egg

It's only a shite argument if you wanted Brexit and are happy with what you got. To anyone else, it's logical. Regardless, it's not been a success, so warrants a rethink.

Nah, it's a 115 point deduction or £115m fine I reckon.

Yep. The regs allow them to do what they like with us, but the lack of any penalty tariffs means we'd use our right of appeal (leading to a full rehearing) if we go down in flames. All sorts of problems arise, hence I see an outcome which neither us or the EFL are particularly happy with, but wouldn't appeal.

There's too much emphasis on any sporting advantage we actually gained. The issue is the sporting advantage we were seeking to gain, or could have gained, in the context of the game we were about to play, and the need to preserve the integrity of the game. I still think we'll be ok, just, mainly based on the right of appeal and the consequential issues flowing from that.

The focus on it being a knockout competition is important imo. I've said enough about the Leeds comparison being a false one (lack of specific rule, and general league season), but Swindon has some relevance. I think one potential saving grace is that the incident was prior to the 1st of 2 legs. Ahead of the 2nd leg, or the final, I think it gets viewed a wee bit differently.

Indeed. Or your spying.

I disagree. We've kept our powder dry and allowed Middlesbrough to run themselves ragged. You've only got to read the BBC thread to see how public opinion has moved away from them. Sure, some ex players and journalists have strong views against us, but that's largely designed to get us biting imo. The best thing we could have done is keep quiet, prepare our case, and speak once the outcome is known.

Correct.

That was then. The country didn't know what sort of Brexit they were getting, and were plainly missoold. Regardless, it's been a load of shite, and needs revisiting.

The regs set out sanctions, albeit not charge specific. I don't have an issue with that tbh, and for us it's a twin edged sword, but crucially gives appeal wriggle room if the penalty is harsh.

People who leave their trolley in a car park. Just walk 20 meters and put it away you lazy bastard.

And the league proper is essentially a different tournament to the playoffs. People are comparing a kebab with a carrot.

That's not the tribunal mate.

Let's indulge the conspiracy theory and assume he went because he's an idiot and his mate told him it'd be a good idea. If he's a saints man, and observed training, it's a breach - I read the rule as a strict liability offence, but others with a legal mind may take a different view. We then look at what either happened with the information, or his intention. Sure, he may have deleted it, but it can't be unseen, and it could have been passed on and used. If that information found it's way to us, or the evidence is that it was to be passed to us, that he went of his own accord and/or by enticement takes away a wider club led breach, but it's still a significant breach. The issue here is that none of us know the facts or evidence. The tribunal will be adversarial cum inquisitorial, meaning it'll referee a scrap between us and the EFL, but it'll also delve into the facts and evidence to get to the root of the issue. I'll say no more on the subject pending the decision - we're all going around in circles but with all sorts of diversions, and I don't want to cross swords with people who I'm on the same side as.

I'd go no higher than theoretically possible, but I don't think it's realistic But... assuming that theory is correct, where does it take us? An SFC person still went along, still and observed training within 72 hours. You'd imagine that he didn't do that for shits and giggles, and intended to use what what he observed to assist SFC. If you're entrapped but do wrong, you've still done wrong.

What's strange is our lad standing behind a tree and waving his phone at the Boro training pitches. That's the focus, no pun intended. What possessed or persuaded him to do that makes a wee bit of difference, and I'd prefer it to be naivety than instructions from our end, but even if a mate with Boro connections encouraged him, he still did it.

Yep. Nonsense like this makes us look almost as bad as the Boro fans.

Jeez, and now the conspiracy theories have started! Give your heads a wobble.

I think it's decent.

Plasma

I'd imagine it's proceeding over the weekend. 3 day hearing Friday to Sunday, Monday for deliberations/decision writing, and deliver that either later on Monday or Tuesday.

I'm saying it's different because it is different. The potential gains for us, and the potential impact for the other club, is completely different across a 46 game league season with 3 going up, than it is in a knock out play off with only one winner. How Leeds actually did doesn't alter that. The difference is such that the penalty for one is not relatable to the penalty for the other. They are different, and will be treated differently. As I say, it's a futile discussion as you see it as you do, and how either of us see it is irrelevant anyway.

You're focusing on what the breach achieved. That's not the focus. However you approach it, you see the scenarios as comparable whereas I see them as distinguishable. It's how the tribunal sees it, not us, and I hope that they're more persuadable than I would be.

Are we though? We don't know what our position is on either. It could be a scrap, or a contrite admission. We'll know soon enough, but the point remains that our case and Leeds are easily distinguished.

Yep, and a bloody important game. There's no point carrying on the debate, but viewing this objectively, I can see a massive difference and I'm pretty sure the tribunal will too.