Other Games 2025-26

[Rudy Can't Fail]

It doesn't matter on PL rulings. It matters on EFL rulings. However, the same as people on here, there is definitely a world of difference between Leeds doing it without any specific rules in place at the time AND them doing it repeatedly when there were specific rules in place. And the £200million pound game is why they should be fucked off from the play-offs.

Agreed. Them be the rules. It really is that simple.

[LeeS]

The punishment does fit the crime because the cheating took place ahead of that specific game. If they’d cheated in a game mid season they could expect the result from that game to be overturned. It’s hardly the league’s fault that it was a playoff semi.

Maybe the league should have said explicitly that the punishments were per game. They lost the others so it would have had no effect on the final standings and could have demonstrated consistency and set a useful precedent.

[PeterWithesShin]

I reckon the league didn't expect anyone to be so stupid as to spy again after Leeds and the introduction of a specific rule. If I ran the EFL i'd kick them out of the football league for being too stupid to be a professional club.

[Dave]

It’s shining a light on how weak the Chelsea punishment was.

Yes, we know it was weak, but that was the PL decision and not the EFL's one.

I'd also wonder if when you're punishing a sporting infringement whether there's a difference between an offence against a specific team (i.e Southampton against Middlesbrough) which could mean the punishment compensating the other side, and a general offence of being financially dodgy (i.e Chelsea).

[LeeS]

It’s shining a light on how weak the Chelsea punishment was.

Yes, we know it was weak, but that was the PL decision and not the EFL's one.

I'd also wonder if when you're punishing a sporting infringement whether there's a difference between an offence against a specific team (i.e Southampton against Middlesbrough) which could mean the punishment compensating the other side, and a general offence of being financially dodgy (i.e Chelsea).

Good point. Possibly a grey area if one team misses out on UCL, for instance, based on the advantage given by the financial cheating.

[Somniloquism]

It also would have been interesting if the cheating was constrained to one match. However they have proven evidence from two other clubs at least over the last 6 months and I suspect the only reason other clubs haven't complained is because he wasn't spotted as I can't believe they only decided to do this against Oxford in December, Ipswich in April and Boro in May.

[lovejoy]

And by extension Southampton benefitted from cheating at the expense of Wrexham who just missed out on the play offs. If I were them I'd be asking for a play off vs Boro. The solution wont be the fairest as it will fit round logistics and peoples holidays and the tv schedules.

[LeeS]

And by extension Southampton benefitted from cheating at the expense of Wrexham who just missed out on the play offs. If I were them I'd be asking for a play off vs Boro. The solution wont be the fairest as it will fit round logistics and peoples holidays and the tv schedules.

Is that proven? I thought the only game they cheated on and won was the Boro semifinal?

[Somniloquism]

They were found guilty of spying against two league teams who had proof the guy was also there, and the Boro play-offs. Whilst I stated I can't believe those were the only ones, the punishment is only on the proven ones. Lovejoy, who initially thought there was nothing wrong with what they did, now wants either Millwall or Wrexham to play matches again for some arbituary (and really stupid) reasons.

[Dave]

From December: