Ugly Inside message board regular MattFinish has written a fine article in which although he is not accusing anyone of bias or wrongdoing, that a lack of transparency is starting to bring up some awkward questions for the EFL that need answering.

We all know what Saints did was wrong but as clarified by virtually everyone in the game with half a brain and everyone outside of Portsmouth and Middlesbrough, Saints punishment was so disproportionately severe and the way that Middlesbrough were reinstated in the competition having been knocked out over two legs raises a lot of questions that I feel still need answering.

Firstly, Saints were reported for spying by Middlesbrough. The EFL had regulations in place specifically Regulation 3.4, which imposes a general duty of good faith and Regulation 127 which prohibits observation of training sessions.

The only similar case in the EFL was that of Leeds United who were caught spying on a Derby training session mid way through the 2018/19 season. Leeds admitted to and were found guilty of spying on every team’s training sessions up to that point, i.e. on 26 other teams. Saints were found guilty of spying on 3 teams. All Leeds got as punishment was a £200k fine, no points deductions and no staff bans. They were not kicked out of the FA Cup which they competed in after being found guilty and they were allowed to play in the playoff semi finals at the end of the season.

This judgement on Leeds set a precedent for future spying transgressions. The EFL put a specific regulation in place (Reg 127) but that came under the umbrella of Regulation 3.4, which already existed.

In legal terms setting a precedent means a court has made a legal decision that establishes a new principle or rule. This decision acts as an authoritative model or guideline for judges to follow in all future cases that involve similar facts or legal issues.

When our punishment was given the EFL claimed that this was a new rule but in fact Regulation 3.4 existed then and exists now, regulation 127 just details spying which was already covered under Reg 3.4 or how else did the EFL charge Leeds?

To make matters worse the EFL had a rule in place which covered spying on training sessions and other breaches but then decided to add specific mention of observing other teams training sessions (Reg 127). But then they confused the matter by making it acceptable to spy on other teams training sessions up to 72 hours before a game. This completely contradicts regulation 3.4. So in effect the EFL had a rule in place to punish any form of spying and then brought in a new rule which partially allowed it. In addition in the seven years since the EFL brought in regulation 127 they have failed to clarify what the penalty would be for breaking this regulation.

So having been accused of spying an Independent Disciplinary Commission found us guilty and decided to expel Saints from the Playoffs and deduct them 4 points next season, thus allowing Middlesbrough who had already been knocked out of the competition to be reinstated. I've read through the EFL regulations and I can't find anywhere that allows for a team to be reinstated from a knockout competition after they been eliminated.

Similarly, there is a rule in the EFL regulations which states that “the Proposed Respondents shall have two options: 86.4.1 to accept the Proposed Sanction within 14 days of receipt; or 86.4.2 to reject the Proposed Sanction, in which case the matter shall be referred to the Disciplinary Commission in accordance with this Section 8. In the event that no response is received within 14 days the matter shall be referred to the Disciplinary Commission for determination in the manner set out in this Section 8.”

I have read through the EFL Regulations and can’t find anywhere that states that the EFL can foreshorten the 14 day period that Saints should have been allowed to make a response. If the EFL had stuck to their regulations and allowed Saints 14 days to respond they would have had no option but to allow Southampton to play Hull in the final which would have meant that Middlesbrough would have been out.

According to the written reasons of the Independent Disciplinary Commission who expelled Saints, the independent panel consisted of three solicitors, two of whom have links to Middlesbrough football club however tenuous they may be. One was employed by a firm that have represented Middlesbrough on at least two occasions and one who played football for them. I know following a previous post that I made, the two people in question claim they were accused of bias and maintained they were not acting with bias to Middlesbrough. That may well be the case but there's no way of proving that one way or the other. I want to make it crystal clear that at no point did I accuse anyone of bias I just pointed out the links and asked for transparency.

Out of 176,000 practising solicitors in the UK the EFL chose to appoint two to sit on the Independent Disciplinary Commission who had links to Middlesbrough, whereas they managed to find 2 solicitors with no links to Southampton.

In addition I pointed out that Neil Bausor the CEO of Middlesbrough Football Club sits on the board of the EFL which surely, whether as he says he stepped back from this situation, opens up the question of impartiality. The EFL board is a relatively small group of people who I'm sure get on well together and meet fairly regularly. As such I'm sure that Neil Bauser is friends with people on the board. Personally I'd be surprised if he wasn't but that's just my opinion.

The other thing that has not been made public by the EFL is, who sat on the panel of the independent arbitration panel who dismissed Saints appeal? Surely for reasons of transparency, we should be told who these independent people were.

In my opinion, it appeared to me and many others that there was a push from within the EFL for Middlesbrough to progress through to the playoff final. The match between Saints and Middlesbrough was allowed to take place and I feel that the EFL were hoping that Middlesbrough would beat Saints and the problem would be solved. However when Southampton won, the EFL made the decision to expel them from the competition. At that point the final should have been awarded to Hull City but that would have robbed the EFL of their very lucrative final. Personally and I know a lot of other people not just Saints fans think this stinks.

The biggest monetary fine in English football was when Chelsea were fined £10.75 million for serious financial transgressions over a period spanning 8 years. This enabled them to buy top quality players who gave them an actual advantage on the pitch every game of the season for eight years, enabling them in that period to win 3 Premier League titles; 3 FA cups; 2 Champions League titles; 2 Europa League titles; 1 UEFA Conference league title; 1 UEFA Super cup title and 2 FIFA world cup titles.

For spying on three clubs we have been denied the opportunity to play in the richest game in world football and denied the chance of a £200 million windfall. It has been said that we have not lost £200 million because we still had to win the final but even without that we have in effect been fined £9m. This is because by the EFL keeping us in the championship we will lose £9m in parachute payments next season.

We still await an FA investigation into the incident with rumours of Tonda Eckert receiving a two year ban. This would be grossly unfair as Bielsa was not banned when Leeds were caught and the following season was able to guide them to promotion to the premiership.

What we did was unlikely to gain us any advantage at all, and in fact if you look at the three games that we were found guilty of we drew two and lost one so clearly there was no advantage. However if you look at Chelsea, Manchester City and Leicester City they were all guilty of severe and continual financial misconduct over a large number of years where they were able to buy the quality of players that other teams couldn't afford which gave them a huge advantage over the competition in every single game. Yet between the three of them they have received a six point deduction and a £10.75m fine.

The football authorities can argue all they want that Southampton's punishment fits the crime but we all know and they know this is not the case.

Shame on the EFL!

All Photos Via Reuters