#Spygate

[hypochondriac]

Out of interest if the efl appealed the decision and lost the appeal how could Middlesbrough sue them if the panel is independent? 

Edited 1 hour ago by hypochondriac

[Cuddles]

5 minutes ago, Polaroid Saint said:

6 points and £7m is clearly acceptable to the club as an operational loss...

...Same as playing Bazunu for half a season and a Damien Downs transfer.

When you put it like that!!

[Saint In Cornwall]

93.2.5 says the panel can impose a compensation amount.

That could be interesting 

How about some B & Q vouchers to spend on their training ground 

 

[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.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Saint In Cornwall said:

93.2.5 says the panel can impose a compensation amount.

That could be interesting 

How about some B & Q vouchers to spend on their training ground 

 

Ha we could offer to buy them a fence. 

[IFHP]

£5 million fine that’s our season tickets going up by around £250 then. 
 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

xx

Edited 1 hour ago by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Matthew Le God]

16 minutes ago, IFHP said:

£5 million fine that’s our season tickets going up by around £250 then. 

Or we just spend £5m less than would without the fine on transfers

Edited 54 minutes ago by Matthew Le God

[Toussaint]

26 minutes ago, LGTL said:

I saw Ross Stewart and Russell Martin engaged in deep conversation in Winchester today. Make of that what you will. 

They still get along well?

[DellBlockH]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

You've identified the sides whilst saying there aren't sides!!

This is EFL Vs Saints. Sides. 

How right you are.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And does that advantage excede or even equate to Leicester's persistent financial doping ? 

It's completely different. This will be seen an attempt to gain a tactical advantage over one team in game one of a maximum 3 game series, with a prize of promotion to the PL, and all the riches that go with.

That has zero comparison to financial irregularities across many, many games. 

There is no comparable. None, hence the risk of us being made the example as a deterrent. 

[LiberalCommunist]

5 minutes ago, Polaroid Saint said:

6 points and £7m is clearly acceptable to the club as an operational loss...

...Same as playing Bazunu for half a season and a Damien Downs transfer.

If that is the realm of punishment, then this boy in jeans hanging out by the tree was told explicitly to spy on Boro to get information to give us a advantage. I wouldn't even consider entertaining that penalty until it is proven correct. I just fail to see how someone calculated enough to understand the reward, would be so blasé with the implementation. So I guess I'm doubling down. If this came from the main man. We need to know. If this was a communication fuck up. We need to know.

A six point deduction with a multi-million pound fine sets a precedent for me. The next bit of flouting the rules needs the same scrutinising. Extreme examination. Guilty until proven not. We have a standard now. Lets adhere to it. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

This is where everything else like lack of proper spying equipment, effect on the outcome etc comes into play.

Pony 

[Toadhall Saint]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

Why does this keep being said? It's utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is that the intention was to gain a sporting advantage, in the first of a series of games with a £200m prize. 

Exactly - advantage keeps being referred to, the rule (127) has no words relating to gaining an advantage. Boro will say (after the game ended nil nil) we had to change our tactics because of spying - that cannot be proven one way or another. We will point to them not scoring when they totally controlled the first half and had 21 shots. They will say that’s because our defence was aware of stuff they had been practicing and so it would go on as none of it can be proven and so if would go on. 
 

the rule is about observing and that is a yes or no answer.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Or we just spend £5m less than would would without the fine on transfers

Fernandes going to united should hopefully net us something close to that. 

[egg]

Just now, Toadhall Saint said:

Exactly - advantage keeps being referred to, the rule (127) has no words relating to gaining an advantage. Boro will say (after the game ended nil nil) we had to change our tactics because of spying - that cannot be proven one way or another. We will point to them not scoring when they totally controlled the first half and had 21 shots. They will say that’s because our defence was aware of stuff they had been practicing and so it would go on as none of it can be proven and so if would go on. 
 

the rule is about observing and that is a yes or no answer.

Yep. It's strict liability - you've either done it or you haven't. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Exactly - advantage keeps being referred to, the rule (127) has no words relating to gaining an advantage. Boro will say (after the game ended nil nil) we had to change our tactics because of spying - that cannot be proven one way or another. We will point to them not scoring when they totally controlled the first half and had 21 shots. They will say that’s because our defence was aware of stuff they had been practicing and so it would go on as none of it can be proven and so if would go on. 
 

the rule is about observing and that is a yes or no answer.

I agree. Also how can we prove that we didn't gain an advantage if it even was a thing? Maybe without the spying they would have won the game. 

[West end Saints]

1 hour ago, egg said:

It is, but as I've said above, there needs to be a penalty that neither side would appeal. A small ISH fine, and only a small points deduction, would likely be appealed imo. £5ish mil, 4-6 points, and both sides would live with that imo. 

By neither side, do you mean us and Middlesbrough? As I understand it they are not a party to the discipline proceedings so wouldn't have an appeal route open to them?

[Lord Duckhunter]

9 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

the rule is about observing and that is a yes or no answer.

Exactly, and the only mitigation will be the first team manager and senior people in the business were unaware of it, didn’t authorise it, and had they known about it would have stopped it and dealt with the culprits . If it was a rouge element of that department and we can prove clear and plausible defence that the first team had absolutely no knowledge of this, that would be mitigation. With Tonda’s background in this field, it might be a bit harder to prove that. But you’d hope, knowing this was illegal, they’ve siloed The first team from accusations of this nature. 

Edited 55 minutes ago by Lord Duckhunter

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Betfair odds last time I asked have Boro odds drifting to 8.5 to 1 from 13/2 to get promoted..... 

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I agree. Also how can we prove that we didn't gain an advantage if it even was a thing? Maybe without the spying they would have won the game. 

They would have done with a decent striker and competent fitness coaches.

[kwsaint]

39 minutes ago, LGTL said:

I saw Ross Stewart and Russell Martin engaged in deep conversation in Winchester today. Make of that what you will. 

I’m led to believe they were discussing the Silver Hill redevelopment plans.

[Toadhall Saint]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. It's strict liability - you've either done it or you haven't. 

Exactly. It’s not were you successful in the attempt gaining an advantage (or not) when you attempted to observe - the attempt in itself is enough. 
it’s not how sophisticated your equipment was when you attempted to observe - the attempt in itself is enough

its not were you in a public place when you attempted to observe - the attempt in itself is enough

[egg]

3 minutes ago, West end Saints said:

By neither side, do you mean us and Middlesbrough? As I understand it they are not a party to the discipline proceedings so wouldn't have an appeal route open to them?

Middlesbrough aren't involved. Us or the EFL can appeal - too harsh, us, too. lenient, them. 

Edited 54 minutes ago by egg

[LGTL]

Let’s be honest, would anyone be seriously upset by a big fine and small(ish) points deduction? I’d snap your hand off for that right now. 

[trousers]

17 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

xx

Love you too... mwah 😘

Edited 53 minutes ago by trousers

[Paulwantsapint81]

Tonda could point out that he instructed the team to not attack for 45 mins in 1st leg to self discipline saints & then gave boro a goal start at St Marys

[Bob60]

12 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Pony 

He definitely didn't have a pony, only a pony and trap on the way out. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just now, LGTL said:

Let’s be honest, would anyone be seriously upset by a big fine and small(ish) points deduction? I’d snap your hand off for that right now. 

Which is the problem if you’re trying to set a precedent and stop future transgressions. 

[CB Fry]

1 minute ago, LGTL said:

Let’s be honest, would anyone be seriously upset by a big fine and small(ish) points deduction? I’d snap your hand off for that right now. 

I think I speak for everyone when I say that we just want our day at Wembley.

[saintant]

5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Exactly, and the only mitigation will be the first team manager and senior people in the business were unaware of it, didn’t authorise it, and had they known about it would have stopped it and dealt with the culprits . If it was a rouge element of that department and we can prove clear and plausible defence that the first team had absolutely no knowledge of this, that would be mitigation. With Tonga’s background in this field, it might be a bit harder to prove that. But you’d hope, knowing this was illegal, they’ve siloed The first team from accusations of this nature. 

Didn't realise he was wearing make-up 🙂

[pingpong]

12 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Exactly - advantage keeps being referred to, the rule (127) has no words relating to gaining an advantage. Boro will say (after the game ended nil nil) we had to change our tactics because of spying - that cannot be proven one way or another. We will point to them not scoring when they totally controlled the first half and had 21 shots. They will say that’s because our defence was aware of stuff they had been practicing and so it would go on as none of it can be proven and so if would go on. 
 

the rule is about observing and that is a yes or no answer.

Yes but the punishment is undefined, and as such there is a lot of grey area in what would be proportionate.  If we didn't gain an advantage, expulsion would be disproportionate.  

If, as Boro say, the footage was deleted and never reached us, then the advantage is minimal, as demonstrated by the fact our tactical setup was all wrong and we had to adjust after seeing them play the first 45mins...

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

19 minutes ago, Saint In Cornwall said:

93.2.5 says the panel can impose a compensation amount.

That could be interesting 

How about some B & Q vouchers to spend on their training ground 

 

That is very interesting because that gives the EFL a get out. The EFL have to be seen to punishing us whilst ensured the wronged party, Boro receive some recompense. If we do not compensate them then that means us being expelled.

The problem for the EFL is that they allowed not just the first leg but also the second leg to be played when the spying had already been exposed. Why suspend the final because of a possible decision to expel us and not suspend at the very least the second leg? This is not in the 'spirit' of how supporters should be treated.

 

[saintant]

2 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

I think I speak for everyone when I say that we just want our day at Wembley.

I've noticed that.

[Scoobysaint]

I reckon the sell on fee when Fernandes jumps ship at West Ham will easily cover any potential fine. 

[trousers]

17 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Exactly - advantage keeps being referred to, the rule (127) has no words relating to gaining an advantage. Boro will say (after the game ended nil nil) we had to change our tactics because of spying - that cannot be proven one way or another. We will point to them not scoring when they totally controlled the first half and had 21 shots. They will say that’s because our defence was aware of stuff they had been practicing and so it would go on as none of it can be proven and so if would go on. 
 

the rule is about observing and that is a yes or no answer.

Given it's that black and white, and the disciplinary panel aren't able to take into account how much we benefited from it when they make their decision, doesn't  it make it even more baffling that the EFL didn't stipulate a default punishment when they first established this new rule...?

[Saint_clark]

44 minutes ago, Harry_SFC said:

Not sure how anyone can think that what we've done is worse than Leicester cheating for multiple seasons, gaining a huge advantage over every other team in the league (when they won it that is)

Breaches of the rules with undefined punishments will always be looked at in isolation from other events. In short, what Leicester got is completely irrelevant.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, saintant said:

I've noticed that.

He means everyone who isn't a jizz mopping mong. 

[Toadhall Saint]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

Given it's that black and white, and the disciplinary panel aren't able to take into account how much we benefited from it when they make their decision, doesn't  it make it even more baffling that the EFL didn't stipulate a default punishment when they first established this new rule...?

Yes.

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Breaches of the rules with undefined punishments will always be looked at in isolation from other events. In short, what Leicester got is completely irrelevant.

Yes, it's irrelevant from the 'due process' point of view, but it's not unreasonable for a football fan to have a view / opinion on how "fair" a punishment is for one offence in  comparison to another punishment for a different offence. 

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

That is very interesting because that gives the EFL a get out. The EFL have to be seen to punishing us whilst ensured the wronged party, Boro receive some recompense. If we do not compensate them then that means us being expelled.

The problem for the EFL is that they allowed not just the first leg but also the second leg to be played when the spying had already been exposed. Why suspend the final because of a possible decision to expel us and not suspend at the very least the second leg? This is not in the 'spirit' of how supporters should be treated.

 

Agreed. Once we were charged if they considered it serious enough they should have considered suspending the second leg. I accept that would have been very difficult to do and not also suspend the final though. 

[trousers]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Agreed. Once we were charged if they considered it serious enough they should have considered suspending the second leg. I accept that would have been very difficult to do and not also suspend the final though. 

I guess they were hoping that Middlesbrough won and that the issue would then disappear (in terms of the arrangements for the final)....?

[offsidetrap]

59 minutes ago, LGTL said:

I saw Ross Stewart and Russell Martin engaged in deep conversation in Winchester today. Make of that what you will. 

RM explaining to RS that it’s not ok to put a traffic cone on king Alfred. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

I guess they were hoping that Middlesbrough won and that the issue would then disappear (in terms of the arrangements for the final)....?

It does complicate their options somewhat. Had this been over with before the second leg I can absolutely see a world where they give them a 3-0 walkover in the first leg. 

[Toadhall Saint]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

Yes, it's irrelevant from the 'due process' point of view, but it's not unreasonable for a football fan to have a view / opinion on how "fair" a punishment is for one offence in  comparison to another punishment for a different offence. 

And that is where the crux lies with this specific rule - the disciplinary committee needs to provide both proportionality and precedence. You can bet your house that whatever they decide it will not sit well with all. I’m just glad it’s between us and the EFL as the EFL are less likely to go to further litigation as it would be going against the body they put in place to “adjudicate”.

[beatlesaint]

Reassuring to know that with a sell on clause for Matty Fernandes it’ll turn out James Corden’s beloved West Ham will in effect pay for any fine we get.

Karma ya prick !!!!! 🤣

Edited 28 minutes ago by beatlesaint

[The Wyvern]

25 minutes ago, LGTL said:

Let’s be honest, would anyone be seriously upset by a big fine and small(ish) points deduction? I’d snap your hand off for that right now. 

Still far too harsh for me. 

[bpsaint]

16 minutes ago, Scoobysaint said:

I reckon the sell on fee when Fernandes jumps ship at West Ham will easily cover any potential fine. 

Let’s not forget as well that the income from our cup run in prize and ticket money is at least £2.5mill. Good job we had a good run at it!

[Weston Super Saint]

29 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Betfair odds last time I asked have Boro odds drifting to 8.5 to 1 from 13/2 to get promoted..... 

Lol.

Still rinsing money from the Boro supporters. Taking advantage of the hope that kills them.

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

Let’s not forget as well that the income from our cup run in prize and ticket money is at least £2.5mill. Good job we had a good run at it!

Hmm... I wonder how we achieved that....? 🕵🏼

😉