Acun Ilicali, the owner of Hull City, has firmly stated that his team would pursue legal action if they were defeated by Middlesbrough in the upcoming play-off final this Saturday.
Originally, Hull City was scheduled to compete against Southampton until a last-minute change occurred earlier in the week. This shift was triggered by the English Football League’s (EFL) case against Tonda Eckert’s team, linked to a ‘spygate’ scandal.
This controversy unfolded after Daily Mail Sport reported that Southampton had dispatched a junior analyst intern to observe Middlesbrough’s training session just 48 hours before their semi-final first leg encounter.
Southampton’s appeal against the EFL’s ruling was rejected on Wednesday, leaving Hull City with only two days to prepare, now fully aware of their revised opponent.
Before the match at Wembley Stadium, Ilicali expressed to BBC Radio Humberside, “Our legal team insists action is necessary, without a doubt.”
Hull City owner Acun Ilicali has insisted the club will take legal action if they lose to Middlesbrough in Saturday’s play-off final
Tonda Eckert’s Southampton side were expelled from the play-offs on Tuesday, but the club have appealed against the decision
Ilicali criticized the decision that allowed Middlesbrough to advance directly to the final as “unbelievable,” suggesting that the seventh-placed Wrexham, who narrowly missed a play-off spot, should have been given the chance to face Middlesbrough in a semi-final instead.
He said: ‘If this action was so big that a team is out of the play-offs, why didn’t they let them not play the semi-final, investigate, and take Southampton out and put Wrexham in?
‘Why is Wrexham out now? Put Wrexham in and continue the competition.
‘For me, an eliminated team being put back – also our lawyers say this, and that’s their opinion too – is an incredibly wrong decision.’
The 56-year-old, who took over Hull City in 2022, said he did not want to discuss the outcome of the EFL’s independent disciplinary commission hearing before the day of the final to avoid distracting the players.
‘Now I can talk a little more because the boys are in the stadium and they will not hear me. I didn’t want to disturb their focus,’ he added.
‘Decisions are disputable, from what I understand from our lawyers, very disputable.
‘But of course we have to focus on the game, and the boys are tough enough to overcome these difficulties.’
Earlier this week, Ilicali confirmed that the club’s lawyers were investigating whether they would be able to have the play-off final cancelled, with a view to earning automatic promotion to the Premier League.
The FA have since opened an investigation of their own into Southampton, after Saints also admitted to spying on two other rivals’ training sessions, including Oxford United in December and Ipswich Town last month.
Southampton’s spying intern was caught filming a Middlesbrough training session before their play-off semi-final
The club accepted what happened was ‘wrong’ and apologised to the other clubs involved, as well as Southampton’s supporters.
After their appeal was rejected, the club said in a statement: ‘While we fully acknowledge the seriousness of this matter and the scrutiny that has followed, the club has consistently believed the original sporting sanction was disproportionate – a view that has been widely shared by many in the football community.’
And while Middlesbrough boss Kim Hellberg said he trusted that the ‘right thing’ had been done, Hull boss Sergej Jakirovic said his side were ‘collateral damage’.
‘We can say everything is unfair in this last two weeks. You don’t know what’s going on,’ he told BBC Radio Humberside.
‘From Middlesbrough’s point of view, they knew that if they were successful, they would play against us, so I could turn the situation around, but I will not do that. We will try to beat them on the pitch.’
On Friday, a member of the independent commission – who made one appearance for Middlesbrough – denied accusations of bias.
‘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,’ former footballer-turned-solicitor David Winnie told PA.
‘My involvement with the club consisted of one professional appearance approximately 33 years ago and has no bearing whatsoever on my ability to approach these proceedings impartially and objectively.’
