Southampton boss Tonda Eckert has taken responsibility for a "contrived, determined and deplorable" spying operation that led to the club's expulsion from the Championship play-off final, an independent commission has said.
The written reasons for the commission's decision also reveal:
The commission concluded that Southampton had to be kicked out of Saturday's play-off final at Wembley - which will now be between Hull and Middlesbrough - because the "integrity of the competition was seriously violated".
They did, however, reduce Southampton's points deduction for next season from six points to four after the club admitted to extra spying on Ipswich and Oxford.
The FA also confirmed that it has launched an investigation into Southampton.
Your Site News has contacted Southampton for comment. In a statement released by Southampton on Wednesday evening, the Saints say that they were "disappointed" with the appeal outcome and still hold that the sanction was disproportionate.
Southampton were initially reported to the EFL by Middlesbrough when they alleged a Southampton staff member had spied on a training session on May 7 ahead of their play-off semi-final, in breach of league rules, with the EFL charging them the following day.
Eckert is cited to have "authorised" a member of staff to obtain information about Oxford's formation, while also giving power to a colleague to seek the availability of a key Middlesbrough player.
The independent commission explained that Southampton "deliberately sought a competitive advantage" and "seriously violated" the integrity of the play-offs.
Among the written reasons for reaching Wednesday's verdict, the independent commission said the filming conducted by the Saints was part of an intentional scheme.
"We have concluded that there was, on the part of the respondent, a contrived and determined plan from the top down to gain a competitive advantage in competitions of real significance by deliberate attendance at opposition training ground for the purpose of obtaining tactical and selection info," the independent commission wrote.
"It involved far more than innocent activity and a particularly deplorable approach in its use of junior members of staff to conduct the clandestine observations at the direction of senior personnel."
Southampton cited Leeds' ÂŁ200,000 fine when they were found guilty of spying on Derby County ahead of the play-offs in 2019.
However, the independent commission said any sole potential financial penalty would be "meaningless" and that EFL regulation 127, introduced in June 2019 following Marco Bielsa's 'Spygate', prohibits observing opposition training.
May 7: Middlesbrough make formal complaint to the EFL alleging a Southampton member of staff spied on their training session three days before their Championship play-off semi-final first leg.
May 9: Boro boss Kim Hellberg accuses Southampton of cheating after the first leg ends in a 0-0 draw at the Riverside Stadium.
May 12: Southampton charged with a breach of EFL regulations in relation to the spying accusations. Southampton request additional time to conduct an internal review.
May 13: Photos allegedly showing the Southampton analyst near Middlesbrough's training ground released publicly.
May 14: It is announced the independent hearing to determine Southampton's fate will take place on or before Tuesday
May 19: In a statement, the EFL says "the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings may yet result in changes to the fixture."
May 15: Middlesbrough publicly call for Southampton's expulsion from the play-offs. In a statement, they said: "In these circumstances, the only appropriate response is a sporting sanction which would prevent Southampton FC from participating in the EFL Championship play-off final."
May 18: Middlesbrough players return to training as the outcome of the independent disciplinary hearing nears.
May 19: EFL announces Southampton expelled from play-off final after hearing.
May 20: Southampton appeal hearing verdict but it's dismissed.
May 21: FA launches investigation into Southampton and the Independent Commission reveals written reasons after the appeal was dismissed
