#Spygate

[Midfield_General]

12 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

No such thing as "bad" publicity.

[CanadaSaint]

All the focus thus far has been on Boro’s perspective and Saints’ perspective, but the only important perspective right now is the EFL’s.

They have to consider conduct that, of itself, is LEGAL (and practiced by many clubs) – unless it takes place outside a time window. That’s arguably the biggest conundrum they face – all the more so if, as I understand things, what’s illegal in the EFL is not illegal in the PL.

So, what are they looking to achieve? They need to find a punishment that:

Is proportional: As I posted earlier, the conduct cannot go from “legal” to “a capital offence” just with the tick of a clock. Removing a team from a competition, suspending a coach, or implementing a points deduction (especially one that would carry into the PL) would be excessive punishment, given the “legal, unless” nature of the conduct.

Is legally upholdable: It must be reasonable enough to survive a court challenge - especially one that could take months or even years to resolve.

Does not create major logistical issues: They must avoid any penalty that creates uncertainty about who plays at Wembley, and – potentially – which team plays in the PL next season; that would be a nightmare scenario.

Serves as an enforceable precedent for the future: They need to clarify what happens to clubs that breach this regulation, just in case they need to address this again – whether it impacts a playoff final or a regular season match.

The reality is that the EFL’s “path of least resistance” is a substantial fine and nothing more. That certainly won’t satisfy Boro, and they will carry on fuelling the media frenzy. But, even if we were guilty of the offence, the reality is that Boro created their own vulnerability by not taking adequate measures to protect privacy at their training facility, as most clubs have.
 

[James]

1 minute ago, die Mannyschaft said:

Don't forget football is corrupt loads of people on boards, connections, clubs FA, EFL Prem, VAR listen to and like, have connections.

To me this has been decided and arranged just before 1st leg or evening of 1st leg. Its no coincidence that the Boro team selection had players not able to keep playing during added time, the defending of the 2nd goal to me didn't have enough effort. A U12 team can defend a slow long cross much better.

 

Sorry, are you saying you think Boro let us win on Tuesday because they knew we’d be expelled anyway? If so, don’t think you watched the same game that I did…

[die Mannyschaft]

1 minute ago, Leighsterrr said:

At the point of thinking fuck it and not bothering. Three weeks ago, 3 of us did 2 nights for £650 incl non refundable accommodation, train tickets, ferry fares and semi final tickets, that was with 2 weeks spare to book it

 

This time its gonna be higher either getting refundable everything or waiting til we're guaranteed to be there and booking closer to the time

 

I can't believe they'd make this much fuss over what we're led to believe happened...would they??

You won't get a refund. I booked hotel to watch CRASS in Brighton and car broke down always and got towed home. Both the hotel and ticket insurance said I should havd got the train to Brighton after getting home at 5pm. But no train back that day why I got hotel and drive back.

[Lard]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Millwall lost. They don’t get a second bite of the cherry or it makes a joke of the competition. It would also be a joke to throw us out for what is not a major crime.

WE may not see it as a ‘major crime’ but there will be some that does,primarily because they will be privy to the evidence.
And WE aren’t. 

An example will be deemed necessary and you know the governing bodies are hardly consistent. 

[saintant]

6 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

I think we need to work on who at SFC was aware of this lad going to boros ground as they all will need sacking. 

 

Albert Jones, Ben Garner, Tonda Eckert,  Johannes Spors 

 

 

 

 

Clearly the club stance will be that none of them knew - that is about the limit of our defence from what I can see. 

[Toadhall Saint]

8 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

I think we need to work on who at SFC was aware of this lad going to boros ground as they all will need sacking. 

 

Albert Jones, Ben Garner, Tonda Eckert,  Johannes Spors 

 

 

 

 

You are fucking weird 

[Saint_clark]

1 minute ago, CanadaSaint said:

All the focus thus far has been on Boro’s perspective and Saints’ perspective, but the only important perspective right now is the EFL’s.

They have to consider conduct that, of itself, is LEGAL (and practiced by many clubs) – unless it takes place outside a time window. That’s arguably the biggest conundrum they face – all the more so if, as I understand things, what’s illegal in the EFL is not illegal in the PL.

So, what are they looking to achieve? They need to find a punishment that:

Is proportional: As I posted earlier, the conduct cannot go from “legal” to “a capital offence” just with the tick of a clock. Removing a team from a competition, suspending a coach, or implementing a points deduction (especially one that would carry into the PL) would be excessive punishment, given the “legal, unless” nature of the conduct.

Is legally upholdable: It must be reasonable enough to survive a court challenge - especially one that could take months or even years to resolve.

Does not create major logistical issues: They must avoid any penalty that creates uncertainty about who plays at Wembley, and – potentially – which team plays in the PL next season; that would be a nightmare scenario.

Serves as an enforceable precedent for the future: They need to clarify what happens to clubs that breach this regulation, just in case they need to address this again – whether it impacts a playoff final or a regular season match.

The reality is that the EFL’s “path of least resistance” is a substantial fine and nothing more. That certainly won’t satisfy Boro, and they will carry on fuelling the media frenzy. But, even if we were guilty of the offence, the reality is that Boro created their own vulnerability by not taking adequate measures to protect privacy at their training facility, as most clubs have.
 

A suspended points deduction is clearly the middle ground and perfectly reasonable. Sets a precedent that if it happens during the regular season in the future the points are deducted there and then, and if it happens during the playoffs again it is suspended till the teams next season in the championship.

Kicking us out of the playoffs is not only a gross overreaction that we should take legal action over, but also creates a problem in terms of precedent - what happens if a team does it mid season? Do they get automatically relegated? Banned from promotion? That's essentially what they're doing to us, banning us from promotion regardless of the on field results.

[sadoldgit]

15 minutes ago, Dman said:

what sort of legal battles would that open? Millwall would have a case as the 3rd best side this season. 

Hull have already knocked Millwall out of the competition. How do they get to play again in the final? That is insane.

[madge]

So 5 things.. 1, if you buy a ticket for the 23rd but the game is moved to a date you can’t attend I presume you’d get a full refund?

2, a whistleblower? That won’t stay hidden and whoever it is, their name will come out… I wouldn’t want to be them.

3. Those complicit in the organisation of a spying mission all need to be fired and banned from football.

4. If chucked out, are fans reimbursed for the semi final, season tickets and away tickets. Because honestly what was the point of the season?

5, Gibson appears to be a complete cumpt!!

Edited 2 hours ago by madge

[Saint_clark]

1 minute ago, die Mannyschaft said:

You won't get a refund. I booked hotel to watch CRASS in Brighton and car broke down always and got towed home. Both the hotel and ticket insurance said I should havd got the train to Brighton after getting home at 5pm. But no train back that day why I got hotel and drive back.

Most places you can pay a higher deposit to be able to get a refund, although you won't get the deposit back obviously.

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

4 minutes ago, Pamplemousse said:

This document is the written decision of an independent English Football League disciplinary commission regarding Swindon Town F.C. being punished in the 2025–26 EFL Trophy.

What happened

Swindon admitted two rule breaches during their Round of 16 match against Luton Town F.C. on 13 January 2026:

• They brought on Aaron Drinan as a substitute even though he was not named on the official teamsheet.
• They fielded Oliver Clarke despite him serving a suspension and therefore being ineligible to play.

Initially, Swindon disputed the second charge because they believed the suspension did not apply to the EFL Trophy, partly due to information shown on the FA’s online portal. However, after a separate FA ruling confirmed Clarke was ineligible, the club admitted both breaches.

Swindon’s argument

The club argued:

• The mistakes were administrative rather than deliberate.
• They acted in good faith regarding Clarke’s suspension.
• A financial fine would be a proportionate punishment.

EFL’s argument

The EFL argued:

• The integrity and fairness of the competition had been compromised.
• Swindon gained an unfair sporting advantage by using two players who should not have participated.
• Expulsion from the competition was the only suitable sanction.

Decision and punishment

The commission unanimously decided:

• Swindon would be expelled from the 2025–26 EFL Trophy.
• The club would receive a £40,000 fine, with £20,000 suspended unless they repeat a similar offence before the end of the 2026–27 season.

Why the commission took such a strong stance

The ruling repeatedly emphasises:

• Protecting public confidence in the fairness of the competition.
• The seriousness of fielding two ineligible players in a knockout match.
• The fact one of the players was club captain.
• That responsibility for eligibility and accurate teamsheets ultimately rests with the club, regardless of confusion or administrative error.

The commission also said that if there had only been one mistake, a fine alone might have been enough — but the combination of both breaches made expulsion proportionate.

 

 

 

 

Thanks.

I read that as getting a competitive advantage. Whereas surely it's harder to evidence that in the case with Saints. 

I.e. we spied. Boro knew. Changed up tactics. The info becomes redundant therefore circumstanial. 

[Sunglasses Ron]

5 minutes ago, die Mannyschaft said:

To me this has been decided and arranged just before 1st leg or evening of 1st leg. Its no coincidence that the Boro team selection had players not able to keep playing during added time, the defending of the 2nd goal to me didn't have enough effort. A U12 team can defend a slow long cross much better.

 

That's enough internet for me today.

I'm out.

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, Lard said:

WE may not see it as a ‘major crime’ but there will be some that does,primarily because they will be privy to the evidence.
And WE aren’t. 

An example will be deemed necessary and you know the governing bodies are hardly consistent. 

True, we don’t know. But from what has been released so far it really doesn’t look like a big deal does it?

[Wade Garrett]

3 minutes ago, die Mannyschaft said:

You won't get a refund. I booked hotel to watch CRASS in Brighton and car broke down always and got towed home. Both the hotel and ticket insurance said I should havd got the train to Brighton after getting home at 5pm. But no train back that day why I got hotel and drive back.

Go and have a lie down in a dark room.

[Nolan]

EFL have to be seen to be doing their job otherwise Gibson will sue them.

But the Boro showering the media with information, and some of the original information suffering from pictorial evidence only hurts their case, not ours. 

 

 

[DellBlockH]

36 minutes ago, Nolan said:

Larin and Amir Hadžiahmetović are due to be released for international duty on 25th May.

There is very limited time for rescheduling 

Well done on the spelling (and I don't mean Larin).

[Pamplemousse]

Interesting line in the Swindon decision about how Ian Holloway's comments about the charge were 'unfortunate' but did not influence the committee's decision making.

Something for Middlesbrough to take into account and definitely why it is wise for us to stay silent.

[SWLondon Saint]

Most likely outcome for me is that every club is doing the exact same thing - they have self-employed analysts, who are given assignments to analyse club X and a link to a video archive. Then left to their own devices. You'd show past analysis from the analyst, which presumably has no reference to spying as a matter of common sense, but every club knows that's what you have freelance analysts for - plausible deniability.

Result would be the poor kid cops the flak and we get a slap on the wrist and told to implement 'rigorous anti-spying framework'. Kid serves his ban and then gets to carry on as before (like all the other coaches involved in spying have).

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

True, we don’t know. But from what has been released so far it really doesn’t look like a big deal does it?

Certainly not the crime of the century. 

[Saint_clark]

2 minutes ago, DellBlockH said:

Well done on the spelling (and I don't mean Larin).

I struggle with rescheduling as well, always feels like there should be another H.

[andrew7610]

We're going to play Hull in the final, lose, and then the EFL fixtures supercomputer is going to send us away to Boro on the opening day of next season.

[BotleySaint]

Irritatingly, does that mean we now have to wait till 19th to know if the game is happening?

[Mr X]

2 hours ago, Chris cooper said:

Hull ain’t winning the final mate 🙄

Hope this does age well for your sake 

[Toadhall Saint]

13 minutes ago, die Mannyschaft said:

Don't forget football is corrupt loads of people on boards, connections, clubs FA, EFL Prem, VAR listen to and like, have connections.

To me this has been decided and arranged just before 1st leg or evening of 1st leg. Its no coincidence that the Boro team selection had players not able to keep playing during added time, the defending of the 2nd goal to me didn't have enough effort. A U12 team can defend a slow long cross much better.

 

What’s your view on JFK?

[saintant]

1 minute ago, SWLondon Saint said:

Most likely outcome for me is that every club is doing the exact same thing - they have self-employed analysts, who are given assignments to analyse club X and a link to a video archive. Then left to their own devices. You'd show past analysis from the analyst, which presumably has no reference to spying as a matter of common sense, but every club knows that's what you have freelance analysts for - plausible deniability.

Result would be the poor kid cops the flak and we get a slap on the wrist and told to implement 'rigorous anti-spying framework'. Kid serves his ban and then gets to carry on as before (like all the other coaches involved in spying have).

If that's the case then Boro are the real cheats here because the implication is, they're doing themselves exactly what they have reported us for. 

[Bob60]

This case has to be about us and Boro, any other clubs would have to bring a separate complaint. Also the whistle blower bit is the same our is not evidence of any wrong doing in this case and we would need time to provide our responses to any new allegations.

[Lard]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

True, we don’t know. But from what has been released so far it really doesn’t look like a big deal does it?

Certainly doesn’t. 
and I hope it stays that way. 
I just have my concerns. 

[Mattio]

15 minutes ago, die Mannyschaft said:

Don't forget football is corrupt loads of people on boards, connections, clubs FA, EFL Prem, VAR listen to and like, have connections.

To me this has been decided and arranged just before 1st leg or evening of 1st leg. Its no coincidence that the Boro team selection had players not able to keep playing during added time, the defending of the 2nd goal to me didn't have enough effort. A U12 team can defend a slow long cross much better.

 

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Man up mate! There is no way that there will not be a final and there is no way the winner will not be promoted. It is a circus and a lot of money is involved. It will also be a gross overreaction to exclude us should we be found guilty. 

Blimey I agree with soggy! 

[Middlewordie]

EFL have to be seen to let the tribunal do it's stuff. Whatever they find regarding Saints guilt (which could be not much if the video was deleted - there is no evidence Soutthampton Football club were spying, just a picture of a man with his IPhone out so far...), punishment is unlikely to involve Saints not playing in the Final. As previously posted, it will create a legal storm for all parties. But I think Will Salt has probably fucked his career up.

[Hodds37]

Is there a president of what's happened to teams when they have broken EFL rules?

We know Leeds got a fine. 

Albeit different rules but surely theres quite a few times a rule has been broken? What have the punishments been?

Can't start having 2 tier punishments starting now with a first expulsion?  

[Verbal]

2 minutes ago, Lard said:

Certainly doesn’t. 
and I hope it stays that way. 
I just have my concerns. 

The two biggest questions, among many, in my view, are: did Tonda know and did he act on what he knew? I highly doubt that there's anyone outside the club who has evidence on those yet, for all the noise coming out of Boro and online. 

[stfrancisofbenali]

1 hour ago, Midfield_General said:

Tuesday then

Care to comment? 🤣🤣🤣

Got to love these ITKs 

Yes. It doesn’t take one day. Boro presented their findings today. We present ours next and the independent committee adjudicates and concludes the hearing next week as per statement. 

[Oisin]

Surely the only way in which the final still goes ahead without us is if the punishment were to award Boro victory in the first game. Aside from whether it’s proportionate or not, a Points deduction this season doesn’t work as all finishing positions would be wrong; expulsion from an entire competition does the same and would surely mean we’d be relegated? The claims it’d raise for Oxford and Wrexham in particular would need hearing.

Points for next season is viable. Awarding Boro the first tie is viable but could you reallly have Boro in a final after they actually lost? And couldn’t we (and indeed broadcasters) claim losses on EFL for hosting a meaningless game?  And is there any sort of precedent for going to that level of punishment?

Paradoxically, if we are shown to be serial offenders it actually weakens Boros case for replacing us in the final as all other clubs would have been impacted so it’d have to be a points deduction, otherwise Boro are the only wronged party to get any recompense.

I still think fine, future or suspended points deduction and sanctions on specific individuals (all if proven of course) is the most likely outcome from this. 

[Willo of Whiteley]

37 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

I am getting the feeling that any expulsion will see Hull awarded the win and thus promotion and there will not be a final.

Would take that ahead of our Boro going to the final.

It would also fit the “new lost the tie over two legs”.

Also would fit the “Southampton punishment does not mean Boro award”.

[badgerx16]

25 minutes ago, BotleySaint said:

Yes, I reckon so. Would be surprised now if we aren't kicked out.

The panel haven't convened, let alone come to a decision.

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Blimey I agree with soggy! 

apart from the Man up bit with is a disgrace

[DellBlockH]

So somehow the EFL have come up with a scenario to cause the maximum inconvenience to the supporters of both clubs (and Middlesbrough). And not just the supporters.  Last time we were at Wembley, there were extra trains, extra National Express coaches and supporters' private hire coaches. That takes time to organise. 

I'm not sure how the disciplinary committee has been allowed to progress quicker than the 14 days we were given to respond to the charges. Unless we've agreed to a shortened schedule (which should count in our favour, a bit like an early guilty plea 😉).

The whole thing is a mess. If we broke the rules, fair enough, we deserve a sanction. But, as just about everybody outside Middlesbrough seems to agree, kicking us out of the play offs would be completely disproportionate. 

As usual, the last people to be considered are the actual bloody supporters.

 

[coalman]

The EFL's job right now is to somehow get the last promotion spot decided while having it blow up in their face legally as little as possible. If they let the final just go ahead without having some kind of hearing Boro would be up in arms and "Gibbo"'s army of lawyers and media stooges would be all over it. If they kick Saints out without due process then they have a similar problem.

Add to that the fact that they _really_ don't want to set a precedent where clubs seek to change competition outcomes in either the media or court with any realistic chance of success. I doubt that Boro get reinstated for that reason. If we get thrown out then I suspect Hull go straight up.

Though again, it has to be proportional and they'd have to be confident that the advantage we've gained by doing whatever dumbass things we did is reflected by whatever is decided. In Swindon's case they broke the rules and it was decided they gained significant advantage. I think that's harder to say in our case.

[SaintsLoyal]

This needs airing on here, to those that are playing it all down as many fans feel like this article and it wont change until those responsible have left the building after being sacked. Whilst, i dont believe the act merits expulsion based around the leeds fine, the whole situation now seeing our club around the world being described as 'cheats' is shameful.  

 

https://smry.ai/www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/spygate-southampton-middlesbrough-championshi-play-offs-zr72pp9hw

[stfrancisofbenali]

2 hours ago, Midfield_General said:

According to...? 

I did warn you. 

[Nolan]

39 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

I am getting the feeling that any expulsion will see Hull awarded the win and thus promotion and there will not be a final.

And TV companies around the world have no play off final.?

If there's any that fits under "would never happen" it's not having a play off final.

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Thanks.

I read that as getting a competitive advantage. Whereas surely it's harder to evidence that in the case with Saints. 

 

Just play a video of the first half at the Riverside. Case closed.

[LeG]

Dragan / the board are fuming. 

[coalman]

1 minute ago, DellBlockH said:

So somehow the EFL have come up with a scenario to cause the maximum inconvenience to the supporters of both clubs (and Middlesbrough). And not just the supporters.  Last time we were at Wembley, there were extra trains, extra National Express coaches and supporters' private hire coaches. That takes time to organise. 

I'm not sure how the disciplinary committee has been allowed to progress quicker than the 14 days we were given to respond to the charges. Unless we've agreed to a shortened schedule (which should count in our favour, a bit like an early guilty plea 😉).

The whole thing is a mess. If we broke the rules, fair enough, we deserve a sanction. But, as just about everybody outside Middlesbrough seems to agree, kicking us out of the play offs would be completely disproportionate. 

As usual, the last people to be considered are the actual bloody supporters.

I think the EFL are playing a shitty hand the best they can at the moment. They don't have any good options here.

[Saint_clark]

Just now, Nolan said:

And TV companies around the world have no play off final.?

If there's any that fits under "would never happen" it's not having a play off final.

Presumably we'd be fined alongside it to cover the cost of compensating said TV companies.

[bpsaint]

1 minute ago, Hodds37 said:

Is there a president of what's happened to teams when they have broken EFL rules?

We know Leeds got a fine. 

Albeit different rules but surely theres quite a few times a rule has been broken? What have the punishments been?

Can't start having 2 tier punishments starting now with a first expulsion?  

Saints will certainly use the Leeds case as an example when it comes to offering our evidence - regardless of their fine and there not being a rule in place at the time, the argument will be that Leeds had a dossier of every club in the league that they’d spied on, and assuming it was only Middlesbrough then kicking us out after two legs had already been played is a higher punishment for a lesser crime.

After this you can very much expect the EFL rules around spying to change to zero time prior to a game that it’s acceptable, as well as a set punishment in writing.

[Saint_clark]

Just now, LeG said:

Dragan / the board are fuming. 

At those under them for causing this or with the EFL?

[Willo of Whiteley]

3 hours ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

If anyone thinks Boro are going to Wembley instead of us - give your head a wobble and try and fathom (I know it’s hard) just try and fathom the legal issues that would then have to happen:

Do Boro get a bye?

A punishment for us shouldn’t mean a reward for them?

Hull kicking up a stink that they’ve had to qualify?

Wrexham angry that they should be reinstated?

Millwall should get a free hit at the final because effectively Boro do?

Saints case arguments then include the legality of it all?

Potential GDPR breaches of the individuals spending/banking?

Costs of income lost?

And then we come to the EFL, moving from Wembley, changing venue, rearranging the date, the police have to sign off on that.

Fan loss of money

 

Read the above and then try and convince me we’re being kicked out the play offs. 😂

Posted earlier but just to add further:

Do Hull get a bye to the Premier League? Boro would kick up a stink about that.

No final? Loss of revenue for the EFL.

Fans have already made plans?

T&C’s will be the same as always on tickets.

The EFL have to write that so they cover all bases.