egg

It would be, because of the differences, and the magnitude of the games. The regs do set out of the possible sanctions, including "93.2.12 order any other sanction as the Disciplinary Commission may think fit". The idea that every possible breach should have a laid out sanction tariff is unrealistic. The lack of it, and any comparable precedent, does leave scope for appeal either way though.

The EFL rules apply across all EFL competitions. I think it's unarguable that the impact of a breach across a 46 league season is a world away from a maximum 3 game knockout competition. The panel will see the difference.

It's now a specific rule. It wasn't when Leeds were pulled up. Any ambiguity that they had the benefit of, we don't get. The Leeds case is easily distinguished based on the competition - this is a a knockout tournament, there's was regular league - and that there's now a specific rule. I wouldn't be confident on the Leeds comparison succeeding.

They're a superb firm. Deservedly top ranked.

Leeds is a false comparison for me. Sure, you'd argue it in mitigation, but I'd expect the tribunal to see regular league games and a play off game as different, and note that there wasn't a specific rule then.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that, but it makes sense.

What about our right to appeal? That's our right, if we go down in flames, and that won't conclude prior to the game.

I see it as knock out competition after the league itself has finished, although you could see it the other way. However you cut it, a points deduction in this league doesn't punish us if we go up, and a chunky fine won't touch the sides.

Yep, agreed. The panel won't want to be appealed, the EFL won't want satellite litigation over any TV rights breach re cancellation, potential for 3rd party clubs seeking relief from any impact on them, etc, etc. Those issues, and timing, still lead me to a fine and EFL points.

For me it's simpler than that. The issue is the intent to gain an advantage, and whether we did or didn't, doesn't particularly matter. The penalty goes to what was at stake. 3 points in a league match is a world away from a place in the play off final, and then possibly the PL. The penalty has to have regard to that. The article homes in on the fact that a fine is academic should we get the £200m if promoted, and points deduction will likely only bite if we stay down or when / if we come back down. Is that a penalty that actually impacts us, and serves as a deterrent? The answer must be no. Regarding penalty, there's been talk of injunctions, ultra vires acts by the tribunal, and high court relief. I'm not sure those posting that stuff have considered the regulations. They exclude s44 and s69 of the Arbitration Act, so no obvious access to an injunction or high court relief, and more importantly, rule 93.2.12 essentially allows the tribunal to impose any penalty it wants.

I know.l, and the rule is based on the presumption that the material could be sensitive in the hands of the opposition. Hence the rule. Hence we're in the shit. It really is a simple concept.

I haven't dissected what you've said. Others have, and they're correct. The rule is that we're not allowed to observe what they're doing in training within 72 hours of the game. It's black and white. How easy they make it to breach, what we actually saw, what we did with that, how it impacted the game, anything, is wholly irrelevant. How people can't see the simplicity of that I don't know.

You're still not getting it are you.

The article is credible, and highlights the issues correctly. Don't be seduced by Miltons piece. Our main issue is deterrent - a chunky fine, and points that don't impact us if we get promoted, don't serve as a deterrent. Leeds were doing it in the regular season, and before it was a specific offence, so it's a false comparison imo. There is no Swindon comparison. I still think a fine and deferred points is where we'll end up though, mainly due to our right of appeal, and timing.

Yep. It's a daft argument. We can't control what they don't do, but needed to have controlled what we did.

Yep. I'd describe it as us doing 78mph for a very short time, seeing a cop car and slowing down. Boro are making out that we were doing 178mph whilst pissed up, coked up, with no insurance or licence, were weaving over the road, and did it every week.

Moody

Indeed. Saints must investigate and deal with them correctly. If he's an employee, it'll have to be a proper disciplinary process, if he's self employed they can just can him. We'll also need to understand how it was allowed to happen, who authorised it, who received any information, etc. All of that stuff is relevant to what's happened, and will happen.

Yep. I think I have.

Not all...but most are.

133

Not sure where to start with that bollox.. assuming it's genuine. The insinuation that 3rd party clubs have been impacted has no place in a submission by Boro, it's for that club. There's also the suggestion that financial loss has been suffered. I get that it could be, but the suggestion that it has been is nonsense. Whilst civil claims may be possible, the tribunal isn't a civil court, so what could theoretically take place on other arenas has no relevance in this arena.

In a court, we'd be in or hovering around contempt territory here. They're blatantly trying to influence the outcome.

To be fair, the people that live there, and have that excuse of a football club in their manor, need all the help they can get.

Two different issues. We may have acted disgracefully. Boro, with the smear campaign, attempt to hijack our legal process, and blatant attempts to get under the skin of the tribunal, all to get something that they were not good enough to get in the field of play, are a disgrace.