Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[ChrisPY]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Another option. I also thought EFL cup ban for a few seasons. I'm genuinely interested in hearing options in this, and would like to know the position the club took. 

Appreciate it wouldn’t have been a direct sporting sanction (although would create a future sporting disadvantage) but think it was an opportunity for a significant financial fine based on sporting success. Something like 10% of turnover in the next financial year. Believe If we’d have been promoted, it’d dwarf any other punishment in UK football history and sets a precedent that could then be used across other footballing laws, not just the ones we’d broken.

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, westmidlandsaint said:

Maybe Mr Winnie didn't like me questioning whether as an independent panel member he should writing about this case and self promoting and questioning whether he was 'acting in good faith' on LinkedIn

Ha! That was you was it? I did wonder if it was anyone on here

[SouSaint]

Still feeling incredibly bitter towards the club for this. 

Fuck the lot of them. 

[coalman]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

The crux for me is that we were sanctioned upon the outcome of two games (both semi final legs) rather than for the single game we attempted to spy for (the first leg) for. This is why, for me, any sanction should have only applied to the first leg and not the second leg, hence the suggestions along the lines of forfeiting or replaying the first leg or having a further one off knock out match, would have been a "fairer"  approach. Of course, given that could / would have dangered the date of the final, the EFL were never going to entertain a possible fairer solution in favour of preserving their timetable...

Not sure the panel gets to make that recommendation. Their job is to decide the sporting sanction against Southampton, not how the EFL runs their competition. 

[Football Special]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

Was there a point amongst the rant mate? 

There wasn't a conflict of interests. 

Lol well at least the hearing was just to decide on our punishment and nothing to do with Middlesbrough 

[trousers]

20 minutes ago, coalman said:

Not sure the panel gets to make that recommendation. Their job is to decide the sporting sanction against Southampton, not how the EFL runs their competition. 

Fair enough... I'm just thinking out loud on possible "fairer" options that the EFL and/or the commission *could* have come up with at various points in the whole timeline... To be honest, I've got no idea what I'm talking about most of the time.... I think I've just about got away with it though.... 

Edited 1 hour ago by trousers

[westmidlandsaint]

6 minutes ago, trousers said:

Ha! That was you was it? I did wonder if it was anyone on here

Quiet afternoon in the office and when it popped up I couldn't help myself 

[BotleySaint]

7 minutes ago, SouSaint said:

Still feeling incredibly bitter towards the club for this. 

Fuck the lot of them. 

I think it'll last until they start to put things right.

We are all now waiting to see what their next move will be. We need something to hold onto and build hope on for next season.

[coalman]

4 minutes ago, trousers said:

Fair enough... I'm just thinking out loud on possible "fairer" options that the EFL and/or the commission *could* have come up with at various points in the whole timeline... To be honest, I got no idea what I'm talking about most of the time.... I think I've just about got away with it though.... 

I think that's all of us 😉

[SouSaint]

2 minutes ago, BotleySaint said:

I think it'll last until they start to put things right.

We are all now waiting to see what their next move will be. We need something to hold onto and build hope on for next season.

Them putting it right will probably be announcing a freeze on ticket prices. They will misread the room, like they always do. 

[Mr X]

15 minutes ago, SouSaint said:

Still feeling incredibly bitter towards the club for this. 

Fuck the lot of them. 

What's annoying is if supporters want to continue they will be giving these absolute clowns more money allowing them to make even more off the scale terrible decisions!.... They have no intention of really saying sorry to fans and it's all corporate waffle..... It should be bloody well free to attend games next season! 

Edited 1 hour ago by Mr X

[LegalEagle]

8 minutes ago, westmidlandsaint said:

Quiet afternoon in the office and when it popped up I couldn't help myself 

I will have a pop as well

[egg]

32 minutes ago, It's There said:

I would agree, except , in this instance. the EFL should have been wiser and not given a whiff of conflict. Personally, I think there may be a challenge about the panel (not the outcome) and the forced speed of the process.

There'd have to be a serious irregularity to challenge, and bias would be a foot in the door. It doesn't come close for me though, although I'd hope to be wrong. 

[trousers]

15 minutes ago, trousers said:

Fair enough... I'm just thinking out loud on possible "fairer" options that the EFL and/or the commission *could* have come up with at various points in the whole timeline... To be honest, I've got no idea what I'm talking about most of the time.... I think I've just about got away with it though.... 

 

11 minutes ago, coalman said:

I think that's all of us 😉

Yeah, but it's fun interacting with the handful of morally superior posters on here when they put us numbskulls in our place....

[Smirking_Saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

There'd have to be a serious irregularity to challenge, and bias would be a foot in the door. It doesn't come close for me though, although I'd hope to be wrong. 

Is it not too late to challenge now ?

[Willo of Whiteley]

9 minutes ago, BotleySaint said:

I think it'll last until they start to put things right.

We are all now waiting to see what their next move will be. We need something to hold onto and build hope on for next season.

I agree.

I feel so bitter, resentful, angry and disappointed.

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, egg said:

There'd have to be a serious irregularity to challenge, and bias would be a foot in the door. It doesn't come close for me though, although I'd hope to be wrong. 

Playing for the club that directly benefited from the punishment is of course a huge irregularity and it obviously shouldn’t have happened. IMO. 

[Mboto Gorge]

Mr Winnie sounds very defensive doesn’t he, almost like he knows it’s suspicious but was hoping it wouldnt have been picked up on. Maybe, just maybe, it would’ve been wise for the panel to consist of people who didn’t have prior dealings with Middlesbrough FC; given they’re the club who brought this complaint to the EFL’s attention. Otherwise there was always a very good chance this would be questioned? Was it too much to ask that 2/3rds of an “independent “ panel , hadn’t had previous affiliations with the football club pursuing a very serious far reaching complains against us? Fucking joke in my eyes 

Edited 1 hour ago by Mboto Gorge

[Mboto Gorge]

The fact no one at our club bothered to question it either says it all. Probably didn’t bother researching their backgrounds. Vintage SR

[Willo of Whiteley]

The guy who was/is part of Middlesbrough was common knowledge beforehand.

It’s all over socials.

It’s not news, and most importantly won’t make any difference so it’s pointless having that discussion

[CB Fry]

4 minutes ago, Mboto Gorge said:

Mr Winnie sounds very defensive doesn’t he, almost like he knows it’s suspicious but was hoping it wouldnt have been picked up on. Maybe, just maybe, it would’ve been wise for the panel to consist of people who didn’t have prior dealings with Middlesbrough FC; given they’re the club who brought this complaint to the EFL’s attention. Otherwise there was always a very good chance this would be questioned? Was it too much to ask that 2/3rds of an “independent “ panel , hadn’t had previous affiliations with the football club pursuing a very serious far reaching complains against us? Fucking joke in my eyes 

Let us know what this guy could possibly do or say that would not have you saying that he sounds suspicious.

[AlexLaw76]

I wish the club made a 4 act play over it, instead behaving like son-in-laws

would have made no difference though, but would have been more interesting 

[ludgershallsaint]

2 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Let us know what this guy could possibly do or say that would not have you saying that he sounds suspicious.

I think it was unwise to have this guy involved.  Must be plenty of people appropriately qualified who have no previous connection with Boro.  It’s just optics

[Graffito]

28 minutes ago, trousers said:

Fair enough... I'm just thinking out loud on possible "fairer" options that the EFL and/or the commission *could* have come up with at various points in the whole timeline... To be honest, I've got no idea what I'm talking about most of the time.... I think I've just about got away with it though.... 

Southampton Football Club take note - this is how you do humility. 

[Mboto Gorge]

2 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Let us know what this guy could possibly do or say that would not have you saying that he sounds suspicious.

I said he sounds defensive , which he does. And I meant his appointment could raise suspicions which he was probably aware of before he was appointed to the panel, but was hoping it wouldn’t get noticed, but now it has. So he’s felt the need to come out and defend himself. As I said, it would’ve probably been better to have someone on the panel with zero Middlesbrough connections

[CB Fry]

1 minute ago, ludgershallsaint said:

I think it was unwise to have this guy involved.  Must be plenty of people appropriately qualified who have no previous connection with Boro.  It’s just optics

It's displacement/distraction nonsense.

If Tonda hadn't sent an intern out to spy on Middlesbrough we'd be at Wembley tomorrow.

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Playing for the club that directly benefited from the punishment is of course a huge irregularity and it obviously shouldn’t have happened. IMO. 

It certainly wasn't wise and that the optics don't look good, but it isn't a serious enough irregularity to bypass the arbitration only agreement we have with the EFL imo. 

[ludgershallsaint]

Just now, CB Fry said:

It's displacement/distraction nonsense.

If Tonda hadn't sent an intern out to spy on Middlesbrough we'd be at Wembley tomorrow.

We both agree on that

[Whitey Grandad]

59 minutes ago, trousers said:

Only two months in total...

That's enough. 

[Osvaldorama]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

It certainly wasn't wise and that the optics don't look good, but it isn't a serious enough irregularity to bypass the arbitration only agreement we have with the EFL imo. 

I do agree that it’s minor, but then I also think spying on Boro’s training was minor so it’s all about how you play the hand you’re dealt.  
We *could* have been smart and hammered them in the press for stuff like this.  
I doubt it would change anything, but at least the optics would shift from “Southampton FC should be thrown into the sun” to something a bit more pallatable 

[trousers]

Any guesses / hunches / ITK info on why the club has gone to ground again today and why no immediate action has been taken against those involved (if only interim suspensions rather than outright dismissal)?

I think most of us expected heads to roll 'instantly'... But, no... Not a dickie bird...

- something to do with due process on employment rights?

- the club are still thinking about a legal appeal, and don't want to prejudice that?

- they're inept and don't have a clue?

- they need to mop down the boardroom first to clear up the carnage Dragan left in a wake of rage earlier?

- something else? 

Edited 40 minutes ago by trousers

[ChrisPY]

13 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

The guy who was/is part of Middlesbrough was common knowledge beforehand.

It’s all over socials.

It’s not news, and most importantly won’t make any difference so it’s pointless having that discussion

You’re thinking of the man on the EFL board, not the one on the independent panel.

[Mr X]

4 minutes ago, ChrisPY said:

You’re thinking of the man on the EFL board, not the one on the independent panel.

There was someone with links to borough on the independent one?? What kind of link? 

[Appy]

6 minutes ago, trousers said:

Any guesses / hunches / ITK info on why the club has gone to ground again today and why no immediate action has been taken against those involved (if only interim suspensions rather than outright dismissal)?

I think most of us expected heads to roll 'instantly'... But, no... Not a dickie bird...

- something to do with due process on employment rights?

- the club are still thinking about a legal appeal, and don't want to prejudice that?

- they're inept and don't have a clue?

- they need to mop down the boardroom first to clear up the carnage Dragan left in a wake of rage earlier?

- something else? 

Unfortunately I expect we’re waiting on The FA to take action, that’ll probably play into us sacking Tonda with zero payoff. 

[trousers]

1 minute ago, Appy said:

Unfortunately I expect we’re waiting on The FA to take action, that’ll probably play into us sacking Tonda with zero payoff. 

Ah, yeah, forgot about that option 👍🏻

[Willo of Whiteley]

8 minutes ago, trousers said:

Any guesses / hunches / ITK info on why the club has gone to ground again today and why no immediate action has been taken against those involved (if only interim suspensions rather than outright dismissal)?

I think most of us expected heads to roll 'instantly'... But, no... Not a dickie bird...

- something to do with due process on employment rights?

- the club are still thinking about a legal appeal, and don't want to prejudice that?

- they're inept and don't have a clue?

- they need to mop down the boardroom first to clear up the carnage Dragan left in a wake of rage earlier?

- something else? 

I imagine everyone is looking at each other unsure as to who does what 😂

It would be very fitting.

[Gloucester Saint]

4 minutes ago, Appy said:

Unfortunately I expect we’re waiting on The FA to take action, that’ll probably play into us sacking Tonda with zero payoff. 

The type of strong, decisive and effective leadership which is a hallmark of Sports Republic and Dragan Solak*

*I am being ironic, just in case some posters weren’t sure…

 

Edited 32 minutes ago by Gloucester Saint

[trousers]

I'm not sure that citing Southampton's crack legal team for the initial hearing is quite the gotcha he thinks it is...?

[ChrisPY]

4 minutes ago, Mr X said:

There was someone with links to borough on the independent one?? What kind of link? 

Depends how you want to spin it.

Played as a professional footballer for Middlesbrough after being signed by the club part owned by Steve Gibson.

Or, played a single game on loan at Middlesbrough over 30 years ago and has since become a legal professional with no strong ties to the club.

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

I imagine everyone is looking at each other unsure as to who does what 😂

It would be very fitting.

I feel another Spiderman meme in my waters...

[EssEffCee]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

It certainly wasn't wise and that the optics don't look good, but it isn't a serious enough irregularity to bypass the arbitration only agreement we have with the EFL imo. 

Agree with this.

I strongly doubt it made a difference and that he showed any bias but you'd think in a case with this publicity and the magnitude of the sanction they'd want to avoid even the suggestion.

Like I say I don't think it made any difference but we definitely should have challenged it at the time if only to try and delay things.

[Cuddles]

15 minutes ago, trousers said:

Any guesses / hunches / ITK info on why the club has gone to ground again today and why no immediate action has been taken against those involved (if only interim suspensions rather than outright dismissal)?

I think most of us expected heads to roll 'instantly'... But, no... Not a dickie bird...

- something to do with due process on employment rights?

- the club are still thinking about a legal appeal, and don't want to prejudice that?

- they're inept and don't have a clue?

- they need to mop down the boardroom first to clear up the carnage Dragan left in a wake of rage earlier?

- something else? 

Just sorting the injunction to stop the final, obvs.

[trousers]

1 minute ago, EssEffCee said:

Agree with this.

I strongly doubt it made a difference and that he showed any bias but you'd think in a case with this publicity and the magnitude of the sanction they'd want to avoid even the suggestion.

Like I say I don't think it made any difference but we definitely should have challenged it at the time if only to try and delay things.

Yep, I don't think anyone is suggesting that any actual bias was likely but agree we should/could have used it to our advantage.... You can bet your bottom dollar Gibson and/or his legal team would've tried to capitalise on it if they were in our shoes...

[egg]

39 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Playing for the club that directly benefited from the punishment is of course a huge irregularity and it obviously shouldn’t have happened. IMO. 

There's no point in carrying on the discussion mate. If the club agree, there'll challenge, and if you're correct, the problem will be solved. 

[Saint86]

36 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I wish the club made a 4 act play over it, instead behaving like son-in-laws

would have made no difference though, but would have been more interesting 

Son in law approach is a good summation. Having cocked up the handling of the entire thing, we now seem to have allowed Blackmore to become our public face and conscience... Which sadly is another error as he's just running around attacking the club, condemning Eckert for bullying (with no actual evidence as yet), and calling the club morally repugnant in seemingly every interview / peice he does. None of which is helping the club and is in fact doing the opposite - we need to stop feeding the media scrum and try to stabilise the club and take our own action. The media has already had more than it's pound of flesh, and the club's BBC correspondent doesn't need to keep feeding it with more negative takes about the club.

Edited 17 minutes ago by Saint86

[Mboto Gorge]

26 minutes ago, Mr X said:

There was someone with links to borough on the independent one?? What kind of link? 

There was actually 2 , also a solicitor who’d previously acted for Middlesbrough in at least 2 different cases. 

Edited 11 minutes ago by Mboto Gorge

[AlexLaw76]

This is getting daft

Its over, just accept it and do your best to move beyond the denial phase

Just kid yourself that we lost in the playoffs and the next season is only 44 games.

 

 

[Saint Billy]

I'm assuming this is referring to Tonda as top down.

Southampton's spying on rival clubs was authorised by head coach Tonda Eckert and was a "contrived and determined plan from the top down", an independent disciplinary commission ruled.

[Harry_SFC]

1 minute ago, Saint Billy said:

I'm assuming this is referring to Tonda as top down.

Southampton's spying on rival clubs was authorised by head coach Tonda Eckert and was a "contrived and determined plan from the top down", an independent disciplinary commission ruled.

It's a bit misleading really isn't it.

To me that reads as Owners downwards. When in reality it was Tonda (maybe Spors?) downwards. 

[saintant]

1 hour ago, westmidlandsaint said:

Maybe Mr Winnie didn't like me questioning whether as an independent panel member he should writing about this case and self promoting and questioning whether he was 'acting in good faith' on LinkedIn

Winnies gonna get you, Winnies gonna get you....