egg

It's how I'd argue it. The Canada ban was 12 months, but in a situation where 8-12 games were likely to have been played. Replicating the 12 months in domestic football puts the ban at 50+ games, which equates to 5 - 6 years of female international matches. That's how I see the Canadian precedent should be applied fairly.

Them being able to give it, but it being disproportionate, are different. It's a "they could, but they shouldn't" scenario.

I'm sticking with 8 - 12 games. I don't see anything more as justified.

Take it as you will mate...just passing on something which I hope isn't credible or correct!

You cannot expect me to answer that.

Thinking back, I think that's correct. I'm not sure where I got the idea that it was similar re the other 2, so I must be wrong about that.

Significantly more than the mooted 6 months. Significantly.

Same day appeals are normal, and shouldn't take long to prepare. Essentially, you're saying that they initial panel got it wrong, and you don't need long to prepare why you say they got it wrong. The issue we had with the EFL case is that we chose to replace counsel prior to the appeal, presumably because she didn't do well.

I thought that was our position, but am happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken.

From what I'm told today, that's much lighter than the club fear.

With the FA, hopefully, but we can't undo our approach the EFL, and I'd imagine that Tonda will maintain his "I don't know the rule" line, and that his instructions were apparently given to go prior to the cut off, but missed each time.

Yep, and that kind of approach, coupled with the "I didn't know the rule" line, and our "nothing either see here just give us a fine" line, will do nothing to help us. When you've been caught playing with a wonky bat, and are in shit, you don't insult the intelligence of the people dishing out the punishment. It devalues any apparent remorse.

I've heard that the club fear a very, very long ban. Can't see it, but there it is.

If Tonda's instructions were to do it when we were allowed, and as much as I take your point, the panel may conclude that there was a breach following his initial instructions and that the buck stops with him. There's certainly mitigation if not a defence. Let's see what happens.

I'm surprised that any manager has come out and said that, and I don't believe what Harris says about his view being the popular view amongst managers. Really classless behaviour from a classless bloke.