Saint Pete

There's that but then why pursue them in the first place and bother to charge them 115 times? I think the Premier League wanted to go after them in this case, but the issue with the big rich clubs is the fear of litigation, which often results in them bottling out of implementing serious penalties on them.

Don't think that's what they want though, they want to be noticed! If anything, might mean they delay their announcement longer now?

BBC has picked it up now, main headline on BBC Sport and BBC news sites.

Yes, right decision to stick with him in my opinion. And I still think a more sensible ban length of say 6 to 8 games (which is still pretty harsh) we could cope with without getting rid, I'm sure the club knew a ban of some sort was more likely than not. If the worst happens and it's a ridiculously long ban, then I guess what happens next will hinge on appeals process and whether he can still continue while we appeal (if we do). Doesn't mean we have handled the situation well in other ways though.

Let's hope our guys are switched on enough to argue it that way if FA start using the Canada precedent and talking 12 months as if that is fair.

If he gets even a 6 month ban, it seems laughably extreme. It could have the EFL thinking they should review their punishment on the club again, as that starts to look lenient in comparison!

Absolutely. You would say we possibly had the best team in our league and one of the best managers in the 2nd half of the season. So why feel the need to take such a big risk? Crazy.

I think you are being naive if you believe that media and public opinion has no impact or influence at all on scenarios like this. We can all argue about whether the EFL punishment in the club was correct and proportionate (quite possibly there is a good argument it was) but the massive OTT furore that blew up around what happened I believe would have at the least emboldened the EFL panel that the option of throwing us out and giving us a points penalty was not going to provoke a furious negative reaction in the media. Think about how it might have played out if it wasn't little old Southampton in the dock but a much bigger fish with more fingers in the media pie. I suspect you would have seen much more public push back about how the offence was quite tinpot and almost comical in comparison to other cheating in the sport, with many useful pundits/ex players etc coming out to pressure the EFL saying it would be a ludicrous overreaction to go as far as expelling us. I'm not saying it would have been right if that had influenced them, but it certainly would have put in their minds that they may face a media backlash afterwards. Why do you think bigger clubs often get more lenient punishments than the smaller ones, it's a combination of PR/influence and the greater fear of litigation from richer clubs. Whether using the media at this late stage could have any impact on the Tonda outcome is another matter, it depends on what is happening today. If today is purely about giving him his punishment, it's too late, but if it's true the final decision's not coming out until later, maybe even after International break, we could still be doing more to push back in media about what a sensible proportionate punishment should look like.

Let's hope this rumour of 6 months is bullshit, would be utterly ludicrous if that's what he gets, but nothing would surprise me at this point. With the bellends coming out again in the press and social media calling for him to be hung, drawn and quartered, I can't help feeling the club should have been far more forthright in the last couple of weeks making a vocal argument that there's no way that severe a punishment would even be on the table if it was a bigger, more "fashionable" club (even a West Ham, Spurs, Leeds, etc).

I don't disagree at all with putting our point of view out there before the final hearing and verdict, and trying to use the press and social media to help us for once. But having decided to do it, he wasn't anywhere near forceful enough and I don't think just saying "don't ban him because it will hurt us more and by the way, we have had lots of legal costs" can be considered coming out fighting. He needed to put much more meat on the bones of why our punishments so far (and by extension further bans on Tonda) should be considered disproportionate in comparison with equivalent or worse wrongdoing by other clubs and individuals, particularly those in bigger clubs. The small vs big clubs disparity I think would have generated more of a debate in the media and potentially more people coming out on our side to pressure the FA a bit, which surely was the aim of doing the interview?

I thought he'd been sidelined when it was Dragan who came out and did the end of season press stuff, but sadly it seems not.

Fair enough, can see the logic. Just thought it was odd that they made no acknowledgement that anything other than Boro being advanced to the final after losing was even discussed. As Egg just pointed out, it makes no difference to us anyway, the key decision was the punishment of expulsion.

I wa surprised there wasn't more made of that in the press after we were expelled, especially from the Wrexham point of view as the 7th placed team. It was as if the EFL did not even acknowledge any other possibility than Middlesbrough taking our place in the final. Of course the EFL didn't want to delay the final, but I think Wrexham could have argued strongly that they should have at least considered the possible alternative of promoting them into the play-offs to take our place in some way.

Yes, and that's what we should be focusing on in our media strategy and Tonda's defence, not blaming other clubs or whining about our legal costs etc.

He talks with a lot of common sense and knowledge. Do you think he fancies a job back in football as a CEO of a Championship club? I would certainly have felt a lot more confident about our response to what's happened if someone like him was driving it and putting our case.