Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[Fabrice29]

1 minute ago, Saint_clark said:

Difference is we are involved in the commission, Boro were specifically told they wouldn't be allowed in...

Shocked to find out that different sides of the agreement are pushing for different things and even more shocked to find out that expulsion from knock out competitions for cheating is such an unprecedented punishment…oh wait…it’s common up and down the football pyramid. 

[OneMrsWallace]

6 hours ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

And would Ipswich really do secret training routines at a club close to and probably closely associated with Southampton FC. The whole thing is a stitch up. Where I worked in the 90's there were signs on some of the office walls: "What's said in here, stays in here." You want secret training. Do it in a hall or where you can guarantee no-one is watching.

I'm like the rest of the continent. Watching other clubs training is not cheating. OK, it broke the rules, but where else do you find rules where the punishment isn't stated? And is there a Middlesbrough representative on the EFL board and not a Southampton representative?

The impact would have been minimal because there's so much other publicly available stuff on other teams' tactics and set ups. FWIW, I'm guessing the practice was widespread and hopefully there are people who can prove this...and quickly.

Back in the noughties I lived very close to Fulham's training pitches. They were surrounded by fencing which you could easily see through, and on public pavements which were on all four sides. You could just stand and watch them train. This whole thing has a snowball effect that has got way out of proportion, like the punishment. 

[Miltonaggro]

14 minutes ago, trousers said:

Precisely.... surely a decent lawyer would be all over this like a rash?

I think that is commercial regulatory bodies generally to be honest, regardless of what they decide the option of the law is with the respondent if they have the stomach for it  

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

I know the transcript was posted earlier but here's a video clip of the David Bernstein interview from this morning....

Good question from Nick Robinson on how big clubs are seemingly treated differently to smaller clubs. 

 

 

the general consensus from most things i've see is that the punishment is well over the top,  a fine and points deduction would have been sufficient. Wonder if that will have any bearing.

[adrian lord]

13 minutes ago, saintant said:

This shouldn't influence the appeal panel's decision. Their objective should be to decide whether or not the punishment of expulsion is too severe. 

Indeed, but I wouldn't trust their deliberations to be conducted in a perfect vacuum, absent of such influences and interests, conscious or unconscious. 

[skintsaint]

Just now, OneMrsWallace said:

Back in the noughties I lived very close to Fulham's training pitches. They were surrounded by fencing which you could easily see through, and on public pavements which were on all four sides. You could just stand and watch them train. This whole thing has a snowball effect that has got way out of proportion, like the punishment. 

I drive around Motspur Park a bit, no chance of that now if thats where you are alluding too. 

[saintant]

27 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

Southampton FC has formally requested immediate reinstatement to the Championship play-off final, arguing that allowing the originally scheduled fixture to proceed represents “the legally cleanest and least disruptive resolution available to the EFL.”

In correspondence sent to the League on Thursday evening, the club’s legal representatives warned that enforcing the sanctions prior to the completion of the appeals process would create “significant and unnecessary legal exposure” for the competition and risk “serious and irreparable sporting prejudice.”

Southampton’s position is understood to be that any final determination regarding sanctions should be concluded after the play-offs rather than in the days immediately preceding Wembley, with the club insisting that removing one finalist at this stage would undermine the integrity of the competition.

The club is also believed to have argued that Middlesbrough chairman Steve Gibson exerted undue influence over the process through repeated representations to the League and disciplinary panel, with Southampton privately questioning whether the proceedings remained fully independent throughout.

Sources close to the matter suggest Southampton’s legal team believes reinstatement pending appeal would minimise the likelihood of extended litigation and avoid further complications surrounding fixture preparation, broadcasting obligations, and sporting fairness.

The EFL has so far declined to comment publicly while the appeal process remains ongoing.

Confused. Should this read Tuesday evening rather than Thursday?

[LegalEagle]

2 minutes ago, Costa del Solent said:

At the risk of alienating myself here… is anyone else kind of enjoying just sitting back and watching English football descend into total administrative collapse ?? 
 

 

If we have to go let’s take as many with us as possible. Let’s see how quickly the EFL deal with that.

[James]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

If we have to go let’s take as many with us as possible. Let’s see how quickly the EFL deal with that.

I’m in the same place. I don’t think we will get reinstated. The punishment is well over the top but the damage is done now. What happens next, who knows? But I hope we raise hell. 

[Miltonaggro]

30 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

Southampton FC has formally requested immediate reinstatement to the Championship play-off final, arguing that allowing the originally scheduled fixture to proceed represents “the legally cleanest and least disruptive resolution available to the EFL.”

In correspondence sent to the League on Thursday evening, the club’s legal representatives warned that enforcing the sanctions prior to the completion of the appeals process would create “significant and unnecessary legal exposure” for the competition and risk “serious and irreparable sporting prejudice.”

Southampton’s position is understood to be that any final determination regarding sanctions should be concluded after the play-offs rather than in the days immediately preceding Wembley, with the club insisting that removing one finalist at this stage would undermine the integrity of the competition.

The club is also believed to have argued that Middlesbrough chairman Steve Gibson exerted undue influence over the process through repeated representations to the League and disciplinary panel, with Southampton privately questioning whether the proceedings remained fully independent throughout.

Sources close to the matter suggest Southampton’s legal team believes reinstatement pending appeal would minimise the likelihood of extended litigation and avoid further complications surrounding fixture preparation, broadcasting obligations, and sporting fairness.

The EFL has so far declined to comment publicly while the appeal process remains ongoing.

Much better...

[TheSoundman]

Turkish, you sound like a rich fella.

How about you offer £10k to anyone who comes forward with evidence of other clubs spying.

Let's get it all out in the open.  There's clearly lots of clubs keeping their heads down here.

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

Confused. Should this read Tuesday evening rather than Thursday?

Skintsaint has already owned up to it being an AI generate piece....

[Toussaint]

Darren Bent is so dumb, how did he get that gig?

[Um Bongo]

No chance we will get re-instated. Think they will agree with the original ruling and that will be that. The rules/ outcomes may be tightened up following this and the EFL will have to have a look at how they have dealt with the whole situation, as they have been horrendous. 
 

The fallout will continue over the next few months, we’ll be labeled cheats by every team we visit/ comes to St Mary’s (I hope Boro are one of them!!!) and we won’t get the apology we deserve from the club. But give me 2 wins against the skates and I won’t ask for much more. 

[sfc4prem]

8 minutes ago, Costa del Solent said:

At the risk of alienating myself here… is anyone else kind of enjoying just sitting back and watching English football descend into total administrative collapse ?? 
 

 

I mean, I would draw another goblet from the cask of '43, but I'm still rather frustrated with all of this.

Can't we just pretend it didn't happen and move on? I'd quite like to be standing inside Wembley stadium this time on Saturday, cheering the players who won us a chance at the Premier League. 🫠🫩

[saintant]

24 minutes ago, trousers said:

Precisely.... surely a decent lawyer would be all over this like a rash?

But isn't this just Simon Jordan's opinion and his best guess at what happened. Not sure he's claimed it actually happened as a matter of fact has he?

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, TheSoundman said:

Turkish, you sound like a rich fella.

How about you offer £10k to anyone who comes forward with evidence of other clubs spying.

Let's get it all out in the open.  There's clearly lots of clubs keeping their heads down here.

no one likes a grass.

[Miltonaggro]

Just now, Toussaint said:

Darren Bent is so dumb, how did he get that gig?

raw sporting talent and intellectual finesse...

[sotonjoe]

Ignore

Edited 1 hour ago by sotonjoe

[LegalEagle]

Just now, Turkish said:

no one likes a grass.

I can make an exception or 10 in this case

[offsidetrap]

41 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Loophole?

Certainly makes you think.

The loophole is the playoffs are separate competition and nobody bothered to write up rules to cover them. 
 

There are no rules.

[Saint_clark]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

But isn't this just Simon Jordan's opinion and his best guess at what happened. Not sure he's claimed it actually happened as a matter of fact has he?

He's specifically said he's spoken to people high up in Boros hierarchy.

[Midfield_General]

45 minutes ago, PerthshireSaint said:

Lovely stuff

[Weston Super Saint]

27 minutes ago, franniesTache said:

So we might be playing hull at 4:30 on saturday, middlesborough might be playing hull at wembley at 3:30 on saturday, hull might be taking the EFL to court to go up with no game, and Wrexham are considering suing the EFL for not being included in it in the first place?

Saints are so massive we've broken the play offs 🤣🤣🤣

Good news for us though, Hull will be pretty knackered after an hour of playing Boro and won't relish another 90 mins against us!

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Saint_clark said:

He's specifically said he's spoken to people high up in Boros hierarchy.

Maybe he needs to be called as a witness at the appeal 🙂

[skintsaint]

1 minute ago, offsidetrap said:

There are no rules.

Final should be good.

[Turkish]

It STARTED BY A TREE AT SUNNY ROCKLIFFE HALL

WE SPIED ON THE BORO WE SPIED ON THEM FUCKING ALL

STEVE GIBSON GRASSED US UP AND IPSWICH TOWN TOO

WE GOT KICKED OUT THE PLAY OFFS NO WEMBLEY FOR ME AND YOU

OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE.....

Edited 1 hour ago by Turkish

[Harry_SFC]

1 minute ago, offsidetrap said:

The loophole is the playoffs are separate competition and nobody bothered to write up rules to cover them. 
 

There are no rules.

Yes. If the EFL's argument is the play offs are a separate cup competition, then surely there are rules for the specific conpetition etc. 

Also how can they be separate if you play 46 games to get into them? 

[saintant]

21 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Wait until you hear that Southampton were pushing the panel into not expelling Saints and are still doing so today!!!

How is that in any way comparable to the EFL doing it?

[Saint Keef]

Bloody hell. I only went out shopping a couple of hours ago and I'm 11 pages behind. 

[skintsaint]

Finishing work, by time I get the boy to bed I expect not to be able to get on this site....

[Doctoroncall]

25 minutes ago, Turkish said:

GIven what they've given us, lets say it comes out that Coventry or Ipswich had been spying, would they be relegated back to the championship starting with a 4 point penalty? The severity if our punishment is going to set a very dangerous precedent if there are any future cases, if it goes on all the time then maybe this wont be the only case of it.

If it’s rife, the balance would turn to capture the spy as that would be more beneficial because of the punishment now out weighs the benefit. 

[Fabrice29]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

How is that in any way comparable to the EFL doing it?

It was one against the other. That’s the whole point of the case. 

[LegalEagle]

So can we run this argument. The play offs are deemed a separate competition to the main season. The rules that we’ve breached don’t apply to the play offs and therefore there is no rule stopping us doing what we did on Boro. There is no strong evidence that we spied on Ipswich or Oxford in the 72 hours prior to the games.

[saintant]

Just now, Fabrice29 said:

It was one against the other. That’s the whole point of the case. 

Don't be a chump. The EFL have no business taking sides.

[Mboto Gorge]

Any more updates on Wrexham’s stance from Nosh Windass?

[Saint_lambden]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

Don't be a chump. The EFL have no business taking sides.

Of course they do, it’s their rules we’ve broken. 

[offsidetrap]

7 minutes ago, Harry_SFC said:

Yes. If the EFL's argument is the play offs are a separate cup competition, then surely there are rules for the specific conpetition etc. 

Also how can they be separate if you play 46 games to get into them? 

The same way clubs get into Europe from different rule systems. Dunno. I don’t do serious replies. 

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

So can we run this argument. The play offs are deemed a separate competition to the main season. The rules that we’ve breached don’t apply to the play offs and therefore there is no rule stopping us doing what we did on Boro. There is no strong evidence that we spied on Ipswich or Oxford in the 72 hours prior to the games.

Bloody hell, that's a stretch. I would argue implied terms on the playoffs, but let's see.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Fabrice29]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

Don't be a chump. The EFL have no business taking sides.

It’s literally their business so they probably do have an interest in it I would say. That’s me done for today ffs 🤣

Edited 1 hour ago by Fabrice29

[saintant]

Just now, Saint_lambden said:

Of course they do, it’s their rules we’ve broken. 

So why appoint an independent committee then? Why not just make their own judgement?

[Miltonaggro]

3 minutes ago, Mboto Gorge said:

Any more updates on Wrexham’s stance from Nosh Windass?

He's in makeup currently.

[sfc4prem]

1 minute ago, Fabrice29 said:

It’s literally their business so they probably do have an interest in it I would say. That’s me done for today ffs 🤣

Thank fuck for that. Tedium personified.

[Saint NL]

What time do we expect the 502 Gateway errors?

I'm going for 18:04

[Saint_clark]

God Darren Bent is an absolute cock.

[Midfield_General]

32 minutes ago, Dman said:

No chance in my opinon. We've broken the rules, with no precedent to fall back on, I think we're royally fucked. 

Much like you, had we had a decent defense lawyer.. things maybe different. 

It doesn’t matter who you have as a defence lawyer when your CEO admits guilt in front of a room full of people to the person who is prosecuting them. 

The cheating is on the management/ analytics team (specifics tbc), but the way Parsons has handled it has been absolutely inept.

He fucked us before our defence could get off the ground or the panel had even sat down. 

[Whitey Grandad]

6 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

So can we run this argument. The play offs are deemed a separate competition to the main season. The rules that we’ve breached don’t apply to the play offs and therefore there is no rule stopping us doing what we did on Boro. There is no strong evidence that we spied on Ipswich or Oxford in the 72 hours prior to the games.

Hmm... let's see,

The playoffs are a separate competition,  you say. Do your regulations also apply to the playoffs then given that there are only two rounds? If so, then what sanctions for transgressions are laid down in your regulations?

[Cuddles]

Couldn't we just buy Gibson to replace Parsons and get our own way? That would break FFP but we could worry about the six points in two seasons time.

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

20 minutes ago, Turkish said:

no one likes a grass.

What about the groundsman?

[saintant]

3 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

God Darren Bent is an absolute cock.

At last, something on here everyone can agree on.