Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[Marsdinho]

4 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

I don't understand why people think we're being booted out, it's too late for that. Just look at the facts.

The club have almost sold out the allocation and are still activley selling tickets this morning. Travel, accommodation has been booked by thousands of fans of both Hull and ourselves. 

The cost to expel us would be huge to the EFL, they'd have Hull up in arms, our fans up in arms, accommodation non-refundable and a right old mess. The fans are innocent in all of this and expulsion would harm the fans a lot, and I'm sure the authorities wouldn't see that as a fair trade for something we've had no involvement in.

The final is 23rd at 4:30 and it will happen as stands. If we were getting removed ourselves and Hull would have got wind by now. The hearing hasn't just 'started' today, things have been going on for a number of days.

It will be club and individual specific sanctions, fines, bans and suspended points deductions are all that's on the table if anything is proven. Expulsion at this late stage harms the fans and will create an almighty mess everywhere.

Nah, me neither. My understanding is that some sort of precedent / deterrent needs to be set to put off anyone else dumb enough to try spying...

So, if our punishment is to be thrown out of the playoffs, that sets the precedent.

What happens if, say, Norwich get caught next season spying on Stoke within 72 hours of a league game. You cant apply the same punishment and chuck Norwich out the whole league?!?!

[SNSUN]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

Or it might be in our interest to fully and speedily cooperate with the EFL in order to help get them out of the massive problem that any delay would cause them...?

"You scratch out back...etc"

(Usual caveat: yes, I know it doesn't work that way, but who understands how the subconscious mind works...? )

Not sure what Australia has to do with this - aside from the Boro fans wishing our staff and fans were banished to it. 😁

[obelisk]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

Have 7 pints for me please 👍🏻🍻

That's just what Mrs Obelisk is planning to consume.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, EssEffCee said:

I don't think we'll be kicked out but I highly doubt the IDC gives a monkeys about fans booking travel and hotels etc.

If it was the EFL, then they’d defo take the “easy” option. But surely the whole point of an independent panel is to reach the correct decision regardless of the impact on other people indirectly involved. 

[Saint_clark]

1 minute ago, Marsdinho said:

Nah, me neither. My understanding is that some sort of precedent / deterrent needs to be set to put off anyone else dumb enough to try spying...

So, if our punishment is to be thrown out of the playoffs, that sets the precedent.

What happens if, say, Norwich get caught next season spying on Stoke within 72 hours of a league game. You cant apply the same punishment and chuck Norwich out the whole league?!?!

Exactly. The precedent would mean they'd be told that they're banned from getting promoted...well where is their incentive to keep trying for the rest of the season then?

[Disco Stu]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

Trying to get an illegal advantage to help towards a £200m prize has no precedent

Maybe not for one game, but there is precedent for a club having an illegal advantage over an entire season and gaining a £200m prize.

Edited 11 hours ago by Disco Stu

[Dman]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If it was the EFL, then they’d defo take the “easy” option. But surely the whole point of an independent panel is to reach the correct decision regardless of the impact on other people indirectly involved. 

Well, if the EFL aren't arguing / pushing for the necular option, is it likley that the panel would enforce it?

[EssEffCee]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If it was the EFL, then they’d defo take the “easy” option. But surely the whole point of an independent panel is to reach the correct decision regardless of the impact on other people indirectly involved. 

Yeah that'll be one of the main reasons for handing it over.

I doubt the EFL want us to get kicked out which means they won't appeal it when we're not.

[Ivan Katalinic's 'tache]

If we are booted out, do we have to give the tickets back? Middlesbrough v Hull at Wembley with Saints and Hull fans in the stadium both hating on Boro could be fun. 

[Dman]

1 minute ago, Ivan Katalinic's 'tache said:

If we are booted out, do we have to give the tickets back? Middlesbrough v Hull at Wembley with Saints and Hull fans in the stadium both hating on Boro could be fun. 

Of course we would. The final wouldn't be played at wembley anyway in such case. 

[Saint_clark]

Just now, Ivan Katalinic's 'tache said:

If we are booted out, do we have to give the tickets back? Middlesbrough v Hull at Wembley with Saints and Hull fans in the stadium both hating on Boro could be fun. 

They'll likely be automatically refunded. 

[S-Clarke]

6 minutes ago, Marsdinho said:

Nah, me neither. My understanding is that some sort of precedent / deterrent needs to be set to put off anyone else dumb enough to try spying...

So, if our punishment is to be thrown out of the playoffs, that sets the precedent.

What happens if, say, Norwich get caught next season spying on Stoke within 72 hours of a league game. You cant apply the same punishment and chuck Norwich out the whole league?!?!

Yep exactly, as far as I know there are no specific sanctions applied to this new rule - so it's up to whoever to say what they feel is proportionate. Like you say, stopping us getting promoted in a one off game is totally different to Norwich being docked 6 points in the middle of next season, they could make that up. We couldn't. Punishments need to be proportionate and fair across multiple scenarios, and expulsion would be nonsense.

As I said yesterday, I'm more angry/frustrated that the club have seemingly done something as stupid as this to hang a cloud over the build up. It's not fair on the fans more than anyone else, yet we're the ones being dragged through the mud. It should be an exciting week.

[trousers]

11 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

After the EFL released more tickets to both Hull and Saints yesterday, but a bit shut for them, today, to say “yeah, sorry about that we want them back”

# change of mind ahoy klaxon # 

[trousers]

11 minutes ago, obelisk said:

That's just what Mrs Obelisk is planning to consume.

Too much information...

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 minutes ago, Marsdinho said:

What happens if, say, Norwich get caught next season spying on Stoke within 72 hours of a league game. You cant apply the same punishment and chuck Norwich out the whole league?!?!

Clearly, they’ll get a points deduction rather than be thrown out.  I imagine Middlesbrough’s case will be the play offs aren’t the league, it’s a separate cup competition. I’m not saying it is or it isn’t, or arguing with anyone one way or the other. It’s just bothering me that IF they decide it’s separate, what is the sporting sanction, because we’ve played the second leg it can’t really be the standard 3-0 forfeited result.  

[trousers]

14 minutes ago, Marsdinho said:

Nah, me neither. My understanding is that some sort of precedent / deterrent needs to be set to put off anyone else dumb enough to try spying...

So, if our punishment is to be thrown out of the playoffs, that sets the precedent.

What happens if, say, Norwich get caught next season spying on Stoke within 72 hours of a league game. You cant apply the same punishment and chuck Norwich out the whole league?!?!

 

12 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Exactly. The precedent would mean they'd be told that they're banned from getting promoted...well where is their incentive to keep trying for the rest of the season then?

Isn't the prevailing argument on this one that the play offs are a separate competition to the league, so if someone was caught during the season doing it you would then have to set a new precident for that, rather than apply the precident being set for the play off competition in our case?

[LegalEagle]

Do the EFL have anything up to £200 mill in their coffers to pay us in damages, interest and costs if we took them to court and we won? We could be the club that bankrupts the EFL. They cannot even risk it.

[Toadhall Saint]

26 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I’m not sure why you can’t see that any sanction has to be proportionate. If deterrent’s actually worked there would be no offences.

Where have I said the sanction should be disproportionate? Do you think receiving a driving ban for drink driving is a deterrent to some? If not why aren’t we all doing it?

[Crab Lungs]

[Mozz]

14 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

Yeah that'll be one of the main reasons for handing it over.

I doubt the EFL want us to get kicked out which means they won't appeal it when we're not.

The full written decision in the Swindon case from earlier this season contains:

"Further, the EFL submitted in the Referral that, in the event the Alleged Breaches were found proven, the appropriate sanction would be for the Club to be expelled from the EFL Trophy for the 2025/2026 season and forfeit the prize which would otherwise have been awarded from winning the Fixture."

That indicatres that even though the EFL don't dictate the sanction (the independant commision does), they may have already advised the commision what they deem an appropriate sanction to be as part of the rererral.

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

Further footage of Will Salt has just been released.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNRtuDAjo/

Edited 11 hours ago by Stripey McStripe Shirt

[EssEffCee]

3 minutes ago, Mozz said:

The full written decision in the Swindon case from earlier this season contains:

"Further, the EFL submitted in the Referral that, in the event the Alleged Breaches were found proven, the appropriate sanction would be for the Club to be expelled from the EFL Trophy for the 2025/2026 season and forfeit the prize which would otherwise have been awarded from winning the Fixture."

That indicatres that even though the EFL don't dictate the sanction (the independant commision does), they may have already advised the commision what they deem an appropriate sanction to be as part of the rererral.

Yeah they're the other party to the case.

[Turkish]

10 minutes ago, trousers said:

 

Isn't the prevailing argument on this one that the play offs are a separate competition to the league, so if someone was caught during the season doing it you would then have to set a new precident for that, rather than apply the precident being set for the play off competition in our case?

Is isn’t though. It’s a knock out yes but you qualify for it by your league position and the reward is playing in a better league. It’s not like a knock out cup where you don’t need to qualify and progression is by winning the current round. That would make it a more straightforward decision. It’s a seasons work which you earn the right to be in determined by league position giving you access to play 3 games with the out coming being playing in a better league or staying in your current one. This just adds to the complexity. It never been described as a separate competition  before now, because it isn’t. It’s the football league play offs

Edited 11 hours ago by Turkish

[EssEffCee]

7 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

Do the EFL have anything up to £200 mill in their coffers to pay us in damages, interest and costs if we took them to court and we won? We could be the club that bankrupts the EFL. They cannot even risk it.

We're not going to sue them for £200m ffs 🤣

[trousers]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Is isn’t though. It’s a knock out yes but you qualify for it by your league position and the reward is playing in a better league. It’s not like a knock out cup where you don’t need to qualify and progression is by winning the current round. That would make it a more straightforward decision. It’s a seasons work which you earn the right to be in determined by league position giving you access to play 3 games with the out coming being playing in a better league or staying in your current one. This just adds to the complexity 

Yep, I agree ... I was just repeating the alternative point of view, which some people seem to believe/ advocate 

[LegalEagle]

2 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

We're not going to sue them for £200m ffs 🤣

On the Claim Form the size of claim would be declared as “Unknown” but the point i was making was that the EFL couldn’t even afford £50 mill.

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 minutes ago, Mozz said:

The full written decision in the Swindon case from earlier this season contains:

"Further, the EFL submitted in the Referral that, in the event the Alleged Breaches were found proven, the appropriate sanction would be for the Club to be expelled from the EFL Trophy for the 2025/2026 season and forfeit the prize which would otherwise have been awarded from winning the Fixture."

That indicatres that even though the EFL don't dictate the sanction (the independant commision does), they may have already advised the commision what they deem an appropriate sanction to be as part of the rererral.

That makes me feel a lot more positive. If the league get to influence the sanction, they’ll clearly want Sat game to go ahead. Hopefully, the guilty/not guilty decision is totally independent but the “prosecutor” is involved if guilt is established. The fact the full written judgement won’t be released until later in the summer also indicates that the EFL know what they want and more importantly know we’ll accept what they want. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That makes me feel a lot more positive. If the league get to influence the sanction, they’ll clearly want Sat game to go ahead. Hopefully, the guilty/not guilty decision is totally independent but the “prosecutor” is involved if guilt is established. The fact the full written judgement won’t be released until later in the summer also indicates that the EFL know what they want and more importantly know we’ll accept what they want. 

Which might suggest where the “£4.5m and a suspended -6 points” line came from. It could have been what the EFL are wanting as a sanction. Of course Boro were not happy at all as we saw

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That makes me feel a lot more positive. If the league get to influence the sanction, they’ll clearly want Sat game to go ahead. Hopefully, the guilty/not guilty decision is totally independent but the “prosecutor” is involved if guilt is established. The fact the full written judgement won’t be released until later in the summer also indicates that the EFL know what they want and more importantly know we’ll accept what they want. 

They definitely will have had informal discussions with us I'm sure. The last thing they want is a big appeal and everything up in the air. More than anything else that's why I don't think we will be kicked out. 

Edited 10 hours ago by hypochondriac

[trousers]

29 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

Yeah that'll be one of the main reasons for handing it over.

I doubt the EFL want us to get kicked out which means they won't appeal it when we're not.

 

13 minutes ago, Mozz said:

The full written decision in the Swindon case from earlier this season contains:

"Further, the EFL submitted in the Referral that, in the event the Alleged Breaches were found proven, the appropriate sanction would be for the Club to be expelled from the EFL Trophy for the 2025/2026 season and forfeit the prize which would otherwise have been awarded from winning the Fixture."

That indicatres that even though the EFL don't dictate the sanction (the independant commision does), they may have already advised the commision what they deem an appropriate sanction to be as part of the rererral.

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That makes me feel a lot more positive. If the league get to influence the sanction, they’ll clearly want Sat game to go ahead. Hopefully, the guilty/not guilty decision is totally independent but the “prosecutor” is involved if guilt is established. The fact the full written judgement won’t be released until later in the summer also indicates that the EFL know what they want and more importantly know we’ll accept what they want. 

Yep... This does feel the way things are heading now...

[LegalEagle]

Ross is in the Scotland squad

[sadoldgit]

11 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Where have I said the sanction should be disproportionate? Do you think receiving a driving ban for drink driving is a deterrent to some? If not why aren’t we all doing it?

You are saying that it has to be big enough to be a deterrent. To actually be big enough to stop it it would need to be disproportionate, like a £500m fine and relegation by two leagues or something.

Clearly a driving ban for drink driving is not a deterrent because people are regularly banned for drink driving.

There is a saying” the punishment should fit the crime.” As far as I know there is no saying that says, “the deterrent should prevent the crime.”

Given the number of cases of rule breaking that goes on, clearly nothing serves as a deterrent.

[offsidetrap]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

Ross is in the Scotland squad

At last. I can update my avatar

[Dman]

17 minutes ago, Mozz said:

The full written decision in the Swindon case from earlier this season contains:

"Further, the EFL submitted in the Referral that, in the event the Alleged Breaches were found proven, the appropriate sanction would be for the Club to be expelled from the EFL Trophy for the 2025/2026 season and forfeit the prize which would otherwise have been awarded from winning the Fixture."

That indicatres that even though the EFL don't dictate the sanction (the independant commision does), they may have already advised the commision what they deem an appropriate sanction to be as part of the rererral.

Which makes me think, given Boro's childish outburst in the form of a statement, the EFL haven't put forward expulsion as a appropriate sanction. 

[LordHester]

37 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If it was the EFL, then they’d defo take the “easy” option. But surely the whole point of an independent panel is to reach the correct decision regardless of the impact on other people indirectly involved. 

A cynic might say that, if you choose your independent panel correctly, they'll come up with the answer you want anyway.

[skintsaint]

14 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

We're not going to sue them for £200m ffs 🤣

Nah but you would think we could claim £100m, if found we won on appeal in lost earnings.

[OneMrsWallace]

Let's say we're kicked out. We appeal. Everything is delayed. Whilst this is on-going, we lose Ross and Larin to the world cup, our two key forwards. We sue FIFA and delay the world cup. So many wormholes in this 😅

[hypochondriac]

Weird thing to think that by this time tomorrow we may either be preparing for Wembley in a few days or licking our wounds as we've been kicked out and lost the best manager we've had since Koeman. 

[Farmer Saint]

17 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

We're not going to sue them for £200m ffs 🤣

Erm, why not?

It's the reason that they won't throw us out.

Edited 10 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[S-Clarke]

18 minutes ago, Mozz said:

The full written decision in the Swindon case from earlier this season contains:

"Further, the EFL submitted in the Referral that, in the event the Alleged Breaches were found proven, the appropriate sanction would be for the Club to be expelled from the EFL Trophy for the 2025/2026 season and forfeit the prize which would otherwise have been awarded from winning the Fixture."

That indicatres that even though the EFL don't dictate the sanction (the independant commision does), they may have already advised the commision what they deem an appropriate sanction to be as part of the rererral.

That's a great example, and it shows the process - the EFL don't make the decision, they will make recommendations based upon the evidence provided by Boro and ourselves. Boro aren't 'close' to this like they believe they are, we have been able to fight our corner with counter evidence - so we'll see what they come up with.

If the EFL had recommended the committee to consider expulsion, we'd know about it by now. There will have been chats in the background with the clubs, media, Sky etc to set the expectation out in confidence.

[Mattio]

I'm getting the 502 Bad Gateway message on the forum, clearly a lot of lurkers refreshing

[PerthshireSaint]

Too early for redhead nuns or no ?

[SNSUN]

7 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

Ross is in the Scotland squad

Dykes instead of McBurnie though which is an odd choice. Pleased for Ross though.

 

Just now, PerthshireSaint said:

Too early for redhead nuns or no ?

Jeez, one big fart and that church is gonna burn.

[hypochondriac]

Three or four of the Boro social media accounts are very annoying with their pretence that they know what's going to happen and knowing nudges and winks. If we don't get kicked out they will look very silly. 

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, OneMrsWallace said:

Let's say we're kicked out. We appeal. Everything is delayed. Whilst this is on-going, we lose Ross and Larin to the world cup, our two key forwards. We sue FIFA and delay the world cup. So many wormholes in this 😅

Even a seasoned conspiracy theory enthusiast such as myself would struggle to support that one... 😂

[PerthshireSaint]

Just now, SNSUN said:

Dykes instead of McBurnie though which is an odd choice. Pleased for Ross though.

 

Jeez, one big fart and that church is gonna burn.

Fake Pews

[LegalEagle]

1 minute ago, PerthshireSaint said:

Too early for redhead nuns or no ?

Never too early. Do I also see a Fox Red on your avatar?

[Saint Scott]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Three or four of the Boro social media accounts are very annoying with their pretence that they know what's going to happen and knowing nudges and winks. If we don't get kicked out they will look very silly. 

They've got everything right so far though, so clearly expulsion to Sunday League football will be the punishment

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, PerthshireSaint said:

Too early for redhead nuns or no ?

Even better 

[PerthshireSaint]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

Never too early. Do I also see a Fox Red on your avatar?

Yep. Awesome dogs