Saints Expelled from Playoffs

[James]

19 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

They aren't a jury and they don't have connections. We haven't demanded they get replaced because this is very clearly just a bunch of whining nonsense. There's nothing to see here; a footballer who played one game for Boro in 1994 and a lawyer who was once paid to represent them in a completely irrelevant case eight years ago. Lawyers don't have tribal loyalty to people they've represented in court. They don't have half and half scarves at home with Ian Huntley on one side and Harrold Shipman on the other.

Our defence, "not picking up on it," is all in your head. We haven't complained because there's nothing to complain about.

Don’t agree with that at all. Lawyers might not have tribal loyalty but they do have conflicts of interest. In a commercial dispute, neither party would ever agree for one of the arbitrators (as an example) to be someone that had previously represented one of the parties. I don’t know all the facts here but, if one of the independent panelists had previously represented Middlesbrough, that would be a bit odd. There are thousands of qualified sports lawyers out there that would have zero connection to any interested party.

[Fabrice29]

1 minute ago, James said:

Don’t agree with that at all. Lawyers might not have tribal loyalty but they do have conflicts of interest. In a commercial dispute, neither party would ever agree for one of the arbitrators (as an example) to be someone that had previously represented one of the parties. I don’t know all the facts here but, if one of the independent panelists had previously represented Middlesbrough, that would be a bit odd. There are thousands of qualified sports lawyers out there that would have zero connection to any interested party.

They found one of our analysts behind a tree mate. That’s all the deep dive you need. 

[Mboto Gorge]

Just now, Fabrice29 said:

Go to bed mate. It’s time to give up on this weird conspiratorial tirade now. This is not on you to figure out/defend. 🤣

Sorry daddy, I was about to crack the case but you’ve just sent me to bed. See you in the morning 

[James]

1 minute ago, Fabrice29 said:

They found one of our analysts behind a tree mate. That’s all the deep dive you need. 

What relevance has that got to whether or not one of the individuals tasked with deciding the punishment has a conflict of interest?

I’m not saying that’s the case here, I’m just saying that in a commercial context it would be highly unusual for an arbitrator to have a prior client relationship with one of the interested parties.

[Ralph Fastenbüttl]

Think I'm going to check out of this thread (even though this whole saga is all I can think about). I understand that folks need to cope, but this whole conspiracy whirlwind that's somehow engulfed this thread is unhealthy and, frankly, beneath us.

Why aren't the club getting out and vocally 'calling out' Boro's actions? Because make believe stories about back rooms coverups would amazingly make us look even worse than we currently do.

Read the report. We cheated. Systemically. On Tonda's direction. We can argue about the severity of the punishment, sure, but the idea that any force other our own stupidity is the cause of this is farcical. All we can do now is concentrate of fixing our own mess and the long, painful road to recovering from it.

[Osvaldorama]

3 minutes ago, Ralph Fastenbüttl said:

Think I'm going to check out of this thread (even though this whole saga is all I can think about). I understand that folks need to cope, but this whole conspiracy whirlwind that's somehow engulfed this thread is unhealthy and, frankly, beneath us.

Why aren't the club getting out and vocally 'calling out' Boro's actions? Because make believe stories about back rooms coverups would amazingly make us look even worse than we currently do.

Read the report. We cheated. Systemically. On Tonda's direction. We can argue about the severity of the punishment, sure, but the idea that any force other our own stupidity is the cause of this is farcical. All we can do now is concentrate of fixing our own mess and the long, painful road to recovering from it.

It can both be true that we cheated, but that Boro set it up and played us like a fiddle.  
 

No one is excusing what the club has been doing. But Boro used it to their advantage. Which isn’t acting in good faith either. 

[Fabrice29]

19 minutes ago, James said:

What relevance has that got to whether or not one of the individuals tasked with deciding the punishment has a conflict of interest?

I’m not saying that’s the case here, I’m just saying that in a commercial context it would be highly unusual for an arbitrator to have a prior client relationship with one of the interested parties.

Being kicked out of a knock out competition because you were caught trying to cheat is not the massively out of ordinary event that deems this level of deep dive. It happens in lots of sports, including this one, at lots of different levels. I can see why some people think it’s a bit much but it’s not some deep rooted conspiracy that’s on members of this forum to uncover via the back catalog of lawyers previous work. 

[Legoman]

Maybe Tonda gets sacked, but in doing so he exposes the use of interns and confirms it is rife and isn’t just him? And as suggested in another post “it’s an unspoken rite of passage for them”  if it is true, it could open a whole can of worms?

 

*found it odd we’d put forward a suggestion to help with such things?

Edited 9 hours ago by Legoman

[6ft8saint]

Why is david prutton representing us on panel shows. He was negative about us in the last play off final and isn't representing southampton on the sports agents surely we could have found someone better. What a knob

[Vancouver Saint]

18 hours ago, coalman said:

I'll say this. The redemption arc of this story is going to need to something else.

Brilliant. It's discovered the Independent commission took a bung from Gibson/Middlesborough to screw Saints. Will Salt a double agent working for Boro. Eckert forced to confess or his kidnapped mother in Germany gets it in the neck. 
Boro win the playoff final but the EFL and FA disqualify them..quadruple relegation plus their ground is confiscated...made to play on their training pitch at Rocklife Park with all surrounding greenery cut down and observation posts for free access on every corner.
Hull disqualified for...well, being Hull - Saints promoted to the Premier league with a 30 point headstart (to ensure we don't get relegated based on the 12 points we'll get if we're lucky).
 

[MB]

Heard he has gone

[John Boy Saint]

20 minutes ago, MB said:

Heard he has gone

Home?

[Saint86]

Surely heads start rolling soon..

 

[Saint Fan CaM]

@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?

[Sunnyside Saint]

I wonder if any of our players will end up playing for Middlesborough in the premier league should they gain promotion?

[Cumbria Saint]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

@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?

Entrapment or not. Basically we shouldn't have been there and Middlesborough played a blinder with the information they had.

[Saint Keef]

I haven't read every post in the preceding 217 pages, although it damn well feels like it! I don't know if this angle has already been raised, and if so, my apologies.

Referring to the FA Cup run. Did we spy on Leicester? Did we spy on Fulham? Did we spy on Arsenal? Did we spy on Manchester City. My guess is, we did not, because, again I'm guessing, each of those clubs probably have a more secure training facility than Middlesbrough's two foot high wire fence and a tree. (And in any case, I'm guessing the FA Cup has different "spying" rules than the EFL).

Yet we beat Leicester (with basically our second team), we beat Fulham on their patch, we beat the Premier League Champions and Champions League finalists, Arsenal (a night that will never be taken away from me), and we took the mighty serial winners, Manchester City to within 8 minutes of an FA Cup Final (another day that will live long in my memory).

Which brings me to my question. If we could perform to such a high standard against that lot, most probably without spying on them, WHY THE FUCK DID WE NEED TO SPY ON THE LIKES OF OXFORD, IPSWICH AND ABOVE ALL, BLOODY MIDDLESBROUGH? AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!    

[benjii]

7 hours ago, TheAlehouseBrawlers said:

And not sure if this is correct either (or already mentioned) but just read this from a poster on the UI

"Lydia Banerjee is a sports and employment law barrister at Littleton Chambers in London. Her direct links to Middlesbrough stem from her professional legal practice, where she has advised and represented Middlesbrough F.C. in various sports-related and regulatory matters"

His Honour Philip Sycamore, Lydia Banerjee and David Winnie were the independent and impartial panel.

Wibble. Please ignore.

Edited 3 hours ago by benjii
Intervening information.

[Saint_clark]

Having read the report, kicking us out was the right decision. I can't believe Tonda wasn't sacked immediately upon admitting he was responsible. 

The only thing that sounded dodgy from the report was the fact they said that the circumstances of the Leeds case were different enough that they didn't warrant being considered in relation to our punishment...but then considered an example from the world of motorsport. Righto. 

 

Also, this bloke who played for Boro, even if only for one game, shouldn't have been on the panel. Do we really think that if a former Saints player had been on the panel and we'd been allowed to play in the final that Gibson would have let that go? Absolutely not. 

[AlexLaw76]

Let’s be honest the club are probably keeping their powder dry now as we have got away with it points deduction wise.

if could turn into many more removed if that can of worms is open and investigated across the league as we have been doing where we can in 2026 no doubt.

people here are still in the denial phase, blaming Boro for a set up. Get over it, we cheated them and others which we have been caught out.

Edited 2 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[woksaintly]

Now we know that Exhhart initiated Spygate I am surprised this was not spotted by the senior management in the club earlier. If analysts were sent on spying missions then surely they would have to submit expenses. Most companies insist on approval and then payment. If they used their own cars to travel the country aa mileage report would also have to be submitted.

[egg]

I caught up with the last 6 pages of the thread or so late last night. Its really odd reading. The narrative, now, seems to be that Boro set us up and were stitched up by a dodgy panel.

FFS folks, stop this nonsense. We cheated, we knew we cheated, we got caught out, Parsons threw us under a bus, we lied, we tried to insult people's intelligence, etc, etc.

That went about as well as you'd expect it to go, and we find ourselves where we do, and set back god knows how many years. 

This ain't on Boro or the EFL. You reap what you sew, and we've sewn a massive dirty bomb under our club and it's gone off. It's no more sinister or complicated than that. 

[capitalsaint]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

I caught up with the last 6 pages of the thread or so late last night. Its really odd reading. The narrative, now, seems to be that Boro set us up and were stitched up by a dodgy panel.

FFS folks, stop this nonsense. We cheated, we knew we cheated, we got caught out, Parsons threw us under a bus, we lied, we tried to insult people's intelligence, etc, etc.

That went about as well as you'd expect it to go, and we find ourselves where we do, and set back god knows how many years. 

This ain't on Boro or the EFL. You reap what you sew, and we've sewn a massive dirty bomb under our club and it's gone off. It's no more sinister or complicated than that. 

Our lies came apart at the seams?

[scumbag]

I think its perfectly possible to do the self loathing and sack everyone stuff alongside asking questions about how events unfolded both on the day and after.

Edited 2 hours ago by scumbag

[egg]

6 minutes ago, capitalsaint said:

Our lies came apart at the seams?

Ha!! Darn them pesky seams. 

[benjii]

43 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Having read the report, kicking us out was the right decision. I can't believe Tonda wasn't sacked immediately upon admitting he was responsible. 

The only thing that sounded dodgy from the report was the fact they said that the circumstances of the Leeds case were different enough that they didn't warrant being considered in relation to our punishment...but then considered an example from the world of motorsport. Righto. 

 

Also, this bloke who played for Boro, even if only for one game, shouldn't have been on the panel. Do we really think that if a former Saints player had been on the panel and we'd been allowed to play in the final that Gibson would have let that go? Absolutely not. 

Agreed.

I'm cool with the expulsion, but I'm absolutely not cool with:

i) the way we conducted the process

ii) the reinstatement of Boro, which absolutely stinks

iii) Boro having not been charged with failure to act in utmost good faith, when it is clear that they haven't 

Edited 1 hour ago by benjii

[westmidlandsaint]

44 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Having read the report, kicking us out was the right decision. I can't believe Tonda wasn't sacked immediately upon admitting he was responsible. 

The only thing that sounded dodgy from the report was the fact they said that the circumstances of the Leeds case were different enough that they didn't warrant being considered in relation to our punishment...but then considered an example from the world of motorsport. Righto. 

 

Also, this bloke who played for Boro, even if only for one game, shouldn't have been on the panel. Do we really think that if a former Saints player had been on the panel and we'd been allowed to play in the final that Gibson would have let that go? Absolutely not. 

Leeds was a different case but then the commission used World Motorsport sanctions v McLaren Mercedes F1 team back in 2007 as an example!

[Sunglasses Ron]

27 minutes ago, egg said:

I caught up with the last 6 pages of the thread or so late last night. Its really odd reading. The narrative, now, seems to be that Boro set us up and were stitched up by a dodgy panel.

FFS folks, stop this nonsense. We cheated, we knew we cheated, we got caught out, Parsons threw us under a bus, we lied, we tried to insult people's intelligence, etc, etc.

That went about as well as you'd expect it to go, and we find ourselves where we do, and set back god knows how many years. 

This ain't on Boro or the EFL. You reap what you sow, and we've sewn a massive dirty bomb under our club and it's gone off. It's no more sinister or complicated than that. 

Yup, this basically, we are banged to rights and it’s absolutely shocking how things have unraveled.

A key thing about leadership is that you are ACCOUNTABLE for the actions of those beneath you. Not only must you ensure they are sufficiently knowledgeable about everything they need to know (i.e. the rules), you have to follow this up by being actively inquisitive about how things are being done (I wonder how many times Parsons spoke to Salt and asked him how he was and what he was doing this week etc?).

This whole thing is a shameful farce and a terrible reflection on what many of us already knew, that those running this club are grossly incompetent.

This is why they all need to fuck off, from top to bottom, as this mess permeated right through the hierarchy.

 

[Dr Who?]

I still cannot believe we went into the hearing and from what I have read, that is what we had. Our defence as ever was pretty poor. We have also 100% lied, 3 clubs yeah right. We were doing it every game home and away. 

I have been saying for about 2 months now that I still not sure how we got here fro how poor we were at the start of January. Now I know, we cheated. It just did not add up for me. If something is to good to be true…

Edited 1 hour ago by Dr Who?

[egg]

52 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Having read the report, kicking us out was the right decision. I can't believe Tonda wasn't sacked immediately upon admitting he was responsible. 

The only thing that sounded dodgy from the report was the fact they said that the circumstances of the Leeds case were different enough that they didn't warrant being considered in relation to our punishment...but then considered an example from the world of motorsport. Righto. 

 

Also, this bloke who played for Boro, even if only for one game, shouldn't have been on the panel. Do we really think that if a former Saints player had been on the panel and we'd been allowed to play in the final that Gibson would have let that go? Absolutely not. 

Boro were not a party to the proceedings, it was an us/EFL fight. Boro had made an allegation which we admitted, and had admitted via Parsons to Gibson. The issue was therefore our penalty, nothing more.

Regardless, someone vaguely associated with Boro in the past being on the panel would not in itself be an issue. Similar happens all the time in law 

Many judges would have worked for the CPS, and it's perfectly standard that they decide cases bought by the CPS. Lots of local judges were lawyers for firms or in local chambers local to where they sit, and day in day out they'll decide cases involving their previous firms, chambers, colleagues, mates, people they hate, people they've trained, etc. Part time Judges are practicing lawyers and will hear cases presented by firms who instruct them and/or mates from their own chambers, etc. 

These links are normal, but if the link is too strong, a judge (or panel member) who feels they have a relevant interest, will recuse themselves from the hearing.

I get that it looks whiffy, but it's the way it is, and there's nothing wrong with the bloke who'd once kicked a ball for Boro appearing on the panel. 

 

[AlexLaw76]

As for those who feel there is something dodgy, I am sure Alfie House and Adam Blackmore will be all over this, shouting about it and contacting their people in the national media, getting the narrative out there as you can 100% guarantee the Boro journos would have.

(it's all bollox BTW and we are guilty as shit, and will do well just to take our medicine and move on before more points are taken away)

[Osvaldorama]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

Boro were not a party to the proceedings, it was an us/EFL fight. Boro had made an allegation which we admitted, and had admitted via Parsons to Gibson. The issue was therefore our penalty, nothing more.

Regardless, someone vaguely associated with Boro in the past being on the panel would not in itself be an issue. Similar happens all the time in law 

Many judges would have worked for the CPS, and it's perfectly standard that they decide cases bought by the CPS. Lots of local judges were lawyers for firms or in local chambers local to where they sit, and day in day out they'll decide cases involving their previous firms, chambers, colleagues, mates, people they hate, people they've trained, etc. Part time Judges are practicing lawyers and will hear cases presented by firms who instruct them and/or mates from their own chambers, etc. 

These links are normal, but if the link is too strong, a judge (or panel member) who feels they have a relevant interest, will recuse themselves from the hearing.

I get that it looks whiffy, but it's the way it is, and there's nothing wrong with the bloke who'd once kicked a ball for Boro appearing on the panel. 

 

There absolutely is something wrong with it. 
 

If it were an ex Saints player in there instead, the outcome could be different. Don’t know why you’re minimising that?

 

it doesn’t excuse what we did. But it is also wrong.

[Turkish]

8 hours ago, Crab Lungs said:

Once again, it all starts adding up…

 

Thank you, I’ll add that to the list!

According to the reports the security staff approached Salt but he ran away, he ran into a toilet in the golf club, changed his clothes and then fled the scene 

1 - why didn’t the security staff follow him into the building and catch him in the toilet? They must have seen him run in there as they knew he did 

2 - there is no sign of a bag or anything that would he carry a change of clothing in the photo of Salt

3 - he must have been superman to change his clothes so quickly, like when Clark Kent runs into a telephone box and comes out as superman, to do it quickly enough evade the security team that had supposedly only seconds ago approached him and he ran off

 

hmmmmmm…..

[CB Fry]

1 minute ago, Dr Who? said:

I still cannot believe we went into the hearing and from what I have read, that is what we had. Our defence as ever was pretty poor. We have also 100% lied, 3 clubs yeah right. We were doing it every game home and away. 

I have been saying for about 2 months now that I still not sure how we got here fro how poor we were at the start of January. Now I know, we cheated. It just did not add up for me. If something is to good to be true…

I think our defence was poor because we done the things.

I would not say that our fantastic form is really much to do with the spying. We didn't smash Wrexham and Cov and Arsenal and go on that run because of spying.

More than one thing can be true at the same time.

[Football Special]

1 minute ago, Osvaldorama said:

There absolutely is something wrong with it. 
 

If it were an ex Saints player in there instead, the outcome could be different. Don’t know why you’re minimising that?

 

it doesn’t excuse what we did. But it is also wrong.

Seems odd that a handful of posters on here are so blinkered they just want to dismiss anything as "we were guilty so nothing else matters" 

Clearly the context is important. 

Role of the "whistleblower" for me is key to allowing Middlesbrough to hatch the plot and use it to their benefit. 

Links to EFL board. 

EFL have followed Middlesbrough instructions whole way through, clear to see. 

Fair to ask questions of independent panel. 

"New rule" with no defined punishment . Leeds admitted to same actions as Saints, punishment should have acted as a precedent to be considered, 200k fine to Saints punishment clearly disproportionate 

[offsidetrap]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

 

I get that it looks whiffy, but it's the way it is, and there's nothing wrong with the bloke who'd once kicked a ball for Boro appearing on the panel. 

 

It’s an Elvis is alive level coincidence though. Maybe an Oxford Blue or rowed for Eton but it’s probably more likely to find a physics professor who’s been on top of the pops that a lawyer who played for an ex prem side on a panel involving a case involving said ex prem side 

[Hopper]

What are we doing here? Tonda pressured interns to systemically spy on our opposition.

Say what you want about the spying or the tactical advantage gained. The fact is we cheated multiple times and Tonda has probably played a big part in ruining the career of a young man.

Those are the facts, the punishment is the punishment. We've appealed and lost. We can’t go to the court of arbitration in sport so the matter is done.

Tonda and anyone involved needs to go, we can’t rebuild our reputation with them in post.

anything else is just copium.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Hopper

[Leighsterrr]

By publicly announcing that we'll be part of a working group to deal with this being more widespread...isn't that the same as warning everyone who is cheating to delete any evidence they have and stop doing it?

So when they start investigating other clubs...oh, this isn't as widespread as we thought, its just us that did it

 

But why form a working party if its not rife anyway?

 

[Leighsterrr]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

According to the reports the security staff approached Salt but he ran away, he ran into a toilet in the golf club, changed 3 - he must have been superman to change his clothes so quickly, like when Clark Kent runs into a telephone box and comes out as superman, to do it quickly enough evade the security team that had supposedly only seconds ago approached him and he ran off

 

hmmmmmm…..

I bet he'd have changed in a telephone box if he could have found one sooner 🙄

[Willo of Whiteley]

I actually don’t give a toss about the outcome. It’s happened, it’s done.

Working with people who suffer with mental health who can’t cope with certain pressures in life - I hope Will Salt is being looked after.

I also hope he puts in a formal grievance for the way this has been handled by the club and national media.

Some would’ve “called it a day” as soon as they’re in the national press. 

I don’t think anyone involved has thought about that.

[egg]

25 minutes ago, westmidlandsaint said:

Leeds was a different case but then the commission used World Motorsport sanctions v McLaren Mercedes F1 team back in 2007 as an example!

Both cases were partly distinguishable from ours. 

The Leeds case wasn't a breach of a 72 hour rule, and wasn't in the play offs. Where I see it's relevance is re next season's points as that penalty related to league game breaches. The panel could reasonably have distinguished Leeds re the Boro game, but points for the other 2 was ott and I'm surprised that wasn't reduced to a Leeds ish fine on appeal. 

That said, the F1 is distinguishable too. That's similar in that it involved attempts to illegally get information to give an unfair sporting advantage, and that the information was used internally for that purpose. BUT in the F1 case, the team were found with 780 pages of Ferrari technical data. 780 pages. That's a world away from the information we had or sought to get...but, the magnitude of the Boro game is massive, so the point would be that even a small amount of data which could give a sporting advantage in that one game, could be significant. 

The main issue for the panel was balancing a proportionate penalty with a meaningful one. A fine ain't a sporting penalty, and wouldn't touch the sides with promotion money anyway. Points in a league that we might not have been involved an for years to come isn't a sporting penalty either. What other sporting penalty did that leave? 

[egg]

14 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

There absolutely is something wrong with it. 
 

If it were an ex Saints player in there instead, the outcome could be different. Don’t know why you’re minimising that?

 

it doesn’t excuse what we did. But it is also wrong.

It depends on the link, but Saints were a party, Boro weren't. 

[coalman]

After catching up on the thread a few thoughts

- We were guilty of the charges. There is no world in which the EFL has a change of heart. We have to deal with the consequences including the likely gutting of our coaching setup and first team squad. It sucks. That's life.

- This kind of practice is widespread but that's no excuse for doing it or being so inept at doing it.

- An independent panel means none of the people on the panel have connections to either club. If the EFL didn't manage this then the panel cannot considered to be independent which isn't due or fair process. Not that it matters because we were guilty but is indicative of the EFL's poor handling of the case.

On the independence of the panel, this isn't relevant to Saints as our ship has sailed so to speak. But, it will be very relevant if Hull lose the final and decide to sue the EFL against the decision to give Karen FC a bye to the final. Lawyers have to abide by very strict conflict of interest rules - including avoiding the appearance that there may have been conflict of interest. A law firm will turn down business if they've had any previous business with the other party in a case for this reason. The fact that this didn't appear to happen is something that will be picked up upon by Hull's lawyers.

[James]

Just now, egg said:

It depends on the link, but Saints were a party, Boro weren't. 

Not technically but they were a direct beneficiary of the punishment imposed. 

[Mk1J]

4 hours ago, Sunnyside Saint said:

I wonder if any of our players will end up playing for Middlesborough in the premier league should they gain promotion?

Hopefully Baz

[Dan Johnson]

Full statement here if anyone is looking for it

https://www.efl.com/news/2026/may/21/efl-statement--written-reasons-relating-to-southampton-fc/

There's a link on that page that brings you to a pdf

https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/0a0e87d0-5538-11f1-ab88-f930a57d19ce.pdf

 

[Turkish]

12 minutes ago, Hopper said:

What are we doing here? Tonda pressured interns to systemically spy on our opposition.

Say what you want about the spying or the tactical advantage gained. The fact is we cheated multiple times and Tonda has probably played a big part in ruining the career of a young man.

Those are the facts, the punishment is the punishment. We've appealed and lost. We can’t go to the court of arbitration in sport so the matter is done.

Tonda and anyone involved needs to go, we can’t rebuild our reputation with them in post.

anything else is just copium.

 

Agree with you Tonda has turned out to be a cheat and a bully BUT there does seem to have been a case where the whole thing at Rockcliffe Hall was a set up. The more you think about it and the more info that has come out points to it. 

[Hussar Saint]

With any luck Spurs will get relegated on Sunday and I’ll be able to turn the TV on without seeing some reference to this total fucking shit show!

[Hopper]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Agree with you Tonda has turned out to be a cheat and a bully BUT there does seem to have been a case where the whole thing at Rockcliffe Hall was a set up. The more you think about it and the more info that has come out points to it. 

Even if that were the case it doesn’t change anything.

The narrative would just be that they had suspicions and laid a trap to catch us red handed. We’re still the guilty party.

I'm not sure if people are trying to just balance the wrong doing in their own minds to feel better or what.

Tonda fucked it. We pay the price. Get the man gone, can’t believe we’ve not sacked him yet.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Agree with you Tonda has turned out to be a cheat and a bully BUT there does seem to have been a case where the whole thing at Rockcliffe Hall was a set up. The more you think about it and the more info that has come out points to it. 

If I understand the trapgate theory, people are saying that one Boro lad helped Salt do what he shouldn't have done, and were waiting for him. Is that that it?