Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[Mboto Gorge]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Should have sent that yesterday to be honest. Doesn't tell us anything we don't already know other than a working group which is maybe a subtle way of saying that we know it goes on everywhere.

Exactly, it’s taken him near on 20 hours to send that out. 

[Swaythling Saint]

9 minutes ago, trousers said:

 

 

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.

Finally, should have come earlier of course but I completely agree, it's disproportionate and that is something I cannot understand. 

[bpsaint]

That statement actually smacks of laying the groundwork for a legal claim against the EFL IMO.

[James]

Just now, bpsaint said:

That statement actually smacks of laying the groundwork for a legal claim against the EFL IMO.

Definitely. 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, saintant said:

Unfortunately the statement fails to acknowledge the existence in this case of Gibbo's Law.

It also fails to account for the possibility of us losing the final, in which case the financial hit is £0.

[SaintLondon]

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

The arguments we've put forward regarding the proportions are fair, I think we all agree. But the reasoning around why feels a little woolly. I hope our case is stronger than that.

You'd hope he's left out the legal mumbo jumbo for the silks and just tried to be as plain as possible for the masses. 

[Midfield_General]

1 minute ago, Sheaf Saint said:

He makes a good point about the disproportionality, but if our entire appeal case is essentially "it's not fair! Please let us back in" then we might as well not bother even turning up.

Yeah if that's all he's got then they should chuck a few extra points on the deduction for wasting their fucking time

[Patrick Bateman]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

It also fails to account for the possibility of us losing the final, in which case the financial hit is £0.

This. It's arrogant to assume we'd have beaten Hull. 

[Dan Johnson]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

FFS, that's a shite response and full of false equivalence. It misses completely the integrity of the game issue, and only mentions our potential losses, without acknowledging that's exactly what we were trying to gain. 

If that article demonstrates our approach, we're fucked in the appeal. 

I disagree, I think the punishment can still be disproportionate to the offence regardless of our own admission\approach.

The integrity of the game issue is address by our willingness to create a working group, "Contrition without change is hollow, and we intend to demonstrate change." it's brief, but it's addressed.
 

[saint michael]

That sounds like a desperate excuse laden statement. We all know the effect on clubs elsewhere but doesn’t put a legal argument to it. They are considering precedent is set by what has happened previously and am guessing that they will use common law for this. I think the problem is the EFL is a private club and saints signed up to their rules. Going to be tough argument against it. 

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Patrick Bateman said:

This. It's arrogant to assume we'd have beaten Hull. 

Played 2 lost 2 this season.

[Dan Johnson]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It also fails to account for the possibility of us losing the final, in which case the financial hit is £0.

I think losing in the final vs not playing in the final are two different things. 

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Dan Johnson said:

I think losing in the final vs not playing in the final are two different things. 

The result is the same.

As for precedent, Leeds didn't breach rule 127 - we are the precedent for that.

Edited 1 hour ago by badgerx16

[ChrisPY]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It also fails to account for the possibility of us losing the final, in which case the financial hit is £0.

Change the expulsion to a fine of 10% of turnover for the next financial year. If we go up, the fine is bigger. Use the money to compensate the impacted teams and towards funding the ‘working group’.

[Scottie]

5 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

That statement actually smacks of laying the groundwork for a legal claim against the EFL IMO.

I think the statement is aimed at the appeal panel rather than fans. 

[LegalEagle]

6 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

He makes a good point about the disproportionality, but if our entire appeal case is essentially "it's not fair! Please let us back in" then we might as well not bother even turning up.

My guess is that the disproportionate point along with procedural unfairness i.e. the 14 days and then 24 hours for the appeal will form the basis for the appeal 

[DrSuess1979]

3 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

This. It's arrogant to assume we'd have beaten Hull. 

No strictly true

we’ve missed out on 38k tickets for the final plus any merchandise etc.

[Monk]

I think we could've had the courtesy to at least acknowledge Hull City, it would've been an opportunity to show some class.

I mean it's a fair statement, we apologise in it... just a tiny bit of arrogance regarding the £200m which could read we're assuming we've beaten them. 

I just cannot fathom how if we somehow get reinstated that Tonda and co should be allowed anywhere near it. Assuming AL could be caretaker but whose to say he isn't aware of it??? 

The dynamic at the training ground today must be very odd. 

[Osvaldorama]

22 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Tell me you don’t still believe this was all it was. 

It’s not about what anyone thinks, it’s about what can be proven. 

[James]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

The result is the same.

As for precedent, Leeds didn't breach rule 127.

That isn’t how the law works when it comes to assessing damages - you don’t just assume we’d have lost and therefore have lost nothing. Conversely, the loss isn’t £200m either because, as you say, there is a chance Hull win. At the time of the appeal the value of our expected loss is somewhere between 0 and £100m.

[TwoPints]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It also fails to account for the possibility of us losing the final, in which case the financial hit is £0.

It does which makes the penalty a little farcical.  If we lost the game, the penalty for spying would have just been a four point deduction. We'll never know if we've lost £200m and 4 points or just 4 points. That's why a large fine and points deduction would have been more sensible.  A definite penalty for the offence not one determined by 'what ifs'. 

[mss636]

7 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

That statement actually smacks of laying the groundwork for a legal claim against the EFL IMO.

It's already been reported on sky Sports today that this appeal is final and there is no basis for any legal follow up after today from either party

https://www.facebook.com/reel/869204128783546

I get it's all emotional ATM, but it's better to wait to speak than say something that may make this worse.  What's important is getting the appeal done.  We can call the EFL a bunch of Cu*ts after that!

[TheAlehouseBrawlers]

Hands up, we broke the rules. Punish us. Proportionately.

 

But as others have said, we’re being charged with breaking EFL regulations, Middlesbrough really shouldn't be competing in the Play-Off final because some mush with an iPhone tried to watch them training for a few minutes in an open area. I understand it doesn’t matter for how long but the brief 'spying' was done specifically for their first leg's likely tactics. They mullered us for 45 mins at the Riverside but failed to score and then run out of steam. They then lead at St Mary's but again, run out of steam. They blew automatic promotion. Nothing to do with 'spying' they just weren't good enough. They don't deserve another go.

 

And I really can't believe they were stupid enough to do secretive tactical training in an area so open to every Tom, Dick and...Will. If it was a set-up through tip-offs from the ex-boro fella and they knew our man was there, they could have just sent the players round to those exposed pitches for a bit of keepy-uppy for half an hour and let him incriminate himself. Then called them back to a more secure area for the real stuff. They had a media campaign and their man at the EFL waiting to be exploited, everything just feels too convenient and murky.

[Dr Who?]

Only 5 pages must try harder. 

Love the statement. Small paragraph about the fans, the rest about the money we do not have yet. Stuff them. 

[Jimmy_D]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

FFS, that's a shite response and full of false equivalence. It misses completely the integrity of the game issue, and only mentions our potential losses, without acknowledging that's exactly what we were trying to gain. 

If that article demonstrates our approach, we're fucked in the appeal. 

By that logic you’d be arguing that yellow cards should be red in the playoffs because it’s a more valuable game.

[Thripp87]

That statement from Parsons is a fucking piss take. Has he missed the point we may not have beaten Hull? 
Not one comment in there about recompensating fans for this fucking stupidity.

We all know the sanction is harsh, nothing in there of any relevance at all.

 

[tdmickey3]

23 minutes ago, trousers said:

 

 

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.

Finally 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, Jimmy_D said:

By that logic you’d be arguing that yellow cards should be red in the playoffs because it’s a more valuable game.

And every player that ever dived looking for a penalty should be given a straight red if one isn't awarded.  After all it's the intent of the cheating rather than the outcome.

[Disco Stu]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It also fails to account for the possibility of us losing the final, in which case the financial hit is £0.

On the one hand yes, but on the other, had Middlesbrough not been reinstated, they'd be suing us for loss of earnings under the same notion that they missed out on a £200m opportunity and I think they'd have a case.

[beatlesaint]

Just now, Thripp87 said:

That statement from Parsons is a fucking piss take. Has he missed the point we may not have beaten Hull? 
Not one comment in there about recompensating fans for this fucking stupidity.

We all know the sanction is harsh, nothing in there of any relevance at all.

 

No he hasn’t. He’s saying you have to be in it to win it and we’ve been stopped from being in it.

The recompensating fans etc will come after we lose the appeal……umm I mean should we lose the appeal.

[Willo of Whiteley]

Reasonable statement - yes.

But also an element of “it’s not fair”.

Fucking move on. It’s done. We won’t be reinstated.

[tdmickey3]

2 minutes ago, Thripp87 said:

That statement from Parsons is a fucking piss take. Has he missed the point we may not have beaten Hull? 
Not one comment in there about recompensating fans for this fucking stupidity.

We all know the sanction is harsh, nothing in there of any relevance at all.

 

That will likely come after todays appeal

[Soton7]

Gibbo has absolutely done us like a kipper and pulled our pants down here.

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Disco Stu said:

On the one hand yes, but on the other, had Middlesbrough not been reinstated, they'd be suing us for loss of earnings under the same notion that they missed out on a £200m opportunity and I think they'd have a case.

I think suing us would have been a better outcome for Boro. They'll lose on Saturday after missing chances and running out of steam and be left with nothing other than many people thinking they hadn't earned their shot at the final in the first place.

[James]

I don’t really know what folks are expecting the Club to say at this point. They have accepted responsibility for the offence and are pointing out that it’s potentially the most severe punishment handed out to an English club (which it is). There’s really no more they can do or say at this point. The appeal will be heard, I doubt anything will change now but the statement is about as good as it gets in the circumstances. 

[saintant]

2 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

Reasonable statement - yes.

But also an element of “it’s not fair”.

Fucking move on. It’s done. We won’t be reinstated.

Well is it?

[Barry the Badger]

If the club wanted to demonstrate serious contrition they should've sacked all involved or at least put them on gardening leave the moment we admitted to the rule break.

[James]

2 minutes ago, Soton7 said:

Gibbo has absolutely done us like a kipper and pulled our pants down here.

If by “us” you mean Parsons then yes, yes he has. 

[Gary R76]

20 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What else was he supposed to say at this point? We've admitted the offence, the only card we have is a plea for mitigation based on proportionality.

What do you want them to say , the important thing is what is said in the appeal .

[saint michael]

. Membership Expulsions and Natural Justice

Disputes frequently arise when a member is expelled or suspended for breaking club rules. [1, 2]

• The Lansdowne Club (London): In a well-publicized dispute, a member expelled for breaching Covid-19 rules on the premises sued the club. The court ruled in the club's favor, cementing the principle that courts will respect club decisions and constitutions, as long as the club acts in good faith, adheres to its internal procedures, and provides a fair hearing.
• Key Principle: Even though clubs have significant internal autonomy, they are legally required to provide "fair play". This means an expelled member must have notice of the charge and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before an impartial committee. [1, 2, 3, 4]

[TwoPints]

Could be that we win the appeal and get a hefty fine instead of expulsion  from the play offs and end up worse off if we go on to lose the game. 

[SaintLondon]

I think some of you are missing the point a bit here - we *have* to assume that we go up for the fine to be the tune of £200m. If we don't then it absolutely removes the point of proportionality.

I agree he probably should have referenced Hull and perhaps spent a little less time sounding sorry for himself, but equally he was clearly trying to get a few key points across quickly.

Do I love the statement? No.
Is it better than complete silence? Absolutely.

As for reinstatement, I just can’t see it happening now. But whilst we can’t appeal the outcome of the appeal itself, I would be very surprised if this doesn’t eventually evolve into a separate legal action against the EFL for loss of earnings. That feels like a very realistic next step from here.

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, TwoPints said:

Could be that we win the appeal and get a hefty fine instead of expulsion  from the play offs and end up worse off if we go on to lose the game. 

You're forgetting half and half scarf sales  

[beatlesaint]

1 minute ago, TwoPints said:

Could be that we win the appeal and get a hefty fine instead of expulsion  from the play offs and end up worse off if we go on to lose the game. 

I think that’s a risk the club would be willing to take. It’s akin to choosing red or black, winner takes all, on a roulette wheel.

[James]

Just now, SaintLondon said:

I think some of you are missing the point a bit here - we *have* to assume that we go up for the fine to be the tune of £200m. If we don't then it absolutely removes the point of proportionality.

I agree he probably should have referenced Hull and perhaps spent a little less time sounding sorry for himself, but equally he was clearly trying to get a few key points across quickly.

Do I love the statement? No.
Is it better than complete silence? Absolutely.

As for reinstatement, I just can’t see it happening now. But whilst we can’t appeal the outcome of the appeal itself, I would be very surprised if this doesn’t eventually evolve into a separate legal action against the EFL for loss of earnings. That feels like a very realistic next step from here.

Exactly. Just because the appeals process to this disciplinary hearing will close tonight doesn’t mean there aren’t other avenues available to the Club. Not saying they will be successful and they won’t reinstate us to the playoffs but they are available. 

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

Just now, Soton7 said:

Gibbo has absolutely done us like a kipper and pulled our pants down here.

Boro have controlled the narrative from Day One. Where was our media team? Even the BBC site is biased and a quick glimpse of the comments shows it's controlled by Boro fans (or could it be their media team commenting under different guises?).

Within 24 hours I have gone from looking forward to another day out to Wembley to not caring two shits whether we're reinstated. We were given the 4 point penalty as a throwaway by the EFL, so we should get that back, but Parson's statement is all about laying the framework for a legal claim.

I'm just hoping people are working hard to protect the players and keep as many as they can for next season. I was actually starting to quite like this team and don't want to see them go. I want them to prove we can get promoted fairly.

[lhammondo]

1 hour ago, Miltonaggro said:

Not really potential miracles, rather quite rudimentary / common commercial litigation procedures.  If the remarkable rumour about Phil Parsons clumsily admitting wrongdoing to Gibson et al., in the Middlesbrough boardroom on the Saturday is true, the undermines any case (in a tribunal or at law) from the outset.  This is then exacerbated by apparent thinking that admission to the other two charges, and the knowledge of TE (which the public weren't aware of until yesterday) and working to the EFL compressed timescale would somehow work to our advantage or act as mitigation.  My thoughts on the radio silence was that it was a sign of advised competence (strategic) whereas it looks like it was masking incompetence. The silence is continuing and currently we are still missing most of the facts to map a path of causation.

I think the appeal today will prove fruitless, that's what the four point penalty is for - to use as a sop / bargaining chip for the 'new' panel - they will absolutely insist on the sporting sanction - the comment that Parsons has found a 'loophole' seems idiotic.  Saints will likely refuse that and commence litigation (along the lines of my original post for disproportionality and commercial loss) on conclusion of the appeal.  Likely an announcement will be made later today by the EFL that the final will be postponed.  SFC still have a chance at law, but this appears to have been diminished and greatly undermined by the actions of their staff and the approach to the hearing.   

   

Your original post was very insightful, as is this, much appreciated 🙏

Here's to hoping....

[AlexLaw76]

Not sure what else the club could say whilst there is an appeal ongoing..

They state that Leeds got a £200k fine, whilst we got -4 points and removed form the opportunity to complete in a £200m one-off game. Then they state the comparisons that (factually) prove this.

Remember, they are pissed that the team have been denied the opportunity to compete in the game (not that we will win it)

[skintsaint]

He we go, get that ball rolling through the league..

[scumbag]

35 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

I think we all know exactly what has happened here, although it will never be proven.

We sacked this Taylor(?) chap that we hired from boro. When we got Boro in the playoffs, he ran straight to the club to do a deal with them knowing salt would likely turn up, they were then ready and waiting with a media team to snap him in "4k" or whatever it was (the irony that he had better equipment than our spying analyst...)... and then Gibbo's got the extra "whistle blower" details out of him, had it to hand, and essentially ambushed us with it via the EFL a couple of days before the formal hearing. Which has included Taylor being in possession of previous whatsapp calls and images from his employment at saints. Reckon we were going to get done for this from the minute we got boro in the playoffs. Fully stitched up, even if it is our own fault.

What they didn't count on, and what was an additional bonus, was Parsons being so incredibly stupid. 

Regardless though, Gibbo has played this superbly - and with the added factor of having the boro ceo as the Championship representative on the EFL board, Middlesborough have milked it for all its worth, including jumping ahead of Millwall, and getting a very obvious sporting advantage over Hull.

We meanwhile can join Derby on the list of clubs ruined by Gibson. Men against boys at boardroom level.

Not a bad little insurance policy if they lost on the pitch was it?!  Agreed, they played the outrage bit exceptionally well though.