Saints Charged With Spying on Mboro Training

[beatlesaint]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

Nobody apart from the club’s lawyers and a handful of people at most in the club knows what has happened here. Nobody at Middlesbrough knows what has exactly happened here, who was responsible, what was done etc. It’s guesswork and supposition. The EFL themselves don’t know the full extent. Their charge was premature. The whole matter needs investigating fully. Nothing of any substance will happen in the next few weeks unless Saints make some kind of confession that is accepted by the EFL. Highly unlikely that will happen unless there is some kind of plea deal that the club see as being a good thing.

Boro have made life harder for themselves here because of their inability to hit a cow’s arse with a banjo. If they were three or four up from the first leg, which they should have been, this would be fading away already. Because they are useless in front of goal and the writing is now on the wall for Tuesday night, they’re looking for an easier route through to the play off final i.e. Saints expulsion. It was quite clear from the first half yesterday that if, yes if, there has been any spying it had no positive effect.

Best post on the subject by a mile, cheers 

[kwsaint]

I don’t know if this is relevant but I find the mayor in Teesside a complete wanker.

[saintant]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

I cannot believe an 'intern' did all of this alone and rather randomly.

 

Why not?

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 minutes ago, saintant said:

This seems to me to be the crux of the matter. If it was authorised we haven't a leg to stand on. If it wasn't authorised my view is the club have done nothing wrong.

There is a grey area in between. Proving it was authorised, is different to being authorised. 

[trousers]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I cannot believe an 'intern' did all of this alone and rather randomly.

 

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.

[saintant]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

There is a grey area in between. Proving it was authorised, is different to being authorised. 

Which is why I'm suggesting we must have all our ducks in a row if we go down the route of proving it was unauthorised. If we prove that to the EFL, to their satisfaction, the blame game should stop and our punishment should be minimal.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

Which is why I'm suggesting we must have all our ducks in a row if we go down the route of proving it was unauthorised. If we prove that to the EFL, to their satisfaction, the blame game should stop and our punishment should be minimal.

is that what is going on?

[saintant]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

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.

But every day in life we hear and read about cases of someone doing something totally random and stupid leaving us wondering why on earth they did it. There are strange people in the world who are wired differently to the norm.

[S-Clarke]

The authorities have now located our sophisticated spy equipment, which was foolishly left discarded in the hotel toilets. No way out of this now.

[saintant]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

is that what is going on?

It's something I've seen reported which I know isn't proof it's true.

[saintant]

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

The authorities have now located our sophisticated spy equipment, which was foolishly left discarded in the hotel toilets. No way out of this now.

That's blown it for us. Hope it was a cash buy.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, saintant said:

It's something I've seen reported which I know isn't proof it's true.

This is the only thing the club has said... Which is very different to "nothing to do with us, but were are happy to help"

I suspect we are in damage limitation mode

Quote

 

We can confirm that we will be fully cooperating with the League throughout this process.

Given the ongoing nature of the matter, the club is unable to comment any further at this time.

 

 

[Gloucester Saint]

13 minutes ago, kwsaint said:

I don’t know if this is relevant but I find the mayor in Teesside a complete wanker.

Allegedly corrupt, if you read Private Eye.

His uncle Keith did score an iconic goal in the 1987 FA Cup final though. 
https://northeastbylines.co.uk/news/politics/auditor-rebukes-houchen-over-governance-claim/

Edited 3 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Toussaint]

19 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

We won’t be “vindicated”. What’s so hard to understand. If there was nothing in it, the club would have issued a flat out denial and would have given our side of the story to friendly press or someone like Blackmore. They wouldn’t be “working with” the EFL, as there would be nothing to work with. Somebody with connections to SFC was up there spying on them, the only issues is how deep those connections were, was it authorised and how high up the food chain does it go. There’s absolutely zero chance an investigation will conclude that some random bloke with no connection to SFC did it off his own back, in his own time, and on his own wedge. At best we could be able to muddy the authorisation bit, and deliver them a patsy.

What do you know that I don’t? I don’t think working with the EFL is the admission of guilt you and others seem to see it as. 

[saintant]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

This is the only thing the club has said... Which is very different to "nothing to do with us, but were are happy to help"

I suspect we are in damage limitation mode

 

Maybe but not sure how we limit the damage. If we authorised the intern that's it and we deserve what punishment comes our way and the club face a major exercise to pacify what will become a very angry fanbase.

[whelk]

13 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I cannot believe an 'intern' did all of this alone and rather randomly.

 

I encourage initiative from any of our interns

[LegalEagle]

The BBC also need to take a good look at themselves. Their article on “Spygate” on the website today is a disgrace. Having a crack at Eckert for not answering their poorly thought out and repetitive questioning is just childish. The BBC’s Adam Lanigan who wrote the piece comes over as bitter and twisted. Eckert was not “defensive” yesterday or in any evasive. He is clearly under instructions from the club’s lawyers not to say anything of any substance whilst this is being investigated. Just because he didn’t give some road weary hack the answer they wanted which they would then have twisted and misconstrued is not Eckert’s fault but that of the media in general, most of whom live in the gutter. The same applies to half of these ex- footballers like Troy Deeney who shouldn’t even be allowed to comment based on his past and the fact that he has about two brain cells.

[saintant]

I notice the Boro fans and others are asking how long this has been going on and point to our unbeaten run since January. They conveniently use this as the start point and make no mention of our many abysmal performances which surely wouldn't have happened if we are spying on every opponent. 

[saintstowin]

I can't believe we're not focusing on the worst thing about all this and that's yet another example of wrongly adding the word 'gate' to signify a scandal. Watergate was the name of a complex of buildings, and importantly an entire and single word used to signify that particular scandal. And therefore what has followed over the years is a travesty. I can't believe Saints have been drawn into this. I never thought it would happen to us.

But feel free to call it spywatergate. 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, saintstowin said:

I can't believe we're not focusing on the worst thing about all this and that's yet another example of wrongly adding the word 'gate' to signify a scandal. Watergate was the name of a complex of buildings, and importantly an entire and single word used to signify that particular scandal. And therefore what has followed over the years is a travesty. I can't believe Saints have been drawn into this. I never thought it would happen to us.

But feel free to call it spywatergate. 

Yeah, who can forget the shame of England v Italy in the Euro final and Southgate.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

Which is why I'm suggesting we must have all our ducks in a row if we go down the route of proving it was unauthorised. If we prove that to the EFL, to their satisfaction, the blame game should stop and our punishment should be minimal.

Just because they can’t prove it doesn’t absolve us of any blame, it just means we got away with it.
 

In my opinion “working with the EFL” is going to mean coming up with some sort of punishment we can accept that doesn’t look too soft. The last thing the EFL want is lawyers all over this. The difficulty for them will be if Middlesbrough have a claim that our “cheating” made a material difference to the result. It’s hard to see a scenario where they can claim that , but you never know. 

 

If I was a betting man, I’d put money on large fine, and suspended points deduction. 

[Whitey Grandad]

22 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I cannot believe an 'intern' did all of this alone and rather randomly.

 

But if you describe him as a "university student" on a part-time work placement?

[Whitey Grandad]

22 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There is a grey area in between. Proving it was authorised, is different to being authorised. 

Indeed. Plausible denial is very important. 

[Whitey Grandad]

22 minutes ago, trousers said:

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.

"No longer works for us"

Since last Thursday afternoon or since sometime a couple of weeks ago?

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Just because they can’t prove it doesn’t absolve us of any blame, it just means we got away with it.
 

In my opinion “working with the EFL” is going to mean coming up with some sort of punishment we can accept that doesn’t look too soft. The last thing the EFL want is lawyers all over this. The difficulty for them will be if Middlesbrough have a claim that our “cheating” made a material difference to the result. It’s hard to see a scenario where they can claim that , but you never know. 

 

If I was a betting man, I’d put money on large fine, and suspended points deduction. 

My take would be that if it was an intern acting with no authority from the club we didn't get away with anything because we didn't do anything wrong. 

[23rdSaint]

We just need to reclaim the narrative, embrace the villainy and go all in. Anyone wanna magic this up for Tuesday?

[beatlesaint]

3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Just because they can’t prove it doesn’t absolve us of any blame, it just means we got away with it.
 

In my opinion “working with the EFL” is going to mean coming up with some sort of punishment we can accept that doesn’t look too soft. The last thing the EFL want is lawyers all over this. The difficulty for them will be if Middlesbrough have a claim that our “cheating” made a material difference to the result. It’s hard to see a scenario where they can claim that , but you never know. 

 

If I was a betting man, I’d put money on large fine, and suspended points deduction. 

The fact their strikers couldnt hit a barn door with a banjo in the first half yesterday needs investigating if Boro want to know what made a material difference to the result !!

[Whitey Grandad]

17 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

This is the only thing the club has said... Which is very different to "nothing to do with us, but were are happy to help"

I suspect we are in damage limitation mode

 

It's a neutral holding statement. 

[Whitey Grandad]

7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Just because they can’t prove it doesn’t absolve us of any blame, it just means we got away with it.
 

In my opinion “working with the EFL” is going to mean coming up with some sort of punishment we can accept that doesn’t look too soft. The last thing the EFL want is lawyers all over this. The difficulty for them will be if Middlesbrough have a claim that our “cheating” made a material difference to the result. It’s hard to see a scenario where they can claim that , but you never know. 

 

If I was a betting man, I’d put money on large fine, and suspended points deduction. 

Me too.

In exchange for an early resolution and a fine paid whilst we're still in the EFL.

[LegalEagle]

2 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It's a neutral holding statement. 

Drafted by the club’s lawyers. Standard type wording. 

[EssEffCee]

7 minutes ago, saintant said:

My take would be that if it was an intern acting with no authority from the club we didn't get away with anything because we didn't do anything wrong. 

We're still responsible for our employees. If we could prove it wasn't an instruction from higher up then we'd probably get a lesser punishment but we'd still get punished.

That said I find the idea that he was acting solely of his own accord about as likely as yesterday's result being changed to a 3-0 Boro win as some of their hysterical weirdos seem to think/want.

Edited 3 hours ago by EssEffCee

[CB Fry]

31 minutes ago, trousers said:

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?

Why would they be concerned about the "welfare" of some intern who (in your scenario) acted so badly the club would be correct to sack on the spot for gross misconduct. If it was an intern who had been pissed up and drove a car into a tree they'd be sacked immediately not "protected" behind no comment statements.

The club are quiet because they've done something wrong and are trying to concoct some argument that allows for the smallest punishment.

[trousers]

18 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

The BBC also need to take a good look at themselves. Their article on “Spygate” on the website today is a disgrace. Having a crack at Eckert for not answering their poorly thought out and repetitive questioning is just childish. The BBC’s Adam Lanigan who wrote the piece comes over as bitter and twisted

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...

[trousers]

20 minutes ago, saintstowin said:

I can't believe we're not focusing on the worst thing about all this and that's yet another example of wrongly adding the word 'gate' to signify a scandal. Watergate was the name of a complex of buildings, and importantly an entire and single word used to signify that particular scandal. And therefore what has followed over the years is a travesty. I can't believe Saints have been drawn into this. I never thought it would happen to us.

But feel free to call it spywatergate. 

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

[sadoldgit]

39 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

Nobody apart from the club’s lawyers and a handful of people at most in the club knows what has happened here. Nobody at Middlesbrough knows what has exactly happened here, who was responsible, what was done etc. It’s guesswork and supposition. The EFL themselves don’t know the full extent. Their charge was premature. The whole matter needs investigating fully. Nothing of any substance will happen in the next few weeks unless Saints make some kind of confession that is accepted by the EFL. Highly unlikely that will happen unless there is some kind of plea deal that the club see as being a good thing.

Boro have made life harder for themselves here because of their inability to hit a cow’s arse with a banjo. If they were three or four up from the first leg, which they should have been, this would be fading away already. Because they are useless in front of goal and the writing is now on the wall for Tuesday night, they’re looking for an easier route through to the play off final i.e. Saints expulsion. It was quite clear from the first half yesterday that if, yes if, there has been any spying it had no positive effect.

Exactly this. It is all pointless hot air until the club makes an official statement on their position and the facts are properly determined. The time to wet the bed is if and when we are found guilty of any wrong doing. In the meantime we have a match to win.

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

25 minutes ago, saintstowin said:

I can't believe we're not focusing on the worst thing about all this and that's yet another example of wrongly adding the word 'gate' to signify a scandal. Watergate was the name of a complex of buildings, and importantly an entire and single word used to signify that particular scandal. And therefore what has followed over the years is a travesty. I can't believe Saints have been drawn into this. I never thought it would happen to us.

But feel free to call it spywatergate. 

Scandalous, I agree.

The whole sorry saga should be known as Watergategate.

[saintant]

Here's a question. If Saints first team officials wanted to spy on a Middlesborough's training session knowing they're breaking EFL rules would they select a very young, wet-behind-the-ears intern to do the job? Can anyone come up with a feasible answer of why they would? I can't.

[trousers]

27 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

"No longer works for us"

Since last Thursday afternoon or since sometime a couple of weeks ago?

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? 

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[trousers]

5 minutes ago, saintant said:

Here's a question. If Saints first team officials wanted to spy on a Middlesborough's training session knowing they're breaking EFL rules would they select a very young, wet-behind-the-ears intern to do the job? Can anyone come up with a feasible answer of why they would? I can'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?! 🙂

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, saintant said:

Here's a question. If Saints first team officials wanted to spy on a Middlesborough's training session knowing they're breaking EFL rules would they select a very young, wet-behind-the-ears intern to do the job? Can anyone come up with a feasible answer of why they would? I can't.

who says he is young and or wet behind the ears?

[trousers]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

who says he is young and or wet behind the ears?

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

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, trousers said:

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

No one is saying anything, but the suggest this is the fault os some upstart, who was desperate to impress someone drove up on a weekday, of their own back without any engagement with anyone linked to the club, is rather fanciful

[saintant]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

who says he is young and or wet behind the ears?

I'm basing this on the fact that we keep hearing the individual is an intern - aren't they usually young and wet-behind-the-ears or are there some experienced hard nosed interns floating about 🙂

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, saintant said:

I'm basing this on the fact that we keep hearing the individual is an intern - aren't they usually young and wet-behind-the-ears or are there some experienced hard nosed interns floating about 🙂

Have the club said this was an intern?

[SadButTrue]

This whole situation is really frustrating. Somehow, I just want a quick resolution so we can move on. If we deny any connection to the coaching staff, then who can actually prove otherwise? Surely they don’t have the authority to deeply investigate people’s private communications — or what kind of independent investigative powers do they even have in a case like this?

On the other hand, if we lose on Tuesday, any sanction would hit hard next season. We’ll have less money available than we did this season, and three clubs with huge financial resources will be coming down from the Premier League. Because of that, even losing a relatively small amount of money would matter a lot next season. A points deduction would be even worse.

We’ll still have to sell before we can buy, and if you remember who’s returning in goal next season, that makes this feel even more dreadful. It would be good to hear the decision tomorrow so that on Tuesday we could just enjoy the football.

[saintant]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Have the club said this was an intern?

Not that I know of but everyone, including you I'm guessing, is basing opinions and theories on what is being put out on the internet and I get that this is a dodgy thing to do. Guess we'll have to wait for more official info from the club.

[Cuddles]

1 minute ago, SadButTrue said:

 

We’ll still have to sell before we can buy, and if you remember who’s returning in goal next season, that makes this feel even more dreadful. It would be good to hear the decision tomorrow so that on Tuesday we could just enjoy the football.

Aaron Ramsdale?

[Gloucester Saint]

33 minutes ago, 23rdSaint said:

We just need to reclaim the narrative, embrace the villainy and go all in. Anyone wanna magic this up for Tuesday?

🎵 We’re in your hedge, in your head—-dge, in your hedge, in your hedge, in your hedge, hedge, hedge! 🎵 

Edited 2 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Dragon_man]

Can't see this being anything other a fine even if found bang to rights.

Spying doesn't materially affect the outcome of a game, like say bribing a ref or arranging for a floodlight failure if loosing or the blood gate one that was in Rugby a few years ago.

Anything seen on a training ground may not appear on a pitch and even armed with that information, it far from guarantees a win.

Edited 2 hours ago by Dragon_man

[saintant]

3 minutes ago, SadButTrue said:

 

This whole situation is really frustrating. Somehow, I just want a quick resolution so we can move on. If we deny any connection to the coaching staff, then who can actually prove otherwise? Surely they don’t have the authority to deeply investigate people’s private communications — or what kind of independent investigative powers do they even have in a case like this?

On the other hand, if we lose on Tuesday, any sanction would hit hard next season. We’ll have less money available than we did this season, and three clubs with huge financial resources will be coming down from the Premier League. Because of that, even losing a relatively small amount of money would matter a lot next season. A points deduction would be even worse.

We’ll still have to sell before we can buy, and if you remember who’s returning in goal next season, that makes this feel even more dreadful. It would be good to hear the decision tomorrow so that on Tuesday we could just enjoy the football.

If you're suggesting Baz is coming back surely that alone is more punishment than even the EFL could impose on us.