Saint Fan CaM

If ever there was justice - couldn’t watch most of the game but started around 80 minutes in. The Hull Chairman ramped up the pressure by threatening legal action if Boro won and I thought then…yes, have some of your own medicine! I kinda wanted to see what that would look like, but Hull had other ideas. We would have smashed Hull, but hey ho…

Some of these names! Who of any note is going to step into this club now? It’s going to to be the 2026 version of Wigley - step forward Lallana.

Exactly. Didn’t stop Boro (and other club) fans giving it large when the story first broke without all the facts…one rule etc. Some points to add to the mix… 1. Boro have effectively used ‘EntrapGate’ to extract our shit from the general huge pile of stinking shit that is endemic cheating in football, including the use of a community of junior interns to go on ‘scouting expeditions’ to other clubs. It feels like Saints have attempted to protect most of the other clubs in the league by not ratting. 2. I don’t entirely buy the narrative that Eckhert bullied Salt. An equally sound theory is the lad got taken in by the Boro friendly ex-Saints coach, went to Eckhert/Spors for approval for a field trip and it was given. To save his own rep the lad then claimed under duress that he was bullied into the job. Eckhert said he knew of the ‘spying’…not that he bullied him into doing it. Did Salt complain when he went to Oxford? Lastly, my position on this whole sorry saga is that I’m more angry with the ineptitude of the club’s senior management team for allowing Boro to use a clearly manufactured story, allowing the EFL to be steered by Boro and willingly gifting them success on a plate by Parsons idiocy and a weak legal team, than I am with the club ‘spying’ when it’s reportedly an overlooked, commonly used practice across modern pro football worldwide. A scapegoat or two will be sacrificed on the alter of Boro’s media outrage undoubtedly. I kind of hope Boro win and that triggers a Hull/Wrexham/Millwall/Saints lawsuit that rinses the EFL and Boro, with their cronies being dragged through the dirt. Now that would be true justice.

@Crab Lungs Surely a forensic examination of Boro’s entrapment starts with an interview with Salt where he’s asked if he’s been in contact with Taylor and further did he receive a tip-off to visit Boro’s ground from Taylor? Or is that too straightforward? If that’s true, perhaps he then went to Eckhert for approval to go citing the tip-off and Eckhert sanctioned it?

Not sure - ‘spyjng’ is not against the rules in the Premiership or so we’re told, so not seen as gaining an unfair advantage, however the FA govern the entire English game so will want to be seen to acting to protect their reputation too I guess.

I see there’s a report (BBC?) that the FA are now looking at the evidence. Does that mean they have the power to impose further sanctions on the club such as a fine or even more points deduction? It really wouldn’t surprise me - there seems to be an endemic, corporate desire to bring the club to its knees.

I thought it had been said that it’s only the Championship where this rule applies, but I guess it’s across the whole EFL then? Nevertheless, I still find it strange that these are the only two clubs that Boro had ‘evidence’ from in terms of gathering a case in readiness for their defeat in the semi’s - no coincidence really.

Yes that’s likely true, but don’t you think it’s strange that the two clubs presented to the panel were the two clubs definitely not in the Championship next season? I suspect there’s other clubs who are somewhat nervous revealing their hand and exposing their own weaknesses in terms of gaining competitor advantage (I’d bet on there being other ‘interesting’ practices in the profession we’re not aware of).

This is an excellent reflection of the realities of the situation - very well said SOG. The more I reflect on what’s happened the more I thoroughly believe the club needs to act quickly and decisively to dress the wound. To not do so risks the entire club structure collapsing in on itself in a spiral of self-harm. That will likely mean the sacking of one or more scapegoats, but that should be it…the club (Dragan) protects and nurtures all other assets including playing staff (who should get their % salary cut re-instated). Despite Boro’s antics. Despite the EFL, its sham board and the obvious cheating that exists at all levels of the game. All this talk about sacking everyone is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Circle the wagons…take a deep breath and let’s fucking show ‘em we’re worthy of promotion the hard way. The alternative is further capitulation to an unjust punishment and the potential demise of our wonderful club.

Also…and it’s been said before on here…it’s strange is it not that the two other instances are Ipswich and Oxford who are both out of the Championship now and therefore not concerned about any reveal of the extent many other teams ‘spy’ on opponents. No other teams want to get involved because they too could be implicated. That’s why Parsons clever wording around helping to ensure the rules are widely applied and understood in the future could have significant meaning today.

The why is obviously because precedence in law is an important factor - the first panel has for some reason not recognised this (and everything points to Boro influencing the panel both publicly and possibly privately too, given the EFL/Boro connections). Not only that but I would hope that Parsons has learnt not to reveal his entire hand in one stroke - what is in the statement is not necessarily all the mitigating evidence that will be presented to the judge today.

Lallana it is then…😳😉

If it’s clear that Tonda made no direct instruction to sanction the spying then he should stay - I.e. I could imagine that the analyst team operate independently as a service to the coaching staff and report to Spors. Otherwise, yes, he should go.

Interesting reading through the thread. Many are saying sack Tonda etc., with others suggesting they’ll walk away from the club because of the ‘cheating’. The punishment is undoubtedly harsh and assuming the appeal is not successful, surely we the innocent supporters should feel a high level of indignation with the outcome? Surely now is the time to form a close huddle with the club and its staff in continued support and stick two proverbial fingers up at the EFL? “We will prevail” sort of position. When I look back over the stewardship of SR, I cannot help but reflect on one disaster after another. Lack of cohesive player and coaching appointments. Embarrassing season and relegation from the Prem. And now this, with potential further decline a result of sullied reputation, lowered morale, player departures and a further reduction of squad quality. If you wanted to fuck a football club over in a slow death process, SR have seemingly developed and executed the blueprint perfectly. Parsons head should role - he’s overseen much of the decline and his performance versus Gibson confirms his incompetence in a senior managerial capacity.

They would do, however most are in the business of fence erecting and there’s not much call for that around Boro. Oh…

Some of the conclusions reached on here are likely wide of the mark. The old adage of “you don’t know what you don’t know” springs to mind. We’ll just need to let everything take due course, with fingers crossed that common sense and proportionality are used in determining the outcome. 🤞

Not only that, but there will be a desire to not invoke an appeal. Given Boro have no right to appeal, the bias will likely be in Saints favour to an extent. No expulsion…almost certainly a fine of <£1m…potential points deduction, but deferred for a period of time based on good behaviour.

That would be outrageously disproportionate IMO.

Yes if we’re found to be complicit in the viewing of their 1st team training, we can expect a sanction - probably a fine because money rules and there’s precedent. However, even if the evidence does implicate SFC, there are several mitigating facts that must be taken into account and I’m sure they will… a. The alleged ‘spy’ was reportedly not filming a 1st team training session and was spotted at a location on public ground. There is no evidence that he breached private property. b. There may be a question over his employment status with Saints and whether he was indeed under specific instruction. c. The EFL rules are ambiguous with regard to the 72 hour ‘cut-off’ and there are no accompanying sanctions stated (as you say). There is likely to be evidence that many other clubs use ‘scouting’ as a method of gaining advance information too - it is not a practice isolated to Saints and under oath would Boro be able to say they’ve never done it? d. The manner in which Middlesbrough have attempted to pervert the course of the tribunal is highly questionable and detrimental to the duties of what was supposedly an independent review. In and of itself, this action (including the media shitshow that’s happened as a result of their leaks) has potentially sullied Saints chances in the final - if we lose the final, Saints should mount a reverse challenge against Middlesbrough with a push for stringent sanctions against them. Possibly even legal action if it can be shown GDPR rules for example were broken. e. The evidence submitted by Middlesbrough appears to be flaky at best and is highly unlikely to demonstrate unequivocally that their chances in the semi’s were affected adversely as a result of whatever happened. Quite the opposite in fact.

On the face of it I would agree, but let’s say for arguments sake that the ‘spying’ started 72 hours and 10 minutes prior to the first semi starting and stopped 9 minutes later. That’s not cheating - that’s playing by the rules, irrespective of whether Boro might claim we’ve gained an advantage and its morally wrong. What if the same scenario had happened but the ‘spying’ stopped 11 minutes later? It could be argued both ways that rules had still not been broken if the exact wording of said rules did not make it clear, again irrespective of the ‘morality’ of the action. That’s part of the context, along with a clear understanding of the employment status of the alleged ‘spy’. That’s what the tribunal needs to establish of course and my point was to observe that a simple ‘yes they spied’ or ‘no they didn’t’ just won’t cut it.

See, for me the whole premise of it being ‘morally repugnant’ plays inappropriately into Boro’s narrative. Let’s remember that the regs state that spying is unacceptable <72 hours before the teams play against each other. This in itself suggests the practice of ‘spying’ is perfectly acceptable and indeed accepted outside of 72 hours. So who’s to say it’s not a widespread practice across the entire EFL? This has to be at least a part of the context talked about.

Cannot believe the EFL would risk a sanction that involves removing Saints from the competition - would be completely unfair and open to legal challenges. Precedence IF found guilty after looking at the full evidence would be a fine commensurate with the issue. Adding some form of points deduction, even delayed, would be disproportionate too. My feeling is there are two key unknowns that will have a bearing on the outcome - was the lad in full employ of Saints and under instruction, and secondly, has convincing evidence been provided that any training information gained was substantive enough to gain an advantage. That’s why Saints have insisted they need to investigate ‘context’ rather than just admitting to the charge as Leeds/Bielsa did. I guess we can all speculate - the next couple of days will reveal much.

I’m not able to attend whatever the date/time, so hey ho.

Fair play, but as I’ve already explained, it was said in the spirit of reverse psychology…hence the winky emoji. 🤭

I claim the old reverse psychology thing! 🤣🤣🤣