For a brief while, in the early 2010s, supporters of Middlesbrough FC borrowed from the Proclaimers to create a terrace song boasting that they would walk 500 miles (and 500 more) ‘just to see the mighty Middlesbrough’. It is presumed that young William Salt did not undertake his journey on foot, but a couple of weeks ago the Southampton intern went to almost as great lengths to watch the Teesside club in action.
Call me old-fashioned, but I would like to see my team get promoted on merit, by scoring goals, not petty points in some windowless hearing room
But Master Salt did not venture on his 580-mile round trip for a match. Rather he went to Middlesbrough’s training ground, whereupon, and one presumes not for posterity, he is accused of surreptitiously recording Kim Hellberg’s side preparing for the Championship play-off semi-final first leg.
The issue for Middlesbrough is that their opponents were to be Salt’s employers, and thus he broke a rule that forbids any such surveillance in the 72 hours before a game. They made their grievances known to the authorities, and Southampton were charged. So far, so undisputed.
The problem is that no one quite knows what the punishment should be. ‘Regulation 127 ‘, as it is known officially, was only brought in when Leeds were caught doing something similar under Marcelo Bielsa. Leeds were fined; some Southampton fans say that is the precedent, but Leeds technically breached no rules – Saints most definitely did. (They have also been charged under Regulation 3.4, which requires clubs to act towards each other with good faith).
At the other end of the scale there are many (Boro fans mostly) who think the right punishment for Southampton would be to forfeit the first leg 3-0, with Middlesbrough thus going through to face Hull City for the right to play in the Premier League – and earn a cool £200million for doing so. I, as a Boro fan, am inclined to disagree.
The problem for the Boro is that while they all too frequently produced subpar performances at the wrong moments in the second half of the season, just as the world – and not just an intern with an iPhone – was watching, they produced their most complete 45 minutes of the campaign. All that was missing was the goalscoring touch that would have earned them an actual 3-0 victory, rather than the 0-0 draw it finished as.
Thus, argue the Southampton fans, the spying can’t have made any difference, therefore the punishment should be lenient. Wilfully missing the fact that someone at the club felt it would have made a difference otherwise they wouldn’t have sent the poor lad.
For his part Hellberg, the Middlesbrough manager, insists that forced him to tweak his approach, and says they would have gained valuable insight into his side’s set-up at set pieces. It would have made the EFL’s job a whole lot easier had Middlesbrough gone on to win the second leg. Reader, they didn’t, and on Tuesday night the league must decide the suitable punishment for Southampton.
Complicating the issue is the accusation that there have been other clubs who have fallen victim to the questionable methods of Tonda Eckert, the rather charmless Southampton manager. If the spying is proven to be a frequent occurrence it is obviously a more serious matter, but harder to claim that Middlesbrough are the only ones who deserve to directly benefit from the punishment.
It is Saints’ sinner, and not their fans, who should pay for his actions
Which is why I don’t think Southampton should be kicked out of the play-offs, or at least if they are then let Hull sit at football’s high table and let Boro keep the moral high ground (and yes, this is partly for fear of the not inconceivable outcome of Boro losing to Hull at Wembley and coming out of the whole saga looking just a little bit silly).
Call me old-fashioned, but I would like to see my team get promoted on merit, by scoring goals, not petty points in some windowless hearing room. And I would also like to see Southampton get the punishment their behaviour merits. The EFL should hit them with a ten-point deduction at the start of their next year in the Championship – which may or may not be next season.
And I’d like Eckert – and his somewhat unevolved condoning of his players mocking an opponent’s speech impediment – banned from English football, starting with the game against Hull if necessary. It is Saints’ sinner, and not their fans, who should pay for his actions.
Comments