Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[St. Ciervo]

First they release that our analyst was using professional audio and video recording equipment; its a dumb twat with an iphone a biblical kilometer away.

The kid with an iphone gets caught but clearly saw lineups, penalties, and set pieces in a matter of a few minutes. Please...

Next they release that they have other clubs with similar evidence of cheating; only they don't.

 

At what point does Boro lose all credibility or open themselves up to litigation? This is the behavior of a child on a playground. 

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Swindon in 1990

Admitted 36 breaches, almost all of which were illegal payments to players, thereby gaining an advantage on the pitch for many matches.

[Sheaf Saint]

3 minutes ago, LordHester said:

It's one of the reasons I'm baffled as to why a number of people, here and elsewhere, have said that Saints will get booted out of the playoffs because it's the neatest option. Given the amount of money involved in potential promotion, and there is no precedent set for how clubs should be punished under regulation 134, you can bet Saints would challenge expulsion from the playoffs.

And not only would we challenge it, other clubs could start digging up any evidence they can of instances of other clubs doing it (assuming it really is as widespread as has been reported over the last week), if they know that the penalty for it is likely to be so high. I'm not sure the EFL would have much appetite for that.

[Whitey Grandad]

5 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

Im hearing from a possible club insider that 4.5m fine is coming our way

The EFL will want as much as they can reasonably get. They will have to set the amount at a level that is grudgingly accepted. If we are eventually promoted we shall be out of their jurisdiction although I expect that some sort of sanction would be carried over.

[64saint]

Just now, Dr Who? said:

Did I miss the page 100 celebrations? 

Yes, page 100 , my post 8 down from top, champagne popping the lot !!!  I went to all that trouble and you missed it. Why do I bother. 🤔🙄. Make sure you catch celebrations for page 200 when spygate really kicks off when we win at Wembley and finally get promoted.  We ain't seen nothing yet !!!!! 🤣🤣🤣

Edited Sunday at 15:36 by 64saint

[Toadhall Saint]

8 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

Im hearing from a possible club insider that 4.5m fine is coming our way

Possible club insider? Either they are or they aren’t surely 

[saintstowin]

5 Live earlier. 4 pundits each with differing views and from what they said contrasting levels of understanding and amount of thought given to it. Perfectly encapsulated the complicated nature of all this. Presenter a Middlesbrough fan and kept well out of it. It's been a long weekend.

[badgerx16]

For anybody thinking Swindon set a precedent for this ;

Three weeks before the start of the 1989–90 season, The People published revelations that chairman Brian Hillier had put money on Swindon winning Division Three in 1987, as an insurance policy for player bonuses. Two months later the allegations worsened, with Hillier accused of putting money on the Town to lose in the FA Cup game at Newcastle United two years previously (which the team lost 5–0). Hillier was found guilty and was banned from football for six months, later increased to three years on appeal. Macari was fined £1,000 for his part in the scandal—and when he chose to appeal, West Ham United forced his resignation. The People released a third exposé in January 1990, this time alleging illegal payments to players. Despite this, Swindon Town beat table-topping Leeds United to go into third place in the league, and at the end of the season, they finished fourth, their highest league position ever, to go into the play-offs. Shortly before the last game of the season, Hillier, Macari, captain Colin Calderwood and secretary Vince Farrar were all arrested and questioned by Inland Revenue officials over a tax fraud conspiracy. Calderwood was released without charge, and the others were given bail. On the pitch, Swindon Town went on to defeat Blackburn Rovers over two legs to reach the final at Wembley, only their second appearance at the ground in their history.

On 28 May 1990 Swindon Town played in the Division 2 play-off final against Sunderland. In a match they completely dominated, Alan McLoughlin scored the only goal, a deflected effort, to defeat Sunderland and win promotion to the First Division. The joy was short-lived, though, as just ten days later, the Football League decided to demote the team two divisions, after they admitted 36 breaches of League rules—35 of which are related to illegal payments. The Swindon board immediately appealed, but High Court action was dropped due to lack of funding, and the fans protested, thousands signing a "1st not 3rd" petition. The FA Appeal Panel reduced the demotion to just one division, and Swindon were denied their first ever taste of top-flight football.

Hillier was eventually jailed, whilst Farrar and former club secretary Dave King received suspended sentences.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Swindon_Town_F.C.#1980–1991:_Fall_and_rise

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Admitted 36 breaches, almost all of which were illegal payments to players, thereby gaining an advantage on the pitch for many matches.

 

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

For anybody thinking Swindon set a precedent for this 

I didn't say it was precedent. I was answering his question regarding has anyone been kicked out of a competition for off field offences. 

[obelisk]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

For anybody thinking Swindon set a precedent for this ;

Three weeks before the start of the 1989–90 season, The People published revelations that chairman Brian Hillier had put money on Swindon winning Division Three in 1987, as an insurance policy for player bonuses. Two months later the allegations worsened, with Hillier accused of putting money on the Town to lose in the FA Cup game at Newcastle United two years previously (which the team lost 5–0). Hillier was found guilty and was banned from football for six months, later increased to three years on appeal. Macari was fined £1,000 for his part in the scandal—and when he chose to appeal, West Ham United forced his resignation. The People released a third exposé in January 1990, this time alleging illegal payments to players. Despite this, Swindon Town beat table-topping Leeds United to go into third place in the league, and at the end of the season, they finished fourth, their highest league position ever, to go into the play-offs. Shortly before the last game of the season, Hillier, Macari, captain Colin Calderwood and secretary Vince Farrar were all arrested and questioned by Inland Revenue officials over a tax fraud conspiracy. Calderwood was released without charge, and the others were given bail. On the pitch, Swindon Town went on to defeat Blackburn Rovers over two legs to reach the final at Wembley, only their second appearance at the ground in their history.

On 28 May 1990 Swindon Town played in the Division 2 play-off final against Sunderland. In a match they completely dominated, Alan McLoughlin scored the only goal, a deflected effort, to defeat Sunderland and win promotion to the First Division. The joy was short-lived, though, as just ten days later, the Football League decided to demote the team two divisions, after they admitted 36 breaches of League rules—35 of which are related to illegal payments. The Swindon board immediately appealed, but High Court action was dropped due to lack of funding, and the fans protested, thousands signing a "1st not 3rd" petition. The FA Appeal Panel reduced the demotion to just one division, and Swindon were denied their first ever taste of top-flight football.

Hillier was eventually jailed, whilst Farrar and former club secretary Dave King received suspended sentences.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Swindon_Town_F.C.#1980–1991:_Fall_and_rise

Even "Gibbo" wouldn't claim that as a precedent for the alleged Saints misdemeanour. Or would he?

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

I didn't say it was precedent. I was answering his question regarding has anyone been kicked out of a competition for off field offences. 

Did I say you had ? It's not the first time Swindon have been mentioned in relation to this situation.

Edited Sunday at 15:38 by badgerx16

[Whitey Grandad]

11 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Possible club insider? Either they are or they aren’t surely 

Is this the former analyst who later turned into a grass?

[dsrdorset]

I just thought I would check in....page 100 ffs 😅

[Weston Super Saint]

15 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The EFL will want as much as they can reasonably get. They will have to set the amount at a level that is grudgingly accepted. If we are eventually promoted we shall be out of their jurisdiction although I expect that some sort of sanction would be carried over.

However.... On the flipside, set the level too high (and this WILL set the precedent) and they open themselves up to claims possibly every week from teams suspecting they have been spied on, creating a litigation nightmare for themselves.

It's a tricky situation which could and should have been put to bed when they introduced the rule, if only they'd added a punishment!

Imagine setting a 3, 6 or 9 point deduction.  Lose a game but suspect that the opposition had someone watching your training within 72 hours and you can bet your life a claim will be submitted. 

[6ft8saint]

21 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Possible club insider? Either they are or they aren’t surely 

Don't want to drop then in it but they are present at every game home and away 

[OneMrsWallace]

18 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

I didn't say it was precedent. I was answering his question regarding has anyone been kicked out of a competition for off field offences. 

Exactly. The Swindon case means the EFL can say rejecting us is not unique, even if the circumstances are very different. Have I just agreed with you MLG 🤣

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

2 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

Don't want to drop then in it but they are present at every game home and away 

Sammy Saint?

[danjosaint]

Fine us plus points deduction for breaking the rules then abandon the 72hrs time frame , its then down to individual club to shield itself, let's face it theres enough money in the game to do that 

[Gary R76]

34 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

Im hearing from a possible club insider that 4.5m fine is coming our way

I heard this yesterday but with 6 point deduction as well

[Cuddles]

1 minute ago, Gary R76 said:

I heard this yesterday but with 6 point deduction as well

Wasn't that just from that scratchy audio clip from Friday?

[Dr Who?]

Like a steam train this thread. Crazy stuff. We will find out in the next 48 hours… how very exciting. Let’s hope we can plan a hopefully rememberable day at Wembley! 

[saintant]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

I see the sports lawyer that was on talk sport the other day suggesting being kicked out was excessive is slowly changing his mind on that.

You can't seen to contain your glee 🙂

[saintant]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

Because you were asked for clarification as what you said doesn't appear to be true. 

He's the forum chief of police don't you know. Don't upset him or say something he disagrees with or he gets very very angry 🙂

[benjii]

38 minutes ago, egg said:

I'd imagine they'd stick with Paris Smith, although what matters is choice of Counsel. 

I'd bloody hope not. They're a decent parochial firm but we would surely instruct a big-hitter with sports disputes expertise.

[Badger]

26 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Did I say you had ? It's not the first time Swindon have been mentioned in relation to this situation.

Swindon are mentioned due to two issues, fielding a ineligible player in a cup tie this season, and their demotion after winning the play offs.

Neither are a direct comparison with our situation, but are being interpreted by many as which way the thinking might go. 

[AlexLaw76]

I assume Boro players will be in first thing preparing for the Final ?

Or was that more guff from their side?

[LegalEagle]

3 minutes ago, benjii said:

I'd bloody hope not. They're a decent parochial firm but we would surely instruct a big-hitter with sports disputes expertise.

There was a chap I knew many years ago when I was a youngster called Mark Gay who was and still is a top sports lawyer. He was at the very top of the tree. He would be ideal for this.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I assume Boro players will be in first thing preparing for the Final ?

Or was that more guff from their side?

Only one way to find out   

Edited Sunday at 16:11 by Weston Super Saint

[LegalEagle]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

There was a chap I knew many years ago when I was a youngster called Mark Gay who was and still is a top sports lawyer. He was at the very top of the tree. He would be ideal for this.

There you go:

Mark advises clients in the sports industry on the full range of sports specific problems that arise in the course of their business.

He has acted for most of the leading governing bodies and many high profile teams in sports related disputes. Many have been matters of public interest or involved cutting edge legal disputes.

Much of Marks work is for governing bodies and teams in industries such as football and motorsport. He represents our clients in disciplinary proceedings, arbitrations and, where no arbitral network exists, in proceedings before the High Court.

Through Mark Gay the firm has unparalleled first-hand experience of sports law cases at the very cutting edge combined with an enviable record of success for clients in all proceedings in which we have been engaged.

[Dark Munster]

1 hour ago, johnnyboy said:

I wrote on Saturday that my best guess was that Southampton would be deducted six EFL points in their next EFL season and fined £500k-£1m.

https://x.com/slbsn/status/2055184483783934150?s=20

The same as Leicester PLUS a fine?

Seriously?

Anyone who thinks we what have allegedly done is comparable to what Leicester did needs to give their head a wobble.

[saintant]

21 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

Don't want to drop then in it but they are present at every game home and away 

An avid fan then?

[CanadaSaint]

It has been my concern all along that, with this becoming a very public fiasco (it’s being covered globally), the football hierarchy would step in. The EFL is under the FA, and the FA is under FIFA. The danger, obviously, is that FIFA would push for the kind of punishment they imposed on the Canadian women’s team – a six-point deduction and a one-year ban for the head coach.

Their problem, though, is that spying, in and of itself, is not illegal in the EFL – just inside the 72-hour window; the silence from all the other Championship teams is very telling, and I’m sure that FIFA, the FA and the EFL know why none are speaking up. It’s not illegal at all in the PL. The whole “spying” issue (such an emotive word) is a can of worms, and they’d probably be better off taking it out of the rule book and leaving clubs to protect themselves, just as we do at Stapelwood.

I'm fairly confident that removing Saints from the playoff final is off the table – not so much because they view it as an unreasonable punishment (although it would be ludicrously excessive IMO, given how they handled Leeds), but an impractical one that could well trigger a lengthy legal gong show and - possibly - huge financial consequences. This isn't the once-every-four-years Olympics - it's a multi-billion pound commercial enterprise.

Given the media furore, I can see them hammering us financially, imposing a points penalty, and banning the person who is ultimately responsible for Salt being there at that time, which could well be Tonda. We’ll appeal, and the appeal process will play out after that. This would effectively "kick the can down the road" to a time when the media's looking at something else, and more balanced thinking can prevail.

Caveat: We don’t know what Saints may have that could undermine or mitigate the case against them.

[Fabrice29]

12 minutes ago, saintant said:

You can't seen to contain your glee 🙂

What are you on about? 😂

[saintant]

11 minutes ago, benjii said:

I'd bloody hope not. They're a decent parochial firm but we would surely instruct a big-hitter with sports disputes expertise.

Johnnie Cochrane

'If the spying gear is shit you must acquit'

[Cuddles]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

Johnnie Cochrane

'If the spying gear is shit you must acquit'

If it looks a bit iPhoney, it's probably pony 

[Toadhall Saint]

25 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

Don't want to drop then in it but they are present at every game home and away 

Cool just wanted to understand how much weight to give your comment.

[Appy]

6 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

The same as Leicester PLUS a fine?

Seriously?

Anyone who thinks we what have allegedly done is comparable to what Leicester did needs to give their head a wobble.

That’s the thing that makes me adamant everyone has lost their minds about this.  Leicester were cheating for years and years. 

[trousers]

1 hour ago, LegalEagle said:

“Could face individual disciplinary action”. I could have been a woman if I’d had tits and a fanny.

Don't think you even need those these days, do you...? 😉

[Harry_SFC]

3 minutes ago, Appy said:

That’s the thing that makes me adamant everyone has lost their minds about this.  Leicester were cheating for years and years. 

No doubt this will be part of the mitigation in relation to proportionate punishment

Edited Sunday at 16:23 by Harry_SFC

[trousers]

1 hour ago, 6ft8saint said:

Im hearing from a possible club insider that 4.5m fine is coming our way

Can't you ask them whether they're definitely or possibly an insider...? 😉

[6ft8saint]

Just now, trousers said:

Can't you ask them whether they're definitely or possibly an insider...? 😉

They sit on the southampton bench so I'd say yes they are.

[Toussaint]

2 hours ago, James said:

I think Saints could have done a better job of controlling the media. They’ve let the Boro side have a clean run at this and it’s turned into a hysterical pile on. I have a reasonable amount of faith that the panel will comprise people smart enough to not like the outside noise impact their decision but the reaction has gotten completely out of control.

Well James, let’s wait and see, some part of me feels we may have played this beautifully when it all comes out. Let’s be honest, this must be just as unsettling for Hull , not knowing who and when they will be playing. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, 6ft8saint said:

They sit on the southampton bench so I'd say yes they are.

Homeless Joe who lives on the common isn't an authority on Southampton FC 

[Cuddles]

I reckon we get a big fine reduced on appeal to something sensible like £500k.

[Toadhall Saint]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Homeless Joe who lives on the common isn't an authority on Southampton FC 

👏

[ChrisPY]

6 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

They sit on the southampton bench so I'd say yes they are.

Would it open the floodgates if you named them?

[trousers]

8 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

They sit on the southampton bench so I'd say yes they are.

Cheers 👍🏻

Definitely an insider I would say in that case! Interesting....

[Weston Super Saint]

9 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

They sit on the southampton bench so I'd say yes they are.

George Long 🤔

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Cuddles said:

I reckon we get a big fine reduced on appeal to something sensible like £500k.

I reckon something in the order of £5m, and we'll live with it. 

[LegalEagle]

11 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

They sit on the southampton bench so I'd say yes they are.

Bench or Board?