Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[Baird of the land]

Agree with Hull that if we are expelled they should get a walkover. Lawyers are going to have a big pay day.

[Saint86]

24 minutes ago, Mattio said:

Out of interest how do the appeals work? Do we plead a case like a court case, or is it more of a discussion round a table?

They vary from case to case, but broadly speaking this one will go as follows:

We ask. The EFL says no. Gibson laughs in our face.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Baird of the land said:

Agree with Hull that if we are expelled they should get a walkover. Lawyers are going to have a big pay day.

Seems very unfair on Hull I agree. Not sure they can let it go ahead against boro on Saturday and then claim they weren't at a significant disadvantage.

[skintsaint]

Yeah if Hull lose, off to the courts they go.

[kitch]

I don't mind that statement from Parsons, tbh. I can imagine the events of the past few days (and subsequent days/weeks/months) will probably take some years off his life at the end of it. You get the impression that the bigwigs had no idea what was going on. What else can he say? There's a lot of bridges to mend with fans, but one thing at a time.

I do agree with him re. the proportionality of the punishments, but at the same time if we can't prove (or disprove) the effectiveness of this spying across the timeframe it was carried out, we can't therefore objectively prove we would have finished where we did, therefore it's void.

Amazing just how many people the actions of a few have affected.

[gio1saints]

1 minute ago, Andy Hill said:

The question is “is spying worse than breaking the FFP rules” ?? Apparently yes.

And is spying worse than a player diving to get a penalty or a player sent off? Apparently yes.

If the dive does not get noticed and you win 1-0 with a penalty which gives you three points that promotes you to the EPL …..that’s good. That’s fine that’s dandy.
 

But  If it were noticed then the player gets a yellow card and they all just play on. Not expelled from the tournament. Not match over points deducted etc. 

Cheating is cheating. But some cheating has a higher upper tariff level after this decision. I don’t mind the expelled decision and points deductions myself. Fair enough if that’s how you see it. BUT I DO mind that what most supporters understand as real cheating - which happens nearly every match on the pitch will carry on with no recourse. And promotions, titles and a lot of money is at stake just the same.
 

The phrase Nelsonian approach to tackling cheating springs to mind. The blatant stuff in front of your face ( watch the CL final if you don’t believe me) for very high stakes - nobody saw it - stupid idiot behind a tree - lynch mob. Stinks really. 

[Football Special]

21 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

Don't get the vitriol being thrown at Parsons.

The club are just trying their best to deal with the shitty hand that cheating Tonda has given them.

Only defence i have for Tonda is he learned his trade as an analyst in Germany where I'm told these practices are common and even encouraged 

[Saint NL]

I thought the EFL were taking the easy route by booting us, but now every other team will want a piece of the action. They've fucked it

[Saint86]

1 minute ago, Baird of the land said:

Agree with Hull that if we are expelled they should get a walkover. Lawyers are going to have a big pay day.

Think the EFL could rue the day they let Gibson call the shots.

[skintsaint]

Just now, Saint NL said:

I thought the EFL were taking the easy route by booting us, but now every other team will want a piece of the action. They've fucked it

I really think they were hoping we would lose the semi-final.

[Midfield_General]

17 minutes ago, benjii said:

"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"

 

A.k.a. this is rife, so watch it.

...but delivered in such a sappy, mealy-mouthed way, long after the horse has bolted that it basically carries no weight as a threat whatsoever.

Reply from the EFL: "Thanks for the offer Phil, but we're a bit busy trying to sort out the play-off final which you and your band of wankers screwed up for literally everybody to be organising any working groups. Speak later x"

[Dr Who?]

1 minute ago, Baird of the land said:

Agree with Hull that if we are expelled they should get a walkover. Lawyers are going to have a big pay day.

100% agree with this. You just know that Boro will go up if they play in the final. What they should have done at this stage, as it’s got so far is played the final then from there either kick us out and send Hull up, or fine us and give us a points deduction if we lost. 

I think now it would be best to promote Hull City, but they won’t as they want to showcase final and Sky will cry! 

[Midfield_General]

22 minutes ago, sfc4prem said:

Who will lead us out to Wembley?

Baz

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, Dr Who? said:

100% agree with this. You just know that Boro will go up if they play in the final. What they should have done at this stage, as it’s got so far is played the final then from there either kick us out and send Hull up, or fine us and give us a points deduction if we lost. 

I think now it would be best to promote Hull City, but they won’t as they want to showcase final and Sky will cry! 

Spot on

 

[Saint86]

3 minutes ago, Dr Who? said:

100% agree with this. You just know that Boro will go up if they play in the final. What they should have done at this stage, as it’s got so far is played the final then from there either kick us out and send Hull up, or fine us and give us a points deduction if we lost. 

I think now it would be best to promote Hull City, but they won’t as they want to showcase final and Sky will cry! 

To be blunt. Boro getting a chance at the final saves us a legal suit from Boro. Which is the one i would actually be worried about being on the end of. We aren't going up, we don't need boro suing us for a loss of chance at the final - which now we have admitted cheating would purely be a question of "how much" compensation we'd owe them.

Edited 1 hour ago by Saint86

[sadoldgit]

6 minutes ago, MB said:

For what it’s worth I think there is a reasonable chance we could get reinstated. Just doesn’t add up from a legal perspective. I’d say it’s probably 50/50, would not write it off. As I have said previously it’s down to the argument we put forward, if it’s strong enough I would struggle to see how they can impose the original decision

Like it or not the statement is bang on. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Our sanction is way out of line in comparison to others. People slagging it off what on earth did you expect him to say. 

 

Tonda is a dead man walking and even if Wembley happens he will not lead us out, however I think perspective is important here. As the statement suggests what we did is rife, we were just stupid enough to get caught 

 

 

 

This is the issue. The EFL have not set out the penalty if found guilty of this crime, just a range of sanctions that can be used. A panel then has to decide subjectively what punishment they think is suitable. We don’t think that our crimes warrant expulsion. Middlesbrough do. We all have our own thoughts. How do you decide what is a fair, reasonable and proportionate penalty?

Whether we think the club have been doing it all season (how did that work out for Will Still?) is neither here nor there. We were charge with 3 breaches of the law. Just 3, across a whole season. I just don’t know how anyone can think this punishment is fair, reasonable and proportionate (apart from Gibbo and the Boro fans of course).

[Saint Fan CaM]

1 hour 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.

The why is obviously because precedence in law is an important factor - the first panel has for some reason not recognised this (and everything points to Boro influencing the panel both publicly and possibly privately too, given the EFL/Boro connections). Not only that but I would hope that Parsons has learnt not to reveal his entire hand in one stroke - what is in the statement is not necessarily all the mitigating evidence that will be presented to the judge today.

[tdmickey3]

Just now, Saint86 said:

To be blunt. Boro getting a chance at the final saves us a legal suit from Boro. Which is the one i would actually be worried about.

Gibbo 🙄 did it to derby for a ridiculous amount and ended up settling for 2m... so not really

[DellBlockH]

16 minutes ago, Doctoroncall said:

Well, we won’t be playing in any EFL competitions next season if that’s the case!  Pretty sure there is an undertaking to abide by the rules which will also include any disciplinary measures. 

Up to a point. But if the other party in the undertaking is thought to have been acting unreasonably then I think the first party has a right to seek the verdict of the court. As I said in earlier post, I'm not a lawyer but nothing can stop somebody or a corporate making a legal claim and, in my view, they cannot be threatened with further sanctions for doing so. That would be a denial of basic legal rights.

Of course, whether Saints have any prospect of winning a legal battle is a different argument.

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

This is the issue. The EFL have not set out the penalty if found guilty of this crime, just a range of sanctions that can be used. A panel then has to decide subjectively what punishment they think is suitable. We don’t think that our crimes warrant expulsion. Middlesbrough do. We all have our own thoughts. How do you decide what is a fair, reasonable and proportionate penalty?

Whether we think the club have been doing it all season (how did that work out for Will Still?) is neither here nor there. We were charge with 3 breaches of the law. Just 3, across a whole season. I just don’t know how anyone can think this punishment is fair, reasonable and proportionate (apart from Gibbo and the Boro fans of course).

Middlesborough certainly don't

[TheSoundman]

Just now, Midfield_General said:

...but delivered in such a sappy, mealy-mouthed way, long after the horse has bolted that it basically carries no weight as a threat whatsoever.

Reply from the EFL: "Thanks for the offer Phil, but we're a bit busy trying to sort out the play-off final which you and your band of wankers screwed up for literally everybody to be organising any working groups. Speak later x"

That's the official statement for the purposes of the media and public generally.

If we think it's rife and can prove it, then the message will be made much clearer to the EFL. Prepare for a shit storm.

[ChrisPY]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

This is the issue. The EFL have not set out the penalty if found guilty of this crime, just a range of sanctions that can be used. A panel then has to decide subjectively what punishment they think is suitable. We don’t think that our crimes warrant expulsion. Middlesbrough do. We all have our own thoughts. How do you decide what is a fair, reasonable and proportionate penalty?

Whether we think the club have been doing it all season (how did that work out for Will Still?) is neither here nor there. We were charge with 3 breaches of the law. Just 3, across a whole season. I just don’t know how anyone can think this punishment is fair, reasonable and proportionate (apart from Gibbo and the Boro fans of course).

‘The four next highest Clubs in The Championship shall take part in a Play-Off 24(c) (d) (e) Competition. The winner of the Play-Off Competition shall also be promoted to The Premier League upon the same terms.’

The play offs is clearly defined as a separate competition. We’ve been found guilty of 1 breach in a short, 4 team competition. That’s why we’ve been expelled, not the other 2 breaches that occurred across a season.

I still think the punishment should be reduced to a significant financial sanction that would act as a serious deterrent which also compensates impacted teams (and likely make it more difficult to stay in the Premier League if we were to be promoted), however, it’s not right to say this is because of 3 breaches across a whole season.

[trousers]

1 hour ago, Miltonaggro said:

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

Could we end up bankrupting ourselves if we go down the legal route after and lose that too?

[Saint86]

3 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Gibbo 🙄 did it to derby for a ridiculous amount and ended up settling for 2m... so not really

Boro came 7th that year. They had to firstly prove it had a material impact on them getting into the playoffs, then that they would have won the semi final and the final.

In this case they qualified for the playoffs and had they won the semi final had a 50/50 chance at winning the final. So its more like a direct share of the £200M. Add to that that the prize money has significantly increased in that time period, and its likely we'd be facing something like a £10-20M lawsuit on top of loss of parachute payments, merchandising, poorer transfer incomings etc.,

I mean, if we aren't going up regardless, purely from an SFC perspective, there are benefits to boro being given a shot at the final.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Also…and it’s been said before on here…it’s strange is it not that the two other instances are Ipswich and Oxford who are both out of the Championship now and therefore not concerned about any reveal of the extent many other teams ‘spy’ on opponents. No other teams want to get involved because they too could be implicated.  That’s why Parsons clever wording around helping to ensure the rules are widely applied and understood in the future could have significant meaning today.

[Mt.B-Real]

The statement is a load of bollocks, a waste of time, pathetic, meaningless you could say. Much like our entire season now.

Fully expect this appeal to be unsuccessful. I expect Parsons and every other clown involved in this silly mess to resign immediately after judgement is given this evening.

If they're not then saints fans should be outside the stadium protesting until they are gone.

Absolutely unforgivable. Please get out of our club NOW

[Miltonaggro]

Just now, trousers said:

Could we end up bankrupting ourselves if we go down the legal route after and lose that too?

I doubt that given the money in professional football, but more to do with Solak's wishes as Chairman.  His fans seem to think that he's a principled strongman, guess we find out very soon.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Mt.B-Real said:

The statement is a load of bollocks, a waste of time, pathetic, meaningless you could say. Much like our entire season now.

Fully expect this appeal to be unsuccessful. I expect Parsons and every other clown involved in this silly mess to resign immediately after judgement is given this evening.

If they're not then saints fans should be outside the stadium protesting until they are gone.

Absolutely unforgivable. Please get out of our club NOW

No it isn't calm down. There really isn't a lot lese that he could say at this point. Once we lose the appeal tonight or tomorrow morning I'll expect more. 

[Fabrice29]

25 minutes ago, Ldnsaint said:

I can't believe some fans think there's a genuine chance of us being reinstated into a game where we could earn £200m+ 😂

Tonda & Spors etc have got to go. Also not a chance we only did it three times and no point in keep comparing it to Leeds in terms of the expulsion, it wasn't a knock out game!

‘Oh alright Phil, was a bit much really wasn’t it? Have a fine of say £10m and some more points instead. Now let’s quickly check the fixture list for your next game..oh shit…it’s the one that gives you a chance to earn £200m and a way out of this league and your punishment altogether…you better not bloody win it son!’ 🤣🤣

Edited 1 hour ago by Fabrice29

[Farmer Saint]

15 minutes ago, Saint NL said:

I thought the EFL were taking the easy route by booting us, but now every other team will want a piece of the action. They've fucked it

Said this would happen if they went this route - hence why I thought they wouldn't be stupid enough to do it.

I was wrong on that part.

[Saint Marky]

I haven’t gone back through the thread too far, so pissed off, to see if already posted, but I’ve just found an email in junk from Wembley Parking asking what team I’m supporting. Went on Wembley Parking and it’s now changed to Middlesbrough and available for them to book. It also states this:

Please note due to the change in competing teams for the SkyBet Championship Playoff Final to be held at Wembley Stadium on Saturday 23rd May 2026 all Southampton supporter bookings will be automatically refunded. Public sales for Middlesbrough supporters will be available to book from 13:15 on Wednesday 20th May 2026. If you have any queries relating to parking for this event please use the live chat or email info@epdataservices.com. 

I haven’t asked for a refund, was going to wait for the verdict, just in case (but I feel now with all the things changed for a Middlesbrough final, don’t believe it will be reversed again) I don’t know if that means I will lose my money, as obviously it will go past the 72 hour period for a refund. What a fucking mess this whole saga is, laughable really, a kid with an iPhone behind a tree, what the fuck were they thinking.

Edited 1 hour ago by Saint Marky

[Willo of Whiteley]

1 hour ago, skintsaint said:

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

Hollywood stuff!

[DellBlockH]

5 minutes ago, Mt.B-Real said:

The statement is a load of bollocks, a waste of time, pathetic, meaningless you could say. Much like our entire season now.

Fully expect this appeal to be unsuccessful. I expect Parsons and every other clown involved in this silly mess to resign immediately after judgement is given this evening.

If they're not then saints fans should be outside the stadium protesting until they are gone.

Absolutely unforgivable. Please get out of our club NOW

Should we bring our own pitchforks?

[OldNick]

1 minute ago, Saint Marky said:

I haven’t gone back through the thread too far, too pissed off, too see if already posted, but I’ve just found an email in junk from Wembley Parking asking what team I’m supporting. Went on Wembley Parking and it’s now changed to Middlesbrough and available for them to book. It also states this:

Please note due to the change in competing teams for the SkyBet Championship Playoff Final to be held at Wembley Stadium on Saturday 23rd May 2026 all Southampton supporter bookings will be automatically refunded. Public sales for Middlesbrough supporters will be available to book from 13:15 on Wednesday 20th May 2026. If you have any queries relating to parking for this event please use the live chat or email info@epdataservices.com. 

I haven’t asked for a refund, was going to wait for the verdict, just in case (but I feel now with all the things changed for a Middlesbrough final, don’t believe it will be reversed again) I don’t know if that means I will lose my money, as obviously it will go past the 72 hour period for a refund. What a fucking mess this whole saga is, laughable really, a kid with an iPhone behind a tree, what the fuck were they thinking.

Ironic its a 72hour refund period

[Maury Dyer]

First decent manager / team I n years. Knew it was too good to be true. 

more years in the doldrums now. 

I hear Russ Martin's looking for a job......

fuck ne.....

[leesaint88]

41 minutes ago, DrSuess1979 said:

They are stating Leicester breaking the FFP rules which enabled them to get promoted.

Only for them to get a disproportionate points deduction.

 

This is the one they need to bring up, because the points deduction should have been made during the 23/24 season. The EFL gave them six points last year, which still would have promoted them in that particular season. I’m sure they only did that to stop any legal challenges from Leeds who could claim they deserved automatic promotion. 

[Miltonaggro]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

No it isn't calm down. There really isn't a lot lese that he could say at this point. Once we lose the appeal tonight or tomorrow morning I'll expect more. 

There is a lot of contrition in that statement, I would imagine that the oral submission today would be much more robust than round one, effectively reading the EFL its horoscope. 

[Midfield_General]

4 minutes ago, TheSoundman said:

That's the official statement for the purposes of the media and public generally.

If we think it's rife and can prove it, then the message will be made much clearer to the EFL. Prepare for a shit storm.

I don't doubt we're going to go on about how everyone does it, but the proving it bit might be tricky. Surely we'd need the backing and evidence of multiple other clubs to do that, and we've made ourselves such pariahs over this that I can't see any other clubs running to support us. They'll just look the other way until we've taken the fall and everyone has moved on, and then quietly remind their own people not to be as dumb, arrogant and useless at it as we were. 

[Miltonaggro]

2 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

Hollywood stuff!

I always thought that Windass and his old man were a pair of fucking doughnuts, appears that they are in fact first rate regulatory and comformance experts. 

[dsr-burnley]

21 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

This is the issue. The EFL have not set out the penalty if found guilty of this crime, just a range of sanctions that can be used. A panel then has to decide subjectively what punishment they think is suitable. We don’t think that our crimes warrant expulsion. Middlesbrough do. We all have our own thoughts. How do you decide what is a fair, reasonable and proportionate penalty?

Whether we think the club have been doing it all season (how did that work out for Will Still?) is neither here nor there. We were charge with 3 breaches of the law. Just 3, across a whole season. I just don’t know how anyone can think this punishment is fair, reasonable and proportionate (apart from Gibbo and the Boro fans of course).

It's a standard punishment in knockout competitions, that the side that breaks the rules (it's usually by playing an unregistered player) gets kicked out and the losing but innocent team goes through. In that light, a defence that expulsion shouldn't be applied because the game was too important isn't likely to ride.

[trousers]

1 hour ago, SNSUN said:

Ah i see what you mean now. Then I'm not sure.

When I want to blame someone I usually just pick the wife.

I've only ever known that to work in reverse....

Edited 1 hour ago by trousers

[adrian lord]

We are, I presume, appealing the sentence, not the conviction. The panel for the hearing yesterday would have been chaired by a KC, and so I presume the appeal today will be heard by another panel, chaired by another KC. 

Given that, I jolly well hope that we have instructed a heavyweight KC to represent us, nothing else will do. It is our only hope but it is very slim. The problem being, there's no halfway house compromise sanction vis a vis the playoffs that could be conceivably imposed as far as I can see. It is binary: either reinstatement or not, and to reverse that would cause far more trouble for the EFL than you could ever imagine. I think the best we can hope for is the point deduction being waived. Big deal...whoopy dos..

Edited 1 hour ago by adrian lord

[trousers]

48 minutes ago, LGTL said:

Why on earth is Tonda still here? He should have been sacked first thing this morning, appeal or no appeal. 

Maybe, rightly or wrongly, the club believe his "I didn't know it was a rule" defence? 

 

(Yes, I know the "he told them to go in disguise" accusation renders such a defence worthless if true, but how do we know for certain that the 'disguise' aspect was a direct instruction from Eckert....? Isn't that just something that's been reported rather than admitted to? A bit like the the initial reports were talking about "sophisticated recording equipment" which turned out to be bunkum?)

[Dman]

12 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

There is a lot of contrition in that statement, I would imagine that the oral submission today would be much more robust than round one, effectively reading the EFL its horoscope. 

For what its worth, I've been told we had some mitigating evidence against the whistleblower and that this is a widly carried out activity. 

Don't know a lot more than that though. 

[Window Cleaner]

3 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's a standard punishment in knockout competitions, that the side that breaks the rules (it's usually by playing an unregistered player) gets kicked out and the losing but innocent team goes through. In that light, a defence that expulsion shouldn't be applied because the game was too important isn't likely to ride.

In fact there is not logic to the stance that the punishment is dispropotionate.

We illicitly sought to gain an advantage to help us earn the big pay day, got caught because we sent an idiot to do the job and now we've been denied the chance to participate. 

Bigger the prize, harder the fall.

 

[Saint NL]

I'm now of the opinion that as long as we're not in the final then I want as much carnage as possible. Burn the whole thing to the ground and let the fun begin 

 

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Just now, Saint NL said:

I'm now of the opinion that as long as we're not in the final then I want as much carnage as possible. Burn the whole thing to the ground and let the fun begin 

 

 

I mean I'd be gutted as a Hull fan not to go to Wembley for the occasion, but hell yeah, why not 😂

[The Wyvern]

Just now, Saint NL said:

I'm now of the opinion that as long as we're not in the final then I want as much carnage as possible. Burn the whole thing to the ground and let the fun begin 

 

 

Agreed, as much chaos as possible please. Got to see the funny side of this now. 

[Nolan]

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's a standard punishment in knockout competitions, that the side that breaks the rules (it's usually by playing an unregistered player) gets kicked out and the losing but innocent team goes through. In that light, a defence that expulsion shouldn't be applied because the game was too important isn't likely to ride.

which goes back to the point, if the Knockout competition is being taken on its own, why are previous games not in the same competition being used as aggravating factors.?

[saintant]

58 minutes ago, egg said:

The point is that they should have. We needed to investigate fully, and be proactive. Instead, we haven't (seemingly) taken any action, and have potentially parked it pending appeal.  Staff behaviour, and the appeal, are separate matters and should be dealt with separately. 

The fact that we have yet to sack Eckert or anyone else should have zero influence on how those judging the appeal come to their decision. Absolutely zero because it has no relevance.