egg

Yep. We have no idea what we saw, and it couldn't be unseen. We may have seen their line up, shape, subtle tactical tweaks. If we had, we could have adjusted and gained an advantage. As it was, they may well have had to adjust, putting them at a disadvantage. Regardless, we didn't send the lad up there for a coffee and a day out. He went to get material to help us sew the tie up in the first leg, get to the final, and grab a £200m prize. The intent was massive . As you say, boot on the other foot and none us would be saying well done Boro, good luck against Hull.

I read somewhere that Christopher Quinlan QC was yesterdays chair. Not sure how accurate that was though.

I've just been listening. Simon Jordan was actually very sensible I thought. Made the point that although the £200k Leeds penalty to Saints £250m (the amount keeps up) is hard to fathom, the issue is that the primary offence was in the play offs not league. That for me has always been the issue, and if we go up, a chunky fine and points that wouldn't bite in the PL, isn't a sporting penalty. I think the appeal panel will see it the same way.

The absence of an NDA wouldn't have prevented evidence being given to the Tribunal under summons, and any disclosure ahead of a summons would probably be protected. It's not my area of law though, so I stand to be corrected, but I think that's broadly correct.

Wow. The stupidity of all of this - doing it, and our approach to mitigation - is breathtaking. On what planet did we think it's credible to simultaneously argue that Tonda thought it was ok, but got his staff wearing a disguise. When you're on a knife edge, the tribunal have discretion to do what they like with you, and the tribunal chair sits as a part time crown court judge so can sniff bullshit a mile away, you toe a credible line.

Sadly the EFL regs allow the panel chair to, at the request of the EFL, us, or off their own back, reduce the 14 day period - the rule applies to the main disciplinary process, and the appeal.

We'll get the written decision, but I'm wondering if they were specimen charges.

Yep. They feel to be an add on which we'll be given back on appeal. Absolutely disgraceful behaviour from the club though. Heads must roll I'd imagine players will walk, ditto sponsors. Cluster fuck doesn't come close.

Hard to say that without knowing what we admit or were found to have done.

Yep, and good point...it's not unusual though to present evidence knowing nothing will turn on it.

The charge relates to Boro only, but the tribunal can consider any evidence it thinks relevant, and decide the importance and credibility of that against the charges. I've said above that the tribunal is adversarial cum inquisitorial, meaning it referees the scrap between us and the EFL, but also digs in as it needs to in order to get the information it thinks it needs. It's hard to see what other clubs could say that's relevant, but it's not beyond belief that they've had a say.

They won't, but if us and the EFL have been told, something could easily slip.

Check the hot dog seller...very suspicious fringe.

We could all make up what we want the evidence to be, but who knows what the evidence was. Whatever it was, it's the role of the panel to decide what weight to give to the evidence, and make findings on the balance of probabilities. That's how these things work.

Testimony is evidence. It's for the panel to decide how to interpret that evidence, and to make findings accordingly.

Nice! The Saints boat looks properly suspicious to be fair.

Anyways, we're on page 137. Anyone know the scores on the doors for the page of the announcement sweepstake?

We get tall Paul back for the final?

Yep, that's how I think it'll play out, although it's more touch and go than people want to believe.

Yep. He's an ADR man, although he sits as a Recorder in the crown court, so will be used to dishing out unpleasant penalties.

All comparisons are comparing apples with kebabs. There is no legal comparable relevant to this; it's entirely unprecedented.

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.