Southampton questioned the independence of the disciplinary committee that expelled them from the Championship qualifiers due to the “apparent historical and indirect ties between two members of the committee with Middlesbrough”.
Saints were expelled from the play-offs after admitting charges of spying on Middlesbrough before the semi-final match, which Southampton won 1-0, and before regular season matches against Ipswich Town and Oxford United.
In addition to being sent off for the final against Hull City, Southampton were deducted four points for next season.
The club appealed the ruling, claiming the penalty was “manifestly disproportionate”. However, this claim was rejected by the jury.
Middlesbrough took Southampton’s place in the final at Wembley, but suffered a 1-0 defeat to Hull City as the Tigers won promotion to the Premier League.
The arbitration panel reveals the written reasons for Southampton’s decision
In arbitration committees Written reasons for its decisionit was detailed that Southampton appealed on the grounds that it had not had sufficient time to collect evidence relating to the spying charges against Ipswich and Oxford, and that the punishment was too severe.
The club made the latest claim by saying that the three points were not properly taken into account by the independent disciplinary committee when issuing the penalty.
Those three points were that “the club did not gain any sporting advantage from any of the three incidents”; “The club has acknowledged at the earliest opportunity in relation to each of the three incidents and has demonstrated exceptional levels of co-operation in the context of the EFL’s investigations and disciplinary proceedings.” And that “the available precedents regarding the profiling of dissidents and other integrity violations with which the penalty imposed by the Commission were completely inconsistent.”
The first allegation of procedural unfairness in relation to the Ipswich and Oxford incidents was roundly rejected as having “no force” by arbitration chairman Sir Gary Hickinbottom, who later summarized that any possibility of mitigation due to Southampton’s remorse had been mitigated by the club’s initial “misguided response” to the EFL following Middlesbrough’s original complaint on 7 May.
The committee chairman also considered that the precedent was against Southampton, with Swindon Town’s expulsion from the EFL Cup for fielding ineligible players as a reference point. The unsportsmanlike penalty was deemed “ineffective, if not positively harmful” given the value of the prize on offer during the qualifiers, while a simple points deduction was deemed inappropriate for a knockout competition.
Regarding the assertion that Southampton had not obtained any sporting advantage, Hickinbottom wrote: “The primary purpose of the cheating was to obtain a sporting advantage over the club’s Championship rivals. In each observation, information was obtained about formation etc. The panel was not satisfied that this was an exceptional case as there was evidence of no use of the substance and therefore no sporting advantage. In fact, there was evidence of a sporting advantage in relation to each of the three incidents.”
Southampton questions the disciplinary committee
In response to the findings, Southampton accepted the points contained in the arbitration panel’s reasons, but the club objected to the composition of the disciplinary panel, specifically the inclusion of David Winnie and Lydia Banerjee.
Winnie is a lawyer and former footballer who played one game for Middlesbrough 33 years ago. Banerjee works for Littleton Chambers, which previously represented Middlesbrough. Winnie said any allegations of bias on his part were “completely baseless.”
Southampton’s statement read: “Southampton Football Club notes today’s publication by the Arbitration Tribunal of the written reasons behind our unsuccessful appeal of the sanctions previously imposed on us by the Disciplinary Committee in Premier League proceedings. We accept that the Club has breached the relevant regulations, and recognize that the Disciplinary Bodies are entitled to conclude that proof of sporting advantage was not necessary in order to prove a serious offence.”
“The club accepts that aspects of our initial response to the situation were not treated with the level of scrutiny required at the time. In hindsight, we wish this matter had been managed differently from the outset and this represented an error in judgment for which we take responsibility. Despite this, we are pleased with the way in which we admitted the charges and offered our full co-operation and honesty once the formal Premier League investigation process began.
“We also note that the club was judged according to the highest standards of integrity and good faith. This is absolutely correct. What is difficult to accept is that similar scrutiny does not appear to have been applied to the composition of the disciplinary committee itself, given the apparent historical and indirect links between two members of the committee to Middlesbrough. While these links in themselves do not demonstrate bias, they clearly raise legitimate questions about the consistency, perceptiveness and standards of independence expected in proceedings of this magnitude.”
“The Club is also concerned by the focus on assertions that junior staff were pressured to become involved, when it appears that some of the more serious allegations were not supported by direct evidence. However, junior staff should never be placed in a position where they feel pressured, and the Club accepts responsibility for this failure of leadership and oversight.
“This case was ultimately decided on the basis that the infringement and attempted infringement were sufficient, regardless of whether any sporting advantage was actually obtained. Indeed, at no stage was there any finding that the club actually obtained any sporting advantage as a result of the conduct in question.
“This is a strict interpretation, but the disciplinary authorities have the right to adopt it under the written rules.
“Southampton Football Club will now carefully consider the reasons published, review its internal processes and ensure its governance, oversight and decision-making procedures are strengthened as a result.”
He added: “Our responsibility now is to acknowledge what happened, learn from the lessons this brings, and use this experience to strengthen our judgement, discipline and integrity to move forward together as a club.”
