- This topic has 36 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Meanwhile in Kings Lynn:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyplyl8l81o
1 user thanked author for this post.
Bringing it back to the topic of Southampton.
It’s good to see the football authorities taking firm action on this. I feel a little for the supporters of Southampton, because ultimately they are the ones who suffer most when a club is punished, but the club had openly broken the rules and there has to be a consequence for that.
Football can’t keep operating on the basis that rules only apply when it is convenient. Whether it is financial regulations, governance failures, or breaches of league requirements, clubs know what the framework is before they sign up to compete. If a club chooses to push beyond those limits, then it can’t be surprised when the authorities step in.
That said, I do think there needs to be a balance. Punishments should be firm enough to act as a deterrent, but they should also be applied consistently across all clubs. Supporters will rightly question the process if one club is punished quickly and another seems to avoid serious consequences for similar behaviour.
For Southampton fans, it is a frustrating position to be in. They turn up, pay their money, support the team through good times and bad, and then have to deal with the fallout from decisions made above their heads. But sympathy for the supporters doesn’t mean the club itself should escape accountability.
In the long run, strong enforcement is better for the game. Clubs need to know that rules matter, that there are consequences for breaking them, and that success can’t simply be built by ignoring the obligations everyone else is expected to follow.
1 user thanked author for this post.
We all have to deal with the fallout of decisions made above our heads, fc100,000 the board adding more debt which most of you don’t want (the loans). The taking the ground as part payment for debt.
Nothing fans can do about it but just enjoy the good times when they happen I’m afraid.
Like you say rules aren’t applied fairly across the board just take man city, that’ll never change they’ll always be the big club little club syndrome.2 users thanked author for this post.
They should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute, the EFL that is. No sympathy for Southampton FC, but lots for their fans.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Citeh are a case in point. Makes a mockery of justice and a level playing field.
I feel like there could be something coming soon around the 115, and that’s a big part of Pep’s exit.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I personally think the EFL should also ban the individuals involved from all football-related activity for six months. That would act as a significant deterrent and send a clear message that this kind of behaviour has real consequences. If the punishment is too light, people will just see it as worth the risk.
That’d be just about everybody at the club, though?
1 user thanked author for this post.
Other than ” rules is rules” I see no issue,if they train in a public space it’s tough shit for me
1 user thanked author for this post.
I think the EFL are an absolute joke.
If there was any consideration of removing Southampton from the play offs then the hearing should have been held before the play off semi final home and away legs… even if those matches needed to be pushed back!
To allow the matches to be played and then sell tickets to the Southampton fans for a final is disgusting.Saying that, some of the Saints players actions during the games against Middlesborough (The ball boy not giving the ball back etc…) Added more bad feeling towards the club on the back of the spying.
The whole thing is an absolute mess!!1 user thanked author for this post.
The EFL hoped that Boro would win the semi final and the problem would go away. Now the EFL hope that Hull will win the final and it will mostly go away.
1 user thanked author for this post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.