens the importance of the brownie points. As much as I’d like to keep Tonda for his tactical approach and player relationships, he might be carrying too much baggage.

I’m not clear on this. What was the proof that we spied on Oxford and Ipswich, other than our own admission?

I thought it showed he's still engaged enough to post something to give us a chuckle, and maybe hasn't "turned the page" yet. Wishful thinking maybe.

All the focus on this thread seems to be on cleaning house, and that's obviously the first step. But even more important is where we go from here. I'm intrigued by the fact that we haven't (to my knowledge) heard a whisper from Dragan, who's been in the city for three or four days. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that he's going all-in on finding a top quality manager and keeping as much of the squad together as he can. We were by far the best side in the division (after that hideous start), and they really seemed to enjoy playing with eachother. It’s a big ask but he has the money to do it, and he has a shit ton to lose if he doesn’t. This post suggests that THB's not necessarily in "Screw it - I'm outta here" mode:

I’d be okay with that. As long as she declared it.

Agree 100%. This was a set up, and Boro also tapped into their help inside the EFL. If I was Hull I’d play under protest because these revelations mean that this things isn’t over. If I was Dragan’s I’d be on a two-track mission - sort out the pitiful incompetence inside the club but also explore further legal options against the EFL. Talksport dismantled the decision before they even knew about this stuff.

#WeStaggerOn

Oh, how soon we forget. Russell Martin ‘attacks’?

You’ve got this Whitey!

The worm that is the British media is starting to turn. Last week WE were the target of their sensationalizing, but they're now turning on the EFL. It would be interesting to know if there’s been any backroom dialogue between the Premier League and the EFL. This impacts the PL as well – especially if the EFL reinstates Saints but imposes a points penalty, and then expects the PL to implement the penalty for something that they don’t construe as illegal.

The EFL appeal is focused on the disproportionality of the punishment, and any procedural issues. An appeal to the courts would likely involve those matters and others. As I understand it, a disproportional punishment cannot be used to establish a deterrent (Argument 1), and the remedy should seek to restore an aggrieved party to what would rightfully have been theirs if the offence(s) hadn’t been committed. We were on a 21-game unbeaten streak when we faced Boro, with zero evidence that any of those games were tainted by spying. Boro, meanwhile, had not been playing well on the run-in. They had clear opportunities to win the first leg but failed to do so for reasons that had nothing to do with the impact of spying. There’s a good argument that Boro were unjustly and unreasonably enriched by the EFL decision (Argument 2). Boro are not the only club that could claim to have been disadvantaged by our misconduct. Even if our case fails on Argument 1, the EFL is only pursuing Boro’s reinstatement to keep their playoff final alive, and are vulnerable to an accusation of acting in self-interest rather than truly protecting the integrity of the game. There’s a better argument for Hull to be promoted than Boro reinstated.`

I’ve just started ro get back into Welcome to Wrexham. Now I need to figure out how to play it in reverse.

My very limited understanding of English law is that deterrence alone does not justify a harsh penalty. However, such a penalty can be warranted if it restores a wronged party to a position they were denied by the defendant's actions. If that's the case, after winning over two legs without any sign that we benefitted significantly from the spying, booting us and moving Boro into our place could be legitimately challenged. Straw-clutching maybe, but the EFL penalty seems very, very loaded towards deterrence.

Thanks to the performance of whoever represented us in the hearing, the ship has sailed when it comes to any kind of plausible deniability. Our only hope revolves around challenging the totally disproportionate punishment, especially given the fact that the very same rule book allows “spying” to exist in a legal and acceptable form, and the fact that the punishment handed to Leeds, who did it far more extensively than us, was far less severe. And there were not many clubs out there, if any (other than Boro), ready to cast the first stone. We deserve to be in a very hot seat, but so does the EFL. They can still make their point without taking a chainsaw to a 141 year-old club.

Why does the legal side of "spying" become irrelevant to a pushback on a brutal punishment? It's not illegal, lots of other teams check out opposition training, and it's not illegal at all in the PL. So how can that constitute a failure to show respect for other teams?

I'm not sure what to believe any more, especially given our (what seems to have been) abysmal handling of this. The whole public debate, especially in the media, has conveyed the false impression that there's only one kind of spying - the illegal kind. And the other angle is that two clubs can't just say we did it, or suspect that we did it. They should need to prove that we did it - at least if that's to become credible evidence. The alleged Oxford one was five months ago, so I'm not sure how that could have been proven. Perhaps it was the former analyst turned whistleblower, who now (I think) works for Boro, so that needs to be borne in mind. We don't know yet - maybe never will. Perhaps you're right, that we did admit it despite a lack of proof, but that would have been yet another screw-up by us.

I don't think the EFL can set itself up to operate outside the regular UK legal system, but some of the legal minds on here can answer that. If they can't, the EFL has huge legal exposure, not just us.

Given the damage that will result from this, and we're just starting to imagine it, I don't think the club has any choice but to exhaust all avenues of appeal, including the courts. This could go on for quite a while, but what is there to lose?

I'm as angry and embarrassed as most about the club's mindless stupidity, but I don't see some of today's revelations about other instances of our "spying" making it worse unless the new instances also infringed to 72-hour rule, and I've seen no evidence of that. Those allegations are now coming out months after the fact. Seriously? We've screwed up royally and need to admit it, but self-flagellation when the spying was legal is ridiculous. It's just doing what the sensationalist journos have done in their quest to make this issue even bigger than it already is. It seems like the committee bought into that as well.