Lewis Thompson

Enjoy Boro fans, never heard noise like it in my life UTFB

@Saintly1885 10 million is a drop in the ocean for 180 mill and -6 is nothing with parachute payments, definitely worth it

@LewisThompson7 How would that be worth cheating? 10 million is huge. Still no guarantee we go up and -6 could change a whole season. You’re chatting shit.

Spot on from the club this, this has nothing to do with how the games played out, matters on the pitch, any advantage, it is simply cheating and breaking the rules, has to set a precedent, so that the risk isn't worth the reward, only way you achieve that, is kicking Saints out

@Saintly1885 But if it's only -6 points the next time you are back in the EFL and a 10 million pound fine, it's then worth cheating, has to be something that's a deterrent for other clubs not to risk doing it

@LewisThompson7 Haha so absolutely desperate. Trying to justify a punishment that size for this single infraction of the rules. Your dead club is just making it more and more obvious you’re just reaching for a chance to play in the final, despite bottling 2nd and not being good enough. 😂

@Alan19673 The ruling is that the game is voided and we are awarded a 3-0 win

@LewisThompson7 But then sending Hull up automatically? because you can't have a club that got beat over 2 legs and extra time profiting regardless of what's happened.

@MatthewLeGod We obviously aren't getting anywhere, when we are charged, as you seem convinced we will be, come back to me

@LewisThompson7 Attempting to prejudice an ongoing investigation is not acting in good faith.

@MatthewLeGod Haha, that's clutching that is, we've not breached that rule, and you know it, we've stated what we believe the commission should do, we have the right to voice that

@LewisThompson7 I didn't lie. I named the offence, then I separately stated what Boro have done to break it. That isn't lying.

@MatthewLeGod But there is no rule against it, you just lied in your last Tweet and added your own info to a rule, haha

@LewisThompson7 Yep, charge both clubs with it. What is the purpose of the statement if not to influence the decision?

@MatthewLeGod The irony that is the charge you have breached and also I like how you've added your own interpretation of it, and added additional to the actual ruling, haha

@LewisThompson7 EFL Regulation 3.4 — clubs must “act towards each other with the utmost good faith.” Attempting to prejudice an influence the outcome of an ongoing investigation.

@MatthewLeGod I'm giving you the oppurtunity to show which rule we've broke? Which is think is more than fair

@LewisThompson7 Sounds like a desperate attempt to influence the outcome of the commission after being told their lawyer could not attend the hearing!

@AdamSaintJames1 Obviously we aren't going to not play in the game, then get a hefty fine and punishment from the EFL, that would be ridiculous of us

@LewisThompson7 Well if the club was that serious about it all they’d refuse to play whatever the charge. No, played both and didn’t have the legs for it. Simple

@MatthewLeGod Because on the pitch there is a rule, off the pitch there isn't, unless you are going to send me the ruling about what we've said?

@LewisThompson7 Why doesn't the analogy work?

@AdamSaintJames1 Because we would get penalised by the EFL for not fulfilling a fixture, easy one that

@LewisThompson7 Why not boycott the games before hand then without playing them until this is all sorted? In other words “we lost but we want a pass”

@MatthewLeGod Haha, what a crazy analogy, where's the ruling about what we've said and how we've broke it? Considering this is ironically about rule breaking?

@LewisThompson7 This the equivalent of a player doing a tackle and the opponents surrounding the ref and demanding he give a red card! Acting like that isn't allowed on the pitch, nor should it be off it.

@WanyneKing @Joshcoupe1 Enlighten me, which particular rule?

@LewisThompson7 @Joshcoupe1 Which is against the rules…

@EthanEvansSJ Tweeting about my own club, shock

@LewisThompson7 *checks what club you support* Yeah checks out

@Joshcoupe1 Well done poirot

@LewisThompson7 Only reason that statement has been made is to try pressure the independent panel and because they are not allowed in the hearing.

@Joshcoupe1 We just did

@LewisThompson7 Boro cant demand the only course of action is by kicking southampton out

@richardajkeys A man that knows a thing or two about cheating!

Are we really suggesting Spygate in any way affected the outcome of the s/f? Behave.

@NodNolan @Dan_Sheldon_ @mjshrimper @TheAthleticFC Let the media report what they want, we have plenty of our own evidence

@LewisThompson7 @Dan_Sheldon_ @mjshrimper @TheAthleticFC Excellent to hear it wouldn't be the version suggesting "professional surveillance equipment"

Exc: #Boro have asked the panel if they can participate in the hearing. Ordinarily, an interested party can only make written submissions. If granted, it would be highly unusual & could create more tension with #SaintsFC. Story w/@mjshrimper @TheAthleticFC nytimes.com/athletic/72785…

@sridout92 You cheated, so won't be in the final, simple, only got yourselves to blame

@LewisThompson7 Wanted the rules bent so you can plea to try get to a final which you have proven you are not good enough for 🥱

If this is allowed then it completely voids any verdict and makes the hearing a complete farce. Don’t know who boro think they are 🤦‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️ #SaintsFC