Saints Charged With Spying on Mboro Training

[obelisk]

I'd hate to be facing a jury of some on here. 😇

[benjii]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

LOL

we have been charged, and we are not disputing it

Why do you keep saying we aren't disputing it? We don't know that, do we?

[die Mannyschaft]

58 minutes ago, SadButTrue said:

Maybe we could suggest this as a punishment to the EFL, but with an added condition of a maximum of two matches, because that already costs six points.

Boro can have Bazunu in 2nd legg as compensation 

[Whitey Grandad]

7 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

good god, we have been charged and the club are not even disputing it 

You cannot dispute a charge. Being charged does not make anybody guilty. Any negotiations or debates are never going to be held in the full glare of publicity. 

[CB Fry]

1 minute ago, benjii said:

Why do you keep saying we aren't disputing it? We don't know that, do we?

Where have we disputed it?

[RedArmy]

Just now, benjii said:

 

But whether it was some freelancer on a frolic 

 

Why would anybody do that? 
 

Risk your career in football on the off chance Southampton might want the information you have gathered without instruction. 
 

Fanciful. 

[benjii]

Just now, CB Fry said:

Where have we disputed it?

We haven't done anything. We don't know what the position is.

[benjii]

Just now, RedArmy said:

Why would anybody do that? 
 

Risk your career in football on the off chance Southampton might want the information you have gathered without instruction. 
 

Fanciful. 

Isn't the best guess at the identity of the person that it's some guy who interned at Saints and is currently at student at Derby uni?

Not massively far-fetched for him to be interested in watching the session.

Or maybe Tonda told him to do it.

We don't know.

[Sarnia Cherie]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Isn’t it nice not being soft, inoffensive Southampton for once.

 

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Isn’t it nice not being soft, inoffensive Southampton for once.

Not really. After a great turnaround of what began as another poor season, this pathetic and childish act has taken some of the shine off it. What I can't fathom out is why anyone was worried enough about us meeting Middlesborough to go spying on their training session. They are hardly PSG. Our FA Cup run shows that soft, inoffensive Saints, as Turkish describes them, can put in a decent performance against the likes of Fulham, Arsenal and Man City. Of course others will delight in making a mountain out of a molehill and labelling our team as cheats. Wouldn't we do just the same?  The EFL must have enough proof against us and the club will have to accept whatever punishment comes our way for totally unnecessary behaviour.

[CB Fry]

4 minutes ago, benjii said:

We haven't done anything. We don't know what the position is.

Yes we have done something.

We've issued a statement -which could have said something along the lines of denial or claim innocence or anything. Like a million statements that have come before from football clubs and players and celebrities and businesses that have been accused of things they dispute.

Guess what we didn't do that.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by CB Fry

[die Mannyschaft]

41 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

Saints or Boro?

Are Saints coaches spying on Saints players just in case they have thier own game plan. 

[Whitey Grandad]

7 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

You don't think that in two entire days of investigation the club wouldn't have worked out that this kid was actually scouting for Birmingham City after all and Saints are in the clear? Or they have worked that out but decided not to tell the EFL or Solent or the Echo or anyone. Just sit on it while everyone thinks we're guilty..

How likely do you think these bullshit scenarios are?

Likely or not is irrelevant. "Everyone" can think what they like. It's only the EFL that matter. They will certainly have had 'discussions' with the EFL but Solent and the Echo can go whistle. There is nothing to be gained from leaking anything to anybody.

"this kid"

This person has not been identified, certainly not by Middlesbrough. A name has been suggested, nothing more. 

[Whitey Grandad]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

LOL

we have been charged, and we are not disputing it

You don't know that.

[Whitey Grandad]

11 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

No it doesn't "mean anything".

It means we know we cannot issue any denial because we know we've done something wrong.

Get over it.

 

Don't be so stupid. 

[Whitey Grandad]

7 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Where have we disputed it?

Not in public.

[bpsaint]

1 hour ago, Dragon_man said:

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.

I’m sorry but this is far too sensible of a post, and the bed wetting, mouth frothing, crying Boro fans would never accept this as a fair response.

 

[Whitey Grandad]

5 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Yes we have done something.

We've issued a statement -which could have said something along the lines of denial or claim innocence or anything. Like a million statements that have come before from football clubs and players and celebrities and businesses that have been accused of things they dispute.

Guess what we didn't do that.

 

We didn't need to. Are you really that naive?

[CB Fry]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

Don't be so stupid. 

Says the guy that thinks the spy was actually scouting players for Birmingham City after all, and that Saints know this but aren't briefing that to anyone, or issuing public statements of their intent to defend themselves against the accusations.

Stop being a fucking idiot.

[CB Fry]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

We didn't need to. Are you really that naive?

Let's see if your fairy stories come true.

Edited 5 hours ago by CB Fry

[Badger]

30 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I have no idea if this person was on a work placement or Spors himself. 

 

Reading this I had a picture of Spors in a roll neck sweater whilst under questioning ;

 

[Willo of Whiteley]

35 minutes ago, Maggie May said:

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

Do you?

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, CB Fry said:

Says the guy that thinks the spy was actually scouting players for Birmingham City after all, and that Saints know this but aren't briefing that to anyone, or issuing public statements of their intent to defend themselves against the accusations.

Stop being a fucking idiot.

Grow up and stop calling me names.

Learn to read words and what they mean before you write such rubbish. 

There is no way that Southampton FC will plead their case in public.

[EssEffCee]

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Likely or not is irrelevant. "Everyone" can think what they like. It's only the EFL that matter. They will certainly have had 'discussions' with the EFL but Solent and the Echo can go whistle. There is nothing to be gained from leaking anything to anybody.

"this kid"

This person has not been identified, certainly not by Middlesbrough. A name has been suggested, nothing more. 

Not been identified publicly.

You think the EFL issued a charge in about 24 hours after a report that had no evidence attached to it?

Boro just said 'we don't know who he is but we reckon it's Southampton" and that was enough?

Honestly can't believe anyone still thinks we've not done this. Proper mental gymnastics.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, EssEffCee said:

Not been identified publicly.

You think the EFL issued a charge in about 24 hours after a report that had no evidence attached to it?

Boro just said 'we don't know who he is but we reckon it's Southampton" and that was enough?

Honestly can't believe anyone still thinks we've not done this. Proper mental gymnastics.

See you in court.

[Matthew Le God]

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

The Telegraph article mentions Saints blaming it on a lone wolf analyst doing it without the club's knowledge. Some Boro and Saints fans have said that they are throwing him under the bus.

But... the club would likely sack him if he did do this all on his own. If it isn't true that he was acting on his own and he was removed from his role he'd likely have evidence the club was scapegoating him and they'd asked him to do it and he'd screw the club over for ruining his reputation in the football industry and losing his role.

So if they stick to the reason being a rogue analyst, they must be confident he won't out them as lying if that is what they are doing. Or they are telling the truth and it really was a lone wolf and what could they possibly have done to stop someone doing if he kept it a secret?

[CB Fry]

10 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Grow up and stop calling me names.

Learn to read words and what they mean before you write such rubbish. 

There is no way that Southampton FC will plead their case in public.

You wrote this.

33 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Or was after a job with another club who might have expressed an interest in one of Middlesbrough's players? It's not so far from Derby, or Birmingham, as it is from here.

 

It's not about "pleading a case in public" don't be such a div.

The statement they gave could have said that they deny or refute the charges.

Just like any public figure or business that are accused of something they deny. That's what happens if you think you are innocent or wrongly accused.

It happens everywhere in every high profile business/activity in sport or business or entertainment or anything. 

Guess what we haven't done it because we are not denying it and not refuting it. The chance to do that has come and gone.

But yeah, the kid is nothing to so with Saints at all and is scouting for Birmingham City after all.

Poirot has cracked the fucking case.

Edited 4 hours ago by CB Fry

[RedArmy]

10 minutes ago, benjii said:

Isn't the best guess at the identity of the person that it's some guy who interned at Saints and is currently at student at Derby uni?

His LinkedIn was pretty clear to me.
 

He was here on an internship for a year with the academy which seemed to go well and he was given a 3 month job with the u16’s over the summer. He went off to work with Villa on an internship for a year and then came back in the summer for an internship with the first team. 
 

Why would he risk what seems to be a promising career to do this off his own volition? 
 

 

 

[Stud mark of doom]

I’m not sure the “directly or indirectly observing within 72 hours of a match between the two” rule is written particularly well. 
 

Does it break the rule for a freelancer (or someone who used to work for them, or someone from a team they are not playing in the next 72 hours) to watch/record a training session? I think that’s a clear “no”

does it even break the rule for that person then to send info to the team who is playing them? Certainly if you catch them before they have sent anything on that seems highly debatable. 

l’m sure Man City’s lawyers would have a field day. 

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Stud mark of doom

[EssEffCee]

7 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

See you in court.

What? 😅

[Weston Super Saint]

25 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

LOL

we have been charged, and we are not disputing it

Haven't we got 14 days to respond?

 

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

His LinkedIn was pretty clear to me.
 

He was here on an internship for a year with the academy which seemed to go well and he was given a 3 month job with the u16’s over the summer. He went off to work with Villa on an internship for a year and then came back in the summer for an internship with the first team. 
 

Why would he risk what seems to be a promising career to do this off his own volition? 

The club would likely sack him if he did do this all on his own. If it isn't true that he was acting on his own and he was removed from his role he'd likely have evidence the club was scapegoating him and they'd asked him to do it and he'd screw the club over for ruining his reputation in the football industry and losing his role.

So if they stick to the reason being a rogue analyst, they must be confident he won't out them as lying if that is what they are doing. Or they are telling the truth and it really was a lone wolf and what could they possibly have done to stop someone doing if he kept it a secret?

[Badger]

27 minutes ago, die Mannyschaft said:

Boro can have Bazunu in 2nd legg as compensation 

And all of next season… 

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Haven't we got 14 days to respond?

 

I think the EFL have shifted for a more immediate response 

[benjii]

7 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

His LinkedIn was pretty clear to me.
 

He was here on an internship for a year with the academy which seemed to go well and he was given a 3 month job with the u16’s over the summer. He went off to work with Villa on an internship for a year and then came back in the summer for an internship with the first team. 
 

Why would he risk what seems to be a promising career to do this off his own volition? 
 

 

 

No idea, but he wouldn't be the first person to waste a career by doing something stupid.

[benjii]

By the way, if you want to have some fun online, you can tell any Boro fans saying we have cheated that they will get sued for defamation. 

Just a bit of fun, leek, me fishy on a dishy. 

[VectisSaint]

15 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

Not been identified publicly.

You think the EFL issued a charge in about 24 hours after a report that had no evidence attached to it?

Boro just said 'we don't know who he is but we reckon it's Southampton" and that was enough?

Honestly can't believe anyone still thinks we've not done this. Proper mental gymnastics.

Boro claimed to have identified him from the Saints official website.

Whether that is believable is of course open to debate

[Toadhall Saint]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

Have to wonder how far up the tree this was known. 
 

Although we can mock the hysterical crap coming from some Middlesbrough fans and local journalists, IF complaint is upheld and we’re found guilty of breaching the regulations it might have more serious consequences than we are expecting. 
 

The situation is different from Leeds in that rules were different and subsequently changed. There isn’t really a precedent to consider since Leeds. Heard about this on the radio yesterday:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/27/canada-womens-coach-bev-priestman-banned-from-football-for-a-year-after-spying-scandal

Whole episode seems unnecessary, and even If it is more commonplace than known, it seems to have been done in amateur fashion from some of the descriptions. (Which range from having a mobile device, to more advanced espionage kit that the KGB or Mossad would be proud of).  
 

Just win the fucking game on Tuesday Saints. 

 

 

How about the intern was asked to provide analysis- which he did previously. Why would I ask how said intern had gained that analysis? I trust him to do the job which he has. It now turns out that he was gaining the analysis by nefarious means. Tonda/club is/are clean.  

[CB Fry]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Haven't we got 14 days to respond?

 

Yes, let's make Tonda go through all the press conferences and the pre-match and post match interviews over and over again only to magically deny all of it in about two weeks time.

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I think the EFL have shifted for a more immediate response 

Even then we are unlikely to issue a response to them until the last minute. However, if the rules state 14 days, not sure their pushing for an immediate response will receive one.

In short, lots of questions with very few answers right now.

We haven't issued a denial (or confirmation) as yet, because we haven't reached a point where we formally have to respond. This isn't politics where you need to get out in front of something and shout louder than everyone else. At the moment the rules regarding the timescale work in our favour, why would we want to change that?!

[Badger]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

The club would likely sack him if he did do this all on his own. If it isn't true that he was acting on his own and he was removed from his role he'd likely have evidence the club was scapegoating him and they'd asked him to do it and he'd screw the club over for ruining his reputation in the football industry and losing his role.

So if they stick to the reason being a rogue analyst, they must be confident he won't out them as lying if that is what they are doing. Or they are telling the truth and it really was a lone wolf and what could they possibly have done to stop someone doing if he kept it a secret?

Just a thought but the process of investigating this for internal purposes, putting on notice etc, and procedures to satisfy employment law - even for an intern, or temporary employee- is probably more longwinded involving a suspension and review, than the EFL process for going through the motions. 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

Even then we are unlikely to issue a response to them until the last minute. However, if the rules state 14 days, not sure their pushing for an immediate response will receive one.

In short, lots of questions with very few answers right now.

We haven't issued a denial (or confirmation) as yet, because we haven't reached a point where we formally have to respond. This isn't politics where you need to get out in front of something and shout louder than everyone else. At the moment the rules regarding the timescale work in our favour, why would we want to change that?!

why on earth would we let a young manager be the face of all of these in a build up to a £200m game (if we get past Boro) if there is absolutely noting in it.

Makes no fucking sense.

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Yes, let's make Tonda go through all the press conferences and the pre-match and post match interviews over and over again only to magically deny all of it in about two weeks time.

He could just say he's not going to respond. Who is going to question his mad stare? They'd need to be brave!

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, benjii said:

No idea, but he wouldn't be the first person to waste a career by doing something stupid.

Yep, people cheat to get ahead in life and impress employers

[Badger]

8 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

How about the intern was asked to provide analysis- which he did previously. Why would I ask how said intern had gained that analysis? I trust him to do the job which he has. It now turns out that he was gaining the analysis by nefarious means. Tonda/club is/are clean.  

Perhaps the argument will be the club are still expected to ensure employees operate within the regulations. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Badger

[Miltonaggro]

The idiotic speculation by the media and Middlesbrough officials bandying around terms like ‘guilt’ have helped Saints immeasurably both in terms of the hearing and, in particular, any resultant legal action. Not the sharpest tools in the box. Meanwhile SFC seem to have played this exactly right thus far, respecting due process. We will likely be fined, depending on strength of connection to the mystery man. For once, with Saints, I believe we should trust the process.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

why on earth would we let a young manager be the face of all of these in a build up to a £200m game (if we get past Boro) if there is absolutely noting in it.

Makes no fucking sense.

There may be everything in it, we may be banged to rights. Still no point coming out and saying that though until you've examined every possible loophole!

Do you see Man City's lawyers coming clean despite the evidence everyone can see?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

There may be everything in it, we may be banged to rights. Still no point coming out and saying that though until you've examined every possible loophole!

Do you see Man City's lawyers coming clean despite the evidence everyone can see?

This is what I think is happening. "working with the EFL" to minimise our exposure. 

[Toadhall Saint]

Just now, Badger said:

Perhaps the argument will be the club are still be expected to ensure employees operate within the regulations. 

I get that but I’m not going to ask how the info we derived every time I get some analysis provided.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, Badger said:

Just a thought but the process of investigating this for internal purposes, putting on notice etc, and procedures to satisfy employment law - even for an intern, or temporary employee- is probably more longwinded involving a suspension and review, than the EFL process for going through the motions. 

Not if they've got less than two years service - which if the LinkedIn profile is to be believed then they don't.

No protection from unfair dismissal (at the moment) with less than two years service.

Could get rid of them tomorrow, pay a month's notice and move on...

[Badger]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Not if they've got less than two years service - which if the LinkedIn profile is to be believed then they don't.

No protection from unfair dismissal (at the moment) with less than two years service.

Could get rid of them tomorrow, pay a month's notice and move on...

Okay, bow to your knowledge.