Spygate (part 2)

[ronhaldo bird]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

I'm going to pretend to spy on Cardiff training sessions all next season wearing opposition colours.

[Optimistic Nick]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

I'm going to pretend to spy on Cardiff training sessions all next season wearing opposition colours.

It's a great idea, love the double agent thinking. but a) too broad- focus on one team and b) too obvious.

Why not go with the jack clown costume? Lacoste jumper, Burberry scarf, and a Swansea shirt. Disguise yourself poorly as Tank, Chunky and the lads pretending to be in disguise.

[Cleve van Leef]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

Wrexham now getting involved.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c2d27x4pdneo

[North Cardiff Blue]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

Wrexham now getting involved.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football...s/c2d27x4pdneo

Ha ha good try

[jon1959]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

[Michael Morris]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

Southampton CEO Phil Parsons full statement: "We have appealed yesterday's decision by the Independent Disciplinary Commission to expel Southampton Football Club from the Sky Bet Championship Play-Offs, and to impose a four-point deduction for the 2026/27 season. Before turning to that appeal, I want to address our supporters, our players, and the wider football community directly and without equivocation.

What happened was wrong. The club has admitted breaches of EFL Regulations 3.4 and 127. We are sorry to the other clubs involved, and most of all to the Southampton supporters whose extraordinary loyalty and support this season deserved better from the club.

We have provided our full co-operation to the EFL's investigation and disciplinary process. Following the appeal, we will also be writing to the EFL to volunteer our participation in a working group on the practical application and enforcement of Regulation 127 across the Championship. Contrition without change is hollow, and we intend to demonstrate change.

On the appeal itself: we accept that there should be a sanction. What we cannot accept is a sanction which bears no proportion to the offence. Whereas Leeds United was fined £200,000 for a similar offence, Southampton has been denied the opportunity to compete in a game worth more than £200 million and one which means so much to our staff, players and supporters.

We believe the financial consequence of yesterday's ruling makes it, by a very considerable distance, the largest penalty ever imposed on an English football club. Luton Town's 30-point deduction in 2008/09 — to date the most severe sporting sanction in the English game — was levied against a club already in League Two, with no comparable revenue at stake. Derby County's 21-point deduction in 2021 cost them their Championship status. Everton's eventual six-point deduction in 2023/24 followed losses of £124.5 million, a figure dwarfed by what has been taken from Southampton in a single afternoon. The largest financial penalty ever levied by the Premier League, against Chelsea in March of this year, was £10.75 million, and was accompanied by no sporting sanction whatsoever despite involving £47.5 million in undisclosed payments over seven years.

We say this not to minimise what occurred at this club, which we have accepted was wrong. We say it because proportionality is itself a principle of natural justice. The Commission was entitled to impose a sanction. It was not, we will argue, entitled to impose one that is manifestly disproportionate to every previous sanction in the history of the English game.

Our appeal will be heard today, and we will provide a further update in due course."

[The Bloop]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

Wrexham now getting involved.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football...s/c2d27x4pdneo

Dont think so. They were kicked out of the playoffs, not the whole league.

[NinianKnight]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

Southampton CEO Phil Parsons full statement: "We have appealed yesterday's decision by the Independent Disciplinary Commission to expel Southampton Football Club from the Sky Bet Championship Play-Offs, and to impose a four-point deduction for the 2026/27 season. Before turning to that appeal, I want to address our supporters, our players, and the wider football community directly and without equivocation.

What happened was wrong. The club has admitted breaches of EFL Regulations 3.4 and 127. We are sorry to the other clubs involved, and most of all to the Southampton supporters whose extraordinary loyalty and support this season deserved better from the club.

We have provided our full co-operation to the EFL's investigation and disciplinary process. Following the appeal, we will also be writing to the EFL to volunteer our participation in a working group on the practical application and enforcement of Regulation 127 across the Championship. Contrition without change is hollow, and we intend to demonstrate change.

On the appeal itself: we accept that there should be a sanction. What we cannot accept is a sanction which bears no proportion to the offence. Whereas Leeds United was fined £200,000 for a similar offence, Southampton has been denied the opportunity to compete in a game worth more than £200 million and one which means so much to our staff, players and supporters.

We believe the financial consequence of yesterday's ruling makes it, by a very considerable distance, the largest penalty ever imposed on an English football club. Luton Town's 30-point deduction in 2008/09 — to date the most severe sporting sanction in the English game — was levied against a club already in League Two, with no comparable revenue at stake. Derby County's 21-point deduction in 2021 cost them their Championship status. Everton's eventual six-point deduction in 2023/24 followed losses of £124.5 million, a figure dwarfed by what has been taken from Southampton in a single afternoon. The largest financial penalty ever levied by the Premier League, against Chelsea in March of this year, was £10.75 million, and was accompanied by no sporting sanction whatsoever despite involving £47.5 million in undisclosed payments over seven years.

We say this not to minimise what occurred at this club, which we have accepted was wrong. We say it because proportionality is itself a principle of natural justice. The Commission was entitled to impose a sanction. It was not, we will argue, entitled to impose one that is manifestly disproportionate to every previous sanction in the history of the English game.

Our appeal will be heard today, and we will provide a further update in due course."

A lot of whataboutary and based on an assumption that Southampton win the play off final, without winning it they can't lose out on PL money.

Also, couldn't Middlesbrough make the same argument? They are losing out but their case they didn't do anything wrong.

It is a poor statement which TBH is designed to deflect the blame away from those who wrote it

[Des Parrot]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

A lot of whataboutary and based on an assumption that Southampton win the play off final, without winning it they can't lose out on PL money.

Also, couldn't Middlesbrough make the same argument? They are losing out but their case they didn't do anything wrong.

It is a poor statement which TBH is designed to deflect the blame away from those who wrote it

Are Swindon looking on in hope? Is that too long ago for Southampton’s memory?

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

A lot of whataboutary and based on an assumption that Southampton win the play off final, without winning it they can't lose out on PL money.

Also, couldn't Middlesbrough make the same argument? They are losing out but their case they didn't do anything wrong.

It is a poor statement which TBH is designed to deflect the blame away from those who wrote it

Agreed, I notice they talk about the money to be made from the game before there’s a mention about what the game means to the clubs players and supporters.

[Chris Pontprennau Blues]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

I can see the counter chants to Saints supporters from now on will be "Oh when the Spies, go marching in ........ "

[Undercoverinwurzelland]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

Hull threatening legal action now if they don't win today

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cpvp8vv8e2zo

[Seven seas of rhye]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

This is going to run and run with the clubs who dont get promoted

[BLUETIT]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

Hull threatening legal action now if they don't win today
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football...s/cpvp8vv8e2zo

This from a team that got there with the most “offside goal” you will ever see.

When will it all stop ?

[NinianKnight]

Re: Spygate (part 2)

Hull threatening legal action now if they don't win today
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football...s/cpvp8vv8e2zo

It seems to me that Middlesbrough were the harmed party as they were the ones Southampton 'spied' on. Why should Wrexham benefit from Middlesbrough's detriment? He says he wants 'justice'. It seems justice is being done by reinstating Middlesbrough, but his view seems to be justice is Hull being promoted