Pamplemousse

The following weekend is the Rugby League Challenge Cup final so that's out. And of course the pitch would need to be prepared in time.

It's worked, I fucking hate them and will do so for a long time. Hope MLG adds the rivalry for the next FM Database...

That statement is laying the groundwork for them suing the EFL. Which they did before with Derby.

That reads like another attempt to put undue pressure on those concerned. Which they wouldn't need to do if things were going their way...

This from a Hull fan: There is no substance in this suggestion of a re-arranged Tuesday game at all, other than looking at the impact of the World Cup... the problem is that, if Southampton are eliminated, then their likely appeal is the going to be the key problem, and extremely unlikely that an appeal could be heard, and resolved and the other finalist decided before Tuesday 26 May. The clear reality, in my eyes, and probably the better story to promote here is that there has to be almost zero chance that Southampton will be "eliminated" What everyone seems to be missing here is that Middlesboro could have won the play off tie - the charge would still stand and Southampton would still be accordingly punished with fine/points deduction. I.e. the sanctions which the EFL/Disciplinary Panel, wish to impose, cannot be predicated upon the outcome of football matches - think about what that would mean for any future spying situation... in the regular season... if a team caught spying, won that related match... is the fixture reversed in favour of the "innocent" team, after the event - and if so, by what score... which then potentially impacts goal difference (which as we Tigers know) can end up being crucial Therefore, it seems so incredibly obvious to me that this Disciplinary Panel are not going to open up a monumental can of worms, by reversing the outcome of the Southampton/Middlesboro match, and are instead, sensibly, going to impose a fine/points deduction, which can then be used any future as a precedent, across the board, without having to interfere with what happens/happened on the football pitch, as well as impacting other teams...

I cannot see a world where the EFL appeal, knowing that their showpiece match gets postponed as a result. If anything, us being in the final will generate interest as the most controversial final perhaps ever. Good publicity and will generate more revenue for their member clubs.

This is from Hull Supporters' Trust: The Hull City Official Supporters' Club also issued a statement in which they expressed concern at how the play-off final could be moved at short notice. "This is a situation in which we have had no influence but in which we are, both as a football club and supporters, being penalised," they said. "Any decision to move the date of the final will result in many of our supporters not only losing out financially, but then facing the prospect of being unable to attend the re-arranged fixture. "Given that this is a situation which has largely resulted from the EFL's own error in failing to publish the sanctions for a breach of the rule regarding 'spying' on opposition teams, we feel this is manifestly unfair." That last paragraph is interesting about the EFL not publishing sanctions for a breach of the rule. I wonder if that will be taken into account by the commission?

I feel sorry for their fans. It's a long way to go and the uncertainty isn't fair. That's why this hearing should take place after the final.

If it is Hull v Boro, very unlikely that takes place on the Saturday as we'd appeal. So no advantage gained there. Hull can prepare to face us until anyone says otherwise.

Could Middlesbrough appeal if they're not happy with the outcome?

Interesting line in the Swindon decision about how Ian Holloway's comments about the charge were 'unfortunate' but did not influence the committee's decision making. Something for Middlesbrough to take into account and definitely why it is wise for us to stay silent.

This document is the written decision of an independent English Football League disciplinary commission regarding Swindon Town F.C. being punished in the 2025–26 EFL Trophy. What happened Swindon admitted two rule breaches during their Round of 16 match against Luton Town F.C. on 13 January 2026: They brought on Aaron Drinan as a substitute even though he was not named on the official teamsheet. They fielded Oliver Clarke despite him serving a suspension and therefore being ineligible to play. Initially, Swindon disputed the second charge because they believed the suspension did not apply to the EFL Trophy, partly due to information shown on the FA’s online portal. However, after a separate FA ruling confirmed Clarke was ineligible, the club admitted both breaches. Swindon’s argument The club argued: The mistakes were administrative rather than deliberate. They acted in good faith regarding Clarke’s suspension. A financial fine would be a proportionate punishment. EFL’s argument The EFL argued: The integrity and fairness of the competition had been compromised. Swindon gained an unfair sporting advantage by using two players who should not have participated. Expulsion from the competition was the only suitable sanction. Decision and punishment The commission unanimously decided: Swindon would be expelled from the 2025–26 EFL Trophy. The club would receive a £40,000 fine, with £20,000 suspended unless they repeat a similar offence before the end of the 2026–27 season. Why the commission took such a strong stance The ruling repeatedly emphasises: Protecting public confidence in the fairness of the competition. The seriousness of fielding two ineligible players in a knockout match. The fact one of the players was club captain. That responsibility for eligibility and accurate teamsheets ultimately rests with the club, regardless of confusion or administrative error. The commission also said that if there had only been one mistake, a fine alone might have been enough — but the combination of both breaches made expulsion proportionate.

https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/f1a33090-1191-11f1-a071-51ac3b681d4e.pdf This is an interesting read of the disciplinary process, that was Swindon getting booted out of the EFL Trophy.

We haven't been charged by the EFL in relation to other clubs, I would assume that would have to take place before the Independent Commission could even look at that, if Boro supposedly have this evidence. They're only looking at this one specific allegation. And if we did, we'd need additional time to respond, which of course would go way beyond the play off final. If other teams have been spied on, why haven't they complained yet? Why have we not been charged by the EFL?