Miltonaggro

Excellent work. Do email the club.

That’s more in my field, so bring it on!

He’ll need to invest in a higher res camera!

Yes, they can’t afford me to tell them that! 😊

They haven’t got a legal case, but doubt that their £400 an hour man will tell them that for the next 300 billable hours 😂

Love the fact that’s she’s dressed up in the sunday best and positioned herself on the aisle! A sense of occasion!

Made this point yesterday, no way Dragan Solak will roll over on this. I would imagine the Serbian / Balkan telecommunications industry is a tad more feisty than running a waste haulage firm in the North Yorks area.

I've heard he left an enormous floater, further adding to the Teeside anger!

In part, I think that this is why the regulator will be proportionate in terms of punishment. I don't know the case mentioned, but would imagine that the international focus (FIFA) would only apply in the case of the international game (situs). My feeling is that the FA will distance themselves from this or actually lean on the EFL to be reasonable in terms of sanctions applied. It's the prize that causes the problem here, and the international precedent even if persuasive wont stick. At one level, it's at what point SFC sees the regulator as acting disproportionally or ultra vires, in the sense that a ban in this instance leads to extreme financial loss (forfeiting what is said to be the most lucrative match in world football). This is what a lot of people seem to be missing, there are no 'legal tests' or 'legal procedures' in terms of regulatory participation, as they can't force their remedy or adjudicate themselves (mark their own homework) in terms of compelling a member to act or surrender evidence (it's compliance). So SFC will likely play nice up until / unless the EFL act rashly (in imposing financial loss), whilst MFC have no legal case whatsoever. Dummies way to consider I suppose, is that if you get a £60 ticket after over parking in a Lidl car park and dispute it the 'appeal' process will generally happen through the BPA. However, this is voluntary, and if you feel that the BPA will likely / has sided with the parking company or acted disproportionally in setting / upholding the penalty, amongst other things, you can swerve the regulator and take matters to law via the small claims court. The SCC will then judge, the actions and processes of the parking company, the BPA as well as yours. I would always recommend this, as in my experience the unholy duo folds in 90% of cases. So, Saints seem to be waiting for the EFL to break cover (not sure they will), whilst letting MFC dig a ditch, which is exactly the right thing to do right now.

Yep, a proportionate fine as per Leeds (2019), which the club pays without drama and buggers on. In that case Bielsa admitted to spying on all his opponents over the season.

Complaint would have to come from the individual in these circumstances, rather than the club. But it would be valid, and actionable. I would assume at this point that MFC are being advised by someone who has not explained the consequences of failing to stop digging when you are below sea level.

Interesting.

This one in hi-res just released from the hotel lobby:

Regarding the financial transaction, if Gibson has said that he has breached GDPR / DPA, common law expectation of privacy and added to the defamation fuel, and his Hotel are in serious breach of common law confidentiality, possible criminal offences (unlikely but heigh ho), and clear breach of FCA rules. This is very serious in terms of possible penalties. Legally MFC are a palpable Turkey shoot!