Southampton's punishment was severe. The evidence against them was damning. Yet in the rush to deliver justice, someone forgot to check who was sitting in judgement.
David Winnie, member of the independent disciplinary commission that expelled Southampton from the play-offs, once played for Middlesbrough. The club on the other side of this case. The club that benefited directly from the outcome.
That is not a minor footnote. It is quite a significant problem.
A not-so-independent panel?
Winnie's defenders will point out that his appearance for Middlesbrough consisted of a single loan game in 1994. They will note that over three decades have passed since that solitary outing. They will add that no objection was raised by either party before or during the hearing.
All of that is true. However, none of that is the point.
The point is that an independent disciplinary panel included a man with a direct historical connection to one of the clubs involved. It does not matter how distant that connection feels. and it does not matter that Winnie almost certainly approached his duties with complete professionalism.
What matters is how it looks. And it looks terrible.
A shadow over the verdict
Winnie told PA that his single appearance had no bearing whatsoever on his ability to approach proceedings impartially. He stressed that the decision was unanimous, reached after detailed legal argument and careful deliberation. He is probably right.
Southampton cheated. The commission's written reasons were forensic and thorough. The club lied during the initial hearing, spied on three opponents, and used junior members of staff to do their dirty work.
But here is the uncomfortable truth. Every grievance, every conspiracy theory, every claim of injustice, has now been handed a seed of legitimacy it did not deserve.
When the EFL appointed this panel, it handed Southampton's most aggrieved supporters a question that cannot now be fully answered.
Would the outcome have been different with a different panel member? Almost certainly not. The evidence was overwhelming and the admission of guilt was on record.
But that is not sufficient justification for allowing the situation to arise in the first place. Whoever checked the backgrounds of panel members before proceedings began has some serious questions to answer.
Southampton cheated. That verdict stands.
The process that delivered it, however, deserved to be beyond reproach. Winnie's removal may not have changed a single word of that judgement. But he should never have been allowed anywhere near that panel, and the fact that he was sits uncomfortably regardless of the outcome.
It should never have been allowed to happen.
Add us as a preferred source on Google