egg

That's a different question. The simple question is what sporting sanction was available that would have had an impact that would have bitten in the event of promotion? If it wasn't expulsion, it effectively meant no actual sporting sanction. Should we have avoided a sporting sanction for a sporting offence?

Changing counsel on an appeal 24 Hours later suggests that the previous counsel was properly shit.

What sporting sanction could they have given that would have impacted us next season, assuming we went up? The reality is that there wasn't one, hence the one we got.

That's a different issue. Your point was about the bloke on the panel. He didn't have a conflict of interests. Say my firm sues a client for unpaid fees. He disputes it. We end up in court. The judge worked at or, or even was a partner in my firm, years ago. On your approach that judge must step aside. In reality he wouldn't and shouldn't. I get that people are annoyed, but we've put the turds on our own doorstep, nobody else.

Arguably, but it's just a deflection from our conduct.

The theory takes us nowhere though and is pointless. Boro were / are cunts, but whether we were baited or not, we bit.

So what's the complaint? That's a bit like complaining that a cop was parked around the corner cos he was tipped off about a drink driver by a bloke who'd bought said driver a few beers.

The CoT had all seeing eyes. Not as far as Tonda's merry men though.

You're overthinking the relevance. There is no conflict of interests, and not even a declarable interest imo. BUT, if the club were looking at going further, they'd probably look at the failure to disclose a link (assuming that's the case) but for me it's so distant and remote, it won't get anywhere.

If I understand the trapgate theory, people are saying that one Boro lad helped Salt do what he shouldn't have done, and were waiting for him. Is that that it?

It depends on the link, but Saints were a party, Boro weren't.

Both cases were partly distinguishable from ours. The Leeds case wasn't a breach of a 72 hour rule, and wasn't in the play offs. Where I see it's relevance is re next season's points as that penalty related to league game breaches. The panel could reasonably have distinguished Leeds re the Boro game, but points for the other 2 was ott and I'm surprised that wasn't reduced to a Leeds ish fine on appeal. That said, the F1 is distinguishable too. That's similar in that it involved attempts to illegally get information to give an unfair sporting advantage, and that the information was used internally for that purpose. BUT in the F1 case, the team were found with 780 pages of Ferrari technical data. 780 pages. That's a world away from the information we had or sought to get...but, the magnitude of the Boro game is massive, so the point would be that even a small amount of data which could give a sporting advantage in that one game, could be significant. The main issue for the panel was balancing a proportionate penalty with a meaningful one. A fine ain't a sporting penalty, and wouldn't touch the sides with promotion money anyway. Points in a league that we might not have been involved an for years to come isn't a sporting penalty either. What other sporting penalty did that leave?

Boro were not a party to the proceedings, it was an us/EFL fight. Boro had made an allegation which we admitted, and had admitted via Parsons to Gibson. The issue was therefore our penalty, nothing more. Regardless, someone vaguely associated with Boro in the past being on the panel would not in itself be an issue. Similar happens all the time in law Many judges would have worked for the CPS, and it's perfectly standard that they decide cases bought by the CPS. Lots of local judges were lawyers for firms or in local chambers local to where they sit, and day in day out they'll decide cases involving their previous firms, chambers, colleagues, mates, people they hate, people they've trained, etc. Part time Judges are practicing lawyers and will hear cases presented by firms who instruct them and/or mates from their own chambers, etc. These links are normal, but if the link is too strong, a judge (or panel member) who feels they have a relevant interest, will recuse themselves from the hearing. I get that it looks whiffy, but it's the way it is, and there's nothing wrong with the bloke who'd once kicked a ball for Boro appearing on the panel.

Tuesday. Which will be relief as I'll probably be a bit thirsty by then.

Ha!! Darn them pesky seams.

I caught up with the last 6 pages of the thread or so late last night. Its really odd reading. The narrative, now, seems to be that Boro set us up and were stitched up by a dodgy panel. FFS folks, stop this nonsense. We cheated, we knew we cheated, we got caught out, Parsons threw us under a bus, we lied, we tried to insult people's intelligence, etc, etc. That went about as well as you'd expect it to go, and we find ourselves where we do, and set back god knows how many years. This ain't on Boro or the EFL. You reap what you sew, and we've sewn a massive dirty bomb under our club and it's gone off. It's no more sinister or complicated than that.

I love them, hence the name. However, you either like them or you don't My granddaughter hates even the sight of a yolk on her plate so won't touch a fried/poached/boiled egg, but she'll eat them scrambled, in an omelette, in a frittata or quiche. She's also fussy about the texture, and won't eat them overvooked and loves them cooked in butter. She also likes them heavy on pepper or herbs. Just try different ways and see if you want a way that you can live with. We also add them to stuffing mix, and go heavy with them in batter mix for pancakes or yorkies - there's plenty of ways to sneak them into your diet.

That's bang out of order. Mark Dennis did a cracking little video on his Instagram yesterday addressing that point.

Agreed. The owners need to build us back reputationally, and that doesn't happen by retaining the very people who caused this mess. I suspect that'll be too late for many of our existing sponsors, but we won't attract new ones of any note if we're seen as a club which doesn't properly address what's happened. From a footballing perspective, part of me would love Tonda to stay, but I suspect he'll have lost the dressing room anyway, but the bigger picture is that the club needs to rebuild from this and don't do that by keeping hold of the people who were responsible for breaking things.

There's nothing knee jerk about it. His position is untenable, and I'm surprised the club didn't act after their investigation and before the 1st panel. He's been brilliant for us, but he can't stay, and I'd imagine the FA will impose a ban anyway.

Parker is the obvious man for me, but I don't think we'll have managers putting us top of their list tbh.

Are you seriously suggesting that Tonda and others in the club responsible for this shouldn't be sacked? That's an inevitability.

Been there, got it wrong, never to be repeated. But yep, Baz'll be back.

I read that as a goodbye tbh.

Gotcha. I've know written reasons from panels/tribunals arrive anywhere from same day to weeks later. Given the eyes on this case, I'd guess it'll be in the next few days, but it'll be what it'll be.