Miltonaggro

In part, I think that this is why the regulator will be proportionate in terms of punishment. I don't know the case mentioned, but would imagine that the international focus (FIFA) would only apply in the case of the international game (situs). My feeling is that the FA will distance themselves from this or actually lean on the EFL to be reasonable in terms of sanctions applied. It's the prize that causes the problem here, and the international precedent even if persuasive wont stick. At one level, it's at what point SFC sees the regulator as acting disproportionally or ultra vires, in the sense that a ban in this instance leads to extreme financial loss (forfeiting what is said to be the most lucrative match in world football). This is what a lot of people seem to be missing, there are no 'legal tests' or 'legal procedures' in terms of regulatory participation, as they can't force their remedy or adjudicate themselves (mark their own homework) in terms of compelling a member to act or surrender evidence (it's compliance). So SFC will likely play nice up until / unless the EFL act rashly (in imposing financial loss), whilst MFC have no legal case whatsoever. Dummies way to consider I suppose, is that if you get a £60 ticket after over parking in a Lidl car park and dispute it the 'appeal' process will generally happen through the BPA. However, this is voluntary, and if you feel that the BPA will likely / has sided with the parking company or acted disproportionally in setting / upholding the penalty, amongst other things, you can swerve the regulator and take matters to law via the small claims court. The SCC will then judge, the actions and processes of the parking company, the BPA as well as yours. I would always recommend this, as in my experience the unholy duo folds in 90% of cases. So, Saints seem to be waiting for the EFL to break cover (not sure they will), whilst letting MFC dig a ditch, which is exactly the right thing to do right now.

Yep, a proportionate fine as per Leeds (2019), which the club pays without drama and buggers on. In that case Bielsa admitted to spying on all his opponents over the season.

Complaint would have to come from the individual in these circumstances, rather than the club. But it would be valid, and actionable. I would assume at this point that MFC are being advised by someone who has not explained the consequences of failing to stop digging when you are below sea level.

Interesting.

This one in hi-res just released from the hotel lobby:

Regarding the financial transaction, if Gibson has said that he has breached GDPR / DPA, common law expectation of privacy and added to the defamation fuel, and his Hotel are in serious breach of common law confidentiality, possible criminal offences (unlikely but heigh ho), and clear breach of FCA rules. This is very serious in terms of possible penalties. Legally MFC are a palpable Turkey shoot!

I only think defamation will come into play if the EFL act rashly, as Saints may as well go all in at that point. In terms of SFC as a corporate entity (employing 800 people) it's about knowledge of the wrongdoing - how far does / did the chain of command / rot go? If a person in a position of authority (say a football manager or chairman) repeatedly makes public statements that 'Southampton FC are cheats' or 'Southampton FC is corrupt' (all 800?) and elements of the public react to these statements - the club can show reputational / financial damage - you have the basis of a case.

Yes, the Napoleon adage - never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. They have acted appallingly - great news for SFC!

Trust the process

Love to know his basis for this other than wishy thinking via Gibbo on speed dial.

For now. Keep record of any statement made by Middlesbrough FC employees / and for that matter journalists. Undertake a review within the stated timescale set by your professional regulator. React swiftly to any early onset of action by the EFL (still think that they are not that stupid / badly briefed).

Apologies for the war and peace post chaps – bear with or scroll past. For the last week I have been trying to provide a steer on here as to why I think this silly episode will be concluded with a fine (in the region of £200k) and / or a possible future points deduction (though if I were advising Saints I would appeal this). Simply that talk of forfeit and bans opens a legal can of worms that is well beyond the remit and scope of both the EFL and / or Middlesbrough FC. The best way to get your head around it is to think about intervention via the regulator in any other lucrative industry away from the emotion attached to sports. If a rule imposed by the regulator is wildly out of proportion to any complaint of unfair advantage, the business or individual still has full recourse to law. Be aware that in any field, a regulatory rule or penalty cannot trump or bypass the law. My practice area doesn’t extend to sports law, but there is some allied knowledge of commercial litigation, which is what will commence if the EFL act rashly. This lunchtime I managed to have a chat with an old friend who does work in sports / commercial law and we agreed on what would likely happen in the event of the EFL overstepping. I had a spare hour after this (might write a casenote on if it ever goes to law), so thought I would post this on here to put fellow Saints fans minds at rest. This is only a reflective opinion, and you can never guarantee outcome of course – its complicated as they say - but it’s a measured / informed opinion at least: Assuming Saints reasonable position is that a junior analyst did record half an hour of MFC’s training, without the Board’s knowledge, and the club are currently undertaking a review of this. Let’s say the EFL announce that they will fine and ban SFC from the Play off final, causing the club to miss out on promotion to the EPL. Reacting to the white noise of the past week. 1. Targets for litigation by SFC Should the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission rule to expel Southampton FC from the Championship Play-off Final against Hull City on 23 May, Southampton should immediately file a claim in the King's Bench Division of the High Court naming two distinct parties: A) Primary Defendant: The English Football League (EFL) Cause of Action: Breach of Contract, Arbitrary Exercise of Disciplinary Power, and Procedural Unfairness. Basis: The EFL Regulations form a binding contract between member clubs and the league. Southampton will challenge any expedited expulsion as an ultra vires (meaning beyond their powers) abuse of power that violates the league's own regulatory framework. B) Secondary Defendant / Interested Party: Middlesbrough FC Procedural Joinder: Middlesbrough must be formally joined to the High Court action as an Interested Party under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), as it is likely that they are actively preparing to take Southampton's place at Wembley (as stated in recent MFC communications). Tort Claims: Direct counterclaims for Injurious Falsehood and Defamation regarding public statements made by Middlesbrough personnel (e.g., Hellberg publicly labelling Southampton "cheats"), which have severely damaged the club's corporate reputation and stock value before a formal verdict has been rendered. 2. Legal position and precedent Southampton's legal counsel will likely use four distinct arguments to block an expulsion from the play-offs, these are to use the Leeds 2019 case, employment law isolation, breach of natural justice, and the good old American Cyanamid principles. i) Deviation from Established League Precedent (Leeds United Spygate 2019) In 2019, Marcelo Bielsa admitted to spying on Derby County and every other Championship opponent. The EFL established a clear, binding precedent by issuing a £200,000 fine and a formal reprimand. Escalating the penalty to total competition expulsion for a first-time alleged offense by an analyst is a gross violation of contractual consistency and proportionality under English sports law (Bradley v Jockey Club). ii) The Rogue Agent Defence: Southampton's executive board will likely submit immediate formal statements confirming they never authorised, funded, or evaluated any illicitly filmed footage. Under standard employment principles, a club cannot face strict liability capital sporting punishment (expulsion) for an individual first-team analyst acting independently outside his explicit operational mandate – their must be a chain of command / causation in terms of proof. iii) Breach of Natural Justice via Compressed Timelines: The EFL's decision to bypass the standard 14-day response period to force a hearing before 23 May actively denies Southampton its right to a fair trial (McInnes v Onslow-Fane). Depriving a club of adequate time to conduct a comprehensive internal review while Middlesbrough introduces unverified third-party "CCTV history" constitutes a fatal procedural flaw. iv) Irreparable Harm Threshold (American Cyanamid Co). Southampton easily satisfies the High Court test for an Urgent Interim Injunction (this is absolutely key). The financial upside of reaching the Premier League is universally valued at around £200 million (ballpark extreme financial losses). If the EFL removes Southampton from the final illegally, no monetary damages paid by the league months later can adequately compensate for the permanent loss of global prestige, TV broadcasting distributions, and elite sporting merit. Essentially, were the court to find for SFC, Saints could effectively bankrupt the EFL and Middlesbrough FC. 3. Potential damages and remedies If the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission issues a sporting expulsion or points deduction before the weekend of the play-off final, Southampton must seek the following cumulative judicial remedies: A) Pre-Match Urgent Remedies (Wembley Focus): Urgent Interim High Court Injunction: An emergency judicial order freezing the Championship Play-off Final scheduled for 23 May, or alternatively ordering the EFL to permit Southampton to play Hull City as scheduled, until a full commercial court trial evaluates the legality of the charge. Final Judicial Declaration: A formal court order declaring that the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission's penalty is null, void, contractually invalid, and ultra vires. Injunction Against Disparagement (Middlesbrough): An injunction ordering Middlesbrough executives and coaching staff to immediately cease public character assassinations and "cheating" accusations online and in press conferences until the formal legal channel has concluded. B) Post-Match Monetary Damages (speculative as I don’t think EFL are that stupid) £200 Million Promotion Expectation Damages (From the EFL): If the High Court denies the injunction but later finds the EFL breached its contract by expelling the club, the EFL will be liable for the full, audited £200 million loss representing missing out on the Premier League's central broadcasting revenue, parachute payments, and global commercial rights. Reliance and Operational Damages (From the EFL): Full recovery of lost ticket sales for Wembley, pre-booked corporate travel packages, stadium concession refunds, and pre-negotiated club sponsorship bonuses tied to reaching the final. Tortious Special Damages (From Middlesbrough FC): Punitive financial damages if Southampton can prove that Middlesbrough’s public agitating directly caused major commercial sponsors or e.g. shirt partners to execute ‘morality clauses’ and pull funding out of the club. 4. Advice to SFC on taking action if the EFL goes nuclear (I would imagine that all of this is already well in motion) Club solicitors Paris Smith LLP to instruct specialist sports KC in terms of retention for the action. Submit Response of Non-Authorisation: Issue the club’s formal observations to the EFL, officially isolating the analyst's actions from board knowledge. Prepare the High Court Application Papers: Pre- draft the American Cyanamid skeleton argument to ensure that if the Independent Commission rules against the club court injunction papers can be served within two hours. So that’s my legal tuppence in terms of shutting out the white-noise, hope it helps in terms of perspective. Much sharper people that I will already be on board, and SFC seem to be acting with extreme professionalism and strategic edge. Short advice to the Boro brains trust would be to move on, or be careful what you wish for.

Spot on!

It’s heartwarming stories like this that make it all worthwhile. Hope the budgie had snuffed it when you got home as well!

An easy mistake to make for the unqualified.

I have it on good authority that what he said to Ayling was 'fucking massive thermoplastic' talking about the new advertising boards. Luke seems to have a hearing impediment as well, poor bloke.

I didn't actually know he putted from the rough. Rocking the predatory art teacher look.

To be honest they looked unfit last night, so I'd have them in for Pochettino style double sessions for the next week between the suit fitting at Matalan ready for Wembley.

What a pansy!

They have shown class - economy class.

That was at the Riverside with their ultras - Miss Middlesbrough Wizard’s Sleeve 2026.

Stay classy 'Boro...

Solidarity to fellow members on the sex offenders register.

Two brilliant competitive games of Championship football, an advert for the league, undermined by the petty, whining, and game-playing of Middlesbrough officials and coaching staff winding up their low iq fanbase and pet media. Fuck them all!

Tad pissed, few stops on way home. Great battling performance from our team, who ground a strong Boro side down there. Bree and Manning the difference tonight for me - so important for us now. Good our fans avoided more attention by staying in the stands and the ‘Northam Wall’ lived up to the moniker. Reckon the Boro brain damage should get off their coaches about 4am - karma!