egg

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.

Yep, and good point...it's not unusual though to present evidence knowing nothing will turn on it.

The charge relates to Boro only, but the tribunal can consider any evidence it thinks relevant, and decide the importance and credibility of that against the charges. I've said above that the tribunal is adversarial cum inquisitorial, meaning it referees the scrap between us and the EFL, but also digs in as it needs to in order to get the information it thinks it needs. It's hard to see what other clubs could say that's relevant, but it's not beyond belief that they've had a say.

They won't, but if us and the EFL have been told, something could easily slip.

Check the hot dog seller...very suspicious fringe.

We could all make up what we want the evidence to be, but who knows what the evidence was. Whatever it was, it's the role of the panel to decide what weight to give to the evidence, and make findings on the balance of probabilities. That's how these things work.

Testimony is evidence. It's for the panel to decide how to interpret that evidence, and to make findings accordingly.

Nice! The Saints boat looks properly suspicious to be fair.

Anyways, we're on page 137. Anyone know the scores on the doors for the page of the announcement sweepstake?

We get tall Paul back for the final?

Yep, that's how I think it'll play out, although it's more touch and go than people want to believe.

Yep. He's an ADR man, although he sits as a Recorder in the crown court, so will be used to dishing out unpleasant penalties.

All comparisons are comparing apples with kebabs. There is no legal comparable relevant to this; it's entirely unprecedented.

Things like this, and comparisons to other decisions, keep being made. This was done to get an advantage in a match where, theoretically, we could have sewn up the tie, and got our place in a final with a massive prize. Trying to get an illegal advantage to help towards a £200m prize has no precedent, none, so we will be the precedent, and it won't be a finger wagging and token penalty.

That could be for a variety of reasons, a lack of judgement being one of them.

👍 Sorry mate, I've got a sense of humour bypass now on this issue.

Err, no. There's no niceties involved in spying in breach of a clear rule prior to a massive game. The panel will be interested in that, not how Boro got the picture or name.

I'm not sure that particularly matters tbh. The panel will be more interested in what's happened, not how Boro know what they know. In an inquisitorial ISH tribunal, the focus is on what's happened, not niceties around the evidence gathering process.

I think that's optimistic. Double the points and fine, and I think it'll be thereabouts. People are underestimating how the panel will see this though. I think we'll have been kicked out if if were before the final, or even the second leg.

It's only worrying to the people who've laid out money and are expecting to see it again.

It's an opinion. Nothing more.

💯

Seems that way. I'd imagine it's deliberations today, the headline decision to be delivered tomorrow, with full written decision to follow.