trousers

@Turkish you dark horse, you!

Precisely.... surely a decent lawyer would be all over this like a rash?

"Perverting the course of justice" then....? And does "The EFL" include the Boro CEO geezer...? There's definitely a stink in the air....

Oh joy... thanks for the heads up to watch The Chase....

Where's this from? Cheers 👍

Yay! It's only taken me just over 6 hours this time, but I'm now back 'live' again! Just in time for the forum to crash again once the appeal verdict is released.... 😂

🤞🙏

One of our new 'validated' ITKs posted earlier that he was.... IIRC

Would be somewhat amusing if the whisteblower that brought us down is the same person that also has the evidence of other clubs doing it to.... just hope one of those other clubs is Middlesbrough, for maximum chortle factor

Maybe, rightly or wrongly, the club believe his "I didn't know it was a rule" defence? (Yes, I know the "he told them to go in disguise" accusation renders such a defence worthless if true, but how do we know for certain that the 'disguise' aspect was a direct instruction from Eckert....? Isn't that just something that's been reported rather than admitted to? A bit like the the initial reports were talking about "sophisticated recording equipment" which turned out to be bunkum?)

I've only ever known that to work in reverse....

Could we end up bankrupting ourselves if we go down the legal route after and lose that too?

One assumes that also applies to any player's claim against the club for financial losses? "Sorry lads, you can't say you missed out on promotion bonuses, etc, because you might have lost in the final"

Not forgetting rule beakers Hull City too, of course.... (yep, I am indeed still back on page 172 out of 176!)

Alluding to other clubs committing the same offence historically there I guess...?

A statement from Phil Parsons, Chief Executive, Southampton Football Club. We have appealed yesterday's decision by the Independent Disciplinary Commission to expel Southampton Football Club from the Sky Bet Championship Play-Offs, and to impose a four-point deduction for the 2026/27 season. Before turning to that appeal, I want to address our supporters, our players, and the wider football community directly and without equivocation. What happened was wrong. The club has admitted breaches of EFL Regulations 3.4 and 127. We are sorry to the other clubs involved, and most of all to the Southampton supporters whose extraordinary loyalty and support this season deserved better from the club. We have provided our full co-operation to the EFL's investigation and disciplinary process. Following the appeal, we will also be writing to the EFL to volunteer our participation in a working group on the practical application and enforcement of Regulation 127 across the Championship. Contrition without change is hollow, and we intend to demonstrate change. On the appeal itself: we accept that there should be a sanction. What we cannot accept is a sanction which bears no proportion to the offence. Whereas Leeds United was fined £200,000 for a similar offence, Southampton has been denied the opportunity to compete in a game worth more than £200 million and one which means so much to our staff, players and supporters. We believe the financial consequence of yesterday's ruling makes it, by a very considerable distance, the largest penalty ever imposed on an English football club. Luton Town's 30-point deduction in 2008/09 — to date the most severe sporting sanction in the English game — was levied against a club already in League Two, with no comparable revenue at stake. Derby County's 21-point deduction in 2021 cost them their Championship status. Everton's eventual six-point deduction in 2023/24 followed losses of £124.5 million, a figure dwarfed by what has been taken from Southampton in a single afternoon. The largest financial penalty ever levied by the Premier League, against Chelsea in March of this year, was £10.75 million, and was accompanied by no sporting sanction whatsoever despite involving £47.5 million in undisclosed payments over seven years. We say this not to minimise what occurred at this club, which we have accepted was wrong. We say it because proportionality is itself a principle of natural justice. The Commission was entitled to impose a sanction. It was not, we will argue, entitled to impose one that is manifestly disproportionate to every previous sanction in the history of the English game. Our appeal will be heard today, and we will provide a further update in due course.

I did say about 2 months ago that the play offs should be scrapped and the top 3 go up.... Where's my medal??!!

Given the current feelings amongst most (all?) Saints fans, that might not actually work in our favour! 😉

I wonder where the players thought all this new inside info was coming from from...? Or perhaps, unlike most humans, they weren't curious in the slightest...? We keep hearing that "ignorance is not a defence"... Does that not apply to the players too...? #devilsadvocate

That's unfair to those of us that don't have multiple login IDs...!

Because they need to be seen to be following 'due process'...?

Looks that way.... Same crime, little or no indignation from the footballing world... Crack on with next season as if nothing had happened.... Sliding doors and all that...

There surely has to be a valid reason (from the club's point of view) why they haven't even put out a holding statement yet? One would hope it's because they think they've got a rabbit to pull out of the hat at the appeal, which will turn the case on it's head (the "they're all at it, and you knew it" bombshell?), but I guess the more realistic reason for no statement is they haven't got a clue what they're doing....

Good question!

As I mentioned the other day, when coming up with a predicted outcome in a situation like this, it's always best to go for a realistic 'worst case scenario ', as it means you either get to play your "ner ner ner ner ner, told you so" card, or your "phew, glad I was proven wrong" card. You can't really lose when predicting the worst outcome... We should all try it sometime, rather than being so blimin' optimistic! (Or, better still, go with what is known as the 'Glasgow' methodology and post different predicted outcomes but only quote yourself on the one that ended up happening... You get awarded an extra special medal for that one... )