DellBlockH

I think this is taking a conspiracy a bit far. I don't want to drag politics into it, but The Guardian hasn't really been a friend of Labour recently. I was just surprised that Barry Glendenning, in particular, saying that he wouldn't be surprised if we got severely punished for "cheating". In fairness to him, he did mention many of the other instances of cheating - Chelsea, Man City etc. But seemed to think we deserved a severe punishment.

Listened to the Guardian Football Weekly podcast today for the first time in ages. The journos there, while finding it incredibly funny, seemed to agree that us being thrown out of the competition (I'm not sure if they meant the play offs or the whole league) would not be unjust or unexpected. It surprised me that they actually gave credence to the theory that our upturn in form over the last part of the season could be because of spying, rather than astute management of each game.

This is all getting very silly but, I appreciate, could be very serious. If we have done this at Middlesbrough (and the club has not yet denied it publically) that is bad enough. It could result in a large fine and, possibly, a points deduction next season. I can't see the play-offs being affected at this late stage. If nothing else, yesterday's performance showed that we definitely didnt gain any advantage by the alleged spying. But the suggestion that we have done this elsewhere is worrying. But how likely is it? How many other clubs have training grounds viewable from public areas? Staplewood is fairly difficult to see. Millwall, I understand, train in a local park. I know you you can see at least part of Charlton's training ground from a public road. Does observing from a public area really count as spying? After all, anybody could do it whether they are officially connected with SFC or not. And, if we're really doing this, it seems unlikely that other clubs aren't also doing it. Do they really want everyone going through CCTV if their analysts might pop up elsewhere? Of course, CCTV is unlikely to have been kept beyond a few days and what's it going to show? Blurry images of someone who might or might not be a Southampton (or, say, Coventry) analyst.

Up to a point. Their manager said, post-match, that we would have known all about their tactics today and that they'd never played in that shape before. Well, if we knew about it, we certainly gained no advantage from that know.edge in the first half.

Did they not see the 9-0?

Hope you've learned your lesson and stay out of court in future.

I accidentally made a good point above. So good, I'm going to repeat it in a post of its own. if your training is visible from a hotel (or golf course) you have deliberately built by your training ground, you can't have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

It's far more likely that this (whatever "this" turns out to be) would have been directed by TE and the coaching staff than by Sports Republic. You may have many reasons you want them to go but this isn't one of them and they will likely have to foot the bill for any fine imposed. Let's just win the games, win the final and then see what the inquiry finds.

Is it spying if anybody can do it from a public place? If I'd travelled to Middlesbrough on Tuesday (what a grim thought) and stood on that golf course it wouldn't be spying (and also I know so little about football tactics it would have been useless). But if someone connected with Saints stands in the same spot and observes training it becomes spying? What if he was doing it in his spare time (like the protagonist in the Monty Python argument sketch)? I get it if the "spy" has entered private property. But, if your training is visible from a hotel you have built by your training ground, you can't have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

So what? It's only against the rules within 72 hours of a game. I expect many clubs look at their opponents in training if there is public access, it's part of preparation. We've noted on here before how Eckert prepares the team differently depending on who is the opposition. Most of the information about the other team will have come from watching their previous games but if some comes from (legally) watching training that doesn’t bother me. Far from showing that "TE isn't as good as we thought", this attention to detail shows that he is.

I would guess that the club has responded to the EFL (the charge makes it look like we've admitted to enough to, at least, warrant a charge). There's no point in conducting our defence (whatever that may be) in the press. Or we may not have responded - I thought we had 14 days - and the EFL have decided to charge anyway to expedite the process.

I can foresee a club statement along these lines: As part of our normal logistical preparations for an away game, a junior member of Saints staff was sent to Middlesbrough. He walked near to the Middlesbrough training ground on land open to the general public but, at no time, entered it. This was on his own initiative and he was not instructed by the club to make any recordings of training. The club has not seen any of the videos that it is alleged he recorded. Southampton FC is aware that this incident has caused controversy and apologises to Middlesbrough FC for any distress caused. The staff member has been given words of advice.

Back end of a pantomime horse.

I had thought it was worse than that. Last night I got the impression that Boro officials had got an admission from the camera person that he was from Southampton FC. But, no. They've confronted him. He's gone indoors and "changed his appearance". Presumably, he's taken off his Southampton tracksuit. Or maybe just put on a jumper for the drive back to wherever he came from. It may come out that he actually does work for Saints (which would be embarrassing and possibly financially costly for the club) or he may be some sort of freelancer hoping to pass intel on. Or he may be some random fan who gets his kicks from filming training sessions. We used to have one of those.

Do you think that players (on either side) could be any more motivated than they already should be? I'm also not sure that watching a training session could tell you much more than watching videos of their previous 46 matches.

He's not to blame for our plight and, as you say is still our top scorer. But how many did he blaze wide or over the bar when passing to another player or better control would have meant a goal? I don't doubt his dedication or ability but we've looked much better without him.

Did the wind change when Kieran McKenna was trying out that weird lip twist one day?

It's a very odd feeling to want Leeds to win, but Spurs going down would be hilarious. And would highlight the huge financial gulf between the Premier League and the rest.

Lots of people saying we were in the Premier League when they took over. We were. But were we going to stay there? People back then were complaining about the lack of investment and general ambition under Gao. Obviously, we went down under SR. But who's to say things might have been even worse if we hadn't had an owner prepared to risk losing big money in an effort to get us back up and staying there? There was no sign that Gao had either the means or the inclination to invest any more. Imponderables, of course. We may have stayed up and gone from strength to strength without SR being involved.

Keir Starmer, Matt Lucas, Jeremy Corbyn, Alan Davies, Colin Firth, your boys took a hell of a beating!

People sitting at home criticising people at the game for being too quiet. OK. Although I haven't heard St Mary's thismloudnsince the WBA play off game a couple of years ago.

Interview with Daniel Peretz in the Buardian. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/apr/04/southamptons-daniel-peretz-we-have-a-lot-of-respect-for-arsenal-but-we-are-not-afraid?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I guess we're supporting Coventry this evening.

There was a free kick routine where a Norwich player stood briefly on the ball (without moving it) as he ran across and then the player taking the kick dribbled it for a few steps. I thought the ball had to rotate at least once before another player could kick it. Or have I got that wrong?