Sports Republics response to “Spygate”

[benjii]

8 minutes ago, Convict Colony said:

the only thing I know is no matter what sports republic do a lot of this forum will complain.

I would think they would be pissed off more than anyone they've missed out on a massive payday and income.

I expect they were pissed off about getting relegated twice as well but that didn't stop them carrying on with the carnage.

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

Where do SR go from here? I would be getting the legal team to prepare a civil suit against the EFL that, if successful, would cost them tens of millions. We have been railroaded out of a chance to premier league football next season. They have besmirched the good name of SR (ok, steady on!). Sponsors are cautious, the players are cautious all because of some half arsed rule that was draconially imposed with the sub-judice support of a biased team. They need to pay.

Then I would be contacting the FA and finding out what they're going to do. It's unfair for us to be hanging on if they've already decided that Tonda will probably face a ban. Let us know.

I have written to Mr Solak requesting a face to face meeting. He needs to have fans' input. Of course, the chance of him accepting my request is miniscule, but having been on this forum for years and so often seeing posters foresee the inevitable, our voice needs to be heard and SFC needs to be seen to be doing something.

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

53 minutes ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Where do SR go from here? I would be getting the legal team to prepare a civil suit against the EFL that, if successful, would cost them tens of millions. We have been railroaded out of a chance to premier league football next season. They have besmirched the good name of SR (ok, steady on!). Sponsors are cautious, the players are cautious all because of some half arsed rule that was draconially imposed with the sub-judice support of a biased team. They need to pay.

Then I would be contacting the FA and finding out what they're going to do. It's unfair for us to be hanging on if they've already decided that Tonda will probably face a ban. Let us know.

I have written to Mr Solak requesting a face to face meeting. He needs to have fans' input. Of course, the chance of him accepting my request is miniscule, but having been on this forum for years and so often seeing posters foresee the inevitable, our voice needs to be heard and SFC needs to be seen to be doing something.

Just send him a link for a Teams meeting.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Where do SR go from here? I would be getting the legal team to prepare a civil suit against the EFL that, if successful, would cost them tens of millions. We have been railroaded out of a chance to premier league football next season. They have besmirched the good name of SR (ok, steady on!). Sponsors are cautious, the players are cautious all because of some half arsed rule that was draconially imposed with the sub-judice support of a biased team. They need to pay.

Then I would be contacting the FA and finding out what they're going to do. It's unfair for us to be hanging on if they've already decided that Tonda will probably face a ban. Let us know.

I have written to Mr Solak requesting a face to face meeting. He needs to have fans' input. Of course, the chance of him accepting my request is miniscule, but having been on this forum for years and so often seeing posters foresee the inevitable, our voice needs to be heard and SFC needs to be seen to be doing something.

Is your last name Chorley?

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Where do SR go from here? I would be getting the legal team to prepare a civil suit against the EFL that, if successful, would cost them tens of millions. We have been railroaded out of a chance to premier league football next season. They have besmirched the good name of SR (ok, steady on!). Sponsors are cautious, the players are cautious all because of some half arsed rule that was draconially imposed with the sub-judice support of a biased team. They need to pay.

Then I would be contacting the FA and finding out what they're going to do. It's unfair for us to be hanging on if they've already decided that Tonda will probably face a ban. Let us know.

I have written to Mr Solak requesting a face to face meeting. He needs to have fans' input. Of course, the chance of him accepting my request is miniscule, but having been on this forum for years and so often seeing posters foresee the inevitable, our voice needs to be heard and SFC needs to be seen to be doing something.

My god

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

28 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Is your last name Chorley?

Nope, have genuinely requested a meeting. We can all whinge amongst each other but to meet the decision maker might have more impact. But as stated, the chances of actually being granted a meeting are minimal.

What I will say is that there are many posters on this site that have over the years have consistently made sensible recommendations and yet time and time again, the club does the opposige and makes mistakes. SR, and Dragan in particular, needs to hear our views.  

[Weston Super Saint]

I'm willing to bet you won't get the facetime you are seeking.

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Nope, have genuinely requested a meeting. We can all whinge amongst each other but to meet the decision maker might have more impact. But as stated, the chances of actually being granted a meeting are minimal.

What I will say is that there are many posters on this site that have over the years have consistently made sensible recommendations and yet time and time again, the club does the opposige and makes mistakes. SR, and Dragan in particular, needs to hear our views.  

Why would he meet you in particular. There's plenty of opportunities to hear fans views if desired.

[Zorba]

11 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Is your last name Chorley?

or Dawson?

[CB Fry]

Dragan came back to me and suggested Wednesday at half two but I can't do it as I'm at the Chiropractors, then he said Thursday at 5pm but I need to pick up my daughter from dance class, then he says 6pm same day - OK this is clearly a guy who doesn't watch Richard Osman's House of Games. No can do.

I've suggested a couple of other times but honestly it's more trouble than its worth pinning this guy down. His priorities are all wrong. No wonder the club is on its arse.

Edited 11 hours ago by CB Fry

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

52 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Dragan came back to me and suggested Wednesday at half two but I can't do it as I'm at the Chiropractors, then he said Thursday at 5pm but I need to pick up my daughter from dance class, then he says 6pm same day - OK this is clearly a guy who doesn't watch Richard Osman's House of Games. No can do.

I've suggested a couple of other times but honestly it's more trouble than its worth pinning this guy down. His priorities are all wrong. No wonder the club is on its arse.

House of Games is on iPlayer though.

[Midfield_General]

11 hours ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Nope, have genuinely requested a meeting. We can all whinge amongst each other but to meet the decision maker might have more impact. But as stated, the chances of actually being granted a meeting are minimal.

What I will say is that there are many posters on this site that have over the years have consistently made sensible recommendations and yet time and time again, the club does the opposige and makes mistakes. SR, and Dragan in particular, needs to hear our views.  

Go on then. Dragan gives you an hour face to face. What are the views and recommendations that you present him with and what actions do you ask him to take? 

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

23 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Go on then. Dragan gives you an hour face to face. What are the views and recommendations that you present him with and what actions do you ask him to take? 

Do we have the best/latest hand dryers in the toilets?

Can we clean the seats so they look more red, less pink?

Can we increase the variety of flavours of fruit shoots in the family stand?

Must have plain backs on the home shirt!

What capacity should we extend the stadium to? When will the train station open outside?

 

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

12 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Go on then. Dragan gives you an hour face to face. What are the views and recommendations that you present him with and what actions do you ask him to take? 

An hour! The request was for 20 minutes. That's just enough time to make contact, establish a bit of a rapport and to sow a few seeds. The ultimate goal is to give him another channel of advice - one from the fans' perspective.

The chances of him agreeing to a meeting are of course minimal, but as they say, nothing ventured nothing gained.

[AlexLaw76]

54 minutes ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

An hour! The request was for 20 minutes. That's just enough time to make contact, establish a bit of a rapport and to sow a few seeds. The ultimate goal is to give him another channel of advice - one from the fans' perspective.

The chances of him agreeing to a meeting are of course minimal, but as they say, nothing ventured nothing gained.

Good luck, if you do t ask you don’t get

[Turkish]

Well Dragon has already flown in to meet me. He asked me for a chat and advice which I was only too happy to offer.  We had a good deep discussion over lunch for around 2 and half hours before I had to leave to attend my next meeting. I can’t say too much for now but i can REVEAL a club meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, watch this space, will say more when I can. 

#bewareoffalseprophets

Edited 7 hours ago by Turkish

[benali-shorts]

22 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Well Dragon has already flown in to meet me. He asked me for a chat and advice which I was only too happy to offer.  We had a good deep discussion over lunch for around 2 and half hours before I had to leave to attend my next meeting. I can’t say too much for now but i can REVEAL a club meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, watch this space, will say more when I can. 

#bewareoffalseprophets

It was a shame you had to leave, you should have stayed on with us. Dragan took us to Spearmint Rhino after you left, it all get a bit messy, Phil passed out in the loo and Sporesey got sparked out by a bouncer. 

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, benali-shorts said:

It was a shame you had to leave, you should have stayed on with us. Dragan took us to Spearmint Rhino after you left, it all get a bit messy, Phil passed out in the loo and Sporesey got sparked out by a bouncer. 

I knew it was going to end badly when Sibley turns up trying to get into our area flashing his Johnson’s loyalty card, glad the bouncers didn’t let him in.

 

[OldNick]

15 hours ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Nope, have genuinely requested a meeting. We can all whinge amongst each other but to meet the decision maker might have more impact. But as stated, the chances of actually being granted a meeting are minimal.

What I will say is that there are many posters on this site that have over the years have consistently made sensible recommendations and yet time and time again, the club does the opposige and makes mistakes. SR, and Dragan in particular, needs to hear our views.  

Problem is that you cant speak for all. Its a business that has to make its own decisions. Suggestions perhaps but if the past is anything to go by, it comes down to moaning about the price of a pint or who supplies the pies

[SaintsLoyal]

Im not sure the company exists anymore, but who remembers when Rupert Lowe used a london based top PR firm to read posts on Saints forums and send him briefing updates.

[USaintA]

3 hours ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

An hour! The request was for 20 minutes. That's just enough time to make contact, establish a bit of a rapport and to sow a few seeds. The ultimate goal is to give him another channel of advice - one from the fans' perspective.

The chances of him agreeing to a meeting are of course minimal, but as they say, nothing ventured nothing gained.

That's nice. If you do get the opportunity to meet with Drag, could you ask him from me what does he use to brush his Hampsteads? Which toothpaste? And, electric, or regular style toothbrush? Also, if there's time (as you've only got 20 precious minutes with the geezer), any chance you could ask him where he purchased his syrup?

[Turkish]

47 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

Im not sure the company exists anymore, but who remembers when Rupert Lowe used a london based top PR firm to read posts on Saints forums and send him briefing updates.

There were also club employees posting on here heaping gushing praise on the club and chairman both in Lowes time and Corteses time here. Proper weird, insecure behaviour. 

[Willo of Whiteley]

9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

There were also club employees posting on here heaping gushing praise on the club and chairman both in Lowes time and Corteses time here. Proper weird, insecure behaviour. 

Sounds like Fabrice and Russell Martin.

[qwertyell]

7 hours ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

The ultimate goal is to give him another channel of advice - one from the fans' perspective.

Perhaps the club could set up some kind of Fan Advisory Board?

They'd have to come up with a different name, though, as it's currently being used by the Fan Advisory Board. 

[trousers]

 

Southampton Football Club notes today’s publication by the Arbitration Panel of the written reasons behind our unsuccessful appeal of the sanctions the Disciplinary Panel previously imposed on us in the EFL proceedings. We accept that the club breached the relevant regulations, and we recognise that the disciplinary bodies were entitled to conclude that proof of sporting advantage was not necessary in order to establish a serious offence.

 

The club accepts that aspects of our initial response to the situation were not treated with the level of scrutiny they required at the time. In hindsight, we wish this had been managed differently from the outset and this represented an error of judgement for which we take responsibility. Despite this, we are happy with the way in which we admitted the charges and offered our full cooperation and honesty once the formal EFL investigation process had started.

 

We also note that the club was judged against the very highest standards of integrity and good faith. That is entirely proper. What is harder to accept is that similar scrutiny does not appear to have been applied to the composition of the disciplinary panel itself, given the apparent historic and indirect connections of two panel members to Middlesbrough. While those connections do not by themselves prove bias, they plainly raise legitimate questions about consistency, perception and the standards of independence expected in proceedings of this magnitude.

 

The club is also concerned by the weight placed on assertions that junior staff were pressurised into involvement, when some of the most serious allegations appear not to have been supported by direct evidence. That said, junior employees should never have been placed in a position where they felt under pressure, and the club accepts responsibility for that failure of leadership and oversight.

 

This case has ultimately been decided on the basis that breach and attempted breach were enough, regardless of whether any sporting benefit was actually obtained. In fact, at no stage was there any finding that the club actually obtained any sporting advantage as a result of the conduct in question.

 

That is a severe interpretation, but one the disciplinary authorities were entitled to adopt under the rules as written.

 

Southampton Football Club will now reflect carefully on the published reasons, review its internal processes and ensure that governance, oversight and decision-making procedures are strengthened as a result.

 

Our responsibility now is to acknowledge what has happened, take ownership of the lessons it brings, and use this experience to strengthen our judgement, discipline, and integrity moving forward together as a club.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[skintsaint]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

 

 

Hooray at last!

[woksaintly]

Integrity of the Appeal board revealed a bit late. Sue the legal team?

[sambosa75]

What a fucking ridiculous club statement.

[qwertyell]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

 

 

"Our responsibility now is to acknowledge what has happened, take ownership of the lessons it brings, and use this experience to strengthen our judgement, discipline, and integrity moving forward together as a club."

No longer promising "accountability" I notice. 

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, trousers said:

 

Southampton Football Club notes today’s publication by the Arbitration Panel of the written reasons behind our unsuccessful appeal of the sanctions the Disciplinary Panel previously imposed on us in the EFL proceedings. We accept that the club breached the relevant regulations, and we recognise that the disciplinary bodies were entitled to conclude that proof of sporting advantage was not necessary in order to establish a serious offence.

 

The club accepts that aspects of our initial response to the situation were not treated with the level of scrutiny they required at the time. In hindsight, we wish this had been managed differently from the outset and this represented an error of judgement for which we take responsibility. Despite this, we are happy with the way in which we admitted the charges and offered our full cooperation and honesty once the formal EFL investigation process had started.

 

We also note that the club was judged against the very highest standards of integrity and good faith. That is entirely proper. What is harder to accept is that similar scrutiny does not appear to have been applied to the composition of the disciplinary panel itself, given the apparent historic and indirect connections of two panel members to Middlesbrough. While those connections do not by themselves prove bias, they plainly raise legitimate questions about consistency, perception and the standards of independence expected in proceedings of this magnitude.

 

The club is also concerned by the weight placed on assertions that junior staff were pressurised into involvement, when some of the most serious allegations appear not to have been supported by direct evidence. That said, junior employees should never have been placed in a position where they felt under pressure, and the club accepts responsibility for that failure of leadership and oversight.

 

This case has ultimately been decided on the basis that breach and attempted breach were enough, regardless of whether any sporting benefit was actually obtained. In fact, at no stage was there any finding that the club actually obtained any sporting advantage as a result of the conduct in question.

 

That is a severe interpretation, but one the disciplinary authorities were entitled to adopt under the rules as written.

 

Southampton Football Club will now reflect carefully on the published reasons, review its internal processes and ensure that governance, oversight and decision-making procedures are strengthened as a result.

 

Our responsibility now is to acknowledge what has happened, take ownership of the lessons it brings, and use this experience to strengthen our judgement, discipline, and integrity moving forward together as a club.

 

How to say something without saying anything 

[trousers]

Would they really be commenting on the scrutiny of the panel if they didn't intend taking matters relating to this further (legally)...?

[GDog07]

..and we apologise to the fans etc etc.

Nah? Ok.

[The Wyvern]

1 minute ago, qwertyell said:

"Our responsibility now is to acknowledge what has happened, take ownership of the lessons it brings, and use this experience to strengthen our judgement, discipline, and integrity moving forward together as a club."

No longer promising "accountability" I notice. 

That suggesting they’re drawing a line and ready to move on? 

[Toussaint]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

Would they really be commenting on the scrutiny of the panel if they didn't intend taking matters relating to this further (legally)...?

Hope so. The kangarooest of kangaroo courts needs holding to account. 

[Lard]

What a waste of time that ‘statement’ is. 
We’ve conceded and now we move on. 
big middle finger to the fans who appear not to be addressed thus far. 
I don’t want a kiss arse apology…just some ruddy form of contrition from the club. 

[Toussaint]

4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

How to say something without saying anything 

I think there is quite a bit in there amongst the “humility”

The intern may have bullshitted to deflect / succumbed to pressure 

Panel (judge, jury and executioners) were not unbiased 

I think there also may be an allusion to the possibility that the panel had reached a conclusion before the evidence was all gathered. 

[beatlesaint]

Not really the statement I was hoping for.

Maybe looking at the backgrounds of those that made up the panel should have been done and then objected to at the time. The horse has escaped over the hill by now.

[hypochondriac]

I'd calmed down but reading that statement I'm getting annoyed again. Surely that's not the first message the club want to send after all this time? So very disappointing.

[Lee On Solent Saint]

Did they ask Rishi Sunak to write that statement? True Polictian's reply.

[James]

The more I read from the Club the clearer it is that we completely and utterly ballsed up our response to this issue when it first arose. How can we be raising objections to Panel members etc in a statement almost 2 weeks after we got kicked out? Surely we could have taken a harder line at the time and kicked up more of a fuss about the way the proceedings were being brought if that’s genuinely what we thought at the time?! Seems to me as if this is covering the bases after the fact.

[Toussaint]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd calmed down but reading that statement I'm getting annoyed again. Surely that's not the first message the club want to send after all this time? So very disappointing.

It depends on whether it’s intended as the close of the matter or the beginning of a legal response. If it’s the latter It be doesn’t surprise me that they didn’t say too much. 

[Saint86]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd calmed down but reading that statement I'm getting annoyed again. Surely that's not the first message the club want to send after all this time? So very disappointing.

Think it's really important to remember Parsons and co were on half time and very little has moved on since last week.

He works really hard and loves the club don't forget. That's all that matters when overseeing a total business and sporting calamity of this scale.

Edited 2 hours ago by Saint86

[SaintsLoyal]

There was no bias, utter tosh and it could have clearly been raised at the time, if those running the club had the management skills to do it. 

[Sarnia Cherie]

Just reinforces to me the zero respect they have for the fans who have consistently supported Southampton throughout the dreadful tenure of SR. Perhaps we need to stop spending our hard earned wages and measly pensions on this lot. Stop buying merchandise for a start. Up until last November the fans have endured the crap football dished up by equally crap managers, all appointed by SR, yet never has there been any real trouble or protests against those responsible. Time to make some changes.

[Saint86]

1 minute ago, Toussaint said:

It depends on whether it’s intended as the close of the matter or the beginning of a legal response. If it’s the latter It be doesn’t surprise me that they didn’t say too much. 

It's a pretty shit opening to a legal response. Basically accepting everything that matters and saying the panel was entitled to reach the punishment it did. Everything else in there is just bitter last words that carry no weight after the fact.

[James]

Just now, SaintsLoyal said:

There was no bias, utter tosh and it could have clearly been raised at the time, if those running the club had the management skills to do it. 

Whether there was or wasn’t is irrelevant in my view. Either way it’s a missed opportunity for the Club to have kicked up a huge stink at the time and gotten the hearings either delayed or the Panel reconstituted. As you say, to make the allegation after the fact is pointless unless teeing up a suit against the EFL which feels unlikely. 

[CB Fry]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd calmed down but reading that statement I'm getting annoyed again. Surely that's not the first message the club want to send after all this time? So very disappointing.

It means no one is getting sacked. Not Parsons, not Tonda. 

Not the position I was expecting but it's a position.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

It depends on whether it’s intended as the close of the matter or the beginning of a legal response. If it’s the latter It be doesn’t surprise me that they didn’t say too much. 

Agreed. The only way this is acceptabke if we are now going to initiate legal action against the efl. If we are just going to shrug our shoulders now and move on then it's not acceptable to have said nothing to the fans.

[Toussaint]

1 minute ago, Saint86 said:

It's a pretty shit opening to a legal response. Basically accepting everything that matters and saying the panel was entitled to reach the punishment it did. Everything else in there is just bitter last words that carry no weight after the fact.

I don’t think it is a legal response, I think it’s a holding statement.  Just my opinion. 

[LaptopSaint]

2 minutes ago, James said:

The more I read from the Club the clearer it is that we completely and utterly ballsed up our response to this issue when it first arose. How can we be raising objections to Panel members etc in a statement almost 2 weeks after we got kicked out? Surely we could have taken a harder line at the time and kicked up more of a fuss about the way the proceedings were being brought if that’s genuinely what we thought at the time?! Seems to me as if this is covering the bases after the fact.

As I’ve said before, it’s now acknowledged internally that we had shit legal advice to begin with and now we’ve got the grown ups in. FWIW I’d have thought that means Parsons must have offered his resignation already given that he was the boss, and it happened on his watch. Dragan may choose not to accept it, of course. If he hasn’t offered to go, I think he should be fired. But I’m not the owner, nor do I know all the facts.