Yes, I think that just about sums it all up. Our best hope is probably that Southampton get promoted and that we are allocated a significant slice of their ensuing financial rewards.
Although, I'll still be rooting for Hull - it would be very fitting if Southampton are in the end undone by Crooks...
Yep. That will be about the exyent of the sanctions on them, and yes SG will go for them.
For me though, Len, I really hope Hull will win out at Wembley. Then Saints will have to suffer their docked 6 points in the Championship where they will be villified at every ground they visit.
Here's an article from another legal expert on the matter...
https://ai-law.co.uk/spygate-at-the-riverside-why-southampton-could-have-scored-an-own-goal-in-law/
@powmillnaemore -o yes that will be poetic justice
@werdermouth - Thanks for that an interesting read.
I found the conclusion unsurprising
“Legally, this case is a vital test of whether English football regulatory bodies treat sporting integrity as an absolute principle or merely a commercial inconvenience. If the infractions are proven and the consequence is nothing more than a fine, clubs will quickly conclude that spying on opponents is not actually prohibited: it is simply expensive.”
I think we all know the answer to what is more important to the regulatory bodies………
And in other news Manchester United look like appointing Michael Carrick as the permanent manager.
Heard a bit on the radio yesterday about hiw well he has done so far - sounded familiar to our experience and I do wonder if he has worked out a plan B!
@boro-beckys-dad I suspect he’s finding coaching with top quality players significantly easier than in the Championship.
@werdermouth I fully agree with your statement regarding how unfair it is to fans except that it is only unfair to Hull fans as Southampton is only just over an hour from London by train at a cost of £10-30. Therefore Southampton fans in the majority do not need hotels and don’t have to book trains well in advance unlike Hull fans.
I personally do not see any outcome to the benefit of Boro, who, when it comes down to it, are the injured party. Unless, as it is likely Gibson takes either the EFL and/or Southampton to court, if he takes the EFL to court Boro could receive some very dodgy decisions on and off the pitch for many years to come. I still think we are suffering from the Derby action.
Come on BORO.
@exmil I agree. The bad feeling from the Derby fiasco still persists. We're in danger of losing the sympathy of other clubs if we push this too far. Also, our last attempt to take legal action against the football authorities didn't end well.
@pedro - There has been reference to an appeal although I guess only Southampton will be able to do so if they feel hard done by the decision.
@werdermouth That appears to be a very precise view on the current situation.
Unfortunately, I assume Southamptons Legal Team will also have a precise view on the alleged infringement. Can it be still called “alleged” when the whole world knows it happened. Their view will be one that is 180 degrees the opposite.
It would be interesting to know what Nick de Marco’s view is.
@martin-bellamy I think that having Steve Holland alongside him has been a big advantage.
@exmil All those dodgy decisions that we have had go against us this season. ☹️
An interesting article from the Guardian today: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/may/16/southampton-middlesbrough-spygate-championship?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I read that earlier and it seems despite all the opinions on what should be done it's hard to see any viable way in which the final can be rearranged where Southampton can appeal the decision.
@werdermouth - That was a good article from Ai Law. I agree with the views expressed. Do we want a sporting competition which is fair and in accordance with the regulations or not? If the only penalty on such an offence being proved or admitted is a fine, then that will be no deterrent to a wealthy club or owner.
If "prize" or potential prize of promotion is £200M (or whatever), then a fine of £200K (or even £10M) would merely be the price to pay to increase the prospect of bagging the "Big One". Especially if you are in the Play-Offs where you know there are only 3 games left to play. For relatively closely-matched teams (Boro's points score and games won/lost/drawn were almost identical to Southampton's over the season, and the other teams also in the Play-Offs were "there or therabouts") the chances of promotion in the Play-Offs might easily be seen as round or about 25%. We are not talking about getting some information about one of the 38 league games played during the season, and maybe the match in question was 6 months ago! It is absolutely proximate to the sharp end of the competition.
I suspect a betting man with adeqately-filled pockets, would think a £200K stake a very good gamble if there was a 25% chance of winning £200M within 2 weeks if the bet comes in (and believing the 25% might be slightly increased by taking the bet). £200K is quite a bit of money for me. For owners of a football club it might be like small change. If you were a club owned by an oil-state, or billionaires whose money came from another source, £200K (or even £10M) would be the equivalent of the 5p coin handed to me at the bakery with my change: if it rolls under the counter it would not be worth getting down onto hands and knees to search it out. So it would be a risk very much worth the financial cost - so much so that it might even be seen as encouraging the taking of the risk in the first place.
This could be an interesting precedent:
@k-p-in-spain Here is a reply comment from a reader.
You can’t really make a comparison, better to highlight the differences, Criminal Laws outcome of guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, Civil Law is on the balance of probabilities, which is lesser to prove and goes in our favour although there is no doubt. Obviously Criminal Law can result in custodial sentences and/or fines, where civil law is fines and/or sanctions. The crux of the matter however is not proving guilt, that’s a given it’s how serious the EFL deem it, and if it is deemed at a high level do they apply an appropriate punishment.
I always thought that goal celebration from the Southampton captain could be viewed very badly when considered in the context of getting away with cheating.
@pedro. Having read the Swindon judgement, if the EFL are going to be consistent then the only option is to allow Boro to go to the final.
If Swindon were thrown out of the cup on a supposed administration error which led to them “inadvertently” breaching the rules then you surely can’t have a lesser penalty for a deliberate breach of the rules, in my view.
I am, however, still not expecting the EFL to do the right and proper thing, in which case they are no better, in my view, than Southampton. 😎
@k-p-in-spain - The difference with the recent Swindon case, is that it was easy to disqualify them from the competition and let their opponents go through since the tournament was still in mid flow with many games to play. The offence was on 13 January, decision made 4 February with the next round scheduled for 10 February so it wasn’t too hard to just push back the game involving Luton until 24 February.
The situation now is somewhat more time critical which I am sure will play a part in the ultimate decision made.
@peter-surtees - Again a logical approach which will no doubt be ignored!
Putting Hull through still will leave many of their supporters out of pocket as would playing against Boro on another evening.
There really is no solution which will cover all the bases and leave all parties satisfied. I don’t envy the legal bods having to come up with a punishment which is why I suspect that a fudge of the highest order will result.
Possibly an adjournment until after Saturday because of one of the panel members being unable to attend due to illness with no replacement available. Then when they reconvene, Southampton will be disqualified with a large fine and points deduction for next season.
Hull City promoted by default if they lose and Steve Gibson to take legal action for compensation.
But time criticality should have no bearing on what the actual sanction will be ( assuming that guilt is determined ). So, perhaps the balance to PeterS's observation that deterrence should take precedence in the decision, the time criticality of the situation the guilty party has occasioned gives an edge to the proportionality of the punishment. I think you call it 'aggravated circumstances' that mean the scale of the punishment to be a deterrence assuming no special circumstances might be forfieture of a match and/or a prescribed points deduction, Deterrence M size if you like, but given the aggravated circumstance that Deterrence M should stand to be augmented in propoprtion to the circumstance. All of this current state of affairs is down to the guilty party, so a sanction that is Deterrence XXL might be considered appropriate.
If (when) Southampton are found guilty then the absolute mayhem caused by any change to the Final which has been caused by the infringement should be taken into account when punishing them. If there is also evidence of earlier examples of spying then their end of season league position should be null and void.
It’s an unholy mess (no saints here) and the EFL don’t have a good record in standing up to be counted. Hopefully they’ll conclude things tomorrow.
@martin-bellamy It’s an unholy mess (no saints here) and the EFL don’t have a good record in standing up to be counted. Hopefully they’ll conclude things tomorrow.
Unfortunately I find it hard to believe that the EFL / Committee will take the hard line that is deserved, against Southampton. From what I have read, the Committee will decide the punishment, but that the EFL will offer prior guidance.
Given that, if true, then the EFL will want the least disruption, against a backdrop of possible breach of contract scenario by invested parties like Sky and International Media companies.
Path of least resistance is the normal shout. So the EFL with push / advise for a fudge. After all it is only MFC that has been wronged, and we all know they are trouble makers.