• We have today (22nd April) confirmed the closure of JackArmy.net on 31st May. Our reasons are varied but after a twenty-five year stint at the heart of the online Swansea City community, the time is right for us to bow out.

    You can read more at the link below
    https://jackarmy.net/2026/04/22/jackarmy-net-twenty-five-years-and-out/

Southampton

  • Thread starter Thread starter Muteswan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies: Replies 117
  • Views Views: Views 3,881


Fans demanding refunds, player legal action and figuring out if they can argue that Southampton as a club have breached contracts so that they can negotiate moving to new clubs. Add to that Wrexham looking into if they could pursue legal action on the assumption that they spied on more games than what they admitted to and that without that advantage they had cost them a place in the playoffs.

Could be an utterly devastating summer for them.
 


Fans demanding refunds, player legal action and figuring out if they can argue that Southampton as a club have breached contracts so that they can negotiate moving to new clubs. Add to that Wrexham looking into if they could pursue legal action on the assumption that they spied on more games than what they admitted to and that without that advantage they had cost them a place in the playoffs.

Could be an utterly devastating summer for them.
Just bring back Russ to put the tin hat on it Soton. You know it makes sense.
 
They’ve really not helped themselves through this whole process

Surely that means he has to go.
Not only that he will likely be banned by the FA and/or UEFA and FIFA.
His career might be done

How the sanction was reached

The breaches were broken into two parts - the offence in the league season and the separate charge for the play-off fixture.

The commission "took a starting point" of three points per incident, meaning a six-point deduction for the league season offences.

That was reduced to four points because the club had accepted the charges, showed some remorse and had offered information related to spying on Oxford and Ipswich.

For the play-offs, it was determined that the "integrity of the competition was seriously violated" and this "must result in expulsion from the competition".

The prospect of promotion to the Premier League would render any fine "meaningless", the commission decided, while a further points deduction would not be appropriate while achieving "the aim of the rule which has been breached" - a deterrent to spying.

Pretty much what I thought, sets a strong precedent going forward that if you spy and get caught you will face a 3 point deduction at least. Also sets the precedent of expulsion from any knockout competition you are taking part in.
 
While I know what a reprimand is it isn't a tangible or quantifiable punishment, I wonder what practical purpose it serves to have served Southampton with one.
 
While I know what a reprimand is it isn't a tangible or quantifiable punishment, I wonder what practical purpose it serves to have served Southampton with one.
I read somewhere it counts quite heavily against them should they transgress in any way in future. Not sure if that is accurate or not.
 
Back
Top