| Still no Southampton statement 22:20 - May 19 with 1587 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
And their website still says they are playing Hull on Saturday.
Do you think they’re hopeful? |  |
| |  |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:26 - May 19 with 1506 views | tonybied |
...or in denial! |  | | |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:27 - May 19 with 1499 views | DarkBrandon |
Who knows. It is a completely unique situation for everyone.
I did watch something online where their version of Stuart Watson said that the people in the club thought the punishment was massively disproportionate*. Whether they can convince a second panel of this … your guess is as good as mine.
* Mandy Rice-Davies’ response seems apt here. |  | | |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:32 - May 19 with 1443 views | TheBoyBlue |
I wonder if anyone's told them yet? |  |
| |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:35 - May 19 with 1397 views | berkstractorboy |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:27 - May 19 by DarkBrandon |
Who knows. It is a completely unique situation for everyone.
I did watch something online where their version of Stuart Watson said that the people in the club thought the punishment was massively disproportionate*. Whether they can convince a second panel of this … your guess is as good as mine.
* Mandy Rice-Davies’ response seems apt here. |
Disproportionate to what though. They have admitted to cheating 3 times and who knows how many more. They probably admitted to the Oxford and Ipswich ones as they didn't win either so will probably try to claim the 'spying' clearly had no advantage for Southampton. If it was once then I would say its too harsh but this wasn't a momentary lapse of judgement for a massive game, this was a prolonged campaign to 'cheat' over several months. | | | |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:35 - May 19 with 1392 views | J2BLUE |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:27 - May 19 by DarkBrandon |
Who knows. It is a completely unique situation for everyone.
I did watch something online where their version of Stuart Watson said that the people in the club thought the punishment was massively disproportionate*. Whether they can convince a second panel of this … your guess is as good as mine.
* Mandy Rice-Davies’ response seems apt here. |
It's not really disproportionate if they have done this multiple times. No chance they have admitted every time either. |  | | |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:39 - May 19 with 1353 views | Hugoagogo_Reborn |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:35 - May 19 by berkstractorboy |
Disproportionate to what though. They have admitted to cheating 3 times and who knows how many more. They probably admitted to the Oxford and Ipswich ones as they didn't win either so will probably try to claim the 'spying' clearly had no advantage for Southampton. If it was once then I would say its too harsh but this wasn't a momentary lapse of judgement for a massive game, this was a prolonged campaign to 'cheat' over several months. |
This. They've had to admit to the charges that were clear obvious and evidenced, I'd imagine, but will no doubt be holding back on any other breaches if they haven't been caught.
What an odious set up. [Post edited 19 May 22:40]
|  |
| |
| Will they even protest the decision? They’re so bang to rights on 22:45 - May 19 with 1283 views | unstableblue |
It is reported that the practice was well know at the club
It’s 3 clubs not just one
The manager is taking responsibility
Fans are apparently going from goading the shame and serious questioning of why the club was doing something so ridiculous
Interesting the rule is 72hrs before a game only? |  |
| |
| Will they even protest the decision? They’re so bang to rights on 22:50 - May 19 with 1239 views | berkstractorboy |
| Will they even protest the decision? They’re so bang to rights on 22:45 - May 19 by unstableblue |
It is reported that the practice was well know at the club
It’s 3 clubs not just one
The manager is taking responsibility
Fans are apparently going from goading the shame and serious questioning of why the club was doing something so ridiculous
Interesting the rule is 72hrs before a game only? |
72 hours probably covers specific prep on the upcoming game and gaining insight what players are or are not training and therefore strong likelihood to be in contention for the upcoming match. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Still no Southampton statement on 23:01 - May 19 with 1172 views | SitfcB |
In denial.
|  |
| |
| Will they even protest the decision? They’re so bang to rights on 23:02 - May 19 with 1163 views | MisterBlue |
| Will they even protest the decision? They’re so bang to rights on 22:45 - May 19 by unstableblue |
It is reported that the practice was well know at the club
It’s 3 clubs not just one
The manager is taking responsibility
Fans are apparently going from goading the shame and serious questioning of why the club was doing something so ridiculous
Interesting the rule is 72hrs before a game only? |
Southampton players supposedly looking at taking legal action against the club for loss of earnings aswell.
The 72 hour rule pretty much covers a full week within the EFL - 2 games a week and a rest day |  | | |
| Still no Southampton statement on 23:04 - May 19 with 1131 views | positivity |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:35 - May 19 by J2BLUE |
It's not really disproportionate if they have done this multiple times. No chance they have admitted every time either. |
from the other thread:
it'd be the maddest decision ever it was just those games...
if that were true, they tried it first v oxford, lost
left it for months and tried it against us, drew at home
then after all that success, tried it again for the "richest game in football"?!
it must have been their regular modus operandi (as it was for bielsa's leeds) | |
| |
| Still no Southampton statement on 23:32 - May 19 with 900 views | StokieBlue |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:27 - May 19 by DarkBrandon |
Who knows. It is a completely unique situation for everyone.
I did watch something online where their version of Stuart Watson said that the people in the club thought the punishment was massively disproportionate*. Whether they can convince a second panel of this … your guess is as good as mine.
* Mandy Rice-Davies’ response seems apt here. |
You can't admit to an offence against multiple clubs and then say it's disproportionate.
Fook them.
SB |  |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| Still no Southampton statement on 23:43 - May 19 with 859 views | Churchman |
| Still no Southampton statement on 23:04 - May 19 by positivity |
from the other thread:
it'd be the maddest decision ever it was just those games...
if that were true, they tried it first v oxford, lost
left it for months and tried it against us, drew at home
then after all that success, tried it again for the "richest game in football"?!
it must have been their regular modus operandi (as it was for bielsa's leeds) |
Interesting that the two games other than the other day they have confessed to are months apart and had meaningless results. Oxford won and as it turned out it wouldn’t have mattered if we’d lost. It’s not credible to believe they were the only two other occasions they did it.
The manager said it was standard practice in Europe and didn’t know. Well the funny little twerp with the camera phone clearly knew the rules otherwise why did he leg it to the golf club shthousery to change?
The Southampton supporters on their forum are not entirely happy. |  | | |
| Still no Southampton statement on 00:54 - May 20 with 739 views | stonojnr |
| Still no Southampton statement on 22:35 - May 19 by berkstractorboy |
Disproportionate to what though. They have admitted to cheating 3 times and who knows how many more. They probably admitted to the Oxford and Ipswich ones as they didn't win either so will probably try to claim the 'spying' clearly had no advantage for Southampton. If it was once then I would say its too harsh but this wasn't a momentary lapse of judgement for a massive game, this was a prolonged campaign to 'cheat' over several months. |
except the point they got in our game was the difference between 4th and 5th meaning they got home advantage in the 2nd leg, thats obviously an advantage gained by Southampton.
you cant prove their spying led to the result of the game directly, but they admitted they did it and the intention was to obviously to learn something that would increase the chance of winning.
I wouldnt be surprised if we hear tomorrow Southampton havent gone to the high court and tried to get a legal injunction to postpone the final till their legal appeal process has been "properly" heard, ie delay it as much because chances are some legal escape angle can be found the more time theyve got. | | | |
| Still no Southampton statement on 02:06 - May 20 with 686 views | Ryorry |
| Still no Southampton statement on 00:54 - May 20 by stonojnr |
except the point they got in our game was the difference between 4th and 5th meaning they got home advantage in the 2nd leg, thats obviously an advantage gained by Southampton.
you cant prove their spying led to the result of the game directly, but they admitted they did it and the intention was to obviously to learn something that would increase the chance of winning.
I wouldnt be surprised if we hear tomorrow Southampton havent gone to the high court and tried to get a legal injunction to postpone the final till their legal appeal process has been "properly" heard, ie delay it as much because chances are some legal escape angle can be found the more time theyve got. |
I did find it slightly worrying that the ITV sports correspondent seemed genuinely shocked at the "sentence", thought it seemed "disproportionate", and that the decision is still very much in the balance with a whole new panel of 3 other people meeting later today.
Could be we're just in our own comfortable bubble that yesterday's decision was the right one & that the Soton appeal re severity is likely to be thrown out ..? |  |
| |
| Still no Southampton statement on 10:04 - May 20 with 362 views | positivity |
| Still no Southampton statement on 00:54 - May 20 by stonojnr |
except the point they got in our game was the difference between 4th and 5th meaning they got home advantage in the 2nd leg, thats obviously an advantage gained by Southampton.
you cant prove their spying led to the result of the game directly, but they admitted they did it and the intention was to obviously to learn something that would increase the chance of winning.
I wouldnt be surprised if we hear tomorrow Southampton havent gone to the high court and tried to get a legal injunction to postpone the final till their legal appeal process has been "properly" heard, ie delay it as much because chances are some legal escape angle can be found the more time theyve got. |
especially as they won in the extra half-hour with home advantage that their point gained them! | |
| |
| Still no Southampton statement on 10:06 - May 20 with 350 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Still no Southampton statement on 02:06 - May 20 by Ryorry |
I did find it slightly worrying that the ITV sports correspondent seemed genuinely shocked at the "sentence", thought it seemed "disproportionate", and that the decision is still very much in the balance with a whole new panel of 3 other people meeting later today.
Could be we're just in our own comfortable bubble that yesterday's decision was the right one & that the Soton appeal re severity is likely to be thrown out ..? |
ITV Sport have been wide of the mark for years.
I sometimes wonder if many of them even enjoy sport. | |
| |
| Still no Southampton statement on 10:09 - May 20 with 332 views | Ryorry |
| Still no Southampton statement on 10:06 - May 20 by Cheltenham_Blue |
ITV Sport have been wide of the mark for years.
I sometimes wonder if many of them even enjoy sport. |
Interesting, cheers. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
