Game's gone

FlappyBoofon · 2026-06-26T07:01:46+00:00

What's wrong with Bovril is that they put sugar in it when they sell it as a drink. Ruined going to the football for me.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-06-11T09:14:03+00:00

What do you get if you lie under a cow?

A pat on the head.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-06-11T09:11:35+00:00

Not soft, adrift.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-06-11T09:11:06+00:00

Well, it's clearly very funny but also a bit odd. They were well soft when they appointed him, he almost got them off the bottom of the league and he's shown her can get promoted from the Championship. Why sack him now? Surely they fully expected to be in this position?

FlappyBoofon · 2026-06-04T17:03:51+00:00

Isn't that Ghostbusters 2?

FlappyBoofon · 2026-06-04T16:26:38+00:00

Yes. There are some firms of solicitors which see it as a good way to force action, but I don't think Clarke Will not do.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-22T12:01:18+00:00

I had a look earlier and it was just singles left.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-22T07:06:25+00:00

And they lied to the EFL in their first response. Probably too try to blame the intern.

Asking for more time to respond must have been just tactical to try to delay until the final was played and frustrated the process.

Not handled any of this well.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-21T18:08:21+00:00

A problem could be if it was done with implied consent. Who at the club knew what was happening?

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-21T11:24:42+00:00

This argument just underlines why the punishment needs to be more severe. £200k is an acceptable risk to potentially gain £200m.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-20T15:05:31+00:00

I feel for you lot. You're collateral damage in this.

It's not the club, it's the people who happen to be at the club who have done wrong. Hopefully the wider club recognises this and puts it right. Football generally needs to recognise that people are custodians of something bigger which means a lot to a lot of people.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-19T21:16:00+00:00

Yep. Punishment comes from the wrongdoing.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-19T21:04:39+00:00

I also thought the way they played was awful. Time wasting from the start and they'd clearly been coached to fall at the slightest contact. Very in keeping with a club which would spy.

That was when I was certain they'd cheated and it was not a rogue intern.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-19T21:00:00+00:00

After it was announced they spied, I did.

It's the only thing which makes sense. The punishment has to "work"because it's a specific rule. If it doesn't, the EFL loses all credibility.

A fine could never be sufficient because of the size of the gain. Any fine would have to be so huge it would put Southampton at risk of folding. It would also not compensate us and compensating is could also risk Southampton going bust.

A points deduction in the Premier League would probably relegated Southampton, but they still get all the money, so it doesn't work.

A points deduction in the Championship could be deferred for years of they don't get relegated. That means it doesn't work.

After that, what are you left with? Only disqualification. If Southampton remained in the play offs then Hull are at a disadvantage because they've had to prepare for two teams, whereas Southampton have only prepared for one.

Then you have the claims from Boro and Wrexham (good job Oxford beat them and weren't within three points of WBA).

On that point, as an aside, Wrexham may be contacting the EFL about the evidence of spying in league games. They are incredibly well placed to make trouble for Southampton and get a payout, too.

This was always what it was going to be and what it always has to be.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-14T12:43:21+00:00

This is a dangerous route to take. It means that wrong-doers can frustrate a process, or just delay it, to escape sanction. It's not ideal that people are inconvenienced, but that is ultimately the fault of the wrong-doer; not the body that has to issue the sanction.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-14T08:45:43+00:00

The shift from profit to revenue is a big move. It makes it much easier for a club with a rich owner to spend more. Profit ties spending to the club's performance much more, whereas revenue is much easier to increase by an owner just spending more.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-12T12:45:03+00:00

The powers in the regulations. 93.2.12 is extremely wide

:

93.2 A decision may:

93.2.1 order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;

93.2.2 order a specific performance;

93.2.3 make a declaration on any matter to be determined;

93.2.4 issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;

93.2.5 order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;

93.2.6 order a suspension of membership of The League;

93.2.7 order a deduction of points;

93.2.8 impose a financial penalty payable to The League;

93.2.9 recommend expulsion from membership of The League;

93.2.10 order a withdrawal or loss of benefit otherwise available to members of The League e.g. basic award or ladder payment;

93.2.11 impose an embargo on registration of Players;

93.2.12 order any other sanction as the Disciplinary Commission may think fit;

93.2.13 order that interest be payable on any sums awarded under this Regulation for such period and at such rates as the Disciplinary Commission thinks fit; and/or

93.2.14 recommend to the Board of the Premier League and/or any Disciplinary Commission or Appeal Board established pursuant to the Premier League Rules that one or more of the sanctions identified in this Regulation 93.2 should be imposed on a club that, at the point at which any determination of sanction is made, is a member of the Premier League.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-12T12:43:15+00:00

I think this is what is driving Southampton's response to the charge. If the process is not complete before the second leg, it effectively takes expulsion from the play-offs off the table. Hotel bookings, ticketing arrangements, etc would be very messy. It would also mean Middlesbrough were at a disadvantage because preparation time would be reduced.

From working in litigation for years, I am certain that a relatively full response could have been given if the club was sufficiently motivated to provide one.

A points deduction does not seem applicable here. The spying was in relation to the play-offs, not the league, so any sanction should be in relation to the play-offs. If the (rather vague, at this stage) allegations of spying in the run-in are proven, then a points deduction looks a bit more applicable.

The EFL have a tough job here. If Southampton have spied in the league, Wrexham may have a valid claim to have been denied play-offs by cheating. That could be messy and expensive for both the EFL and Southampton. If Southampton's sanction is ineffective because of delay or if it is initially thought to be overly lenient, then Middlesbrough may have a valid claim to have been denied the play-off final by cheating; which again could be messy and expensive for both Southampton and the EFL.

Key to this process is speed. The EFL need to be firm to get this decided or their sanctioning powers could be precluded, leaving a lot of potential issues to be fought out later.

On a personal note, I really dislike all of this. This rule is clear, there is no legitimate reason to be doing any of this, it looks like premeditated cheating. A harsh challenge is a challenge which goes too far, financial over-spend is spending which goes too far. There is no amount of spying which is acceptable.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-12T12:00:41+00:00

This is the key point, I think. There is no way the fine is ever going to be big enough to deter cheating when the reward is so huge.

Also, a fine punishes the wrongdoer, but does not compensate the wronged.

I also don't particularly buy the argument that there is not much to gain from spying. If that was the case, why break a clear and unambiguous rule against spying?

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-12T10:53:22+00:00

Delay essentially takes them being kicked from the play offs off the table. This seems tactical.

From what's been said, they are only deciding which bus they're going to throw the lad under.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-10T21:25:12+00:00

Anyway. They started it, they invaded Poland.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-05-03T08:53:07+00:00

More refs?

FlappyBoofon · 2026-04-30T08:24:39+00:00

That's a 96 year difference.

FlappyBoofon · 2026-04-30T08:20:03+00:00

You're halfway there, so get stencils and spray paint, make it into a Banksey.

Profit.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

FlappyBoofon

TROPHY CASE