egg

Things like this, and comparisons to other decisions, keep being made. This was done to get an advantage in a match where, theoretically, we could have sewn up the tie, and got our place in a final with a massive prize. Trying to get an illegal advantage to help towards a £200m prize has no precedent, none, so we will be the precedent, and it won't be a finger wagging and token penalty.

That could be for a variety of reasons, a lack of judgement being one of them.

👍 Sorry mate, I've got a sense of humour bypass now on this issue.

Err, no. There's no niceties involved in spying in breach of a clear rule prior to a massive game. The panel will be interested in that, not how Boro got the picture or name.

I'm not sure that particularly matters tbh. The panel will be more interested in what's happened, not how Boro know what they know. In an inquisitorial ISH tribunal, the focus is on what's happened, not niceties around the evidence gathering process.

I think that's optimistic. Double the points and fine, and I think it'll be thereabouts. People are underestimating how the panel will see this though. I think we'll have been kicked out if if were before the final, or even the second leg.

It's only worrying to the people who've laid out money and are expecting to see it again.

It's an opinion. Nothing more.

💯

Seems that way. I'd imagine it's deliberations today, the headline decision to be delivered tomorrow, with full written decision to follow.

Makes sense. 3 day hearing Friday to Sunday, today to deliberate and write decision, tomorrow to publish.

Oh, we've moved onto that. I'd rather focus on what's actually happening.

What's the relevance of the question? We're not being charged with denying them victor, just observing training. How the match actually went has nothing to do with that.

Rethinking being outside of the EU is a rethink. I'm not sure what we're not agreeing on!

I'm fine with that. Not in this term though - any government needs a mandate to look at it afresh.

Middlesbrough aren't involved. Us or the EFL can appeal - too harsh, us, too. lenient, them.

Yep. It's strict liability - you've either done it or you haven't.

It's completely different. This will be seen an attempt to gain a tactical advantage over one team in game one of a maximum 3 game series, with a prize of promotion to the PL, and all the riches that go with. That has zero comparison to financial irregularities across many, many games. There is no comparable. None, hence the risk of us being made the example as a deterrent.

You've identified the sides whilst saying there aren't sides!! This is EFL Vs Saints. Sides.

The point the poster made was that we didn't get a sporting advantage. We may or may not have - theoretically we could have tweaked something so managed to scrape a nil nil... theoretically. Regardless, the panel will focus on the advantage we could have gained in such a massive game.

Why does this keep being said? It's utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that the intention was to gain a sporting advantage, in the first of a series of games with a £200m prize.

I think people aren't looking at the context, and value, of the fixture. Massive outcome, massive penalty. If it was before the final, or even 2nd leg with it in the balance, I think we'd be in huge trouble.I think the club would swallow a massive fine. Let's see where it goes.

It is, but as I've said above, there needs to be a penalty that neither side would appeal. A small ISH fine, and only a small points deduction, would likely be appealed imo. £5ish mil, 4-6 points, and both sides would live with that imo.

I reckon something in the order of £5m, and we'll live with it.

I'd imagine they'd stick with Paris Smith, although what matters is choice of Counsel.