Leeds banter 10

20 May 2026 21:54:03
Saints appeal dismissed!

20 May 2026 22:18:20
Justice ⚖️ served spot on. 👌

21 May 2026 07:08:24
Don't think you'd be so righteous, Baz, if they had done something similar to us back when it did.
I still think the penalty doesn't meet the offense, it's too heavy.

21 May 2026 07:36:16
Yeah. Totally unfair. Anyway, it's not Leeds, so don't care that much. Still, think they should have been allowed to start game 2-0 down. That would have been a cracker.

21 May 2026 08:14:24
I think there could be many alternatives to just kicking them out.
It's not fair on the players or the fans.
Personally, I would have imposed a massive fine and made them play a one-game semi-final again.
Middlesbrough do not deserve, in my mind, to go direct to the final, I'd rather see Hull be given the automatic promotion.


It's like changing the result of a game, and this can't happen in football, it's not right.

Otherwise, give us our European Cup, the one we were cheated out of against Bayern Munich.

21 May 2026 08:18:11
Spot on, Opti. For once. 😂 😂

21 May 2026 09:41:52
Righteous is my middle name, OP.

Furthermore, no rule existed back then, so your point is moot.

21 May 2026 10:21:37
That's not the point, Baz. The point is, would you be happy with this penalty if you were a Southampton fan or a Southampton footballer, even?
The EFL always punishes teams much harder than the EPL.
The FA should be insisting on some sort of parity in both leagues, as the difference is very apparent.

21 May 2026 10:39:30
I agree LUFC should be awarded 2 European Cups.

21 May 2026 11:53:04
I'd give us a World Cup too, Alf, but that's just me!

21 May 2026 12:18:36
Yes, EPL appear more lenient than EFL.

20 May 2026 21:09:49
Question to the scouse Ed.
Do you still believe Karl Darlow is a crap keeper as you previously stated?

{Ed001's Note - he has improved massively thus season. Looks a decent keeper now.}

20 May 2026 21:37:09
Last season, he was decent.

This season, Darlow has been at times sensational and very reliable throughout.

20 May 2026 22:26:32
Dare I add, Aaronson has been a much improved player this season. Now actually worth keeping.

21 May 2026 05:51:01
Which proves players can improve. Too many condemn and cancel certain players without allowing them time to improve with their coaching staff.
It really annoys me, this instant culture within football these days.
That goes for managers, also.

21 May 2026 08:16:18
That's a very valid point, OP. Knee-jerk for everything.
I'd add DJ to that list of improved players (last season) .
Farke is building a track record for developing players, and erasing / minimising major weaknesses in their game.

21 May 2026 09:40:52
Aaronson is still pony.

21 May 2026 09:48:37
Err, not sure Farke improved Meslier though.. quite the opposite!

21 May 2026 10:54:45
I think Darlow has deserved a new contract offer. I am not saying he is our first-choice keeper, but he has earned it.

21 May 2026 11:57:36
Agree on both points, Feath. We still need a #1 who can do what Darlow does, Plus dominate the area more and distribute much better. I don't want much, really!. 🤔😂
And, I'm not trying to detract from Darlow's huge improvement or contribution!

21 May 2026 12:00:24
Darlow does deserve to be our number one next season. He has earned that.

By the way, Baz, seem to remember you saying the club wasted their money on Rodrigo when he first came to the club. It took him about a season before he started to improve. Then, as per usual, you conveniently started to praise him as if you had never derided him before.

21 May 2026 12:21:00
Nah, you 'seem to remember' incorrectly, OP.

It also makes no sense what you suggest, as Rodrigo had a better 1st season than 2nd season in goalscoring.

21 May 2026 14:19:15
I think you need to do some homework concerning Rodrigo Baz.
I don't forget your posts either. 😉

21 May 2026 14:26:59
No, OP.
Rodrigo goal stats.
2020/21 0.26 goals per game.
2021/22 0.17 goals per game.

20 May 2026 14:52:23
Okafor off to the World Cup!

20 May 2026 18:44:53
His burst of 6 goals in 8 games near the end of the season definitely helped!

20 May 2026 14:29:32
Is a set punishment for spying in the rules? Or is it just wrong? I don’t think it actually matters jack s***.
But. If it clearly states you will receive this punishment for this offense. All good. But I think it doesn't. So league gone way over the top to cover their ineptitude and to discourage again. This is the worst decision in football history imo.

20 May 2026 18:47:34
Yeah, the more I think about it, it's definitely very harsh and unfair.
In all this it's actually Hull City who I feel really sorry for. Their final plans are totally up in the air.

20 May 2026 13:09:51
I am dumbfounded by the EFL punishment on Southampton. I do not condone spying but in the grand scheme of things, it's not life threatening. Soton have even admitted to doing it previously and not won that game either!
My only disappointment is the half arsed, unthought-through punishment meted out. Whereas we received a 200k fine, the escalation to being denied a shot at a multimillion pound prize seems somewhat excessive and will lead the EFL and the situation into the murky depths of the law.
Surely a more reasonable punishment would have been a fine (commensurate with which league they will be in) and/or a points deduction.


Surely the current punishment will adversely affect too many innocent parties. The fans and the players. Players who have worked hard to get where they are and had no knowledge of spygate. Players who could have been on Premier wages?
Come on, let's keep it in context. How does it rank against a manager telling his players to "do" the opposition's star player?
Someone even suggested letting them start the game with a 1/2 goal disadvantage.

I know all this was yesterday but I have only just seen it so, sorry, rant over. EFL just beggars belief sometimes.

20 May 2026 13:46:26
Whilst I agree with many points Leo, in
particular it makes very little, if any, difference when the game starts, and mostly impacts the Saints supporters and players.

But, rules is rules, especially after the £200k Bielsa fine for unsportsmanlike behaviour led to these hard and fast, widely known rules being implemented in the EFL.

Now it's no different to what Leicester did in terms of breaching known rules and they got away with it. They benefitted significantly, albeit until recently.

Now I've already said it makes sod all difference in the actual game, but they also spied on Ipswich, imagine if in another scenario Saints went up automatically for beating them and Ipswich missed out on promotion, a fine of many many millions would still be disproportionately weak in my humble opinion.

What IF the board, captain etc of Saints were fully aware of this, we don't know the level of detail just now.



What is known, (to date) Hull and Boro have breached no rules by which the Football League is run, so in my opinion that's who should be in the playoff final.

They should have stipulated that any breaches (spying) would result in immediate expulsion, points deduction and fine, and I very much doubt this would have arisen.

If I was EFL supreme I'd be tempted to promote Hull now without a playoff game, and that's not because I think they would be a banker for relegation, but I may be fibbing at this last point.

The bar has been set for evermore by Citeh and still no sanction, and it's the inconsistency with regards the biggest teams that fuels the fire on this subject. Again, in my humble opinion.

20 May 2026 13:58:31
I think a number of factors make this one unique.

One-off games probably make spying that tiny bit more valuable. Still not condoning it. Furthermore, it's harder to give any other sanction in a cup format. In the league I'd suggest the match is 3:0 for the innocent team, much like if you fielded an ineligible player.

If it was proven systemic, a points deduction might also suffice.

Ultimately, if a rule exists, and the punishment doesn't fit the crime, clubs can ignore it with impunity, undermining the legislature. Yes, we all despise the EFL as Leeds, but without a structure we all agree to abide by, you don't have football. Simple.

20 May 2026 14:17:22
Didn't the EFL also recently expel a club (Swindon?) in the EFL trophy for an offence.

So a precedent of expulsion has defo been set.

Can't stand Southampton, and they have openly flouted this spying rule not once, not twice, but three times also.



No other punishment fits imo. and integrity of the game is already on the floor in so many other ways.

So, well done the EFL on this occasion.

20 May 2026 18:48:33
Excellent post, Leo.

20 May 2026 20:39:54
I think that whilst the punishment seems harsh, they thought they needed to draw a line in the sand to dissuade potential future offenders.
So what were the alternative punishments?
If they played in the playoff final and lost, a points deduction (and substantial fine) would have been fair enough. However, if they won, the EFL would have no jurisdiction to impose points deductions in the PL, and any likely fine would pale into insignificance at the side of the financial benefits accruing from promotion. In that case, potential future transgressors would still be tempted to offend when the club accountants do a cost/benefit analysis and conclude that the risk of a £500K fine against the chance of a £100M payday is a risk worth taking.


With the benefit of hindsight, if their other "spying" offences had come to light earlier, Saints could have been given a 10 point penalty before the playoff teams were decided, in which case they'd have gone down to 7th place, and the real losers here, Wrexham, would have been up to 6th and into the playoffs.
I think the punishment is harsh, but maybe the EFL feel they have no alternative.

20 May 2026 21:38:30
Excellent post, JR. Spot on.

The punishment might, on the surface, appear "harsh".

But there is no other "punishment" imo that would be fairer and more appropriate in these circumstances.

There must be a strong deterrent.

20 May 2026 21:48:00
Breaking news, Southampton's appeal against being thrown out of the Championship play-off final for spying has been rejected.

The match will now go ahead on Saturday between Hull City and Middlesbrough.

20 May 2026 22:01:53
The precedent is now set, and I believe it is the right way to go. Now the EPL have to show the same level of authority towards Citeh!
FA involvement to come soon, to deal with the individuals responsible.


1 person who deserves this kick in the nads most is their captain Harwood-Bellis; for his despicable behaviour toward Bill, and his binoculars celebration for one of their goals.

21 May 2026 09:43:20
What was he saying to Ayling?

21 May 2026 12:00:18
Corkey; he was taking the wazz out of his stammer, which Luke reported to the ref, but decided after the game to not pursue further. (Coz Bill is the bigger and better man, and not a weak like Bellis!l)

21 May 2026 19:18:30
Was thinking it might be that. He wanna hear me after a dozen pints!

20 May 2026 09:57:55
Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea looking at Bowen should spammers go down?
Anyone reckon Farkey's relationship with Maddison could help us get him, should it be Spuds?

20 May 2026 11:27:14
I get the logic, Brighty, but we aren't shopping for Madders or Bowen with our budget.
We need to find equivalent quality from other leagues.
Personally I think we are in for a huge and very interesting summer.

20 May 2026 11:34:24
Totally agree on that front, Dave! Never boring being Leeds!

20 May 2026 12:18:50
Madison is without doubt a hugely talented footballer, but when he was at Leicester, his attitude was very annoying, and I don't think he would fit our team ethic. In any case, he'd likely think lowly Leeds to be below what he's entitled to.

20 May 2026 14:01:15
It's sort of why I want West Ham down. Traditionally, teams staying up mid-table largely gut the best of the teams that went down. Spurs are too big for us to do that with if they went down. We wouldn't be in for Van der Ven, Porro, Bentancur, Udogie, Kulusevski, Maddison, etc.

Archie, we would have a fool's chance at.

West Ham, on the other hand, we could be competitive if we really wanted to in trying to sign any of their players except Bowen, and I'd try for Mavropanos or Diouf, or Castellanos perhaps.

20 May 2026 14:20:53
A reason for perhaps wanting West Ham to go down rather than Spuds is that West Ham have serious financial issues and need to sell players.

Without a doubt, they would be an EPL bottom 3 contender next season if they stayed up. Whereas, Spuds are perhaps rather unlikely to be under De Zerbi.

20 May 2026 14:26:40
Re signings from Spuds or Spam.

How about Kyle Walker Peters from Spam. Good player.

Madison would be a good signing. Not sure what wages he is on.

Brightys best mate Djed Spence has been playing well this seez, but Farkey won't want him.

Wouldn't want to bring back Archie Gray. No end product. Lots of Spuds supporters don't rate him either.

20 May 2026 14:35:33
* Correction
A reason for wanting Spuds to go down rather than West Ham.

20 May 2026 18:54:39
Walker Peters a great shout. Very good attacking FB on either side, so good versatility.
I've gone off the Bowen idea. £25 million maybe, but not at what he's probably gonna cost.
And, at his age, not worth big cash.


Also a big big no to Archie Gray, even at the money we sold him for. He's not what we need right now, as we badly need difference makers and Gray isn't that, yet.

20 May 2026 09:55:49
Breaking news:
To make the Southampton punishment seem less severe, the EPL have decided to dock Leeds United 40pts next season, for making spying cool.

20 May 2026 08:11:17
Pete Lowy has stated that the board are going to sit down with Farkey ASAP, and agree a new 3 year plan.
Great news!

20 May 2026 09:18:40
Was in no doubt about that, Brightly. I think Farke making his recent, to the point but "polite" comments was just making sure with his great leverage that he has right now with the fans on his side, that he is going to be backed 100% by his employers.

20 May 2026 10:41:33
Good news. Get it done ASAP.

20 May 2026 08:06:20
Think they should give it to Hull. Boro don’t deserve second bite. Give it to Hull and three relegated sides sorted next season.
Very harsh imo. It’s like a 300 mill fine. What did we get? 500k?

20 May 2026 09:17:59
Yes, we got away lightly, really, Aus. I think, because when we did, it was unprecedented and so the powers had not got any real law set out.
Lots of my Hull City friends are a little bit stunned by what's gone on.
I hope it doesn't affect the team or preparation.
Hull deserves a good shot at this.

20 May 2026 09:59:33
100% Ben, they're the guys who have suffered most in this, imo.

20 May 2026 10:04:35
When Leeds were involved in their Spygate, there was no rule in place, so Leeds didn't break any rules.. 200000k fine for being unethical.

20 May 2026 10:45:12
Maybe unsportsmanlike, but to get a fine like we did when no rules had been broken was harsh. Then we had pundits like Andrews, now of Brentford, calling for us to have a points deduction. A way over the top reaction.

20 May 2026 11:01:06
100% disagree, Aus, what exactly have Boro done wrong? They played a tie against a team now proven to be serial rule breakers, so the result of that tie should be annulled, and they go into the playoff final.

20 May 2026 11:41:10
They were never gonna win, spying or no spying. Southampton were the most obvious prem bound for decades. Ok. They were stupid for doing it. A fairer way would let them play the final, but start -1 or 2 goals. Boro don't deserve a second shot. It's a s*** show for all of them. And Hull, definitely.

20 May 2026 11:57:36
When we were fined for doing the same thing once, not three times, Bielsa said it was common practice in other countries. The Southampton boss has made the same excuse.
It will be interesting, if the decision is overturned and a fine imposed, to see whether the Southampton boss pays it out of his own pocket as Bielsa did.

I very much doubt he has Bielsa's integrity.

20 May 2026 12:07:14
Another point no one has yet raised is personal sanctions on those involved. The young analyst should not be made the sole fall guy, but he and the Southampton manager and Sporting Director should all get a minimum 1 year ban from football-related activities.

20 May 2026 12:47:42
That's a fair shout too, JR.

20 May 2026 14:01:08
If this is the third time they've done it, nobody will convince me that only the manager (who thought it was ok to do it) and a young intern analyst (who will do as he's told if he wants to keep his job) were the only ones who were aware of what was going on.

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't common knowledge throughout the club. If the manager thought it didn't break any rules, why would he keep it secret? 😮
All those involved should face sanctions, not just the analyst.

20 May 2026 16:47:15
Boro were "never gonna win" Aus. How long have you been watching football to say something like that? In 1973, I went to the FA Cup final. We were the reigning cup holders and 3rd in Div 1, playing Div 2 Sunderland. We were at the peak of our powers, and absolutely battered them for 90 mins, but Jim Montgomery in the Sunderland goal had the game of his life, and we couldn't get anything past him and lost 1:0.

There ain't no such thing as a dead cert "never gonna win".

20 May 2026 18:49:52
Whenever the EFL places a penalty on a club, there is always some undeserving club who benefits, in this case Middlesbrough. Hull may benefit, since I think they would fancy their chances more with this opponent.

When we were docked a second 15 points at the start of the 2008/9 season, Forest ended up being the recipient of a direct promotion as a consequence; we would have been promoted as champions, but no, Leicester [who also went to break the rules] were crowned champions, and Forest went up in second.

It is very hard to punish a team without unwittingly benefiting someone else unfairly.

Even a straight red card helps your immediate opponents for the remainder of a game, but then also benefits the next 3 opponents also [who were not the recipients at all of the offence] - they simply benefit to a degree.

Clearly the decision has not been made lightly, but it simply could not be a financial penalty, given the potential value of a promotion would dwarf the penalty.



Leicester, Villa and Forest all took the gamble to break the rules because the prospect of promotion outweighed any likely penalty. Had goal line technology been working when Villa played the blunts, Villa would have been relegated. There would have been no £100M transfer of Grealish, and likely Villa would have gone into administration. Their gamble paid off!

I do not buy the Southampton defence that this could cost them £200M - there is no guarantee they would have won the playoff. Maybe if the EPL had a backbone, they could distribute real penalties like the EFL. The EPL know that losing a big cash cow is their own penalty, and this is why they tinker with the issues rather than really sorting them out.

I am not shocked that Southampton were sanctioned like this, in fact I am more shocked that the EFL had the balls to do it. Time will tell if they uphold their decision.

20 May 2026 18:58:11
Totally forgot Bielsa paid the fine. What a human being that man is!

21 May 2026 10:58:29
Yes, Cork, and he made the media sit through a 4 hour presentation about his data on opponents! Top man!

21 May 2026 12:04:44
Can't see Eckert doing that, Feath! It was brilliant genius!