DellBlockH

Lightning. 😉

So somehow the EFL have come up with a scenario to cause the maximum inconvenience to the supporters of both clubs (and Middlesbrough). And not just the supporters. Last time we were at Wembley, there were extra trains, extra National Express coaches and supporters' private hire coaches. That takes time to organise. I'm not sure how the disciplinary committee has been allowed to progress quicker than the 14 days we were given to respond to the charges. Unless we've agreed to a shortened schedule (which should count in our favour, a bit like an early guilty plea 😉). The whole thing is a mess. If we broke the rules, fair enough, we deserve a sanction. But, as just about everybody outside Middlesbrough seems to agree, kicking us out of the play offs would be completely disproportionate. As usual, the last people to be considered are the actual bloody supporters.

Well done on the spelling (and I don't mean Larin).

Great summary. But could you also cover the alternative scenario that the management (if not the actual board) did know that the analyst was there?

Why? Would Hull be happy with a delay? It will go ahead as scheduled. We will play in it and any sanctions will come later.

Voted. Sadly, they didn't have a "proceed to the Premier League" option.

I'm not sure it's in "Gibbo's" hands. The EFL is running the investigation.

I don't condone what Saints allegedly did. But he can't blame that for the lack of fitness in his players or for them falling from 2nd to 5th in the league. Saints have played more games (FA Cup) yet somehow were physically fitter. You don't get that from watching other people's training sessions. Yes, he can go on about small margins. But it wasn't a small margin that caused Boro to lose.

This is pathetic. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/may/13/southampton-middlesbrough-kim-hellberg-tonda-eckert-championship-playoff?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other I get SFC may have done wrong. We don't yet know the facts but, if we have done wrong, we will receive a proportionate punishment. But this whingeing by their manager that if Middlesbrough had lost due to him coming up short, he could have accepted that. He seems to be saying that they lost directly as a result of us (possibly) observing a training session. No. You lost because you had no idea of conservation of energy and went all out in the first half leaving you with nothing by the end of the second, and dead on your feet by extra time. The only thing we could have learned from your training session is that fitness did not play much of a part.

That will include the three hours of waffle leading up to it.

That was quite fun. But lots of them seem to think they should have had two penalties. I was at the game and I didn't see anything remotely like a penalty for them. I try to be fair minded. I thought our call for a penalty after the challenge on Scienza might have been given but thought the call for the challenge on Larin was not strong. I also didn't like Peretz going down and making out he'd been elbowed in the face. So I haven't got totally Saints-tinted glasses on. But I honestly don't know what incidents the Boro fans think should be a penalty.

Is there actually any proof of this? I don't accept someone said something on Twitter as proof. If he did say it, it's despicable and he should face the same punishment as somebody making a racist remark to another player. But let's get the proof first, eh?

To be or not to be That is the question

I don't know if Saints are guilty or not. They have not admitted it. On the balance of probabilities, and the lack of an outright denial, it seems likely that somebody connected with Saints was caught observing a Middlesbrough training session. But that is all I know and all any of us outside the two clubs know. I'd much rather that Saints responded in a professional manner to the EFL rather than slug it out in the press. I've read enough of The Secret Barrister's books, and seen enough crime dramas, to know that if you are accused of wrongdoing, you say nothing and let your accuser produce the evidence. You can then respond to that evidence, and only to that evidence. I daresay that some in here have more first-hand experience in these matters 😉

Is Alan Partridge the commentator at The Den?

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.