Southampton claim spying on Middlesbrough did not change their tactics

Southampton have provided footage of their training sessions to the English Football League’s independent disciplinary commission to try to prove they gained no material advantage from the Spygate saga that has rocked the game.

Southampton have not contested the damning facts of the case – namely that one of their analysts, William Salt, was sent to film Middlesbrough in training two days before the Championship play-off semi-final first leg between the clubs at the Riverside Stadium.

Salt was spotted and the repercussions have been seismic. Southampton, who drew the first leg 0-0 before winning 2-1 at St Mary’s Stadium, have been expelled from the playoffs and given a four-point deduction for next season. Middlesbrough have been reinstated and will contest the final against Hull at Wembley on Saturday. It emerged that Southampton also spied on the training sessions of Ipswich and Oxford earlier in the season.

Southampton believe the punishment is out of proportion to the crime and a key part of their plea for mitigation came at the EFL hearing on Tuesday at which the head coach, Tonda Eckert, the chief analyst, Nathan Hurst, and Salt were present.

The club showed in its entirety the footage of Eckert’s session from the Wednesday before the first leg; in other words before Salt’s spying mission. The Southampton players had the day off on the Thursday and on the Friday – the day before the first leg – they did not work on team shape in open play. It was purely a defensive set-piece session, the footage of which they also shared with the panel.

What Southampton and their legal team wanted to show – and which was borne out by the game – was that Eckert’s tactical approach did not change from the session on Wednesday. The club claim their defensive set pieces were not influenced by Salt’s visit to Middlesbrough’s training facilities.

It is a part of the reason why Southampton are so upset, albeit they accept they are in the wrong. Eckert, who is battling to hold on to his job amid a Football Association investigation into the conduct of individuals at the club, has argued he did not realise what he did was against the EFL’s statutes. Southampton gave a detailed briefing in pre-season to Eckert’s predecessor, Will Still, explaining the competition’s rules. They did not do the same for Eckert after he replaced Still in early November.

Southampton’s expulsion has prompted Millwall and Wrexham to consider their legal options. The aggrieved clubs will await publication of the written reasons for the decisions taken by the EFL’s disciplinary panel, which were upheld by an appeal panel on Wednesday night, but are understood to believe they could have grounds to make a claim for compensation.

Millwall and Wrexham could seek to test whether the EFL rulebook has been correctly applied or whether the disciplinary process was flawed, and could argue that because Southampton’s spying on Middlesbrough took place before the playoffs, they should have been replayed without Southampton’s involvement.

Millwall (left) lost in the playoff semi-finals and Wrexham finished one place outside the playoffs. Photograph: Cody Froggatt/PA

Millwall were beaten by Hull in the playoff semi-finals after finishing third and Wrexham missed out after finishing seventh.

There has been speculation in legal circles that one of the parties could seek an injunction at the high court to force the EFL to postpone Saturday’s game but that is regarded as a non-starter owing to the timescale. Any claim would therefore be retrospective for damages.

Hull’s owner, Acun Ilicali, said on Wednesday that his club had received legal advice that they should be automatically promoted to the Premier League as a result of Southampton’s expulsion rather than playing Middlesbrough.

There appears little prospect of Hull pursuing that case in the next 48 hours but they could also pursue a claim for damages if beaten at Wembley in a game worth a minimum of £200m to the winners.

Publication of the written reasons will be key because there has been little explanation from the EFL as to how it arrived at its decisions and the process involved.

By giving Southampton two sanctions – expulsion from the final and the four-point penalty in next season’s Championship – after the club admitted to spying on Middlesbrough, Oxford and Ipswich, it appears the panel treated the playoffs as a separate competition.

The EFL’s rulebook contains no reference to the process for replacing an expelled team, although its guidance notes state that the playoff final should be contested between two semi-final winners, which will not be the case on Saturday.

Wrexham and Millwall declined to comment.