#Spygate

[whelk]

Dragan needs to prove he is a genuine Serbian hard man and start taking a few of these cunts out. Great hearts and minds win

Edited 6 hours ago by whelk

[Saint_clark]

Can someone clear something up for me as I'm a bit confused about something now, are the independent panel convening to decide on our guilt, our guilt and the punishment, or just the punishment? 

 

The talksport clip I've just watched said they are convening to decide on the punishment alone which would suggest we're already found guilty. I need to stop watching them those idiots just muddy the waters.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Saint_clark said:

Can someone clear something up for me as I'm a bit confused about something now, are the independent panel convening to decide on our guilt, our guilt and the punishment, or just the punishment? 

 

The talksport clip I've just watched said they are convening to decide on the punishment alone which would suggest we're already found guilty. I need to stop watching them those idiots just muddy the waters.

I think there is no dispute that this about the sanction, and not if we were involved at all.

[Micky]

1 hour ago, Dark Munster said:

Ok, let's summarise. Spying on another team's training is allowed as long as it's 72 hours or more before a match. An intern did it less than 72 hours before the match.

That's f*cking it.

It's like going 5 mph over the speed limit, not driving the wrong way on the motorway or driving blind drunk, FFS.

We all agree expulsion is ludicrous, but some here are saying we can expect a fine and points deduction.

I say fuck a points deduction, that could cost us dearly down the road.

The maximum punishment should be a modest fine and slap on the wrist. Saints should appeal/sue if it's anything more, including any point(s) deduction.

I concur.  Context is absolutely key in all of this.  A very junior member of staff has erred, for whatever reason. The advantage gained, (if any) is likely to be miniscule and had no real effect on either game. 

Punishment should be forthcoming, but commensurate with 'the facts of what actually happened' and not the wishes of the aggrieved. 

[Saint_clark]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

I think there is no dispute that this about the sanction, and not if we were involved at all.

Suggesting we admitted that we knowingly broke the rules then? 

This is all moving too fast for me to keep up with 😂

[coalman]

Just now, Saint_clark said:

Can someone clear something up for me as I'm a bit confused about something now, are the independent panel convening to decide on our guilt, our guilt and the punishment, or just the punishment? 

The talksport clip I've just watched said they are convening to decide on the punishment alone which would suggest we're already found guilty. I need to stop watching them those idiots just muddy the waters.

Honestly, it's unclear. As we haven't gone public with what we're planning to put before them. From everything I've read I don't think anyone is contesting that someone was there watching KarenFC training. If so then it's a matter of sharing what our internal investigation surfaced and any mitigations we think there are.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Saint_clark said:

Suggesting we admitted that we knowingly broke the rules then? 

This is all moving too fast for me to keep up with 😂

I think even Alfie house agrees with that. We have no denied it but have said this incident did take place and the lad was acting alone.

[Saint_clark]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

I think even Alfie house agrees with that. We have no denied it but have said this incident did take place and the lad was acting alone.

But if the lad was acting alone, then surely that means we're disputing our guilt...?

[supertadic21]

Like the others on here who come by information from the club, I haven’t heard much on this whole situation - Saints are intentionally running a tight ship and I’d have to say I prefer that stance to Boro’s.

One suggestion, though, is that part of Saints’ defence will now point towards the ‘acting in utmost good faith towards other clubs rule’, with Boro’s media witch-hunt cited. There’s also a rather strong case for them trying to influence the independent panel, but we can all see that clearly.

No idea to the extent that this will help Saints’ defence, but Boro certainly haven’t helped themselves with today’s statement.

[Midfield_General]

While there's a lull in proceedings, can we focus on the real scandal here? 

Which is that @Miltonaggro has scored a new forum record for reactions to a single post (97 and counting), while clearly gaining an unfair advantage from the deployment of a previously unknown 'moderator's recommended post' feature. 

Where's this feature been for the rest of the season? 

I demand an independent enquiry, and — if found guilty — Miltonaggro's expulsion from the forum. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Midfield_General

[coalman]

Just now, Saint_clark said:

But if the lad was acting alone, then surely that means we're disputing our guilt...?

It's one of those rumours that's been out there but doesn't seem to be substantiated to any extent.

I would've thought that's a pretty weak point to build any defence around and something that could explode in our faces.

[coalman]

Just now, Midfield_General said:

While there's a lull in proceedings, can we focus on the real scandal here? 

Which is that @Miltonaggro has scored a new forum record for reactions to a single post (97 and counting), while clearly gaining an unfair advantage from the deployment of a previously unknown 'recommended post' feature. 

Where's this feature been for the rest of the season? 

I demand an independent enquiry, and — if found guilty — Miltonaggro's expulsion from the forum. 

Much as I support gathering together for a pointless and possibly overly hysterical witch hunt of another human being. Especially in these times of accusation throwing and rumour magnification. I do, however feel, it's more an indication that the rest of us have been posting utter shite.

[Midfield_General]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I think even Alfie house agrees with that. We have no denied it but have said this incident did take place and the lad was acting alone.

We don't know what our position / defence / mitigation has been yet. No-one does.

[Thripp87]

What a great football day, Middlesbrough are continuing to make themselves the laughing stock of the footballing world, and Gary Neville’s lot are ballsing it up again at Salford.

[Draino76]

Hey this Gibbo guy is a right count right! 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

But if the lad was acting alone, then surely that means we're disputing our guilt...?

It is about the potential advantage and someone from SFC was up there against the rules. That is not disputed at all, it is all about the conspiracy. 

Saints (from what we know) - yeah, sorry about that he acted alone and we had no advantage, honest guv. After our careful review (where we get our ducks lined up) we will sack/suspend people when it is all over

 

Boro - this is systemic from top to bottom and a well oiled machine, their position in was over inflated in both league and the playoffs. SFC staff and fans are all cunts and they should rot in hell

Edited 6 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, supertadic21 said:

Like the others on here who come by information from the club, I haven’t heard much on this whole situation - Saints are intentionally running a tight ship and I’d have to say I prefer that stance to Boro’s.

One suggestion, though, is that part of Saints’ defence will now point towards the ‘acting in utmost good faith towards other clubs rule’, with Boro’s media witch-hunt cited. There’s also a rather strong case for them trying to influence the independent panel, but we can all see that clearly.

No idea to the extent that this will help Saints’ defence, but Boro certainly haven’t helped themselves with today’s statement.

I agree. I doubt the leaks to the press and the statement trying to jeopardise the process will improve their chances of getting what they want. 

Edited 6 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Hussar Saint]

2 hours ago, Saint Gifford said:

I am genuine when I ask what advantage do Boro really think we gained. What does the EFL think we genuinely gained. 
 

Yes I understand the 72 hours thing, but that tells me that it’s allowed. 
 

Boro need to explain why anyone walking their dog can see whats going on. 
 

I just dont get what legal challenge is available to Boro. Most importantly what legal defence that the EFL would need to prove for any wrong doing. 

This is where I’m at. I mean anyone could stand there and record whatever they like. I could have done it, then handed the footage in to St Mary’s in a brown envelope marked: for the attention of Mr T Eckert, is that still cheating?

Why doesn’t ‘giBbO’ just put a fucking fence up? 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

While there's a lull in proceedings, can we focus on the real scandal here? 

Which is that @Miltonaggro has scored a new forum record for reactions to a single post (97 and counting), while clearly gaining an unfair advantage from the deployment of a previously unknown 'moderator's recommended post' feature. 

Where's this feature been for the rest of the season? 

I demand an independent enquiry, and — if found guilty — Miltonaggro's expulsion from the forum. 

@Turkish will be distraught. 

[Midfield_General]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

@Turkish will be distraught. 

While leading the charge for expulsion, no doubt

[CylonKing]

Someone has already said this but it has really stuck with me...any punishment must be able to be attributed to future charges and not be reliant on a clubs circumstance at the time. I'm convinced that if found guilty, it will be a steep fine and some form of points deduction somewhere, suspended or not. It cannot be based on 'if this club is here' or 'if it is this match in the season'. Think those up Norf are going to be disappointed.

[The Kraken]

6 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

But if the lad was acting alone, then surely that means we're disputing our guilt...?

Or mitigating it.

There’s all sorts of variables that need to be established that will provide mitigation. Who sent him, who knew about, why was he there. Was anyone else there too?

The facts seem to be it and dried that he was there. The level of punishment meted out will surely look to the mitigation factors.

[Farmer Saint]

 

[Appy]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

 

Add another one to the nutjob tally, wants him sacked for not jumping on board with the Karen’s and Gibbo. 

[Willo of Whiteley]

They’re some absolute specimens up north

[Lee On Solent Saint]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

 

If he is doing the same role as Tessem, surely its the radio station paying him and not the club?

[The Kraken]

13 minutes ago, Hussar Saint said:

This is where I’m at. I mean anyone could stand there and record whatever they like. I could have done it, then handed the footage in to St Mary’s in a brown envelope marked: for the attention of Mr T Eckert, is that still cheating?

Why doesn’t ‘giBbO’ just put a fucking fence up? 

What you’re describing is a mitigation factor. 

What seemingly is factual is that our employee was there and he was pointing an iPhone at the Boro players training, which is blatantly against the rules.

Mitigation is important, but the factual basis of “did you break the rules”? is first and foremost. Everyone but the most rose eyed spectalist would tell you we’ve more than likely broke the rules. So there should be a punishment. The mitigations will establish just how much was gained by us / lost by Boro and, one would think, issue a proportional punishment based on that.

It’s the job of the panel to make a judgement based on our response to the EFL’s charges. Some of that will be the gain/loss. Much will be why we there in the first place.

Edited 6 hours ago by The Kraken

[kwsaint]

16 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

While there's a lull in proceedings, can we focus on the real scandal here? 

Which is that @Miltonaggro has scored a new forum record for reactions to a single post (97 and counting), while clearly gaining an unfair advantage from the deployment of a previously unknown 'moderator's recommended post' feature. 

Where's this feature been for the rest of the season? 

I demand an independent enquiry, and — if found guilty — Miltonaggro's expulsion from the forum. 

My concern is that @Miltonaggro has shown that there are people on this forum who know what they’re talking about.

I am shook.

[hypochondriac]

If nothing else this episode has inspired some very funny posts. 

[coalman]

1 hour ago, Hussar Saint said:

This is where I’m at. I mean anyone could stand there and record whatever they like. I could have done it, then handed the footage in to St Mary’s in a brown envelope marked: for the attention of Mr T Eckert, is that still cheating?

Why doesn’t ‘giBbO’ just put a fucking fence up? 

The regulation exists though. It was brought in because of a previous example of this. So from an EFL perspective we're in breach of that regulation.

The questions they then have to ask is how prevalent is it. Who knew what and when. Then they need to look at the punishment within the context of other punishments they've handed out to make sure it's proportionate to those. And therein lies the problem for the EFL. They have to make the punishment strong enough that people think twice in the future. They also have to keep it weak enough so that Saints don't have a case for it being disproportionate and feel they have to appeal. And, they also have to worry about how they get on top of teams trying to litigate results both now and in the future with the precedent they are setting. It's a fucking minefield and I do not envy the EFL this task.

There's also the additional risk that it turns out that observing other teams is something that everyone is doing. So if they throw the book at Southampton and it turns out that actually analysts watching each others' teams is completely normal then they've completely shot themselves in the foot. It's worth noting that none of the other teams mentioned have said they've had any problem with it. Is that because they do the same or because they don't believe they've been spied on?

In terms of handling their legal exposure against KarenFC the EFL need to be able to demonstrate that they've followed their process and it's been run by and independent body that hasn't had that independence compromised. If they've done this then there is no legal recourse from Karen Gibson against them so they're clear as his legal ire will turn towards his shakedown of Southampton (reprising his Derby approach).

Looking at the Swindon judgement the panel have to take into account how much advantage was gained by sending someone to watch Boro that early before a match. And that's where it also gets tricky because, watching the first leg, it's hard to argue we gained any advantage at all. In the case of Swindon the judgement explicitly mentioned that Swindon gained a significant advantage, not least because one of the players who shouldn't have been on the pitch was their captain. And this factored in the severity of the punishment.

The same argument, but to a greater extent would also factor into a future legal challenge against Southampton by Karen Gibson. How much advantage did we gain? Or, in this case what did KarenFC lose in this instance. Lawyers might argue £200 million based on the perceived value of being promoted though there's no guarantee they would have been promoted. One could make a reasonable case that their form over the last third of the season wasn't that of a team likely to win the play offs. You might also reasonably argue that it didn't alter the result of the semi final.

It's a total mess. It's a mess of our making at least initially. Though KarenFC have gleefully played their part in amplifying it to this degree of mess (and, in doing so, may have made it much harder to prevail in court at a later date). Due to Saints' entirely professional stance of not going public with their evidence or rationale we honestly don't have a clue how this is going to turn out. However, the most likely outcome is somewhere between Leeds' punishment and Leicester's just for the sake of proportionality (my view).

Edited 5 hours ago by coalman

[Wade Garrett]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

But it could provide some evidence that this incident was not a singleton and was planned/orchestrated (systemic), and likely known by those with more influence.

remember, we stated this person was "acting alone"

The club hasn’t stated anything.

[coalman]

11 minutes ago, Appy said:

Add another one to the nutjob tally, wants him sacked for not jumping on board with the Karen’s and Gibbo. 

I dunno. I figured the Alan Partridge meme was poking fun at how ridiculous it would be to sack Maddison for having his own opinion.

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

The club hasn’t stated anything.

I am going from our local journo's who both say no one at the club is disputing this. I am sure if we were completely not involved, this would have been fed out at the very least, if not briefed in our statement

Edited 6 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[Appy]

Just now, coalman said:

I dunno. I figured the Alan Partridge meme was poking fun at how ridiculous it would be to sack Maddison for having his own opinion.

Apologies I thought the Partridge meme was added on here! 

[StrangelyBrown]

25 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

But if the lad was acting alone, then surely that means we're disputing our guilt...?

Are we or are we simply asking for a proportionate punishment?

[Plastic]

comments on BBC hys seem to lean towards the conclusion that boro are a bunch of cunts...https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwy2dg2w168o#comments

[Zorba]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I am going from our local journo's who both say no one at the club is disputing this. I am sure if we were completely not involved, this would have been fed out at the very least, if not briefed in our statement

[VectisSaint]

29 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Can someone clear something up for me as I'm a bit confused about something now, are the independent panel convening to decide on our guilt, our guilt and the punishment, or just the punishment? 

 

The Independent Disciplinary Commission will hear and consider the response from Southampton to the charges brought by the EFL. They will decide whether or not the regulations have been breached and to what extent. They will not decide any punishment, although they will presumably provide guidance based on their considered view of the breach, if any.

[Whitey Grandad]

8 minutes ago, coalman said:

The regulation exists though. It was brought in because of a previous example of this. So from an EFL perspective we're in breach of that regulation.

The questions they then have to ask is how prevalent is it. Who knew what and when. Then they need to look at the punishment within the context of other punishments they've handed out to make sure it's proportionate to those. And therein lies the problem for the EFL. They have to make the punishment strong enough that people think twice in the future. They also have to keep it weak enough so that Saints don't have a case for it being disproportionate and feel they have to appeal. And, they also have to worry about how they get on top of teams trying to litigate results both now and in the future with the precedent they are setting. It's a fucking minefield and I don not envy the EFL this task.

There's also the additional risk that it turns out that observing other teams is something that everyone is doing. So if they throw the book at Southampton and it turns out that actually analysts watching each others' teams is completely normal then they've completely shot themselves in the foot. It's worth noting that none of the other teams mentioned have said they've had any problem with it. Is that because they do the same or because they don't believe they've been spied on?

In terms of handling their legal exposure against KarenFC the EFL need to be able to demonstrate that they've followed their process and it's been run by and independent body that hasn't had that independence compromised. If they've done this then there is no legal recourse from Karen Gibson against them so they're clear as his legal ire will turn towards his shakedown of Southampton (reprising his Derby approach).

Looking at the Swindon judgement the panel have to take into account how much advantage was gained by sending someone to watch Boro that early before a match. And that's where it also gets tricky because, watching the first leg, it's hard to argue we gained any advantage at all. In the case of Swindon the judgement explicitly mentioned that Swindon gained a significant advantage, not least because one of the players who shouldn't have been on the pitch was their captain. And this factored in the severity of the punishment.

The same argument, but to a greater extent would also factor into a future legal challenge against Southampton by Karen Gibson. How much advantage did we gain? Or, in this case what did KarenFC lose in this instant. Lawyers might argue £200 million based on the perceive value of being promoted though there's no guarantee they would have been promoted. One could make a reasonable case that their form over the last third of the season wasn't that of a team likely to win the play offs. You might also reasonably argue that it didn't alter the result of the semi final.

It's a total mess. It's a mess of our making at least initially. Though KarenFC have gleefully played their part in amplifying it to this degree of mess. Due to Saints' entirely professional stance of not going public with their evidence or rationale we honestly don't have a clue how this is going to turn out. However, the most likely outcome is somewhere between Leeds' punishment and Leicester's just for the sake of proportionality (my view).

Very well put.

[DH93]

7 hours ago, trousers said:

## Interesting first post having been registered for 3 years klaxon ##

P.s. source? 

Haha, they wasn’t particularly liked around these parts this season. Seems most of the clubs doing the rounds on twitter with evidence was bs

Edited 5 hours ago by DH93

[skintsaint]

22 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

 

 

He is more pro-boro going off the last game..

[danjosaint]

12 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

What you’re describing is a mitigation factor. 

What seemingly is factual is that our employee was there and he was pointing an iPhone at the Boro players training, which is blatantly against the rules

Didn't that poster on here who put the really good pics and video together say from where the photographer was standing you cant see the 1st team pitch, only the academy and women's pitches

[AlexLaw76]

Just watched a Liverpool player try and obtain a sporting advantage by blatant cheating

Liverpool relegated to the Championship then?

[skintsaint]

2 minutes ago, danjosaint said:

Didn't that poster on here who put the really good pics and video together say from where the photographer was standing you cant see the 1st team pitch, only the academy and women's pitches

Be amusing if we had proof of instruction that he was scouting an u21 player..

[Sheaf Saint]

3 minutes ago, DH93 said:

Haha, the source at Cov isn’t particularly liked around these parts this season 😉 

Your source is Fat Frank? Wow.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Just watched a Liverpool player try and obtain a sporting advantage by blatant cheating

Liverpool relegated to the Championship then?

If Carling did disciplinary hearings...

[NewYorkSaint]

I'm puzzled why so many here are assuming this is only about the Boro incident. If that were all it was, there would be nothing like this drama. The £100m question is whether we've been doing something similar ever since Eckert took over. If they have a witness who can credibly say that we have, we're in much deeper trouble.   And to me it's highly unlikely this was a one-off.  So yeah, it's super-annoying how aggressive Boro have been... but the harder-but-truer point is that we've brought this on our own heads.   The thought of three more days of uncertainty is horrible.

[DH93]

1 minute ago, NewYorkSaint said:

I'm puzzled why so many here are assuming this is only about the Boro incident. If that were all it was, there would be nothing like this drama. The £100m question is whether we've been doing something similar ever since Eckert took over. If they have a witness who can credibly say that we have, we're in much deeper trouble.   And to me it's highly unlikely this was a one-off.  So yeah, it's super-annoying how aggressive Boro have been... but the harder-but-truer point is that we've brought this on our own heads.   The thought of three more days of uncertainty is horrible.

hey, the spygate drama has been more fun the the first half of the season...

[coalman]

#KarenFCForumWatch

They say forum memory is short and TeessideAcko is back. The 400 follower super poster has shared exclusive news that a replay might be on the 27th. This gives Neil Maddison a brief respite from the outrage being directed his way as hope is rediscovered before they, once again, remember Acko may be full of shit given that Hull shared that a quarter of an hour ago. One thing is very clear and that is that is all Southampton's fault and Karen FC have behaved peerlessly throughout. Will Acko return with another scoop? Only time will tell.

[Sheaf Saint]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Just watched a Liverpool player try and obtain a sporting advantage by blatant cheating

Liverpool relegated to the Championship then?

Yep, and a £2bn fine, with Middlesbrough immediately taking their place in the PL.

Surely it's the only fair punishment.