egg

The regs set out sanctions, albeit not charge specific. I don't have an issue with that tbh, and for us it's a twin edged sword, but crucially gives appeal wriggle room if the penalty is harsh.

People who leave their trolley in a car park. Just walk 20 meters and put it away you lazy bastard.

And the league proper is essentially a different tournament to the playoffs. People are comparing a kebab with a carrot.

That's not the tribunal mate.

Let's indulge the conspiracy theory and assume he went because he's an idiot and his mate told him it'd be a good idea. If he's a saints man, and observed training, it's a breach - I read the rule as a strict liability offence, but others with a legal mind may take a different view. We then look at what either happened with the information, or his intention. Sure, he may have deleted it, but it can't be unseen, and it could have been passed on and used. If that information found it's way to us, or the evidence is that it was to be passed to us, that he went of his own accord and/or by enticement takes away a wider club led breach, but it's still a significant breach. The issue here is that none of us know the facts or evidence. The tribunal will be adversarial cum inquisitorial, meaning it'll referee a scrap between us and the EFL, but it'll also delve into the facts and evidence to get to the root of the issue. I'll say no more on the subject pending the decision - we're all going around in circles but with all sorts of diversions, and I don't want to cross swords with people who I'm on the same side as.

I'd go no higher than theoretically possible, but I don't think it's realistic But... assuming that theory is correct, where does it take us? An SFC person still went along, still and observed training within 72 hours. You'd imagine that he didn't do that for shits and giggles, and intended to use what what he observed to assist SFC. If you're entrapped but do wrong, you've still done wrong.

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.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that, but it makes sense.

What about our right to appeal? That's our right, if we go down in flames, and that won't conclude prior to the game.

I see it as knock out competition after the league itself has finished, although you could see it the other way. However you cut it, a points deduction in this league doesn't punish us if we go up, and a chunky fine won't touch the sides.

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.