• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Southampton spying compendium thread


TikaTakaTico said:
Yes but the validity of the result between Boro and Southampton has been called into question- but as a systemic issue it calls into question all of Southampton's results. So the only two fair outcomes I can see are Wrexham and Middlesbrough playing a semi and Hull playing the winner or hull playing Boro.

Ultimately Hull have to face someone I think (though they should probably have a case for a postponement).
Click to expand...
Wrexham won't be pulled into this. The spying in the regular EFL season was presented as background cases to support the idea that this was something Southampton have been doing. The actual charge was related to the incident before the play-off semis. In the wording I've seen, the Play-Offs counts as a seperate competition to the regular EFL, and so Wrexham were never part of the competition, it was a straight knock-out tournament. Which is why the punishment is standard - break the rules in a knock-out tournament and you are kicked out of that tournament. That's why I think in the appeal, they may have the 4 point penalty removed but the expulsion from the play-offs upheld, because they are refered to as separate competitions in the regulations.
 
seahamstar said:
Dear me.
Are you not from 'Artlepool ?
Click to expand...
You obviously mean, The People's Democratic Republic of British West "Artlepool Upon Sea, though to those who know, there's a very noticeable difference, between H/pool & Boro accents, just as there's a noticeable difference between a Sunderland and a Newcastle accent.
 
Last edited:
HellsBells said:
Fucks sake. Boro lost BECAUSE THEY WERE SPIED ON.
Click to expand...
It's quite funny.
People are still saying - Southampton should be kicked out because they cheated, which gives them an unfair advantage.
But then - Boro should be out cos they lost, even though Southampton's cheating (and unfair advantage) puts Boro at a disadvantage.

Then it's 'promote Hull' - even though they haven't won the plays offs and haven't been cheated against
 
Nicky Winterwasp said:
Boro will argue they lost the semi as a result of the cheating though.
Click to expand...
One of two outcomes for me, either Hull go up automatically or they play the smogs. Southampton's participation should be over. If they get away with a 4 point deduction they should consider themselves lucky, if any of the senior coaching staff were involved, they should be suspended from the game
 
Jgrainger said:
They don’t have a leg to stand on. The EFL wouldn’t have done this without very careful consideration.
Click to expand...
It was the panel at the tribunal who issued the sanction, EFL are the plaintiffs.

On another point, they were punished for breach of Reg 127, the value of the game to the winner is of no consequence to the tribunal.
 
Trauntrian said:
Wrexham won't be pulled into this. The spying in the regular EFL season was presented as background cases to support the idea that this was something Southampton have been doing. The actual charge was related to the incident before the play-off semis. In the wording I've seen, the Play-Offs counts as a seperate competition to the regular EFL, and so Wrexham were never part of the competition, it was a straight knock-out tournament. Which is why the punishment is standard - break the rules in a knock-out tournament and you are kicked out of that tournament. That's why I think in the appeal, they may have the 4 point penalty removed but the expulsion from the play-offs upheld, because they are refered to as separate competitions in the regulations.
Click to expand...
Imho they'll make some sort of challenge once the dust settles somewhat. Might even try and get a few others to join them in complaining. It looks fairly certain that the 3 they've admitted is the tip of the iceberg.
 
Horley Chorley said:
You obviously mean, The People's Democratic Republic of British West "Artlepool Upon Sea, though to those who know, there's a very noticeable difference, between H/pool & Boro accents, just as there's a noticeable difference between a Sunderland and a Newcastle accent.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's certainly a difference between Boro/Hpool accents , that's my point 😜.

There's actually quite a difference between Boro/Stockton accents, joking aside
 
seahamstar said:
It's quite funny.
People are still saying - Southampton should be kicked out because they cheated, which gives them an unfair advantage.
But then - Boro should be out cos they lost, even though Southampton's cheating (and unfair advantage) puts Boro at a disadvantage.

Then it's 'promote Hull' - even though they haven't won the plays offs and haven't been cheated against
Click to expand...
Based on the first leg, the spying didn't actually impact Boro too much, it was the profligacy in front of goal that cost them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top