7 hours ago
10
You can understand why Ilicali feels his Hull team and their fans have been hard done by.
It should have been a triumphant build-up to the play-off final, but it ended up being a week of distraction as Spygate took up the headlines.
The Tigers had a week preparing to play Southampton, then they had to rip up those plans and pivot to Middlesbrough.
By the time the appeal was heard on Wednesday night, and Hull were sure they would play Boro, they had just two days' training left.
Ilicali's legal team may believe they have a case that Hull should not have to play the final, that they should be automatically promoted. After all, Boro had been eliminated.
Yet this is not how sporting sanctions work in English football, and there seems little chance of a legal challenge being successful.
The precedent is that if a team breaks a regulation in a knockout competition - which the play-offs are - their opponents go through to the next round.
Take the EFL Trophy this season.
In January, Luton Town lost 2-1 at home to Swindon Town in the round of 16.
Swindon were then drawn to play Plymouth in the quarter-finals - but it was discovered that the Robins had fielded two ineligible players against Luton.
Swindon were expelled and Luton reinstated.
The independent disciplinary commission did not put Plymouth directly through to the semi-finals, or go back to the last 32 to find new opponents for Luton in the last 16.
Just as with Boro in the play-offs, Luton progressed to the next round.
Luton, after at one stage being knocked out, would go on to beat Stockport in the final at Wembley and lift the trophy.
What about Ilicali's claim that Wrexham should have been reinstated? That has little ground either.
Even if you applied Southampton's four-point penalty to this season's league table, they would still be in the play-offs against Middlesbrough. Wrexham would still be seventh.
Plus, the league season and the play-offs are considered separate tournaments, which is why the independent disciplinary commission felt it was necessary to apply two punishments - the points deduction and expulsion.
How about Ilicali's claim that the Southampton v Middlesbrough games should not have taken place?
The issue here, of course, is due process - taking action to stop the game happening would imply guilt on the part of Southampton.
The EFL opened an investigation on 7 May, the same day it was told about the spying on Boro. It charged them the next day and then, as per EFL regulations, the process was handed over to an independent body.
Hull may feel aggrieved but there is nothing in the decision of the independent disciplinary commission which has deviated from the usual judgements in English football.
