egg

Had Boro beaten us the sanction would have been points this season. I think that's a given. Having beaten Boro, they couldn't have given us points simply because had we won at Wembley, those points wouldn't have been imposed in the PL, and we'd essentially have escaped any penalty. That, essentially, is where our legal team got it wrong. They offered the panel no alternative sporting penalty to the expulsion.

I'll leave it mate. I can't be going round in circles with someone who'll only see what he wants to see.

You can't plan when to dive in a football match. You can plan when to spy. Seriously mate, you're comparing a carrot to a steak here.

They're worlds apart, and I'm staggered that anyone seriously thinks there's equivalent premeditation between going down in a situation in a football match that you can't foresee, and sending people to watch other teams training, x 3. Bizarre.

There's a world of a difference between something done in the field of play in the spur of the moment, and planned cheating on 3 occasions.

Eek. I think there's another ex youth lad as part of the first team coaching setup. Can't think who though.

In reverse. Timing, and context, makes all the difference. You're not suggesting that doing what we did pre Boro in the play off semis is no different to doing it in a mid season game? Re the rest, I don't pretend to know the EFL rules, but I suspect they set out a range of punishments for breach. For this, I'm not sure you can have anything other than a very broad range, with each case then assessed on it's facts and circumstances. However you cut it, we were seeking an advantage to gain a massive prize, and that was always going to get a massive punishment.

We misled them, twice I believe. That's not co-operation. I think the panel went strong on the points to allow the appeal tribunal something to give us.

🤣😂🤣

Forget "new". There's a rule. There's also that we didn't cooperate - twice, but primarily the timing pre play off semi. It's just not comparable imo.

Any tariff would have a range, say slap on wrists to expulsion, but nobody could seriously expect a tariff to set out specific penalties depending on the fixture, that's just daft. You can't, for example, say it's a 2 point deduction if it's for a 6 pointer in the last 4 games of the season where it really matters, but only a slap on the wrists if done early in the season, a point if midway. but expulsion if pre play off semi or final. That's just overly prescribed. The facts, circumstances and timing have to determine the punishment. We've now set the punishment precedent, and anyone else doing it will argue against that yardstick.

Ever decreasing circles. It's obvious what we were trying to achieve, and that the timing of the last offence magnified the seriousness, hence the punishment. The Bielsa comparison has been done to death. You see it as relevant, I don't. No amount of discussion will change our views.

Of course, but trying to get an advantage to get us there was precisely what we were trying to do.

New is irrelevant,but yep, there was a rule. There's also the trivial matter of us trying to cheat in the play off first leg to give us a chance to sew up the tie. I'm not sure Bielsa did that.

The 70 mph example wasn't mine. I disagree that the EFL could be expected to set out sanctions for every breach...who would reasonably foresee that a club would be so stupid as to do this prior to a play off game and set a sanction just in case someone is so daft? If it was 3 games mid season the outcome would be very different. Sometimes offences need to be taken on their own facts and circumstances.

That could have worked if done between the first and second legs, but not after both legs imo. Regardless, we needed to give the panel an alternative to consider and failed to do that. I'm unsure who decided on the strategy, but it was plain daft to leave the panel with expulsion as the only option if they (inevitably) didn't go with the fine suggestion.

We'll agree to differ. We were clearly going to punished on the intent, not the actual benefit. The Bielsa comparison isn't, and has been done to death. Sure, the punishment wasn't laid out, but trying to gain a sporting advantage can only sensibly be met with a sporting sanction. One of our many failings was not giving the panel a credible alternative to the fine that we were never going to get. I also see the process complaint as a red herring. The bloke who played a few times at Boro didn't have a conflict of interests, although having him there was unfortunate and doesn't look clever. The single biggest issue with the panel was our approach - non specialist solicitors, non specialist counsel (who was sacked post panel and pre appeal - must have been shit), calling the kid to give evidence, downplaying the offences and seeking either a fine or a fine, etc. We stitched ourselves up far more than anyone stitched us up.

Trying to gain an advantage in a game with a £200m prize isn't minor. It was always going to be a sporting sanction.

You'd have a point if he'd suffered any more punishment than his players, colleagues, employers or fans. He hasn't been punished, and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. The club could have saved themselves the inconvenience of a ban by dealing with the matter themselves.

Indeed. Our naive approach gave the panel the choices between the sporting sanction of expulsion, or a fine. It was always going to be a sporting sanction, so we got the only one on the table. The club should have offered the panel an alternative sporting sanction, and the only one I can think that would have been guaranteed to bite, was a ban from the EFL cup. That'd hurt us as a club who develops players and bloods them in that tournament. That we didn't give the EFL a credible alternative to an expulsion/one game ban is entirely on us. As is getting ourselves in that mess to begin with.

Never add the egg mix to the pasta, always pasta to the mix. Small difference, but as an egg, I know these things.

Midfield General has put it better than I could, but if you look at the sanction factually, it was a one game ban and 4 points. Sure, it was the biggest game in club football, but we bought it entirely on ourselves.

He should have gone for what he said and admitted at Boro, if not the aftermath. As the man at the top, I'd assume he was behind, or at least overseeing and approving, what we then put out via the media, our choice of legal team, and tactics and approach in the debacle that was the legal process. Someone has to take account of how badly we got it wrong, and for me that was/is Parsons.

Although he's not an FA voice, I'm happy that voices with even a tiny bit of clout are coming out with stuff like that. Simon Jordan another case in point. I still think they'll ban him for 8-12 games. If it's at the bottom end of that scale, we'll be ok, and although 12 is stretching it, he'd be back before the Christmas fixtures.

Imagine locking in now rather than at 65-70p when we had the chance, or even at Brown's floated 73 pence. Our cannolis would be a wee bit more expensive than they could have been.