Forum | Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate by MattFinish

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate 22:59 - May 28 with 13727 views

We all know what Saints did was wrong but as clarified by virtually everyone in the game with half a brain and everyone outside of Portsmouth and Middlesbrough, Saints punishment was so disproportionately severe and the way that Middlesbrough were reinstated in the competition having been knocked out over two legs raises a lot of questions that I feel still need answering.

Firstly, Saints were reported for spying by Middlesbrough. The EFL had regulations in place specifically Regulation 3.4, which imposes a general duty of good faith and Regulation 127 which prohibits observation of training sessions.

The only similar case in the EFL was that of Leeds United who were caught spying on a Derby training session mid way through the 2018/19 season. Leeds admitted to and were found guilty of spying on every team’s training sessions up to that point, i.e. on 26 other teams. Saints were found guilty of spying on 3 teams. All Leeds got as punishment was a £200k fine, no points deductions and no staff bans. They were not kicked out of the FA Cup which they competed in after being found guilty and they were allowed to play in the playoff semi finals at the end of the season.

This judgement on Leeds set a precedent for future spying transgressions. The EFL put a specific regulation in place (Reg 127) but that came under the umbrella of Regulation 3.4, which already existed.

In legal terms setting a precedent means a court has made a legal decision that establishes a new principle or rule. This decision acts as an authoritative model or guideline for judges to follow in all future cases that involve similar facts or legal issues.

When our punishment was given the EFL claimed that this was a new rule but in fact Regulation 3.4 existed then and exists now, regulation 127 just details spying which was already covered under Reg 3.4 or how else did the EFL charge Leeds?

To make matters worse the EFL had a rule in place which covered spying on training sessions and other breaches but then decided to add specific mention of observing other teams training sessions (Reg 127). But then they confused the matter by making it acceptable to spy on other teams training sessions up to 72 hours before a game. This completely contradicts regulation 3.4. So in effect the EFL had a rule in place to punish any form of spying and then brought in a new rule which partially allowed it. In addition in the seven years since the EFL brought in regulation 127 they have failed to clarify what the penalty would be for breaking this regulation.

So having been accused of spying an Independent Disciplinary Commission found us guilty and decided to expel Saints from the Playoffs and deduct them 4 points next season, thus allowing Middlesbrough who had already been knocked out of the competition to be reinstated. I've read through the EFL regulations and I can't find anywhere that allows for a team to be reinstated from a knockout competition after they been eliminated.

Similarly, there is a rule in the EFL regulations which states that “the Proposed Respondents shall have two options: 86.4.1 to accept the Proposed Sanction within 14 days of receipt; or 86.4.2 to reject the Proposed Sanction, in which case the matter shall be referred to the Disciplinary Commission in accordance with this Section 8. In the event that no response is received within 14 days the matter shall be referred to the Disciplinary Commission for determination in the manner set out in this Section 8.”

I have read through the EFL Regulations and can’t find anywhere that states that the EFL can foreshorten the 14 day period that Saints should have been allowed to make a response. If the EFL had stuck to their regulations and allowed Saints 14 days to respond they would have had no option but to allow Southampton to play Hull in the final which would have meant that Middlesbrough would have been out.

According to the written reasons of the Independent Disciplinary Commission who expelled Saints, the independent panel consisted of three solicitors, two of whom have links to Middlesbrough football club however tenuous they may be. One was employed by a firm that have represented Middlesbrough on at least two occasions and one who played football for them. I know following a previous post that I made, the two people in question claim they were accused of bias and maintained they were not acting with bias to Middlesbrough. That may well be the case but there's no way of proving that one way or the other. I want to make it crystal clear that at no point did I accuse anyone of bias I just pointed out the links and asked for transparency.

Out of 176,000 practising solicitors in the UK the EFL chose to appoint two to sit on the Independent Disciplinary Commission who had links to Middlesbrough, whereas they managed to find 2 solicitors with no links to Southampton.

In addition I pointed out that Neil Bausor the CEO of Middlesbrough Football Club sits on the board of the EFL which surely, whether as he says he stepped back from this situation, opens up the question of impartiality. The EFL board is a relatively small group of people who I'm sure get on well together and meet fairly regularly. As such I'm sure that Neil Bauser is friends with people on the board. Personally I'd be surprised if he wasn't but that's just my opinion.

The other thing that has not been made public by the EFL is, who sat on the panel of the independent arbitration panel who dismissed Saints appeal? Surely for reasons of transparency, we should be told who these independent people were.

In my opinion, it appeared to me and many others that there was a push from within the EFL for Middlesbrough to progress through to the playoff final. The match between Saints and Middlesbrough was allowed to take place and I feel that the EFL were hoping that Middlesbrough would beat Saints and the problem would be solved. However when Southampton won, the EFL made the decision to expel them from the competition. At that point the final should have been awarded to Hull City but that would have robbed the EFL of their very lucrative final. Personally and I know a lot of other people not just Saints fans think this stinks.

The biggest monetary fine in English football was when Chelsea were fined £10.75 million for serious financial transgressions over a period spanning 8 years. This enabled them to buy top quality players who gave them an actual advantage on the pitch every game of the season for eight years, enabling them in that period to win 3 Premier League titles; 3 FA cups; 2 Champions League titles; 2 Europa League titles; 1 UEFA Conference league title; 1 UEFA Super cup title and 2 FIFA world cup titles.

For spying on three clubs we have been denied the opportunity to play in the richest game in world football and denied the chance of a £200 million windfall. It has been said that we have not lost £200 million because we still had to win the final but even without that we have in effect been fined £9m. This is because by the EFL keeping us in the championship we will lose £9m in parachute payments next season.

We still await an FA investigation into the incident with rumours of Tonda Eckert receiving a two year ban. This would be grossly unfair as Bielsa was not banned when Leeds were caught and the following season was able to guide them to promotion to the premiership.

What we did was unlikely to gain us any advantage at all, and in fact if you look at the three games that we were found guilty of we drew two and lost one so clearly there was no advantage. However if you look at Chelsea, Manchester City and Leicester City they were all guilty of severe and continual financial misconduct over a large number of years where they were able to buy the quality of players that other teams couldn't afford which gave them a huge advantage over the competition in every single game. Yet between the three of them they have received a six point deduction and a £10.75m fine.

The football authorities can argue all they want that Southampton's punishment fits the crime but we all know and they know this is not the case.

Shame on the EFL!

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 23:19 - May 28 with 9514 views

benalisbroom

Brilliant summary, Matt - thank you for all your digging. I’m still concerned that one of the panel members, Lydia Banerjee, may have historically acted as an advisor to MFC - bearing in mind that legal advice is not quite the same as representation. Nonetheless, this would still represent a significant conflict of interest. Were you able to find out if that individual had been advising MFC? It looked to me like some biographical information linking her to Middlesbrough might have been either posted maliciously (in which case apologies, Lydia), or had been posted by her chambers and subsequently deleted. Surely the SFC legal department could look into this with a simple letter to her chambers?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 23:36 - May 28 with 9439 views

Jellybaby

Good summary. It does beg the question, why Saints rolled over so lamely, particularly in waiving their right to the 14 day appeal?

I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 23:57 - May 28 with 9411 views

MattFinish

Hi Benalisbrrom, I didn't find any further links to Lydia Banerjee although Littleton Chambershave definately represented Middlesbrough FC on two high profile cases and maybe more. As you say she may well have represented them but we don't know.

Suerly it's down to the EFL to ensure that whoever they appoint is not at risk of being in conflict through association. As I said they had 176,000 solicitors to chose from and picked two who had Middlesbrough links.

I was surprised that there was seemingly a response from Winnie and Banerjee to the posts on this board to deny any bias. But we have absolutely no way of knowing whether that is true. Let me reiterate, I am not accusing them of bias, I'm just saying that in my opinion there could be a conflict of interests that the EFL could have avoided.

I think there is enough general condemnation of our punishment from prominent people in football like Simon Jordan, Karen Brady and Stefan Borson (who is an experienced and award-winning General Counsel, adviser and CEO working as head of sport at McCarthy Denning who are a full service City law firm) for serious questions to be asked.

Like you I'm disappointed that our legal representation appears to have rolled over

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 07:11 - May 29 with 9246 views

jopreston

Have we rolled over? I am not so sure. The silence coming from SMS makes me wonder if this is because they are still very much engaged in this, hence they cannot talk about it as it is ongoing. It would not surprise me at all if Solak and his legal people were in very detailed talks about this. If we can see it, I am damn sure they can.

Let's face it, if it is found to be true and that there was a conflict of interest, it is too late now and the EFL may well be in serious trouble by denying us a chance at 200m quid. This could be very messy indeed, then again it could be nothing at all.

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 07:13 - May 29 with 9245 views

yateleysaint

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 23:57 - May 28 by MattFinish

Winnie the Shit.

You’re welcome.

You cannot reason a person out of something they were not reasoned into.

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 07:35 - May 29 with 9193 views

DorsetIan

Everything you have written is spot on.

It was all about getting Boro back into the final.

I am so glad that they lost.

Poll:

Would you welcome Oriol Romeu back?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 08:01 - May 29 with 9162 views

grumpy

When you think about all the fuss they made about a kid behind a tree taking pictures,not as if they could score anyway.

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:01 - May 29 with 9075 views

MattFinish

The question I’d like answering next is who sat on the EFL Arbitration Panel who threw out Saints appeal?

I find it quite strange that the Independent Disciplinary Commission were all named and the hearing notes were published but the Arbitration Panel weren’t named and no notes of the hearing were published just an EFL statement

Where is the transparency?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:14 - May 29 with 9049 views

SaintNick

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:01 - May 29 by MattFinish
The question I’d like answering next is who sat on the EFL Arbitration Panel who threw out Saints appeal? I find it quite strange that the Independent Disciplinary Commission were all named and the hearing notes were published but the Arbitration Panel weren’t named and no notes of the hearing were published just an EFL statement Where is the transparency?

Matt sent you a private message on here

Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:24 - May 29 with 9026 views

MattFinish

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:14 - May 29 by SaintNick
Matt sent you a private message on here

Can’t see anything Nick, how do I access it

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:25 - May 29 with 9022 views

PaghamSaint

Great summary, well put together.

The EFL seem to have put a great deal of emphasis on the "bullying" of individuals at Southampton by those in positions of power, and yet we have the EFL appearing in my eyes to be doing exactly the same to our team, "It's our league and you will do as you are told and no we don't need to explain ourselves".

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:27 - May 29 with 9018 views

MattFinish

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:14 - May 29 by SaintNick
Matt sent you a private message on here

Got it Nick 👍

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 10:35 - May 29 with 8893 views

Bridders2

A very clear and methodical summary Matt.

I still can't get my head round the 14 day right to reply, why did they agree to shorten this? I assumed it was because Saints had come to an agreement with the EFL about a set penalty which didn't include expulsion.
I'd love to know, who and why we didn't take the full 14 days under EFL rules because it would have been impossible to have cancelled a day before the final.

	Dorsaint
Poll:	Should Tonda be sacked?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 10:56 - May 29 with 8897 views

MattFinish

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 10:35 - May 29 by Bridders2

That's a good point Bridders2

Was it because Saints had come to an agreement with the EFL about a set penalty which didn't include expulsion.

Another thing I thought was very odd and raised suspicions was on the morning of the Independent Arbitration Panel decision Southampton FC were issued with an extra 1,620 for the final. When that happened, I was convinced the decision was going to be overruled. Was that the case but then someone within the EFL put pressure on to uphold the decision? That could be a likely reason. Again, I’m not saying it is but just raising some strange behaviour from the EFL. Why issue the tickets a matter of hours before the arbitration panel decision?

[Post edited 29 May 10:57]

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 11:13 - May 29 with 8858 views

DorsetIan

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 10:35 - May 29 by Bridders2

Saints' entire strategy seems to have been one of containment and cooperation. No PR campaign to counter that being pushed by Boro. Eckart not even allowed to answer questions at Press Conferences - presumably so as not to say something that might antagonise the EFL or cast doubt on the idea that Saints were genuinely contrite.

I can only imagine that this strategy was based on legal advice that going to the Tribunal on bended knees would be the best way to get leniency.

But we just don't know. Maybe the legal advice was that expulsion was unlikely and that therefore putting ourselves at the mercy of the Tribunal was the sensible approach. But it could equally be possible that the advice was that expulsion was very likely and that we had to do everything possible to mitigate the additional punishments around points deductions and fines.

Either way, they threw the book at us anyway.

The EFL has said that the written decision of the Arbitration Panel on the Appeal with be published, so we will no doubt find out more when that happens.

Poll:

Would you welcome Oriol Romeu back?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 12:50 - May 29 with 8772 views

MattFinish

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 11:13 - May 29 by DorsetIan

Are they publishing the written decision or are they just issuing the statement which they’ve already done?

I’d be interested to see if anyone on the Arbitration Panel has any connections to Middlesbrough

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 13:23 - May 29 with 8724 views

BLEEDRED

I am still very confused by SFC and how they have handled the whole episode. I am hoping that they are keeping quiet because after the FA investigation is complete they will have some legal action they can take against the EFL. That could be procedural, unfair practices, undue pressure to rush hearing, not abiding by their own laws.

No one denials that Saints broke the rules, but very few think the punishment fits the crime, Middlesbrough ran a very good trial by media, so there was noway Saints could get a fair outcome.

My hope now is Saints have a very good legal team that are quietly preparing action against the EFL

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 13:33 - May 29 with 8705 views

Bazza

I notice in The Times Thursday the EFL head of legal Geoffrey May was named Lawyer of the week for managing the Spygate case against SFC!

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 14:17 - May 29 with 8646 views

Berber

But their opinion is the only one that counts. tralala

Poll:

How many wins this season sweepstake

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 14:42 - May 29 with 8614 views

DorsetIan

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 12:50 - May 29 by MattFinish
Are they publishing the written decision or are they just issuing the statement which they’ve already done? I’d be interested to see if anyone on the Arbitration Panel has any connections to Middlesbrough

I was basing that comment on this from the EFL on 20 May:

"The League Arbitration Panel’s written reasons will be published in due course along with the Independent Disciplinary Commission’s full decision."

and then this in 21 May when the written decision of the 'Boro footballer' panel was released:

"Yesterday (Wednesday 20 May) a League Arbitration Panel dismissed Southampton’s appeal against the Independent Disciplinary Commission’s sanction. The League Arbitration Panel’s written reasons will be published in due course."

Poll:

Would you welcome Oriol Romeu back?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 15:09 - May 29 with 8534 views

dirk_doone

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 13:33 - May 29 by Bazza
I notice in The Times Thursday the EFL head of legal Geoffrey May was named Lawyer of the week for managing the Spygate case against SFC!

He'll now be able to charge the sort of fees that O.J. Simpson's lawyer used to get.

Poll:

How many Pompey fans post on here, pretending to be Saints fans?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 16:22 - May 29 with 8503 views

shotters

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 07:35 - May 29 by DorsetIan
Everything you have written is spot on. It was all about getting Boro back into the final. I am so glad that they lost.

I agree

Sporting integrity, my arse

If it was about that they'd have stood aside an let Hull go up, although having read about their performance last Saturday they pretty much did

Fail we may, sail we must

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 19:28 - May 29 with 8385 views

InTimeAddedOn

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 10:56 - May 29 by MattFinish

[Post edited 29 May 10:57]

Alternatively, let’s say that if was a stitch-up and the so-called independent panel were always going to come to that decision because the EFL (petrified and running scared of Gibson’s demands) had specified expulsion as the only acceptable outcome for them, then what better way to make it look like anything other than a foregone conclusion? Releasing extra tickets to Saints so close to the negative decision would make no sense if they knew it was going to happen, so, by doing just that it throws up a smoke screen the EFL hope they can hide behind. Just a thought…

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 22:21 - May 29 with 8269 views

FarRightRobb

On another note has anyone been aware of who miserableboro had to present their medals had they won ,, any saints fans on twitter would've probably noticed this scumbag - @Markdavies67
Because from the get go he was constantly berating saints whilst preaching that Boro are holier than thou, proper hypocritical , condescending stuff,, anyway , after the final he put out a tweet saying that it was the honour of his life that Boro had asked him to present the medals ,!! Hence why he went in a suit ,,
Thanks to some digging from other saints fans on twitter /x its now come to light that he was former communication director during the post office scandal

My emails look ludicrous, says ex-Post Office PR boss - BBC News https://share.google/oUsGPERIH

Note - how he was quoted as using an aggressive media strategy,,
Another thing to note is that he's wrote a book & the foreword is written by Steve Gibson.

Anyway , the way it panned out from following on twitter from when the news broke was that all a sudden this guy was in loads of saints fans faces , he does communication/spin etc & gets rewarded with being invited to the final to hand out the medals !
Also remember that in the first hearing saints were apparently in shock that the EFL had a criminal barrister representing them & were pushing for the hardest punishment, looking back it all makes sense now , Boro played a dirty game that was a coordinated effort from their local media & fans that seem to know all about the dark arts.
They preached to us of how high and mighty they are from the outset but truly are in the gutter. The whole process stinks

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 23:27 - May 29 with 8191 views

MattFinish

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 14:42 - May 29 by DorsetIan

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread