Championship news: Southampton owner makes Tonda Eckert decision after Spygate

Southampton will not sack Tonda Eckert after their Spygate scandal, says owner Dragan Solak.

The Saints were kicked out of this season’s Championship play-off final after admitting they spied on Middlesbrough, Oxford United and Ipswich Town. Southampton beat Middlesbrough in the semi-finals but Boro took their place at Wembley, only to lose against Hull City. Southampton will start next season on -4 points.

An independent disciplinary commission labelled Saints’ spying as a ‘contrived and determined plan from the top down’. Southampton’s appeal was rejected by an independent League Arbitration Panel, with written reasons for that decision published on Monday. The junior analyst who carried out the spying said he ‘didn’t really have an option’.

‘I think he deserves a second chance’

Speaking to BBC Sport, he said: "I think he deserves a second chance and I would give it to him. My full support would be behind him actually, because I think he's a super-talented manager. I believe Tonda that he didn't know that it was the rule he was breaking.

“My personal opinion, and the opinion of the board, is that he is a manager who deserves to be backed by us and to be supported by us. I will obviously seek advice from the team. I will seek advice from the players, from the fans.

“But yes, if it's ultimately my decision, he stays. In Italy or in Germany, where Tonda was working, this is basically common practice that nobody cares about. I told him: 'You almost broke my heart. You do it again, you'll kill me...

“The next time I see you in July, if you don't know the EFL book of rules by heart, you can't work for me because we can't have another mistake.' I truly hope that he will learn from this experience and he will achieve an incredible career."

Southampton’s statement on Monday read: ‘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.

‘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.’