egg

Good post, although I've highlighted the inconsistency. The evidence test is balance of probabilities, so more likely than not, rather than certainty or anything close to it. The EFL (not Boro, although they've clearly got a hand up the EFL's arse) don't have a high hurdle to climb here, and I've seen countless cases over the years where just a sniff of evidence has been enough to get over the line. What the evidence is, none of us know, but like you, I see a lot of smoke here so there's probably a fire...how big that is, we'll find out soon enough.

I'm not getting into hypotheticals, it's pointless. Let's just hope the facts and evidence show that at most we've committed a slight technical breach, and that a lenient penalty is dished out.

That's an apples/oranges comparison. I agree that we shouldn't be excluded, that a fine is fair, and that an EFL only points deduction seems likely. What are you realistically expecting as the outcome?

The agreement says s44 shall not apply. That provision removes the prospect of injunctive relief.

Indeed, s44 does not apply, so no prospect of a court injunction, and no s69 rules out a high court challenge, unless theres a serious irregularity or the panel go beyond their remit - I'd imagine giving party status to Boro may open those up.

Ah, but, but, they'd have had even more chances in the first half and probably would have scored at least 3 if we hadn't had a peek at one training session. Or something.

That's the most realistic thing I've read in this. Agreed.

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.