SWLondon Saint

Had a day off from all this, but sounds like Boro are getting increasingly desperate in the media, which says to me they know their case is shit so they're trying to win the 'court of public opinion'. If they were confident, they'd just have got on with training, kept quiet and waited for us to be kicked out.

It would certainly be the most hilarious outcome, as we'd have an excellent case for defamation against Boro thanks to their media campaign....

Most likely outcome for me is that every club is doing the exact same thing - they have self-employed analysts, who are given assignments to analyse club X and a link to a video archive. Then left to their own devices. You'd show past analysis from the analyst, which presumably has no reference to spying as a matter of common sense, but every club knows that's what you have freelance analysts for - plausible deniability. Result would be the poor kid cops the flak and we get a slap on the wrist and told to implement 'rigorous anti-spying framework'. Kid serves his ban and then gets to carry on as before (like all the other coaches involved in spying have).

I can see plenty of ways you can be plausible about it actually. For example, he's self employed, and the email to him says: 'Your next assignment is due by xxx, please analyze Middlesbrough's set pieces and tactics and send us the results. Here's the link to the site where all the video of their games is stored.' Doesn't say anything about spying or using your own initiative, but obviously if you find something off your own back and put it in it's going to be good for you.

Absolutely, as I just did a compliance course which clearly stated in very big letters - if you supply this kind of data to anyone else who has no legitimate interest in it, you are PERSONALLY criminally liable. Feel bad for any employee who was bullied into handing over info, but that's the law.

*Apologies,giant post* I thought the whole 'circulating his bank card details to make a paper trail' thing sounded very odd from a data protection pov, so did a bit of AI research. Far likelier they'll have asked other clubs to look through their CCTV for spies, which wouldn't break data protection, but obviously is far, far more laborious and I doubt clubs on their holidays would be arsed. ---------- The ICO takes a very dim view of "private investigations" that involve the misuse of personal data. They have a long track record of prosecuting both organizations and individuals who treat private databases as their own personal detective kits. To answer your question directly: Yes, the ICO has taken aggressive action for similar breaches. They have established that there is no "vigilante exemption" to the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018. 1. Precedent for "Vigilante" Data Misuse The ICO has frequently prosecuted individuals under Section 170 of the DPA 2018 (unlawful obtaining/disclosure of data). The "Curious Employee" Cases: There are dozens of examples where employees at banks, GP surgeries, or police stations have been prosecuted for looking up data on "people of interest" (such as ex-partners or neighbors) without a professional need. The "Rogue Private Investigator" Prosecutions: The ICO has previously targeted private investigators who used "blagging" or unauthorized access to obtain financial and phone records. They have made it clear that even if you believe you are exposing a "wrong," you cannot break data laws to do so. 2. Purpose Limitation: The Hotel vs. The Club One of the core principles of GDPR is Purpose Limitation. The Marriott Precedent: While the Marriott/Starwood fine (£18.4 million) was for a security breach, the ICO's commentary focused heavily on the sanctity of guest data. The Boro Scenario: If Rockliffe Hall (the hotel) collected card data for a room booking or a coffee, that data's "purpose" is strictly for that transaction. Using it to assist a football club's disciplinary investigation is a textbook breach. The ICO has previously fined organizations for sharing customer lists with third parties without explicit consent; sharing specific financial transaction data is considered far more severe. 3. Financial Data is "High Risk" The ICO distinguishes between "standard" personal data and data that can cause significant harm or distress. Financial transaction history is categorized as high-risk. In cases like Dixons Carphone or British Airways, the ICO issued massive fines because card data was compromised. While those were hacks, the legal principle remains: the controller has a duty to protect that data from any unauthorized access. Allowing a football club's security team to browse hotel card logs is, by definition, a failure of that duty. 4. Criminal vs. Civil Action In cases like this, the ICO usually pursues two paths: Against the Organization: A monetary penalty notice (fine) for the "systemic failure" of letting the data be misused. Against the Individual: Criminal prosecution for the specific person who accessed or shared the data. A Notable Example: In 2023, the ICO prosecuted an individual (Asif Iqbal Khan) who took photos of computer screens containing customer data to use for personal gain/investigation. He was fined and given a criminal record. Why this matters for the 'Spygate' case If Middlesbrough has truly circulated William Salt’s financial "paper trail" to other clubs, they have essentially created a "blacklist" supported by illegally obtained financial data. In the eyes of the ICO, the "spying" is a sports-governance issue, but the financial data sharing is a public protection issue. If the ICO decides to make an example of this, they wouldn't just look at a fine; they would look at whether the individuals involved in the data transfer committed a criminal offence. It creates a fascinating legal standoff: Southampton could be punished for a "sporting" crime, while Middlesbrough could be investigated for a "statutory" crime.

Possibly, but if you're trying to fight it in the media like they are, you're always going to go with your best, most incriminating photo. And as numerous non-biased people have said about that photo, 'Is that it?'

I call BS on this. Boro would have to have absolutely no-one with any kind of accounting / legal / compliance knowledge or sense around to let this happen, you can't just send someone's bank card details to other organisations for your private investigation. Massive potential issues.

I just did my annual data protection compliance training a few weeks back and yes, this looks like a massive GDPR breach. You can't just share PII like that, and in fact his staff should have told him where to f*** off to as they're liable too.

I thought he was trying to back header it away and was too tired. He couldn't just jump and head it full on as it was in the perfect place to score an own goal.

Yep, I agree they knocked themselves out as much as anything. They could / should have put the tie out of sight in the first half at theirs but we did defend well. They let the whole angry revenge thing wind them up too much. Their coach should have been doing the opposite of stoking the fire really.

I honestly have no clue why so many people are just assuming we're guilty when not a soul has seen the evidence. One time when I did jury duty, there was a sexual harassment case and it looked bad from the initial accusations and stuff, and the bloke had been in the paper for being suspended from his job. Turns out the evidence from the accuser was absolutely paper-thin and though she was clearly upset about it, it was just not the bloke accused due to the laws of physics (he was simply too far away and too pissed judging from general CCTV footage). That bloke's name got dragged through the mud and he had been suspended from work so I don't know how he was surviving. All because of a overreaction / mistaken accusation and the CPS believing the accuser and going ahead with the charge. Feels a bit like that to me, but who knows? Daft to pre judge at any rate.

I mean, since literally no-one has seen this 'evidence', it is entirely possible that the club can prove this guy had no official link to the club and it actually was just massive overreaction.

I mean if so, the obvious defence is that THB had no clue he had a stutter, why would you even know that about another player?

GTFI. 40 yard cross is the best way to win a game like that 😆 Didn't see their goal as I only watched from about 20 mins but I think they actually got themselves too worked up about everything and you could see they would run out of steam - I just didn't think they would do so from quite early in the 2nd half. But having said that I think Tonda waited too long to swap Leo for Edozie and we could have won it in normal time otherwise.

From any kind of procedural perspective for an actual panel, surely the accuser here has to provide some concrete evidence more than a couple of witness statements and a photo of some bloke whom it sounds like they've identified from LinkedIn as connected with Saints since there's no interns listed on our site. I can see that could be considered enough to start a charge, but the burden of proof when push comes to shove is always on the accuser and not the defendant. This bollocks about forensic phone and bank trails is simply not going to happen unless Boro have cast iron facts from, say, a private investigator of their own. Which all the news so far points to them not having. If they had it, they'd already have leaked it for sure.

One final thing - whatever the rights and wrongs may be in this case, I would bet that literally every club is doing all of it and more, whatever any fans may think of their club being 'above dirty tactics'. It's an arms race out there and everyone has the same info these days.

The number of holes in the whole thing are just ridiculous. If you were getting someone to spy, how fucking thick would you have to be to check them into a hotel under their real name, which they have on your website? When confronted by a random angry other private citizen, who the f*** is going to tell them their name when most people wouldn't give an angry officious rando the time of day? Or delete anything off their phone?

Sorry, but that article is complete unfounded bollocks. Nothing is proven at this point so this is pure speculation, and the journo should not be writing shit like 'Southampton may claim the staff member is an intern' when they know absolutely nothing. EFL charges apparently rely heavily on witness statements - and if the only witnesses we've heard from are all Boro staff, it's hardly likely to provide a balanced opinion.

Only watched the first half, but even though they were all over us I didn't feel particularly panicky - the players seemed very calm about the situation, maybe a bit too calm and passive tbh. Thought Larin, Fellows, Azaz were all poor, the few times we had it they all seemed out of sync and gave it away too easily. At the back Wood was awful, I think their plan was to let him have it then press him hard when he stepped forward and he duly coughed up the ball a number of times. Couldn't watch the 2nd half but sounds better. I do feel Azaz seems a bit out of sorts the last couple of games, could play one of Bragg / Charles there or Matsuki even...?

This just looks like complete bollocks frankly, if it's this student mentioned, he only did a placement here and LinkedIn is not reliable at all. How would they even get his name, you're under no obligation to give your name to another private party in a public space? How would they check his phone, again, no rights at all to look at someone else's phone? Made up outrage to try and fire up the crowd. Hopefully we smash them and do the binoculars celebration 🥽

Guess I'm not allowed to watch us live till the end of the season, only times I've been able to watch the last few weeks were first half of Derby and today 😆 I switched off at half time today thinking 'Surely this won't work again, will it?!'

Hadn't had time to watch much lately but caught the last half an hour or so. Thought Charles looked a bit leggy, not busting a gut to get back a couple of times. Matsuki did all the hard work with that lovely first touch to take the ball away from the defender off the pass and then blasts it over when it looked easier to hit the target. Archer, lovely finish though, hope he can take some confidence and kick on from that because it was a proper striker's finish, first time bottom corner. Loved seeing Larin with his defending at right back and then after he lost it in the midfield, getting back after their right winger and forcing him back and winning the throw too. Pure quality. He looks more than quick enough as well on the break for the Matsuki miss and recovering to defend. Sign him up!

Games gone, ludicrous pen. Just another reason not to bother watching this summer 👍🏼

A little gentle Photoshop from the media team wouldn't have hurt, would it? 😦