egg

Exactly! Me and my mate pancetta what's cooking.

Only 1 of those ingredients has any place in a carbonara.

I agree that what we do between the decision and the appeal matters little, but what we did to address our conduct pre decision would have made a difference. Having the people who'd done wrong still in position, isn't the best look.

I'm sure it will, but that doesn't serve as mitigation in the decision, and we can't then argue on appeal that sufficient weight wasn't given to our proactive stance. I see how fans see it, I am one, but I also see it through legal eyes.

They weren't facing expulsion. They played the press like a fiddle, but we're the club who broke the rules.

The point is that they should have. We needed to investigate fully, and be proactive. Instead, we haven't (seemingly) taken any action, and have potentially parked it pending appeal. Staff behaviour, and the appeal, are separate matters and should be dealt with separately.

Not whining about the our lost opportunity when the whole thrust of the penalty is that we sought to gain that unfairly. It was naive at best. The apology, yep, the willingness to change, yep, the whining, no. What was also conspicuous by it's absence was saying that we've been let down by individuals, and have dealt with them. For me, it was misguided and unhelpful.

That's just silly.

Yep, they can, have, and the panel will have taken the view that they've lost that opportunity, and that we were seeking to gain it unfairly. A press release whining about our lost opportunity, pre appeal, wasn't wise imo.

But missing the point as the panel and appeal will see it.

FFS, that's a shite response and full of false equivalence. It misses completely the integrity of the game issue, and only mentions our potential losses, without acknowledging that's exactly what we were trying to gain. If that article demonstrates our approach, we're fucked in the appeal.

I don't see that as realistic. The regulations allow for the 14 days for the panel (then 14 days for the appeal) to be brought forward. Investigating this shouldn't have taken the club long, and dealing with those guilty should have then been done promptly. This feels like we went along yesterday waiting for a decision and would then react. Any decent advice would have been to get on top of it, and deal with it proactively. If we haven't done that, we haven't helped our cause.

There's also been calls to scrap the 3rd promotion spot and make it 2 up/2 down this season. There'll be all sorts of overspill from this - there's no right or wrong solution, and so many clubs have credible (ish) arguments.

It won't help the appeal as it doesn't got to the panel getting the decision wrong. However, it may have helped in the tribunal if our investigation identified all those involved, whether directly or indirectly, and we'd dealt with them appropriately. Binning them after the sanction won't make a blind bit of difference and looks desperately reactionary

No, although I suspect the sporting penalty for Boro is the exclusion from the final, and the sporting penalty for the other games being the 4 points. If there was a current season exclusion for everything, that probably would/could/should have been exclusion from the playoffs as a whole... if I was a Wrexham lawyer I'd be all over that.

There may have been no penalty for the earlier breaches, but regard had to them in the penalty for the Boro indiscretion.

Yep. We have no idea what we saw, and it couldn't be unseen. We may have seen their line up, shape, subtle tactical tweaks. If we had, we could have adjusted and gained an advantage. As it was, they may well have had to adjust, putting them at a disadvantage. Regardless, we didn't send the lad up there for a coffee and a day out. He went to get material to help us sew the tie up in the first leg, get to the final, and grab a £200m prize. The intent was massive . As you say, boot on the other foot and none us would be saying well done Boro, good luck against Hull.

I read somewhere that Christopher Quinlan QC was yesterdays chair. Not sure how accurate that was though.

I've just been listening. Simon Jordan was actually very sensible I thought. Made the point that although the £200k Leeds penalty to Saints £250m (the amount keeps up) is hard to fathom, the issue is that the primary offence was in the play offs not league. That for me has always been the issue, and if we go up, a chunky fine and points that wouldn't bite in the PL, isn't a sporting penalty. I think the appeal panel will see it the same way.

The absence of an NDA wouldn't have prevented evidence being given to the Tribunal under summons, and any disclosure ahead of a summons would probably be protected. It's not my area of law though, so I stand to be corrected, but I think that's broadly correct.

Wow. The stupidity of all of this - doing it, and our approach to mitigation - is breathtaking. On what planet did we think it's credible to simultaneously argue that Tonda thought it was ok, but got his staff wearing a disguise. When you're on a knife edge, the tribunal have discretion to do what they like with you, and the tribunal chair sits as a part time crown court judge so can sniff bullshit a mile away, you toe a credible line.

Sadly the EFL regs allow the panel chair to, at the request of the EFL, us, or off their own back, reduce the 14 day period - the rule applies to the main disciplinary process, and the appeal.

We'll get the written decision, but I'm wondering if they were specimen charges.

Yep. They feel to be an add on which we'll be given back on appeal. Absolutely disgraceful behaviour from the club though. Heads must roll I'd imagine players will walk, ditto sponsors. Cluster fuck doesn't come close.

Hard to say that without knowing what we admit or were found to have done.