Maggie May

Sorry to keep bringing up the 72 hour rule. I’m reading that our charge only relates to spying on Middlesbrough within the banned limit. If that’s the case, why am I reading Middlesbrough may have evidence of us spying on other clubs? Surely that would be inadmissible during this probe?

Sorry Steve.

Sorry to sound like a broken record but my internal evaluation on the entire situation continues to focus on the grey areas surrounding the 72 hour ban. Apologies if I’ve misread but the stories surrounding Middlesbrough claiming they have evidence of Southampton spying on other clubs never seem to mention if this is outside the 72 hour period. If “spying” is allowed, and we’ve done it but adhered to the rules, then why the giant outcry? All speculation and my own views but this must be more widespread across the football world. The fact there isn’t a blanket ban on spying and has caveats instead will absolutely see clubs try and push it as far as they can. I bet Boro do it in some capacity. This is why, in my opinion, we’re not seeing other clubs come out against us. It’s too easy to become implicated. I fail to see the act of “spying” on other teams to gain an advantage is some genius, novel idea thought up by our analysts. It has to have been learned.

That’s technically not an admission of guilt. It means the club is leaving it down to the panel to decide based on the evidence provided to them. Everything the club is accused of are still allegations at this stage.

If we’d sent our lad Will to their training ground to shout pleasantries about Boro, Hellberg and Gibson, would we have been charged with a Salt and flattery?

The 72 hour rule is what creates so many grey areas for me. If spying is so frowned upon, just ban it outright.

EFL chief executive is ex Portsmouth administrator Trevor Birch.

Prejudicial to what? This isn’t involving a jury.

Publishing this actually could help prove this was a public space. If it was closed off and private, there’s an argument he’d be given a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Sigh.

Apparently Steve Gibson phones Simon Jordan at 3.30mins. SJ holds his phone up and SG’s name is visible when the video’s enhanced. Perhaps Southampton should make a complaint that Middlesbrough aren’t behaving in the fairness of the game, considering their owner appears to be feeding information to a presenter 😉

I refuse to believe this isn’t satire.

Interestingly, Crystal Palace has a new build block of flats called Maybrey Works overlooking their Copers Cope training ground. Literally anyone could hire it out and watch training if they wanted.

I'm confident they've used "whistleblower" in the incorrect context. The "other clubs" line was reported by the Guardian, claiming they'd gone to them: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/may/10/southampton-spygate-middlesbrough-championship-playoffs

Yep…

In all fairness, do you have the faintest idea of what goes on behind closed doors at football clubs?

Saints won’t be kicked out because it’ll open up a can of worms for all clubs. Most probably do it - even Middlesbrough, which would be hilarious if it came out.

Contradictions, yes, but they’re not inaccuracies unless you know what has actually unfolded. Whatever’s happened is serious enough for the EFL to charge the club. As I said yesterday, there is no way this made the papers if it was a massive fabrication. It’s crazy to think otherwise. There would have been an outright denial from the club to the Mail, which broke the story, for starters.

This. We’ve absolutely f***ed it.

This is really bad.

This was training, specifically set pieces. Edit: the set pieces allegation is in the Guardian’s write-up.

Yeah but the article wouldn’t have been published if it was BS.

I said the team we needed to avoid in the play offs is Middlesbrough. This rubber stamps it.

No wins in three is concerning form going into the play offs.

We’re not going up.