egg

Yep, agreed. The panel won't want to be appealed, the EFL won't want satellite litigation over any TV rights breach re cancellation, potential for 3rd party clubs seeking relief from any impact on them, etc, etc. Those issues, and timing, still lead me to a fine and EFL points.

For me it's simpler than that. The issue is the intent to gain an advantage, and whether we did or didn't, doesn't particularly matter. The penalty goes to what was at stake. 3 points in a league match is a world away from a place in the play off final, and then possibly the PL. The penalty has to have regard to that. The article homes in on the fact that a fine is academic should we get the £200m if promoted, and points deduction will likely only bite if we stay down or when / if we come back down. Is that a penalty that actually impacts us, and serves as a deterrent? The answer must be no. Regarding penalty, there's been talk of injunctions, ultra vires acts by the tribunal, and high court relief. I'm not sure those posting that stuff have considered the regulations. They exclude s44 and s69 of the Arbitration Act, so no obvious access to an injunction or high court relief, and more importantly, rule 93.2.12 essentially allows the tribunal to impose any penalty it wants.

I know.l, and the rule is based on the presumption that the material could be sensitive in the hands of the opposition. Hence the rule. Hence we're in the shit. It really is a simple concept.

I haven't dissected what you've said. Others have, and they're correct. The rule is that we're not allowed to observe what they're doing in training within 72 hours of the game. It's black and white. How easy they make it to breach, what we actually saw, what we did with that, how it impacted the game, anything, is wholly irrelevant. How people can't see the simplicity of that I don't know.

You're still not getting it are you.

The article is credible, and highlights the issues correctly. Don't be seduced by Miltons piece. Our main issue is deterrent - a chunky fine, and points that don't impact us if we get promoted, don't serve as a deterrent. Leeds were doing it in the regular season, and before it was a specific offence, so it's a false comparison imo. There is no Swindon comparison. I still think a fine and deferred points is where we'll end up though, mainly due to our right of appeal, and timing.

Yep. It's a daft argument. We can't control what they don't do, but needed to have controlled what we did.

Yep. I'd describe it as us doing 78mph for a very short time, seeing a cop car and slowing down. Boro are making out that we were doing 178mph whilst pissed up, coked up, with no insurance or licence, were weaving over the road, and did it every week.

Moody

Indeed. Saints must investigate and deal with them correctly. If he's an employee, it'll have to be a proper disciplinary process, if he's self employed they can just can him. We'll also need to understand how it was allowed to happen, who authorised it, who received any information, etc. All of that stuff is relevant to what's happened, and will happen.

Yep. I think I have.

Not all...but most are.

133

Not sure where to start with that bollox.. assuming it's genuine. The insinuation that 3rd party clubs have been impacted has no place in a submission by Boro, it's for that club. There's also the suggestion that financial loss has been suffered. I get that it could be, but the suggestion that it has been is nonsense. Whilst civil claims may be possible, the tribunal isn't a civil court, so what could theoretically take place on other arenas has no relevance in this arena.

In a court, we'd be in or hovering around contempt territory here. They're blatantly trying to influence the outcome.

To be fair, the people that live there, and have that excuse of a football club in their manor, need all the help they can get.

Two different issues. We may have acted disgracefully. Boro, with the smear campaign, attempt to hijack our legal process, and blatant attempts to get under the skin of the tribunal, all to get something that they were not good enough to get in the field of play, are a disgrace.

They're a disgrace. The club, the manager, the fans, should be embarrassed trying to get promotion this way.

Hypersonic

Yeah, you can buy tickets. Nowt else.

According to their local rag, they're going back next week.

He comes across as a Gallagher who couldn't make the band to me, so had a crack at politics instead. I don't see an appeal far beyond his own doorstep, and I share your concern about economic policy.

The markets are not liking the idea of Burnham. Pound and FTSE down, and gilts up to 2008 levels, ie worse than Truss levels. Not ideal. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr2pl5lj84o

Who appointed them (we have a say) doesn't stop an appeal against verdict or penalty. If we avoid adverse findings, or get adverse findings but a penalty which the EFL feel is unduly lenient, they could theoretically appeal. What's needed, assuming guilt, is a penalty which nobody is overjoyed with, but both sides can live with. That way, an appeal is off the table, and we can move on...no tribunal chair wants to be appealed.

Whatever facts they're being asked to determine (I assume just the one incident re Boro, but we don't know), they'll likely look at any evidence and then have to apply the simple test of whether, on balance, the allegation(s) is/are made out. My understanding is that EFL tribunals are mostly adversarial (so refereeing a scrap and making a decision as per court) but with an inquisitorial function to get the information needed to get to the right decision. Given the potential ramifications of this, I think we'll have to toe a very fine line between fight and contrition, but if anyone on our side has breached the rules, it'll be necessary to demonstrate that we've addressed that.