| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... 04:47 - May 20 with 1929 views | charlie1 | They really only have one way to approach this appeal. Throw Eckert under the bus entirely, and pray the EFL believe that he acted completely autonomously and went rogue without the knowledge or approval of any senior staff at the club. A Saint-supporting mate of mine told me when this first broke that Eckert could not see the problem with spying as it happens all the time in Europe. IF Eckert were to take sole responsible, get sacked by Southampton and take a lengthy coaching ban, with Southampton still paying a hefty fine with a points deduction for failing to adequately monitor his activity then Southampton might yet still play in the play-off final. A very long bow to draw though. |  | | |  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 05:16 - May 20 with 1834 views | ArchiRob | At the end of the day the Directors are responsible for their employees actions under most countries laws. In industry negligence by their staff can lead to a criminal action. Ignorance is no defence. Their only argument is that the punishment is too sever and show previous cases of punishment for various infringements. |  |
|  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 06:02 - May 20 with 1692 views | charlie1 |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 05:16 - May 20 by ArchiRob | At the end of the day the Directors are responsible for their employees actions under most countries laws. In industry negligence by their staff can lead to a criminal action. Ignorance is no defence. Their only argument is that the punishment is too sever and show previous cases of punishment for various infringements. |
Thats kind of what i'm getting at. A driver loses his licence and doesn't tell his employer. If caught he might well go to jail, but his company wouldn't lose it's transport licence, but would face huge fines. This spy thing is a new law after the Bielsa saga, so there is no precedence for penalty. The EFL have got carte Blanche to pretty much do whatever they like. |  | |  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 06:31 - May 20 with 1576 views | Ftnfwest | Is the spying not the issue? it’s the fact they did it 24 hours too late that broke the rules. |  | |  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 06:45 - May 20 with 1529 views | Clutch | There is no way they are playing in the play off final, no matter what they do. And rightly so! |  | |  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 06:53 - May 20 with 1454 views | bluefunk | That opportunity has gone, they’ve admitted the offences, the appeal is merely about the punishment being excessive. Taking each offence separately, it’s two points for each mid season offence, carried forward because that’s the only sporting sanction available. Similarly, the only sanction for a knockout competition is expulsion, which has a precedence. They might be lucky and avoid a further sanction for a spurious appeal, but they ain’t getting reinstated. And don’t rule out the FA coming for the club and/or individuals in due course, or legal challenges from both Hull and Boro, for disruption and anything else they can think of - this isn’t over |  | |  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 07:26 - May 20 with 1291 views | bsw72 | They’ve admitted it. It’s about the punishment. I’ve seen a lot of people talk about the punishment of £100M+ being disproportionate but that’s not the punishment. The punishment is that they have been kicked out of the playoff final, no different to a team fielding an ineligible player getting kicked out of a cup competition. Headline is simply team kicked out of knockout competition for breaking rules, I’m sure if it was still the league season it would have been a points fine, but it wasn’t. Not just that, the evidence showed 3 matches, however why would Southampton spy on Oxford and not Boro in the league, or Hull etc. They broke the rules. |  | |  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 08:55 - May 20 with 926 views | tractorboy1978 | From what I read there are messages showing several members of staff at Southampton including Sporting Director were aware. To be honest, I find it hard to believe almost everyone of note there didn't know. Players must have been wondering why/how Eckert knew how to set them up for each game and had specifics on set pieces. |  | |  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 09:33 - May 20 with 720 views | Radlett_blue |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 07:26 - May 20 by bsw72 | They’ve admitted it. It’s about the punishment. I’ve seen a lot of people talk about the punishment of £100M+ being disproportionate but that’s not the punishment. The punishment is that they have been kicked out of the playoff final, no different to a team fielding an ineligible player getting kicked out of a cup competition. Headline is simply team kicked out of knockout competition for breaking rules, I’m sure if it was still the league season it would have been a points fine, but it wasn’t. Not just that, the evidence showed 3 matches, however why would Southampton spy on Oxford and not Boro in the league, or Hull etc. They broke the rules. |
?It would have been interesting if Saints had just sneaked into the play offs. The club that finished 7th would have something to say! |  |
|  | Login to get fewer ads
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 09:42 - May 20 with 689 views | Ryorry | Eckert being “thrown under the bus” should be an *additional* punishment, not an alternative - and indeed that may still happen, as it’s something only the FA can deal with, and they can only do so after today’s appeal hearing is finished. |  |
|  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 09:43 - May 20 with 684 views | GeoffSentence |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 07:26 - May 20 by bsw72 | They’ve admitted it. It’s about the punishment. I’ve seen a lot of people talk about the punishment of £100M+ being disproportionate but that’s not the punishment. The punishment is that they have been kicked out of the playoff final, no different to a team fielding an ineligible player getting kicked out of a cup competition. Headline is simply team kicked out of knockout competition for breaking rules, I’m sure if it was still the league season it would have been a points fine, but it wasn’t. Not just that, the evidence showed 3 matches, however why would Southampton spy on Oxford and not Boro in the league, or Hull etc. They broke the rules. |
Difficult for Southampton to argue that the loss of the chance of getting into the premier league is too severe when the object of the cheating was to deny Middlesbrough that same opportunity. |  |
|  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 09:44 - May 20 with 670 views | belgablue |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 08:55 - May 20 by tractorboy1978 | From what I read there are messages showing several members of staff at Southampton including Sporting Director were aware. To be honest, I find it hard to believe almost everyone of note there didn't know. Players must have been wondering why/how Eckert knew how to set them up for each game and had specifics on set pieces. |
Baffling then that so many people knew it was happening and nobody thought to say "not sure we should be doing this boss" or "this could end badly..." Etc... |  |
|  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 09:47 - May 20 with 645 views | Leaky | Would have thought, at least one of his team would warned that what he was doing was against the rules. |  | |  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 09:54 - May 20 with 565 views | ElderGrizzly | That ship has sailed. He's already admitted it and will be banned from football anyway. His club have benefited from his actions, so they have to be 'punished' the same. And as others have said, they have admitted to 3 cases, but it has clearly happened many more times. |  | |  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 10:03 - May 20 with 524 views | Radlett_blue |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 09:42 - May 20 by Ryorry | Eckert being “thrown under the bus” should be an *additional* punishment, not an alternative - and indeed that may still happen, as it’s something only the FA can deal with, and they can only do so after today’s appeal hearing is finished. |
I'm sure their lawyers are checking the "gross misconduct" section of the Southampton HR files. |  |
|  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 10:09 - May 20 with 498 views | Guthrum | The issue with a suitably heavy points deduction is that it might bring Wrexham into the equation. |  |
|  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 10:19 - May 20 with 451 views | Guthrum |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 07:26 - May 20 by bsw72 | They’ve admitted it. It’s about the punishment. I’ve seen a lot of people talk about the punishment of £100M+ being disproportionate but that’s not the punishment. The punishment is that they have been kicked out of the playoff final, no different to a team fielding an ineligible player getting kicked out of a cup competition. Headline is simply team kicked out of knockout competition for breaking rules, I’m sure if it was still the league season it would have been a points fine, but it wasn’t. Not just that, the evidence showed 3 matches, however why would Southampton spy on Oxford and not Boro in the league, or Hull etc. They broke the rules. |
Even the standard match forfeit - a 3-0 win awarded to the opposition - would see them out of the play-offs with Boro having won 4-3 on aggregate. |  |
|  |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 10:29 - May 20 with 365 views | Ryorry |
| Last throw of the dice for Southampton... on 10:19 - May 20 by Guthrum | Even the standard match forfeit - a 3-0 win awarded to the opposition - would see them out of the play-offs with Boro having won 4-3 on aggregate. |
That, to me, is the most significant point for those of us praying that yesterday’s decision won’t be overturned by today’s appeal hearing. Awarding a 3-0 result to the wronged team is indeed a bog standard decision, not disproportionate. |  |
|  |
| |