coalman

Imagine how demoralising it would be for Boro if we score now.

We're neither pressing them nor in good shape in the middle of the park.

Not so much. They can ask. They can be refused. As I understand it, any handing over of data would be voluntary unless it winds up in civil litigation and is subject to discovery. Noting that while I've spent way too much of my adult life in the room with lawyers that I am not one.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone capable of watching the pre match buildup to any football match on Sky.

Assuming that people doing dumb things will do them in a non dumb way tends to be a losing proposition 😉

Telecoms companies wouldn't be able to tell you. Depending on the method used to delete it someone that knows their way around cybersecurity may be able to. Depending on the level of sophistication of the person using the phone and how good the cybersecurity person is (there is a very wide variance in capability here ranging from Mossad to my gran).

The regulations give the disciplinary panel a wide scope in deciding appropriate punishment.

They have the right to ask for them and also the ability to interpret refusal to hand them over in a variety of ways including as an admission of guilt.

They would also ask for the call logs of any of the coaching staff at Southampton to corroborate.

It could. At which point it would be a short call. His phone will also have a record of whether it was a video call or a voice call. There are more signals there you can use. Also, if Middlesbrough stir up enough outrage that might also to affect the decision making process of any disciplinary committee.

You're correct. It is not a police matter. He could refuse call logs though a disciplinary panel might take the legal precedent that refusing to share them is a tacit admission of guilt. Any competent solicitor is likely to argue this. An example would be Rebeka Vardy's phone which was "mysteriously" lost in the North Sea during her case against Colleen Rooney. The judge, in that case, decided to assume that the loss was deliberate to hide evidence and to assume that the evidence would have been incriminating.

If we didn't send him then we're not breaching regulations. Though if he was on a video call to a Southampton employee we may be. At which point any disciplinary process is likely to use balance of probabilities. Also noting that Middlesborough are contacting other clubs to gather evidence might indicate that they're less confident of their case than they make out. Though it might also mean they want to maximise the punishment for Saints. Let's face it - if they can get this expedited, skip due process and go straight to the play off final that's a whole lot of win for them.

Totally. And therein lies the case. Boro have (allegedly) named a person as an employee of Southampton based on their footage. Their entire case rests on being able to demonstrate that this person is a Southampton FC employee. Call logs might also be illuminating. If the person doing the film was on a video call with a Southampton employee that would also count. From a legal perspective you are correct. Anything you film from a public space is generally acceptable. Though even then you may run into problems if what you're filming is on private property. For example Google Street View have to be insanely careful about blurring people walking along the streets and not picking anything up behind windows on private property. If you're running a CCTV you have a legal obligation that your surveillance doesn't compromise your neighbours' privacy. However we're not talking about the English legal system. We're talking about EFL regulations which state you can't send someone to view another team's training in the 72 hours leading up to a game.

Yet the rules explicitly state you aren't allowed to send anyone to watch another team's training in the 72 hours leading up to a game. If you are dumb enough to do it and do it in such a way you get caught you've only got yourself to blame. Not sure victim blaming is the way forward here if what has been alleged is correct. That's the moral equivalent of saying "of course I hit her, she was asking for it".

They have CCTV footage apparently. I would have expected the person(s) confronting the alleged offender to also have filmed the interaction on their phones. Until we see the footage it's hard to do anything other than speculate. There's no legal or publicity upside for Saints as a club to do anything other than say they're fully cooperating with the league at the moment. And no downside to Boro in being as vocal as they can about it.

Never give the other team a reason to show up. That's one of the basic rules of competitive sport. That's why Pep spouted that nonsense about how much he admired Russell Martin's football. The very best teams and players in the world at most sports are highly complimentary of their opponents pre match because they're looking for every advantage they can. Whether it has an effect today is yet to be seen.

There's a screenshot of it with photo on the Boro forum.

I will admit part of me posted that to stoke your conspiracy fears. Another part posted it in the hopes of allaying them.

Boro also held their press conference on Wednesday.

If we sent someone up to spy then we're fucking muppets. If we didn't they are fucking muppets. Did I miss anything?

What's the EFL penalty if it turns out that Middlesborough made the story up?

Larin!

We don't need Peretz getting cracked ribs.

If we were going to have a shonky defensive performance better tonight than in the playoffs. Now we can at least manage players to be in the best shape for them.

We can still nick this.