Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
EFL Playoffs 25/26 (Saints booted out of final and given 4 point deduction - pg34)
Comments
-
Marginal not material ?PrincessFiona said:
If there was no material advagtage to the spying, then why do it?valleynick66 said:Seems like an unworkable rule.No sanction really works fairly for all.I’m far from convinced any material advantage / disadvantage is created by the so called ‘spying’.The whole thing about Football is that every match in every competition has the potential to be an ‘unexpected’ outcome.On a pragmatic level and aligned to other potential misdemeanours by clubs (over spending / players diving / cynical fouls / players being tapped up ahead of transfers etc) I think only a steep financial and points penalty is appropriate.Those in glass houses concerns me too as how can any club be certain they haven’t gleaned inside information on tactics / injuries etc that they should not?
If it’s such an advantage why is the penalty not specified in advance?
It’s a poorly thought through rule and sanction (combined).1 -
But it is a rule and Southampton have broken it. If Southampton saw no benefits to sending someone to spy I’d like you to explain to me why they did it. Punishments are rightly within the responsibility of a panel and should be meted out with direct respect to the circumstances. As far as anyone is aware it’s the first time this rule has been broken and the guilty party needs to be sanctioned to a severe degree to deter any repetition by other clubs.valleynick66 said:
Marginal not material ?PrincessFiona said:
If there was no material advagtage to the spying, then why do it?valleynick66 said:Seems like an unworkable rule.No sanction really works fairly for all.I’m far from convinced any material advantage / disadvantage is created by the so called ‘spying’.The whole thing about Football is that every match in every competition has the potential to be an ‘unexpected’ outcome.On a pragmatic level and aligned to other potential misdemeanours by clubs (over spending / players diving / cynical fouls / players being tapped up ahead of transfers etc) I think only a steep financial and points penalty is appropriate.Those in glass houses concerns me too as how can any club be certain they haven’t gleaned inside information on tactics / injuries etc that they should not?
If it’s such an advantage why is the penalty not specified in advance?
It’s a poorly thought through rule and sanction (combined).13 -
I’m not disputing it’s a rule and seemingly broken.ShootersHillGuru said:
But it is a rule and Southampton have broken it. If Southampton saw no benefits to sending someone to spy I’d like you to explain to me why they did it. Punishments are rightly within the responsibility of a panel and should be meted out with direct respect to the circumstances. As far as anyone is aware it’s the first time this rule has been broken and the guilty party needs to be sanctioned to a severe degree to deter any repetition by other clubs.valleynick66 said:
Marginal not material ?PrincessFiona said:
If there was no material advagtage to the spying, then why do it?valleynick66 said:Seems like an unworkable rule.No sanction really works fairly for all.I’m far from convinced any material advantage / disadvantage is created by the so called ‘spying’.The whole thing about Football is that every match in every competition has the potential to be an ‘unexpected’ outcome.On a pragmatic level and aligned to other potential misdemeanours by clubs (over spending / players diving / cynical fouls / players being tapped up ahead of transfers etc) I think only a steep financial and points penalty is appropriate.Those in glass houses concerns me too as how can any club be certain they haven’t gleaned inside information on tactics / injuries etc that they should not?
If it’s such an advantage why is the penalty not specified in advance?
It’s a poorly thought through rule and sanction (combined).I’m saying it’s a poorly thought through rule if the punishment isn’t defined. I am inclined to think minimal if any advantage created and therefore I assume the sanction won’t be notably severe as a consequence.I base that on the apparent reluctance for any meaningful sanctions across football for other breaches / wrongdoings.I’d be surprised if this is the exception.0 -
Other than murder, what crimes in the UK have a day punishment?valleynick66 said:
Marginal not material ?PrincessFiona said:
If there was no material advagtage to the spying, then why do it?valleynick66 said:Seems like an unworkable rule.No sanction really works fairly for all.I’m far from convinced any material advantage / disadvantage is created by the so called ‘spying’.The whole thing about Football is that every match in every competition has the potential to be an ‘unexpected’ outcome.On a pragmatic level and aligned to other potential misdemeanours by clubs (over spending / players diving / cynical fouls / players being tapped up ahead of transfers etc) I think only a steep financial and points penalty is appropriate.Those in glass houses concerns me too as how can any club be certain they haven’t gleaned inside information on tactics / injuries etc that they should not?
If it’s such an advantage why is the penalty not specified in advance?
It’s a poorly thought through rule and sanction (combined).0 -
Eh?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Other than murder, what crimes in the UK have a day punishment?valleynick66 said:
Marginal not material ?PrincessFiona said:
If there was no material advagtage to the spying, then why do it?valleynick66 said:Seems like an unworkable rule.No sanction really works fairly for all.I’m far from convinced any material advantage / disadvantage is created by the so called ‘spying’.The whole thing about Football is that every match in every competition has the potential to be an ‘unexpected’ outcome.On a pragmatic level and aligned to other potential misdemeanours by clubs (over spending / players diving / cynical fouls / players being tapped up ahead of transfers etc) I think only a steep financial and points penalty is appropriate.Those in glass houses concerns me too as how can any club be certain they haven’t gleaned inside information on tactics / injuries etc that they should not?
If it’s such an advantage why is the penalty not specified in advance?
It’s a poorly thought through rule and sanction (combined).2 -
Southampton, should be removed from the Play Off final and start with a points deduction next season with Boro reinstated. You need to send a message. There's no room in the game for rule breakers nor cheating. They clearly sent this guy there for a reason, he got caught so they should face the consequences. There's no point having rules if teams don't abide by them.
To think how candid Nathan Jones is in interviews about players coming back from injury....
Does beg the question if other clubs are doing this.....?
11 -
If only the 'Saints' had an ex season ticket fan who plays for Middlesbrough then they wouldn't have had to spy; I refuse to name the target of this allegation 🤐0
-
Did I read on here a few pages back that we might hear of an outcome today?0
-
BBC suggesting that it’s likely that the outcome would likely be tomorrow but who knows.cabbles said:Did I read on here a few pages back that we might hear of an outcome today?1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Imagine being a Southampton fan now and potentially being kicked out because of something like this ? The audacity of those who instructed this.... complete disregard for their own fans and utter contempt of Boro and the EFL9
-
.0
-
It's so unfair on Hull. They don't know if they're due to play Southampton or Middlesbrough. Which means they don't know where to send their spy.27
-
I don’t get that?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Other than murder, what crimes in the UK have a day punishment?valleynick66 said:
Marginal not material ?PrincessFiona said:
If there was no material advagtage to the spying, then why do it?valleynick66 said:Seems like an unworkable rule.No sanction really works fairly for all.I’m far from convinced any material advantage / disadvantage is created by the so called ‘spying’.The whole thing about Football is that every match in every competition has the potential to be an ‘unexpected’ outcome.On a pragmatic level and aligned to other potential misdemeanours by clubs (over spending / players diving / cynical fouls / players being tapped up ahead of transfers etc) I think only a steep financial and points penalty is appropriate.Those in glass houses concerns me too as how can any club be certain they haven’t gleaned inside information on tactics / injuries etc that they should not?
If it’s such an advantage why is the penalty not specified in advance?
It’s a poorly thought through rule and sanction (combined).1 -
yes sorry, marginal not material. And advantage not advagtage!valleynick66 said:
Marginal not material ?PrincessFiona said:
If there was no material advagtage to the spying, then why do it?valleynick66 said:Seems like an unworkable rule.No sanction really works fairly for all.I’m far from convinced any material advantage / disadvantage is created by the so called ‘spying’.The whole thing about Football is that every match in every competition has the potential to be an ‘unexpected’ outcome.On a pragmatic level and aligned to other potential misdemeanours by clubs (over spending / players diving / cynical fouls / players being tapped up ahead of transfers etc) I think only a steep financial and points penalty is appropriate.Those in glass houses concerns me too as how can any club be certain they haven’t gleaned inside information on tactics / injuries etc that they should not?
If it’s such an advantage why is the penalty not specified in advance?
It’s a poorly thought through rule and sanction (combined).
There should be some guidelines about the penaly but difficult becasue so many levels.
If it was only marginal, why do it. Would the penalty be different if the bloke was there o=longer or on more than 1 day etc? It is deemed as cheating though0 -
There may be a punishment against Soton, but there will be no benefit to Boro.
BBC says they are not listed as an 'interested party' so they are not giving any evidence or being questioned on the matter.1 -
-
This is a total nightmare scenario for the EFL. Not a chance they will ban Southampton from the final as tickets etc have been sold. I suspect a fine will be served out and then a legal challenge will start for damages from Middlesborough.
A real no win situation for the EFL.
2 -
That was the EFL's decision...utter crap...MrOneLung said:There may be a punishment against Soton, but there will be no benefit to Boro.
BBC says they are not listed as an 'interested party' so they are not giving any evidence or being questioned on the matter.1 -
Does this mean Southampton will still play in the final and there will be no benefit to Boro?eastterrace6168 said:
That was the EFL's decision...utter crap...MrOneLung said:There may be a punishment against Soton, but there will be no benefit to Boro.
BBC says they are not listed as an 'interested party' so they are not giving any evidence or being questioned on the matter.
I hope Hull win then0 -
Sponsored links:
-
don't think you are alone on thisSoundAsa£ said:
I don’t get that?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Other than murder, what crimes in the UK have a day punishment?valleynick66 said:
Marginal not material ?PrincessFiona said:
If there was no material advagtage to the spying, then why do it?valleynick66 said:Seems like an unworkable rule.No sanction really works fairly for all.I’m far from convinced any material advantage / disadvantage is created by the so called ‘spying’.The whole thing about Football is that every match in every competition has the potential to be an ‘unexpected’ outcome.On a pragmatic level and aligned to other potential misdemeanours by clubs (over spending / players diving / cynical fouls / players being tapped up ahead of transfers etc) I think only a steep financial and points penalty is appropriate.Those in glass houses concerns me too as how can any club be certain they haven’t gleaned inside information on tactics / injuries etc that they should not?
If it’s such an advantage why is the penalty not specified in advance?
It’s a poorly thought through rule and sanction (combined).0 -
I’ve mentioned before that when teams get punished for wrongdoings, the specific clubs who were negatively affected by their actions don’t tend to receive any specific benefit from the punishment. Rather, the league as a whole would benefit from the deduction of points of an opponent. It’s been like this for years (maybe forever?) because it’s a can of worms. How do you measure who to award benefits to? As an example, it’s been argued on here that Boro, Hull and Wrexham could argue a case in the current situation.MrOneLung said:There may be a punishment against Soton, but there will be no benefit to Boro.
BBC says they are not listed as an 'interested party' so they are not giving any evidence or being questioned on the matter.Hence some clubs feel stitched up and others get an easier fight for promotion/relegation or whatever, but that’s the way it has to be.0 -
And penalty takers / placement.PrincessFiona said:
yes, who was fit, who was likely to be playing, formation etckillerandflash said:
I imagine Soton wanted to know whether Hayden Hackney was fit or not, which would be very useful to know.PrincessFiona said:
True but spying on training before a match could give clues about specific tactics, set pieces they are working on etc specifically for the upcoming match?The Red Robin said:
I don’t understand the need to do it either. Clubs pay for software that allows you to watch every single second, split by set pieces, minute, players etc of any team of any game.Fanny Fanackapan said:My only comment on this issue is we have no idea whether this practice is common place, rampant even, among clubs in general whether in the EPL or non league ....Who's to say or would admit to it ?
Southampton's patsy just happened to be "caught " .3 -
All photographers welcome to Sparrows Lane.Raith_C_Chattonell said:
And penalty takers / placement.PrincessFiona said:
yes, who was fit, who was likely to be playing, formation etckillerandflash said:
I imagine Soton wanted to know whether Hayden Hackney was fit or not, which would be very useful to know.PrincessFiona said:
True but spying on training before a match could give clues about specific tactics, set pieces they are working on etc specifically for the upcoming match?The Red Robin said:
I don’t understand the need to do it either. Clubs pay for software that allows you to watch every single second, split by set pieces, minute, players etc of any team of any game.Fanny Fanackapan said:My only comment on this issue is we have no idea whether this practice is common place, rampant even, among clubs in general whether in the EPL or non league ....Who's to say or would admit to it ?
Southampton's patsy just happened to be "caught " .
When it comes to free kicks and corners they will leave with as much knowledge of where the ball is going as we do 🤷♂️25 -
If Southampton are not expelled from the play-offs, I think Boro will almost certainly pursue a claim for loss of the chance of promotion to the Premier League. It would be a claim in contract as, under the EFL Regulations, every member club owes obligations to all other member clubs, as well as to the league itself.
In order to succeed, Boro do not need to prove, on the balance of probabilities (the usual civil standard), that they would have reached the play-off final and been promoted but for Southampton’s spying (an impossible task).What they do need to demonstrate is that they have, as a result, lost a ‘real and substantial chance’ of achieving promotion to the Premier League. A real and substantial chance can be as low as 10%. Moreover, where a defendant has acted negligently or, in Southampton’s case, in flagrant breach of the EFL regulations, a judge is more likely to give Boro the benefit of the doubt when assessing whether they have, indeed, lost a real and substantial chance of promotion. As others have rightly said on this thread, if spying on the training session was of no material benefit, why did Southampton send an employee a couple of hundred miles to the north east to do so ? The ‘moral merits’ and the sympathy of the court will be with Boro and Southampton’s position will be further undermined if there is evidence that this was not an isolated incident.
If that initial hurdle could be overcome, a court will then assess the value of the chance that has been lost by discounting the headline figure (say, £120 million) by percentages to reflect the uncertainty of Boro prevailing in each of:
(1) the semi-final against Southampton - say, 60% for simplicity, reducing damages to
£48 million; and
(2) the final against Hull - say, 50%, reducing damages to £24 million.Most of the cases involve claims against solicitors who have missed litigation deadlines or claims for ‘lost transactions’ and commercial opportunities. Ann action involving football would be novel but a judge would do his or her best on the available evidence. The principles go back to a 1912 Court of Appeal case - Chaplin v Hicks - in which the claimant entered a beauty contest organised by the defendant (a famous actor and theatre manager). Readers voted the top 50 contestants into an interview, where 12 would be selected for employment. The claimant made the top 50, but the defendant's invitation to the interview arrived too late for her to attend. The defendant argued that damages could not be awarded because it was entirely speculative whether the claimant would have been chosen as one of the final 12.The Court of Appeal held that the claimant was entitled to substantial damages, which were assessed at 24% by the jury.
In practice, if Southampton are not kicked out of the play-offs and Boro pursue a claim through the courts, it feels like an action where an early settlement is likely. Apart from the litigation risk facing Southampton, a full trial is likely to lead to considerable further embarrassment and reputational damage - points I don’t think Steve Gibson will be shy in making.8 -
If they have carreid on and sold tickets for the final to Southamption fans, is this an indication Southampton will definitely be playing? And if the hearing is by an independent panel, how can the EFL be so confident they will still play?
Why can't Boro (or even Hull) partake in the hearing?0 -
blackpool72 said:
All photographers welcome to Sparrows Lane.Raith_C_Chattonell said:
And penalty takers / placement.PrincessFiona said:
yes, who was fit, who was likely to be playing, formation etckillerandflash said:
I imagine Soton wanted to know whether Hayden Hackney was fit or not, which would be very useful to know.PrincessFiona said:
True but spying on training before a match could give clues about specific tactics, set pieces they are working on etc specifically for the upcoming match?The Red Robin said:
I don’t understand the need to do it either. Clubs pay for software that allows you to watch every single second, split by set pieces, minute, players etc of any team of any game.Fanny Fanackapan said:My only comment on this issue is we have no idea whether this practice is common place, rampant even, among clubs in general whether in the EPL or non league ....Who's to say or would admit to it ?
Southampton's patsy just happened to be "caught " .
When it comes to free kicks and corners they will leave with as much knowledge of where the ball is going as we do 🤷♂️
I heard Soton spied on Charlton before the game at the Valley.
When the spy told them we were going to play Apter and Hernandez at wing back he was told to not make up such nonsense and was sacked.19 -
Thing is, if Boro get back in because they were spied on, what benefit do the other spied on teams receive?0
-
BBC NEWS SAINTS BOOTED OUT OF SATURDAY'S FINAL...BORO REINSTATED
Right decision as i see it...21 -
Southampton slung out of play offs and 4pt deduction at start of next season. Hull v Boro now on Sat, although Southampton have a right to appeal that would be heard tomorrow. What a shambles!0
