| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! 20:55 - May 21 with 17618 views | MattFinish |
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 !!! |  | | |  |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 12:35 - May 26 with 1774 views | 1885_SFC |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 12:23 - May 26 by Bridders2 |
We should appoint him to sue the EFL and Boro. |
We really should - especially as we've yet to hear what punishment the FA will dish out (and they surely will).
Would love to see my club grow some balls & not roll over for once. |  |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 13:12 - May 26 with 1702 views | Ifonly |
I suggest that anyone who values their own sanity shouldn't take this seriously. No one else will.
It's all based on his opinion that:
"the enforcement of the award would be clearly injurious to the public good or, possibly, that enforcement would be wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public”.
I agree that the sanctions are severe, but the idea that they are "clearly injurious to the public good" or "wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public" is a joke. Many neutral members of the public think it's fair that we were chucked out for cheating.
The rest of it is supposition (he doesn't know what evidence was made available to Saints) and irrelevant anyway because we admitted guilt on all charges, so evidence wasn't even required. |  | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 14:03 - May 26 with 1610 views | PaghamSaint |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 13:12 - May 26 by Ifonly |
I suggest that anyone who values their own sanity shouldn't take this seriously. No one else will.
It's all based on his opinion that:
"the enforcement of the award would be clearly injurious to the public good or, possibly, that enforcement would be wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public”.
I agree that the sanctions are severe, but the idea that they are "clearly injurious to the public good" or "wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public" is a joke. Many neutral members of the public think it's fair that we were chucked out for cheating.
The rest of it is supposition (he doesn't know what evidence was made available to Saints) and irrelevant anyway because we admitted guilt on all charges, so evidence wasn't even required. |
Many neutral members of the public may think the sentence was fair, but there are also a lot of those that do not and not just our learned friend. Karen Brady, I thought wrote a very telling article in the Sun this weekend about the hearing and it' findings and a lot of people have supported her on that as well.
In the words of Boxing, "We have a split decision". So to counter act that in the only way to deal it is to turn the other cheek or again using another persons words, this time Harry Hill, "Fight".
Something does not sit right with the whole hearing thing, from it' make personnel make up, to the evidence that was used and how that evidence was produced, to the final decision. Now it' time to try and change that narrative. | | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 16:24 - May 26 with 1464 views | DorsetIan |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 14:03 - May 26 by PaghamSaint |
Many neutral members of the public may think the sentence was fair, but there are also a lot of those that do not and not just our learned friend. Karen Brady, I thought wrote a very telling article in the Sun this weekend about the hearing and it' findings and a lot of people have supported her on that as well.
In the words of Boxing, "We have a split decision". So to counter act that in the only way to deal it is to turn the other cheek or again using another persons words, this time Harry Hill, "Fight".
Something does not sit right with the whole hearing thing, from it' make personnel make up, to the evidence that was used and how that evidence was produced, to the final decision. Now it' time to try and change that narrative. |
Just knowing that there was a Boro on the tribunal changes a lot of people's perspective. |  |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 17:00 - May 26 with 1437 views | Ifonly |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 14:03 - May 26 by PaghamSaint |
Many neutral members of the public may think the sentence was fair, but there are also a lot of those that do not and not just our learned friend. Karen Brady, I thought wrote a very telling article in the Sun this weekend about the hearing and it' findings and a lot of people have supported her on that as well.
In the words of Boxing, "We have a split decision". So to counter act that in the only way to deal it is to turn the other cheek or again using another persons words, this time Harry Hill, "Fight".
Something does not sit right with the whole hearing thing, from it' make personnel make up, to the evidence that was used and how that evidence was produced, to the final decision. Now it' time to try and change that narrative. |
You say the public would have a split decision and you're probably right. But in that case, the ruling would not be "wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public". Some of the general public disagree with the decision - and some of them may even disagree so strongly that the decision is offensive to them. But the decision can never be "wholly" offensive, when a substantial number of them actually agree with the decision.
Any appeal on these grounds would never even get off the ground. | | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 17:11 - May 26 with 1418 views | DorsetIan |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 17:00 - May 26 by Ifonly |
You say the public would have a split decision and you're probably right. But in that case, the ruling would not be "wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public". Some of the general public disagree with the decision - and some of them may even disagree so strongly that the decision is offensive to them. But the decision can never be "wholly" offensive, when a substantial number of them actually agree with the decision.
Any appeal on these grounds would never even get off the ground. |
I would have thought that the fact that there was a Boro player on the Tribunal would be 'wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public'.
We not talking about idiots or Boro fans:
ordinary
reasonable
fully informed | |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 17:26 - May 26 with 1398 views | Ifonly |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 17:11 - May 26 by DorsetIan |
I would have thought that the fact that there was a Boro player on the Tribunal would be 'wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public'.
We not talking about idiots or Boro fans:
ordinary
reasonable
fully informed |
Maybe Saints should have challenged this at the time. The fact is we didn't. Now we are not even in the appeals process, we're beyond the recognised appeals process, so we'd need something really substantial to even have a hope of making any difference. This is not a substantial miscarriage of justice, particularly as we could have easily known his record and didn't challenge his involvement.
If the decision had gone Saints way and there was an ex player on the panel who played for us once, on loan, 32 years ago and had no links since, would you find that offensive to your sense of justice? Would you expect the decision to be reversed in Boro's favour if they made an appeal on these grounds, having made no objection at first? | | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 18:07 - May 26 with 1336 views | DorsetIan |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 17:26 - May 26 by Ifonly |
Maybe Saints should have challenged this at the time. The fact is we didn't. Now we are not even in the appeals process, we're beyond the recognised appeals process, so we'd need something really substantial to even have a hope of making any difference. This is not a substantial miscarriage of justice, particularly as we could have easily known his record and didn't challenge his involvement.
If the decision had gone Saints way and there was an ex player on the panel who played for us once, on loan, 32 years ago and had no links since, would you find that offensive to your sense of justice? Would you expect the decision to be reversed in Boro's favour if they made an appeal on these grounds, having made no objection at first? |
We don't know if David Winnie disclosed that he had played for Boro. It's not in the judgement. I am trying to find out.
If he didn't then that absolutely stinks.
And, yes, if Saints had won with a former Saints player of 30 years ago on the committee then that would have been equally appalling.
How difficult was it to find three people with no connections to either team. It was harder to find them than not, I would suggest.
I take the point that the decision is now done and probably all this is academic, but I would still like to know wtf David Winnie was doing on the panel, and whether he disclosed his past association with Boro. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 18:20 - May 26 with 1314 views | DorsetIan |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 18:07 - May 26 by DorsetIan |
We don't know if David Winnie disclosed that he had played for Boro. It's not in the judgement. I am trying to find out.
If he didn't then that absolutely stinks.
And, yes, if Saints had won with a former Saints player of 30 years ago on the committee then that would have been equally appalling.
How difficult was it to find three people with no connections to either team. It was harder to find them than not, I would suggest.
I take the point that the decision is now done and probably all this is academic, but I would still like to know wtf David Winnie was doing on the panel, and whether he disclosed his past association with Boro. |
The article in the Echo included this:
"Guidance to panel members covers when matters may constitute a conflict, with only work or other links in the past three years ordinarily considered.
All parties - the EFL and Saints - were deemed to know the matters and had an opportunity to raise objections to the panel members, without doing so.
The EFL declined to comment on the matter. Saints have been approached."
The use of the words "deemed to know" are interesting. Why didn't it just say "All parties...knew" ?
For now, I'm inferring from this that Winnie didn't disclose or the parties would simply have known. Also in his defence of his judgement Winnie does not state specifically that he brought his Boro game to the attention of the parties. I think that would be the first thing I would say, if was being accused of bias.
And why did the EFL decline to comment and why nothing from Saints - because they dropped a b0ll0ck?? | |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 18:31 - May 26 with 1298 views | Ifonly |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 18:20 - May 26 by DorsetIan |
The article in the Echo included this:
"Guidance to panel members covers when matters may constitute a conflict, with only work or other links in the past three years ordinarily considered.
All parties - the EFL and Saints - were deemed to know the matters and had an opportunity to raise objections to the panel members, without doing so.
The EFL declined to comment on the matter. Saints have been approached."
The use of the words "deemed to know" are interesting. Why didn't it just say "All parties...knew" ?
For now, I'm inferring from this that Winnie didn't disclose or the parties would simply have known. Also in his defence of his judgement Winnie does not state specifically that he brought his Boro game to the attention of the parties. I think that would be the first thing I would say, if was being accused of bias.
And why did the EFL decline to comment and why nothing from Saints - because they dropped a b0ll0ck?? |
"Guidance to panel members covers when matters may constitute a conflict, with only work or other links in the past three years ordinarily considered."
So, if Winnie said nothing, then he was in accordance with EFL guidance because he hadn't had any links for 32 years. You may think that 32 is sufficiently close to 3 that he should have disclosed. Others will see it differently.
Either way, I can't believe that Saints didn't know. Any idiot can click on Wiki and find out in 10 seconds. I can only assume that they checked this because if he had grown up in the Boro academy, for example, then that would be a legitimate reason to challenge, even though it isn't required to be disclosed.
So, it's quite likely that he didn't disclose and there's nothing wrong with that, as per the rules. If Saints did even the most basic due diligence then they were aware of the "link" and chose not to challenge. | | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 18:34 - May 26 with 1296 views | dirk_doone |
The worst part is that I've read Saints expulsion from the play-off final was David Winnie's idea. Presumably, SFC should have access to the minutes to find out whether that really is what happened.
Also, who was the source of the leaks to the media from the independent commission? Were they in communication with someone outside, such as a member of the EFL Board? This is something else SFC needs to find out.
Panorama's investigative team would certainly have some fun with the irregularities of this case. [Post edited 26 May 18:44]
|  |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 19:06 - May 26 with 1240 views | benalisbroom |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 16:24 - May 26 by DorsetIan |
Just knowing that there was a Boro on the tribunal changes a lot of people's perspective. |
Not one: TWO Boro’ relationships on a panel of three!!! | | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 19:12 - May 26 with 1228 views | dirk_doone |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 19:06 - May 26 by benalisbroom |
Not one: TWO Boro’ relationships on a panel of three!!! |
Including the only lawyer who'd ever played for Middlesbrough FC as a professional footballer. How did they manage to find him?
I guess they must have Googled "lawyer + Middlesbrough FC" [Post edited 26 May 19:13]
| |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 19:42 - May 26 with 1180 views | DorsetIan |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 18:31 - May 26 by Ifonly |
"Guidance to panel members covers when matters may constitute a conflict, with only work or other links in the past three years ordinarily considered."
So, if Winnie said nothing, then he was in accordance with EFL guidance because he hadn't had any links for 32 years. You may think that 32 is sufficiently close to 3 that he should have disclosed. Others will see it differently.
Either way, I can't believe that Saints didn't know. Any idiot can click on Wiki and find out in 10 seconds. I can only assume that they checked this because if he had grown up in the Boro academy, for example, then that would be a legitimate reason to challenge, even though it isn't required to be disclosed.
So, it's quite likely that he didn't disclose and there's nothing wrong with that, as per the rules. If Saints did even the most basic due diligence then they were aware of the "link" and chose not to challenge. |
If he played for Boro, he should have disclosed that. There's no question in my mind about that. And at present, I don't believe that he did, and your assumptions are just that (and imo likley false).
That supposed three year rule is b0ll0cks. On that basis, we're OK to have Stephen Davis and Jose Fonte on the panel??
The timeline here was massively truncated, the lawyers would have been busy with plenty of other stuff and they might have reasonably assumed that there would be no Boro players on the panel !! | |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 19:56 - May 26 with 1157 views | DorsetIan |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 19:42 - May 26 by DorsetIan |
If he played for Boro, he should have disclosed that. There's no question in my mind about that. And at present, I don't believe that he did, and your assumptions are just that (and imo likley false).
That supposed three year rule is b0ll0cks. On that basis, we're OK to have Stephen Davis and Jose Fonte on the panel??
The timeline here was massively truncated, the lawyers would have been busy with plenty of other stuff and they might have reasonably assumed that there would be no Boro players on the panel !! |
This story about Winnie has had some traction in the wider press and it's interesting that he has come out strongly to deny that he was in any way biased.
That's really not the point.
An ex-Boro player 'may' have been biased and it certainly undermines the appearance of impartiality that he was on the panel.
And the ONLY way that is not the case is if he voluntarily discloses his interest and those he might be biased against agree that he can remain.
It's his disclosure that would suggest that he has nothing to hide and his non-disclosure that raises the questions. | |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 19:56 - May 26 with 1153 views | dirk_doone |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 19:42 - May 26 by DorsetIan |
If he played for Boro, he should have disclosed that. There's no question in my mind about that. And at present, I don't believe that he did, and your assumptions are just that (and imo likley false).
That supposed three year rule is b0ll0cks. On that basis, we're OK to have Stephen Davis and Jose Fonte on the panel??
The timeline here was massively truncated, the lawyers would have been busy with plenty of other stuff and they might have reasonably assumed that there would be no Boro players on the panel !! |
I guess nothing can be assumed when Middlesbrough FC have their Chief Executive on the EFL Board.
All of these links with Middlesbrough in such a small group of people is ridiculous. I mean what percentage of the population has ever been employed by Middlesbrough FC? Surely no more than 0.01% [Post edited 26 May 20:28]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.