egg

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.

Oh come on, step back and look at the bigger picture. This is massive for the club, it's owners, players, staff. Massive. Sure, we're impacted, but making this about the fans is daft.

Good to hear. Lower chilworth, aka lordshill.

Absolutely this. When you're accused of playing with a wonky bat, you keep your powder dry and deal with it quietly and correctly. Whatever we've done wrong to get to this point, we've dealt with it properly since.

Agreed, but that isn't the rule. We'll be disciplined on the actual rule, not commonsense.

I think TestValley is more TeesValley.

We could and will complain of there's expulsion as that's disproportionate. However, you highlight the relevant point that's being overlooked, namely intent. It doesn't matter that we didn't benefit from whatever happened, but we plainly intended to in what was a massive game. That'll be the focus of the tribunal.

That's understandable given the EFL press release mentioned possible appeal (either side can appeal, ie the EFL if we receive an outcome they think too generous) and postponement. The EFL could have simply said that "there is an imminent disciplinary tribunal and we will release the outcome in early course. Pending any decision to the contrary, it's business as usual". They didn't do that and instead put the prospect of a draconian verdict, and challenge, into the public arena.

If you substitute repugnant with wrong, nobody could reasonably disagree with Blackmore. That other clubs allegedly do it in league games isn't great mitigation in itself, and misses the point that this wasn't a league game but a high stakes play off semi. However you cut it, we were seeking an advantage that we were not entitled to seek, and the punishment will focus on that in the context of the stakes in that particular game.

The regulations are here: https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/526ac020-67b3-11f0-9ba4-015464ec39cd.pdf Section 8, regulations 84, 85 and 90 - 93 (page 129, 130 and 133 onwards.

He either has relevant evidence or he doesn't.

He may have, but if he has compelling evidence, I'm not sure if the relevance of any grudge against us.

🤣 I'm convinced you're on a wind up now.

Mod

The penalties...I've highlighted the only one that matters, which is basically they have discretion to do whatever. 93.2.1 order a party to do or refrain from doing anything; 93.2.2 order a specific performance; 93.2.3 make a declaration on any matter to be determined; 93.2.4 issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party 93.2.5 order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person 93.2.6 order a suspension of membership of The League 93.2.7 order a deduction of points; 93.2.8 impose a financial penalty payable to The League; 93.2.9 recommend expulsion from membership of The League; 93.2.10 order a withdrawal or loss of benefit otherwise available to members of The League e.g. basic award or ladder payment; 93.2.11 impose an embargo on registration of Players; 93.2.12 order any other sanction as the Disciplinary Commission may think fit; .

In the context of this charge, too much is being put on the rights or wrongs of the evidence gathering imo. The tribunal, I would imagine, will be more focused in facts, not how they came to light.

Yep. I reckon Hellberg called him a cheat and Tonda gave him a twin barrelled denial.

Apologies, I meant next weekend, final day. I'm talking about an appeal against that decision by either us or the EFL. That isn't getting dealt with by Tuesday, or the final.

I've just checked the EFL regulations. Either us or the EFL (assuming we're the only 2 parties to the case) can appeal a verdict or penalty within 14 days, although the chair can reduce that period. That appeal then needs to be held. Assuming we go down in flames on Tuesday, there's no realistic way of having an appeal fairly determined by the weekend. I'm as confident as I can be that, assuming this was an isolated incident, that we ain't getting kicked out.

What's that got to do with charge that relates to Middlesbrough? You're flapping and over thinking.