Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[trousers]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

No place for common sense and standing up for our club on this forum. You'll be shot down quicker than a Sutkka bomber over London in 1940. Just accept we are the bad boys and the worst of the worst.

Indeed... Woe is me! 😂

That said, I do actually enjoy the forum contrarians... Superb entertainment value for £5/year...

("We're not contrarians, it's just a different opinion, innit")

Edited 1 hour ago by trousers

[saintant]

10 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So what do you think the punishment should have been once the panel decided the play offs were a separate competition & a sporting sanction was appropriate. We seem to have used footballs top lawyer on our appeal,  and he couldn’t get anywhere.  

Horse had already bolted by the time Pannick arrived on the scene. The appeal was mere lip service. 

Edited 1 hour ago by saintant

[James]

Just now, Scummer said:

They should have postponed the semi final as soon as the complaint went in. Then they could have either kicked us out or awarded the first leg as a 3-0 win to Boro (do two legged ties count as one match or two?). They wasted a lot of people's time and money with how they went about this.

Exactly this. The way that the Panel has applied the penalty is completely incoherent. They seem to have said the starting point is a 3 point deduction for every regular season game, with a point back as credit for us complying. The consistent way to apply the same penalty in the playoffs would be to award Boro a 3-0 win in the first game. We would likely have lost anyway but teams have come back from bigger deficits. The way the punishment has been applied to the Playoff game has essentially applied a sanction to the second leg even where there is no allegation of any wrongdoing. You can say that you feel our punishment is “fair” or whatever but these processes are worth millions of pounds and should be done properly. From what we are able to gather about this case, it doesn’t seem like proper procedure has been followed to me. 

[Hopper]

3 minutes ago, saintant said:

No place for common sense and standing up for our club on this forum. You'll be shot down quicker than a Sutkka bomber over London in 1940. Just accept we are the bad boys and the worst of the worst.

There's a difference between standing up the club and standing up for the cheating fucks who put us in this position. That's where I stand. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Hopper

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

Horse had already bolted by the tome Pannick arrived on the scene. The appeal was mere lip service. 

### UNHINGED OPINION KLAXON ###

🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨

Edited 1 hour ago by trousers

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, egg said:

If I understand the trapgate theory, people are saying that one Boro lad helped Salt do what he shouldn't have done, and were waiting for him. Is that that it? 

And passed on to Boro all his information about his time working for Saints which was selectively sent to the EFL.

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Hopper said:

There's a difference between standing up the club and standing up for the cheating fucks who put us in this positions. That's where I stand. 

Haven't seen many, if any, do that. Everyone seems very angry that we've allowed this to go on and the position it's led to. Pointing out the holes in what Boro did is fair enough in my book so not standing up for our cheats I'm actually shining a light on the Boro dirty tricks that I suspect went on. Nothing we did can be exonerated but there are two sides to this.

[Scully]

Zooming out a bit reg 3.4 and the rule of "acting with utmost good faith" is a strange one. Obviously spying on an opponent before a game is going to breach that but what else is considered not acting with utmost good faith in a sporting context? You can probably find instances each and every match of people not acting with utmost good faith. Are those going to warrant point deductions? What are the guidelines? 

[Hopper]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

Haven't seen many, if any, do that. Everyone seems very angry that we've allowed this to go on and the position it's led to. Pointing out the holes in what Boro did is fair enough in my book so not standing up for our cheats I'm actually shining a light on the Boro dirty tricks that I suspect went on. Nothing we did can be exonerated but there are two sides to this.

Feels like there are a lot of people clutching at straws to justify Tonda staying on because of the success we had with him. Maybe I'm misreading that.

Edited 1 hour ago by Hopper

[Sheaf Saint]

13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

As the hearing said, that’s irrelevant. Its advantage sought not gained that mattered. 

Yes, we have been punished for seeking to gain an advantage. I'm coming to terms with that (through gritted teeth, obviously), so the fact that we didn't gain an advantage should not influence the sanction imposed on us.

However, the fact that we didn't gain any material advantage, and our attempt to gain one didn't have any effect on the outcome of the tie, means that the decision for Boro to be 'reinstated' when they lost the tie fair and square, is a fucking carve up. 

Like others have said, that decision to shoe-horn them into the final was obviously made purely as a commercial decision for the EFL to be allowed to proceed with their money-spinning event without having to reschedule it or replay any of the other playoff ties.

By using the argument that we only sought to gain an advantage but didn't get one to justify our expulsion, Boro are in effect negating their case to be given that free pass. 

[saintant]

Just now, Hopper said:

Feels like there are a lot of people clutching at straws to justify Tonda staying on becaquse of the success we had with him. Maybe I'm misreading that.

Yeah, there's been a bit of that but, if we're honest, he's toast and rightfully so.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just now, Scummer said:

They should have postponed the semi final as soon as the complaint went in. Then they could have either kicked us out or awarded the first leg as a 3-0 win to Boro

That’s the only thing they could have done. But most people (me included) assumed that once that tie went ahead we were in the clear in respect of being turfed out. Maybe we should have got ahead of this, admitted everything from day one, and asked for the sanctions to be administered that Sun/Mon. That would have left the option of a 3-0 defeat on the table. Of course the alternative could have been the panel chucked us out anyway. Once that game was played, the Sporting sanctions were either, future ban from play offs, or ???.
 

Part of the sanctions has to be to discourage future transgressions. Now we’re chucked out, nobody will spy in a play off game, had we been playing Sat, what would the deterrent be to stop a team doing it next season. We know in the league will be 3 points per game (reduced under certain circumstances), but what would stop anyone doing it playoffs only had we remained in them? 

[Football Special]

25 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

Non uniform day at our school. Last one we did, a nice number of Saints shirts.

Not one today. The kids don't want the grief.

Do your kids go to same as mine? Really noticed that, saw a few PSG and Arsenal shirts though! 

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

Zooming out a bit reg 3.4 and the rule of "acting with utmost good faith" is a strange one. Obviously spying on an opponent before a game is going to breach that but what else is considered not acting with utmost good faith in a sporting context? You can probably find instances each and every match of people not acting with utmost good faith. Are those going to warrant point deductions? What are the guidelines? 

That’s just a catch all in case a team come up with a way to “cheat” the authorities hadn’t thought of. They can claim there was no rule against it, but will still face a sanction. 

[Oldandtired]

20 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So what do you think the punishment should have been once the panel decided the play offs were a separate competition & a sporting sanction was appropriate. We seem to have used footballs top lawyer on our appeal,  and he couldn’t get anywhere.  

I think the problem was it's an all or nothing situation, not really any halfway house as far as I can see, so nowhere to go on it.. 

You're either in the playoffs or you're not.

[SNSUN]

59 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Genius by the club to be fair. Nobody's talking about the 9 Nils now are they? And our global exposure is the best it's ever been!

Hmmmmm, now what crimes can we actually commit that will stop people talking about the spying...

Actually maybe don't answer that. 😁

[James]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That’s the only thing they could have done. But most people (me included) assumed that once that tie went ahead we were in the clear in respect of being turfed out. Maybe we should have got ahead of this, admitted everything from day one, and asked for the sanctions to be administered that Sun/Mon. That would have left the option of a 3-0 defeat on the table. Of course the alternative could have been the panel chucked us out anyway. Once that game was played, the Sporting sanctions were either, future ban from play offs, or ???.
 

Part of the sanctions has to be to discourage future transgressions. Now we’re chucked out, nobody will spy in a play off game, had we been playing Sat, what would the deterrent be to stop a team doing it next season. We know in the league will be 3 points per game (reduced under certain circumstances), but what would stop anyone doing it playoffs only had we remained in them? 

The point is, the EFL and the Independent Commission have completely messed up any semblance of a fair procedure. Usually a club has a 14 day right to respond and a similar amount of time to appeal, most other of the cases cited even in the judgement took weeks to resolve rather than days. We are guilty, no question of that, but it’s the EFL that put the commission in a position where the only sanction that would satisfy the outside noise was expulsion. In my view, that doesn’t constitute a fair process. I think we’ve been treated incredibly harshly and will continue to believe that, notwithstanding the offences of our coaching staff which are clear. 

[trousers]

Just now, SNSUN said:

Hmmmmm, now what crimes can we actually commit that will stop people talking about the spying...

Actually maybe don't answer that. 😁

I'm struggling to think of a more heinous crime than being unhinged on a football forum at the moment... Will get back to you if I think of one... 

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Do your kids go to same as mine? Really noticed that, saw a few PSG and Arsenal shirts though! 

Then its on you and @Colinjb to teach them a bit of resilience, life is shit and doesn't always go the way you want it, get up, show up, be proud. Sort it out lads. My kids only allowed 4 shirts, Saints, Napoli, England and Harrogate Town.

Edited 1 hour ago by Turkish

[Lord Duckhunter]

6 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

means that the decision for Boro to be 'reinstated' when they lost the tie fair and square, is a fucking carve up. 

There was absolutely zero chance the EFL would promote Hull and give up their most important game, anymore than the FA would give up the FA final or FIFA the World Cup final if semi final winner had cheated. No chance whatsoever, it wasn’t a Middlesbrough thing. Had Hull been the ones cheating, we’d be facing Millwall tomorrow 

[LeBizzier69]

Are people going to watch the final tomorrow? Honestly not sure i can, probably a lengthy dog walk instead...just watching the Boro fans loving their day out, along with the non-stop spygate references, not to mention if they win it and go up. 

[James]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

There was absolutely zero chance the EFL would promote Hull and give up their most important game, anymore than the FA would give up the FA final or FIFA the World Cup final if semi final winner had cheated. No chance whatsoever, it wasn’t a Middlesbrough thing. Had Hull been the ones cheating, we’d be facing Millwall tomorrow 

Completely, but that doesn’t make it the right decision from the perspective of punishing a rule breach, it makes it an understandable commercial decision but not one that should be relevant if a fair procedure is followed. 

[Colinjb]

8 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Do your kids go to same as mine? Really noticed that, saw a few PSG and Arsenal shirts though! 

If you are in Basingstoke, it's possible.

We have a huge variety here. 

[StrangelyBrown]

A Hull win is the "right" thing for all concerned, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Gibbo the prick will try and sue us or the EFL if Karen FC don't go up.

[saintant]

2 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

Are people going to watch the final tomorrow? Honestly not sure i can, probably a lengthy dog walk instead...just watching the Boro fans loving their day out, along with the non-stop spygate references, not to mention if they win it and go up. 

Might see what the result is at full time and, if Boro have lost (hopefully), stick the box on and watch the tears flow.

[mss636]

1 minute ago, LeBizzier69 said:

Are people going to watch the final tomorrow? Honestly not sure i can, probably a lengthy dog walk instead...just watching the Boro fans loving their day out, along with the non-stop spygate references, not to mention if they win it and go up. 

No, I'd rather cut my fingers off that watch Karenborough fans enjoy their gifted day out in our hot southern sun.  I hope they all burn redder than their shirts and get sunstroke!

[Colinjb]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Then its on you and @Colinjb to teach them a bit of resilience, life is shit and doesn't always go the way you want it, get up, show up, be proud. Sort it out lads. My kids only allowed 4 shirts, Saints, Napoli, England and Harrogate Town.

Don't you worry about us teaching resilience.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Football Special said:

Fucking hell clearly.its not like that,  Middlesbrough realised they stood to GAIN from the situation and have benefited from it

 

And the cop let the drunk get in his car and drive off.

Middlesbrough waited for Salt to get into position and get his phone out before trying to collar him. No spying actually took place.

Not that it matters.

[Whitey Grandad]

57 minutes ago, LordHester said:

Why would they have taken recording equipment if that was the only aim?

Where did you get that from? Any 'recording equipment' was his mobile phone. 

[Whitey Grandad]

43 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

🤣🤣🤣🤣

The reaction in here is anything but normal, it’s unhinged. 

Unhinged is the new normal. 

[Saint Fan CaM]

31 minutes ago, trousers said:

It's almost as if some posters put their 'moral superiority' over the natural instinct of a supporter to be inquisitive and/or sceptical about the wider context. (And, yes, of course there's an element of bias and/or 'Saints tinted glasses' in this, but show me a football fan that isn't biased towards their club in some shape or form... Unless you're trying to look 'clever' on a football forum of course... )

Exactly. Didn’t stop Boro (and other club) fans giving it large when the story first broke without all the facts…one rule etc.

Some points to add to the mix…

1. Boro have effectively used ‘EntrapGate’ to extract our shit from the general huge pile of stinking shit that is endemic cheating in football, including the use of a community of junior interns to go on ‘scouting expeditions’ to other clubs. It feels like Saints have attempted to protect most of the other clubs in the league by not ratting.

2. I don’t entirely buy the narrative that Eckhert bullied Salt. An equally sound theory is the lad got taken in by the Boro friendly ex-Saints coach, went to Eckhert/Spors for approval for a field trip and it was given. To save his own rep the lad then claimed under duress that he was bullied into the job. Eckhert said he knew of the ‘spying’…not that he bullied him into doing it.  Did Salt complain when he went to Oxford?

Lastly, my position on this whole sorry saga is that I’m more angry with the ineptitude of the club’s senior management team for allowing Boro to use a clearly manufactured story, allowing the EFL to be steered by Boro and willingly gifting them success on a plate by Parsons idiocy and a weak legal team, than I am with the club ‘spying’ when it’s reportedly an overlooked, commonly used practice across modern pro football worldwide.

A scapegoat or two will be sacrificed on the alter of Boro’s media outrage undoubtedly. I kind of hope Boro win and that triggers a Hull/Wrexham/Millwall/Saints lawsuit that rinses the EFL and Boro, with their cronies being dragged through the dirt. Now that would be true justice.

[EssEffCee]

10 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

And the cop let the drunk get in his car and drive off.

Middlesbrough waited for Salt to get into position and get his phone out before trying to collar him. No spying actually took place.

Not that it matters.

It did take place as we had footage. This was the thing we lied about on the day of the charge.

Tonda's defence was that none of the footage was useful.

[Divergent]

If Tonda had any decency he would have resigned by now. 

[SNSUN]

17 minutes ago, LeBizzier69 said:

Are people going to watch the final tomorrow? Honestly not sure i can, probably a lengthy dog walk instead...just watching the Boro fans loving their day out, along with the non-stop spygate references, not to mention if they win it and go up. 

Nah mate, they're refunding my ticket. 😁

But seriously I will be getting heavily wankered on booze in Reading with my mate enjoying the weather in some pub gardens, before gorging myself on Steak and Red Wine in the evening. If anything I'm looking forward to this more than had I been off to Wembley tomorrow.

[SNSUN]

22 minutes ago, trousers said:

I'm struggling to think of a more heinous crime than being unhinged on a football forum at the moment... Will get back to you if I think of one... 

Work is busy today, I'll catch up on the mayhem later. 😁

[egg]

1 hour ago, tdmickey3 said:

Some truth in that but the fact remains, the punishment was ridiculously harsh and everyone knows it but wont admit it 

What sporting sanction could they have given that would have impacted us next season, assuming we went up? The reality is that there wasn't one, hence the one we got. 

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

Don't you worry about us teaching resilience.

I do, medals for taking part, positive scores for doing your homework on time, kick off enough get special treatment as you've obviously got some sort of issue. The entitled generation and you can see why.

[egg]

46 minutes ago, saintant said:

Horse had already bolted by the time Pannick arrived on the scene. The appeal was mere lip service. 

Changing counsel on an appeal 24 Hours later suggests that the previous counsel was properly shit. 

[trousers]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

What sporting sanction could they have given that would have impacted us next season, assuming we went up? The reality is that there wasn't one, hence the one we got. 

Just because there wasn't a "fairer" sanction available, doesn't necessarily mean the sanction given was "fair"....

Edited 46 minutes ago by trousers

[LegalEagle]

38 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Do your kids go to same as mine? Really noticed that, saw a few PSG and Arsenal shirts though! 

If my son hadn’t supported Saints I would have disowned him. One of his Mum’s friends bought him a Man Utd shirt when he was about 4. When no one was looking I wiped my arse with it and stuck it in the bin.

[Dirkdiggler]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

Given the ineptitude of our leadership, I admire your confidence in their ability to have done what Gibson and co did! I'd put a sizeable wedge on us also f***ing things up had the boot was on the other foot... 

But  we wouldn’t of surely as we have come out as part of our “defence” that didn’t consider scouting/spying to be a bad thing and apparently our manager didn’t know it was against the rules 🤣🤣🤣 

Our handling of this has been amateurish from the start!

Boro obviously had knowledge we had been doing this so would’ve been on alert of anyone suspicious hanging around the training facility and low and behold we turned up as expected and they acted accordingly.

Gathered their evidence contacted other teams and had us bang to rights! 
 

Fans have looked stupid trying to stick up for the club during this mainly due to the club not being honest from the start ffs they tried lying off the bat to the EFL when questioned. 
 

Whether Boros tactics in the media were correct or not it’s saints who have done this to themselves no other club has set this up we decided to scout/spy when we shouldn’t have been and sad as it is that our fault and the punishment has been dealt out.

[scumbag]

1 hour ago, Saint Since '51 said:

Middlesborough knowing that there had been an incident involving Oxford on 7th May - the same day that we spied on them - is a striking revelation in the Disciplinary Panel's written report. It is difficult to explain.

It would be interesting to know - from a reliable named source - how they came by that information. Not knowing how they knew has fuelled conspiracy theories which speculate that they knew about Oxford before May 7th and set a trap for us.

Just for clarity, there are two aspects of this mystery which are being misrepresented by some posts above.

1. The written report says "MFC were made aware of this (the Oxford incident) on 7th May ..." It doesn't say how they knew or what time they 'were made aware' but it does suggest that they did not know before 7th May. 
2. Knowledge of our spying on Middlesborough was in the public realm from late afternoon on 7th May. [I've seen a Mail Online post timed at 5.47pm].

I'm not saying that the conspiracy theories are right or wrong, only that it is quite possible that someone inside or outside MFC told them about the Oxford incident after our spying became common knowledge. 

They cant possibly have known about Oxford before Salt showed up. After all, we know that all Boro care about is the integrity of the game right? So they would have submitted any evidence to the EFL at that point for the good of the game, not after...

[bangkoksaint]

This thread is just rinse and repeat now. Probably healthier for everyone if it’s closed and we look to move on

[RedArmy]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Changing counsel on an appeal 24 Hours later suggests that the previous counsel was properly shit. 

It’s Saints all over to try and do it on the cheap to begin with before actually spending the money required to get the correct people in place. 

If Pannick was available he should have been involved from day 1. 
 

[Sheaf Saint]

40 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There was absolutely zero chance the EFL would promote Hull and give up their most important game, anymore than the FA would give up the FA final or FIFA the World Cup final if semi final winner had cheated. No chance whatsoever, it wasn’t a Middlesbrough thing. Had Hull been the ones cheating, we’d be facing Millwall tomorrow 

I get all that.

Doesn't make it right though. 

[Dirkdiggler]

17 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

If my son hadn’t supported Saints I would have disowned him. One of his Mum’s friends bought him a Man Utd shirt when he was about 4. When no one was looking I wiped my arse with it and stuck it in the bin.

🤣 My lad when he was younger asked for a Liverpool shirt for his birthday!

He never got it and has been a saints fan since 😆

[egg]

20 minutes ago, trousers said:

Just because there wasn't a "fairer" sanction available, doesn't necessarily mean the sanction given was "fair"....

That's a different question.

The simple question is what sporting sanction was available that would have had an impact that would have bitten in the event of promotion?

If it wasn't expulsion, it effectively meant no actual sporting sanction. 

Should we have avoided a sporting sanction for a sporting offence? 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That’s the only thing they could have done. But most people (me included) assumed that once that tie went ahead we were in the clear in respect of being turfed out. Maybe we should have got ahead of this, admitted everything from day one, and asked for the sanctions to be administered that Sun/Mon. That would have left the option of a 3-0 defeat on the table. Of course the alternative could have been the panel chucked us out anyway. Once that game was played, the Sporting sanctions were either, future ban from play offs, or ???.
 

Part of the sanctions has to be to discourage future transgressions. Now we’re chucked out, nobody will spy in a play off game, had we been playing Sat, what would the deterrent be to stop a team doing it next season. We know in the league will be 3 points per game (reduced under certain circumstances), but what would stop anyone doing it playoffs only had we remained in them? 

Of course the club is in disgrace but I don't think we should underplay how appallingly the EFL, who one assume should act in the interest of supporters have handled everything. Once the infringement had been identified the semi final should have been suspended until the situation was addressed.

The EFL even let us buy tickets, book hotels and organise transport for the final. Many of us thought that they could not throw us out having let it get that far. Somebody at the EFL should be accountable for the shameful way the supporters have been treated.

[trousers]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a different question.

The simple question is what sporting sanction was available that would have had an impact that would have bitten in the event of promotion?

If it wasn't expulsion, it effectively meant no actual sporting sanction. 

Should we have avoided a sporting sanction for a sporting offence? 

The obvious answer is 'yes' of course.

IMO, the "fairer" sporting sanction would have been for the first leg to have been awarded 3-0 to Middlesbrough (before the second leg was played), but then we get into discussions of how ineptly the EFL (c/o Gibson) have handled the whole situation...

Edited 15 minutes ago by trousers

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So what do you think the punishment should have been once the panel decided the play offs were a separate competition & a sporting sanction was appropriate. We seem to have used footballs top lawyer on our appeal,  and he couldn’t get anywhere.  

The panel including someone with a boro link you mean.

Points and a fine HTH.

What do you think the punishment should be for overspending and breaking the rules, should they be thrown out of the league?