Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[Ekelund]

30 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

Just have a little….Patience.

Isn’t the tour called the Circus?? 

[trousers]

13 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

The biggest thing through this is how Bielsa came out of Spygate 1 as a hero, a trendsetter, a cheeky foreigner with a will to win… yet we’re the worst thing thats ever happened to the sport

ItS bECAusE tHe RuLeS ChaNGeD!!!!! 

Edited 4 hours ago by trousers

[Football Special]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

No, Sport Resolutions chose the panel members

Who appointed "Sport Resolutions" and what connections do they have with them? 

[Bushey Saint]

12 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

The biggest thing through this is how Bielsa came out of Spygate 1 as a hero, a trendsetter, a cheeky foreigner with a will to win… yet we’re the worst thing thats ever happened to the sport

That would be because the media were always so far up Bielsa's backside that they could see the back of his teeth.

[SaintsLoyal]

18 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

Parsons… quite clearly… has to go

Im starting to wonder if Solak is as strong a mind as we were led to believe tbh or even, sorry to say it, but Rasmus… because at what point does someone look at Parsons and believe he is the right man to steer this ship.. commercially perhaps, but not in any pressured position

We should have gone straight to our top lawyers, the best we could buy, in order to protect what we had, we should of got the low down, before Parsons cosied up to Gibson, and ensured that the ship was free of leaks

It all reads as if we went in under the impression we were due a slapped wrist, in fact our entire attitude around it looked like that.. thats unforgivable..

We should of tied the commission up in injuctions and high paid legal council until they buckled, the time pressure was of course, on them and not us

Greg Baker has done all the work commercially to get the bigger names through the door, Parsons has done zilch

Oh hang on....... he actually loves a jolly .. to be continued 

Edited 4 hours ago by SaintsLoyal

[trousers]

5 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Who appointed "Sport Resolutions" and what connections do they have with them? 

The EFL.... ergo, good question! Wouldn't it be 'interesting' if the Middlesbrough CEO (and EFL board member) was involved in the tender process for choosing the company that supplies independent panel members for the EFL...?

We're all unhinged I tell you... UNHINGED!!!

Edited 4 hours ago by trousers

[sfc4prem]

16 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

The biggest thing through this is how Bielsa came out of Spygate 1 as a hero, a trendsetter, a cheeky foreigner with a will to win… yet we’re the worst thing thats ever happened to the sport

The double standards are maddening. 

[tdmickey3]

Just now, sfc4prem said:

The double standards are maddening. 

The double standards are standard

[Harry_SFC]

4 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

Greg Baker has done all the work commercially to get the bigger names through the door, Parsons has done zilch

Oh hang on....... he actually loves a jolly .. to be continued 

Too busy playing golf with Le Tiss 

[Smirking_Saint]

10 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Who appointed "Sport Resolutions" and what connections do they have with them? 

You absolutely guarantee if there were two ex Saints on the board that Gibson would of been spitting feathers

[Window Cleaner]

8 minutes ago, trousers said:

ItS bECAusE tHe RuLeS ChaNGeD!!!!! 

Not just changed, a new rule was instigated to formally outlaw spying on opponents 72 hours from a match with them.

Just cannot understand why some cannot grasp this off the bat and keep on about Bielsa. 

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

48 minutes ago, Draino76 said:

Yep he should really not have been on that panel. He should have recused himself.  This is a clear conflict of intrerest.

Surely there is a legal argument to say that with such a conflict of interest, the panel's decision should be voided. And then you look at the EFL Board and lo and behold isn't there a Middlesbrough director?

Some comments on this site remind me of Hugh Lawrie in Blackadder. He did us like a kipper, jolly good show. Hey ho... Maybe I'm in denial but I see a minor infringement followed by a stitch up has cost us a shot at promotion. If that's the £200m often quoted, then we should be claiming at least half plus other fallout (eg sponsors leave, if players leave that we would otherwise have kept)

Dragan get top money lawyers on the case. Show them you don't mess with Southampton FC.

[trousers]

6 minutes ago, Window Cleaner said:

Not just changed, a new rule was instigated to formally outlaw spying on opponents 72 hours from a match with them.

Just cannot understand why some cannot grasp this off the bat and keep on about Bielsa. 

Much like I can't understand why some cannot grasp that it's possible to compare the crime separately to the rules and punishments.... 

If I murder someone in country A and country B, its still murder whether country A has a rule that imprisons me for 20 years and country B has a different rule that hands down a death penalty. 

Ergo, I'll continue to compare Eckert's and Bielsa's crimes, regardless of what rules they broke and what their punishment are.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by trousers

[Toussaint]

6 minutes ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Surely there is a legal argument to say that with such a conflict of interest, the panel's decision should be voided. And then you look at the EFL Board and lo and behold isn't there a Middlesbrough director?

Some comments on this site remind me of Hugh Lawrie in Blackadder. He did us like a kipper, jolly good show. Hey ho... Maybe I'm in denial but I see a minor infringement followed by a stitch up has cost us a shot at promotion. If that's the £200m often quoted, then we should be claiming at least half plus other fallout (eg sponsors leave, if players leave that we would otherwise have kept)

Dragan get top money lawyers on the case. Show them you don't mess with Southampton FC.

I think the legal arguments are yet to going. 

[sfc4prem]

Just now, trousers said:

Much like I can't understand why some cannot grasp that it's possible to compare the crime separately to the rules and punishments.... 

If I murder someone in country A and country B, its still murder whether country A has a rule that imprisons me for 20 years and country B has a different rule that hands down a death penalty. 

Ergo, I'll continue to compare Eckert's and Bielsa's crimes.

 

Exactly this. The moral standards should be the same.

I really hope we offer some form of litigious onslaught. We've been so fucking passive.

[Window Cleaner]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

Much like I can't understand why some cannot grasp that it's possible to compare the crime separately to the rules and punishments.... 

If I murder someone in country A and country B, its still murder whether country A has a rule that imprisons me for 20 years and country B has a different rule that hands down a death penalty. 

Ergo, I'll continue to compare Eckert's and Bielsa's crimes.

 

Bielsa didn't break a specific rule, therein lies the essence. He was just a very naughty boy.

[Smirking_Saint]

7 minutes ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Surely there is a legal argument to say that with such a conflict of interest, the panel's decision should be voided. And then you look at the EFL Board and lo and behold isn't there a Middlesbrough director?

Some comments on this site remind me of Hugh Lawrie in Blackadder. He did us like a kipper, jolly good show. Hey ho... Maybe I'm in denial but I see a minor infringement followed by a stitch up has cost us a shot at promotion. If that's the £200m often quoted, then we should be claiming at least half plus other fallout (eg sponsors leave, if players leave that we would otherwise have kept)

Dragan get top money lawyers on the case. Show them you don't mess with Southampton FC.

Not now there’s not, the appeal is done and the punishment is sealed, we needed to use this in the hearing

[scumbag]

1 minute ago, Window Cleaner said:

Not just changed, a new rule was instigated to formally outlaw spying on opponents 72 hours from a match with them.

Just cannot understand why some cannot grasp this off the bat and keep on about Bielsa. 

I think it might be because the underlying behaviour, from a morality perspective at least, surely remains the same - it was the behaviour that inspired the rule. And therefore it is mildly irritating to now be preached to by those that had a good laugh about it before (thinking of Mr Winter here and the just 'plant more trees' line).

[trousers]

4 minutes ago, Window Cleaner said:

Bielsa didn't break a specific rule, therein lies the essence. He was just a very naughty boy.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not interested in what rules he did or didn't break🤦🏼

Edited 4 hours ago by trousers

[Smirking_Saint]

7 minutes ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Surely there is a legal argument to say that with such a conflict of interest, the panel's decision should be voided. And then you look at the EFL Board and lo and behold isn't there a Middlesbrough director?

Some comments on this site remind me of Hugh Lawrie in Blackadder. He did us like a kipper, jolly good show. Hey ho... Maybe I'm in denial but I see a minor infringement followed by a stitch up has cost us a shot at promotion. If that's the £200m often quoted, then we should be claiming at least half plus other fallout (eg sponsors leave, if players leave that we would otherwise have kept)

Dragan get top money lawyers on the case. Show them you don't mess with Southampton FC.

Not now there’s not, the appeal is done and the punishment is sealed, we needed to use this in the hearing

[trousers]

1 minute ago, scumbag said:

I think it might be because the underlying behaviour, from a morality perspective at least, surely remains the same - it was the behaviour that inspired the rule. And therefore it is mildly irritating to now be preached to by those that had a good laugh about it before (thinking of Mr Winter here and the just 'plant more trees' line).

Indeed... But the rules.... The rules....!

[skintsaint]

[benjii]

59 minutes ago, James said:

Member of the committee accused of not being independent, says he was independent. What a total non-story, what was he supposed to say? Another ball dropped by Saints IMO, should have pushed for both him and the barrister whose chambers represented Boro a few years ago to be removed. 

Yep, could have helped delay things.

[James G]

I just don't understand why Tonda didn't send someone who didn't work for Saints, like a bloke from the pub

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

Indeed... But the rules.... The rules....!

Exactly. Rules, as my father used to tell me, are for the guidance of the wise but for the obedience of fools.

It is illegal to carry a plank of wood along a pavement unless unloading from a vehicle. You can't blindly follow illogical rules. This 72 hour no scouting rule (which is without a specific punishment) is nonsense. Yes we broke it but a good team of lawyers should rip this apart. 

 

 

[Football Special]

19 minutes ago, Window Cleaner said:

Not just changed, a new rule was instigated to formally outlaw spying on opponents 72 hours from a match with them.

Just cannot understand why some cannot grasp this off the bat and keep on about Bielsa. 

Because the difference in moral outrage over doing the same thing is remarkable 

Edited 4 hours ago by Football Special

[Toussaint]

2 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

Not now there’s not, the appeal is done and the punishment is sealed, we needed to use this in the hearing

I assume he means remedy through court action. 

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, James G said:

I just don't understand why Tonda didn't send someone who didn't work for Saints, like a bloke from the pub

Because that would have been amateurish.... Ah... Hang on...

 

[scumbag]

4 minutes ago, James G said:

I just don't understand why Tonda didn't send someone who didn't work for Saints, like a bloke from the pub

Indeed.  Could of got someone from on here to do it. I've got far nicer jeans than Salty, so would have looked better in the pictures at least.

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Because the difference in moral outrage over doing the same thing is remarkable 

Indeed.... I was beginning to think this was getting complicated....

[MB]

You couldn’t make this shit up.

no challenge whatsoever to the individuals on the panel despite Boro links, if that’s not a conflict of interests then what is

and more to the point why is a case of this magnitude, worth this amount of money, heard remotely on Zoom?

[saintant]

53 minutes ago, James said:

Who knows but imagine for a second that a panel involving a random Saints player from the 90s (I’m going to select Tront Egil Soltvedt) and a retired partner from Paris Smith and Randall (who may not may not have been involved in a matter involving Southampton FC) had given us an unduly lenient punishment. Do we really think Boro would have been OK with that? Really?

Assume that's rhetorical because we're talking Gibbo here 🙂

[Cuddles]

12 minutes ago, James G said:

I just don't understand why Tonda didn't send someone who didn't work for Saints, like a bloke from the pub

Arrogance I guess. We did it x times and nothing happened, so...

[saintant]

53 minutes ago, Adman said:

So the Boro CEO is on the EFL board, who pick the commission, picked  2 people with connections to Boro to decide our fate. And we didn’t object.

How very SR.

We gave Boro the oppo, but that have properly tucked us up. And our lot did nothing.

My learned friend, there remains the question of whether these two people declared their connections to Boro. The defence rests.

[saintant]

34 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

You absolutely guarantee if there were two ex Saints on the board that Gibson would of been spitting feathers

Yeah, Orville's feathers.

[sadoldgit]

25 minutes ago, Window Cleaner said:

Bielsa didn't break a specific rule, therein lies the essence. He was just a very naughty boy.

He spied on opponents before their matches which seems to be the big issue here. Apparently it is a heinous sin. 

[saintant]

36 minutes ago, Window Cleaner said:

Not just changed, a new rule was instigated to formally outlaw spying on opponents 72 hours from a match with them.

Just cannot understand why some cannot grasp this off the bat and keep on about Bielsa. 

Well, for one neither the FA or EFL gave him any kind of suspension for what he admitted to do whilst rubbing their noses in it by explaining how he did it. Some of us just want a level playing field. Not hard to understand surely.

[saintant]

38 minutes ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Surely there is a legal argument to say that with such a conflict of interest, the panel's decision should be voided. And then you look at the EFL Board and lo and behold isn't there a Middlesbrough director?

Some comments on this site remind me of Hugh Lawrie in Blackadder. He did us like a kipper, jolly good show. Hey ho... Maybe I'm in denial but I see a minor infringement followed by a stitch up has cost us a shot at promotion. If that's the £200m often quoted, then we should be claiming at least half plus other fallout (eg sponsors leave, if players leave that we would otherwise have kept)

Dragan get top money lawyers on the case. Show them you don't mess with Southampton FC.

Nah, you're not allowed to even attempt to fight our corner according to some on this forum. Gibbo could come out and say he orchestrated the whole thing to give Boro two shots at the play-offs and some would congratulate him and claim he'd done no wrong (not suggesting that's what he did of course).

[LGTL]

One things for sure, if we really had have dug our heels in, we could have got the hearing delayed until after the final tomorrow, which would have pretty much ruled out Boro of getting anything. I can’t believe how naive we have been both in the spying and the consequent shitfest. 

[saintant]

35 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

I think the legal arguments are yet to going. 

Yeah, I think Pannick's appearance at the appeal was his warm up act just to get him in the game so to speak. Like a coiled spring, at Dragan's say-so, he's about to come out swinging with both fists. You wouldn't want to get in the way of that unless your case is more watertight than a duck's ass.

[saintant]

36 minutes ago, Window Cleaner said:

Bielsa didn't break a specific rule, therein lies the essence. He was just a very naughty boy.

Oh please. You're taking the view of the EFL and journalists at the time now.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

Yeah, I think Pannick's appearance at the appeal was his warm up act just to get him in the game so to speak. Like a coiled spring, at Dragan's say-so, he's about to come out swinging with both fists. You wouldn't want to get in the way of that unless your case is more watertight than a duck's ass.

Played a blinder so far, right?

[saintant]

31 minutes ago, James G said:

I just don't understand why Tonda didn't send someone who didn't work for Saints, like a bloke from the pub

Don't be daft, a random bloke from the pub wouldn't have known what he was doing.

[Lord Duckhunter]

30 minutes ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

It is illegal to carry a plank of wood along a pavement unless unloading from a vehicle.

Get over it you fanny 

[saintant]

23 minutes ago, MB said:

You couldn’t make this shit up.

no challenge whatsoever to the individuals on the panel despite Boro links, if that’s not a conflict of interests then what is

and more to the point why is a case of this magnitude, worth this amount of money, heard remotely on Zoom?

Yeah, that's hardly a watertight way of doing things.

[coalman]

I don't think Saints challenging the make up of the panel would've made much difference. They were sent in to do a job and they did that job. The problem comes because the EFL may need to defend that decision in court. Not against Southampton. Against Hull.

If Hull lose tomorrow they have an argument that they were disadvantaged by the panel as they didn't know who they'd be playing. At which point saying "Southampton didn't complain" is worth fuck all in a court of law. Hull's lawyers will rightly point out that the EFL was responsible for ensuring that any panel was independent yet, even superficial, checks would have highlighted a former Middlesborough player and a lawyer from a firm used by Middlesborough. Both of those people should have recused themselves from the panel if they wanted to ensure that it could be viewed as independent. A failure of professionalism on their part. As the panel were keen to point out in their ruling it's vital that the integrity of the competition is maintained.

If Hull lose they say they didn't have enough time to prepare for Boro. At which point the members of the panel just painted a nice shiny target on themselves. I would respectfully suggest it's a level of stupid unprofessionalism on a par with sending an intern with a camera to stand behind a tree to observe another team's training within 72 hours of a key football fixture. To put it in the language of the judgement "it's hard to see how a panel consisting of people with these connections could pass a decision effectively giving an advantage to Boro against Hull without opening themselves to the accusation of conflict of interest". Especially since Boro were allowed to make a submission to the panel about the outcome they wanted and Hull don't appear to have been invited to do the same.

No, it's not going to change anything for Saints but fucking hell the EFL have utterly messed up here. Particularly if the process of choosing the panel is put under any scrutiny at all. A Boro director on the EFL board that choose an independent panel consisting of a former Boro player, a lawyer whose company does work for Boro and someone else. Good luck with the "I only played one game for Boro and it was a unanimous verdict" defence if that ever goes to court.

Now the EFL have to pray that Hull win the final because this may not go away any time soon.

[saintant]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Get over it you fanny 

Bingo!

[trousers]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

Bingo!

Bugger... You beat me to it and I had "fanny" on my bingo card too! Git!

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Get over it you fanny 

Hey ho, he did us like a kipper. Let's just all lie down and take it!

No, I haven't got over it. We have been cheated out of a spot in the play off final and we need recompense.

[davefizzy14]

15 minutes ago, saintant said:

Yeah, I think Pannick's appearance at the appeal was his warm up act just to get him in the game so to speak. Like a coiled spring, at Dragan's say-so, he's about to come out swinging with both fists. You wouldn't want to get in the way of that unless your case is more watertight than a duck's ass.

This is what I'm hoping. Dragan is onto it. There's no way we can leave this. We should be in the play off final.

Edited 3 hours ago by davefizzy14