egg

Ha!! Far from it. I was baffled by the confusion, not so much from you, but form others, so used the lazy way to give some detail. You're free to do your own research if you remain confused. As above, it's academic anyway, and the EFL may well have expelled us however we approached it, but we approached it badly.

I couldn't be arsed to type out a long explanation. The simple point is that in a sports disciplinary panel or tribunal an option needs setting out, and we didn't offer one. If people want to believe that our approach was correct, and that we were stitched up by an iffy panel, that's a matter for them, but the reality is that we didn't help ourselves. It's academic anyway, and fortunately we got our ducks in a row for the FA process.

You're very wrong on this. The club were not "defendants" as per a criminal case. They were responding to a disciplinary tribunal. It's an entirely different forum, and it's standard in that environment to propose a sanction.

For those somehow confused by this, I've let AI spell it out simply. The last para summarises. Your reading of the situation is incredibly accurate and highlights exactly how the strategic decisions made during a defense can inadvertently trap a tribunal into a binary choice. [1] In the high-profile Southampton FC "Spygate" case before the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission, Southampton's legal counsel took a high-stakes "all-or-nothing" approach. By fiercely arguing that they gained zero sporting advantage from spying on Oxford United, Ipswich Town, and Middlesbrough, they maintained that any sporting sanction would be completely disproportionate. Consequently, their legal team pushed exclusively for a financial penalty and a formal reprimand (pointing heavily to the £200,000 fine Leeds United received for a similar incident in 2019). [1, 2, 3] This creates a major tactical vulnerability before a panel, resulting in several key dynamics: 1. The Binary Trap Because Southampton did not offer a realistic middle-ground alternative (such as a suspended points deduction, a heavier standard point deduction for the following season, or localized stadium bans), they left the Independent Disciplinary Commission with a steep fork in the road: Accept the respondent’s view that no sporting advantage occurred and issue a purely financial fine. Accept the EFL’s view that sporting integrity was heavily compromised and issue a severe sporting sanction (expulsion from the Play-Offs). 2. The Danger of Over-Mitigating When a respondent’s alternative is perceived as too lenient for the severity of the admitted rule breaches, tribunals often reject it outright. Once the Disciplinary Commission officially ruled that obtaining confidential training data inherently constitutes a sporting advantage (regardless of the match results), Southampton’s proposed financial-only penalty became legally incompatible with the panel's findings. [1] 3. Contrasting Strategy: The FA vs. Tonda Eckert Hearing We can see the exact opposite strategy used to great success by Southampton manager Tonda Eckert during his individual Football Association (FA) hearing. [1, 2] When the FA demanded a massive nine-month ban from all football activities, Eckert's legal team actively suggested alternatives. They argued against the full ban, putting forward a financial penalty or a touchline/stadium ban as a middle ground. While the commission rejected those exact options, the act of engagement and providing immense mitigation allowed them to heavily slice down the punishment to a six-week ban that was entirely suspended. [1, 2] Ultimately, Southampton’s club-level defense failed because they gambled on convincing the panel that a multi-million-pound playoff spot shouldn't be governed by a sporting penalty. By leaving no realistic "sporting middle ground" on the table, they handed the EFL commission the pen to write the ultimate sanction themselves.

I think most of us accept he was lucky. Why Blackmore keeps labouring the point though, I'm not sure.

It's common practice for the respondent to suggest alternative sanctions before a disciplinary tribunal or tribunal.

Yep. It's just regurgitated headlines from elsewhere. It's made discussion pointless.

I'm not sure why there's confusion. The panel were tasked with punishment. This was a sporting offence and a sporting penalty was obvious. The EFL were batting for a particular punishment. Our role was to argue for an alternative. The only alternative we offered was monetary. There's no circle to go around. Simply, we were staring down the barrel of a sporting penalty and didn't give the panel an alternative sporting penalty to consider. Our legal team job was to sell an alternative to the panel, but didn't. I'm confused about the confusion over something very simple.

But it's a fact. We offered no alternative sporting sanction to the expulsion. EFL cup ban if we went up, points if we didn't, were both alternative sporting sanctions, but they weren't offered up if a fine wasn't deemed appropriate. When the only sporting sanction option for the panel to consider was expulsion, there's literally nothing else on the table. It was an appalling approach by the club.

He wasn't. He signed 24 march, didn't get a sniff, played once, badly, never got a sniff again, then went back to his club. Nuts to think that would give him an affinity with Boro. Quite the opposite.

I'd like to see results and performances improve first. Hopefully we see that with the FA distraction out of the way.

Winnie played for them once on loan. They lost 4 nil, he was dropped from the squad, and sent back to his club. I'm not sure that's a history which will make him want to help Boro. That said, he'd have been impartial - not a great career move to be anything but. The Bannerjee connection is a wee bit more relevant. She advised them once and I think she should have declared that and recused herself. That said, I think she only advised them once, which suggests to me that it wasn't a commercial relationship which went terribly well. In short, sure there were brief historical connections and common sense says they shouldn't have been there to avoid this kind of discussion. To be fair to the club, they opposed their involvement. That all said, our biggest issue wasn't the panel composition, but our representation and approach. We didn't co-operate, we ponied up the kid to give evidence (he didn't show up at the FA hearing, fortunately) which didn't help, we used non sports specialist counsel (who was binned for the appeal - we got it very right this time) and most significantly, we approached it seeking a fine when a sporting sanction was bloody obvious (this time we were realistic). The only sporting sanction on the table was expulsion from the play offs, so I'm not sure what choice any panel had - it was literally that or nothing that would have hurt us.

They may think it's lenient (many of us probably do), but they'd have to argue it was unduly lenient. They have form for successful appeals though. I'd imagine this'll be it.

Ha!! The person who spoke to me is solid. His source was clearly a fuckwit.

Oui.