Matt Watts is back with his overview of the spygate saga, read on to see what he has to say.

There has already been endless debate around Southampton Football Club’s punishment, the severity of the sanctions and whether expulsion from the play-offs was excessive.

Supporters, pundits and rival fans have all had their say. But, looking back on the whole sorry mess, what strikes me most is not just the breach itself - it’s how catastrophically the club handled the fallout.

From a PR and communications perspective, it felt like one disaster after another.

Clearly none of us are privy to every detail behind the scenes - we’re all making observations based on reporting, official statements and what we saw unfold publicly.

But once Southampton admitted the charges, I simply cannot understand why the club failed to get ahead of the story and “own” the issue immediately.

Because make no mistake - the moment the charge broke, this was always going to become international football news. Crisis communication was required from the outset. Instead, the silence from the club was deafening.

There are differing views across football and across different countries when it comes to observing opponents. We know that - and if indeed Tonda Eckert was the instigator, then front it early. Explain it. Whether it stemmed from poor judgement, a practice considered more commonplace elsewhere in Europe, or ignorance of the specific EFL regulations prohibiting observation within 72 hours of a fixture, at least front it early and communicate openly.

Suspend him internally while the investigation takes place, communicate openly with supporters and the wider football community. Ultimately, show humility, show leadership and show some understanding of the seriousness of the situation.

Instead, what we got was confusion, evasion and reputational self-destruction.

Reports suggested CEO Phil Parsons privately informed Middlesbrough chairman Steve Gibson about the charge shortly before the semi-final first leg and acknowledged the club would accept punishment. Yet publicly, there appeared to be no coherent strategy whatsoever. It almost felt as though the club believed the issue would somehow disappear or result only in a fine.

Then came the interviews. The sight of Eckert repeatedly refusing to answer questions and hiding behind “the club statement” was excruciating to watch.

This was a coach who had previously built a reputation for being sharp, intense and articulate. Suddenly he looked like a rabbit in the headlights - defensive, uncomfortable and, frankly, guilty as sin.

The lowest point of all was the now infamous question: “Are you a cheat?” At that moment, the club’s PR handling collapsed. Rather than facing it head on, there was another refusal to comment, intervention from staff and a walkout. Embarrassing in the extreme.

Firstly, Eckert probably should have been removed from media duties altogether while the process unfolded, with a caretaker figure fronting up instead.

But even then, the response could have been so different - and could have gone some way in changing opinion.

He could have explained he didn’t believe he was a “cheat” but had made an error. Offer some explanation. State that due process will take place. Show accountability and show some humanity.

Instead, every interaction made Southampton appear weak, arrogant, evasive and utterly tone deaf to the scale of the story.

You’ll hear the usual defence: “The club couldn’t comment for legal reasons.” But what exactly did the silence achieve? The punishment still came, the reputational damage still landed and the headlines still wrote themselves.

And then came verdict day itself. Expelled from the play-offs, four-point deduction - and public humiliation on a national and international stage.

Yet even then, meaningful communication remained absent. For me, that is unforgivable. Southampton Football Club has been found wanting throughout this entire debacle - not just in judgement, but in leadership, transparency and basic public relations.

Of course rival fans are furious and the football world has opinions. But Saints supporters do not need lectures from the rest of the country about how damaging this is. We already know and we know what this does to the club’s reputation. We know how long it may take to recover from this and we’re the ones who have to live with it.

The more details that emerge, the more difficult it becomes to view this as simply one individual acting alone. Questions will inevitably now be asked about who knew what, when they knew it and how far responsibility extends within the club hierarchy. If the club is serious about rebuilding trust, greater transparency on that front may eventually become unavoidable.

What the club can control, however, is how it responds now. The damage is done and the punishment stands. But Southampton still have an opportunity to begin rebuilding trust - through honesty, accountability and competence.

That starts with sorting out the public-facing leadership of this football club, because throughout Spygate the communication strategy was almost as damaging as the offence itself.

All Photos Via Reuters