Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Hey ho, he did us like a kipper. Let's just all lie down and take it!

No, I haven't got over it. 

If you’re caught with the plank of wood, it’s your own fucking fault nobody else…

[coalman]

1 minute ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Hey ho, he did us like a kipper. Let's just all lie down and take it!

No, I haven't got over it. We have been cheated out of a spot in the play off final and we need recompense.

We cheated ourselves for apparently little benefit in an amateurish way. We handed the stick to Karen FC for them to beat us with. 

[egg]

25 minutes ago, MB said:

You couldn’t make this shit up.

no challenge whatsoever to the individuals on the panel despite Boro links, if that’s not a conflict of interests then what is

and more to the point why is a case of this magnitude, worth this amount of money, heard remotely on Zoom?

Once kicking a ball for Boro - a non party to the proceedings despite what people keep convincing themselves - is not a conflict. Even if they were a party, it still wouldn't be a conflict. It's an absolute non point. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Once kicking a ball for Boro - a non party to the proceedings despite what people keep convincing themselves - is not a conflict. Even if they were a party, it still wouldn't be a conflict. It's an absolute non point. 

Absolutely.  But could have been a solid stalling tactic...

[egg]

52 minutes ago, trousers said:

Much like I can't understand why some cannot grasp that it's possible to compare the crime separately to the rules and punishments.... 

If I murder someone in country A and country B, its still murder whether country A has a rule that imprisons me for 20 years and country B has a different rule that hands down a death penalty. 

Ergo, I'll continue to compare Eckert's and Bielsa's crimes, regardless of what rules they broke and what their punishment are.

 

Yet, you still can't say what sporting sanction the panel could or should have imposed. 

[trousers]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Yet, you still can't say what sporting sanction the panel could or should have imposed. 

I answered that question about 6 pages ago...

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just now, egg said:

Yet, you still can't say what sporting sanction the panel could or should have imposed. 

Pages and pages of pony, and nobody can. Once the first leg was played, it was all or nothing. Playing the first leg had fuck all to do with The panel, the bloke who played 1 game for Boro or “Gibbo”, and it was what 100% of people on here wanted. 

[Saintinnot]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Yet, you still can't say what sporting sanction the panel could or should have imposed. 

How about ordering the replaying of the 2nd leg behind closed doors having given a 3-0 forfeit to Borough for the first leg?

 

[Football Special]

6 minutes ago, davefizzy14 said:

This is what I'm hoping. Dragan is onto it. There's no way we can leave this. We should be in the play off final.

At the very least Dragan should have a couple of his Serbian ex-special forces lads pay a visit to Jason Taylor and see how many whistles he can blow whilst looking over the edge of a shark infested pool 

[James]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Pages and pages of pony, and nobody can. Once the first leg was played, it was all or nothing. Playing the first leg had fuck all to do with The panel, the bloke who played 1 game for Boro or “Gibbo”, and it was what 100% of people on here wanted. 

Plenty of people have explained what could have been done, you just ignore it as “pony” because you don’t agree with anyone that doesn’t have the exact view you do. 

[Football Special]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

Once kicking a ball for Boro - a non party to the proceedings despite what people keep convincing themselves - is not a conflict. Even if they were a party, it still wouldn't be a conflict. It's an absolute non point. 

Just all a big fucking massive coincidence isn't it , never mind eh 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just now, James said:

Plenty of people have explained what could have been done, you just ignore it as “pony” because you don’t agree with anyone that doesn’t have the exact view you do. 

Ahh yes, the reply the second game behind closed doors option, yeah, realistically good option that one. 😂😂

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Absolutely.  But could have been a solid stalling tactic...

We started the appeal (arbitration) and we, and the EFL, nominate an arbitrator. 

The idea that we have no say in the make up of the panel is incorrect. 

 

[James]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

Ahh yes, the reply the second game behind closed doors option, yeah, realistically good option that one. 😂😂

Why not? Rather than just dismiss with an emoji, explain why that wouldn’t have worked. 

[LGTL]

The number of people on here that don’t realise guilty people walk away from court on a daily basis thanks to a good defence 😂

We clearly weren’t walking away from anything and were always getting thrown out, but fuck me we didn’t even try and defend anything. 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, trousers said:

I answered that question about 6 pages ago...

You didn't...you talked about doing something before the 2nd leg...unless the panel had a time machine, that wasn't an option. 

On the actual day of the sentence, what sporting sanction (that would actually impact on us, assuming we were promoted) could have been imposed?

It's a simple question. 

[saintant]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

Once kicking a ball for Boro - a non party to the proceedings despite what people keep convincing themselves - is not a conflict. Even if they were a party, it still wouldn't be a conflict. It's an absolute non point. 

Not so sure it's a non-point in the legal world. My understanding is that any connection, no matter how tenuous and minute should be declared and that lawyers are hot on seeking these things out.

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, LGTL said:

The number of people on here that don’t realise guilty people walk away from court on a daily basis thanks to a good defence 😂

We clearly weren’t walking away from anything and were always getting thrown out, but fuck me we didn’t even try and defend anything. 

If that doesn't trigger the 'pony' klaxon I don't know what will...

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Saintinnot said:

How about ordering the replaying of the 2nd leg behind closed doors having given a 3-0 forfeit to Borough for the first leg?

 

Novel, and fair play for actually addressing the issue. 

[Whitey Grandad]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

Once kicking a ball for Boro - a non party to the proceedings despite what people keep convincing themselves - is not a conflict. Even if they were a party, it still wouldn't be a conflict. It's an absolute non point. 

More than just a single appearance.  He was on loan there. He must have been paid by them for quite some time. 

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Just all a big fucking massive coincidence isn't it , never mind eh 

Was there a point amongst the rant mate? 

There wasn't a conflict of interests. 

[James]

Just now, egg said:

You didn't...you talked about doing something before the 2nd leg...unless the panel had a time machine, that wasn't an option. 

On the actual day of the sentence, what sporting sanction (that would actually impact on us, assuming we were promoted) could have been imposed?

It's a simple question. 

Given the way the panel handled the conflict, I agree that the only sanction they could have imposed (given they were minded to apply a harsh deterrent and not a slap on the wrist), was expulsion.
 

Whether the panel could or should have delayed the second leg to give them more optionality is what is being debated. You act as if it was a given that no games could be moved and the panel had to move to a set timetable, clearly that is what they did but it wasn’t their only option. 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

You didn't...you talked about doing something before the 2nd leg...unless the panel had a time machine, that wasn't an option. 

On the actual day of the sentence, what sporting sanction (that would actually impact on us, assuming we were promoted) could have been imposed?

It's a simple question. 

Why does it have to be a sporting sanction?

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, James said:

Given the way the panel handled the conflict, I agree that the only sanction they could have imposed (given they were minded to apply a harsh deterrent and not a slap on the wrist), was expulsion.
 

Whether the panel could or should have delayed the second leg to give them more optionality is what is being debated. You act as if it was a given that no games could be moved and the panel had to move to a set timetable, clearly that is what they did but it wasn’t their only option. 

The whole procedure was rushed.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

Not so sure it's a non-point in the legal world. My understanding is that any connection, no matter how tenuous and minute should be declared and that lawyers are hot on seeking these things out.

Trust me, it is. I live in the legal world, hence I shake my head at the nonsense I read on here. 

[coalman]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

The whole procedure was rushed.

A fact that Hull's lawyers are currently salivating over.

[Harry_SFC]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The whole procedure was rushed.

Rushed so it would be less hassle for the EFL. They'd have lost money. Oh no poor them. 

[trousers]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

You didn't...you talked about doing something before the 2nd leg...unless the panel had a time machine, that wasn't an option. 

On the actual day of the sentence, what sporting sanction (that would actually impact on us, assuming we were promoted) could have been imposed?

It's a simple question. 

At that stage of the timeline (which I wouldn't have let it get to if it was me) it's a choice between 'no sporting sanction' and an 'unfair sporting sanction' (IMO) 

For me, the 'lesser of two evils' in that scenario, is that no sanction is better than an unfair one. You're more than welcome to disagree of course 👍🏻

Edited 1 hour ago by trousers

[LegalEagle]

11 minutes ago, trousers said:

I answered that question about 6 pages ago...

Simon Jordan proposed yesterday a 6 point penalty, a £10 mill fine and a one off match between Boro and Saints at Boro as a decider with the final having to be adjourned for a week or 10 days. 

[trousers]

4 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

More than just a single appearance.  He was on loan there. He must have been paid by them for quite some time. 

Only two months in total...

Edited 1 hour ago by trousers

[egg]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

More than just a single appearance.  He was on loan there. He must have been paid by them for quite some time. 

It still isn't a conflict.

I gave a scenario up there somewhere. 

Say my firm sues a client for non payment of fees. The other person opposes. We have a small claim. The judge may have worked for my firm back in the day, may even have been a partner. There would be no conflict, and that judge could quite properly decide the case. 

To the lay person, I get that it looks wrong, but a historic connection isn't a conflict. 

 

[ChrisPY]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Trust me, it is. I live in the legal world, hence I shake my head at the nonsense I read on here. 

Of course it is but it’s something that should have been questioned in the initial hearing to create an element of doubt/slow proceedings and then released into the media before the appeal to add further public pressure.

[trousers]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

Simon Jordan proposed yesterday a 6 point penalty, a £10 mill fine and a one off match between Boro and Saints at Boro as a decider with the final having to be adjourned for a week or 10 days. 

Yep, that sounds more proportionate than disqualification 👍🏻

[trousers]

1 minute ago, egg said:

It still isn't a conflict.

I gave a scenario up there somewhere. 

Say my firm sues a client for non payment of fees. The other person opposes. We have a small claim. The judge may have worked for my firm back in the day, may even have been a partner. There would be no conflict, and that judge could quite properly decide the case. 

To the lay person, I get that it looks wrong, but a historic connection isn't a conflict. 

 

Was he duty bound to declare it, even if not classed as a "conflict" in legal terms?

(He may well have done of course, just asking out of curiosity)

[LegalEagle]

Just now, trousers said:

Yep, that sounds more proportionate than disqualification 👍🏻

When he said it I thought the £10 mill was a bit heavy but otherwise made a lot of sense

[saintant]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Trust me, it is. I live in the legal world, hence I shake my head at the nonsense I read on here. 

Fair enough. You'll know more about it than what I've gleaned on the internet then.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Why does it have to be a sporting sanction?

Because it was a sporting breach. I think a sporting penalty was something that nobody could realistically oppose. The issue is what alternatives were available. If we were promoted, the points wouldn't bite, and in reality, even a chunky fine wouldn't hurt is due to the TV cash. 

[It's There]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

It still isn't a conflict.

I gave a scenario up there somewhere. 

Say my firm sues a client for non payment of fees. The other person opposes. We have a small claim. The judge may have worked for my firm back in the day, may even have been a partner. There would be no conflict, and that judge could quite properly decide the case. 

To the lay person, I get that it looks wrong, but a historic connection isn't a conflict. 

 

I would agree, except , in this instance. the EFL should have been wiser and not given a whiff of conflict. Personally, I think there may be a challenge about the panel (not the outcome) and the forced speed of the process.

[offsidetrap]

8 hours ago, benjii said:

Very true.

Their public profile is completely out of whack with their size of business and organisational competence, often.

My accountant audited a formula 1 team. They are equally inept. 

My old company was bought by a bigger richer company with a large income stream from a significant patent in comms. This meant their management had no idea how to actually make money properly. It’s a serious problem running these “golden goose” outfits. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, trousers said:

At that stage of the timeline (which I would have let it get to if it was me) it's a choice between 'no sporting sanction' and an 'unfair sporting sanction' (IMO) 

For me, the 'lesser of two evils' in that scenario, is that no sanction is better than an unfair one. You're more than welcome to disagree of course 👍🏻

Cheers. For me, that translates as no real penalty, or a harsh one. The former was never going to happen. 

[LegalEagle]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

It still isn't a conflict.

I gave a scenario up there somewhere. 

Say my firm sues a client for non payment of fees. The other person opposes. We have a small claim. The judge may have worked for my firm back in the day, may even have been a partner. There would be no conflict, and that judge could quite properly decide the case. 

To the lay person, I get that it looks wrong, but a historic connection isn't a conflict. 

 

I agree Egg that in itself it is not a conflict but depending upon what that person says at any hearing it could give rise to a suggestion of bias. Best just avoid it in the first place and use someone else.

[egg]

5 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

Simon Jordan proposed yesterday a 6 point penalty, a £10 mill fine and a one off match between Boro and Saints at Boro as a decider with the final having to be adjourned for a week or 10 days. 

That would have been an option. 

I haven't read the judgement. What was our case on sanction? 

[LGTL]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Because it was a sporting breach. I think a sporting penalty was something that nobody could realistically oppose. The issue is what alternatives were available. If we were promoted, the points wouldn't bite, and in reality, even a chunky fine wouldn't hurt is due to the TV cash. 

Transfer ban? Not sure if that’s deemed a sporting sanction though 

[egg]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

I agree Egg that in itself it is not a conflict but depending upon what that person says at any hearing it could give rise to a suggestion of bias. Best just avoid it in the first place and use someone else.

I don't think it's close, to the extent most people wouldn't declare it...it's not exactly Lord Hoffman / Pinochet territory. 

[coalman]

1 minute ago, egg said:

That would have been an option. 

I haven't read the judgement. What was our case on sanction? 

We said any sanction should be grounded in the punishment handed out to Leeds.

[sockeye]

Having to travel down the M1 towards Southampton… Seeing a sea of red and white has never been so depressing 

[egg]

1 minute ago, LGTL said:

Transfer ban? Not sure if that’s deemed a sporting sanction though 

Another option. I also thought EFL cup ban for a few seasons. I'm genuinely interested in hearing options in this, and would like to know the position the club took. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, coalman said:

We said any sanction should be grounded in the punishment handed out to Leeds.

That's ridiculous. Judges and arbitrators need to be given a credible option...if they had the choice of giving us a cuddle or shooting us, no wonder they shot us. 

[trousers]

The crux for me is that we were sanctioned upon the outcome of two games (both semi final legs) rather than for the single game we attempted to spy for (the first leg). This is why, for me, any sanction should have only applied to the first leg and not the second leg, hence the suggestions along the lines of forfeiting or replaying the first leg or having a further one off knock out match, would have been a "fairer"  approach. Of course, given that could / would have endangered the date of the final, the EFL were never going to entertain a possible fairer solution in favour of preserving their timetable...

Edited 1 hour ago by trousers

[westmidlandsaint]

Maybe Mr Winnie didn't like me questioning whether as an independent panel member he should writing about this case and self promoting and questioning whether he was 'acting in good faith' on LinkedIn