Southampton spying compendium thread

[MonkeyLove]

Given SFC have admitted the charges, all of the above doesn't apply.

Admitting the charge has absolutely no bearing on if the correct process was followed. Regardless the appeal is a new phase so even if Southampton strategically wanted to be cooperative on flexing the process for the initial hearing they could still challenge the appeal phase if they aren’t given enough time to prepare and don’t have the written outcome for the original hearing.

The worst thing the EFL could do is say the circumvented their own process for expediency due to the circumstances. If they have to admit that then Southamptons lawyers will be rubbing their hands together.

 

[rubberface]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[SAFC11]

Looks like he did but challenged it as this poster seems to be getting snippets of info, has this been made public yet?

You must be logged on to see external links

Logon or register to see this image

A lot still defending it on there

 

[Pantomime Mackem]

We don’t know what they are appealing. They could equally appeal the process or a combination of all.

I do think the EFL having to discard with the rules they set themselves around the process could cause an issue for them even if Southampton agreed. Infact the obvious argument for their lawyers in my opinion would be to challenge the appeal process as the timeline is ridiculously short and they haven’t had the written judgment.

They likely don’t change anything long term but could tie the EFL down to having to delay the final.

This isn’t true. They have the power in their regulations to shorten the timescale if there’s good reason. They haven’t discarded any rules they set. They’ve acted in accordance with them.

 

[Mackemansj1]

If this gets appealed how Micky mouse do the efl look. It’s already become a shit show, imagine it get appealed a few days out. I’m starting to wonder if this game even goes ahead. They’ve now messed with a kick off time meanwhile fans who are actual paying for and making the game what it is are being messed about right left and centre. Looking back they should’ve delayed the actual first leg when this was reported. They were hoping boro would win to save all the hassle and now they’ve just made it all worse. Fans not given a second thought.

 

[one footed wonder]

I’m surprised the points deduction isn’t bigger if I’m honest, thought they would go high and in any appeal simply lessen that element of the sanction.

Only going in at -4 doesn’t give a lot of flexibility and if reduced it becomes nowt in the great scheme of things.

If you were trying to pick holes in it, which saints will they could be looking at

2 breaches in regular season = -4 points
Single breach in play offs = removed from final

Can only see any saints appeal being based on the severity of the sanction being disproportional to the breach and impact of the breach

Not saying that’s right mind just my view on what the basis of their appeal would be,

If I was a betting man appeal will only see reduction in points deducted at best.


be fascinating to be able to see and read the relevant paperwork for this.

 

[Dogbark]

Hopefully they'll increase the points deduction for appealing. The thick bastards.

 

[si73]

Going to guess the expulsion will remain but the points deduction will be reduced or removed.

And then after the final and the dust settles a little, the other clubs (who will be trawling through CCTV footage as we speak) will come to the EFL and lodge complaints individually or as a group action. The EFL are duty bound to investigate and act accordingly.

Sinners could easily be looking at a demotion if someone like say, Wrexham, decide to really go for it. Love a litigation do the Yanks.

 

[Mackemansj1]

I’m surprised the points deduction isn’t bigger if I’m honest, thought they would go high and in any appeal simply lessen that element of the sanction.

Only going in at -4 doesn’t give a lot of flexibility and if reduced it becomes nowt in the great scheme of things.

If you were trying to pick holes in it, which saints will they could be looking at

2 breaches in regular season = -4 points
Single breach in play offs = removed from final

Can only see any saints appeal being based on the severity of the sanction being disproportional to the breach and impact of the breach

Not saying that’s right mind just my view on what the basis of their appeal would be,

If I was a betting man appeal will only see reduction in points deducted at best.


be fascinating to be able to see and read the relevant paperwork for this.

I don’t know how they can say it’s disproportionate. It seems they’ve admitted it so they’ve knowingly broke the rules in hope to gain and advantage. It’s like saying well I robbed a bank and only got a fiver so I shouldnt really got to jail

 

[scott934]

Yep, then hopefully sue for wrongful dismissal if the club take umbridge.

And never work in football again.

 

[Pantomime Mackem]

I’m surprised the points deduction isn’t bigger if I’m honest, thought they would go high and in any appeal simply lessen that element of the sanction.

Only going in at -4 doesn’t give a lot of flexibility and if reduced it becomes nowt in the great scheme of things.

If you were trying to pick holes in it, which saints will they could be looking at

2 breaches in regular season = -4 points
Single breach in play offs = removed from final

Can only see any saints appeal being based on the severity of the sanction being disproportional to the breach and impact of the breach

Not saying that’s right mind just my view on what the basis of their appeal would be,

If I was a betting man appeal will only see reduction in points deducted at best.


be fascinating to be able to see and read the relevant paperwork for this.

My guess is it would have been higher (-6 say) but they got some mitigation for the guilty plea.

 

[one footed wonder]

I don’t know how they can say it’s disproportionate. It seems they’ve admitted it so they’ve knowingly broke the rules in hope to gain and advantage. It’s like saying well I robbed a bank and only got a fiver so I shouldnt really got to jail

Not disagreeing to be fair but there is some nuance and whether we think it’s relevant or not it will almost certainly be an avenue Southampton are considering.

If the EFL are saying the rule break itself is enough to warrant expulsion then I think that would be overly risky for them from a purely legal perspective.

I think they would want to demonstrate they have actively considered any mitigation put forward by Southampton as well as the overall impact of their actions (effectively breaking a rule to gain an advantage that can be reasonably viewed as leading to Boro missing the opportunity to compete for a place in the PL)

Any appeal panel would want to see the investigation was fair and reasonable and had considered the issue more widely.

Some (not you) have been having a pop at the EFL, they might well be shite but their lawyers won’t be, all of this is just them getting their ducks in a row to be able to defend their decision.

I’m glad they’ve been handed the ultimate punishment, they shouldn’t have cheated.

My guess is it would have been higher (-6 say) but they got some mitigation for the guilty plea.

Good point

 

[si73]

Unless there was some procedural error that makes it necessary to do justice, it will not be a rehearing. It will be a review of the original decision. The focus will be on the decision that was made and the reasons given for it rather than this bit of evidence, that bit of evidence, and t'other bit of evidence.

Given the misconduct appears to have been admitted, it is unlikely that there was much in the way of evidence anyway. The basic purpose of evidence is to resolve factual disputes. Where there are admitted or agreed facts, the decision maker applies the rules to those facts.

If the only issue is the proportionality of the sanction, then they should be able to hear all the arguments and render a decision pretty sharpish. I've done much more complicated appeals in less than a day, with a decision given then and there.

Obviously it is not my decision to make, so my views are irrelevant. But I don't envy Southampton's legal team. It is likely that they will have to convince 2 out of 3 of the arbitrators (who will all be barristers, solicitors, or professional arbitrators) that the decision was one that no reasonable decision maker could have made. It won't (shouldn't) be enough to convince the arbitrators that they themselves might have made a different decision in the shoes of the original decision maker. A tricky task.

Thanks for this. Interesting stuff.

Quick question, would their appeal not seen as calling into question the 'judgement' (ability) of the original panel and as such possibly be viewed as a frivolous appeal given their admittance of guilt and the evidence?

Does the appeal panel have the option of increasing the punishment in this case?

 

[Gloucester]

We don’t know what they are appealing. They could equally appeal the process or a combination of all.

I do think the EFL having to discard with the rules they set themselves around the process could cause an issue for them even if Southampton agreed. Infact the obvious argument for their lawyers in my opinion would be to challenge the appeal process as the timeline is ridiculously short and they haven’t had the written judgment.

They likely don’t change anything long term but could tie the EFL down to having to delay the final.

Too much talk about whether the punishment is harsh on Southampton. What went on has made them a disgrace to English football and they should be condemned from all directions. They should be hanging their heads in shame not appealing against their punishment.

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

A lot still defending it on there

Aye, thick red n white glasses well and truly on. I haven't read it all but there's also a few who've been concerned from the start, got shit for it but accepting now it's the club to blame, mainly the individuals involved.

It would be the same on here I suppose but it's certainly shite for the ones who had concerns from the start as this is something in their history now.

 

[stapler]

I still think unfortunately Southampton have a couple of cards to play.

Most obvious would be if they lose today to bring a new claim to challenge the actual procedure. It’s pretty obvious that for expediency the EFL can’t follow their own process which requires 14 days. And also doing the appeal today means Southampton are having to do the appeal also in a very short time scale and without the full written judgement. I’m sure Southampton could have some recourse to challenge that and it’s what journalists are suggesting their lawyers are looking at. First rule of law if you can’t challenge something substantively (which I doubt they can) then go after the process. Just look how long Man City have delayed things.

If that fails they could still and try to potentially take it outside football into the courts and try for an injunction. The obvious angle would again be lack of fair process which creates some kind of breach of contract of faith.

Not sure whether either of those would be successful but it’s undisputed that the EFL have had to discard the usual process to get this done quickly and that almost certainly will open up some risk for them.

Southampton know once the game is played it’s over and they are chasing just compensation after that point (Not saying they have a case but that would be their only recourse) so with little to lose I fully expect them to make another legal challenge to try and stop the final if they lose today.

We don’t know what they are appealing. They could equally appeal the process or a combination of all.

I do think the EFL having to discard with the rules they set themselves around the process could cause an issue for them even if Southampton agreed. Infact the obvious argument for their lawyers in my opinion would be to challenge the appeal process as the timeline is ridiculously short and they haven’t had the written judgment.

They likely don’t change anything long term but could tie the EFL down to having to delay the final.

I don't mean to be rude, but a lot of what you are saying doesn't have any basis in the legal issues that are live in this case.

Your complaint about not following the process or "discarding" the rules is not an accurate characterisation. The EPL's procedural rules contain a power for a decision making body to extend or abridge any time limit. Either Southampton agreed to that, in which case there is no appeal. Or they did not agree but the decision making body nevertheless abridged time. If that is the case they are possibly already out of time to challenge the abridgement. Even if they are not, they would have to show that no reasonable decision maker could have come to the same conclusion. To put it another way, the appeal would have to decide that every reasonable decision maker would not have abridged time. Not impossible, but not far off impossible in a context where, because of when Southampton chose to cheat, time was most definitely of the essence.

Your comments about separate court proceedings are also incorrect. The EFL Regulations contain a valid arbitration agreement and Southampton have already submitted to its jurisdiction. The power of a Court to interfere in those circumstances are very, very limited and only exercised in fairly exceptional circumstances.

Again, while it is not impossible to get an interim injunction to restrain the enforcement of an abitral award pending a claim to overturn it, such applications are vanishingly rare, particularly in circumstances where the arbitration agreement contains a provision about making an application to suspend an award pending an appeal and no application appears to have been made to the arbitration panel. Interim injunctions also have a huge downside in that to get one, the applicant has to give an undertaking to the Court to comply with any order it might make in respect of damages if the injunction is later found to be wrongly granted. If Boro are not in the final because of an interim injunction that is later found to have been wrongly granted, Southampton could end up having to compensate Boro for the loss of the chance of PL revenue. This could run to many 10s of millions. This would be so even if Southampton lost the playoff final, because damages are not about what the wrong party gained. They are about what the right party lost.

 

[PitYacker]

Too much talk about whether the punishment is harsh on Southampton. What went on has made them a disgrace to English football and they should be condemned from all directions. They should be hanging their heads in shame not appealing against their punishment.

This. And we all know that there will be more spying they got away with. I’m just hoping other clubs do their own investigations to uncover more breaches and they get further points deductions for next season.

The player doing the binoculars and the fans thinking it’s funny are now crying into their corn flakes. Reversing that will just make cheating look worth it.

 

[MonkeyLove]

The EFL have the power in their regulations to abridge time periods in disciplinary cases if there’s a compelling reason to do so, which clearly there is.

That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s defensible. There are at least 2 aspects of common law they could argue the EFL haven’t adhered to - sufficient time to prepare this case and for the appeal not having the detailed summary of reasoning for the outcome prior.

We will have to see what and how it plays out but it would be foolish to not expect the EFL not following the process won’t create a risk for them. As I say if they have to argue that they have created an exceptional process purely for expediency sake that’s probably the worst thing they could do.

 

[Vore]

And never work in football again.

He was put in a shite position but I don't think this episode has done his future prospects any good either mind.

 

[woodlebert]

I’m surprised the points deduction isn’t bigger if I’m honest, thought they would go high and in any appeal simply lessen that element of the sanction.

Only going in at -4 doesn’t give a lot of flexibility and if reduced it becomes nowt in the great scheme of things.

If you were trying to pick holes in it, which saints will they could be looking at

2 breaches in regular season = -4 points
Single breach in play offs = removed from final

Can only see any saints appeal being based on the severity of the sanction being disproportional to the breach and impact of the breach

Not saying that’s right mind just my view on what the basis of their appeal would be,

If I was a betting man appeal will only see reduction in points deducted at best.


be fascinating to be able to see and read the relevant paperwork for this.

I was surprised by this as well. The thing that occurred to me is that if they think they're going to end up with more provable complaints of spying, they're giving themselves headroom to give a 2 point deduction each time. So it could end up more like 20, if 10 clubs can prove something