Ups & Downs 25/26

[Beaulux]

Feel for Hull, they’ve not been able to train at all knowing who their opposition is

They can just go and video the Boro’ training session

[John Madejski's Wallet]

Really didn't expect this to happen.

So many clubs have training grounds visible to the public, this would have been entirely OK had the chap done it the day before, and it's been shown you can see fukk all from there anyway.

We're I Southampton I would immediately lodge a court injunction and make the EFL prove there was an advantage. Would lock up the end of season in court buggery too

Should be a big arse fine and a points deduction next season they're in the championship

....... But then it IS Southampton, so fukk 'em

[stealthpapes]

Less than three days to sell and distribute tickets sounds like a whole lot of fun for those involved.

I understand there’s no trains between Darlington and York.

[Clyde1998]

Hats off to the independent commission for enforcing the rules.

Will be interesting to see what the wider implications are, as I’d imagine other clubs will feel directly affected by this (especially as they admitted to spying on Ipswich and Oxford).

Would say it’s highly unfair on the Middlesbrough fans and ticketing staff to expect them to arrange tickets; travel; etc. on such short notice.

Can still see an appeal coming though…

[6ft Kerplunk]

Should be a big arse fine and a points deduction next season they're in the championship

Would have had to be really big fine to seem fair if they went up, took the Premier League money for a year (at least) and then 3 years of parachute payments when they did get relegated.

Given it wasn't just the Middlesbrough game they did it for I'm quite happy with them getting kicked out the playoffs. Feel a bit for the fans, well apart from those who went to the playoffs match in camouflage gear celebrating their cheating thinking they'd get away with it.

[Royal Rother]

Really didn't expect this to happen.

So many clubs have training grounds visible to the public, this would have been entirely OK had the chap done it the day before, and it's been shown you can see fukk all from there anyway.

We're I Southampton I would immediately lodge a court injunction and make the EFL prove there was an advantage. Would lock up the end of season in court buggery too

Should be a big arse fine and a points deduction next season they're in the championship

....... But then it IS Southampton, so fukk 'em

Yeah, you don’t really get it do you?

[Royal Rother]

The ramifications of this could roll on and on.

Manager, coaches, hierarchy could all be banned.

If the owner, who has invested £100m into the club, was not involved, how is he going to feel, and what action could he take against the guilty parties.

Players (reportedly) are considering legal action against the club itself. (Be funny if that pcunt Harwood Bellis is one of them.)

Incidentally, I don’t know whether it is true or not, but my son tells me that the reason for the fracas between HB and Ayling was because the former took the piss out of the latter because he has a stammer.

[Winston Biscuit]

could be all manner of knock on effects I guess. i am wary of believing any of them right now as we are still in that post big news story zone area where a big thing happens, then for 48 hours afterwards appalling journalists sit around thinking up the most extreme knock on effects and then write stories suggesting that they will happen, but use loads of fence sitting 'are being thrashed out', 'is currently under consideration', 'an anonymous source close to them tells us' language as their get out.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Feels like the only decision that could be made. By choosing to do it in the play-offs, a fine or suspended points deduction for next season would have felt like pissing in the wind relative to the reward of winning. I'm not sure how the appeal will overturn it, as any alternative punishment would feel irrelevant in the context.

No doubt several members of the management hierarchy will get lengthy bans and tarnished reputations. I doubt Eckert will manage in this country again. And the legal action by the players is an interesting twist; a number will have looked at this season as a 1 year temporary break from top flight football and will try to exit.

Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 years time they're a mediocre Championship side who look back on this moment as when it all started going wrong

[Winston Biscuit]

if Middlesbrough don't go up then I am looking forward to that weird situation next season when they play Southampton at St Mary's, and the Southampton fans BOOOOOOOO them, but no one really know who they are booing, or why they are booing, and the onlooking football world is all like 'wtf, but it was Southampton that did the bad thing, not Middlesbrough?!' etc

but, its 2026, and everyone has to be a victim!

[Sutekh]

The full ruling is that Southampton have been thrown out of the POs for filming the Teesiders training session last Thursday, as a result Middlesbrough will take their place in the final v Hull.

In addition Soton will start next season on -4 points, for their spying on Ipswich and Oxford earlier in the season.


The Saints have appealed and that should be heard today.

[Sanguine]

I'm expecting the appeal to succeed today, and the disqualification replaced by a large fine and/or points deduction. Partly (I'm a cynic) through pragmatism. You could argue that Middlesbrough have no more claim on a spot in the final than Millwall, Wrexham missed the play-offs by just two points, even Oxford might be casually getting some legal advice. Feels like a huge mess goes away if Southampton are reinstated.

[Royal Rother]

I'm expecting the appeal to succeed today,

No chance.

(Well, I'll be amazed if it does anyway!)

[katweslowski]

So many clubs have training grounds visible to the public, this would have been entirely OK had the chap done it the day before, and it's been shown you can see fukk all from there anyway.

We're I Southampton I would immediately lodge a court injunction and make the EFL prove there was an advantage.

WTF... I don't understand any of this.

The rule is that they can't "spy" or view the training within 72 hours of the game, so doing that the day before would still have broken the rule

It's not abut proving any advantage. That's not how rules work. It's just unethical, unsporting and so ridiculously stupid. I read some of teh Southampton forum and many are really angry at their club (not the EFL), as they describe it just unacceptable and a stupid risk

Your point is interesting though - I doubt much advantage was gained which makes it even omre stupid. The guy was using an iPhone. What's he going to say... "ohhh it looks like Smith is starting and they were practicing crosses". Southampton had such a fantastic run, a great atmosphere and energy. They could have just followed the rules like everyone else and been looking forward to the final which they were probably favourites for.

I'm expecting the appeal to succeed today, and the disqualification replaced by a large fine and/or points deduction. Partly (I'm a cynic) through pragmatism. You could argue that Middlesbrough have no more claim on a spot in the final than Millwall, Wrexham missed the play-offs by just two points, even Oxford might be casually getting some legal advice. Feels like a huge mess goes away if Southampton are reinstated.

I disagree. The EFL won't back down and they'll stick to their decision. Southampton admitted 3 breaches - not just one... several. It shows a propensity for rule breaking and a complete disregard for the game. They should be thankful it's only a 4 point deduction and sack a few people, move on and don't ever do ti again.

[SouthDownsRoyal]

If they have admitted spying on Oxford and Ipswich it won’t end there.

Why would they spy on just two random teams during a whole season pre playoffs?

[Sanguine]

I'm expecting the appeal to succeed today,

No chance.

(Well, I'll be amazed if it does anyway!)

Remember the appeal isn't against the charge, which they've admitted, it's the severity of the punishment. I'm no lawyer but I can imagine a proper lawyer can make a reasonable argument that having your league season effectively thrown out for filming some training sessions is excessive.

[SouthDownsRoyal]

Imagine Boro trying to get tickets etc all sorted today only for the decision to be reversed

[Royal Rother]

A good explanation of what the appeal entails, lifted from the Boro Forum:

Ok, deep breath. Here we go…..

The Process

Under EFL Regulations, appeals from an Independent Disciplinary Commission decision go to the League Arbitration Panel (LAP). The LAP is the EFL’s final internal appellate body and its decisions are binding and final, subject only to very limited grounds of challenge under the Arbitration Act 1996.

The LAP typically comprises three members, often including a senior King’s Counsel as chair and two other legally qualified members. In high-profile cases the chair is usually a retired judge or silk with substantial regulatory experience. The Derby County FFP appeal in 2021 was heard by Charles Hollander KC, Rt Hon Lord Dyson, and David Phillips KC — that gives a sense of the calibre.

The standard of review on appeal is important. The LAP does not conduct a full rehearing of the case. It reviews the IDC’s decision against specific grounds. Those grounds are narrower than people sometimes assume.

The Grounds Available

There are four recognised grounds on which an EFL disciplinary appeal can succeed:

1. The IDC misdirected itself in law (error of law)
2. The IDC made a decision that no reasonable commission could have made (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
3. The IDC’s findings of fact were not supported by the evidence
4. The procedure was unfair in a way that materially prejudiced the appellant

That’s it. The Appeal Board does not substitute its own view of the right outcome for the IDC’s. It tests the IDC’s decision against those four grounds and only intervenes if one of them is established.

Applying Each Ground to the Spygate Decision

Error of Law

This is Southampton’s most realistic ground. They would have to show that the IDC misapplied the four-purpose framework from Derby v EFL, or misapplied the Swindon precedent on knock-out competition sanctions, or misconstrued the regulations themselves.

The issue for Southampton is that the IDC’s reasoning, on what’s public so far, follows the framework as established. The four purposes are weighed. Expulsion is identified as the only sanction satisfying all four in the knock-out context. Swindon is direct precedent for that conclusion. The pattern conduct across three clubs is treated as an aggravating factor that defeats lone wolf mitigation.

For the LAP to find error of law, they’d have to identify a specific legal misstep for example, that the IDC misunderstood the scope of Reg 127, or wrongly characterised the play-offs as a knock-out competition distinct from the league programme, or misapplied the proportionality test. None of those is obviously available on the public record.

There is one technical angle Southampton might try. Reg 127 doesn’t prescribe a mandatory sanction. Southampton might argue the IDC’s discretion has to be exercised consistently with the principle that the most severe sanction should be reserved for the most aggravated cases, and that admitted conduct mitigated by cooperation should attract something less than the maximum. The counter is that pattern conduct across multiple clubs over a season is an aggravated case, not a mitigated one.

Prospects: Low to moderate. The legal framework is well-established and the IDC followed it. Identifying a specific error of law that would justify overturning expulsion is hard.

Wednesbury Unreasonableness

For this ground, Southampton would have to show the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable commission could have reached it. This is a very high bar in English administrative and arbitral law.

The IDC’s decision is supported by case law (Derby, Everton, Swindon), is consistent with the regulatory framework, and is responsive to admitted conduct. It’s not perverse. The LAP will not overturn on this ground unless the decision is wildly outside the range of reasonable outcomes, which it isn’t.

Prospects: Very low.

Findings of Fact Not Supported by Evidence

Southampton admitted the breaches. There is no factual dispute. This ground is essentially unavailable to them.

Prospects: Negligible.

Procedural Unfairness

Southampton might argue that the expedited timetable, the limited time to respond, or the inclusion of additional charges (Oxford and Ipswich), deprived them of a fair opportunity to defend.

The counter is that they admitted all charges, that the additional charges were added with notice, and that they had legal representation throughout. Procedural fairness arguments rarely succeed where the substantive outcome was admitted by the appellant.

Prospects: Low.

The Proportionality Argument

Worth treating this separately because it cuts across multiple grounds and is where Southampton’s strongest argument really sits.

The Everton appeal in 2024 reduced a 10-point deduction to 6 points on proportionality grounds, finding that the original sanction exceeded what was necessary to achieve the regulatory aims. Southampton’s lawyers will be reading that decision carefully.

Their argument will be: even accepting the breaches, expulsion is irreversible in a way that points deduction is not, and a lesser sanction (heavy fine plus enhanced points deduction next season) would serve the regulatory purposes without destroying the club’s immediate competitive position.

The problem with that argument in this context is that points deduction in the play-offs is meaningless — there’s no points table. The Everton precedent involved a points deduction being reduced in a points-based competition. Reducing expulsion to “a fine plus a points deduction next season” doesn’t deliver proportionate sanction in the play-offs themselves. It delivers no sanction in the play-offs at all, just a deferred penalty in a different competition entirely.

The LAP will see through this. The four-purpose framework requires the sanction to bite where the breach occurred. Expulsion bites in the play-offs. A points deduction next season bites somewhere else. They aren’t equivalent.

Prospects: Low. The Everton precedent is distinguishable on its facts.

Likely Appeal Board Approach

The LAP will work through the grounds in sequence. They’ll test whether the IDC made an error of law, whether the decision was unreasonable, whether the facts were properly found, and whether the procedure was fair. On each of those, the IDC’s decision is defensible.

The Appeal Board may also be mindful of broader considerations. Overturning expulsion in this case would signal to future clubs that the most serious breaches of Reg 127 attract sanctions that can be calculated against the £200m+ commercial value of promotion. That undermines the regulatory framework entirely. The LAP will not want to issue that signal.

There is one scenario where the Appeal Board might modify rather than affirm. If they conclude that expulsion is proportionate but that the four-point deduction next season is excessive (because it duplicates punishment for conduct already addressed through expulsion), they might reduce that element. That would be a partial win for Southampton but it wouldn’t put them back in the final. But of course my guess is the points deduction is because of the admitted spying on regular league fixtures. Unlikely to succeed if that’s the case.

Overall Assessment

Southampton’s appeal will fail. The IDC’s decision is grounded in established framework, supported by admitted facts, and consistent with binding precedent. The four available grounds for appeal do not realistically open on the public record. The strongest argument (proportionality) is distinguishable from the Everton precedent because of the knock-out competition context.

What’s more likely than a successful appeal is a partial modification possibly a reduction in the four-point deduction next season, or a procedural tidying of some element of the order. The substantive outcome (expulsion from the play-offs, Middlesbrough reinstated) will hold.

Saturday will be Boro versus Hull. The appeal won’t change that.

[Wycombe Royal]

I'm expecting the appeal to succeed today,

No chance.

(Well, I'll be amazed if it does anyway!)

Remember the appeal isn't against the charge, which they've admitted, it's the severity of the punishment. I'm no lawyer but I can imagine a proper lawyer can make a reasonable argument that having your league season effectively thrown out for filming some training sessions is excessive.

I wonder if the playoffs are seen as a separate competition to the regular season. The playoffs are effectively a cup competition and teams do get thrown out for relatively minor offences. Take Swindon earlier this season in the Pizza Trophy or whatever it is now. They got kicked out for bringing on a sub who wasn't on the team sheet due to an admin error. Luton were reinstated and won the trophy.

A fine, unless it runs into the hundreds of millions will not be a deterrent due to the prize on offer.

[Winston Biscuit]

Southampton fans are taking it well
https://x.com/PragmaticFrog/status/2056998568016204260