Match Day Thread Play Off Final. Hull City v Boro
- Thread starter Chazz Rheinhold
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Still slightly more preferable than your username?
Southampton have provided footage of their training sessions to the English Football League’s independent disciplinary commission to try to prove they gained no material advantage from the Spygate saga that has rocked the game.
Southampton have not contested the damning facts of the case – namely that one of their analysts, William Salt, was sent to film Middlesbrough in training two days before the Championship play-off semi-final first leg between the clubs at the Riverside Stadium.
Salt was spotted and the repercussions have been seismic. Southampton, who drew the first leg 0-0 before winning 2-1at St Mary’s Stadium, have been expelled from the playoffs and given a four-point deduction for next season. Middlesbrough have been reinstated and will contest the final against Hull at Wembley on Saturday. It emerged that Southampton also spied on the training sessions of Ipswich and Oxford earlier in the season.
Southampton believe the punishment is out of proportion to the crime and a key part of their plea for mitigation came at the EFL hearing on Tuesday at which the head coach, Tonda Eckert, the chief analyst, Nathan Hurst, and Salt were present.
The club showed in its entirety the footage of Eckert’s session from the Wednesday before the first leg; in other words before Salt’s spying mission. The Southampton players had the day off on the Thursday and on the Friday – the day before the first leg – they did not work on team shape in open play. It was purely a defensive set-piece session, the footage of which they also shared with the panel.
Quick Guide
What Southampton and their legal team wanted to show – and which was borne out by the game – was that Eckert’s tactical approach did not change from the session on Wednesday. The club claim their defensive set pieces were not influenced by Salt’s visit to Middlesbrough’s training facilities.
It is a part of the reason why Southampton are so upset, albeit they accept they are in the wrong. Eckert, who is battling to hold on to his job amid a Football Association investigation into the conduct of individuals at the club, has argued he did not realise what he did was against the EFL’s statutes. Southampton gave a detailed briefing in pre-season to Eckert’s predecessor, Will Still, explaining the competition’s rules. They did not do the same for Eckert after he replaced Still in early November.
Southampton’s expulsion has prompted Millwall and Wrexham to consider their legal options. The aggrieved clubs will await publication of the written reasons for the decisions taken by the EFL’s disciplinary panel, which were upheld by an appeal panel on Wednesday night, but are understood to believe they could have grounds to make a claim for compensation
Millwall and Wrexham could seek to test whether the EFL rulebook has been correctly applied or whether the disciplinary process was flawed, and could argue that because Southampton’s spying on Middlesbrough took place before the playoffs, they should have been replayed without Southampton’s involvement.
Millwall (left) lost in the playoff semi-finals and Wrexham finished one place outside the playoffs.Photograph: Cody Froggatt/PA
Millwall were beaten by Hull in the playoff semi-finals after finishing third and Wrexham missed out after finishing seventh.
There has been speculation in legal circles that one of the parties could seek an injunction at the high court to force the EFL to postpone Saturday’s game but that is regarded as a non-starter owing to the timescale. Any claim would therefore be retrospective for damages.
Hull’s owner, Acun Ilicali, said on Wednesday that his club had received legal advice that they should be automatically promoted to the Premier League as a result of Southampton’s expulsion rather than playing Middlesbrough.
There appears little prospect of Hull pursuing that case in the next 48 hours but they could also pursue a claim for damages if beaten at Wembley in a game worth a minimum of £200m to the winners.
Publication of the written reasons will be key because there has been little explanation from the EFL as to how it arrived at its decisions and the process involved.
By giving Southampton two sanctions – expulsion from the final and the four-point penalty in next season’s Championship – after the club admitted to spying on Middlesbrough, Oxford and Ipswich, it appears the panel treated the playoffs as a separate competition.
The EFL’s rulebook contains no reference to the process for replacing an expelled team, although its guidance notes state that the playoff final should be contested between two semi-final winners, which will not be the case on Saturday.
Wrexham and Millwall declined to comment.
Southampton have not contested the damning facts of the case – namely that one of their analysts, William Salt, was sent to film Middlesbrough in training two days before the Championship play-off semi-final first leg between the clubs at the Riverside Stadium.
Salt was spotted and the repercussions have been seismic. Southampton, who drew the first leg 0-0 before winning 2-1at St Mary’s Stadium, have been expelled from the playoffs and given a four-point deduction for next season. Middlesbrough have been reinstated and will contest the final against Hull at Wembley on Saturday. It emerged that Southampton also spied on the training sessions of Ipswich and Oxford earlier in the season.
Southampton believe the punishment is out of proportion to the crime and a key part of their plea for mitigation came at the EFL hearing on Tuesday at which the head coach, Tonda Eckert, the chief analyst, Nathan Hurst, and Salt were present.
The club showed in its entirety the footage of Eckert’s session from the Wednesday before the first leg; in other words before Salt’s spying mission. The Southampton players had the day off on the Thursday and on the Friday – the day before the first leg – they did not work on team shape in open play. It was purely a defensive set-piece session, the footage of which they also shared with the panel.
Quick Guide
Léo Scienza says fans 'deserved better' after Southampton playoff expulsion
ShowWhat Southampton and their legal team wanted to show – and which was borne out by the game – was that Eckert’s tactical approach did not change from the session on Wednesday. The club claim their defensive set pieces were not influenced by Salt’s visit to Middlesbrough’s training facilities.
It is a part of the reason why Southampton are so upset, albeit they accept they are in the wrong. Eckert, who is battling to hold on to his job amid a Football Association investigation into the conduct of individuals at the club, has argued he did not realise what he did was against the EFL’s statutes. Southampton gave a detailed briefing in pre-season to Eckert’s predecessor, Will Still, explaining the competition’s rules. They did not do the same for Eckert after he replaced Still in early November.
Southampton’s expulsion has prompted Millwall and Wrexham to consider their legal options. The aggrieved clubs will await publication of the written reasons for the decisions taken by the EFL’s disciplinary panel, which were upheld by an appeal panel on Wednesday night, but are understood to believe they could have grounds to make a claim for compensation
Millwall and Wrexham could seek to test whether the EFL rulebook has been correctly applied or whether the disciplinary process was flawed, and could argue that because Southampton’s spying on Middlesbrough took place before the playoffs, they should have been replayed without Southampton’s involvement.
You must log in or register to see images
Millwall (left) lost in the playoff semi-finals and Wrexham finished one place outside the playoffs.Photograph: Cody Froggatt/PA
Millwall were beaten by Hull in the playoff semi-finals after finishing third and Wrexham missed out after finishing seventh.
There has been speculation in legal circles that one of the parties could seek an injunction at the high court to force the EFL to postpone Saturday’s game but that is regarded as a non-starter owing to the timescale. Any claim would therefore be retrospective for damages.
Hull’s owner, Acun Ilicali, said on Wednesday that his club had received legal advice that they should be automatically promoted to the Premier League as a result of Southampton’s expulsion rather than playing Middlesbrough.
There appears little prospect of Hull pursuing that case in the next 48 hours but they could also pursue a claim for damages if beaten at Wembley in a game worth a minimum of £200m to the winners.
Publication of the written reasons will be key because there has been little explanation from the EFL as to how it arrived at its decisions and the process involved.
By giving Southampton two sanctions – expulsion from the final and the four-point penalty in next season’s Championship – after the club admitted to spying on Middlesbrough, Oxford and Ipswich, it appears the panel treated the playoffs as a separate competition.
The EFL’s rulebook contains no reference to the process for replacing an expelled team, although its guidance notes state that the playoff final should be contested between two semi-final winners, which will not be the case on Saturday.
Wrexham and Millwall declined to comment.
Southampton just making it worse for themselves , it literally doesn't
matter how much advantage or not they gained from spying , just attempting
to spy on 1 occasion means they are guilty
matter how much advantage or not they gained from spying , just attempting
to spy on 1 occasion means they are guilty
You must log in or register to see media
Sorry, but saying this bit ..... 'Eckert, .... has argued he did not realise what he did was against the EFL’s statute'....... takes away any credibility for their defence, not that there is any to start with. Cheating, lying tossers who need sacking and banning from the game for a few years.
Incredible. We broke the rules and blew up our season, but didn’t use the evidence gathered. I’d sack Eckert, rehire him then sack him a second time for that lame brained excuse.
I assume any potential claim mooted by Acun would be aimed at Southampton as opposed to the EFL.
There’s an irony to the fact the rule was breached around observing training within 72 hours of a fixture. Yet we weren’t 100% confirmed who were playing in this same 72 hour window.
Has he never heard the phrase “ignorance is no defence in law”? Besides, didn’t some analysts leave/get sacked because they refused to spy because it was against the rules, so the “we didn’t know” excuse is nonsense anyway.
No material advantage my arse - why do it then? If you catch a burglar standing in your lounge, a defence of “oh you caught me, I didn’t actually take anything, so punishing me for breaking and entering is excessive.” won’t wash.
Soton really need to shut up now and concentrate on getting their own house in order before next season. Sacking Eckhert won’t fix it because there was obviously no oversight by the club of what he and his team were up to - or a blind eye was used due to the improvement in results. Either doesn’t paint a good picture.
I'm getting the feeling that it might get a lot worse for Soton before it gets better...This EFL investigation may well see them
A. Get a larger points deduction for start of 26/27, B. Huge Fine, C. Relegation to L1.
Two out of three. Or even all three.
A. Get a larger points deduction for start of 26/27, B. Huge Fine, C. Relegation to L1.
Two out of three. Or even all three.
Whatever it is every single pundit I've seen comment on it reckon we'd have a claim for.
I assume the tactical disadvantage of not knowing who we'd be playing until 2 days before.
Its the same as getting caught on a speeding camera and the defence been i didn't get there any quicker
Never used St Albans
Im doing Stanmore and after booking my parking it seems like every man and his dog are also using Stanmore. Won't be a problem getting in but back might be a bit busy