#Spygate

[tdmickey3]

14 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Boro fans still convinced we're getting kicked out... 

The crying reaction will be joy to behold when they realise it’s not going happen 

[hypochondriac]

As hull said, the Efl have to take their share of responsibility here for their poorly drafted rules that aren't specific enough about sanctions. Not that that absolves us of wrongdoing but I think if we get off this that will be the primary reason why because it's wooly and that invites legal action from us whereas Middlesbrough cannot appeal. 

[Matthew Le God]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Witness statements-They may not have realised the significance of any sighting at the time. 

Eyewitness testimonial isn't reliable minutes after an event. Let alone recalling things from weeks or months earlier and remembering faces.

As this video shows...

 

Would you recognise someone you saw 2 months ago who was stood outside your workplace?

Edited 1 hour ago by Matthew Le God

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

2 hours ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

So let’s play a game.

What story are Middlesbrough going to leak to the media today to prolong this saga?

This is the thing.

While I totally agree we don't do "This is the case for the defence m'lud" in public statements, if I were in Dragan's shoes, I would be asking our lawyers whether we should make a public announcement that as a club we are deeply concerned at the way Middlesboro is trying to manipulate the media and influence the judgement of an independent panel.

All my colleagues not connected to Southampton can't believe a young lad with an iPhone has caused such media hype. OK, many are Chelsea and Arsenal season ticket holders so probably don't want their own activities too closely monitored, but I am convinced common sense will prevail and we'll be given a fine.

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

43 minutes ago, benjii said:

I think a category error that is being proliferated is the idea that "expulsion from the play-offs" is a possible sanction.

The play-offs are part of the league so what are you going to do if you set that precedent and then someone does the same thing during the regular season? Kick them out of the league? That's not proportionate, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should be expelled from the EFL.

So, if they want to impose a sporting sanction it has to be either:

- points deduction 

- forfeit a match 

- transfer embargo etc. (unlikely to apply as this is nothing to do with transfers / financial dealings)

So, if they decide on a points deduction it is either suspended for next season (or some other future season) or apllied retrospectively and big enough that we would have finished below Hull for it to be relevant. That seems unlikely. But if that was applied, the logical thing would be for Wrexham to be promoted and have a crack at the play-offs, not for Boro to be put through. No time for that, and we would appeal, delaying things further. I suppose they could just cancel the final and say Hull are promoted but I expect the other play-off clubs would not like that.

If they decide we should forfeit the first leg - say 3-0 - then that makes a mockery of the second leg, which would obviously have been a completely different match. We would appeal, things would be delayed further and it would also mean they have to go back and reverse other results, if the offence is found elsewhere, which again messes up the league table and potentially causes all sorts of knock-on issues.

So, in summary, I think we'll either get:

- exonerated, if there is some bombshell lack of liability we don't know about 

Or

- a fine, and/or a suspended/future (depending on promotion or not) points deduction of something like 3 or 6.

Whilst the panel is independent, they need to think about the proportionality and practical enforceability of any sanction, and they need to think about the broader context and framework in which the competitions operate in order to do that.

I guess the question I have about the bit in bold is, are the play-offs really part of the league. Or legally speaking are they are completely different entity as a knock out competition?

I assume the former? I which case, I agree with the rest of it...

If the latter, then I guess there's a higher risk of getting kicked out. Still highly unlikely and massively disproportionate to the "crime" (imo) but if it happens there would, and should, be no benefit to Boro in terms of being reinstated. The only logical outcome of that is for Hull be promoted by default. Obviously the EFL will be keen to avoid that though because of money from the final.

[coalman]

Just now, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

This is the thing.

While I totally agree we don't do "This is the case for the defence m'lud" in public statements, if I were in Dragan's shoes, I would be asking our lawyers whether we should make a public announcement that as a club we are deeply concerned at the way Middlesboro is trying to manipulate the media and influence the judgement of an independent panel.

All my colleagues not connected to Southampton can't believe a young lad with an iPhone has caused such media hype. OK, many are Chelsea and Arsenal season ticket holders so probably don't want their own activities too closely monitored, but I am convinced common sense will prevail and we'll be given a fine.

The place to make that statement is to the independent tribunal. There will be time for public statements after they've decided.

[trousers]

14 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Shall we do a sweepstake on how many pages this thread will reach before the final ruling is published? 

Put me down for 112.

I made the fatal mistake of going out last night and it's a nightmare trying to catch up as the thread is growing quicker than I can read...! Currently on page 79.... 🙂

[Stud mark of doom]

16 minutes ago, There when Franny scored said:

While I don’t agree with it, this is not great reading, and is written by sensible people for once:

https://www.stewartslaw.com/news/spy-games-what-are-the-possible-repercussions-of-the-southampton-v-middlesbrough-play-off-spying-allegations/

Lawyers will always try to drum up business - there isn’t much money in defending/prosecuting trivial penalties. 
 

I’d take issue with the comment that it is clear we obtained a sporting advantage (I tried to copy the precise words, but that was the thrust of it). This is not clear at all - perhaps it is clear that we were trying to obtain a sporting advantage, but that is a different thing. 
 

I agree it would be a completely different scenario if we had clearly gained a sporting advantage - but it is very far from clear that that is the case. If anything, it’s reasonably “clear” that we didn’t. 

[coalman]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

I made the fatal mistake of going out last night and it's a nightmare trying to catch up as the thread is growing quicker than I can read...! Currently on page 79.... 🙂

Incorrect. This is page 86

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

1 minute ago, coalman said:

The place to make that statement is to the independent tribunal. There will be time for public statements after they've decided.

I'm not a lawyer but I am seeing bully boy tactics and a one sided argument being presented in the media which needs to be tamed.

[coalman]

6 minutes ago, Stud mark of doom said:

Lawyers will always try to drum up business - there isn’t much money in defending/prosecuting trivial penalties. 
 

I’d take issue with the comment that it is clear we obtained a sporting advantage (I tried to copy the precise words, but that was the thrust of it). This is not clear at all - perhaps it is clear that we were trying to obtain a sporting advantage, but that is a different thing. 
 

I agree it would be a completely different scenario if we had clearly gained a sporting advantage - but it is very far from clear that that is the case. If anything, it’s reasonably “clear” that we didn’t. 

It's an SEO play. This kind of article is written explicitly for the purposes of raising a company's ranking on Google in the hopes of attracting future business rather than as a statement of authority on the matter in hand. One of the signals that pagerank looks at is the amount of original content on the site. The legal firm in question don't even take on this kind of case according to their services offered.

Edited 56 minutes ago by coalman

[Farmer Saint]

29 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Boro fans still convinced we're getting kicked out... 

They are utterly deluded if they think that.

Again, as I said at the beginning of the week, it is about proportionality. If it is not proportional then it will not be given as we will be able to appeal, and we will win.

[CB Fry]

3 minutes ago, Stud mark of doom said:

I’d take issue with the comment that it is clear we obtained a sporting advantage (I tried to copy the precise words, but that was the thrust of it). This is not clear at all - perhaps it is clear that we were trying to obtain a sporting advantage, but that is a different thing. 

"Trying to obtain a sporting advantage" is the only thing.

It not working or not seen to work is irrelevant. 

[coalman]

1 minute ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

I'm not a lawyer but I am seeing bully boy tactics and a one sided argument being presented in the media which needs to be tamed.

Well, part of the regulations talk about how any punishment has to be perceived as maintaining sporting integrity. So influencing that perception is something they'd want to do. There's no contempt of court here as it's not a legal case. But it is run by lawyers so they may well look unfavourably on it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

guess the question I have about the bit in bold is, are the play-offs really part of the league. Or legally speaking are they are completely different entity as a knock out competition?

I assume the former? I which case, I agree with the rest of it...

I’m with you on this one. The more I think about it, (and I’ve been doing way too much of that), the more I think this is the absolute key to it. If this was the FA Cup, I reckon we’d be chucked out, if it was a league game we’d face points deduction. It’s obviously a grey area which legal people would understand more than me. The other complication is it’s a two legged game, with the second leg having been played. The standard “result” is normally 3-0 against the transgressor, but they can’t do that having allowed the second leg to go ahead 

[Midfield_General]

This thread was a laugh last night 

It’s like someone’s turned up and sucked all the fun out of i…

Ah

[coalman]

17 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

The crying reaction will be joy to behold when they realise it’s not going happen 

Or it won't. Both sets of fans have a firm idea what they expect the sanction(s) to be. Either or both could be very wrong here.

[Stud mark of doom]

6 minutes ago, coalman said:

It's an SEO play. This kind of article is written explicitly for the purposes of raising a company's ranking on Google in the hopes of attracting future business rather than as a statement of authority on the matter in hand. One of the signals that pagerank looks at is the amount of original content on the site. The legal firm in question don't even take on this kind of case according to their services offered.

After hours of reading - I have finally learnt something usesful on this thread 🙂 

[Harry_SFC]

12 minutes ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

I guess the question I have about the bit in bold is, are the play-offs really part of the league. Or legally speaking are they are completely different entity as a knock out competition?

I assume the former? I which case, I agree with the rest of it...

If the latter, then I guess there's a higher risk of getting kicked out. Still highly unlikely and massively disproportionate to the "crime" (imo) but if it happens there would, and should, be no benefit to Boro in terms of being reinstated. The only logical outcome of that is for Hull be promoted by default. Obviously the EFL will be keen to avoid that though because of money from the final.

I understand it as if the plays offs are part of the league structure, just a different component to it. They aren't treated as a domestic cup competition.

[Zorba]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

Not really no, being that it is known that we have accepted and are not contesting the charge. We are just offering mitigation or "context" in the clubs words.

Where does it say that? We haven’t admitted anything.

[Saint_lambden]

7 minutes ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

I'm not a lawyer but I am seeing bully boy tactics and a one sided argument being presented in the media which needs to be tamed.

As I said yesterday, surely that’s an argument our legal team will be using - that we’ve followed due process and complied with the investigation whilst Boro have seeked to undermine it at every opportunity by leaking information/evidence to the media (which I’d be pushing for making it inadmissible as a result) and with that statement yesterday. 

[sadoldgit]

The bottom line is that it has all got a bit silly hasn’t it!

[Saint Fan CaM]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

As hull said, the Efl have to take their share of responsibility here for their poorly drafted rules that aren't specific enough about sanctions. Not that that absolves us of wrongdoing but I think if we get off this that will be the primary reason why because it's wooly and that invites legal action from us whereas Middlesbrough cannot appeal. 

Yes if we’re found to be complicit in the viewing of their 1st team training, we can expect a sanction - probably a fine because money rules and there’s precedent.

However, even if the evidence does implicate SFC, there are several mitigating facts that must be taken into account and I’m sure they will…

a. The alleged ‘spy’ was reportedly not filming a 1st team training session and was spotted at a location on public ground. There is no evidence that he breached private property.

b. There may be a question over his employment status with Saints and whether he was indeed under specific instruction.

c. The EFL rules are ambiguous with regard to the 72 hour ‘cut-off’ and there are no accompanying sanctions stated (as you say). There is likely to be evidence that many other clubs use ‘scouting’ as a method of gaining advance information too - it is not a practice isolated to Saints and under oath would Boro be able to say they’ve never done it?

d. The manner in which Middlesbrough have attempted to pervert the course of the tribunal is highly questionable and detrimental to the duties of what was supposedly an independent review. In and of itself, this action (including the media shitshow that’s happened as a result of their leaks) has potentially sullied Saints chances in the final - if we lose the final, Saints should mount a reverse challenge against Middlesbrough with a push for stringent sanctions against them. Possibly even legal action if it can be shown GDPR rules for example were broken.

e. The evidence submitted by Middlesbrough appears to be flaky at best and is highly unlikely to demonstrate unequivocally that their chances in the semi’s were affected adversely as a result of whatever happened. Quite the opposite in fact.

[6ft8saint]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

The way I see it is this... 

If we had lost the tie, there would be no talk of any kind of expulsion. We would get a fine and a possible points deduction next season, and literally nobody would be clamouring for anything more than that.

So for the EFL / independent panel to decide that a much harsher penalty than that is appropriate, surely they would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that we only won the tie because of any advantage we gained from the analyst's actions, which they obviously can't. He apparently deleted the footage on request, and there's some doubt about whether or not the first team training was even visible from his vantage point. We won the tie because of our superior fitness and squad depth over 210 minutes on the pitch, and the first half display in the away leg proves we had no tactical advantage whatsoever.

Has the view been published by anyone? Ive seen plenty of images of him posing for the camera behind the tree but none of what he could actually see ? It'd be awesome if he was looking at a lake

[St Chalet]

What we know:

1) We have been charged

2) We appear not to have contested the charge and have launched an investigation

3) There will be a hearing and we will know before Tuesday. The range of sanctions is basically everything from a fine to expulsion from the league

4) We are training and selling tickets for the final. Having won over two legs
5) Boro and Gibson are a hideous bunch

[Harry_SFC]

1 minute ago, Saint_lambden said:

As I said yesterday, surely that’s an argument our legal team will be using - that we’ve followed due process and complied with the investigation whilst Boro have seeked to undermine it at every opportunity by leaking information/evidence to the media (which I’d be pushing for making it inadmissible as a result) and with that statement yesterday. 

Yep. It could certainly have a bearing on the level of punishment received. 

I'd also suggest they've broken the acting in good faith to other clubs rule, meaning they should be fined. 

[hypochondriac]

24 minutes ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

I'm not a lawyer but I am seeing bully boy tactics and a one sided argument being presented in the media which needs to be tamed.

The only taming we need to do is with the panel. I don't care what we say- assuming we aren't compounding things by lying- if we get off without expulsion. 

Edited 36 minutes ago by hypochondriac

[RedArmy]

1 hour ago, LGTL said:

For all this perceived extra spying, it’s interesting how no other club has actually come forward with anything concrete whatsoever. It’s all, unsurprisingly, come from Middlesbrough, their hacks, and a disgruntled ex-employee, who conveniently, was previously employed by Boro. Why aren’t other Championship clubs frothing at the mouth about this exactly? 

Probably because most people with a brain know that there is practically zero chance this amateur has ever managed to avoid being caught. 
 

[coalman]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

The only taming we need to do is with the panel. I don't care what we say if we get off without expulsion. 

I do care what we say. As my mate's mum used to say "if you tell one lie you have to tell 1000". No sense winning the hearing only for it to turn up with did it nefariously later on. I'm also incredibly curious about what we're presenting to them.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Harry_SFC said:

Yep. It could certainly have a bearing on the level of punishment received. 

I'd also suggest they've broken the acting in good faith to other clubs rule, meaning they should be fined. 

Not to mention if this young intern really was there at the request of the club and is effectively following orders it's pretty shameful to leak his image to the papers prior to any hearing regardless of what saints have done. Imagine if he did harm himself. I'm sure his mental health will have been affected. 

[John B]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The word “cheating” is currently doing a lot of heavy lifting. Yes it is wrong but football has been full of cheating forever. Players dive for penalties, roll around to try and get another player booked or sent off, waste time, kick others out of the game etc. Are we going to have an outburst of moral outrage every time these things happen in a game now? Of course not. From what we know a young lad at the beginning of his career has been found to have been in attendance of a rivals training session within 72 hours of a match. Apparently this rule only applies in the EFL, but rules are rules. He was approached and asked to delete any data recorded, which he apparently did. That being the case, no advantage can have been gained. Be honest, is this form of cheating any worse than Ayling taking Leo’s knee out? Frankly I would say it was a lesser offence given how important Scienza is to the club.

We will never know how much that data would have helped us had he not been caught out. My guess is not very much given how much that totally battered us in the first game. 

How much did the “cheating” towards one of key players affect us? Well, we went on to win but Scienza was hobbling for much of the game and was clearly not at his most effective.

There is no perspective in this situation. One incident had been blown up out of all proportion whilst the other forgotten as just part of the game. Well checking out the opposition is also part of the game, and doing so at 71 hours rather than 73 hours does not suddenly make Southampton FC guilty of the biggest cheating scam in football.
 

Yes there is cheating in football and there are rules monitored by the referee to try to stop them like diving and fouling.

There are other rules one of which we seem to have been broken and is been processed by the EFL was is wrong with that do you not want the club be subject to oversight just because you support it.

I think we just have to hope for the best and not brush it under the carpet and live with the consequences 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, coalman said:

I do care what we say. As my mate's mum used to say "if you tell one lie you have to tell 1000". No sense winning the hearing only for it to turn up with did it nefariously later on. I'm also incredibly curious about what we're presenting to them.

Well of course but I was assuming we wouldn't be so stupid as to make it worse by lying in the hearing with something that can be proven to be false. My point is that nothing should be said by us until we've beaten the charges or are contesting them. 

Edited 40 minutes ago by hypochondriac

[AlexLaw76]

The more this drags on the more I feel we will get thrown out, and The EFL will deal with the consequences after.

Boooooooo

 

Will probably change my mind in about an hour or so 

🫠

[Matthew Le God]

14 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The bottom line is that it has all got a bit silly hasn’t it!

Like a Monty Python sketch...

 

Things would be very different if Will Salt watched this video before his trip...

 

 

Edited 34 minutes ago by Matthew Le God

[coalman]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Well of course but I was assuming we wouldn't be so stupid as to make it worse by lying in the hearing with something that can be proven to be false 

The trouble with stupidity is that one stupid thing tends to lead to another stupid thing. Until all that's left are... stupid things. So if we were stupid enough to send someone to watch Karen FC training in the 72 hours leading up to the game (assuming no sane mitigation) we're quite likely to continue being stupid.

[Sarnia Cherie]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The only taming we need to do is with the panel. I don't care what we say if we get off without expulsion. 

I care. We need to tell the truth about this whole sorry mess and try to rebuild our reputation which has been dragged through the mud.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Sarnia Cherie said:

I care. We need to tell the truth about this whole sorry mess and try to rebuild our reputation which has been dragged through the mud.

Apologies if I phrased that poorly. What I mean to say is that I'm not bothered about statements to the media or anything like that. Of course we shouldn't blatantly lie to the panel. My assumption is that we won't do that. 

[coalman]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Apologies if I phrased that poorly. What I mean to say is that I'm not bothered about statements to the media or anything like that. Of course we shouldn't blatantly lie to the panel. My assumption is that we won't do that. 

Fair. And agreed.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The more this drags on the more I feel we will get thrown out, and The EFL will deal with the consequences after.

Boooooooo

 

Will probably change my mind in about an hour or so 

🫠

It isn't dragging on. The deadline is Tuesday at the latest it's dragging on the exact amount of time it was yesterday. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, coalman said:

The trouble with stupidity is that one stupid thing tends to lead to another stupid thing. Until all that's left are... stupid things. So if we were stupid enough to send someone to watch Karen FC training in the 72 hours leading up to the game (assuming no sane mitigation) we're quite likely to continue being stupid.

If we go by what is suggested in the media, this hearing is going to be led by different people from the ones doing the spying. If we assume that solak and the board were unaware of this thing. 

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It isn't dragging on. The deadline is Tuesday at the latest it's dragging on the exact amount of time it was yesterday. 

Im with Lord Duckhunter, I think the longer it pushes to Tuesday the more likely we are getting pushed out. Whether Boro replace us is another matter

 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Im with Lord Duckhunter, I think the longer it pushes to Tuesday the more likely we are getting pushed out. Whether Boro replace us is another matter

 

That makes no sense. It's pushing to Tuesday (or just before) regardless. Plus if they are kicking us out it's in their interest to announce that at the earliest opportunity. 

[sfc4prem]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The more this drags on the more I feel we will get thrown out, and The EFL will deal with the consequences after.

Boooooooo

 

Will probably change my mind in about an hour or so 

🫠

Sorry pal, but you're all over the fucking shop. Screw your head on properly, get some fucking fresh air and stop flapping.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

That makes no sense. It's pushing to Tuesday (or just before) regardless. Plus if they are kicking us out it's in their interest to announce that at the earliest opportunity. 

As said, I am changing my mind by the hour.

There must be a fairly compelling case for it to get to this point. 

I have always maintained that timing could play a big factor for us, given the game is next week

[Ken Tone]

19 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’m with you on this one. The more I think about it, (and I’ve been doing way too much of that), the more I think this is the absolute key to it. If this was the FA Cup, I reckon we’d be chucked out, if it was a league game we’d face points deduction. It’s obviously a grey area which legal people would understand more than me. The other complication is it’s a two legged game, with the second leg having been played. The standard “result” is normally 3-0 against the transgressor, but they can’t do that having allowed the second leg to go ahead 

I suspect the Boro response to you would be to say that they should be awarded the first game as a 3-0 win, thereby winning the tie overall as a 4-2 aggregate..... resulting in us being effectively chucked out. And that would set a 3-0 precedent for future ordinary league games. 

However that would also be a potential legal minefield because if we'd known before the second leg that we were 3-0 down, we'd have played differently in the second, taking risks and going hell for leather to score 4. Awarding it as a 3-0 win *after* the second leg disadvantages us unreasonaby. So we could use that in an appeal.

All round the EFL have really cocked things up by setting a rule without setting a standard punishment for breaking it.

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

9 minutes ago, coalman said:

I do care what we say. As my mate's mum used to say "if you tell one lie you have to tell 1000". No sense winning the hearing only for it to turn up with did it nefariously later on. I'm also incredibly curious about what we're presenting to them.

Ah, I see. The panel has already met and is hearing evidence from both sides now.

While I respect seasoned forum writers Lord Duck & AlexLaw, I still think reason will prevail and this panel will consider what impact an guy with an iphone can have and come to the conclusion that it's not much if anything at all.

[Saint NL]

This time last week we were just about to play the first leg of the semi final. It's been a long week

[Whitey Grandad]

18 minutes ago, coalman said:

I do care what we say. As my mate's mum used to say "if you tell one lie you have to tell 1000". No sense winning the hearing only for it to turn up with did it nefariously later on. I'm also incredibly curious about what we're presenting to them.

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive”

[Toadhall Saint]

13 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

Probably because most people with a brain know that there is practically zero chance this amateur has ever managed to avoid being caught. 
 

Just trying to understand the perspectives of this picture

 

what is the green pole there doing?

I thought the club house/hotel was virtually behind him?

the picture is taken from virtually in front of the subject  -appreciate it could of been from a distance but still.

not trying to start a conspiracy theory just honestly think it looks a bit weird 

 

[for_heaven's_Saint]

1 hour ago, There when Franny scored said:

While I don’t agree with it, this is not great reading, and is written by sensible people for once:

https://www.stewartslaw.com/news/spy-games-what-are-the-possible-repercussions-of-the-southampton-v-middlesbrough-play-off-spying-allegations/

There’s surely got to be a difference between a knock out competition like the EFL trophy, where teams are automatically entered, and the playoffs, where qualification is the result of 46 games of football.