Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[sotonjoe]

27 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

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

Hardly. We've probably been watching them train all week. 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

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.

Think this whole affair will have left a sour taste and all our decent players will already be considering their options away from this football club. They'll feel like they've had the piss taken out of them and won't be keen to stick around. It's a rebuild for us I'm afraid and just when we were building a decent squad.

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

3 minutes ago, scumbag said:

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

Definitely something in this from the disgruntled ex employee. 

Parsons is an idiot for compounding the issue.

[offsidetrap]

2 hours ago, sockeye said:

Can we make it a Spurs Hull final instead? Spurs win they stay up. Hull win they take Spurs place 

Like Scotland. To stay up, Burnley would have to beat winner of Ipswich millwall and saints asymmetric playoff pyramid. (2nd v winner of 3rd v 4th)

if we did that in England the prem teams could spy on us but not the other way round. 

[Sarnia Cherie]

5 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

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

That's not likely to happen but in today's paper Wrexham are considering seeking compensation from Southampton.

[CB Fry]

37 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. 

Boro can say they think they were cheated out of the same £200m and that's the end of that.

[Southner]

14 minutes ago, saintant said:

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.

Could they still sue us should they lose to Hull? They've gained nothing personally otherwise? 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

That's not likely to happen but in today's paper Wrexham are considering seeking compensation from Southampton.

For what?

[beatlesaint]

6 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

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

Whatever the rights and wrongs of their argument you can’t deny it was always going to happen (bar LD of course who questioned what it had to do with them). With a £200 million windfall at stake they would be crazy not to get their lawyers looking into it, especially given spying during the league season has been put on the table.

[Galway saint]

25 minutes ago, James said:

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.

Loss of opportunity claim 

[Saint Pete]

19 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

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.

And not only that, results achieved by players shown to have dived for penalties should be reversed afterwards with points awarded to the other team or reinstatement of teams in Cup competitions. 

[saintant]

10 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

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

Thought I read they've already dug up their pitch.

[Miltonaggro]

11 minutes ago, lhammondo said:

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

Here's to hoping....

Cheers.  I think regardless of the situation in the last 48 hours SFC will go to law, they have to really.

[Midfield_General]

10 minutes ago, saintant said:

It's a rebuild for us I'm afraid and just when we were building a decent squad.

Not just the players. Once the appeal gets thrown out I think heads will start to roll. Between sackings and resignations / 'get me the fuck out of here' calls to agents, I can see it being a top to bottom bloodbath: CEO, DoF, Manager, Analytics team, lots of the playing staff. 

Would Dragan have the stomach to carry on after this, with the requirement of pumping in millions more just to stand still, with chaos to sort out, absolutely no guarantee of any return and the parachute payments running out after this season? 

If I was him, once I'd finished firing Parsons I'd be getting on the phone to see if anyone wants to buy a football club for a very reasonable price. Comes with a lovely* training ground. Legal background an advantage.

(* and very private)

Edited 2 hours ago by Midfield_General

[Patrick Bateman]

12 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

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

Let's just do the season again, but I don't want Wolves, West Ham and Burnley joining us, no thank you. Same teams, let's go. 

[Saint Pete]

6 minutes ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

That's not likely to happen but in today's paper Wrexham are considering seeking compensation from Southampton.

Why from Southampton? It is EFL who are responsible for deciding if playoffs are replayed. 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Saint Pete said:

Why from Southampton? It is EFL who are responsible for deciding if playoffs are replayed. 

because these clubs smell blood

[saintant]

Do we know what time the appeal hearing starts?

[Midfield_General]

2 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Let's just do the season again, but I don't want Wolves, West Ham and Burnley joining us, no thank you. Same teams, let's go. 

Well, maybe Wolves

[skintsaint]

1 minute ago, Saint Pete said:

Why from Southampton? It is EFL who are responsible for deciding if playoffs are replayed. 

For better viewing on their Netflix series.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, saintant said:

Do we know what time the appeal hearing starts?

They have already started and conducting it over a pie and pint.

[Saint86]

40 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

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

It would be a loss of chance claim. Where we'd have been favourites to beat Hull and gain access to £200M+ in revenue (i.e.50%+). And will also cover reputational damages and financial hits associated with sponsorship damage, player contracts/sales (and also any associated legal claims). How deep are the EFL's pockets. There is a reason the EPL doesn't push its luck vs teams like city and chelsea...

Edited 2 hours ago by Saint86

[Midfield_General]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

They have already started and conducting it over a pie parmo and a pint.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Good news, my son's play off hat he wanted has just been delivered from Saints, swift delivery. 

Straight back it goes ... 

[John B]

6 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

He has used the media to turn a very minor infraction into a cheating scandal. 
 

and the clowns running our club let him do it. Fucking embarrassing. 
 

Our legal team is a complete joke 

Well breaking the rules is cheating and that is what we did in order to get to the PL so what do you suggest our lawyers should have done as  it is not easy to defend the indefensible ,

 

[hypochondriac]

42 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

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

As someone else has already said, if we want to make a claim then this is the sort of thing you would say to facilitate that.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Good news, my son's play off hat he wanted has just been delivered from Saints, swift delivery. 

Straight back it goes ... 

Keep it. Collectors item!

[Doctoroncall]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

You have no basis on which to say that. We were caught spying on their training sessions, it's laughable to try and claim we didn't benefit from it at all. Boro lost to cheaters and if this was the other way around, not one single Saints fan would be claiming we don't deserve to go to Wembley.

Well you could argue on the basis probabilities of the other two games (noted) spied. 
 

[Osvaldorama]

That statement… Jesus.
 

We are absolutely cooked. 
 

 

[DrSuess1979]

Talksport.

”A more experienced panel”

wtf should that not have been the case from the off !! 

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Osvaldorama said:

That statement… Jesus.
 

We are absolutely cooked. 
 

 

What would you have said?

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Osvaldorama said:

That statement… Jesus.
 

We are absolutely cooked. 
 

 

We already knew that 🙂

[Galway saint]

2 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

That statement… Jesus.
 

We are absolutely cooked. 
 

 

I though it was fine 

what’s else can he realistically say with the appeal pending 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, DrSuess1979 said:

Talksport.

”A more experienced panel”

wtf should that not have been the case from the off !! 

Would you prefer a less experienced panel for the appeal?

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

What would you have said?

Well I wouldn’t have spied on other teams in such an obvious way. 
Nor would I have admitted to the charges to the opposition’s CEO. 

Then I would have delayed all the hearings for as long as possible.

 

But failing all that, and with everything that’s gone on, I don’t have a fucking clue because I’m not a dinlo like parsons. 

[DrSuess1979]

Sorry if already said 

Appeal set for 1800 this evening  

[Saint86]

6 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

That statement… Jesus.
 

We are absolutely cooked. 
 

 

This is now about trying to pursue the legal case. Although sadly, Parson has likely cooked us there by admitting to everything off hat.

"Southampton can credibly argue that expulsion from the playoff final is unprecedented and disproportionate compared to prior sanctions. However, given their CEO (Parson) has readily admitted to repeated and deliberate breaches of clear EFL rules and their impact on the integrity of the competition, an appeal body is likely to afford the regulator a wide margin of discretion. Therefore, the challenge is arguable but not strong."

Edited 2 hours ago by Saint86

[Graziano94]

2 minutes ago, DrSuess1979 said:

Talksport.

”A more experienced panel”

wtf should that not have been the case from the off !! 

What was the context?

[lhammondo]

12 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

Cheers.  I think regardless of the situation in the last 48 hours SFC will go to law, they have to really.

In other industries there is sarbanes-oxley governance to prevent against individuals potentially ruining a company - financially, primarily, but here there have been a number of errors/oversights/cataclysmic fuck-ups at varying staff levels. 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Galway saint said:

I though it was fine 

what’s else can he realistically say with the appeal pending 

I've handed in my resignation due to rank incompetence would have been good.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

That statement… Jesus.
 

We are absolutely cooked. 
 

 

It's in no way a bad statement. Struggle to see what else he could have said under the circumstances.

[SNSUN]

Reading it again it seems like he cares more about the financial aspect of going up and he's setting the tone for lawsuits. If anything it probably plays into their hands us not being in the play-off final because there is the aspect of losing it, whereas by us not being there we can sue for potential lost earnings over the summer. 

 

[trousers]

1 hour ago, Saint_clark said:

Adrian Durham: "How can you let a team that has cheated the rules go to Wembley, that just can't happen". 

The irony of that statement following Man City winning the FA cup at Wembley...

Not forgetting rule beakers Hull City too, of course....

(yep, I am indeed still back on page 172 out of 176!)

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[Ivan Katalinic's 'tache]

24 minutes ago, sotonjoe said:

Hardly. We've probably been watching them train all week. 

Went well in terms of the games we did admit to spying on! 😅

[DrSuess1979]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

Would you prefer a less experienced panel for the appeal?

I mean 

the panel should have been made up of the most experienced people possible 

surly !!! 

[Weston Super Saint]

16 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

because these clubs smell blood

Rightly so with hands up and surrender Phil at the helm!

[hypochondriac]

Just now, SNSUN said:

Reading it again it seems like he cares more about the financial aspect of going up and he's setting the tone for lawsuits. If anything it probably plays into their hands us not being in the play-off final because there is the aspect of losing it, whereas by us not being there we can sue for potential lost earnings over the summer. 

 

Who do you sue though? It's an independent panel. Maybe he has a claim for the shortened disciplinary and appeals process?

[DrSuess1979]

About 2minutes in 

[SNSUN]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Who do you sue though? It's an independent panel. Maybe he has a claim for the shortened disciplinary and appeals process?

I'm not au fait with the procedures but it sounds like we won't lie down from this without a fight. 

[Whitey Grandad]

57 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.

We would have got the proceeds from the final which by mutual agreement usually go to the losing side.