CanadaSaint

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.

The balanced perspective will only come out with time: Comparing the Leeds punishment with ours, admissions that “spying” is widespread, the lunacy of spying being completely okay but a capital offence inside the 72-hour window – and not an offence at any time in the Shangri-La Premier League, and English football’s pitiful inability to address its real cancer – financial fair play. Today's ruling punishes spying inside the window on a far higher plane than the sins that are actually killing the game. I suspect that today’s contempt for us will diminish when people have a chance to ponder on all those realities, and eventually conclude that the punishment was ludicrously excessive. But that’s outside our control and won’t change today’s reality. What’s inside our control is demanding that those responsible are kicked into orbit, regardless of who they are. They have given our 141 year-old club the most shameful day in its history. I feel most sick for you folks who buy season tickets, for the players, and for all the people who work at the club but had nothing at all to do with this. And I can’t help thinking of Markus.

For it to carry any weight it wouldn't just need to be irrefutable evidence of spying, but evidence that it was inside the 72-hour window. Otherwise it's just shit thrown at the wall.

Despite the hatred coming from the Boro fans, I think it’s time for us to take the high road. Perhaps everyone at Wembley could send them a picture from sunny Wembley, inscribed with the words: Che sera, sera Whatever will be, will be A postcard to you from me Che sera, sera

Mental. That presupposes that they would have beaten Hull. The most they could claim is their share of the gate receipts and TV money from the playoff final, less their expenses for getting there - which they didn't and won't. They have less chance of winning that case than I do of being the next Pope, and I'm not Catholic. #Delusiononsteroids

It would probably be a straight suspension, not just a touchline ban. But I’m sure the club would have prepared for that outcome. It might start with an injunction seeking a delay in the ban until after Saturday, on the grounds that the removal of Tonda so soon before the final places Saints at an extreme disadvantage. Far more so than an intern with a cell phone spying illegally on a training session.

When you said “Think like a lawyer” I assumed you were referring to Boro’s supposed financial loss, for which they will doubtless pursue compensation. That’s separate to the disciplinary issue, in which they are not involved, and my argument is that they can’t prove any.

Those are citable reasons for them missing out. Your turn. Produce one citable example of how the alleged spying caused them to lose. Not some wild and unprovable assumption.

Absolutely. They’re looking for someone to blame but they should be looking in the mirror. They were the ones who missed the chances, not us or William Salt or Tonda. And they were the ones who hired a coach who had them playing an aggressive, hard press that they weren’t fit enough to sustain. In fact, this is probably why they shit the bed on the run-in. So they were the ones who threw away their auto place. They shouldn’t have needed the playoffs. Orchestrators of their own misfortune. Cry me a river.

It has been my concern all along that, with this becoming a very public fiasco (it’s being covered globally), the football hierarchy would step in. The EFL is under the FA, and the FA is under FIFA. The danger, obviously, is that FIFA would push for the kind of punishment they imposed on the Canadian women’s team – a six-point deduction and a one-year ban for the head coach. Their problem, though, is that spying, in and of itself, is not illegal in the EFL – just inside the 72-hour window; the silence from all the other Championship teams is very telling, and I’m sure that FIFA, the FA and the EFL know why none are speaking up. It’s not illegal at all in the PL. The whole “spying” issue (such an emotive word) is a can of worms, and they’d probably be better off taking it out of the rule book and leaving clubs to protect themselves, just as we do at Stapelwood. I'm fairly confident that removing Saints from the playoff final is off the table – not so much because they view it as an unreasonable punishment (although it would be ludicrously excessive IMO, given how they handled Leeds), but an impractical one that could well trigger a lengthy legal gong show and - possibly - huge financial consequences. This isn't the once-every-four-years Olympics - it's a multi-billion pound commercial enterprise. Given the media furore, I can see them hammering us financially, imposing a points penalty, and banning the person who is ultimately responsible for Salt being there at that time, which could well be Tonda. We’ll appeal, and the appeal process will play out after that. This would effectively "kick the can down the road" to a time when the media's looking at something else, and more balanced thinking can prevail. Caveat: We don’t know what Saints may have that could undermine or mitigate the case against them.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the EFL top brass is wondering if they would be better without ANY rule on spying. The Leeds affair caught them unprepared, so they fudged a solution. Then they created a rule that effectively made it possible for spying to be either legal or illegal, but didn’t specify any punishment, so they’ve been caught unprepared again. All the while, this would be a non-issue in the PL, and other Championship teams are conspicuously silent because (in all likelihood) they’re spying regularly. And Boro are stoking a media frenzy that’s making the EFL look silly. It might not impact their decision in Saints case, but it could also cause them to lean towards leniency because they’re probably going to ditch the rule at some point.

Boro’s is at 120 and clearly gathering momentum - with this nugget of well informed legalese from SmoggyParmo: “I'm just clutching at straws and sharing rumours I stumble across on tw@tter”

There may be a sequel to this sorry saga - Gibson v Solak, in a tantrum, attempted shake-down court case. I don't think Gibson knows who he'd be screwing with. 😂

The twisted knickers suggest that they were relying heavily on being able to introduce 'evidence' that we have done this on multiple occasions. The committee will not be hearing that evidence. And, even if they were, they would want proof that it crossed the line from legal scouting into into spying. The most relevant past behaviour is Gibson's - trying to exploit a rule infraction for personal financial gain.