egg

What's strange is our lad standing behind a tree and waving his phone at the Boro training pitches. That's the focus, no pun intended. What possessed or persuaded him to do that makes a wee bit of difference, and I'd prefer it to be naivety than instructions from our end, but even if a mate with Boro connections encouraged him, he still did it.

Yep. Nonsense like this makes us look almost as bad as the Boro fans.

Jeez, and now the conspiracy theories have started! Give your heads a wobble.

I think it's decent.

Plasma

I'd imagine it's proceeding over the weekend. 3 day hearing Friday to Sunday, Monday for deliberations/decision writing, and deliver that either later on Monday or Tuesday.

I'm saying it's different because it is different. The potential gains for us, and the potential impact for the other club, is completely different across a 46 game league season with 3 going up, than it is in a knock out play off with only one winner. How Leeds actually did doesn't alter that. The difference is such that the penalty for one is not relatable to the penalty for the other. They are different, and will be treated differently. As I say, it's a futile discussion as you see it as you do, and how either of us see it is irrelevant anyway.

You're focusing on what the breach achieved. That's not the focus. However you approach it, you see the scenarios as comparable whereas I see them as distinguishable. It's how the tribunal sees it, not us, and I hope that they're more persuadable than I would be.

Are we though? We don't know what our position is on either. It could be a scrap, or a contrite admission. We'll know soon enough, but the point remains that our case and Leeds are easily distinguished.

Yep, and a bloody important game. There's no point carrying on the debate, but viewing this objectively, I can see a massive difference and I'm pretty sure the tribunal will too.

It would be, because of the differences, and the magnitude of the games. The regs do set out of the possible sanctions, including "93.2.12 order any other sanction as the Disciplinary Commission may think fit". The idea that every possible breach should have a laid out sanction tariff is unrealistic. The lack of it, and any comparable precedent, does leave scope for appeal either way though.

The EFL rules apply across all EFL competitions. I think it's unarguable that the impact of a breach across a 46 league season is a world away from a maximum 3 game knockout competition. The panel will see the difference.

It's now a specific rule. It wasn't when Leeds were pulled up. Any ambiguity that they had the benefit of, we don't get. The Leeds case is easily distinguished based on the competition - this is a a knockout tournament, there's was regular league - and that there's now a specific rule. I wouldn't be confident on the Leeds comparison succeeding.

They're a superb firm. Deservedly top ranked.

Leeds is a false comparison for me. Sure, you'd argue it in mitigation, but I'd expect the tribunal to see regular league games and a play off game as different, and note that there wasn't a specific rule then.