egg

It certainly wasn't wise and that the optics don't look good, but it isn't a serious enough irregularity to bypass the arbitration only agreement we have with the EFL imo.

There'd have to be a serious irregularity to challenge, and bias would be a foot in the door. It doesn't come close for me though, although I'd hope to be wrong.

That's ridiculous. Judges and arbitrators need to be given a credible option...if they had the choice of giving us a cuddle or shooting us, no wonder they shot us.

Another option. I also thought EFL cup ban for a few seasons. I'm genuinely interested in hearing options in this, and would like to know the position the club took.

I don't think it's close, to the extent most people wouldn't declare it...it's not exactly Lord Hoffman / Pinochet territory.

That would have been an option. I haven't read the judgement. What was our case on sanction?

Cheers. For me, that translates as no real penalty, or a harsh one. The former was never going to happen.

Because it was a sporting breach. I think a sporting penalty was something that nobody could realistically oppose. The issue is what alternatives were available. If we were promoted, the points wouldn't bite, and in reality, even a chunky fine wouldn't hurt is due to the TV cash.

It still isn't a conflict. I gave a scenario up there somewhere. Say my firm sues a client for non payment of fees. The other person opposes. We have a small claim. The judge may have worked for my firm back in the day, may even have been a partner. There would be no conflict, and that judge could quite properly decide the case. To the lay person, I get that it looks wrong, but a historic connection isn't a conflict.

Trust me, it is. I live in the legal world, hence I shake my head at the nonsense I read on here.

Was there a point amongst the rant mate? There wasn't a conflict of interests.

Novel, and fair play for actually addressing the issue.

You didn't...you talked about doing something before the 2nd leg...unless the panel had a time machine, that wasn't an option. On the actual day of the sentence, what sporting sanction (that would actually impact on us, assuming we were promoted) could have been imposed? It's a simple question.

We started the appeal (arbitration) and we, and the EFL, nominate an arbitrator. The idea that we have no say in the make up of the panel is incorrect.

Yet, you still can't say what sporting sanction the panel could or should have imposed.

Once kicking a ball for Boro - a non party to the proceedings despite what people keep convincing themselves - is not a conflict. Even if they were a party, it still wouldn't be a conflict. It's an absolute non point.

I remember reading about those offences, they were horrific. The judges sentencing remarks beggar belief - "I should avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily...". That sends no kind of message. They're odious little cunts who not only need criminalising, they should be named, shamed, marignilised, and properly punished.

Yep. Shaw can feel hard done by too. He's had a great season. Gibbs-White missing out is nuts too.

Again, that misses the point. The panel, this week, couldn't turn back time. I repeat, what sporting sanction was actually available to them that would have impacted us - points in a league we may not have played in for years to come, would not be a sporting sanction.

That's a different question. The simple question is what sporting sanction was available that would have had an impact that would have bitten in the event of promotion? If it wasn't expulsion, it effectively meant no actual sporting sanction. Should we have avoided a sporting sanction for a sporting offence?

Changing counsel on an appeal 24 Hours later suggests that the previous counsel was properly shit.

What sporting sanction could they have given that would have impacted us next season, assuming we went up? The reality is that there wasn't one, hence the one we got.

That's a different issue. Your point was about the bloke on the panel. He didn't have a conflict of interests. Say my firm sues a client for unpaid fees. He disputes it. We end up in court. The judge worked at or, or even was a partner in my firm, years ago. On your approach that judge must step aside. In reality he wouldn't and shouldn't. I get that people are annoyed, but we've put the turds on our own doorstep, nobody else.

Arguably, but it's just a deflection from our conduct.

The theory takes us nowhere though and is pointless. Boro were / are cunts, but whether we were baited or not, we bit.