egg

That's a disgrace. Have you left her yet?

There's no point in carrying on the discussion mate. If the club agree, there'll challenge, and if you're correct, the problem will be solved.

It certainly wasn't wise and that the optics don't look good, but it isn't a serious enough irregularity to bypass the arbitration only agreement we have with the EFL imo.

There'd have to be a serious irregularity to challenge, and bias would be a foot in the door. It doesn't come close for me though, although I'd hope to be wrong.

That's ridiculous. Judges and arbitrators need to be given a credible option...if they had the choice of giving us a cuddle or shooting us, no wonder they shot us.

Another option. I also thought EFL cup ban for a few seasons. I'm genuinely interested in hearing options in this, and would like to know the position the club took.

I don't think it's close, to the extent most people wouldn't declare it...it's not exactly Lord Hoffman / Pinochet territory.

That would have been an option. I haven't read the judgement. What was our case on sanction?

Cheers. For me, that translates as no real penalty, or a harsh one. The former was never going to happen.

Because it was a sporting breach. I think a sporting penalty was something that nobody could realistically oppose. The issue is what alternatives were available. If we were promoted, the points wouldn't bite, and in reality, even a chunky fine wouldn't hurt is due to the TV cash.

It still isn't a conflict. I gave a scenario up there somewhere. Say my firm sues a client for non payment of fees. The other person opposes. We have a small claim. The judge may have worked for my firm back in the day, may even have been a partner. There would be no conflict, and that judge could quite properly decide the case. To the lay person, I get that it looks wrong, but a historic connection isn't a conflict.

Trust me, it is. I live in the legal world, hence I shake my head at the nonsense I read on here.

Was there a point amongst the rant mate? There wasn't a conflict of interests.

Novel, and fair play for actually addressing the issue.

You didn't...you talked about doing something before the 2nd leg...unless the panel had a time machine, that wasn't an option. On the actual day of the sentence, what sporting sanction (that would actually impact on us, assuming we were promoted) could have been imposed? It's a simple question.