egg

Is Salt the lad who's LinkedIn said a few days ago that he was at Saints?

You're overcomplicating something simple. The law will assume that the "club" means a representative, employee or agent of the club. Someone self employed, if sufficiently close to the club, could be deemed to be an agent. If the club disputed someone was an agent, the tribunal will have to determine whether they think that person is in fact an agent. It seems to be a straightforward test for the tribunal, but much depends on the evidence.

The rule is clear: "no Club shall directly or indirectly observe (or attempt to observe) another Club's training session in the period of 72 hours prior to any match". That's it. No intent is needed. I read it as a strict liability offence, ie, the ingredients in the rule are either present or they're not. It's a bit like, for example, possession of cannabis. You're either in possession or cannabis or you're not. Why, how, doesn't matter.

Correct. But that's not the point, or what's alleged to have happened.

Then it's about the connection, and whether he acted as our agent. If it was a frolic of his own, whether any information found it's way to us. At this stage we haven't got a clue what, if anything happened, but what we don't have is a denial from the club, just mention of context.

I understand the point, and the arguments but I think their poor arguments and that any reasonable tribunal would find against THB if there is credible evidence that he said "sp, sp, sp, spit it out" to Ayling. Let's see where it goes.

There's a rule that a club doesn't observe, or try to, the other teams training within 72 hours of the game. It's crystal clear - you observe, it's a breach. If Dave from Middlesbrough caught a glimpse of training when walking his dog, that's completely irrelevant - he's not Southampton FC.

Blimey, didn't see that coming, and a bit of a shock now the season is up and running.

The test for sports disciplinary is on the balance of probabilities (ie.whether something is more likely than not to have happened). Given that Ayling is known to have a stammer, and THB isn't, if there's clear evidence that he said that, THB would be a lucky lad to get off that.

Christ knows what the truth is, but there's been a ridiculously ott response whatever it is.

That was 4 years ago, and it's a bit different to hiding in the bushes to be fair.

They're not leading the voters, no, not one bit. Sensationalised bollox.

66% (aka Middlesbrough fans).

66% say throw us out of the playoffs. Fecking eejits.

It could be that, or it could have been a discriminatory remark with an accepted apology. The latter wouldn't rule out a charge I'd imagine.

Wasn't there what looked like an apology in the 2nd half. If THB did say something, he'd have been better advised to do nowt and leave it as one person's word against the other and receive the benefit of the doubt. An apology reduces doubt.

Agreed. If he's mocked a "disability", that's probably a ban in 2026 Britain.

The latter, and let's be honest, no self respecting football manager should want to go through at the expense of the better team over almost 4 hours of football.

Oh man, that's pathetic.

Who gives a monkeys... but I vote a shross.

Wembley - no better place to avenge that. We will.

It's fair to say that we're having an interesting season. We'll beat Hull and round it off in style.

Job done. Nice. Will be an interesting few days though: spygate outcome, and a suggestion on talksport that the ref will be reporting THB for his comment to Ayling.

I'm not enjoying this

33% injury time. Fuck off.