Southampton 'raise legitimate questions' over Spygate panel

The panel included David Winnie, a footballer-turned-lawyer who played one game for Middlesbrough on loan 33 years ago, and Lydia Banerjee, whose Littleton Chambers had previously represented Boro. Mr Winnie has said any suggestion he could be influenced is "wholly without foundation".

The club have issued limited communications since they were expelled from the Championship play-offs and given a four-point deduction last month.

It comes after Southampton staff secretly observed training sessions held by Oxford United, Ipswich Town and Boro. Staff at Boro caught an intern in the act leading to Saints' expulsion from the Championship play-off final.

In a statement on May 20, Saints promised to "take the necessary steps to move forward responsibly" and to respond with "humility and accountability".

Following the release of the written reasons for an appeal hearing upholding the sanctions meted out, Saints have released a new statement.

The statement reads: "Southampton Football Club notes today’s publication by the Arbitration Panel of the written reasons behind our unsuccessful appeal of the sanctions the Disciplinary Panel previously imposed on us in the EFL proceedings.

Saints CEO Phil Parsons and technical director Johannes Spors (Image: Stuart Martin)

"We accept that the club breached the relevant regulations, and we recognise that the disciplinary bodies were entitled to conclude that proof of sporting advantage was not necessary in order to establish a serious offence.

"The club accepts that aspects of our initial response to the situation were not treated with the level of scrutiny they required at the time. In hindsight, we wish this had been managed differently from the outset and this represented an error of judgement for which we take responsibility. Despite this, we are happy with the way in which we admitted the charges and offered our full cooperation and honesty once the formal EFL investigation process had started.

"We also note that the club was judged against the very highest standards of integrity and good faith. That is entirely proper. What is harder to accept is that similar scrutiny does not appear to have been applied to the composition of the disciplinary panel itself, given the apparent historic and indirect connections of two panel members to Middlesbrough.

"While those connections do not by themselves prove bias, they plainly raise legitimate questions about consistency, perception and the standards of independence expected in proceedings of this magnitude.

"The club is also concerned by the weight placed on assertions that junior staff were pressurised into involvement, when some of the most serious allegations appear not to have been supported by direct evidence. That said, junior employees should never have been placed in a position where they felt under pressure, and the club accepts responsibility for that failure of leadership and oversight.

"This case has ultimately been decided on the basis that breach and attempted breach were enough, regardless of whether any sporting benefit was actually obtained. In fact, at no stage was there any finding that the club actually obtained any sporting advantage as a result of the conduct in question.

"That is a severe interpretation, but one the disciplinary authorities were entitled to adopt under the rules as written.

"Southampton Football Club will now reflect carefully on the published reasons, review its internal processes and ensure that governance, oversight and decision-making procedures are strengthened as a result.

"Our responsibility now is to acknowledge what has happened, take ownership of the lessons it brings, and use this experience to strengthen our judgement, discipline, and integrity moving forward together as a club."

As reported, Mr Winnie on May 22 told the PA news agency: "The suggestion that a single appearance for Middlesbrough Football Club more than three decades ago could in any way influence my judgment as a member of an independent disciplinary commission is wholly without foundation."