Boro 0-0 Saints - Match Thread

[coalman]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The rules apply to club employees only. Anyone else is free to observe their proceedings if they're visible from a public space. I believe this golf course is "open to the public" whatever that implies.

In the 1960s we used to live in North Enfield and my dad would often go to Cheshunt to watch Spurs training sessions. They were open then.

Totally. And therein lies the case. Boro have (allegedly) named a person as an employee of Southampton based on their footage. Their entire case rests on being able to demonstrate that this person is a Southampton FC employee. Call logs might also be illuminating. If the person doing the film was on a video call with a Southampton employee that would also count. 

From a legal perspective you are correct. Anything you film from a public space is generally acceptable. Though even then you may run into problems if what you're filming is on private property. For example Google Street View have to be insanely careful about blurring people walking along the streets and not picking anything up behind windows on private property. If you're running a CCTV you have a legal obligation that your surveillance doesn't compromise your neighbours' privacy. However we're not talking about the English legal system. We're talking about EFL regulations which state you can't send someone to view another team's training in the 72 hours leading up to a game.

[saintant]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Behave, I doubt he went up there on his own for a laugh

Who is suggesting he went up there for a laugh? We know nothing about him or what drives him. He might get a buzz from covertly filming football training sessions. He might have thought he could garner some information and use it to impress people. So no, he didn't go up there for a laugh but he'd have had his own agenda and motivations. The club would be on dodgy ground if they are lying as that will only make things worse. If it is a fact that the club are claiming this guy was acting under his own steam I am prepared to believe them because I don't think they'd risk making things worse for themselves by lying.

[Whitey Grandad]

The phone call could have gone like this:

"Hi Southampton FC. It's Will. Will Salt. Don't you remember me? I used to analyse the opposition teams for you. Anyway, I'm standing on this grassy knoll and I can see Middlesbrough training. Is there anything about it that you'd be interested in?"

"What do you mean it's less than 72 hours to the next game? Oh shit! I thought it was Wednesday. Bloody Bank Holidays."

"OK. Sorry to bother you. I must run and get changed now. Some people are after me"

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, coalman said:

Totally. And therein lies the case. Boro have (allegedly) named a person as an employee of Southampton based on their footage. Their entire case rests on being able to demonstrate that this person is a Southampton FC employee. Call logs might also be illuminating. If the person doing the film was on a video call with a Southampton employee that would also count. 

From a legal perspective you are correct. Anything you film from a public space is generally acceptable. Though even then you may run into problems if what you're filming is on private property. For example Google Street View have to be insanely careful about blurring people walking along the streets and not picking anything up behind windows on private property. If you're running a CCTV you have a legal obligation that your surveillance doesn't compromise your neighbours' privacy. However we're not talking about the English legal system. We're talking about EFL regulations which state you can't send someone to view another team's training in the 72 hours leading up to a game.

It's not a police matter though is it. The bloke could just refuse to release call logs a d it would be impossible to prove without footage of any video calls or if someone admits it outright.

[Saint NL]

31 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2026/05/09/southampton-accept-spying-charge-claim-analyst-acting-alone/

 

So unless there is an email from Tonda saying something like "go and spy on them like we discussed" then there won't be a huge amount of evidence. The club will say he's acting alone, and in a few weeks he'll suddenly have a new house and car and everyone is happy 👀

[CB Fry]

Cheers to my old mate Salty, he’s just shared the Boro first eleven with me. Much as you’d expect but a little surprise in there too 👍

[coalman]

5 minutes ago, saintant said:

What if we didn't send him though? Does that make us dumb? Latest word is that the club claim the individual concerned was acting alone without their knowledge. 

If we didn't send him then we're not breaching regulations. Though if he was on a video call to a Southampton employee we may be. At which point any disciplinary process is likely to use balance of probabilities.

Also noting that Middlesborough are contacting other clubs to gather evidence might indicate that they're less confident of their case than they make out. Though it might also mean they want to maximise the punishment for Saints. Let's face it - if they can get this expedited, skip due process and go straight to the play off final that's a whole lot of win for them. 

[saintant]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If it is our argument that no one sent him and he acted alone then I suppose it will be if there is any evidence to contradict that. If not then I can't see how we can get blamed at all.

We'd be mighty stupid to lie about this now so hopefully we can put this to bed with minimum damage and get on with playing football.

Edited 3 hours ago by saintant

[AlexLaw76]

You watch, once our playoff charge is over, we will accept the charges and that will be that.

All those saying we have done nothing wrong will (agin) look daft. 
 

 

[coalman]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's not a police matter though is it. The bloke could just refuse to release call logs a d it would be impossible to prove without footage of any video calls or if someone admits it outright.

You're correct. It is not a police matter. He could refuse call logs though a disciplinary panel might take the legal precedent that refusing to share them is a tacit admission of guilt. Any competent solicitor is likely to argue this. An example would be Rebeka Vardy's phone which was "mysteriously" lost in the North Sea during her case against Colleen Rooney. The judge, in that case, decided to assume that the loss was deliberate to hide evidence and to assume that the evidence would have been incriminating.

Edited 3 hours ago by coalman

[coalman]

5 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The phone call could have gone like this:

"Hi Southampton FC. It's Will. Will Salt. Don't you remember me? I used to analyse the opposition teams for you. Anyway, I'm standing on this grassy knoll and I can see Middlesbrough training. Is there anything about it that you'd be interested in?"

"What do you mean it's less than 72 hours to the next game? Oh shit! I thought it was Wednesday. Bloody Bank Holidays."

"OK. Sorry to bother you. I must run and get changed now. Some people are after me"

It could. At which point it would be a short call. His phone will also have a record of whether it was a video call or a voice call. There are more signals there you can use.

Also, if Middlesbrough stir up enough outrage that might also to affect the decision making process of any disciplinary committee.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, coalman said:

You're correct. It is not a police matter. He could refuse call logs though a disciplinary panel might take the legal precedent that refusing to share them is a tacit admission of guilt. An example would be Rebeka Vardy's phone which was "mysteriously" lost in the North Sea during her case against Colleen Rooney. The judge, in that case, decided to assume that the loss was deliberate to hide evidence and to assume that the evidence would have been incriminating.

But if the ex sfc intern refuses to release his call logs and we don't know who he was on the phone to how could sfc be held responsible for that?

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You watch, once our playoff charge is over, we will accept the charges and that will be that.

All those saying we have done nothing wrong will (agin) look daft. 
 

 

Or alternatively, the independant panel find it is all a load of bollox.

[coalman]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

But if the ex sfc intern refuses to release his call logs and we don't know who he was on the phone to how could sfc be held responsible for that?

They would also ask for the call logs of any of the coaching staff at Southampton to corroborate. 

[James G]

1 hour ago, Nordic Saint said:

They'd simply disqualify us and give our place in the final to Middlesbrough IF we beat them. That's what Middlesbrough will be demanding. They'll already have contacted every possible media outlet to press their case. 

But that's the thing, they can't. It's effectively a 200m fine because we are favourites to win. It would be an unprecedented move, and doesn't align with the punishment given to Leeds which sets half a precedent for one of the charges, and that was for them spying all season, so it's a more extreme version of the first charge. 

I think the most extreme punishment would be to retrospectively forfeit this match and award Middlesbrough a 3-0 victory before the second match. But even that is risky because we wouldn't have a window of appeal

Someone mentioned another match from abroad where it was a fine and a points deduction and that's probably a marker. Again, it's not going to be enough for Middlesbrough but the EFL are between a rock and a hard place on this one

 

[whelk]

27 minutes ago, St Chalet said:

Is there a game today?

A mod could hive off all the spy bollocks to a new thread? Give the nerds and pussies their own place 

[badgerx16]

Just now, coalman said:

They would also ask for the call logs of any of the coaching staff at Southampton to corroborate. 

Do they have the right to demand them ?

[manji]

Can’t anyone see what Boro are doing ? Put complaint in. Media all over it. They hope it destabilises our team.

i also watched a couple of there podcasts and they are worried their fans won’t be up for the game.

it will blow over by then everyone will have forgotten about it. Massive game and on here a lot of people talking about it.

 

like any shit algorithmic story best thing you can do is ignore it. Trouble is even this message feeds the  algorithm 

 

[coalman]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Do they have the right to demand them ?

They have the right to ask for them and also the ability to interpret refusal to hand them over in a variety of ways including as an admission of guilt.

[badgerx16]

Even if it was potentially an option, they can't award a forfeit as Hull and Millwall would kick off about Boro getting an unfair advantage.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Do they have the right to demand them ?

Right, I doubt it, but I'd imagine that the investigative people could direct it, and draw adverse inferences if we don't comply. 

[coalman]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Even if it was potentially an option, they can't award a forfeit as Hull and Millwall would kick off about Boro getting an unfair advantage.

The regulations give the disciplinary panel a wide scope in deciding appropriate punishment.

[Gloucester Saint]

21 minutes ago, sfc4prem said:

Isn't Gloucester a bit of a shithole in (most) parts?

Parts like everywhere else but nice bits like the Quays. I live in Gloucestershire not actually in the city of Gloucester. 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, coalman said:

They would also ask for the call logs of any of the coaching staff at Southampton to corroborate. 

No chance they do that. He could have been on the phone to anyone. Maybe they have a work and personal phone? 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Right, I doubt it, but I'd imagine that the investigative people could direct it, and draw adverse inferences if we don't comply. 

If somebody hands over their phone to show there is nothing untoward on it, can the panel then judge that stuff had been deleted, even if in fact it was never there ? It's not like the Police contacting the telecomms companies.

[CSA96]

Matchday. Woke up at 5am here in Philadelphia and now anxiously awaiting team news and trying to find a way to watch the game

On 'spygate' - I am disappointed we've been caught doing this but I really do feel some of the pearl-clutching is overblown. Is it cheating? Yes it is, but so is diving, so is pretending to have a head injury so the referee doesn't let the opponent keep coming up the field, so is selling your women's team to another company controlled by your owner to skirt the financial rules, so are a litany of other blatant financial doping methods

Saints have not introduced skullduggery and cheating to football. Somebody went and stood on a hill in a public place and tried to find out what formation the other team was playing because they were told to (presumably) and they felt it would aid their career and their employer's performance. It's not the crime of the century. Clubs are at this stuff all of the time, we were just daft enough to get caught and not use a third party to create a larger grey area around what was going on and give ourselves more of a margin for error

We've cheated, we'll be dealt with and rightly so, but I find it so hard to reconcile with the 'I can't get excited for these games' and 'our unbeaten run feels hollow' sentiments. This is small fry in the grand scheme of things and it'll all blow over

Now, I hope we beat Boro and beat them comprehensively. I hope Finn Azaz scores a goal and goads their fans. I hope our supporters are giving them the binoculars celebration by the time the tie is over. It's certainly made the game more emotionally charged on the Boro side and, provided it's channelled in the right ways, I have no issue with that. These ties are meant to be spicy and this one no doubt will be

UTS

[RedArmy]

Looking forward to their fans headloss when we go 1-0 up 

[sfc4prem]

6 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Parts like everywhere else but nice bits like the Quays. I live in Gloucestershire not actually in the city of Gloucester. 

Fair enough. Not anywhere near as bad as Middlesbrough then

[coalman]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If somebody hands over their phone to show there is nothing untoward on it, can the panel then judge that stuff had been deleted, even if in fact it was never there ? It's not like the Police contacting the telecomms companies.

Telecoms companies wouldn't be able to tell you. Depending on the method used to delete it someone that knows their way around cybersecurity may be able to. Depending on the level of sophistication of the person using the phone and how good the cybersecurity person is (there is a very wide variance in capability here ranging from Mossad to my gran).

[sfc4prem]

3 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

Looking forward to their fans headloss when we go 1-0 up 

It'll be surreal to hear the home fans boo the away side when we score our goals

[Lord Duckhunter]

The whole thing is pathetic, from their fans reactions to our fans trying to claim they wouldn’t be bothered if the boot was on the other foot. Dear god, there’s not a match thread without demands for a red card or the ref has an agenda against us. Our nods would have reacted in exactly the same way there’s have. 
 

It’s also pathetic from the club and/or the individual. If he acted alone, he needs to get a life & if the club instructed him, that’s pretty fucking pathetic really. 
 

IMO, it’s probably a mixture of both and a bit of a grey area. I can’t  believe nobody at the club knew, but equally, I’m pretty sure senior staff wouldn’t have signed off on this. I guess the case boils down to plausible deniability, and I smell a compromise coming up. Let’s not forget the bloke got caught 2 days ago, so Boro have 2 days to change tactical stuff, and he legitimately could have watched preparation for Tuesdays game. It’s not as if this has come out after the game, they were fully aware and could react to it.
 

IF the result of both legs is close, with us going up on penalties, after extra time or by one goal, then perhaps it’ll run a bit longer. If we batter them, it’ll become a non story and we’ll get a slap on the wrist type fine. It’s hard to see Gibson arguing it made a difference, if we’ve dicked them 5-1 on aggregate. He’ll make himself look a right chump.
 

The only way we’ll face a major issue is if other sides come forward with some evidence we’ve done it before, which begs the question, why didn’t they report it at the time. 
 

my gut feeling is Saints admitting a slight technical breach of the rules in return for a fine and maybe suspended points deduction. The technical breach being an employee/free lance bod acted without the knowledge of any senior management 

Edited 3 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[Secret Site Agent]

25 minutes ago, coalman said:

Totally. And therein lies the case. Boro have (allegedly) named a person as an employee of Southampton based on their footage. Their entire case rests on being able to demonstrate that this person is a Southampton FC employee. Call logs might also be illuminating. If the person doing the film was on a video call with a Southampton employee that would also count. 

From a legal perspective you are correct. Anything you film from a public space is generally acceptable. Though even then you may run into problems if what you're filming is on private property. For example Google Street View have to be insanely careful about blurring people walking along the streets and not picking anything up behind windows on private property. If you're running a CCTV you have a legal obligation that your surveillance doesn't compromise your neighbours' privacy. However we're not talking about the English legal system. We're talking about EFL regulations which state you can't send someone to view another team's training in the 72 hours leading up to a game.

If this man is bright enough to find the knoll, film the training,have an escape plan with change of clothes then surely he isn't dumb enough not to use a cheap second hand phone bought for cash and a data sim bought from Tesco ?

The more I go into this the more I realise how devious I am.

 

[CSA96]

[coalman]

2 minutes ago, Secret Site Agent said:

If this man is bright enough to find the knoll, film the training,have an escape plan with change of clothes then surely he isn't dumb enough not to use a cheap second hand phone bought for cash and a data sim bought from Tesco ?

The more I go into this the more I realise how devious I am.

 

Assuming that people doing dumb things will do them in a non dumb way tends to be a losing proposition 😉

[Saint NL]

 

Forget the spies, here we go

[Disco Stu]

No Stephens is a huge blow. Not looking good for a clean sheet.

[saintant]

1 minute ago, CSA96 said:

Strong starting X1 with no surprises plus good options off the bench. Let the games begin.

[bobby_charles]

If you can see their training pitch in public then this is abit like leaving your door open, going on holiday then being shocked that your place has been robbed 

[RedArmy]

No Stephens is a bit of a blow. 
 

Good job we spied on their training so it won’t matter. 

[Winnersaint]

Fellows to score today

[AlexLaw76]

Boro look like they will go for a back 3, but Saints knew this yesterday

[westmidlandsaint]

1 minute ago, Winnersaint said:

Fellows to score today

Been saying for weeks he gets the winner at Wembley 

[Saint Pete]

Our strongest lineup except for Stephens still out. Good options from the bench. Let's do this and forget the other stuff the next few hours!! 

[Secret Site Agent]

This just in.

It wasn't just one operative on the grassy knoll, apparently there was a second Operative filming Boro from the Book Depository.

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, coalman said:

They would also ask for the call logs of any of the coaching staff at Southampton to corroborate. 

No chance they do that. He could have been on the phone to anyone. Maybe they have a work and personal phone? 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Secret Site Agent said:

This just in.

It wasn't just one operative on the grassy knoll, apparently there was a second Operative filming Boro from the Book Depository.

Smoke and mirrors. The CIA done it,

[Whitey Grandad]

32 minutes ago, coalman said:

It could. At which point it would be a short call. His phone will also have a record of whether it was a video call or a voice call. There are more signals there you can use.

Also, if Middlesbrough stir up enough outrage that might also to affect the decision making process of any disciplinary committee.

 

31 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

But if the ex sfc intern refuses to release his call logs and we don't know who he was on the phone to how could sfc be held responsible for that?

Has the individual been positively identified yet?

[saintant]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

 

Has the individual been positively identified yet?

Nobody is even sure he exists 🙂

[RedArmy]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

 

Has the individual been positively identified yet?

He hasn’t been for fingerprinting yet. 

[Whitey Grandad]

28 minutes ago, coalman said:

They have the right to ask for them and also the ability to interpret refusal to hand them over in a variety of ways including as an admission of guilt.

Or breach of privacy?