egg

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.

Or the EFL appeal...

Good post, although I've highlighted the inconsistency. The evidence test is balance of probabilities, so more likely than not, rather than certainty or anything close to it. The EFL (not Boro, although they've clearly got a hand up the EFL's arse) don't have a high hurdle to climb here, and I've seen countless cases over the years where just a sniff of evidence has been enough to get over the line. What the evidence is, none of us know, but like you, I see a lot of smoke here so there's probably a fire...how big that is, we'll find out soon enough.

I'm not getting into hypotheticals, it's pointless. Let's just hope the facts and evidence show that at most we've committed a slight technical breach, and that a lenient penalty is dished out.

That's an apples/oranges comparison. I agree that we shouldn't be excluded, that a fine is fair, and that an EFL only points deduction seems likely. What are you realistically expecting as the outcome?

The agreement says s44 shall not apply. That provision removes the prospect of injunctive relief.

Indeed, s44 does not apply, so no prospect of a court injunction, and no s69 rules out a high court challenge, unless theres a serious irregularity or the panel go beyond their remit - I'd imagine giving party status to Boro may open those up.

Ah, but, but, they'd have had even more chances in the first half and probably would have scored at least 3 if we hadn't had a peek at one training session. Or something.

That's the most realistic thing I've read in this. Agreed.

The BBC are correct, there's no right of appeal to CAS. The arbitration clause provides for the panel that are determining this charge, then any appeal. That's binding. The regulations are what matters. Link to them here: https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/526ac020-67b3-11f0-9ba4-015464ec39cd.pdf Sections 8 and 9 sets out the answer to your questions - pages 129 to 142.

I disagree. The arbitration clause is binding - it's trite law.

"Lad" is as Tees Valley as "mush" is Test Valley.

In theory, but there's an arbitration clause in the EFL regs/our contract with the EFL, so that binds, and likely ousts the courts jurisdiction.

I think the less LeG says, the better, tbh. He's been ambiguous which has caused more than enough speculation imo.

Yep, the right of appeal, for me, makes expulsion very unlikely. We have 14 days from decision to appeal, although the panel can reduce that timescale and undoubtedly would. That appeal isn't getting dealt with before the play off final, and would inevitably take time. You've also got the prospect of a particular club benefiting from any decision, and another club objecting to that and seeking their own tribunal. Draconian punishment comes with too many ramifications and delays to make it likely imo.