sadoldgit

I think this has been said many times. Are we guilty of the two charges, yes or no? If yes, are there any mitigating circumstances that need to be taken into consideration when arriving at the sentence. This is where everything else like lack of proper spying equipment, effect on the outcome etc comes into play.

It didn’t happen unless you were standing by a tree and took a picture of it with your iPhone!

It has, but I think that actually works in our favour if we have something substantial to fight back with. I’m hoping the reason we are keeping our powder dry is because we have a bigger gun than they do. It doesn’t do us any favours to get into a slagging match before the hearing either. Better to be grown up and professional rather than childish and petulant. (Unless Boro get their way in which case I hope Dragan kicks the shit out of that snivelling little bastard “Gibbo”).

Great, then we go after them for defamation of character. They are awarded the first leg 3-0, they get what they want. For ungentlemanly conduct (for trying to influence the hearing and sentence) and defamation we are awarded the second leg 4-0. Job’s a good’un!

Still can’t get my head around this farcical position we have gotten ourselves into. It’s like an episode of Ted Lasso.

Or claim that Will Salt passed on his in depth analysis to Hull as well as us so they had an unfair advantage as well?

One day we will look back on all of this nonsense and laugh. 🤞

This is a completely different situation. We are being charged with breaking two rules made by the EFL. The issue is between us and the EFL. The punishment is there to act as a deterrent and to bring sanctions against a guilty party. That doesn’t mean that the club bringing the action automatically gets something back as recompense. I assume their way forward would be to bring some kind of legal action themselves either against us or the EFL but what chance do you think they would have proving that we gained an unfair advantage against them when looking at both games? They didn’t lose because of any possible law breaking on our part. Why should they get anything out of it?

I think the primary issue is intent. If he was stopped just as he started to “spy” the intent is there. If found guilty, the mitigation case will be based on how much information was actually obtained and passed on and you would expect that the reflect in any punishment passed on.

Has anyone actually established why, if this is such a heinous crime (I’ve seen it described as “disgusting” on here) the Premier League doesn’t have a rule against it?

So why did Leeds have to pay a fucking penalty? They were found to have breached the good faith regulations which we also have been charged with. FFS

Gibbo and the manager have also played a blinder (which is more than their team managed) by fuelling the whole hard done by victims story.

That was a bit risky of him wasn’t it? Taking pictures of a training session within 72 hours of the game? Leaves himself open to all kinds of accusations!

Has the inquiry come to its conclusion yet? If Boro have been “wronged” then it is a matter for the EFL, not me or us. As many have said, the punishment needs to be proportionate. As many have also said, expulsion from the competition is not proportionate. Fines and point deductions are usually the way to go. I don’t think anybody believes that Middlesbrough lost because a bloke with an iPhone behind a tree looked at a training session from a distance so the amount that they have actually been “wronged” is debatable. Remind me again, how were all of the clubs who were “wronged” by Leeds reimbursed by the EFL directly for the wrong doing?

Fortunately it is not the only option they have and it would set a worrying precedent given the possible ramifications. The only thing that would have real value to Middlesbrough is them replacing us in the final and that would be ridiculous given that they lost over two matches.