Jump to content

#Spygate

St Chalet

By St Chalet
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Miltonaggro,

Apologies for the war and peace post chaps – bear with or scroll past.  For the last week I have been trying to provide a steer on here as to why I think this silly episode will be concluded with a fine (in the region of £200k) and / or a possible future points deduction (though if I were advising Saints I would appeal this).  Simply that talk of forfeit and bans opens a legal can of worms that is well beyond the remit and scope of both the EFL and / or Middlesbrough FC. The best way to get

What a well thought out post. Thank you

Recommended by St Chalet

  • Like

92 reactions

Go to this post
macca155

macca155

Posted
Posted

No good scenarios here are there. 

However the only wayI can see Saints being  thrown out of the play offs, is if there is clear evidence of repeat offences. If that's the case then frankly we'll have to take it without lube.

I'd imagine that Dragan will be cleaning house after this. hope he has Thomas Frank on speed dial.

Harry_SFC

Harry_SFC

Posted
Posted

I do wonder if all of this is actually now playing into our favour, should there be an appeal. Think we've got a fair bit of ammunition.

  • Like 1
SfcPhil

SfcPhil

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Saint Scott said:

 

Isn't the whole point that this is the EFL vs Saints. It's completely irrelevant what club these breaches have been committed against isn't it?

Old Gibbo doesn't like not being in control, does he.

obelisk

obelisk

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, macca155 said:

No good scenarios here are there. 

However the only wayI can see Saints being  thrown out of the play offs, is if there is clear evidence of repeat offences. If that's the case then frankly we'll have to take it without lube.

I'd imagine that Dragan will be cleaning house after this. hope he has Thomas Frank on speed dial.

Leeds got fined £200k for repeat offences that happened all season long. Being kicked out of a potential multimillion final at Wembley would be outrageously disproportionate for a lesser offence. M'learned friends would certainly have a pay day.

  • Like 6
Harry_SFC

Harry_SFC

Posted
Posted

Also that says to me that they can't be that convinced by the evidence they are handing over. We've been told by Boro journalists its basically a foregone conclusion Gibson will win. 

obelisk

obelisk

Posted
Posted

Altering the result of a football match on the basis of perceived breaking of rules either on or off the field would open up a very nasty can of worms for the EFL. They'll have to be very careful how they handle such a serial paranoid millionaire football club owner.

  • Like 1
saintant

saintant

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Saint Scott said:

 

This is a totally out of order request from Boro but shouldn't come as a surprise. They made the complaint to the EFL who decided we have a case to answer. Now it's between us and the EFL and Boro need to step back and let due process take place. I'm sure we would oppose this quite vehemently and rightly so. Butt out Boro!

macca155

macca155

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, obelisk said:

Leeds got fined £200k for repeat offences that happened all season long. Being kicked out of a potential multimillion final at Wembley would be outrageously disproportionate for a lesser offence. M'learned friends would certainly have a pay day.

Who knows what the interpretation will be. Both Boro and Saints fans are talking to their echo chambers. Neither have a clue, nor do the EFL it would seem.

However my point was that if it happens , then they must have found evidence of systemic rule breaking over a period of time. It would have to be sufficiently damming to avoid the scenario you out.

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, saintant said:

I look at the photo of the spy by the tree and it looks set up, almost posed? Who is taking the picture of him and why isn't he already on his toes. It just looks weird considering there are clearly many more suitable places to stand if you wanted to observe the training pitch. Probably clutching at straws but it looks stage managed 🙂

How did they get it from that angle? The sky reporter at the crime scene said the security guards came from the left and he ran off, the picture was taken from Right and before he ran off. Maybe it’s a CCTV image but they but All rather suspect 

Edited by Turkish
  • Like 1
obelisk

obelisk

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, macca155 said:

Who knows what the interpretation will be. Both Boro and Saints fans are talking to their echo chambers. Neither have a clue, nor do the EFL it would seem.

However my point was that if it happens , then they must have found evidence of systemic rule breaking over a period of time. It would have to be sufficiently damming to avoid the scenario you out.

If they've found evidence of systematic rule breaking over a period of time after just a few days then it begs the question of why it hasn't previously come to light. Unless Saints fessed up to the wrongdoing of course but that would be a very stupid thing to do unless a plea deal was in place.

Mltburger

Mltburger

Posted
Posted

Saints broke the rules.
Debating whether it had any effect on the results is immaterial. 

The EFL has created a problem for themselves by introducing a rule without defining what the punishment is for breaking the rule!!!!

If you get caught for speeding you know you will get points on your licence. All rules have a defined punishment. When the EFL created the rule, they should have defined the punishment.

The question now is what is appropriate. You can't chuck Saints out of the final if the next club caught cheating is not in a play off!!!!

The EFL has to define a punishment that is consistent and fitting no matter what the position of the club breaking the rule.

Not excusing what Saint's have done, but the EFL have created a problem for themselves that could and should have been clearly defined the moment they created the rule.

We will never know if Saints are chucked out of the final but the potential loss of £100 million Premiership money could be argued by Saint's to be out of proportion to the crime and tie up the EFL with legal arguments.

I know Saints have not got the financial clout of Man City but given the money at stake, Saints would be mad to just accept the punishment no matter what that may be.

  • Like 6
JohnnyShearer2.0

JohnnyShearer2.0

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, saintant said:

I look at the photo of the spy by the tree and it looks set up, almost posed? Who is taking the picture of him and why isn't he already on his toes. It just looks weird considering there are clearly many more suitable places to stand if you wanted to observe the training pitch. Probably clutching at straws but it looks stage managed 🙂

This is what I dont get either. The guy is extremely stupid or just blind.

If you see people heading your way, surely you about turn delete everything and move off before being confronted.

If we're in the Championship next season a group of us should go up there every so often wearing different club colours to mess around with them!

  • Like 2
CSA96

CSA96

Posted
Posted

Stefan Borson pretty dismissive of the possibility/appropriateness of Boro attending the hearing

 

  • Like 1
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, sockeye said:

We should prepare a couple of executive box freebies to give to Gibson on the way out of the hearing.

Box of tissues, some smelling salts, few lemons, what else?

obelisk

obelisk

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Box of tissues, some smelling salts, few lemons, what else?

A selection of recommended fence erectors in and around Teesside?

  • Haha 4
Willo of Whiteley

Willo of Whiteley

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Boro going on and on and on about "changing tactics in the first leg due to spying"

They had twenty fucking one shots compared to 6. 5 on target compared to 0. It is not due to spying that your useless fucking strike force couldn't score with THAT MANY SHOTS. Jog on.  

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/matchstats/_/gameId/401871354

Could we not argue that we did them a favour then? 😂

They played better!

  • Haha 2
sockeye

sockeye

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Box of tissues, some smelling salts, few lemons, what else?

Lowball transfer offer for Hackney

  • Haha 10
MB

MB

Posted
Posted

Hopefully meeting is concluded by mid next week so it gives time for Salt to get up to Hull 

  • Haha 4
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Bazunu

That could be our olive branch, sorry Steve as a peace offering we’d like to offer you a top premier league experienced and international goalkeeper. 

  • Like 4
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, James G said:

I wonder if like every great movie there will be a twist at the end. Like someone invited him to watch, or he was watching their U21s, or something else random

How about this as a movie plot....? 

It turns out the the whistleblower fella, aggrieved due to being recently sacked by Saints, set about framing our spy chap by telling him that Middlesbrough didn't mind analyst's from other clubs watching their training sessions, even within the 72 hour embargo window.... Being familiar with the Middlesbrough training complex, he told our guy exactly when and where to stand, where best to get changed, where to get a coffee... And the whistleblower then positioned himself ready to take the perfect photo of the 'spy' himself... Revenge mission complete...  maybe call the movie "You've Been Framed"....?

Edited by trousers
  • Like 4
Mboto Gorge

Mboto Gorge

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

That could be our olive branch, sorry Steve as a peace offering we’d like to offer you a top premier league experienced and international goalkeeper. 

He’d be a great fit up there. Hes always really unlucky too and the victim of circumstances totally out of his control. Match made in heaven 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, trousers said:

How about this as a movie plot....? 

It turns out the the whistleblower fella, aggrieved due to being recently sacked by Saints, set about framing our spy chap by telling him that Middlesbrough didn't mind analyst's from other clubs watching their training sessions, even within the 72 hour embargo window.... Being familiar with the Middlesbrough training complex, he told our guy exactly when and where to stand, where best to get changed, where to get a coffee... And the whistleblower then positioned himself ready to take the perfect photo of the 'spy' himself... Revenge mission complete...  maybe call the movie "You've Been Framed"....?

I hope there is an IMAX version

Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I imagine we'd protest in the strongest terms. 

It’d be null and void as a process by that point, zero objectivity and legally untenable. EFL might as let Boro fans in as well with 3 teeth between them, and 10000 tattoos. 

Edited by Gloucester Saint
CSA96

CSA96

Posted
Posted (edited)

Re: the photo of the 'spy'

It was explained when the story first broke that security staff in the main building spotted him on a CCTV camera and alerted the club photographer, who was out photographing the training session and asked him to get a clearer, front-on shot of the person filming before security staff would approach him, so that if he ran off (and hadn't bought a coffee in Gibson's golf club.. FFS lad) then they would've been able to try and identify him still

Edited by CSA96
Saint Fan CaM

Saint Fan CaM

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, trousers said:

20260514_235245.jpg

See, for me the whole premise of it being ‘morally repugnant’ plays inappropriately into Boro’s narrative. Let’s remember that the regs state that spying is unacceptable <72 hours before the teams play against each other. This in itself suggests the practice of ‘spying’ is perfectly acceptable and indeed accepted outside of 72 hours. So who’s to say it’s not a widespread practice across the entire EFL? This has to be at least a part of the context talked about.

  • Like 21
LeG

LeG

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

One of the biggest non-posts.

Congrats on stating the obvious 😂

Boro need to be called out for their recklessness with the media and borderline weaponising and whipping up a frenzy.

Then to have a further tantrum after being put out after 180 minutes of football? Not sure any analyst could’ve prepped us for that. 😂

Will say more when it’s done and give context. I’d be moronic to do that now on a public forum. No order from the top though. 
 

 

  • Like 12
Pilchards

Pilchards

Posted
Posted

I really don’t know what our defence is if we are indeed guilty of sending a pathetic attempt on spying towards the Boro team.

Looking at the distance and the equipment used then it can only be to find out if Hackney was playing and how they take penalties incase of a shootout.

Once it was leaked was our ploy or defence towards the charges was to say we gained nothing from the first half as Boro murdered us. I’ve never ever seen a Saints team play as bad as that, it was unusual as if we set out to prove a point the spying never benefited us.

if our defence is he’s not employed by us then they would of said that by now and not drag the club through the bad publicity towards the club.

 

SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted

To my mind, let's say - for sake of argument - we cheated.

We broke a rule by sending an intern to hang out by a tree with a pair of binocculars.

If sending someone to watch a training session is cheating, then we may have cheated.

I'm now more interested in proportionate punishment in this scenario.

Diving for a penalty is cheating. Failing a drugs test is cheating.

When are we going to replay the 1986 World Cup quarter final against Argentina? Maradona clearly cheated.

The question is (if guilty) "to what extent did your cheating give you an advantage?". The punishment needs to be proportionate to that.

If cheating in and of itself means expulsion from a competition, we are expelling vast numbers of clubs from huge numbers of competitions.

It's hard to see - on any basis - how watching Boro's training gave us more than a 0.00001% edge. If that's enough to get you expelled from the play-offs, then anyone who dives for a penalty kick in the Football League should immediately see their club kicked into a Beazer's Home League regional divisions.

 

 

  • Like 10
Cuddles

Cuddles

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LeG said:

Will say more when it’s done and give context. I’d be moronic to do that now on a public forum. No order from the top though. 
 

 

Good to know, thanks.

If I were Parsons, I'd be both fuming that it had happened and fuming that Gibson is playing the game he is, and seemingly getting away with it.

  • Like 1
SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, macca155 said:

Who knows what the interpretation will be. Both Boro and Saints fans are talking to their echo chambers. Neither have a clue, nor do the EFL it would seem.

However my point was that if it happens , then they must have found evidence of systemic rule breaking over a period of time. It would have to be sufficiently damming to avoid the scenario you out.

I don't think we are being charged with "systemic rule breaking". Just with the specific charge about spying on Boro.

I'm not sure you can charge someone with shoplifting and then just lob on top a charge of armed robbery or attempted murder.

  • Like 2
CSA96

CSA96

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, SaintBobby said:

I don't think we are being charged with "systemic rule breaking". Just with the specific charge about spying on Boro.

I'm not sure you can charge someone with shoplifting and then just lob on top a charge of armed robbery or attempted murder.

You're right, the charge right now only relates to before the first leg at the Riverside and that's all that is being determined and ruled against at this stage

But I think the point that's being made is, if we go in to not contest the charge re: Boro incident as is being reported, but our mitigation is to defend ourselves by saying the analyst(s) went rogue, he wasn't instructed to do this by management, it's not club policy etc, the board are surprised and disappointed at the conduct, then that will all come tumbling down if/when the panel is in possession of solid evidence from Boro via their whistleblower (if that is what they have)

They sound suitably confident that their ex-SFC employee's statement/evidence will indicate that actually, the rule breaking inside the club re: spying was systemic and was directed by a person or persons at management level. In that event, we'll be found to be guilty of the first charge of spying at Boro, but more concerningly, our attempt at mitigation will be shown to be a load of shit and then there'll be further charges to follow (and separate legal actions, presumably) based on the fact this would then become a lot bigger than it first appeared

As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I am pretty relaxed about the individual charge for the transgression at Boro's training ground. We'll be found guilty and I don't see the EFL removing our right to contest the final based on one transgression, as it would be disproportionate. But the concern should be if Boro do have a smoking gun(s) from the whistleblower with a paper trail up to somebody senior at the club. It's pretty easy to believe a disgruntled ex-employee who left under a cloud might have made copies of exchanges onto personal devices IMO

  • Like 1
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

See, for me the whole premise of it being ‘morally repugnant’ plays inappropriately into Boro’s narrative. Let’s remember that the regs state that spying is unacceptable <72 hours before the teams play against each other. This in itself suggests the practice of ‘spying’ is perfectly acceptable and indeed accepted outside of 72 hours. So who’s to say it’s not a widespread practice across the entire EFL? This has to be at least a part of the context talked about.

If you substitute repugnant with wrong, nobody could reasonably disagree with Blackmore. That other clubs allegedly do it in league games isn't great mitigation in itself, and misses the point that this wasn't a league game but a high stakes play off semi.

However you cut it, we were seeking an advantage that we were not entitled to seek, and the punishment will focus on that in the context of the stakes in that particular game.

  • Like 1
LGTL

LGTL

Posted
Posted

So Boro are happy to try and bend the rules of the independent hearing? I see. Fine when the boot is on the other foot then. 

  • Like 4
Harry_SFC

Harry_SFC

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, LeG said:

Will say more when it’s done and give context. I’d be moronic to do that now on a public forum. No order from the top though. 
 

 

Wonder if that points towards it being a Spors/management team thing.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...