Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

Cos they didn't win either of the legs for starters.

 

Surely they could argue they didn't win because Southampton have been syping on their tactics?

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

Difficult to prove mind.

 

Also difficult to prove that Southampton didn't benefit from the spying

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

Exactly. So easier just to expel them and promote Hull.

 

I can't even imagine the legal ramifications of that :lol:

 

Certainly not easy at all

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

Exactly. So easier just to expel them and promote Hull.

 

Also if Southampton have been spying all season then that likely contributed to them getting in the playoffs in the first place so expelling Boro seems incredibly wrong

 

It's an absolute mess. Bet the EFL were desperate for Boro to get through to the final on Tuesday 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Southampton manager throwing his toys out the pram and walking out the press conference when asked if he's a cheat.

 

What an unbearable prick. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

Also if Southampton have been spying all season then that likely contributed to them getting in the playoffs in the first place so expelling Boro seems incredibly wrong

 

It's an absolute mess. Bet the EFL were desperate for Boro to get through to the final on Tuesday 

 

Again that would be impossible to prove. Southampton gained an unfair advantage, Middlesbrough lost. Only Hull came through the Play Offs unbeaten and should take their place in the Premier League.

 

You're right though they would have been desperate for Boro to win thus saving them all this aggravation Whatever their decision, there's a legal challenge going in!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"While he congratulated Southampton on beating Hull City in the Championship Play-Off Final, Richard Masters noted that in the event of the south coast club being found guilty of spying and handed a sporting sanction, the Premier League proposed that only the top two clubs in last season's Championship, Coventry City and Ipswich Town, be promoted, thus granting 18th-placed Premier League team Tottenham Hotspur a reprieve from relegation. When challenged on this and with the Swindon Town 'precedent' of 1990 specifically put to him, Masters noted that football was only invented in 1992 and that nothing like this had ever happened before." 

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

Again that would be impossible to prove. Southampton gained an unfair advantage, Middlesbrough lost. Only Hull came through the Play Offs unbeaten and should take their place in the Premier League.

 

You're right though they would have been desperate for Boro to win thus saving them all this aggravation Whatever their decision, there's a legal challenge going in!

 

It wouldn't be impossible to prove they've been spying all season

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

It wouldn't be impossible to prove they've been spying all season

 

It would probably have been flagged up well before now if they had considering it's against the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

It would probably have been flagged up well before now if they had considering it's against the rules.

There’s suggestions at least two other clubs are going to flag being spied on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Should have just let the team that finished third over 46games go up, could have saved four boring games and all this fanny on.

 

Anyway enough about 1990, same goes for now.

 

 

Edited by Wolfcastle

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

There’s suggestions at least two other clubs are going to flag being spied on.

 

They need to come forward quickly then cos the final is supposed to be in 8 days time. Wonder why they didn't mention it at the time though?

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

They need to come forward quickly then cos the final is supposed to be in 8 days time. Wonder why they didn't mention it at the time though?

 

It sounds like because the spy used a credit card to buy a drink at a local hotel there's now a paper trail so they may be able to find he's been in the area of their training ground or check their CCTV which they previously wouldn't have looked into

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

It sounds like because the spy used a credit card to buy a drink at a local hotel there's now a paper trail so they may be able to find he's been in the area of their training ground or check their CCTV which they previously wouldn't have looked into

I read this somewhere, it was maybe even that Louise Taylor bit the other day, and my first thought was that if Steve Gibson is identifying transactions at Rockliffe Hall and giving out card numbers for said paper trail surely the ICO is going to do him under the Data Protection Act or UK GDPR? I mean, the likely fine would be pennies to Gibson, but the idea of breaking the law like he's some vigilante to try and uncover what Southampton have been up to made me laugh. I assume the EFL couldn't ask for the guy's credit card statement but I could be wrong and have just invented the data breach scenario in my head :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me who couldn’t give a shit about this? Fine em and move on. People going on like they’ve been cutting the brakes off opponents cars. 


The more important issue is that they’re shafting fans (particularly the ones from Ull) by not confirming what’s going on. They should be shot with shit if they move the date. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Wolfcastle said:

Should have just let the team that finished third over 46games go up, could have saved four boring games and all this fanny on.

 

Anyway enough about 1990, same goes for now.

 

 

 

Just have the bottom 3 PL teams face the top 3 EFLC teams.

 

PL 18th v EFLC 1st

PL 19th v EFLC 2nd

PL 20th v EFLC 3rd.

 

Winner of each respective tie gets the PL spot, loser gets EFLC.

 

Won't happen because less matches equals less TV money.

 

Oh and it's 'unfair' to the EFLC teams who have less resources compared to PL.

 

Better for the 3 EFLC teams to come up, spend a shit load and hope they stay up.

 

Which is fine if it works. But leads to financial ruin when it doesn't.

 

 

Edited by Joe1984

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joe1984 said:

Just have the bottom 3 PL teams face the top 3 EFLC teams.

 

PL 18th v EFLC 1st

PL 19th v EFLC 2nd

PL 20th v EFLC 3rd.

 

Winner of each respective tie gets the PL spot, loser gets EFLC.

 

Won't happen because less matches equals less TV money.

 

Oh and it's 'unfair' to the EFLC teams who have less resources compared to PL.

 

Better for the 3 EFLC teams to come up, spend a shit load and hope they stay up.

 

Which is fine if it works. But leads to financial ruin when it doesn't.

 

 

 

 

Always thought this, but 20th should play 1st. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Dokko said:

 

Always thought this, but 20th should play 1st. 

Nah the 'best' of the bottom 3 in the PL should play the top team in the EFLC.

 

It's only fair...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...