#Spygate

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I know there one of the points being argued is that the rules didn’t exist when Leeds got done for it but even so to go from a £200k and a slap on the wrists to kicked out of one of the biggest games ever for the same offence is a huge leap. I just don’t see how one team can get little more than a slap on the wrist and another get absolutely hammered for the same thing and I would expect our defence case to argue this too. The worst I think we’ll get is a heavy fine and suspended points deduction. I still can’t get my head round why we’ve done it so at the back of my mind do wonder if there is something in the honey trap/whistle blower conspiracy theory but i guess we will never know.

Leeds is a false comparison for me. Sure, you'd argue it in mitigation, but I'd expect the tribunal to see regular league games and a play off game as different, and note that there wasn't a specific rule then. 

[RedArmy]

“It’s a good job it didn’t go to penalties, that was one of the things the lads were training that morning they were spied on.

Imagine having to take a pen when you have have doubt if the keeper already knows which way you’re going, with a lot more accuracy than typical. Then if you know they spied, do you change your mind or do the double bluff and stick with your original plan?” 
 

Ah so we were spying for Tuesdays game. Case closed. 
 

Wembley again allez allez. 

[Miltonaggro]

13 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

I think this is pretty much spot on. The longer the decision is announced (not made necessarily) the better it is for us in terms of outcome. If a decision were to come out this weekend then I suspect it will be bad news for us.

Yes, as always in such circumstances, medicine and law, no news is usually good news.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

If snybody has ever watched Forged in Fire, I was thinking more along the lines of......

Preferable to...

[AlexLaw76]

other than the voice recording, which is not worth anything, surprised nothing has been "leaked", given Boro cannot help themselves online.

 

[Turkish]

 

yep, Thursday morning was 130 hours before Tuesday 8pm so we’re in the clear lads 

 

1 minute ago, RedArmy said:

“It’s a good job it didn’t go to penalties, that was one of the things the lads were training that morning they were spied on.

Imagine having to take a pen when you have have doubt if the keeper already knows which way you’re going, with a lot more accuracy than typical. Then if you know they spied, do you change your mind or do the double bluff and stick with your original plan?” 
 

Ah so we were spying for Tuesdays game. Case closed. 
 

Wembley again allez allez. 

[Miltonaggro]

4 minutes ago, benjii said:

Some two-bit law firm looking for clicks.

Who don’t actually discuss any ‘law’ in their puff piece - this will be the trainee who took the sports law module 😇

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

I think this is pretty much spot on. The longer the decision is announced (not made necessarily) the better it is for us in terms of outcome. If a decision were to come out this weekend then I suspect it will be bad news for us.

I think the complete opposite. 
 

If we’re not kicked out the EFL will want to announce it ASAP so fans can make plans and they knock the uncertainty in the head straight away. Middlesbrough may kick off and sue us, but the games not affected. The EFL may think the punishment too soft, but they’ll take it. It’s their biggest game of the season, they picked the time and date to maximise its appeal/importance, they want it on the day they choose, over any appeal against the leniency of our punishment. You can’t tell me these bods making the decision don’t work weekends. So it’s feasible a decision is being made today or tomorrow. 

If we’re kicked out, they’ll want all their ducks in a row before announcing. The last thing they want is another period of uncertainty. They’ll want to say, we’ve been chuck out, who is contesting the final, when and where, in one hit. And of course, there’s the logistics of any appeal which will lengthen the announcement timescales, but will lead to leaks. If we’re out, the leaks will start prior to any announcement imo….

Obviously, there’s different opinions, but mine is, the longer this goes on, the more likely we’re kicked out. 

[Toadhall Saint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

other than the voice recording, which is not worth anything, surprised nothing has been "leaked", given Boro cannot help themselves online.

 

They are not a party to the hearing - just us and the EFL. If anything came via them then someone at the hearing had told them which I’m sure is not allowed 

[Jimmy_D]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Leeds is a false comparison for me. Sure, you'd argue it in mitigation, but I'd expect the tribunal to see regular league games and a play off game as different, and note that there wasn't a specific rule then. 

The new rule just clarifies that spying breaks the good faith rule. It removes some of the mitigation that Leads had in terms of claiming they didn’t see it as breaking any rule, but it doesn’t automatically mean it’s a more serious offence or that Leeds case doesn’t act as any precedent at all.

[Secret Site Agent]

49 minutes ago, Pip said:

People keep saying we haven't contested the charge and therefore we have accepted it.  Is there actually a mechanism to contest the charge before the hearing?

Thing is would you want to? At the tribunal they have all of the evidence from both sides. Supposed we said that Alfie had nothing to donwith us,ir he was someone else OR Middleboruogh stages the photo and they have someone who looks like him (in the only photo I've seen you can't see his face) it'll give others to chance to refute it and contradict your defence.

Let it play out in private in front of all the people who matter,the Tribunal.

 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, benjii said:

Some two-bit law firm looking for clicks.

They're a superb firm. Deservedly top ranked. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Jimmy_D said:

The new rule just clarifies that spying breaks the good faith rule. It removes some of the mitigation that Leads had in terms of claiming they didn’t see it as breaking any rule, but it doesn’t automatically mean it’s a more serious offence or that Leeds case doesn’t act as any precedent at all.

It's now a specific rule. It wasn't when Leeds were pulled up. Any ambiguity that they had the benefit of, we don't get. The Leeds case is easily distinguished based on the competition - this is a a knockout tournament, there's was regular league - and that there's now a specific rule. I wouldn't be confident on the Leeds comparison succeeding. 

[st john moor]

3 hours ago, Saint86 said:

You understand that that report has been specifically commissioned by Middlesbrough to represent their standpoint and released to try to prejudice the independent enquiry that they aren't a party to, right? It's not a reliable report, and it's also yet another example of Boro/Gibson putting information out there to feed to the media / EFL etc to help whip up a storm.

It is written by 2 lawyers from a law firm trying to drum up traffic for their company obviously.. but the fact of the matter ia. We need to be aware as a fanbase that those rules could be applicable if found guilty.

Seems a lot have their heads buried in the sand

[bpsaint]

24 minutes ago, LGTL said:

In hindsight, there’s probably no way that game should have been played 😂

Oh well. 

I actually think that point you makes help us from a legal point of view. The club now have a firm case that over two legs of football it’s clear that no advantage was gained by any information the “spy” may or may not have gained. If any postponements were to have taken place it should have happened before we played each other, and if a points deduction was the punishment it could have been applied, either expelling us from the playoffs at the gain of Wrexham, or affecting the order of 3rd-6th and who plays where.

Logistically it would had been a nightmare, but then so would be postponing the final that’s already started selling.

[St Chalet]

13 minutes ago, benjii said:

Some two-bit law firm looking for clicks.

And getting them!

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour 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.

I heard we've hired the best PowerPoint presenter on the planet, whose slide skills can convince anyone of the content. Thank you Russell Martin!

[Jimmy_D]

1 minute ago, egg said:

It's now a specific rule. It wasn't when Leeds were pulled up. Any ambiguity that they had the benefit of, we don't get. The Leeds case is easily distinguished based on the competition - this is a a knockout tournament, there's was regular league - and that there's now a specific rule. I wouldn't be confident on the Leeds comparison succeeding. 

I know it’s now a specific rule, but there’s a reason we’re defending both the clarifying rule and the original good faith rule.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I heard we've hired the best PowerPoint presenter on the planet, whose slide skills can convince anyone of the content. Thank you Russell Martin!

Why would we do that when we have our very own keynote speaker to give the presentation of their lives?

[Whitey Grandad]

20 minutes ago, Badger said:

Don’t forget that Marcus drove a panzer in an SS Division. According to another Portsmyth.

Truly remarkable as this was despite not being born at the time. 
 

(Haven’t researched if the SS had panzer divisions). 

 

15 minutes ago, Saintinnot said:

Yes they did have Panzer Divisions 

Notably the 9th and 10th who were recuperating at Arnhem.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour 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.... 🙂

I skipped ahead to page 286.

Turns out Steve Gibson's butler was behind the whole thing.

[st john moor]

2 hours 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/

Nice to read someone else who can actually take on board the english language. I agree

[Saint_clark]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

Leeds is a false comparison for me. Sure, you'd argue it in mitigation, but I'd expect the tribunal to see regular league games and a play off game as different, and note that there wasn't a specific rule then. 

Leeds also admitted to doing it before every game though, whereas we will I assume try to say we only did it this once.

[Toadhall Saint]

8 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

I actually think that point you makes help us from a legal point of view. The club now have a firm case that over two legs of football it’s clear that no advantage was gained by any information the “spy” may or may not have gained. If any postponements were to have taken place it should have happened before we played each other, and if a points deduction was the punishment it could have been applied, either expelling us from the playoffs at the gain of Wrexham, or affecting the order of 3rd-6th and who plays where.

Logistically it would had been a nightmare, but then so would be postponing the final that’s already started selling.

We are not charged with gaining an advantage we are charged with observing our opponents first team within 72 hours of the game. Advantage/no advantage is irrelevant. It’s like being done for supplying drugs - most people use the “but I didn’t charge anything for them just passed them on to my mate” defence. What they have just done is admitted to the charge - there is no mention of payment or in fact material gain. Just supplying. 
 

by saying no advantage had been gained in effect provides admission to the charge of Observing.

Edited 7 hours ago by Toadhall Saint

[Weston Super Saint]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

Leeds is a false comparison for me. Sure, you'd argue it in mitigation, but I'd expect the tribunal to see regular league games and a play off game as different, and note that there wasn't a specific rule then. 

Alternatively you could argue that the rule only applies to regular league matches and not knockout matches. 

If it applies to both, then it will have to apply equally and not give higher weighting to one or the other.

[AlexLaw76]

A take from someone on a thread on the Uglies

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/forum/331117/breaking-news/#16

[RedArmy]

13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If we’re kicked out, they’ll want all their ducks in a row before announcing. The last thing they want is another period of uncertainty. They’ll want to say, we’ve been chuck out, who is contesting the final, when and where, in one hit.

There isn’t an infinite amount of permeations here. 
 

1) the final goes ahead as planned 

2) the final is Boro vs Hull

3) there is no final, Hull are promoted. 
 

They don’t need to wait for a decision to have their contingency plans in place already for number 2. They should have that ready to go already. 

[Miltonaggro]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Why would we do that when we have our very own keynote speaker to give the presentation of their lives?

This particular intervention might force the panel to reintroduce the death penalty. 

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, Miltonaggro said:

This particular intervention might force the panel to reintroduce the death penalty. 

In that case problem solved!

Justice is seen to be carried out swiftly and effectively and Saints serve their 'punishment'

[Pancake]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Alternatively you could argue that the rule only applies to regular league matches and not knockout matches. 

If it applies to both, then it will have to apply equally and not give higher weighting to one or the other.

I went down the rabbit hole yesterday, that EFL laws PDF is a weighty time. Cannot find any wording that states the laws and rules apply to only normal season matches, so it is tacit that they apply to all games the EFL have governance over. 

[Toadhall Saint]

7 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

A take from someone on a thread on the Uglies

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/forum/331117/breaking-news/#16

Hmmm - how would some of that get out? Especially the stuff about the alleged spy. I’d like it to be true mind.

[saint-ross]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I know it is easy to be glib about this whole situation as we won, but wonder how we would have reacted if in the same position as Boro?

I’d like to think that we would slag off the manager, his tactics, the substitutions, the lack of fitness and the dreadful finishing. We’d have a laugh at Boro’s pathetic attempt at espionage and say that everyone knows our players can’t hit a cow’s arse with a banjo anyway so why bother? We’d understand that we lost due to our own shortcomings and find people to blame for not being able to hang on the second place. There would be much swearing and falling out between posters about who was responsible and who should be binned off. The club would issue a statement thanking the fans for their support, stating an intent to go again next year, We March On etc.

Perhaps I am just old and senile, but I find it hard to imagine that we would kick off at Middlesbrough in the same way that they have done to us.

As I say, easy enough to say now, but I just don’t think that we are that twattish.

I just can’t imagine how a bloke with a phone standing by a tree hundreds of yards away from anything of interest could possible be so important that it shares a BBC News programme that led with Trump meeting Xi in China.

Oh we are that twatish. The way we've slagged off our own players, managers and board should be enough to tell anyone our fans would absolutely have a meltdown if the shoe was on the other foot. Anyone who thinks differently is very naive/delusional. Our fans are as fickle and hypocritical as any of them. 

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Alternatively you could argue that the rule only applies to regular league matches and not knockout matches. 

If it applies to both, then it will have to apply equally and not give higher weighting to one or the other.

The EFL rules apply across all EFL competitions. I think it's unarguable that the impact of a breach across a 46 league season is a world away from a maximum 3 game knockout competition. The panel will see the difference. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, saint-ross said:

our fans would absolutely have a meltdown if the shoe was on the other foot. Anyone who thinks differently is very naive/delusional. Our fans are as fickle and hypocritical as any of them. 

Absolutely. 
 

Pretty much every single set of supporters would be the same as Middlesbrough’s have been. There still people who hate Derby because they kicked us and we got wet 20 years ago. 

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

The EFL rules apply across all EFL competitions. I think it's unarguable that the impact of a breach across a 46 league season is a world away from a maximum 3 game knockout competition. The panel will see the difference. 

Everyone can see the difference.

It's whether any sanction will be or should be different.

If only the EFL had the foresight to write down what those sanctions would be, we wouldn't even be debating it!

[CB Fry]

7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Absolutely. 
 

Pretty much every single set of supporters would be the same as Middlesbrough’s have been. There still people who hate Derby because they kicked us and we got wet 20 years ago. 

100%. There are people on here who hate Billy Davies because he - get this - disgracefully celebrated his team winning a football match against us.

[Jimmy_D]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

The EFL rules apply across all EFL competitions. I think it's unarguable that the impact of a breach across a 46 league season is a world away from a maximum 3 game knockout competition. The panel will see the difference. 

Leeds, by their own admission, were facing a charge of spying on every game. As much as Boro would like it to be more serious, the only charge we’re facing is for the one game.

[sambosa75]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Everyone can see the difference.

It's whether any sanction will be or should be different.

If only the EFL had the foresight to write down what those sanctions would be, we wouldn't even be debating it!

And that will be exactly what we will argue.

[sadoldgit]

18 minutes ago, saint-ross said:

Oh we are that twatish. The way we've slagged off our own players, managers and board should be enough to tell anyone our fans would absolutely have a meltdown if the shoe was on the other foot. Anyone who thinks differently is very naive/delusional. Our fans are as fickle and hypocritical as any of them. 

That is my point. I think we are more likely to blame the owners, club, manager, players, ball boys etc than some individual standing behind a tree with a phone.

Do you think our club would  write a letter like Gibbo’s to try and them kicked out?

As for the gravity of the “cheating” offence, the more I think about it the more I am angry about Ayling kneeing Leo and hobbling him than I would be if they had sent a junior member of staff to watch us train.

Edited 6 hours ago by sadoldgit
Typo

[Turkish]

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/the-notion-southampton-being-kicked-10966778?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#google_vignette
 

Interesting take and valid 

Edited 6 hours ago by Turkish

[benjii]

38 minutes ago, egg said:

They're a superb firm. Deservedly top ranked. 

I was being hyperbolic for the footy.

[S-Clarke]

48 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

“It’s a good job it didn’t go to penalties, that was one of the things the lads were training that morning they were spied on.

Imagine having to take a pen when you have have doubt if the keeper already knows which way you’re going, with a lot more accuracy than typical. Then if you know they spied, do you change your mind or do the double bluff and stick with your original plan?” 
 

Ah so we were spying for Tuesdays game. Case closed. 
 

Wembley again allez allez. 

What about all the goalies who write down the pen takers, the potential order and what side they hit? It's literally written on a lot of their water bottles. 

If that is what constitutes spying and gaining an unfair advantage, then they should sack off lots of GK's and rule lots of finals null and void.

Jordan Pickford did that with England in a recent tournament, I guess Boro would have been in full agreement for England to have been eliminated on the spot?

[Secret Site Agent]

 

 

Aa

37 minutes ago, st john moor said:

It is written by 2 lawyers from a law firm trying to drum up traffic for their company obviously.. but the fact of the matter ia. We need to be aware as a fanbase that those rules could be applicable if found guilty.

Seems a lot have their heads buried in the sand

I got stopped for speeding doing 56 in a 50 in contravention of Section 89.1 of the road traffic act.

I slowed down when I saw the copper and the people behind had to brake so I could also be done for inconsiderate driving.

I didn't indicate when I changed panes 

I have a crow bar for work and screwdrivers so I could get down for going equipped for a burglary.

I also have a long handle wheel spanner and a 30mm lock knife social get done with being in possession of an offensive weapon.

I didn't have my licence with me, MOT or proof of insurance so could get done under section 165 of the Road Traffic act (producers are a courtesy and precedence in law, not law itself).

I have no evidence that my laptop or phone were bought legally. So could be in receipt of stolen goods.

I have a history of explosive and firearms (ex services and stuff) so could be taken in under Anti Terrorism act.

I was in Hatfield and Eastleigh when two assaults happened so I could be a 'Person of interest".

 

You see where I am going with this?

A driving course or 3 points and a £100 fine now has me in prison for 5 years and a £1000 fine. 

It's called "Laddering up" in Police and Law circles.

[Sunglasses Ron]

10 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

That is my point. I think we are more likely to blame the owners, club, manager, players, ball boys etc than some individual standing behind a tree with a phone.

As for the gravity of the “cheating” offence, the more I think about it the more I am angry about Ayling kneeing Leo and hobbling him than I would be if they had sent a junior member of staff to watch us train.

Remember Jamie Vardy's terrible, intentional, tackle that crocked van Dijk and cost him a place in the League Cup final (and I believe ultimately lead to him deciding he wanted to leave Saints)?  

That event was very costly for us, but again, it was impossible to prove the consequence of it (not that he got into any trouble for it). 

Edited 6 hours ago by Sunglasses Ron

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

What about all the goalies who write down the pen takers, the potential order and what side they hit? It's literally written on a lot of their water bottles. 

If that is what constitutes spying and gaining an unfair advantage, then they should sack off lots of GK's and rule lots of finals null and void.

Don’t be ridiculous, the information the keepers use is based of data collected legally. From watching matches where penalty takers took penalties. This is totally different. 

[bpsaint]

9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/the-notion-southampton-being-kicked-10966778?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#google_vignette
 

Interesting take and valid 

Decent and balanced. Unlike this prick from the same outlet, when the fuck were we being “childish”

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/childish-southampton-need-grow-up-10964042

[obelisk]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

the information the keepers use is based of data collected legally. From watching matches where penalty takers took penalties

There'll not be a lot of public penalty taking info on most of those taking them in penalty shoot-outs. Makes you wonder where the 'keepers get the info from in that case. 😎

[S-Clarke]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Don’t be ridiculous, the information the keepers use is based of data collected legally. From watching matches where penalty takers took penalties. This is totally different. 

It was unsporting and poor form,  absolutley with you on that. But in the cold light and day the data collected is no different than what goes on anyway, just less stupid ways.

I'm not denying what we did was foolish and makes no sense, because the advantage we'd gain is just not even worth trying for - that's why any punishment should be proportionate to that. We haven't killed anyone, we haven't paid anyone off, we haven't bribed a referee or fielded players we bought illegally to win the game. We've just been a bit dumb and gone about scouting in an unsporting way.

[Convict Colony]

Ok I predicting the following penalty.

• 6pts deduction next time in championship
• 1mil fine (for the headlines)
• Tonda 1yr ban which is suspended.

[S-Clarke]

Just now, Convict Colony said:

Ok I predicting the following penalty.

• 6pts deduction next time in championship
• 1mil fine (for the headlines)
• Tonda 1yr ban which is suspended.

I'd suggest that's probably on the worst-case extreme of what'll happen. 

I think it'll be a fine, and then Boro will take the EFL and ourselves through the courts to try and get more dosh for them. That's all Gibson wants, he's positioning himself for a legal battle to secure the most compensation - he's trying to grab the PL money without being good enough to get there himself.