egg

I heard he's going to be in the next series of Slow Horses.

Amen to that!

I addressed the point as you wrote it. Whether it meant something else to you is another matter.

Or take a flask.

Yep. The punishment is the issue, and for me, only a fine is proportionate. . I still think the whole thing is a storm in a teacup, and that Middlesbrough have been pathetic. The club are well advised though, and assuming they take a sensible path, I think we'll be ok.

The offence doesn't mention what is being observed, just a training session. It could be the warm up, or a keepy uppy competition. It does not have to be vital, and what exactly it is, and whether a bloke walking his dog could have observed it, is irrelevant.

If this has been donee by someone who's gone rogue, especially if it's part of a series, then our best mitigation is to deal with those responsible strongly. Our internal investigation needs to be done quickly, and ideally any wrongdoer dealt with before the club come before the tribunal. If any wrongdoer is self employed, that's a blessing in that we can bin them off without a dragged out disciplinary process.

That's relevant in two ways for me. It serves as evidence of how the observation took place. High tech gear, eyes, a phone, it's all the same from the perspective of observing and making our the offence. If the offence is made out, it then goes to the penalty. Rolling up with high tech gear, if that's happened, shows a level of planning that may strengthen the penalty.

Indeed, and the tribunal only has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. If they think it's more likely than not that the ingredients of the offence are made out, the case goes against us.

The allegation is that we've observed training. Not recorded it, nor streamed it, nor gained an advantage, just observed it. I don't see that his phone has any relevance to the offence being made out. If he was representing Saints, and observed them training within 72 hours of kick off, the offence is made out.

Is Salt the lad who's LinkedIn said a few days ago that he was at Saints?

You're overcomplicating something simple. The law will assume that the "club" means a representative, employee or agent of the club. Someone self employed, if sufficiently close to the club, could be deemed to be an agent. If the club disputed someone was an agent, the tribunal will have to determine whether they think that person is in fact an agent. It seems to be a straightforward test for the tribunal, but much depends on the evidence.

The rule is clear: "no Club shall directly or indirectly observe (or attempt to observe) another Club's training session in the period of 72 hours prior to any match". That's it. No intent is needed. I read it as a strict liability offence, ie, the ingredients in the rule are either present or they're not. It's a bit like, for example, possession of cannabis. You're either in possession or cannabis or you're not. Why, how, doesn't matter.

Correct. But that's not the point, or what's alleged to have happened.

Then it's about the connection, and whether he acted as our agent. If it was a frolic of his own, whether any information found it's way to us. At this stage we haven't got a clue what, if anything happened, but what we don't have is a denial from the club, just mention of context.

I understand the point, and the arguments but I think their poor arguments and that any reasonable tribunal would find against THB if there is credible evidence that he said "sp, sp, sp, spit it out" to Ayling. Let's see where it goes.

There's a rule that a club doesn't observe, or try to, the other teams training within 72 hours of the game. It's crystal clear - you observe, it's a breach. If Dave from Middlesbrough caught a glimpse of training when walking his dog, that's completely irrelevant - he's not Southampton FC.

Blimey, didn't see that coming, and a bit of a shock now the season is up and running.

The test for sports disciplinary is on the balance of probabilities (ie.whether something is more likely than not to have happened). Given that Ayling is known to have a stammer, and THB isn't, if there's clear evidence that he said that, THB would be a lucky lad to get off that.

Christ knows what the truth is, but there's been a ridiculously ott response whatever it is.

That was 4 years ago, and it's a bit different to hiding in the bushes to be fair.

They're not leading the voters, no, not one bit. Sensationalised bollox.

66% (aka Middlesbrough fans).

66% say throw us out of the playoffs. Fecking eejits.

It could be that, or it could have been a discriminatory remark with an accepted apology. The latter wouldn't rule out a charge I'd imagine.