Holmes_and_Watson

This post is just to show I caught up with the thread. Myself and Sherpa Watson will be making base camp here, ahead of stormy weather ahead.

Engineering hasn't changed in all that time. @Whitey Grandad read it in 1968. I read it in 2026, just after he typed "engineering." Just the same. 🙂 This post was brought to you by the Give @trousers more posts to catch up on foundation.

Is my final ticket valid for this event?

There! Some light at the end of it all. Support the Southampton Phoenixexes..um..Phoenicee... Southampton Big Birds (sponsored by @Lord Duckhunter I was going to type "Up The Southampton Big Birds!" but it sounded very wrong.

Just wait for the reaction when Hull play suprise guest stars, Bayer Leverkusen. 🙂

"And just listen to those Hull supporters. Easily out singing the 30 000 Southampton fans having to watch the Middlesbrough team."

Nope. All good. Just some technical issues. As the Official Site says, everything going ahead. See you Saturday! 🙂

The club have not done any risk assessment ahead of their prolonged activity. They've not considered the range of potential sanctions, thinking that at worst they would get a slapped wrist. Leeds' fine was so low, as there wasn't the 72 hours rule in place. Once it was in, and with any punishment on the table, we did it anyway.

A payment for "analytical work" to the whistleblower that he actually does report on, if for quite an expensive sum, would be more likely. After all, he did work for them.

After a summer of EFL panels, it will be an odd looking table, as everyone works their way back from a variety of minus points.

Thanks also to Pep leaving, Spurs being in difficulty and Sarah's parting comments.

He was more than happy to do what he thought lots of clubs do, to get an advantage. All the silly bits of subterfuge are just part of a game he certainly felt others do all the time. It's considered to be a bad look, and lots of clubs have secured premises or do the important work behind closed doors. The EFL are the ones with rules in place about it. The club's shock at the lack of clarity on sanctions beside the offence, tells us that they would have probably done it anyway.

"Club sources told The Athletic that they felt the hearing should have taken place after the final, rather than being expedited by the EFL. They thought there were too many rules that had no defined sanctions, which left too much open to interpretation, and if the rules had been clearer, the incident would have been resolved more speedily." Like a lot of us, they looked at the punishment as being Leeds based. Not that the panel could use any number of sanctions it had left open. Obviously, if Tonda is banned, he's toast. But things internally will come to a head before then.

We only give statements to opponent chairpersons. 🙂

B` The reaction I've had this morning has been one of surprise and shock at us being booted out. Then back to their concerns about their own clubs and their issues. I'll be getting more annoyed by the media going on about it. Opposings fans on match days will obviously milk it. But that's expected, and we'd do that. Hopefully it will be lots of "You're only winning, 'cause you cheat!" Lots of internal processes and contracts will be getting a look at. If we don't actually have someone to do that, a job as should be their first step. However, despite the impact, football is a bit warped. For example, if they thought Tonda was the guy to promote us next season, they may be reluctant to part company with him. Likewise Spors. Not so much lack of faith in our players. But a desire to skirt around rules to get the most advantage. Seemingly based on it being allowed elsewhere, and it being an open secret in the analysts world. If anything, we've shown lack of faith in our analysts. We couldn't trust the SR data we'd captured. We needed people on the training grounds as well. Aside:Loads of great posts on the VA page, I'm going to get around to responding to. Thanks for those. Thanks for that. I was thinking about all the Italian corruption scandals, and their impacts. Good to s ee the summary. A simple one would be that we got to see how they would defend against our set pieces. Then on the day, we do something different and oh look, THB gets another one. Sure, he has to do the work. But, if we know what to expect, then that gives us an edge. It's rubbish that it casts a shadow over goals like that, and the players will feel that too. They hot desk between shifts at garden centres and posting FM videos. 🙂 SR's analysis is now another thing that looks shoddy. Noone with experience This will be part of the internal discussions. On one side Spors brought him in and we've done well (shadow over some of it). We're assuming that Tonda thought it was acceptable practice and/or widespread. Tonda may not have been told a trying to the contrary. He may even have told others, and they okayed it. And then there's the financial and reputational cost. The potential breakdown in internal relationships both backroom, and with the squad and club staff.