Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[do i not like fizzy pop]

6 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Bit harsh on Hull.

Is it only 60 minutes against Boro as they'll be blowing out their arses by then?

[S-Clarke]

Apparently according to Talk Sport (I know, I know), the hearing yesterday wasn't undertaken by legal people - just an independent football commissioning panel who plucked some footballing sanctions out of the air, with zero legal thought. So today's appeal will have legal people around the table for the first time.

Absolutely no idea how this ends.

[tdmickey3]

2 minutes ago, Soton7 said:

Who is the senior judge? Nathan fucking Jones?

Gibbo`s brother

[trousers]

Bollocks.... Just come out of a work meeting and now I'm a further 4 pages behind... FFS!

[Pancake]

6 minutes ago, Dr Who? said:

That’s brilliant 😂 are we in the arena? 

Boro v Hull at 3:30. 20mins each way, no half time break

Saints v Hull at 4:30. 20mins each way, no half Time break

5:30 Hull lift trophy if they win both, or the winners of each game have a penalty shoot out to see who goes up. 

[Patrick Bateman]

24 minutes ago, TwoPints said:

Boro selling tickets for the final from 1pm today:

 

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/2026/may/20/ticket-details-for-sky-bet-championship-play-off-final/

with no mention of the possibility of it not happening

Interesting point and genuine question. Is it legal to sell the same seat to someone else? 

As it stands right now, I have paid £162.50 for 1 adult and 1 child. Those tickets are still mine, I can't transfer them, nor can I resell them. So how is it legal that Wembley can sell the same seats again?

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Patrick Bateman

[Lee On Solent Saint]

Just now, S-Clarke said:

Apparently according to Talk Sport (I know, I know), the hearing yesterday wasn't undertaken by legal people - just an independent football commissioning panel who plucked some footballing sanctions out of the air, with zero legal thought. So today's appeal will have legal people around the table for the first time.

Absolutely no idea how this ends.

This whole process has been a shit show cluster fuck from the outset.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Dr Who? said:

So glad Arsenal won the league last night, it is taking the spotlight away a little on the main sports media, but only a little! 

Thanks also to Pep leaving, Spurs being in difficulty and Sarah's parting comments.

[manji]

12 minutes ago, trousers said:

All sponsors pull out, the club ends up in administration, then liquidation, and a phoenix club starts up again in the 7th tier?

That's what I meant.

[Fabrice29]

3 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Christ, you're more of a crackpot conspiracy theorist than he is.

 

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

''That's one hell of a stretch to come to that conclusion''

He repeats about 3 times we need to look away from the club/owners and is arguing the exact same things MLT is arguing online and what Saints are telling the press they are going to argue in their appeal. It’s not a bad thing btw (apart from the wally they are using) 

[saintant]

1 hour ago, SaintLondon said:

POTENTIAL BOLLOCKS ALERT:

Just spoke to a friend who said he'd heard that we have evidence of other clubs spying this season.. IF this is true the EFL will be up shit creek - what do they do then?

Doesn't mean we get off of course but the league will be in dissary. 

Which begs the question why didn't we reveal this at the hearing?

[S-Clarke]

Just now, Lee On Solent Saint said:

This whole process has been a shit show cluster fuck from the outset.

Yep, every single part of this has been a shit show. What we did, Boro's unfair reinstatement, the EFL it's on, it's off, it's on, this time, that time nonsense. Our defence, our communication on the matter - etc etc. It's all an absolute mess from everyone.

[LegalEagle]

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

Apparently according to Talk Sport (I know, I know), the hearing yesterday wasn't undertaken by legal people - just an independent football commissioning panel who plucked some footballing sanctions out of the air, with zero legal thought. So today's appeal will have legal people around the table for the first time.

Absolutely no idea how this ends.

It ends up in court. That’s where it ends. We win the appeal today and the EFL will go to court (along with Boro, Wrexham etc suing us separately). We lose the appeal today and we go to court.

[Nolan]

9 minutes ago, scumbag said:

In the absence of any new evidence, it seems the only thing we'll be arguing is proportionality.  But the new panel will be in the exact same position as the last one on that - just making it up.  That's probably our only hope really, some maverick crackpots up for some drama.

Yes, proportionality is the central argument, but it's not the only one and it's not completely subjective:

• The play-offs are a separate competition (separate rules document). The original charge was Middlesbrough-specific. Using the two regular-season incidents (added Sunday) to justify expulsion from the play-off final is open to challenge as inconsistent.
• Procedural unfairness: only approximately 48 hours to respond to two matches from months earlier, in a separate competition. That's a legitimate natural justice point.
• No proven competitive advantage + the breaches appear to be systemic ignorance rather than deliberate top-down cheating.
• Massive collateral damage to innocent players and fans.

[benjii]

3 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Apparently according to Talk Sport (I know, I know), the hearing yesterday wasn't undertaken by legal people - just an independent football commissioning panel who plucked some footballing sanctions out of the air, with zero legal thought. So today's appeal will have legal people around the table for the first time.

Absolutely no idea how this ends.

That doesn't sound right!

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, SaintLondon said:

POTENTIAL BOLLOCKS ALERT:

Just spoke to a friend who said he'd heard that we have evidence of other clubs spying this season.. IF this is true the EFL will be up shit creek - what do they do then?

Doesn't mean we get off of course but the league will be in dissary. 

After a summer of EFL panels, it will be an odd looking table, as everyone works their way back from a variety of minus points.

[Osvaldorama]

2 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Interesting point and genuine question. Is it legal to sell the same seat to someone else? 

As it stands right now, I have paid £162.50 for 1 adult and 1 child. Those tickets are still mine, I can't transfer them, nor can I resell them. So how is it legal that Wembley can sell the same seats again?

 

Would love to know this. 
 

How can the same seats be sold twice, legally?

[Saint Scott]

One angle I have been thinking about this morning is whether our legal team had intentionally held back some evidence, thinking this would likely end up in an appeal scenario

[Nolan]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

Which begs the question why didn't we reveal this at the hearing?

because this was an unfairly expedited hearing with limited time to gather information.

 

[Saint_clark]

Just now, benjii said:

That doesn't sound right!

Nah pretty sure they were all barristers weren't they?

[Midfield_General]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

Bollocks.... Just come out of a work meeting and now I'm a further 4 pages behind... FFS!

I regret to inform you that while you've been away it's been decided that it's all your fault and you owe us all £250 billion and a free hand job to Steve Gibson

You have until 1pm to appeal or else it's time to get crankin'

[gaz]

What a bloody mess this season has been, bar the middle but now we probaably know why it turned around.

[Suhari]

50 minutes ago, Mattio said:

Sounds good but I'm not going all the way to Winchester for a pint!

Send me the cash, I'll have one for you.

[Sheaf Saint]

1 minute ago, Osvaldorama said:

How can the same seats be sold twice, legally?

Airlines do it all the time.

[Midfield_General]

4 minutes ago, saintant said:

Which begs the question why didn't we reveal this at the hearing?

Because that fucking idiot Parsons thought that if he just said 'OK, you got us, we did it' and didn't bother defending it then everyone would think he was such a super chap for the being so honest that the punishment wouldn't be so bad

[Whitey Grandad]

59 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Bachelor of Arts 😄

All Cambridge degrees are Arts Degrees. 

I read Engineering in 1968 and my first graduation was as a Bachelor of Arts updated a few years later in another ceremony to Master of Arts. It is customary to add  the suffix (Cantab) after the BA or MA to clarify the qualification.  I guess you missed that bit.

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

18 minutes ago, trousers said:

All sponsors pull out, the club ends up in administration, then liquidation, and a phoenix club starts up again in the 7th tier?

Two days ago, I for one thought AlexLaw and Lord Duckhunter on this thread were overreacting to the whole situation and scaremongering when they said we could get kicked out.

The problem is, if someone in the club doesn't get a grip of this very quickly, it could spiral out of control - I can certainly see sponsors pulling out, players leaving, and that's just the short term.

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

Plot twist: Will Salt ends up working for Middlesbrough once the dust on all this has settled...? 

A payment for "analytical work" to the whistleblower that he actually does report on, if for quite an expensive sum, would be more likely. After all, he did work for them.

[beatlesaint]

3 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Yep, every single part of this has been a shit show. What we did, Boro's unfair reinstatement, the EFL it's on, it's off, it's on, this time, that time nonsense. Our defence, our communication on the matter - etc etc. It's all an absolute mess from everyone.

Yeah but never mind that, as long as EFL get the game played Saturday at 3.30......or 4.30, thats all they are worried about.

[tdmickey3]

5 minutes ago, trousers said:

Bollocks.... Just come out of a work meeting and now I'm a further 4 pages behind... FFS!

Question for you trousers as you ae the expert on this

Why did PFC not get stripped of their FA Cup win after all of the charity robbing, tax dodging and failing players wages?

Makes our punishment a joke in comparison

[S-Clarke]

A fair view from a Boro fan - doesn't feel they should be rewarded, just give it to Hull. I don't say I disagree, it would probably feel a bit odd for Hull - but they got there fair and square by beating a strong Millwall side.

Hull/Wrexham/Derby/Millwall being punished whilst Boro rewarded. The legal quagmire this will open is going to be huge.

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Would love to know this. 
 

How can the same seats be sold twice, legally?

They are different events. You bought a ticket for Saints v Boro which is cancelled. New event is in its place - you don’t buy the seat for a couple of hours

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, OldNick said:

How can Leeds 200K get escalated to what we have been puniished with? The new rule gave no indication of the severity of the punishment to be meted out. The club were utterly stupid and we are where we are. I cannot see us being reinstated, and how could we sing our hearts out for Tonda etc, the players also must have lost their respect. 

The club have not done any risk assessment ahead of their prolonged activity.

They've not considered the range of potential sanctions, thinking that at worst they would get a slapped wrist. 

Leeds' fine was so low, as there wasn't the 72 hours rule in place. Once it was in, and with any punishment on the table, we did it anyway.

[skintsaint]

4 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

All Cambridge degrees are Arts Degrees. 

Learn something new everyday..

[Willo of Whiteley]

35 minutes ago, TwoPints said:

Boro selling tickets for the final from 1pm today:

 

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/2026/may/20/ticket-details-for-sky-bet-championship-play-off-final/

with no mention of the possibility of it not happening

EFL are just as big a clown act as Sports Republic and SFC

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

They are different events. You bought a ticket for Saints v Boro which is cancelled. New event is in its place - you don’t buy the seat for a couple of hours

Ah. This must explain the time change then. Legally it becomes a different event. 

[beatlesaint]

5 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Hull/Wrexham/Derby/Millwall being punished whilst Boro rewarded. The legal quagmire this will open is going to be huge.

I know this could be realms of fantasy stuff but I do wonder if Boro and their whistleblower only put forward the Oxford and Ipswich cases of spying given we didnt win either game and, had they bought forward "evidence" of spying on Wrexham for arguments sake then the legal minefield would have definitely become more explosive.

Just a theory/thought. 

Edited 2 hours ago by beatlesaint

[Ed Rooney]

Would this type of thing not apply to our legal standing - there is no written penalty in the terms for breaking the 72hour rule - do they not have to disclose what it would be if rule broken? 
 

Yes. In the UK, it is a strict legal requirement that any rules, restrictions, and associated penalties (or fees) must be disclosed to you clearly and upfront before you agree to a contract or enter into an agreement. [1, 2]

The rules governing this are specifically designed to ensure agreements are transparent and balanced:

• The Consumer Rights Act 2015: Requires all consumer contract terms and notices to be transparent, legible, and written in plain, intelligible language. Hidden, ambiguous, or uncommunicated penalty clauses are considered unfair and are legally non-binding.
• The Rule Against Penalty Clauses: Even if a penalty is disclosed, UK contract law states that a penalty clause cannot be enforced if it is "out of all proportion" to the innocent party's legitimate interests. It must reflect a genuine estimate of loss rather than just serving to punish the breaching party.
• Regulatory Enforcement: Businesses that use hidden or unfair penalties can face regulatory action and fines 

[Willo of Whiteley]

10 minutes ago, Saint Scott said:

One angle I have been thinking about this morning is whether our legal team had intentionally held back some evidence, thinking this would likely end up in an appeal scenario

 

[Saint Garrett]

10 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Would love to know this. 
 

How can the same seats be sold twice, legally?

Dont airlines do this all the time ?!

[EssEffCee]

16 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Apparently according to Talk Sport (I know, I know), the hearing yesterday wasn't undertaken by legal people - just an independent football commissioning panel who plucked some footballing sanctions out of the air, with zero legal thought. So today's appeal will have legal people around the table for the first time.

Absolutely no idea how this ends.

It was chaired by a KC.

Absolutely no chance the ban is getting overturned. At best we'll get the point deduction reduced.

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, Ed Rooney said:

Would this type of thing not apply to our legal standing - there is no written penalty in the terms for breaking the 72hour rule - do they not have to disclose what it would be if rule broken? 
 

 

Yes. In the UK, it is a strict legal requirement that any rules, restrictions, and associated penalties (or fees) must be disclosed to you clearly and upfront before you agree to a contract or enter into an agreement. [1, 2]

The rules governing this are specifically designed to ensure agreements are transparent and balanced:

• The Consumer Rights Act 2015: Requires all consumer contract terms and notices to be transparent, legible, and written in plain, intelligible language. Hidden, ambiguous, or uncommunicated penalty clauses are considered unfair and are legally non-binding.
• The Rule Against Penalty Clauses: Even if a penalty is disclosed, UK contract law states that a penalty clause cannot be enforced if it is "out of all proportion" to the innocent party's legitimate interests. It must reflect a genuine estimate of loss rather than just serving to punish the breaching party.
• Regulatory Enforcement: Businesses that use hidden or unfair penalties can face regulatory action and fines 

This means the EFL have broken the consumer rights act 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, 64saint said:

I couldn't get on here last night. The sight seemed to have crashed.  Was there something happening 🙄. Did i miss something important ??

Nope. All good. Just some technical issues.

As the Official Site says, everything going ahead. See you Saturday!

🙂

[EssEffCee]

Why on earth are people talking about tickets being sold twice? Ours will be cancelled and refunded you mentalists.

Edited 2 hours ago by EssEffCee

[Fabrice29]

8 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Because that fucking idiot Parsons thought that if he just said 'OK, you got us, we did it' and didn't bother defending it then everyone would think he was such a super chap for the being so honest that the punishment wouldn't be so bad

I’m sorry but you and others keep pushing at this, what defence did you want him to put forward? They caught an employee in the bushes ffs 🤣

[Whitey Grandad]

22 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

What if I say I want to use my ticket for the Hull v Boro game?

 

How does that work legally ? 
 

Surely boro can’t resell Wembley tickets if we have them all? 😂

You'll miss the first half though.

[tdmickey3]

The refunding of fans will be fun, especially if they try to withhold the booking fee .

"The refund will take 5 days to be credited to your account, please wait until then before contacting us"

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Saint_clark said:

It'll certainly make the 40th playoff match a memorable one.

"And just listen to those Hull supporters. Easily out singing the 30 000 Southampton fans having to watch the Middlesbrough team."

[Ed Rooney]

1 minute ago, Osvaldorama said:

This means the EFL have broken the consumer rights act 

Yeah it gives that as an example but it relates to contracts and agreements not just consumer.

Don’t get me wrong I doubt its relevance but today’s appeal can only be based on legality or the penalty being out of proportion 

Wonder what the legality side is that’s all

 

[bpsaint]

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/jun/30/michael-jackson-fans-london-souvenir-ticket
 

Maybe instead of refunds the EFL will offer us special souvenir ticket to the game that never was 🤣