#Spygate

[Tamesaint]

Please spare a thought for Junior Tamesaint. Not only does he live in North Yorkshire amongst Middlesborough fans but as a teacher he tries to educate them. He spent some of the time last Saturday pointing out to me his ex pupils he could see in the home crowd. 

Some of the kids are quite sensible but quite a few have drunk the Gibson Cool aid. He may soon have to appeal to SFC for compensation for the effect that this is having on his mental and professional health. 😁😁 

 

 

 

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

If someone watches the opposite warming up/practicing set prices half an hour before kick off, is that spying? It's within 72hours. As I definitely saw Kim, and others, having a few glances over before both legs. 

I'd hazard a guess they've done the same before other games this season too.

[hypochondriac]

So if we look at some of the ITK posters on here I think we can make a reasonable assumption about where we are.

1) someone has clearly spied on Middlesbrough from Southampton and broken the rule. I think we can also assume that this isn't the first time this has happened based o na few posts from here and presumably a statement from an ex employee. Not good. 

2) It is likely that some of the coaching team will have been aware of this and very unlikely Imo that nobody other than the analyst knew about it. Also not good. 

The key then becomes in this hearing can Middlesbrough's evidence prove with 100% certainty that not only has this happened before but that what has happened is systemic. Do they have evidence in the form of instructions from higher ups or tonda or spors perhaps instructing someone. Do they have footage from other clubs of this occurring. Imo this is unlikely. Will the club statement say that this was a problem with the analysts and that the other coaching staff were not aware? Or that we did send people previously but that it wasn't in the 72 hour window? Personally I think Middlesbrough are going to have a tough time to convince a panel that we did this repeatedly with the approval of the coaching staff and that we instructed the analyst to break the rules by spying in the period when it isn't allowed. 

In summary I think on the balance of probabilities we did spy on other clubs - or at least some within the analyst part of the club did, I think it's possible that some more senior people within the coaching setup knew it was going on but I think both of these things are going to be rather difficult for Middlesbrough to prove definitively. A statement from an ex employee isn't going to cut it unless they have some sort of smoking gun communication. 

Edited 3 hours ago by hypochondriac

[DT]

I've never texted a channel before but listening to the morons on Talksport I couldn't resist.

No answer so far. What a bunch of twats.

 

My texts:

One charge without any evidence and midway through an investigation and most pundits including yours acting as judge and jury. I look forward to your similar forensic assessments of Manchester City's 130 charges. Why no consistency? PS the 'technology' you mentioned that is able to transmit recordings... an iPhone? Get a grip

 

What is Scott Minto's evidence that Tonda Eckert is 'guilty', as he said just now? And why is everyone leaping to conclusions while the hearing is on, without hearing any of the evidence given? You're being spun, boys. Could we also have some views on how guilty Man City is over their 115 charges, while you're at it? 😉

 

We've not denied it or commented because it is going to a hearing you absolute muppets

 

Crook saying 'don't come on and defend the indefensible' is tantamount to him saying Southampton are guilty, which he denied saying 20 seconds earlier. It IS defensible, because that is what is going on right now. My estimation of you as journalists has gone down considerably. Ask yourselves this: what could a bloke with an iPhone possibly learn that will somehow change everything in football? 

Edited 3 hours ago by DT

[SNSUN]

6 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Are we finding out today if it's going to be played on the 23rd? I hope so as I've planned my calander around it.

Me too. I've booked in Lusty Lenore for 8pm and she's Wembley Stadium-adjacent.

[Tamesaint]

52 minutes ago, James G said:

If both LinkedIn profiles were taken down at the same time, maybe the whole incident was the two of them. Salt was wanting to further his credentials, so he consulted the other guy who had worked at Boro who said come and watch from here, that's where everyone stands. Then further down the road, because Salt was caught and Boro have made a fuss, Salt has implicated the other guy who is now possibly defending himself by helping Boro

Perhaps Salt like Taylor has also been dismissed by Saints, he has colluded with Taylor and this is them trying to get revenge. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Perhaps Salt like Taylor has also been dismissed by Saints, he has colluded with Taylor and this is them trying to get revenge. 

Someone reported a couple of days ago that he'd been given a few days off due to this but is now back at the club. 

[adrian lord]

I hope we have instructed the most heavyweight lawyers possible, because all the signs are, and pressure is, for us to be disqualified from the playoffs. And we are not Man City or Chelsea for whom the authorities seem to just drag their feet about doing anything about their malfeasances. 

[Whitey Grandad]

11 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

I haven’t read the recent posts, so apologies if this had been covered, but the Echo are looking for a new Saints reporter?

Thanks for the update but I'm too busy for another job at the moment. 

[SouthWalesSaints]

11 minutes ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

If someone watches the opposite warming up/practicing set prices half an hour before kick off, is that spying? It's within 72hours. As I definitely saw Kim, and others, having a few glances over before both legs. 

I'd hazard a guess they've done the same before other games this season too.

Genuinely, Brentford who are the best at set pieces practice theirs before the game.  This whole thing is a nonsense.  

[bpsaint]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

 

Some well articulated thoughts, but what he's basically saying there is that this misdemeanor is as bad as Leicester cheating in plain sight for an entire season (or more)...

I imagine Saints would use that as part of an appeal, and bring in other cases of note such as Leeds, as ammo on our part.

Assuming there’s no rule where failing an appeal increases the severity of the punishment then Saints would be silly not to appeal whatever they dish out, even if it were £500k and 6 points.

[Whitey Grandad]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So if we look at some of the ITK posters on here I think we can make a reasonable assumption about where we are.

1) someone has clearly spied on Middlesbrough from Southampton and broken the rule. I think we can also assume that this isn't the first time this has happened based o na few posts from here and presumably a statement from an ex employee. Not good. 

2) It is likely that some of the coaching team will have been aware of this and very unlikely Imo that nobody other than the analyst knew about it. Also not good. 

The key then becomes in this hearing can Middlesbrough's evidence prove with 100% certainty that not only has this happened before but that what has happened is systemic. Do they have evidence in the form of instructions from higher ups or tonda or spors perhaps instructing someone. Do they have footage from other clubs of this occurring. Imo this is unlikely. Will the club statement say that this was a problem with the analysts and that the other coaching staff were not aware? Or that we did send people previously but that it wasn't in the 72 hour window? Personally I think Middlesbrough are going to have a tough time to convince a panel that we did this repeatedly with the approval of the coaching staff and that we instructed the analyst to break the rules by spying in the period when it isn't allowed. 

In summary I think on the balance of probabilities we did spy on other clubs - or at least some within the analyst part of the club did, I think it's possible that some more senior people within the coaching setup knew it was going on but I think both of these things are going to be rather difficult for Middlesbrough to prove definitively. A statement from an ex employee isn't going to cut it unless they have some sort of smoking gun communication. 

Any other instances are not relevant.  The committee can only consider the specific charges that have been made. Any evidence that has been obtained illegally or potentially illegally would also be dismissed with fingers in the ears and  "la la la I'm not listening"

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, bpsaint said:

I imagine Saints would use that as part of an appeal, and bring in other cases of note such as Leeds, as ammo on our part.

Assuming there’s no rule where failing an appeal increases the severity of the punishment then Saints would be silly not to appeal whatever they dish out, even if it were £500k and 6 points.

£500k? How do you want that? Cash or card?

6 points? You're bloody joking mate. Where do we appeal?

[Toadhall Saint]

2 hours ago, TestValley said:

The argument and answer to that will be 'well you won the tie'

2nd game doesn’t count as it was way over 72 hours.

[Midfield_General]

34 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Are we finding out today if it's going to be played on the 23rd? I hope so as I've planned my calander around it.

Nope. 

Verdict will be delivered 'on or before' next Tuesday. So assuming they use all the time available to them, that means it will probably be on Tuesday. 

At that point, the scenarios are: 

1. Verdict doesn't include Saints expulsion, Saints reaction is to accept the punishment = game goes ahead as planned on 23rd, Saints vs. Hull. 

2. Saints punishment is expulsion, Saints reaction to it is almost guaranteed to be an immediate appeal = game postponed until such time as the appeal process has played out. No-one knows when that will be. 

3. Saints punishment isn't expulsion but is some other draconian measure that they may still want to appeal like £5m fine and -15pts or something mad = not sure. As we hadn't been expelled, the game would go ahead as planned on 23rd, Saints vs. Hull, and the usual EFL Section 8 rules would mean that we would have a further 14 days from the day of the verdict to decide whether we want to appeal it or not. So under those rules we could play the game, then appeal the punishment afterwards, if we wanted to. However, I'm not sure whether the usual 14 day rule applies here because of the 'expedited timeline'. No idea. 

Scenario 2 is the worst one for everyone, including the EFL, because of the absolute logistical carnage of a) having to postpone the play-off final, b) not knowing when it will need to be rescheduled for, and c) not knowing when they will know that. It's total unchartered territory and is such a nightmare for everyone involved that if I was a betting man I'd bet a pound to a penny that we won't get expelled, if only because of that. 

One thing I do know is that there is no scenario whatsoever where the verdict is Saints get expelled and Boro get reinstated in our place and play Hull on 23rd. Boro's reinstatement in any form is vanishingly unlikely as an option in the first place, and then the fact that Saints would appeal would mean that there simply wouldn't be a game on 23rd and everyone would just have to wait until the appeal was over to see what happens next. So the Boro team continuing to train because they think they might play in the final is either just total bullshit designed to add another layer to keep it in the headlines, or just a complete waste of their time and energy. They aren't playing a game on 23rd whatever happens. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Midfield_General

[6ft8saint]

Listening to talk sport was a mistake. Nice unbiased hosts . More trial by media. Is there date stamping and times on that image as it could have been taken any time and then claimed it happened on Thursday.

Is the rumour true that he's a villa employee to now 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Nope. 

Verdict will be delivered 'on or before' next Tuesday. So assuming they use all the time available to them, that means it will probably be on Tuesday. 

At that point, the scenarios are: 

1. Verdict doesn't include Saints expulsion, Saints reaction is to accept the punishment = game goes ahead as planned on 23rd, Saints vs. Hull. 

2. Saints punishment is expulsion, Saints reaction to it is almost guaranteed to be an immediate appeal = game postponed until such time as the appeal process has played out. No-one knows when that will be. 

3. Saints punishment isn't expulsion but is some other draconian measure like £5m fine and -15pts or something mad = game goes ahead as planned on 23rd, Saints vs. Hull, but we have a further 14 days from the day of the verdict to decide whether we want to appeal it or not. So we could play the game, then appeal the punishment afterwards, if we wanted to.

Scenario 2 is the worst one for everyone, including the EFL, because of the absolute logistical carnage of a) having to postpone the play-off final, b) not knowing when it will need to be rescheduled for, and c) not knowing when they will know that. It's total unchartered territory and is such a nightmare for everyone involved that if I was a betting man I'd bet a pound to a penny that we won't get expelled, if only because of that. 

Exclusion is not a possibility.  The legal case would be immense. 

If Saints had not got through to the Final what would the potential penalty have been? That is the only possible consideration.  If we are deemed to have been guilty of course. 

[Whitey Grandad]

5 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

Listening to talk sport was a mistake. Nice unbiased hosts . More trial by media. Is there date stamping and times on that image as it could have been taken any time and then claimed it happened on Thursday.

Is the rumour true that he's a villa employee to now 

Just Google "changing metadata on photos"

[Pamplemousse]

This is from Hull Supporters' Trust:

The Hull City Official Supporters' Club also issued a statement in which they expressed concern at how the play-off final could be moved at short notice.

"This is a situation in which we have had no influence but in which we are, both as a football club and supporters, being penalised," they said.

"Any decision to move the date of the final will result in many of our supporters not only losing out financially, but then facing the prospect of being unable to attend the re-arranged fixture.

"Given that this is a situation which has largely resulted from the EFL's own error in failing to publish the sanctions for a breach of the rule regarding 'spying' on opposition teams, we feel this is manifestly unfair."

 

That last paragraph is interesting about the EFL not publishing sanctions for a breach of the rule. I wonder if that will be taken into account by the commission?

 

[Wade Garrett]

6 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

Listening to talk sport was a mistake. Nice unbiased hosts . More trial by media. Is there date stamping and times on that image as it could have been taken any time and then claimed it happened on Thursday.

Is the rumour true that he's a villa employee to now 

Of course it’s unbiased.  Matterface and Crook are both from Pompey.

Saints fans shouldn’t engage with them.  

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Pamplemousse said:

This is from Hull Supporters' Trust:

The Hull City Official Supporters' Club also issued a statement in which they expressed concern at how the play-off final could be moved at short notice.

"This is a situation in which we have had no influence but in which we are, both as a football club and supporters, being penalised," they said.

"Any decision to move the date of the final will result in many of our supporters not only losing out financially, but then facing the prospect of being unable to attend the re-arranged fixture.

"Given that this is a situation which has largely resulted from the EFL's own error in failing to publish the sanctions for a breach of the rule regarding 'spying' on opposition teams, we feel this is manifestly unfair."

 

That last paragraph is interesting about the EFL not publishing sanctions for a breach of the rule. I wonder if that will be taken into account by the commission?

 

Are one of Hulls rugby teams playing a big game away soon? Pretty sure some of the footy fans will be invested in both sports, so completely unfair.

Not as if it is down the road to Wembley for them

[RedArmy]

Wouldn’t it be funny if the photo evidence of Will Salt is deemed inadmissible at the hearing as it has been leaked to the public. 
 

And all Boro are left with is some grainy cctv, an illegally obtained bank transaction and some eye witness testimony. 

[Dman]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Are one of Hulls rugby teams playing a big game away soon? Pretty sure some of the footy fans will be invested in both sports, so completely unfair.

Not as if it is down the road to Wembley for them

Wembely, the week after us.

[egg]

22 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So if we look at some of the ITK posters on here I think we can make a reasonable assumption about where we are.

1) someone has clearly spied on Middlesbrough from Southampton and broken the rule. I think we can also assume that this isn't the first time this has happened based o na few posts from here and presumably a statement from an ex employee. Not good. 

2) It is likely that some of the coaching team will have been aware of this and very unlikely Imo that nobody other than the analyst knew about it. Also not good. 

The key then becomes in this hearing can Middlesbrough's evidence prove with 100% certainty that not only has this happened before but that what has happened is systemic. Do they have evidence in the form of instructions from higher ups or tonda or spors perhaps instructing someone. Do they have footage from other clubs of this occurring. Imo this is unlikely. Will the club statement say that this was a problem with the analysts and that the other coaching staff were not aware? Or that we did send people previously but that it wasn't in the 72 hour window? Personally I think Middlesbrough are going to have a tough time to convince a panel that we did this repeatedly with the approval of the coaching staff and that we instructed the analyst to break the rules by spying in the period when it isn't allowed. 

In summary I think on the balance of probabilities we did spy on other clubs - or at least some within the analyst part of the club did, I think it's possible that some more senior people within the coaching setup knew it was going on but I think both of these things are going to be rather difficult for Middlesbrough to prove definitively. A statement from an ex employee isn't going to cut it unless they have some sort of smoking gun communication. 

Good post, although I've highlighted the inconsistency. The evidence test is balance of probabilities, so more likely than not, rather than certainty or anything close to it.

The EFL (not Boro, although they've clearly got a hand up the EFL's arse) don't have a high hurdle to climb here, and I've seen countless cases over the years where just a sniff of evidence has been enough to get over the line. 

What the evidence is, none of us know, but like you, I see a lot of smoke here so there's probably a fire...how big that is, we'll find out soon enough. 

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Any other instances are not relevant.  The committee can only consider the specific charges that have been made. Any evidence that has been obtained illegally or potentially illegally would also be dismissed with fingers in the ears and  "la la la I'm not listening"

They are aggravating factors. Proper evidence that suggests this is systemic and a campaign of cheating to gain an advantage is obviously more serious and deserves a harsher penalty. 

[obelisk]

5 minutes ago, Pamplemousse said:

Given that this is a situation which has largely resulted from the EFL's own error in failing to publish the sanctions for a breach of the rule regarding 'spying' on opposition teams, we feel this is manifestly unfair.

Ain't that the truth. The EFL is more in need of sanctions than anyone else.

[Disco Stu]

13 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Nope. 

Verdict will be delivered 'on or before' next Tuesday. So assuming they use all the time available to them, that means it will probably be on Tuesday. 

At that point, the scenarios are: 

1. Verdict doesn't include Saints expulsion, Saints reaction is to accept the punishment = game goes ahead as planned on 23rd, Saints vs. Hull. 

2. Saints punishment is expulsion, Saints reaction to it is almost guaranteed to be an immediate appeal = game postponed until such time as the appeal process has played out. No-one knows when that will be. 

3. Saints punishment isn't expulsion but is some other draconian measure that they may still want to appeal like £5m fine and -15pts or something mad = not sure. As we hadn't been expelled, the game would go ahead as planned on 23rd, Saints vs. Hull, and the usual EFL Section 8 rules would mean that we would have a further 14 days from the day of the verdict to decide whether we want to appeal it or not. So under those rules we could play the game, then appeal the punishment afterwards, if we wanted to. However, I'm not sure whether the usual 14 day rule applies here because of the 'expedited timeline'. No idea. 

Scenario 2 is the worst one for everyone, including the EFL, because of the absolute logistical carnage of a) having to postpone the play-off final, b) not knowing when it will need to be rescheduled for, and c) not knowing when they will know that. It's total unchartered territory and is such a nightmare for everyone involved that if I was a betting man I'd bet a pound to a penny that we won't get expelled, if only because of that. 

One thing I do know is that there is no scenario whatsoever where the verdict is Saints get expelled and Boro get reinstated in our place and play Hull on 23rd. It's vanishingly unlikely as an option in the first place, and then the fact that Saints would appeal would mean that there simply wouldn't be a game on 23rd and everyone would just have to wait until the appeal was over to see what happens next. So the Boro team continuing to train because they think they might play in the final is either just total bullshit designed to add another layer to keep it in the headlines, or just a complete waste of their time and energy. They aren't playing a game on 23rd whatever happens. 

So unless we're appealing an expulsion, it's safe to assume we're playing 23rd I guess 

[Challenger]

Said it before and I'll say it again, Southampton are a perfect club to be made an example of with a severe punishment. Big enough for all to notice, small enough that nobody cares.

[Southner]

13 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

Listening to talk sport was a mistake. Nice unbiased hosts . More trial by media. Is there date stamping and times on that image as it could have been taken any time and then claimed it happened on Thursday.

Is the rumour true that he's a villa employee to now 

Cundy and Ashley Williams think it's all nonsense.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

They are aggravating factors. Proper evidence that suggests this is systemic and a campaign of cheating to gain an advantage is obviously more serious and deserves a harsher penalty. 

Im sure we (and other clubs) have been doing this within the rules, ie - outside the 72 hours.

that amis an aggravating factor to a point in that it was not a one off and we have a proven system in doing this… just this time (at least) we broke the rules 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Challenger said:

Said it before and I'll say it again, Southampton are a perfect club to be made an example of with a severe punishment. Big enough for all to notice, small enough that nobody cares.

That is my worry.

[Midfield_General]

9 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Exclusion is not a possibility.  The legal case would be immense. 

If Saints had not got through to the Final what would the potential penalty have been? That is the only possible consideration.  If we are deemed to have been guilty of course. 

Exclusion is possible. It is an option that is on the table. That's been very well documented. What do you think all the hoo haa is about? 

It is however very very very unlikely. For exactly the reasons you say, plus the logistical knock-on. Which is why it won't happen. 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Midfield_General said:

Exclusion is possible. It is an option that is on the table. That's been very well documented. What do you think all the hoo haa is about? 

It is however very very very unlikely. For exactly the reasons you say, plus the logistical knock-on. Which is why it won't happen. 

Surely we are approaching the line in the sand where national teams can take their players???

[Midfield_General]

2 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

So unless we're appealing an expulsion, it's safe to assume we're playing 23rd I guess 

That's my understanding, yes. But we won't know for sure until probably Tuesday. 

So everything is in limbo until then. 

Which is what Hull are getting arsey about, quite understandably. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

So unless we're appealing an expulsion, it's safe to assume we're playing 23rd I guess 

Or the EFL appeal...

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Good post, although I've highlighted the inconsistency. The evidence test is balance of probabilities, so more likely than not, rather than certainty or anything close to it.

The EFL (not Boro, although they've clearly got a hand up the EFL's arse) don't have a high hurdle to climb here, and I've seen countless cases over the years where just a sniff of evidence has been enough to get over the line. 

What the evidence is, none of us know, but like you, I see a lot of smoke here so there's probably a fire...how big that is, we'll find out soon enough. 

They will be able to prove that the offence occurred. Will the balance of probabilities test apply to the aggravating factor or if being systemic without a smoking gun? Assuming we sack the analysts involved and deny that other members of the coaching staff had prior knowledge and Middleborough do not have proof of that beyond the statement of an ex analyst, I wonder if they would still go for it and look to boot us out. Unlikely in my view. 

[aintforever]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Good post, although I've highlighted the inconsistency. The evidence test is balance of probabilities, so more likely than not, rather than certainty or anything close to it.

The EFL (not Boro, although they've clearly got a hand up the EFL's arse) don't have a high hurdle to climb here, and I've seen countless cases over the years where just a sniff of evidence has been enough to get over the line. 

What the evidence is, none of us know, but like you, I see a lot of smoke here so there's probably a fire...how big that is, we'll find out soon enough. 

The smoke probably being just made up shit posted online - there are so many agendas at play here. 

It could be the tip of a really dodgy iceberg, or it could have been one idiot employee doing it off his own back, we just don't know at this stage.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Southner said:

Cundy and Ashley Williams think it's all nonsense.

Well if the oracles Ashley Williams and Cundy have spoken I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief. 

[Midfield_General]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Surely we are approaching the line in the sand where national teams can take their players???

Exactly. It's a World Cup year. And that's just one of so many enormous legal and logistical knock-ons that it's just not realistic as an option. 

[Midfield_General]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Or the EFL appeal...

Against their own independent panel that they appointed? 

That would be hilarious 

[hypochondriac]

Anyone know the answer? The case is about breaking the rules which we will admit to clearly. They will then look at mitigating and aggravating factors. Is the aggravating factor done on the balance of probabilities? Therefore if we deny it was systemic and that we routinely spy within the 72 hours and that the coaching staff knew but this ex analyst contradicts that will that be enough for them to say we are bang to rights? 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Against their own independent panel that they appointed? 

That would be hilarious 

If the efl get away without the game being cancelled they will no doubt breathe a sigh of relief and accept quickly. 

[RedArmy]

2 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Exactly. It's a World Cup year. And that's just one of so many enormous legal and logistical knock-ons that it's just not realistic as an option. 

Mandatory release for players to their respective countries is the 25th May. 
 

How they expect to postpone the game beyond that date is interesting to say the least. 

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Exactly. It's a World Cup year. And that's just one of so many enormous legal and logistical knock-ons that it's just not realistic as an option. 

I am sure Hull have a player or two off the the World Cup, we definitely have Larin and potentially Stewart. Their national teams will want them before end May I should imagine 

[23rdSaint]

All the Boro hacks are quiet today... 🧐

[Pamplemousse]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Or the EFL appeal...

I cannot see a world where the EFL appeal, knowing that their showpiece match gets postponed as a result.

If anything, us being in the final will generate interest as the most controversial final perhaps ever. Good publicity and will generate more revenue for their member clubs.

[Nolan]

7 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Surely we are approaching the line in the sand where national teams can take their players???

That's the 25th

[St Chalet]

It would be just like us to get to the final and fuck it up.

[trousers]

56 minutes ago, DT said:

I've never texted a channel before but listening to the morons on Talksport I couldn't resist.

No answer so far. What a bunch of twats.

 

My texts:

One charge without any evidence and midway through an investigation and most pundits including yours acting as judge and jury. I look forward to your similar forensic assessments of Manchester City's 130 charges. Why no consistency? PS the 'technology' you mentioned that is able to transmit recordings... an iPhone? Get a grip

 

What is Scott Minto's evidence that Tonda Eckert is 'guilty', as he said just now? And why is everyone leaping to conclusions while the hearing is on, without hearing any of the evidence given? You're being spun, boys. Could we also have some views on how guilty Man City is over their 115 charges, while you're at it? 😉

I'd be asking Man City's advice on how they managed to get some of their charges dropped so quickly...

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[saintant]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Well if the oracles Ashley Williams and Cundy have spoken I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief. 

I guess they balance out Deeney, Huckerby and Austin 🙂