egg

Middlesbrough aren't involved. Us or the EFL can appeal - too harsh, us, too. lenient, them.

Yep. It's strict liability - you've either done it or you haven't.

It's completely different. This will be seen an attempt to gain a tactical advantage over one team in game one of a maximum 3 game series, with a prize of promotion to the PL, and all the riches that go with. That has zero comparison to financial irregularities across many, many games. There is no comparable. None, hence the risk of us being made the example as a deterrent.

You've identified the sides whilst saying there aren't sides!! This is EFL Vs Saints. Sides.

The point the poster made was that we didn't get a sporting advantage. We may or may not have - theoretically we could have tweaked something so managed to scrape a nil nil... theoretically. Regardless, the panel will focus on the advantage we could have gained in such a massive game.

Why does this keep being said? It's utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that the intention was to gain a sporting advantage, in the first of a series of games with a £200m prize.

I think people aren't looking at the context, and value, of the fixture. Massive outcome, massive penalty. If it was before the final, or even 2nd leg with it in the balance, I think we'd be in huge trouble.I think the club would swallow a massive fine. Let's see where it goes.

It is, but as I've said above, there needs to be a penalty that neither side would appeal. A small ISH fine, and only a small points deduction, would likely be appealed imo. £5ish mil, 4-6 points, and both sides would live with that imo.

I reckon something in the order of £5m, and we'll live with it.

I'd imagine they'd stick with Paris Smith, although what matters is choice of Counsel.

It's only a shite argument if you wanted Brexit and are happy with what you got. To anyone else, it's logical. Regardless, it's not been a success, so warrants a rethink.

Nah, it's a 115 point deduction or £115m fine I reckon.

Yep. The regs allow them to do what they like with us, but the lack of any penalty tariffs means we'd use our right of appeal (leading to a full rehearing) if we go down in flames. All sorts of problems arise, hence I see an outcome which neither us or the EFL are particularly happy with, but wouldn't appeal.

There's too much emphasis on any sporting advantage we actually gained. The issue is the sporting advantage we were seeking to gain, or could have gained, in the context of the game we were about to play, and the need to preserve the integrity of the game. I still think we'll be ok, just, mainly based on the right of appeal and the consequential issues flowing from that.

The focus on it being a knockout competition is important imo. I've said enough about the Leeds comparison being a false one (lack of specific rule, and general league season), but Swindon has some relevance. I think one potential saving grace is that the incident was prior to the 1st of 2 legs. Ahead of the 2nd leg, or the final, I think it gets viewed a wee bit differently.

Indeed. Or your spying.

I disagree. We've kept our powder dry and allowed Middlesbrough to run themselves ragged. You've only got to read the BBC thread to see how public opinion has moved away from them. Sure, some ex players and journalists have strong views against us, but that's largely designed to get us biting imo. The best thing we could have done is keep quiet, prepare our case, and speak once the outcome is known.

Correct.

That was then. The country didn't know what sort of Brexit they were getting, and were plainly missoold. Regardless, it's been a load of shite, and needs revisiting.

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.