egg

Yep...and the club offered up no credible sanction for the EFL to hit us with...give them the option of expulsion or a fine was inviting expulsion. We had to have a sporting sanction for a sporting offence like that, and the reality is that points wouldn't have hit us, and having not attempted to steer the panel towards something else (EFL cup ban, for example) i can't see that else they could do. It seems like we payed a game of chicken with them, and lost badly.

I spoke with a prominent ex player in the week. He thinks the lads will feel that way, and won't want to play for him.

Parsons opening his mouth was stupid, but the evidence may have meant we were screwed anyway. Who knows. I'd like to know whether Tonda has lost the dressing room, but regardless, his position is untenable for me.

These theories are utterly pointless. We sent a bloke up there to watch them train. That's it.

We ain't in a position to make any demands. They hold the cards here...and the gun.

The EFL could / should make it clear that a line has been drawn under all our 25/26 spying activities, and that the league and it's members now need to move forwards.

I see the Tonda thing differently. Us not ditching him took away a wee bit of mitigation, and keeping him won't help with some sponsors. He's staring down the barrel of a ban, and that'll only get worse for him if he's done more. Sure, he knows where the skeletons are buried, but his problem is that he ordered the killing.

Agreed. Boro threw the kitchen sink at this. There's undoubtedly been more though, and what's unclear is whether the EFL asked us whether there was more. If they did, and we denied there was, but more comes it, it'll get messy.

Without doubt. Those offences were the first in time so I'd imagine were treated as something akin to "previous convictions". That, plus our dishonesty, daft suggestion of a fine alone as an appropriate penalty (I'd have offered up an EFL cup ban, plus points), the significance of the play offs, pushed us over the edge.

They wouldn't be daft enough to ditch it now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it go in time. You can't stop the practice , for example, drones flying over head. You have no way of telling who's controlling them, even if it comes down.

The panel made a rod for their own backs by giving points for the other 2 games. It gives an incentive for Boro and other clubs to go investigate, and was completely unnecessary - the expulsion was a massive penalty, and if they'd said that there was no additional penalty for the other games as the expulsion serves as a penalty for all offences, that would have put it to bed.

That's a disgrace. Have you left her yet?

There's no point in carrying on the discussion mate. If the club agree, there'll challenge, and if you're correct, the problem will be solved.

It certainly wasn't wise and that the optics don't look good, but it isn't a serious enough irregularity to bypass the arbitration only agreement we have with the EFL imo.

There'd have to be a serious irregularity to challenge, and bias would be a foot in the door. It doesn't come close for me though, although I'd hope to be wrong.

That's ridiculous. Judges and arbitrators need to be given a credible option...if they had the choice of giving us a cuddle or shooting us, no wonder they shot us.

Another option. I also thought EFL cup ban for a few seasons. I'm genuinely interested in hearing options in this, and would like to know the position the club took.

I don't think it's close, to the extent most people wouldn't declare it...it's not exactly Lord Hoffman / Pinochet territory.

That would have been an option. I haven't read the judgement. What was our case on sanction?

Cheers. For me, that translates as no real penalty, or a harsh one. The former was never going to happen.

Because it was a sporting breach. I think a sporting penalty was something that nobody could realistically oppose. The issue is what alternatives were available. If we were promoted, the points wouldn't bite, and in reality, even a chunky fine wouldn't hurt is due to the TV cash.

It still isn't a conflict. I gave a scenario up there somewhere. Say my firm sues a client for non payment of fees. The other person opposes. We have a small claim. The judge may have worked for my firm back in the day, may even have been a partner. There would be no conflict, and that judge could quite properly decide the case. To the lay person, I get that it looks wrong, but a historic connection isn't a conflict.

Trust me, it is. I live in the legal world, hence I shake my head at the nonsense I read on here.

Was there a point amongst the rant mate? There wasn't a conflict of interests.

Novel, and fair play for actually addressing the issue.