@nickbriggs72@SmoggyBalboa@Sfc_debs I didn’t say it was the same, I said that I would be surprised if the sanction levied was expulsion given that the last time there was an equivalent set of circumstances (albeit prior to the rule coming in) the sanction was essentially a slap on the wrist.
@SmoggyBalboa@Sfc_debs Leeds still breached a regulation, if they didn’t then how were they fined £200k? The rule doesn’t have a set punishment yet the general consensus seems to be that the punishment should be 1000x the size of the last time this happened. Nonsense.
@DaddyDjenepo@LouSirr101 So? The morality of the offence is the same. There is no stated punishment for breach of the rule so it’s the same situation. Last time the EFL made up a £200k fine, this time what is being proposed is 1000x the size potentially. Disproportionate.
@TMccartnry@henrywinter Leeds broke one of the rules about fair play, exactly one of the regulations that Southampton are being accused of breaching. If the remedy last time round was a £200k fine, why the second time round (when there is no stated punishment) would the fine by 1000x as big?
@Cha2737379qh@chris7t8@henrywinter Or Chelsea, when they made multiple illegal payments over a period where they won multiple trophies? Should they have to give those back too?
@LukeEdwardsTele Only things that have changed is the facts you have previously reported - “professional surveillance equipment” - code for, an iPhone 😂
@LouSirr101 Isn’t the point that the punishment for the offence has to be proportionate to the offence? Leeds did this (admittedly prior to the rules changing) and were fined £200k, Leicester were docked six points for breaching the PSR rules.
@L1minus10@thefoxesarms But @LukeEdwardsTele told us that the spy had “professional surveillance equipment, complete with a microphone” - I mean fair play, iPhones do have microphones…😂