trousers

Wonder if that's because we've been given a heads up that the punishment won't be too punitive if we put our hands up to it, even though we think we might have a case to argue against it? (i.e. the "loan wolf" story could have some truth in it, but it'll just be easy to take the punishment rather thand spend time and money contesting it, upon which the fine etc could increase)

Nice touch by the club for the away end on Tuesday 👍🏻

Who's saying he isn't...?

This is the key point for me... Whether it's an intern acting off his own back or under instruction from the club, it's somewhat baffling either way. As you say, if we're going to go down the spying route, surely we'd do it more professionally?! 🙂

Assuming it's this fella (which we've not seen any proof of btw), the answer to your question is: since this article was written / published by the University of Derby... https://www.derby.ac.uk/undergraduate/sport-exercise-science-courses/wills-placement-year-is-key-to-success/ Is there any way of determining when a webpage was first published?

I believe you're looking for the "Small things that annoy me" thread...?

Even Adam Blackmore has been somewhat unusually scathing about the club, despite the facts not yet being known.... unless he knows something we don't of course...

I tend to agree that it would be somewhat odd, especially if the intern in question is the one who no longer works for / with us, but until we get to know the facts, all possibilities are still on the table.

Maybe the club are playing their "no comment" card despite being 'innocent' because they're concerned about the welfare of the intern in doing so, if indeed they were acting off their own back?

No idea... I'm just saying that, until we know the full facts, it's not impossible that this isn't a one-off (i.e. I'm just staying the obvious)

Blimey... You mean one of my hairbrained theories might come true for once...?! 🙂

Agree it might be difficult to prove it wasn't just a one-off, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, nor that the club won't decide to go into 'full disclosure' mode to avoid future repercussions of other incidents come to light later on...

Assuming this was a one-off incident, of course...

I reckon we should argue that we used the first leg as a training session for the second leg and report Middlesbrough for watching it....

Source?

How about this: The lad who did his industrial placement year with us, and who is now working part time for Aston Villa whilst completing the final year of his degree, had to do some "professional training observation" course work as part of his degree... He then thought: "I know... I could kill two birds with one stone here and go up to observe Middlesbrough and let my ex work colleague(s) at Southampton know if I see anything of interest... That's bound to earn me some brownie points..."... and, whilst he was there, he called said ex-colleague(s) to let them know Hayden Hackney isn't training with the squad (or such like).... So, it's not something that the Saints hierarchy sanctioned, but they may have been happy to receive the intel.... By jove Trousers, you may well have struck gold with this particular conspiracy theory old chap.... Bravo!

My latest hairbrained theory.... We've been sending an analyst intern / trainee on reconnaissance missions such as this all season, but with the intention of not falling foul of the "72 hour" rule, but on this occasion the kid got his dates mixed up and ended up 'spying' a day later than he should have been.... Oopsie daisy.... Yeah....I know....as likely as encountering an intellectual northerner.... However....

Are there any mods on here today...?

Read the University of Derby article... Linkedin profiles are often out of date... I know mine is....

Why have we accepted the charge if this analyst fella was acting alone and/or without club knowledge? Doesn't add up...

If Will Salt is the alleged 'spy' in question, then correct, he finished his assignment with Saints a while ago, according to that University of Derby write up...

It's not alluded, it's a fact... https://www.derby.ac.uk/undergraduate/sport-exercise-science-courses/wills-placement-year-is-key-to-success/

Doesn't this "72 hour" rule supplement the previous "fair play" rule, not replace it...? So, even if a club doesn't breach the 72 hours, they still fall foul of the fair play rule, the same rule that got Leeds fined £200k? In other words, as I read it, I don't think the 72 hours rule is designed to give clubs carte blanche to 'spy' on training sessions outside of that window...?

So Middlesbrough fans are wrong in thinking that we've gained an advantage from 'spying' then...?