DellBlockH

If you're after crap analogies, here's another one. A player makes a reckless and dangerous tackle and gets sent off and automatically banned for three matches. He made the tackle to stop a certain goal when the opposition player was clean through. This is cheating. The FA looks again at the circumstances of the foul and increases the suspension to six matches. When that is over, would we welcome this player, who has been a vital part of our team, back into the fold? Or would we say, no, you cheated, leave our club immediately? Is the level of cheating we're holding Tonda to account for worse than a dangerous tackle to stop a certain goal?

I think it is very unlikely. The threat of legal action outside the EFL procedure might have a bearing though.

Should we bring our own pitchforks?

Up to a point. But if the other party in the undertaking is thought to have been acting unreasonably then I think the first party has a right to seek the verdict of the court. As I said in earlier post, I'm not a lawyer but nothing can stop somebody or a corporate making a legal claim and, in my view, they cannot be threatened with further sanctions for doing so. That would be a denial of basic legal rights. Of course, whether Saints have any prospect of winning a legal battle is a different argument.

I keep coming back here. Don't know why. It just depresses me. The club broke the rules and deserved to be punished. The punishment is disproportionate to the crime and benefit gained. Both these statements can be true. And, now, I'm going to try to stop looking here, at least until our appeal is complete.

The punishment in no way is proportionate to the crime. I understand that we signed, as members of the EFL, an agreement that we would not take any dispute into the courts of the land. But (and I stress I'm not a lawyer), a contract or agreement can only be valid if both parties act reasonably? If one party has acted completely unreasonably, as I believe the EFL has, it is up to the club to take legal action outside of the EFL's appeals process. Nothing can trump q decison of the court. I would hope that the club's legal team are working to overturn the decision in the courts and seeking an injunction against Middlesbrough playing on Saturday.

I have a ticket for Saturday, as does my son. I am slightly inconvenienced by not being able to book travel until I know for sure we will be at Wembley. My son does not live in Southampton and every day it gets nearer to Saturday, the price of flights increases and the availability decreases. This pratting about has real consequences for us blameless fans.

They could get damming evidence if they beavered about.

So Blackmore knows no more than the rest of us. I can't read the last bit as I no longer subscribe to the cess pit of X. Was it interesting?

This is the most bizarre post so far on here, despite stiff competition. So we go out and compensate Wembley (and presumably all the suppliers, caterers etc). And then, miraculously, there's a ground "up north" all ready and willing to take on a new fixture at a week's notice. The pitch will be prepared, the caterers will have stocked up. Oh, and the local police have cancelled leave and added a whole new event to their schedule. Honestly.

You need a better lawyer.

I don't like these analogies but this is an area I know something about (not from being a flasher). It is not illegal to be naked in your home, garden or even Above Bar Street unless your intention is to cause harm or distress to another person. So, if you're just coming from the shower and pass the window, it should not be a problem. If you're standing at the window waving your willy about, you might be liable to prosecution. What this has to do with the club's current situation, I don't know.

If, and it's a big if, Tonda had knowledge of the alleged spy, or even sent him, there could be mitigating factors such as genuinely not knowing it is against the rules. Or it could be a deliberate act, despite knowing the rules. He should, perhaps, be reprimanded and warned not to do it again. But to sack the most successful manager we've had in years, with the huge potential he has, would be way over the top. As Dman says below, despite the huge press backlash, the offence itself is no worse than diving, feigning injury or fouling an attacker clean through on goal. The last of these attracts a red card and a three match ban. Are you really saying Tonda should be treated more harshly?

How right you are.

There aren't really sides though. Middlesbrough made the report but they aren't a direct party to the outcome. It's the EFL v Southampton. I can't see the EFL appealing against a the decision of the tribunal it appointed. Saints might appeal if punishment is seen as too harsh. I make no comme t on the likely outcome, though as I'm as much jn the dark as everybody else posting on this thread.

Could add to the evidence that we knew exactly where Boro were going to play that ball out of defence. And that they were so unfit that Flynn would be able to catch them up after giving them a head start.

Haven't seen what Jon Sopel said. But he did study at the University of Southampton.

So, nothing new then. I haven't scrolled through the whole 99 pages but will leave this here in case nobody else has mentioned it: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/may/16/southampton-middlesbrough-spygate-championship?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other I'm not sure why their manager being in tears should have any bearing on the situation. Anyway, hoping this is the post that takes us onto page 100.

You begin to see why Rob Edwards thought he'd be happier at a club facing almost certain relegation.

Wow. I thought you were older than that.

Lightning. 😉

So somehow the EFL have come up with a scenario to cause the maximum inconvenience to the supporters of both clubs (and Middlesbrough). And not just the supporters. Last time we were at Wembley, there were extra trains, extra National Express coaches and supporters' private hire coaches. That takes time to organise. I'm not sure how the disciplinary committee has been allowed to progress quicker than the 14 days we were given to respond to the charges. Unless we've agreed to a shortened schedule (which should count in our favour, a bit like an early guilty plea 😉). The whole thing is a mess. If we broke the rules, fair enough, we deserve a sanction. But, as just about everybody outside Middlesbrough seems to agree, kicking us out of the play offs would be completely disproportionate. As usual, the last people to be considered are the actual bloody supporters.

Well done on the spelling (and I don't mean Larin).

Great summary. But could you also cover the alternative scenario that the management (if not the actual board) did know that the analyst was there?

Why? Would Hull be happy with a delay? It will go ahead as scheduled. We will play in it and any sanctions will come later.