Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[Badger]

1 hour ago, Midfield_General said:

That clip is exactly what needed to come out.

As soon as people actually see that the guy was stood on public land, the correct side of a sign marking where the private land starts, 150m away from a pitch where they are so concerned about security that they they haven't bothered to put a single fence up so it is completely open and visible to anyone strolling past or playing golf, they realise just how utterly ridiculous this whole thing is. It's farcical. 

Everyone in those comments just laughing at Boro and saying it's a joke. 

Just show that clip to the panel. 

The fact he was on public land etc is irrelevant, it’s the act that is the potential offence. How Middlesbrough secure their site or obscure vision isn’t relevant either. 

[trousers]

55 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Hull owner saying he like the people at Southampton and are a great club.

he said he would not want to comment on any sanctions had a club spied on Hull, but not much difference to diving for a penalty that leads to a 1-0 win

Given Hull's financial irregularities and EFL sanctions thereof, I guess that comes under: "well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"

[disconnect]

The problem with all this #crygate is that it will set a precedent where every club will be filing law suits every week. Imagine if Boro got to the Prem, they'd be literally suing and complaining to the league every week! 

[Midfield_General]

6 minutes ago, Badger said:

The fact he was on public land etc is irrelevant, it’s the act that is the potential offence. How Middlesbrough secure their site or obscure vision isn’t relevant either. 

Nonsense. 

There's a world of difference between breaking in somewhere, trespassing on private land etc and standing where any man on the street can stand and watching something that is in full public view.

It won't get anyone off, but it is obviously relevant. 

Lawyers use details like that all the time to provide mitigation and get punishments reduced. It's basically what they're paid to do.

Edited May 13 by Midfield_General

[Saint NL]

 

https://fmttmboro.com/index.php?threads/breaking-news.81160/

12 pages (so far) of utter deranged ramblings.

[Toussaint]

looks like we are banged to rites. The sky reporter carried out some further investigations and discovered the hastily discarded spy paraphernalia.  

 

Edited May 13 by Toussaint

[saintant]

1 hour ago, Saint NL said:

Just saw on Reddit that apparently the two clubs in question are Wrexham (suprise suprise) and Ipswich. 

Now what could Wrexham stand to gain by fanning this fire I wonder....

Great for the movie.

[Saint Scott]

Just going to leave this here

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, trousers said:

Even if we did it outside of the 72 hour 'embargo' we would still be in breach of Regulation 3.4 (albeit a lesser misdemeanor)

But the fact that rule 127 exists implicitly detemines that observation outside 72 hours is not an issue.

[Saint Pete]

19 minutes ago, warsash saint said:

100% this.  In my view, diving for a penalty is worse.  This directly effects the score line whereas we possibly had a sneak peak at their corner routine!!

Absolutely. You don't hear any of these pundits / hypocrites like Troy Deeney calling for expulsion, points deductions, result reversals etc when someone is shown post match to have dived to get a penalty do you? But that is blatant cheating of the officials and opposition that directly affects the result of the game, much more so than what we are accused of doing. 

[saintant]

20 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

If this is true, why didn't they say anything at the time? 

Why would they wait for someone else to flag it before they presented their vital dossiers? Especially Wrexham, who we last played at the beginning of April, and who would surely have raised it then when there was still time for them to benefit from getting a place in the playoffs? 

I smell bullshiiiiiiiiiiiiit 

I'm presuming they've reviewed CCTV footage of the last training session before our recent match, played 'Where's Wally' and found him skulking in a bush wearing a Saints tracksuit.

Edited May 13 by saintant

[Badger]

Just now, Midfield_General said:

Nonsense. 

There's a world of difference between breaking in somewhere, trespassing on private land etc and standing where any man on the street can stand and watching something that is in full public view.

It won't get anyone off, but it is obviously relevant. 

Yes there is, but we’re not accused of trespass. The accusation is of spying on the opponent within 72 hours before the match. Whether this is from a roadside or up a tree doesn’t change that.

You’re right that had we been on their ground the allegations would be more serious, but that doesn’t detract from what we’re currently accused of.

Of course we don’t know the facts about recording it etc, I suspect the view of his/our actions might be seen differently if just stood there watching (rather than recording, or transmitting it. IF he did). 

[badgerx16]

Just now, saintant said:

I'm presuming they've reviewed CCTV footage of the last training session before they our recent match, played 'Where's Wally' and found him skulking in a bush wearing a Saints tracksuit.

Amazing what you can do with AI manipulation of video.

[EssEffCee]

15 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

If this is true, why didn't they say anything at the time? 

Why would they wait for someone else to flag it before they presented their vital dossiers? Especially Wrexham, who we last played at the beginning of April, and who would surely have raised it then when there was still time for them to benefit from getting a place in the playoffs? 

I smell bullshiiiiiiiiiiiiit 

I think the theory is that they had suspicions but nothing concrete at the time and then they've got an image of the bloke from Boro and rechecked footage.

Agree it's almost certainly bullshit. We probably have done it before but if any other clubs had evidence they'd surely submit their own complaint rather than give it to Boro.

[Cabrone]

Looks like we are the new Millwall. Nobody loves us and we don't care.

[Leighsterrr]

2 hours ago, tisspahars said:

as you can of course lay them.....

Would you honestly want to do that to someone from Middlesbrough? Urgh!

[OldNick]

I keep looking at the thread title andthinking we are talking about an African footballer MBoro, next time can you put just Boro to help for the stupid like me

[Oldandtired]

3 minutes ago, Cabrone said:

Looks like we are the new Millwall. Nobody loves us and we don't care.

I think it could work in our favour. Us against the world etc.

[sockeye]

Would the EFL be able to strike a deal with the Premier League to apply a points deduction if we went up, or are they completely siloed? I remember a problem like this a couple of years ago where Leicester weren't able to be punished due to some loophole involving the two leagues being governed by different entities.

[OldNick]

The whole episode has a reallygrubby feel to it, and events have happened that appall me, and I would have never expected it to happen to our club. Perhaps this change in attitude maymake us less of an easy push over in future weve always been too nice

[benjii]

33 minutes ago, trousers said:

Even if we did it outside of the 72 hour 'embargo' we would still be in breach of Regulation 3.4 (albeit a lesser misdemeanor)

I dunno about that. If you have a law that specifically prohibits something within certain boundaries, it's then a bit of a stretch to claim that some other catch-all prohibits the same activity without those boundaries.

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, sockeye said:

Would the EFL be able to strike a deal with the Premier League to apply a points deduction if we went up, or are they completely siloed? I remember a problem like this a couple of years ago where Leicester weren't able to be punished due to some loophole involving the two leagues being governed by different entities.

No.

[Farmer Saint]

36 minutes ago, trousers said:

Even if we did it outside of the 72 hour 'embargo' we would still be in breach of Regulation 3.4 (albeit a lesser misdemeanor)

No, I wouldn't say so.

[benjii]

2 minutes ago, sockeye said:

Would the EFL be able to strike a deal with the Premier League to apply a points deduction if we went up, or are they completely siloed? I remember a problem like this a couple of years ago where Leicester weren't able to be punished due to some loophole involving the two leagues being governed by different entities.

I doubt the PL would be interested. There's no benefit for them and just exposes them to being caught up in any resulting legal fall out.

[Farmer Saint]

 

 

[Ivan Katalinic's 'tache]

I wonder if our decision to release ticket news this afternoon is because we’ve received an indication, whatever the penalty may be, it’s not expulsion? Or are we just pushing things along to make things more difficult to unwind?

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Ivan Katalinic's 'tache said:

I wonder if our decision to release ticket news this afternoon is because we’ve received an indication, whatever the penalty may be, it’s not expulsion? Or are we just pushing things along to make things more difficult to unwind?

The second.

[Jimmy_D]

6 minutes ago, sockeye said:

Would the EFL be able to strike a deal with the Premier League to apply a points deduction if we went up, or are they completely siloed? I remember a problem like this a couple of years ago where Leicester weren't able to be punished due to some loophole involving the two leagues being governed by different entities.

They have sanctions for financial breach punishments to carry over in either direction now, after Leicester escaped punishment up into the Premier League, but not sure if that applies to all rule breaches. That's likely also complicated by there being no equivalent rule for this in the Prem.

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Ivan Katalinic's 'tache said:

I wonder if our decision to release ticket news this afternoon is because we’ve received an indication, whatever the penalty may be, it’s not expulsion? Or are we just pushing things along to make things more difficult to unwind?

We have not yet been found guilty of anything, so "business as usual".

[Football Special]

2 minutes ago, OldNick said:

The whole episode has a reallygrubby feel to it, and events have happened that appall me, and I would have never expected it to happen to our club. Perhaps this change in attitude maymake us less of an easy push over in future weve always been too nice

Are you genuinely appalled? I've known people that work in the game, some of the stories and way worse than this, especially when it comes to transfer dealings and youth player recruitment,  analysts move around within clubs and will know various tricks , getting caught and the publicity is the issue rather than clubs getting involved in mischief 

[OldNick]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

 

 

Brilliant

[skintsaint]

Simon Jordan, new day new opinion 😅

 

https://fb.watch/H4dExuk2bH/

 

Such a turnaround from the initial convo.

[kwsaint]

 

Edited May 13 by kwsaint
Technical issues.

[saintstowin]

41 minutes ago, Saint NL said:

 

https://fmttmboro.com/index.php?threads/breaking-news.81160/

12 pages (so far) of utter deranged ramblings.

Just had my first look, maybe my only, there's not a lot of sense there. I get the anger, plus it's a football forum so you can multiply that many times over. But the delusion. Saying that our win at Coventry is likely down to similar shenanigans because Coventry had such a good home record, and then someone else posting a list of their results to back it up. It then becomes fact, for them.

Strange people.

[trousers]

😂😂😂

[Midfield_General]

53 minutes ago, Badger said:

Yes there is, but we’re not accused of trespass. The accusation is of spying on the opponent within 72 hours before the match. Whether this is from a roadside or up a tree doesn’t change that.

You’re right that had we been on their ground the allegations would be more serious, but that doesn’t detract from what we’re currently accused of.

Of course we don’t know the facts about recording it etc, I suspect the view of his/our actions might be seen differently if just stood there watching (rather than recording, or transmitting it. IF he did). 

True, but the point of the enquiry isn't a black or white 'did you do it or didn't you?'. We've already said we're not contesting the charges which is us saying 'yes, we had someone there, we're not denying that'.

The crux of it is all in the detail — what exactly happened, who it was, what their role was, whether they were they acting alone or briefed to do it by senior management, when exactly it took place, whether it was a one-off or systematic, what they actually got, how much effort they went to to obtain it, how useful what they got was, whether it materially influenced results, if so how many and which ones, etc etc. 

Their side are using the media to try to paint a picture of large-scale, systematic, cynical cheating. Our side will be trying to play it down as 'oh come on, it's really easy to do and everyone does it — it was just an overzealous kid taking advantage of the fact that anyone can see straight onto their training pitch from the road'. Personally, I think clips like the Sky one are far more supportive of the latter, and judging from the comments under the video it seems that most people who have watched it, many of whom are neutral, feel the same. 

Small details become very important in cases like this which aren't 'did it happen' but are instead 'what exactly happened and how bad was it'. 

Personally, I suspect the reality is somewhere in the middle, but as with all legal cases like this it's not what anyone thinks happened, it's what can be proved, and then it's down to the panel to decide how egregious or otherwise they think that behaviour was and what a fitting punishment should be. Small details really matter in that scenario. 

Edited May 13 by Midfield_General

[St Chalet]

This is uncharted territory in many ways:

1) As I understand no other club has been charged with this specific offence, so no prescident.

2) There is a very strict timeline, the final cannot be paused or put back, it's happening.

3) There may be the need for a wider investigation, eg have others done it?

With so much at stake this will rumble on for a good long time. I suspect we'll enter into a defence with extreme mitigation and have an out of court settlement with Boro.

[saints1988]

Trying to put myself in their shoes.

Just me or would you not really give a rats if this was the other way round? 

What massive advantage can be gained - maybe early info that Hackney was not fit…..

[Dman]

4 minutes ago, kwsaint said:

 

I wouldn't beleive any of this nonsense tbh. 

Unless the independent investigator is blabbering (unlikley), its all PR being pushed by them. 

[trousers]

19 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

 

 

😂

That probably sums up the severity of our misdemeanor quite accurately!

Edited May 13 by trousers

[James G]

1 hour ago, Saint NL said:

Just saw on Reddit that apparently the two clubs in question are Wrexham (suprise suprise) and Ipswich. 

Now what could Wrexham stand to gain by fanning this fire I wonder....

Both training grounds would be near impossible to view according to Google, so it's probably fake

[Dearky]

Somebody may have already asked this so apologies if so, but what would have happened if we did this earlier in the season and got caught? We obviously couldn’t be kicked out of the playoffs then. At worst I would imagine it’s a forfeit of the game. As that cannot happen now, (being 2 legs completed) surely it would be a point deduction next season? 

[Dman]

1 minute ago, James G said:

Both training grounds would be near impossible to view according to Google, so it's probably fake

yep. There is no way we've sanctioned anyone to break into a training ground. 

If it was true that thye have evidence (not sure I beleive it), Pompey would defo be one i'd think that we might have spied on. 

There training ground is less secure than Boro's

[Saint NL]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2026/05/13/middlesbrough-training-club-pressures-efl-southampton/

 

Boro to keep training.

Maybe do some extra fitness training, eh lads?

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, Dman said:

yep. There is no way we've sanctioned anyone to break into a training ground. 

If it was true that thye have evidence (not sure I beleive it), Pompey would defo be one i'd think that we might have spied on. 

There training ground is less secure than Boro's

Why would we need to spy on Pompey? Surely we'd already know how shite they are?

Edited May 13 by trousers

[Jimmy_D]

5 minutes ago, saints1988 said:

Trying to put myself in their shoes.

Just me or would you not really give a rats if this was the other way round? 

What massive advantage can be gained - maybe early info that Hackney was not fit…..

I'd be less annoyed than I still am now by Liverpool's illegal tapping up of VVD.

[kwsaint]

1 minute ago, Saint NL said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2026/05/13/middlesbrough-training-club-pressures-efl-southampton/

 

Boro to keep training.

Maybe do some extra fitness training, eh lads?

That’s mental.

[Miltonaggro]

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.

Edited May 13 by Miltonaggro

[SaintBobby]

Surely the fact that you can view and film Boro’s training sessions from public land is relevant. I could have gone there myself, filmed it and put it up on YouTube.

Are all Saints employees then prohibited from watching my video?

[trousers]

7 minutes ago, Saint NL said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2026/05/13/middlesbrough-training-club-pressures-efl-southampton/

 

Boro to keep training.

Maybe do some extra fitness training, eh lads?

 

5 minutes ago, kwsaint said:

That’s mental.

If Middlesbrough are still attempting to pervert the course of justice and/or unduly influence the independent panel (as reported in this article) then why no announcement from the EFL that they are launching an investigation into their obviously breach of the 'acting in good faith' regulation...?

Edited May 13 by trousers