LordHester

Well, he might have done, as might a bunch of other people. But - fair enough - should have kept my mouth shut 😁

Abraham Lincoln said that it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people *think* you're a fool than open it and prove it without doubt. Just a thought for you there.

Charlie Austin?

If you think that our goalkeeping business is now done, and set in stone for the new season, then you've left Ramsdale out of that lineup. I'd be very happy with Peretz, with Ramsdale backup; Baz and Long fighting it out for cone duties. But I realise that a Ramsdale deal is almost certainly already done, and that we still have the best part of three months of the transfer window being open to sort other deals too. It felt like this was going to be a very long summer with players leaving left, right and centre after Spygate. The three deals the club have done already are an excellent sign of the club making plans and getting things done early; so let's maybe not throw our toys out of the pram that the goalkeeping lineup isn't exactly what we'd want at two months out from the season starting.

The window hasn't even opened yet, let alone shut. Shall we wait and see where we are in September?

This – would be amazed if Peretz was signed without there being a pretty firm plan for Ramsdale already.

The clause had to activated within 5 days of the final game. Saints were expelled from the playoffs seven days after the second leg against Boro. So unless you were expecting the club to extend the contract before they knew which league they'd be playing in, I don't think complacency was involved here. I suspect it's one of those loopholes, exposed by the unusual circumstances of Spygate, which will mean a tweak in the wording to similar agreements in the future.

In what way? Both signings were reported on their site yesterday within minutes of the news breaking.

Going to predict that Peretz’ signing means that Ramsdale’s departure is pretty much a done deal.

Possibly, although there’s two months til the start of the season - he’s signed very early if what he *actually* wants is the biggest pay day. I’m not suggesting that money isn’t an issue of course, and I’m sure Saints are paying him a very decent wage; but given that he’s not played consistently for some time before January, playing for a club and coach that rate him has also got to be a factor.

Interesting that Larin, a loan player whose contract is up, is in this post; but not Sugawara, who still has two years left on his contract.

It's the FA that would ban, not the EFL. EFL sanctions against the club, FA would be against the individual.

*Cough* Man City *Cough*

Why would they have taken recording equipment if that was the only aim?

I admire your optimism, but I think this can of worms has only just been opened. Off the top of my head, there could be: FA action against individuals at the club Player exodus The search for yet another new manager Sponsors pulling out Dragan deciding he's had enough and selling up

Don’t understand your thinking here. They’re trying to overturn a decision; that’s not going to happen straight away?

A cynic might say that, if you choose your independent panel correctly, they'll come up with the answer you want anyway.

This is the thing that's often missed when people say Saints' punishment should be much worse than Leeds' – Saints are (other than on the Boro boards) only being accused of one incident (that we know of).

But it still has to be proportionate. Let's say Saints are found guilty of one offence of spying, that it was known about through the club. We're fined £10m and thrown out of the playoffs. What happens then if, next season, it's found that a different club have been spying throughout the year on multiple clubs to gain an advantage? Where does the punishment go then, if the first punishment made under this regulation has already gone nuclear?

It's one of the reasons I'm baffled as to why a number of people, here and elsewhere, have said that Saints will get booted out of the playoffs because it's the neatest option. Given the amount of money involved in potential promotion, and there is no precedent set for how clubs should be punished under regulation 134, you can bet Saints would challenge expulsion from the playoffs.

It may also be easier to challenge a decision without precedence, given that the bar for punishment is yet to be set. It'll be an interesting test of how well the EFL ruling is written, given that it's the first time it's been used. Regulation 3.4 (clubs acting in "utmost good faith") isn't exactly encouraging in that respect.

No, that's true; but this story is space-filling stuff because there is nothing new to report.

That page was published two days ago, before the second leg against Boro. You only have to look at the date on the page ... 🤦🏼

Or maybe the club recognise that what matters now is getting in the ear of the adjudicating panel (who are probably a bit busy for social media at the moment) – everything else is just noise.

Yep, I reckon Tonda is *definitely* the kind of manager who picks players for sentimental reasons, rather than because he thinks they're worth their place 👍