coalman

And bringing up the hypothetical case of a member of the public doing it is the kind whataboutery that would be harmful to our hearing if our lawyers brought it up.

One would fucking hope so.

According to the regulations then probably not. Just because a rule may not be well thought out or, indeed, practical doesn't mean it isn't a rule.

Thanks, Karen.

Pretty sure that at some point they're going to imply we're in cahoots with the EFL which is why they've been frozen out of the hearing as to why any judgement from it couldn't be trusted.

Maybe, maybe not. At this point we're naturally going to interpret everything we see on the basis of how we're feeling and what we want to believe to be true to fill in the many gaps in what we know. The human brain is riddled with blind spots in this kind of situation.

The EFL does have the right to expedite the case in exceptional circumstances. I would imagine we came to a compromise where we agreed to do it earlier as part of cooperating fully.

#KarenFCForumWatch Morning on the forum brings a certain eerie stillness as the breaking news thread goes quiet but for the chirping of posters whose lives are suffering under the weight of Spygate. An unlikely option has appeared for the next Bond in the shape of a certain Karen Gibson. The suave and in no way puce faced lumpen legal vigilante sat astride this case like an angry seething colossus. When does hero worship become delusion? What is truth on the Internet? Join us today as we explore the very basis of rational thought itself.

It would depend on if we could prove that either in this case or in the case of other analysts watching other teams. It would also depend on any other evidence that's available. And on how much the panel found it credible. It's easy to construct hypothetical situations in which it may be passed off as a misunderstanding. Doing so is grasping at straws. But, we only have the context of what we know. Which boils down to. A Southampton analyst was watching KarenFC training within 72 hours of an important match. Any information beyond that is speculation. For example KarenFC have said we sent a key member of our first team coaching staff. Yet if you read the job title on the screen grabs of Will Salt's LinkedIn his job title is/was "First Team Analyst intern" at Southampton. The university article oft misquoted to show he isn't a Southampton employee was published in January 2025 so it's clear he's a young lad at the start of his career. I'd argue the truth is somewhere in-between that. If the person in question is actually Will Salt which seems likely then the extent to which any analysis he has provided influences team tactics, preparation or performance is going to be much less than us being made out. We don't know how big a role our analyst team plays in our match day preparation. I would imagine that is something we are presenting to the panel. But, more to the point neither do KarenFC and the way they're casting his role seems like an exaggeration to me for the sole purpose of fanning the outrage they want out there. The press and social media then happily take that outrage and turn it into clicks. Due to Saints' stance of refusing to play this out in public the whole case is like that. Which, by the way, is the right thing to do. The people we have to convince are respected barristers. There is only downside to us not treating the panel and this process with the utmost respect. KarenFC's lawyers also know this and will have advised accordingly. Karen Gibson has acted the way he has despite that. As I see it, Karen Gibson wants to achieve two things from this. The first is to maintain his messiah status with the club's fans - he didn't stump up for the striker they needed and lets him be the hero. The second is to get some money. If Saints get thrown out then that's a bonus but the way they've attempted to win this in the court of public opinion suggests they don't see that as realistic. Even the attempt to get in on the meeting as the injured party was performative. There's no way the EFL or panel could allow that without opening themselves up to denying Saints due process. The only reason for doing that is to stoke up more publicity and outrage.

There's no call for that kind of accusation, dude. Like, ever.

But then do we lose his ability to prevent us from ever losing another game? Can we take that chance?

Failing to deal with the matter at hand sounds like an admission of guilt and / or defeat. Are we to conclude that miltonaggro is the premier poster on SaintsWeb?

I'm here for this. Though I'd go a step further. Relegate Chelsea as well then all three of us can go up (Hull as well). Extra bonus points for relegating Tottenham just because and Millwall can join the party too.

The police don't investigate GDPR breaches. It's not a criminal matter. You'd be talking to ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) for the UK https://ico.org.uk/ And, all they've said is that the spy used their bank card to buy a coffee. We have no evidence as to how they came to that statement. Maybe a member of staff recognised them. If they've done something like correlate hotel records with credit card records then they've been very naughty but unless someone is really stupid it's pretty much impossible to prove.

#KarenFCForumWatch They say forum memory is short and TeessideAcko is back. The 400 follower super poster has shared exclusive news that a replay might be on the 27th. This gives Neil Maddison a brief respite from the outrage being directed his way as hope is rediscovered before they, once again, remember Acko may be full of shit given that Hull shared that a quarter of an hour ago. One thing is very clear and that is that is all Southampton's fault and Karen FC have behaved peerlessly throughout. Will Acko return with another scoop? Only time will tell.

I dunno. I figured the Alan Partridge meme was poking fun at how ridiculous it would be to sack Maddison for having his own opinion.

The regulation exists though. It was brought in because of a previous example of this. So from an EFL perspective we're in breach of that regulation. The questions they then have to ask is how prevalent is it. Who knew what and when. Then they need to look at the punishment within the context of other punishments they've handed out to make sure it's proportionate to those. And therein lies the problem for the EFL. They have to make the punishment strong enough that people think twice in the future. They also have to keep it weak enough so that Saints don't have a case for it being disproportionate and feel they have to appeal. And, they also have to worry about how they get on top of teams trying to litigate results both now and in the future with the precedent they are setting. It's a fucking minefield and I do not envy the EFL this task. There's also the additional risk that it turns out that observing other teams is something that everyone is doing. So if they throw the book at Southampton and it turns out that actually analysts watching each others' teams is completely normal then they've completely shot themselves in the foot. It's worth noting that none of the other teams mentioned have said they've had any problem with it. Is that because they do the same or because they don't believe they've been spied on? In terms of handling their legal exposure against KarenFC the EFL need to be able to demonstrate that they've followed their process and it's been run by and independent body that hasn't had that independence compromised. If they've done this then there is no legal recourse from Karen Gibson against them so they're clear as his legal ire will turn towards his shakedown of Southampton (reprising his Derby approach). Looking at the Swindon judgement the panel have to take into account how much advantage was gained by sending someone to watch Boro that early before a match. And that's where it also gets tricky because, watching the first leg, it's hard to argue we gained any advantage at all. In the case of Swindon the judgement explicitly mentioned that Swindon gained a significant advantage, not least because one of the players who shouldn't have been on the pitch was their captain. And this factored in the severity of the punishment. The same argument, but to a greater extent would also factor into a future legal challenge against Southampton by Karen Gibson. How much advantage did we gain? Or, in this case what did KarenFC lose in this instance. Lawyers might argue £200 million based on the perceived value of being promoted though there's no guarantee they would have been promoted. One could make a reasonable case that their form over the last third of the season wasn't that of a team likely to win the play offs. You might also reasonably argue that it didn't alter the result of the semi final. It's a total mess. It's a mess of our making at least initially. Though KarenFC have gleefully played their part in amplifying it to this degree of mess (and, in doing so, may have made it much harder to prevail in court at a later date). Due to Saints' entirely professional stance of not going public with their evidence or rationale we honestly don't have a clue how this is going to turn out. However, the most likely outcome is somewhere between Leeds' punishment and Leicester's just for the sake of proportionality (my view).

Much as I support gathering together for a pointless and possibly overly hysterical witch hunt of another human being. Especially in these times of accusation throwing and rumour magnification. I do, however feel, it's more an indication that the rest of us have been posting utter shite.

It's one of those rumours that's been out there but doesn't seem to be substantiated to any extent. I would've thought that's a pretty weak point to build any defence around and something that could explode in our faces.

Honestly, it's unclear. As we haven't gone public with what we're planning to put before them. From everything I've read I don't think anyone is contesting that someone was there watching KarenFC training. If so then it's a matter of sharing what our internal investigation surfaced and any mitigations we think there are.

#KarenFCForumWatch The unspeakable has happened. After a brief period of who watches the watchers things have taken a dark turn. In the middle of some harmless witch hunting of former Southampton and Middlesborough player, Neil Maddison, it has been proposed that a suitable replacement would be James Corden. Has the moral argument been lost? One would hope saner voices will prevail and pull them back from the brink. Some things are just a step too far.

It's actually harder than you think. Though between our two fora and reddit it's possible to see all the insane conspiracy theories in near real time. Watching two groups of people oscillate in and out of certainty is a fascinating process and possibly the clearest example I've found as to why the Internet messes people up. As for Gibbo, I'll take my chances. Usually I only piss off billionaires so it's a nice change of pace.

It's getting published tonight. I'm nearly 1% sure of that fact.

Surely we've already seen about 20 different rulings "published". This challenge is over before it began.

#KarenFCForumWatch A brief lull in proceedings after a brief, but ultimately doomed, attempt to identify the poster known as TeessideAcko. During which time various forum members admit posting literally anything they can find on the Internet that's supportive of Karen FC as fact. At least one member is considering writing a formal complaint to BBC Tees over Nail Maddison's betrayal. Some likening his betrayal of "Gibbo" to an earlier historical event involving one J. Iscariot. The mood can be described as more "high on spirits" than "spirits are high".