LordHester

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 👍

Ballard's had one decent season in League One, but Still wasn't the first manager who didn't think he'd make it at a higher level.

It hasn't done Pep's reputation too much harm.

Yes, yes; but he's too young. Or too clever. Or doesn't learn (except when he does). Or something.

Jesus. If you get that little joy out of the game, why do you bother?

I'd suspect it was our choice - even out the gap between Hull and Pompey.

Ah, well that's good enough for me. Got any magic beans you'd like to sell while we're at it?

On iPlayer here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002d2kp/footballs-financial-shame-the-story-of-the-v11

That's the spirit!

As per Alfie House on the Total Saints podcast this week, both Bree and Taylor are in the last year of their contracts.

Plus playing down his involvement is a useful way of deflecting questions in press conferences.

True; though of course Verona will know this and, even if his loan works out well, only offer him a contract once we've released him on a free.

Yes, because goals conceded are definitely the sole responsibility of the keeper, and not the defenders in front of him; nor the midfielders who lose the ball when too far up the pitch.

Baz and Stephens instrumental in a win. Let the meltdown begin!

Jeezus, when there's over a page of speculation as to who might or might not be a club plant, you know the rumour mill has gone *very* quiet.