#Spygate

[Holmes_and_Watson]

22 minutes ago, Bazzyfryer said:

I might be missing something but if we have to stay in the Championship get docked points and get a massive fine we could be looking at a large number of players leaving plus the possibility of Emery as well not encouraging 

It will free up time for him to focus on Villa's Champions League games. 🙂

 

(Sorry. Couldn't resist)

[sfc4prem]

2 minutes ago, SW11_Saint said:

From today’s Sunday Times… 

Interesting and worrying… so the FA could pick up charges against us after the EFL commission. Also worrying the EFL have the power to review phone/text records… (but wouldn’t they have already done that if the deadline is Tuesday?). Increasingly thinking we’ll have someone else at the helm next season, even if temporarily. 

Or its just sensationalist journalism to keep the widespread interest attended to with column inches.

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, SW11_Saint said:

From today’s Sunday Times… 

Interesting and worrying… so the FA could pick up charges against us after the EFL commission. Also worrying the EFL have the power to review phone/text records… (but wouldn’t they have already done that if the deadline is Tuesday?). Increasingly thinking we’ll have someone else at the helm next season, even if temporarily. 

A puff piece full of nothing more than idle speculation and ends up drawing a parallel to West Ham playing illegal players.

Weak lazy jounalistic tripe.

Edited 3 hours ago by badgerx16

[SW11_Saint]

1 minute ago, sfc4prem said:

Or its just sensationalist journalism to keep the widespread interest attended to with column inches.

Not sure the ST or Zeigler are particularly ‘sensationalist’. 

[Dr Who?]

Did I miss the page 100 celebrations? 

[SW11_Saint]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

A puff piece full of nothing more than idle speculation and ends up drawing a parallel to West Ham playing illegal players.

Weak lazy jounalistic tripe.

Well, I guess we’ll find out. 

[Matthew Le God]

14 minutes ago, SW11_Saint said:

From today’s Sunday Times… 

Interesting and worrying… so the FA could pick up charges against us after the EFL commission. Also worrying the EFL have the power to review phone/text records… (but wouldn’t they have already done that if the deadline is Tuesday?). Increasingly thinking we’ll have someone else at the helm next season, even if temporarily. 

I lost count of the ifs, buts and maybes in that article. A purely speculative fluff piece with little to no substance!

Edited 2 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[Holmes_and_Watson]

8 minutes ago, Dr Who? said:

Did I miss the page 100 celebrations? 

You did!

There was a table with a cake. Everyone spied on it from 100 yards away, taking the odd phone pic.

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, SW11_Saint said:

Well, I guess we’ll find out. 

At the same time the journos do.

[trousers]

19 minutes ago, James G said:

It's a curious post, with the red emoji

There's some hidden message in there for sure

Maybe the subliminal message is: "we beat Boro due to our better fitness levels rather than due to 'Spygate' and we've received word that that's the conclusion the panel will come to..."

Or maybe not 😁

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[Fabrice29]

I see the sports lawyer that was on talk sport the other day suggesting being kicked out was excessive is slowly changing his mind on that.

[obelisk]

Nice to see Sky Sports advertising Hull City v. Southampton on Saturday.

[obelisk]

15 minutes ago, Dr Who? said:

Did I miss the page 100 celebrations? 

Page 101 much more interesting.

[badgerx16]

Just now, Fabrice29 said:

I see the sports lawyer that was on talk sport the other day suggesting being kicked out was excessive is slowly changing his mind on that.

He knows as much as anybody else outside the members of the panel.

[Matthew Le God]

29 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Shut up you twat 

Because you were asked for clarification as what you said doesn't appear to be true. 

[Toadhall Saint]

3 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

I see the sports lawyer that was on talk sport the other day suggesting being kicked out was excessive is slowly changing his mind on that.

You’d love that wouldn’t you

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

I see the sports lawyer that was on talk sport the other day suggesting being kicked out was excessive is slowly changing his mind on that.

 

[Fabrice29]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

He knows as much as anybody else outside the members of the panel.

Obviously. 

4 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

You’d love that wouldn’t you

No? 😂

[johnnyboy]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

 

I wrote on Saturday that my best guess was that Southampton would be deducted six EFL points in their next EFL season and fined £500k-£1m.

https://x.com/slbsn/status/2055184483783934150?s=20

.

I felt, instinctively, that expulsion from such a big game was excessive and disproportionate. However, there are some technical points that would worry me as a Southampton fan. Worse than that, the key ones were considered recently by an EFL Disciplinary Commission in EFL v Swindon (

https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/f1a33090-1191-11f1-a071-51ac3b681d4e.pdf

)

Liability is not the battleground

Liability is unlikely to be seriously contested. Regulation 127.1 prohibits any club from directly or indirectly observing, or attempting to observe, a rival's training session in the 72 hours before a scheduled fixture between them. The "attempt" formulation means that whether or not Southampton obtained anything useful is irrelevant - the act of trying is enough. Expect an admission, or at minimum a rapid narrowing of issues, with Southampton's lawyers focussing hard on the proportionality of the sanction rather than fighting the underlying charge. Admitting early is the only realistic way to bank any credit with the Commission.

If there are additional instances of surveillance beyond the specific fixture charged, and reports suggest there may be, those will likely be advanced by the EFL as aggravating factors.

The knockout competition problem

Middlesborough have already argued in their statement that "the only appropriate response is a sporting sanction which would prevent Southampton FC from participating in the EFL Championship play-off final."

Whilst this is a lawyer drafted statement and obviously tendentious, it is possible that the EFL may adopt the same position at the Commission.

In the Swindon Commission chaired by John Mehrzad KC the sanctioning principles were set out with clarity. Drawing on Derby v EFL and the Everton Appeal Board decision, it identified four purposes for any sanction: punishment, vindication of compliant clubs, deterrence, and restoring and preserving public confidence in the fairness of EFL competitions. It then identified that last aim as the most important of the four.

During the hearing, there was some focus on the meaning of 'proportionality' in this disciplinary context with parties urging the Commission to arrive at a sanction which was 'balanced' (as submitted by the Club) or 'no lesser than would meet the aim' of a fair competition (as submitted by the EFL).

It did not stop there. The Commission went on to say that a necessary part of restoring public confidence in the fairness of a competition is ensuring the competition is in fact fair. And herein lies a subtle but potentially crucial distinction for Spygate.

The competition here is, arguably, not the League season itself because the Play-Offs are defined separately in Section Nine of the EFL Handbook. The Play-Offs are defined as a distinct knockout competition with its own rules, its own definitions, and its own prize structure - namely, a very valuable place in a different division. There are no points to win, just £200m of broadcast revenue (at least).

The Swindon Commission confronted exactly this structural problem and its conclusion was unambiguous: where a club gains an unfair competitive advantage in a knockout competition, a points deduction is not available and a fine alone does not restore genuine fairness to the competition.

The EFL argued that the key aim or objective of any sanction was the fairness or integrity of the respective competition. If that approach is repeated, a Commission will be asked to focus on sanction in the context only of the Play-Offs as a distinct competition.

Proportionality is relative

My position is that expulsion from the Play-Offs feels excessive given that Southampton finished seven points clear of sixth and nine clear of seventh. That is an intuitive position but it is not one the Swindon framework or the EFL's argument there supports. The margin by which Southampton qualified is not the relevant question. The relevant question may be whether Southampton obtained a sporting advantage in a specific knockout fixture by prohibited means. If they did, the Commission's primary concern is the integrity of the Play-Off competition from that point forward and not whether Southampton "deserved" to be there in the first place.

The Commission also made clear that a club should not financially benefit from its own misconduct. Southampton's financial interest in a Play-Off final and potential Premier League promotion dwarfs Swindon's £40,000 prize money by several orders of magnitude. However, arguably, that context does not reduce the Commission's appetite for the ultimate sanction. Rather, it increases it.

I stand by my best guess but as a matter of principle, the Swindon case and the EFL's arguments there suggests the Commission should be reaching for something more.

A nervous 48 hours or so awaits for Southampton fans.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

 

The focus on it being a knockout competition is important imo. I've said enough about the Leeds comparison being a false one (lack of specific rule, and general league season), but Swindon has some relevance. 

I think one potential saving grace is that the incident was prior to the 1st of 2 legs. Ahead of the 2nd leg, or the final, I think it gets viewed a wee bit differently. 

[Whitey Grandad]

"reports suggest there may be"

No disciplinary committe could ever act on rumours.

[LordHester]

28 minutes ago, SW11_Saint said:

Not sure the ST or Zeigler are particularly ‘sensationalist’. 

No, that's true; but this story is space-filling stuff because there is nothing new to report. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, egg said:

The focus on it being a knockout competition is important imo. I've said enough about the Leeds comparison being a false one (lack of specific rule, and general league season), but Swindon has some relevance. 

I think one potential saving grace is that the incident was prior to the 1st of 2 legs. Ahead of the 2nd leg, or the final, I think it gets viewed a wee bit differently. 

It is articles like this that I sway back to us not being in the Final (whether Boro are not I do not know).

As for appeal, if we are guilty of cheating and gaining some sporting advantage (I know the last part if harder to prove), then an appeal may be a PR exercise if anything.

Guess we will likely know in the next 24 hours.

[OneMrsWallace]

Is there a precedent for a club being ejected from a competition for something they did off the field? Or is this finger in the air stuff ? Also, the independent panel I understand is run by Sports Resolution, who list the EFL as a client. So, truly independent? There's a slight conflict on interest there. 

Also, why didn't the EFL postpone the second leg, given the story was already out there. Surely that would have given them more options. 

Just my own personal observations. Who knows if we'll ever get the whole truth, but what I do know is that I don't want Boro anywhere near the final given their petty vindictiveness. 

Edited 2 hours ago by OneMrsWallace

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, OneMrsWallace said:

Is there a precedent for a club being ejected from a competition for something they did off the field? Or is this finger in the air stuff ? Also, the independent panel I understand is run by Sports Resolution, who list the EFL as a client. So, truly independent? There's a slight conflict on interest there. 

Also, why didn't the EFL postpone the second leg, given the story was already out there. Surely that would have given them more options. 

Just my own personal observations. Who knows if we'll ever get the whole truth, but I do know is that I don't want Boro anywhere near the final given their petty vindictiveness. 

Does there need to be a precedent? They could set a precedent, given this is a knockout competition, by throwing us out.

[benjii]

1 hour ago, Arjen Robben said:

Wait until you find out Saints stayed at Rockcliffe park , and did their special training after Boro had finished theirs 😇

15 posts in 14 years, with the majority in the last week or so.... interesting!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

The focus on it being a knockout competition is important imo. I've said enough about the Leeds comparison being a false one (lack of specific rule, and general league season), but Swindon has some relevance. 

I think one potential saving grace is that the incident was prior to the 1st of 2 legs. Ahead of the 2nd leg, or the final, I think it gets viewed a wee bit differently. 

Should the games have gone ahead if there was a realistic chance that Southampton could have been thrown out. The incident happened before a ball had been kicked. As a supporter I would not have attended the second leg if I knew we would be thrown out. This again goes back to the lunacy of having a rule with no punishment attached to it. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 minutes ago, OneMrsWallace said:

Also, why didn't the EFL postpone the second leg, given the story was already out there. Surely that would have given them more options. 

That’s a good point. Playing the second leg before concluding the disciplinary , complicated matters. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, OneMrsWallace said:

Is there a precedent for a club being ejected from a competition for something they did off the field? Or is this finger in the air stuff ? Also, the independent panel I understand is run by Sports Resolution, who list the EFL as a client. So, truly independent? There's a slight conflict on interest there. 

Also, why didn't the EFL postpone the second leg, given the story was already out there. Surely that would have given them more options. 

Just my own personal observations. Who knows if we'll ever get the whole truth, but I do know is that I don't want Boro anywhere near the final given their petty vindictiveness. 

Swindon in 1990

[egg]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It is articles like this that I sway back to us not being in the Final (whether Boro are not I do not know).

As for appeal, if we are guilty of cheating and gaining some sporting advantage (I know the last part if harder to prove), then an appeal may be a PR exercise if anything.

Guess we will likely know in the next 24 hours.

There's too much emphasis on any sporting advantage we actually gained. The issue is the sporting advantage we were seeking to gain, or could have gained, in the context of the game we were about to play, and the need to preserve the integrity of the game.  

I still think we'll be ok, just, mainly based on the right of appeal and the consequential issues flowing from that. 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Swindon in 1990

Good grief. Was that really a third of a century ago?

[LordHester]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Does there need to be a precedent? They could set a precedent, given this is a knockout competition, by throwing us out.

It may also be easier to challenge a decision without precedence, given that the bar for punishment is yet to be set. It'll be an interesting test of how well the EFL ruling is written, given that it's the first time it's been used. Regulation 3.4 (clubs acting in "utmost good faith") isn't exactly encouraging in that respect.

Edited 2 hours ago by LordHester
Bracket in the wrong place!

[St Chalet]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

I know I'm prone to reading too much between the lines sometimes, but would the club really be posting a tweet like this today if they thought there was any chance of us getting kicked out...?

 

 

Subtle nod to 115 charges against Man City who won the cup yesterday?

[OneMrsWallace]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Does there need to be a precedent? They could set a precedent, given this is a knockout competition, by throwing us out.

For sure, hence my finger in the air comment. Most footballing bodies are generally incompetent and the fact they instigated a rule without defining a list of punishments for breaking that rule is unprofessional. They've left themselves open I think to potential lawsuits no matter what is recommended/decided. 

[egg]

Just now, LordHester said:

It may also be easier to challenge a decision without precedence, given that the bar for punishment is yet to be set. It'll be an interesting test of how well the EFL ruling is written, given that it's the first time it's been used. Regulation 3.4 (clubs acting in "utmost good faith" isn't exactly encouraging in that respect).

Yep. The regs allow them to do what they like with us, but the lack of any penalty tariffs means we'd use our right of appeal (leading to a full rehearing) if we go down in flames. All sorts of problems arise, hence I see an outcome which neither us or the EFL are particularly happy with, but wouldn't appeal. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, St Chalet said:

Subtle nod to 115 charges against Man City who won the cup yesterday?

Nah, it's a 115 point deduction or £115m fine I reckon. 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

There's too much emphasis on any sporting advantage we actually gained. The issue is the sporting advantage we were seeking to gain, or could have gained, in the context of the game we were about to play, and the need to preserve the integrity of the game.  

I still think we'll be ok, just, mainly based on the right of appeal and the consequential issues flowing from that. 

Just as well we were completely unable to control the game from the off, let alone win.

Imagine had we dominated and won 3-0. we would be fucked 🤐

Edited 2 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[Saint Mikey]

Just now, egg said:

Nah, it's a 115 point deduction or £115m fine I reckon. 

I've heard Tonda is getting 115 lashes.

[LegalEagle]

46 minutes ago, SW11_Saint said:

From today’s Sunday Times… 

Interesting and worrying… so the FA could pick up charges against us after the EFL commission. Also worrying the EFL have the power to review phone/text records… (but wouldn’t they have already done that if the deadline is Tuesday?). Increasingly thinking we’ll have someone else at the helm next season, even if temporarily. 

“Could face individual disciplinary action”. I could have been a woman if I’d had tits and a fanny.

[LordHester]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Yep. The regs allow them to do what they like with us, but the lack of any penalty tariffs means we'd use our right of appeal (leading to a full rehearing) if we go down in flames. All sorts of problems arise, hence I see an outcome which neither us or the EFL are particularly happy with, but wouldn't appeal. 

It's one of the reasons I'm baffled as to why a number of people, here and elsewhere, have said that Saints will get booted out of the playoffs because it's the neatest option. Given the amount of money involved in potential promotion, and there is no precedent set for how clubs should be punished under regulation 134, you can bet Saints would challenge expulsion from the playoffs.

[LegalEagle]

48 minutes ago, SW11_Saint said:

From today’s Sunday Times… 

Interesting and worrying… so the FA could pick up charges against us after the EFL commission. Also worrying the EFL have the power to review phone/text records… (but wouldn’t they have already done that if the deadline is Tuesday?). Increasingly thinking we’ll have someone else at the helm next season, even if temporarily. 

“Could face individual disciplinary action”. I could have been a woman if I’d had tits and a fanny.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, LegalEagle said:

“Could face individual disciplinary action”. I could have been a woman if I’d had tits and a fanny.

There's still time...

[6ft8saint]

Im hearing from a possible club insider that 4.5m fine is coming our way

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, Saint Mikey said:

I've heard Tonda is getting 115 lashes.

[SW11_Saint]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Yep. The regs allow them to do what they like with us, but the lack of any penalty tariffs means we'd use our right of appeal (leading to a full rehearing) if we go down in flames. All sorts of problems arise, hence I see an outcome which neither us or the EFL are particularly happy with, but wouldn't appeal. 

Agree. Although the commission should act independently & with integrity - I just can’t see how politics of moving the final (or even having to replace us with Boro) won’t somehow play into this. They can still impose a very punitive punishment on us, without removing us from the final and creating the ensuing chaos. 

Apologies if this is covered elsewhere, but does anyone know what legal firm is representing us? 

Edited 11 minutes ago by SW11_Saint

[Matthew Le God]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

There's too much emphasis on any sporting advantage we actually gained. The issue is the sporting advantage we were seeking to gain, or could have gained, in the context of the game we were about to play, and the need to preserve the integrity of the game.  

 

If I bite your ear off that is more significant than pulling some hair out with my hands. The former deserves a bigger punishment. Same with sporting advantage, cheating a big sporting advantage warrants a bigger punishment than a small sporting advantage. Expulsion is a big nuclear style punishment if the sporting advantage was minimal. 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[Ldnsaint]

19 minutes ago, johnnyboy said:

I wrote on Saturday that my best guess was that Southampton would be deducted six EFL points in their next EFL season and fined £500k-£1m.

https://x.com/slbsn/status/2055184483783934150?s=20

.

I felt, instinctively, that expulsion from such a big game was excessive and disproportionate. However, there are some technical points that would worry me as a Southampton fan. Worse than that, the key ones were considered recently by an EFL Disciplinary Commission in EFL v Swindon (

https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/f1a33090-1191-11f1-a071-51ac3b681d4e.pdf

)

Liability is not the battleground

Liability is unlikely to be seriously contested. Regulation 127.1 prohibits any club from directly or indirectly observing, or attempting to observe, a rival's training session in the 72 hours before a scheduled fixture between them. The "attempt" formulation means that whether or not Southampton obtained anything useful is irrelevant - the act of trying is enough. Expect an admission, or at minimum a rapid narrowing of issues, with Southampton's lawyers focussing hard on the proportionality of the sanction rather than fighting the underlying charge. Admitting early is the only realistic way to bank any credit with the Commission.

If there are additional instances of surveillance beyond the specific fixture charged, and reports suggest there may be, those will likely be advanced by the EFL as aggravating factors.

The knockout competition problem

Middlesborough have already argued in their statement that "the only appropriate response is a sporting sanction which would prevent Southampton FC from participating in the EFL Championship play-off final."

Whilst this is a lawyer drafted statement and obviously tendentious, it is possible that the EFL may adopt the same position at the Commission.

In the Swindon Commission chaired by John Mehrzad KC the sanctioning principles were set out with clarity. Drawing on Derby v EFL and the Everton Appeal Board decision, it identified four purposes for any sanction: punishment, vindication of compliant clubs, deterrence, and restoring and preserving public confidence in the fairness of EFL competitions. It then identified that last aim as the most important of the four.

During the hearing, there was some focus on the meaning of 'proportionality' in this disciplinary context with parties urging the Commission to arrive at a sanction which was 'balanced' (as submitted by the Club) or 'no lesser than would meet the aim' of a fair competition (as submitted by the EFL).

It did not stop there. The Commission went on to say that a necessary part of restoring public confidence in the fairness of a competition is ensuring the competition is in fact fair. And herein lies a subtle but potentially crucial distinction for Spygate.

The competition here is, arguably, not the League season itself because the Play-Offs are defined separately in Section Nine of the EFL Handbook. The Play-Offs are defined as a distinct knockout competition with its own rules, its own definitions, and its own prize structure - namely, a very valuable place in a different division. There are no points to win, just £200m of broadcast revenue (at least).

The Swindon Commission confronted exactly this structural problem and its conclusion was unambiguous: where a club gains an unfair competitive advantage in a knockout competition, a points deduction is not available and a fine alone does not restore genuine fairness to the competition.

The EFL argued that the key aim or objective of any sanction was the fairness or integrity of the respective competition. If that approach is repeated, a Commission will be asked to focus on sanction in the context only of the Play-Offs as a distinct competition.

Proportionality is relative

My position is that expulsion from the Play-Offs feels excessive given that Southampton finished seven points clear of sixth and nine clear of seventh. That is an intuitive position but it is not one the Swindon framework or the EFL's argument there supports. The margin by which Southampton qualified is not the relevant question. The relevant question may be whether Southampton obtained a sporting advantage in a specific knockout fixture by prohibited means. If they did, the Commission's primary concern is the integrity of the Play-Off competition from that point forward and not whether Southampton "deserved" to be there in the first place.

The Commission also made clear that a club should not financially benefit from its own misconduct. Southampton's financial interest in a Play-Off final and potential Premier League promotion dwarfs Swindon's £40,000 prize money by several orders of magnitude. However, arguably, that context does not reduce the Commission's appetite for the ultimate sanction. Rather, it increases it.

I stand by my best guess but as a matter of principle, the Swindon case and the EFL's arguments there suggests the Commission should be reaching for something more.

A nervous 48 hours or so awaits for Southampton fans.

Concerning read. Expulsion seems very harsh to me

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

 

If I bite your ear off that is more significant than cutting some hair off with scissors. The former deserves a bigger punishment. Same with sporting advantage, cheating a big sporting advantage warrants a bigger punishment than a small sporting advantage. Expulsion is a big nuclear style punishment if the sporting advantage was minimal. 

 

Cheating, if indeed that's what it is, comes in many different degrees of seriousness. Any punishment must surely fit the crime or it will be open to appeal.

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

Im hearing from a possible club insider that 4.5m fine is coming our way

And that ties in with the hissy-fit statement from Boro the other night

[egg]

2 minutes ago, SW11_Saint said:

Agree. Although the commission should act independently & with integrity - I just can’t see how politics of moving the final (or even having to replace us with Boro) won’t somehow play into this. They can still impose a very punitive punishment on us, without removing us from the final and the ensuing chaos. 

Apologies if this is covered elsewhere, but does anyone know what legal firm is representing us? 

I'd imagine they'd stick with Paris Smith, although what matters is choice of Counsel.