By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I’ve just started doing a bit of digging and have just found this.
I found the Independent Disciplinary Commission transcript from our hearing. They were heard before His Honour Philip Sycamore, Lydia Banerjee and David Winnie. They were the independent and impartial panel.
Only ……… when I did a bit more digging I found this:
Lydia Banerjee is a sports and employment law barrister at Littleton Chambers in London. Her direct links to Middlesbrough stem from her professional legal practice, where she has advised and represented Middlesbrough F.C. in various sports-related and regulatory matters.
Impartial my @rse !!!
1
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 09:01 - May 22 with 2626 views
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 08:47 - May 22 by jopreston
Has anyone else seen the article by someone connected to the PL about Burnley and Saints and wanting to ban us from promotion. Why? Because they believe both clubs and yo-yo clubs deliberately to make money. They believe both clubs make no genuine effort to sign PL players and stay up and just pocket the extra monies each time. Perhaps this is in some way linked to that. The perfect way for the PL to keep us out.
[Post edited 22 May 8:47]
Is there a source?
I feel sorry for the PL they must be struggling financially
0
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 09:22 - May 22 with 2583 views
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 09:01 - May 22 by UTS1885
She represented Boro on one case , thats all im afraid.
No conspiracy here
Well even if she only represented Boro in one case, she shouldn't have been in the tribunal.
If you represent someone, you are acting for them and have also derived financial benefit from them.
In situations like this its not the fact of impropriety or dishonesty which is the issue, simply the possibly of it. See this...
R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 is a landmark English case on judicial impartiality, famous for establishing that the mere appearance of bias is enough to overturn a court's decision. It originated the legal maxim: "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.
"The Facts of the CaseThe Incident: James McCarthy was involved in a motorcycle collision with another driver, Mr. Whitworth.The Criminal Charge: The police charged McCarthy with driving in a dangerous manner.The Conflict of Interest: The acting clerk to the magistrates was a partner at a law firm that was representing Whitworth in a separate civil claim for damages against McCarthy.The Procedural Flaw: Although the clerk did not actively advise the magistrates, he retired to the deliberation room with them while they considered their verdict.The JudgmentMcCarthy was convicted, but he appealed the decision to the High Court once the clerk's dual role was discovered. The court ultimately quashed the conviction.Lord Chief Justice Hewart made the ruling on two core points:
No Actual Bias Needed: The court accepted that the clerk did not actually attempt to influence the magistrates' decision.
The Principle of Appearance: It was highly improper for a clerk to be present during deliberations when his firm held a professional interest in a related civil case.
The court famously stated that it is of fundamental importance to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, cementing the principle that even the appearance of bias or impropriety invalidates a proceeding.
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 09:28 - May 22 by DorsetIan
Well even if she only represented Boro in one case, she shouldn't have been in the tribunal.
If you represent someone, you are acting for them and have also derived financial benefit from them.
In situations like this its not the fact of impropriety or dishonesty which is the issue, simply the possibly of it. See this...
R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 is a landmark English case on judicial impartiality, famous for establishing that the mere appearance of bias is enough to overturn a court's decision. It originated the legal maxim: "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.
"The Facts of the CaseThe Incident: James McCarthy was involved in a motorcycle collision with another driver, Mr. Whitworth.The Criminal Charge: The police charged McCarthy with driving in a dangerous manner.The Conflict of Interest: The acting clerk to the magistrates was a partner at a law firm that was representing Whitworth in a separate civil claim for damages against McCarthy.The Procedural Flaw: Although the clerk did not actively advise the magistrates, he retired to the deliberation room with them while they considered their verdict.The JudgmentMcCarthy was convicted, but he appealed the decision to the High Court once the clerk's dual role was discovered. The court ultimately quashed the conviction.Lord Chief Justice Hewart made the ruling on two core points:
No Actual Bias Needed: The court accepted that the clerk did not actually attempt to influence the magistrates' decision.
The Principle of Appearance: It was highly improper for a clerk to be present during deliberations when his firm held a professional interest in a related civil case.
The court famously stated that it is of fundamental importance to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, cementing the principle that even the appearance of bias or impropriety invalidates a proceeding.
And let's not forget that this is a case all about fairness and cheating. Any whiff of bias should have been removed immediately.
All that said, having tried to find a source last night, I am now doubtful as to whether Banerjee has acted for Boro before. I'd need to see a report of court case with their name and her name on it, or something from her or her barristers Chambers referring to her having acted for them.
So that leaves the guy who played for Boro. This too is pretty problematic for me, but I guess in the bigger picture, if he only played once for Boro whilst on loan over 30 years ago and on the assumption of no lasting ties to the Club, and two other impartial judges, it's going to be difficult to hang too much on that.
Good headline though: "Judge who expelled Saints from EFL final and replaced them with Boro, once played for Boro!"
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 09:18 - May 22 by MattFinish
Is there a source?
I feel sorry for the PL they must be struggling financially
I can't find the other article, but it was related to this one as Alex Crook told talk radio that the PL were indeed looking into this quite seriously.
I did a quick request for investigation on the BBC 'Contact Us' page under the latest hatchet job report. I suspect that's a fairly slow burner though.
The big questions are: Is this all true?: Could it not be someone knowing that irate Saints fans will be searching faking some stuff for us to find? We live in a post-truth world and accusations that the panel was bent are an obvious first port of call for us.
Secondly, as already raised by others: If this is true why was it not flagged by Saints?
The more I think about it the more I think that the club have been totally useless from the start. Mboro grabbed control of the narrative from the start and they still have it. If the 'whistleblower' story is true then they of course had a head start.
0
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 10:04 - May 22 with 2488 views
You think the BBC have any interest in reporting the truth about anything? The same BBC that said there was no atmosphere in the home game against Boro. The BBC who said only the Boro fans could be heard singing and that all the Saints fans left an none stayed behind to cheer the team after the match. That truth purveying BBC?
0
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 11:00 - May 22 with 2426 views
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 07:37 - May 22 by saint22
A Boro supporting (ex) friend of mine said that Gibson is still fuming about how Southampton pushed for their relegation in 1997 (3 point deduction put them down saving you and Coventry)
It would appear Steve Gibson holds a grudge so no wonder he stacked the court
Saints weren't saved by that.
0
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 11:02 - May 22 with 2425 views
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 09:39 - May 22 by jopreston
I can't find the other article, but it was related to this one as Alex Crook told talk radio that the PL were indeed looking into this quite seriously.
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 09:35 - May 22 by DorsetIan
And let's not forget that this is a case all about fairness and cheating. Any whiff of bias should have been removed immediately.
All that said, having tried to find a source last night, I am now doubtful as to whether Banerjee has acted for Boro before. I'd need to see a report of court case with their name and her name on it, or something from her or her barristers Chambers referring to her having acted for them.
So that leaves the guy who played for Boro. This too is pretty problematic for me, but I guess in the bigger picture, if he only played once for Boro whilst on loan over 30 years ago and on the assumption of no lasting ties to the Club, and two other impartial judges, it's going to be difficult to hang too much on that.
Good headline though: "Judge who expelled Saints from EFL final and replaced them with Boro, once played for Boro!"
I believe she acted for them in their case against Gary Monk.
0
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 14:43 - May 22 with 2194 views
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 00:49 - May 22 by DorsetIan
91.4 Save in the case of a Player Related Dispute Commission and subject to Regulation 91.2 and 91.3, the parties to proceedings before a Disciplinary Commission shall be: 91.1.1 The League (the ‘Claimant’); and 91.1.2 the Club, Official, Player or other individual (in each case current or former) allegedly in breach of these Regulations (the ‘Respondent’). The parties to proceedings before a Player Related Dispute Commission shall be a Player and a Club. Where the proceedings are an appeal against a strict liability penalty in accordance with Regulation 88.2, the party lodging the Appeal will be the Claimant, and The League shall be the Respondent. A Disciplinary Commission shall consist of: 91.4.1 a chairperson who shall be either: (a) a qualified solicitor or barrister; or (b) a ‘member’ or ‘fellow’ of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, in either case with at least 5 years post-qualification experience; and 91.4.2 two suitably qualified side members, each of whom shall be appointed by Sports Resolutions (or such other body as the Board may from time to time determine) PROVIDED ALWAYS that:
(a) all members must be independent of the parties and able to render an impartial decision;
This is dynamite. This has got to go to the press.
I believe she acted for them in their case against Gary Monk.
I think it's clear that she did represent Boro' in the case against Gary Monk: https://custommapposter.com/ar southampton-spygate-verdict/14622
BUT, if you go back to the original AI-generated search by Matt ( https://www.bing.com/search?q= here is what CoPilot generated at the time:
"Areas of Expertise Lydia’s practice spans multiple areas: Sports Law: She regularly advises sporting bodies and professional clubs, including Middlesbrough F.C., on regulatory, contractual, and disciplinary matters. Her work includes sport-related investigations, dismissals, and governance reviews, as well as issues related to financial fair play rules. Employment Law: She handles discrimination claims, disability issues, breach of contract, restrictive covenants, and tribunal disputes, often in high-profile or sensitive cases. Commercial Law: Her commercial practice covers contractual interpretation, professional negligence, and directors’ duties."
So it's possible that whilst she only represented Boro' in court on the one occasion, she is nonetheless regularly paid by Boro' (possibly on retainer) for player contractual and regulatory advice. I suspect that her Chambers changed her biography around the time Matt searched for this because this, to me, looks very much like a professionally-written biography (I write professional biographies myself as part of my job), and I'm inclined to believe that at some point the above clauses did exist - even by AI standards, it would be going some to generate this out of thin air. So yes, she represented them in the Gary Monk case, but also may have worked for them on other advisory assignments day-to-day.
Whilst it's true that Saints are completely in the wrong over Spygate as a whole, if it is indeed the case that there is a wider relationship with Boro' involving one or more of the panel, Saints could (and should) litigate. She would be forced to produce all invoices etc as part of Discovery.
However, there could be a very good reason why they might not want to take this further: What if WhatsApp messages reveal that Saints were spying every week, as I suspect they might? Dragan may decide to let sleeping dogs lie.
Finally, knowing the bad reputations of some of those involved eg the Ridsdale disqualification process, I can't help myself from wondering if horse-trading might have been involved when Boro' were told that they could not have a representative at the hearing? Perhaps in an effort to placate Steve Gibson, the EFL offered to have at least one friendly face on the panel?
When all is said and done, the EFL is a private club and - as has been reported in the past - they could say "if you don't wish to be part of our organisation feel free to apply for the Conference".
0
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 21:14 - May 23 with 1677 views
HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 17:02 - May 23 by benalisbroom
I think it's clear that she did represent Boro' in the case against Gary Monk: https://custommapposter.com/ar southampton-spygate-verdict/14622
BUT, if you go back to the original AI-generated search by Matt ( https://www.bing.com/search?q= here is what CoPilot generated at the time:
"Areas of Expertise Lydia’s practice spans multiple areas: Sports Law: She regularly advises sporting bodies and professional clubs, including Middlesbrough F.C., on regulatory, contractual, and disciplinary matters. Her work includes sport-related investigations, dismissals, and governance reviews, as well as issues related to financial fair play rules. Employment Law: She handles discrimination claims, disability issues, breach of contract, restrictive covenants, and tribunal disputes, often in high-profile or sensitive cases. Commercial Law: Her commercial practice covers contractual interpretation, professional negligence, and directors’ duties."
So it's possible that whilst she only represented Boro' in court on the one occasion, she is nonetheless regularly paid by Boro' (possibly on retainer) for player contractual and regulatory advice. I suspect that her Chambers changed her biography around the time Matt searched for this because this, to me, looks very much like a professionally-written biography (I write professional biographies myself as part of my job), and I'm inclined to believe that at some point the above clauses did exist - even by AI standards, it would be going some to generate this out of thin air. So yes, she represented them in the Gary Monk case, but also may have worked for them on other advisory assignments day-to-day.
Whilst it's true that Saints are completely in the wrong over Spygate as a whole, if it is indeed the case that there is a wider relationship with Boro' involving one or more of the panel, Saints could (and should) litigate. She would be forced to produce all invoices etc as part of Discovery.
However, there could be a very good reason why they might not want to take this further: What if WhatsApp messages reveal that Saints were spying every week, as I suspect they might? Dragan may decide to let sleeping dogs lie.
Finally, knowing the bad reputations of some of those involved eg the Ridsdale disqualification process, I can't help myself from wondering if horse-trading might have been involved when Boro' were told that they could not have a representative at the hearing? Perhaps in an effort to placate Steve Gibson, the EFL offered to have at least one friendly face on the panel?
When all is said and done, the EFL is a private club and - as has been reported in the past - they could say "if you don't wish to be part of our organisation feel free to apply for the Conference".
Your link about Gary Monk case doesn’t seem to be working.
And credit to you for keeping digging.
The first thing I want to know is what, if any, conflict disclosures were made by the judges.
It seems clear that Saints (in retrospect naive) strategy at the original hearing was to cooperate in the hope of some leniency. It’s perfectly possible that conflicts - included David Winnie playing for Boro - were disclosed and Saints agreed that they weren’t material. When your strategy is to appear cooperative and compliant, you might not want to query the impartiality of the tribunal.
Both Winnie and Bannerjee are professional people with professional reputations to maintain. I’d have to assume that they did disclose any past involvement with Boro.
If they didn’t, then that’s much more serious.
Saints could clear that up, as could the EFL or Sports Resolution, the outfit that organised the hearing. It’s a shame it’s not in the note of the decision.
Don't forget we broke the rules. Yes there might have been a bit of horse trading between Boro and the EFL, but we were in no poistion to fight this off.
If Saints go after the EFL it's only going to get worse not better.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.