#Spygate

[egg]

18 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!

It would be, because of the differences, and the magnitude of the games.

The regs do set out of the possible sanctions, including "93.2.12 order any other sanction as the Disciplinary Commission may think fit".

The idea that every possible breach should have a laid out sanction tariff is unrealistic. The lack of it, and any comparable precedent, does leave scope for appeal either way though. 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 minutes ago, 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.

*reduced on appeal

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, 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.

Do we have any evidence at all thus far that Tonda is involved? 

[S-Clarke]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Do we have any evidence at all thus far that Tonda is involved? 

Nope, just all guess work. 

Boro fans opinion is that he's a 'nonce' and needs to be banned from football, as they believe he'll be a risk to Children if not cheating.

They are a bunch of utter weirdos.

[badgerx16]

38 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

 

Notably the 9th and 10th who were recuperating at 

Also; 1st SS Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler, [ Godwin's Law ? ],  2nd SS Das Reich, 3rd SS Totenkopf, 4th SS Wiking [ mainly Nordic, Dutch, and Belgian volunteers ]  12th SS Hitler Jugend [ many barely out of school ]. 

The first 3 especially notorious for war crimes, including 1st SS massacaring British prisoners during the 1940 invasion of France.

 

[egg]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

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.

Yep, and a bloody important game. There's no point carrying on the debate, but viewing this objectively, I can see a massive difference and I'm pretty sure the tribunal will too. 

[Toadhall Saint]

21 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

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

I dislike Adrian Heath. 

[Cuddles]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Do we have any evidence at all thus far that Tonda is involved? 

Talk sport said he looked guilty 

[Jimmy_D]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep, and a bloody important game. There's no point carrying on the debate, but viewing this objectively, I can see a massive difference and I'm pretty sure the tribunal will too. 

More important than Leeds winning a Championship title?

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Jimmy_D said:

More important than Leeds winning a Championship title?

They didn't that season, did they?

Edited 8 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[egg]

53 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

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.

Are we though? We don't know what our position is on either. It could be a scrap, or a contrite admission. We'll know soon enough, but the point remains that our case and Leeds are easily distinguished. 

[beatlesaint]

3 minutes ago, Cuddles said:

Talk sport said he looked guilty 

Oh well, that’s case closed then.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

More important than Leeds winning a Championship title?

You're focusing on what the breach achieved. That's not the focus. However you approach it, you see the scenarios as comparable whereas I see them as distinguishable. It's how the tribunal sees it, not us, and I hope that they're more persuadable than I would be. 

Edited 8 hours ago by egg

[saint michael]

I’m looking forward to hearing the advantage that was gained that has had such a dramatic and definite effect on the outcome.
 

One thing is the principle of what has been done and the punishment which follows that,  the other is what from spying could ever be gained (other than perhaps penalties) where data is freely available from every game played. I think we can be punished if proven to have done it but the punishment needs to fit the crime and prove justice. 

[S-Clarke]

Just now, Jimmy_D said:

More important than Leeds winning a Championship title?

I think the context is somewhat different, as I believe Leeds were caught in December - the game in question when they beat Derby, they were way down the league at that point. It wasn't a decider per-say.

They did admit to have been doing it all season though up to that point, to all clubs, so in that context it's certainly worse form than ourselves.

But the timing and context of the game makes it look worse for us, because it's more of a 'final' and there aren't another 20 games to makeup the wrong doings etc etc. I don't think what we did impacted the result though, so I think the argument is flimsy at best that it cost them promotion - but they'll almost certainly play that angle.

[NewYorkSaint]

without revealing which team I supported I invited latest ChatGPT model to thoroughly research spygate and make its predictions.  Quite an impressive response.    
 

The “Spygate” controversy between Southampton F.C. and Middlesbrough F.C. has escalated from “slightly embarrassing football scandal” to “potential constitutional crisis for the EFL.”

Here’s the clearest reconstruction of what seems to have happened — and then my prediction.

What actually happened

In the buildup to the Championship playoff semifinal, Middlesbrough alleged that a Southampton staff member secretly observed and recorded a closed training session at Rockliffe Park. Reports identify the individual as a Southampton analyst/intern named William Salt. Multiple outlets report Middlesbrough have CCTV, photos, witness testimony, and location/payment evidence placing him near the training ground.

The EFL then formally charged Southampton with misconduct under rules introduced after the famous Marcelo Bielsa/Leeds “Spygate” scandal in 2019. Those rules specifically prohibit observing an opponent’s training session within 72 hours of a match.

This is not just tabloid smoke. The EFL has:

• formally charged Southampton,
• accelerated disciplinary proceedings,
• acknowledged that expulsion from the playoffs is theoretically possible,
• and scheduled a hearing before the playoff final.

Meanwhile:

• Southampton beat Middlesbrough 2-1 on aggregate after extra time.
• Middlesbrough are demanding Southampton be expelled and replaced in the final.
• Hull City are stuck in limbo wondering who they’ll play at Wembley.
• The EFL looks like it swallowed a hornet’s nest.

Why this is much more serious than Bielsa’s Leeds case

The key issue is precedent.

Back in 2019, Leeds United F.C. were fined £200k after Marcelo Bielsa openly admitted sending a staffer to observe Derby County F.C. training. But crucially:

• the EFL rules at the time were vaguer,
• Leeds were not accused of covert filming on private property,
• and the league had not yet created explicit anti-spying language.

This case lands after the rules were tightened specifically to stop this exact behavior.

That matters enormously.

If the EFL now hands Southampton only a fine, the league basically announces:

“Yes, the rule exists, but no, we won’t actually protect sporting integrity when promotion money is at stake.”

And the money is gigantic. Promotion to the Premier League is routinely valued at over £200m in future revenue. Middlesbrough’s argument is that a fine would be meaningless compared with the reward.

That logic is pretty compelling.

The evidence problem for Southampton

Southampton’s public posture has been revealing.

They have not aggressively denied the spying occurred.

Instead, they’ve:

• asked for more time,
• launched an “internal review,”
• emphasized cooperation,
• and seemingly floated the idea that this may have been a rogue employee acting independently.

That is not the behavior of a club confident the allegation is fabricated.

If they had hard exculpatory evidence (“wrong person,” “public land,” “not recording,” etc.), you would likely already hear it loudly.

Instead, the fight appears to be over:

1. who authorized it,
2. how systematic it was,
3. and what sanction is proportionate.

There are also reports that other Championship clubs suspect similar spying incidents. Some of that may be hysteria. But if corroborated, Southampton’s position gets dramatically worse.

The EFL’s real dilemma

The EFL now has three terrible options.

Option 1: Fine Southampton only

This is the easiest operationally.

Problem:

• Middlesbrough likely sues.
• The EFL looks spineless.
• The anti-spying rule becomes effectively decorative.

I think this outcome is politically difficult now because the EFL itself escalated the matter by charging the club quickly and publicly emphasizing possible sporting sanctions.

Option 2: Points deduction

There are reports a six-point deduction is under consideration.

But this creates a bizarre procedural problem:

• The playoff semifinal is already over.
• A points deduction doesn’t cleanly map onto knockout football.

It feels legally messy and competitively incoherent.

Option 3: Expel Southampton / award tie to Middlesbrough

This is the nuclear option.

And despite sounding sensationalist, it is now very clearly on the table.

The cleanest mechanism would be:

• Southampton forfeit the first leg,
• Middlesbrough receive a default win,
• aggregate flips,
• Middlesbrough go to Wembley.

That would preserve the idea that sporting advantage obtained improperly invalidates results.

But this creates its own chaos:

• Southampton would almost certainly appeal.
• Fans who bought travel and tickets get wrecked.
• Hull City’s preparation is distorted.
• The EFL risks weeks of litigation.

So the league is balancing:
sporting integrity vs institutional stability.

Classic football governance problem:
Everybody wants principles until the ticketing department gets involved.

My prediction

I think Southampton will be found guilty.

I’d put that above 80%.

The combination of:

• the EFL charge,
• Southampton’s cautious language,
• the specificity of reported evidence,
• and the urgency of proceedings

strongly suggests there is substantial proof something improper occurred.

The harder question is sanction.

My actual prediction:

I do not think Southampton will ultimately be expelled from the playoff final.

I think the EFL and disciplinary commission will land on:

• a severe financial penalty,
• future sporting sanctions,
• suspensions for individuals,
• possibly a points deduction next season,
• and strong language condemning the conduct.

Why?

Because expelling Southampton now would create:

• immediate legal warfare,
• operational chaos,
• television/scheduling disaster,
• potential injunctions before Wembley,
• and huge reputational risk for the EFL itself.

Institutions almost always choose “contained embarrassment” over “systemic detonation.”

That said, I think Middlesbrough have a morally stronger argument than many people realize.

If the commission genuinely believes Southampton gained a competitive advantage from prohibited spying, then logically the sporting result should be tainted. Otherwise the rule is basically theater.

So my split forecast would be:

Outcome	Probability
Southampton guilty + heavy non-expulsion sanctions	55%
Southampton expelled from playoffs	30%
Southampton cleared or lightly punished	15%

The fascinating thing is that this may become a watershed case in English football governance. The Bielsa incident was treated as quirky genius theater. This one feels different because:

• the rules are now explicit,
• the financial stakes are massive,
• and modern sports governance is much more willing to impose integrity-based sanctions.

Football has entered the era where “everyone does it” is no longer an adequate defense.

[NewYorkSaint]

But Claude is a little more hopeful.   
 

.

My prediction
I’d expect a guilty finding with a financial penalty and possibly a points deduction applied to next season — but no expulsion from the play-off final. Southampton most likely play Hull on May 23 as scheduled.
My reasoning: expelling a club from a promotion final on the eve of the match is legally explosive and unprecedented — it would near-certainly trigger an appeal and possibly litigation from whichever side loses, creating exactly the chaos the EFL wants to avoid. Commissions tend to favour proportionality, and the Bielsa precedent (a fine, no sporting sanction) looms large even though the rule has since tightened. The “rogue intern” framing, if the commission accepts it, gives them room to punish the club without voiding the sporting result. The likeliest sanction is a significant fine plus a deferred points deduction.
That said, this is genuinely uncertain — there’s no real precedent under the new rule, the evidence appears strong, and a commission that wanted to make an example could go further. Whatever happens, expect an appeal, and expect Middlesbrough to pursue separate legal action regardless of the verdict.
The hearing is days away, so a definitive answer should land very soon. Want me to check back for the actual ruling once it’s announced?

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, saint michael said:

I’m looking forward to hearing the advantage that was gained that has had such a dramatic and definite effect on the outcome.
 

If we hadn't "spied" on them, Boro would have missed at least 10 more chances in the first half of the first leg.

[Whitey Grandad]

15 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep, and a bloody important game. There's no point carrying on the debate, but viewing this objectively, I can see a massive difference and I'm pretty sure the tribunal will too. 

But the importance shouldn't matter. Whatever is decided here will set a precedent and needs to be carefully balanced and considered. Nor can it be retrospective. 

[Jimmy_D]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

You're focusing on what the breach achieved. That's not the focus. However you approach it, you see the scenarios as comparable whereas I see them as distinguishable. It's how the tribunal sees it, not us, and I hope that they're more persuadable than I would be. 

Eh? You’re the one saying it should be different because it’s a much bigger game.

[Fabrice29]

3 hours ago, Midfield_General said:

You also stated as fact that managers and tactics aren’t important to the results of professional football teams, to be fair

Yeah I didn’t though and I’m happy for you to find the quote and context where I did but nice point anyway. 

[Pamplemousse]

If anyone can correct me then feel free, but as far as I can tell, no team has ever been disqualified from a competition for spying, in any sport.

The most famous spying example in sport was in F1 when McLaren had a 700-odd page technical document obtained from Ferrari.  That's not really comparable to a bloke with an iPhone is it? They did get a £100million fine but the drivers were still allowed to compete in races.

Middlesbrough fans should perhaps put all of that into perspective.

[benjii]

2 minutes ago, Pamplemousse said:

If anyone can correct me then feel free, but as far as I can tell, no team has ever been disqualified from a competition for spying, in any sport.

The most famous spying example in sport was in F1 when McLaren had a 700-odd page technical document obtained from Ferrari.  That's not really comparable to a bloke with an iPhone is it? They did get a £100million fine but the drivers were still allowed to compete in races.

Middlesbrough fans should perhaps put all of that into perspective.

Yeah, it's mental that it's even being discussed.

[kwsaint]

Does anyone know when Tonda is due at The Hague? Trying to avoid a clash like I have with the play off finals.

[Nolan]

28 minutes ago, NewYorkSaint said:

without revealing which team I supported I invited latest ChatGPT model to thoroughly research spygate and make its predictions.  Quite an impressive response.    
 

The “Spygate” controversy between Southampton F.C. and Middlesbrough F.C. has escalated from “slightly embarrassing football scandal” to “potential constitutional crisis for the EFL.”

Here’s the clearest reconstruction of what seems to have happened — and then my prediction.

What actually happened

In the buildup to the Championship playoff semifinal, Middlesbrough alleged that a Southampton staff member secretly observed and recorded a closed training session at Rockliffe Park. Reports identify the individual as a Southampton analyst/intern named William Salt. Multiple outlets report Middlesbrough have CCTV, photos, witness testimony, and location/payment evidence placing him near the training ground.

The EFL then formally charged Southampton with misconduct under rules introduced after the famous Marcelo Bielsa/Leeds “Spygate” scandal in 2019. Those rules specifically prohibit observing an opponent’s training session within 72 hours of a match.

This is not just tabloid smoke. The EFL has:

• formally charged Southampton,
• accelerated disciplinary proceedings,
• acknowledged that expulsion from the playoffs is theoretically possible,
• and scheduled a hearing before the playoff final.

Meanwhile:

• Southampton beat Middlesbrough 2-1 on aggregate after extra time.
• Middlesbrough are demanding Southampton be expelled and replaced in the final.
• Hull City are stuck in limbo wondering who they’ll play at Wembley.
• The EFL looks like it swallowed a hornet’s nest.

Why this is much more serious than Bielsa’s Leeds case

The key issue is precedent.

Back in 2019, Leeds United F.C. were fined £200k after Marcelo Bielsa openly admitted sending a staffer to observe Derby County F.C. training. But crucially:

• the EFL rules at the time were vaguer,
• Leeds were not accused of covert filming on private property,
• and the league had not yet created explicit anti-spying language.

This case lands after the rules were tightened specifically to stop this exact behavior.

That matters enormously.

If the EFL now hands Southampton only a fine, the league basically announces:

“Yes, the rule exists, but no, we won’t actually protect sporting integrity when promotion money is at stake.”

And the money is gigantic. Promotion to the Premier League is routinely valued at over £200m in future revenue. Middlesbrough’s argument is that a fine would be meaningless compared with the reward.

That logic is pretty compelling.

The evidence problem for Southampton

Southampton’s public posture has been revealing.

They have not aggressively denied the spying occurred.

Instead, they’ve:

• asked for more time,
• launched an “internal review,”
• emphasized cooperation,
• and seemingly floated the idea that this may have been a rogue employee acting independently.

That is not the behavior of a club confident the allegation is fabricated.

If they had hard exculpatory evidence (“wrong person,” “public land,” “not recording,” etc.), you would likely already hear it loudly.

Instead, the fight appears to be over:

1. who authorized it,
2. how systematic it was,
3. and what sanction is proportionate.

There are also reports that other Championship clubs suspect similar spying incidents. Some of that may be hysteria. But if corroborated, Southampton’s position gets dramatically worse.

The EFL’s real dilemma

The EFL now has three terrible options.

Option 1: Fine Southampton only

This is the easiest operationally.

Problem:

• Middlesbrough likely sues.
• The EFL looks spineless.
• The anti-spying rule becomes effectively decorative.

I think this outcome is politically difficult now because the EFL itself escalated the matter by charging the club quickly and publicly emphasizing possible sporting sanctions.

Option 2: Points deduction

There are reports a six-point deduction is under consideration.

But this creates a bizarre procedural problem:

• The playoff semifinal is already over.
• A points deduction doesn’t cleanly map onto knockout football.

It feels legally messy and competitively incoherent.

Option 3: Expel Southampton / award tie to Middlesbrough

This is the nuclear option.

And despite sounding sensationalist, it is now very clearly on the table.

The cleanest mechanism would be:

• Southampton forfeit the first leg,
• Middlesbrough receive a default win,
• aggregate flips,
• Middlesbrough go to Wembley.

That would preserve the idea that sporting advantage obtained improperly invalidates results.

But this creates its own chaos:

• Southampton would almost certainly appeal.
• Fans who bought travel and tickets get wrecked.
• Hull City’s preparation is distorted.
• The EFL risks weeks of litigation.

So the league is balancing:
sporting integrity vs institutional stability.

Classic football governance problem:
Everybody wants principles until the ticketing department gets involved.

My prediction

I think Southampton will be found guilty.

I’d put that above 80%.

The combination of:

• the EFL charge,
• Southampton’s cautious language,
• the specificity of reported evidence,
• and the urgency of proceedings

strongly suggests there is substantial proof something improper occurred.

The harder question is sanction.

My actual prediction:

I do not think Southampton will ultimately be expelled from the playoff final.

I think the EFL and disciplinary commission will land on:

• a severe financial penalty,
• future sporting sanctions,
• suspensions for individuals,
• possibly a points deduction next season,
• and strong language condemning the conduct.

Why?

Because expelling Southampton now would create:

• immediate legal warfare,
• operational chaos,
• television/scheduling disaster,
• potential injunctions before Wembley,
• and huge reputational risk for the EFL itself.

Institutions almost always choose “contained embarrassment” over “systemic detonation.”

That said, I think Middlesbrough have a morally stronger argument than many people realize.

If the commission genuinely believes Southampton gained a competitive advantage from prohibited spying, then logically the sporting result should be tainted. Otherwise the rule is basically theater.

So my split forecast would be:

Outcome	Probability
Southampton guilty + heavy non-expulsion sanctions	55%
Southampton expelled from playoffs	30%
Southampton cleared or lightly punished	15%

The fascinating thing is that this may become a watershed case in English football governance. The Bielsa incident was treated as quirky genius theater. This one feels different because:

• the rules are now explicit,
• the financial stakes are massive,
• and modern sports governance is much more willing to impose integrity-based sanctions.

Football has entered the era where “everyone does it” is no longer an adequate defense.

"Fans who bought travel and tickets get wrecked.'?

 

Hmmmmm. AI has severe issues. It cannot predict when there's nothing to base predictions on.

[SfcPhil]

I think some context would go a long way as well. If everything that's been in the press is true, that an employee of our club has recorded/streamed footage of a Boro training session back to the club (reported that he was made to delete all files when the sorry first broke) then I'd like to know how long he was there and what did he witness.

If it was the team taking penalties for example, then it bares no relevance to the tie, as no penalties were taken. If it was Boro playing a different shape to normal or build up play etc, obviously that changes how we set up, which gives us an advantage. What advantage if any did we gain over the two legs from what he witnessed? You could argue being caught and charged actually had a massive negative effect on our performance in the first half at the Riverside and first 30-35 mins at St Mary's.

Obviously this has still broken the 72 hour rule and I gather we'll be charged accordingly for this. The main thing for me in this whole scenario is that the EFL have no time. They won't cancel the final, or play it at a different venue. It's worth too much to them, it's their showcase final. If we're kicked out next week, we'll appeal it to high heaven and the final won't take place next weekend. 

All in all though, it's an absolute mess that the club have created and I hope all persons involved in it are no longer at the club after the dust settles. We should be looking forward to another playoff final, instead it's clouded in controversy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 minutes ago, Pamplemousse said:

If anyone can correct me then feel free, but as far as I can tell, no team has ever been disqualified from a competition for spying, in any sport.

 

The question should be has anyone been charged with it in respect of a knock out game. The Canadian birds were docked 6 points and the coach banned for a year, but it was in the group stages. Had it been a league game, we couldn’t be chucked out, but in a knock out game, what is the sporting sanction.
 

People keep going on about the lack of advantage we gained, but surely that’s irrelevant. To make that mitigation, you’re punishing Middlesbrough for catching us early. The decision makers are hardly going to say, “had you managed to watch the whole day & analyse the data you would have had an advantage and we would have chucked you out. However, because Middlesbrough were able to stop you, we won’t”. 

[egg]

24 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Eh? You’re the one saying it should be different because it’s a much bigger game.

I'm saying it's different because it is different. The potential gains for us, and the potential impact for the other club, is completely different across a 46 game league season with 3 going up, than it is in a knock out play off with only one winner. How Leeds actually did doesn't alter that.

The difference is such that the penalty for one is not relatable to the penalty for the other.

They are different, and will be treated differently. As I say, it's a futile discussion as you see it as you do, and how either of us see it is irrelevant anyway. 

Edited 8 hours ago by egg

[Cuddles]

Anxiously awaiting another update from the Boro forum as ours has become less entertaining today 😥

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

27 minutes ago, saint michael said:

punishment needs to fit the crime

Even if we admit everything, it's got to come back to this. The crime is minimal.

Boro know it's minimal. That's why Gibson changed tack from saying their plans were spoilt by this super spy to saying he's defending the integrity of football. It's all bollocks. I just hope the independent panel can see through this nonsense and, equally important, award a minimal penalty which they know won't do down well with the vultures in the media.

[Turkish]

1 hour 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. 

I don’t think it is, it’s the same crime although they brought rules in after they never stipulated what punishment would be warranted. I’d fully expect us to make this point when giving our case. Yes of course you can argue the game is more important but equally you can also argue that we gained no advantage from it. Anyway it doesn’t matter what we think the panel will decide let’s hope they don’t try and make an example of us 

[sfc4prem]

This is an arbitrary rule encoded into the rules of the league by the EFL themselves. It isn't a law, it isn't a matter of human rights or social justice. 

It's a rule that says you cant observe opponents 72 hours before a competitve game with them.

The rule is strange in that it suggests it is more accepted if done outside the 72 hours. Does 'acting in good faith' apply here, in that spying isn't 'good faith' in the mind of the EFL rule makers?

It's all absolute bollocks and fluff. 

[Sunnyside Saint]

'boro's complaint is about us watching their training after the 72 cutoff, surely they cannot introduce evidence, comments or suspicions of other occurences in their bid to portray this as systematic cheating. That must be up to other clubs to raise their own complaints?

[sfc4prem]

1 minute ago, Sunnyside Saint said:

'boro's complaint is about us watching their training after the 72 cutoff, surely they cannot introduce evidence, comments or suspicions of other occurences in their bid to portray this as systematic cheating. That must be up to other clubs to raise their own complaints?

Correct

[Zorba]

2 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Show me where we have denied anything.

It’s alleged. You said it wasn’t. We haven’t admitted anything and you made some crap up about context. The only official quote from the club on this matter that contains the word context is.. "We believe it is important that the full context is established before conclusions are drawn."

Stop making stuff up.

[aintforever]

53 minutes ago, saint michael said:

I’m looking forward to hearing the advantage that was gained that has had such a dramatic and definite effect on the outcome.

I think this might just be the thing that gives the EFL enough reason to not kick us out. Whatever they say, if the match doesn’t take place next Saturday at Wembley it would be a disaster for them and people are already buying tickets, booking hotels, travel etc. So they will want to punish us in a way that doesn’t create chaos.

Because the guy was spotted and they knew they were being observed two days before the fixture, any advantage was surely negligible. Any set pieces or formations could have been changed so our advantage was purely 1. Maybe knowing if certain players were fit, and 2. Forcing them to make changes late on to anything they wanted to keep secret. Also the whole media storm surrounding it probably helped Middlesbrough, it created a more hostile atmosphere in the first leg and was probably a more negative distraction for our players.

We need to be punished but the punishment needs to be proportionate, I think that’s why we will get a fine and points deduction.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by aintforever

[Sheaf Saint]

Yeah we clearly haven't admitted or denied it publicly. Merely said that we are cooperating fully with the EFL and conducting an internal review.

The closest thing we've got is an unofficial snippet from Blackmore that we're not contesting the charge, but there's been no statement issued saying we've admitted it.

[die Mannyschaft]

47 minutes ago, saint michael said:

I’m looking forward to hearing the advantage that was gained that has had such a dramatic and definite effect on the outcome.
 

One thing is the principle of what has been done and the punishment which follows that,  the other is what from spying could ever be gained (other than perhaps penalties) where data is freely available from every game played. I think we can be punished if proven to have done it but the punishment needs to fit the crime and prove justice. 

If we gained a direct advantage from spy video footage then the footage must show teams practising missing the goal, not using possesion (we give teams 45 mins most games) and perhaps no defending very easy slow crosses. Saints players are so advanced, skillfully and can retain video footage the know exactly when to score, when opposition will miss.

How on earth does a team miss so many chances and waste 45 mins? Do they actually practice this? 

Boro should be asking Saints to assist in thier traing if anything as they can analyse their own footage 

 

[Winnersaint]

4 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

I dislike Adrian Heath. 

 

4 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

I dislike Adrian Heath. 

John Bailey will still be disliked by some on here due to his part in getting Peter Osgood sent off at Blackburn in 1977, effectively ending his Saints career, plus he was in the same team as Heath at Everton.

[Turkish]

Overwhelmingly in favour of blown out of proportion on this poll make of that what you will 

[Cumbria Saint]

My prediction?

 

Saints expelled - playoff different from league.

Middlesborough lost fair and square (no advantage gained by Saints) so they are out too.

Hull promoted without playing the final.

 

From EFL perspective bad deeds are penalised and their reputation for "fairness" not besmirched.

They lose the revenue from their big match but think that is worth it.

 

Saints and Middlesborough make legal challenges but by the time it's sorted Hull are playing in the Premier league. We both get some monetary compensation.

 

[gammon cheeks]

Maybe nothing will happen ...Just saying 

[CB Fry]

16 minutes ago, Zorba said:

It’s alleged. You said it wasn’t. We haven’t admitted anything and you made some crap up about context. The only official quote from the club on this matter that contains the word context is.. "We believe it is important that the full context is established before conclusions are drawn."

Stop making stuff up.

Stop pretending that we are denying or contesting the charge. We are not. We  have accepted it.

There's no "allegedly" here for fucks sake. Get over it.

[sockeye]

2 minutes ago, Cumbria Saint said:

My prediction?

 

Saints expelled - playoff different from league.

Middlesborough lost fair and square (no advantage gained by Saints) so they are out too.

Hull promoted without playing the final.

 

From EFL perspective bad deeds are penalised and their reputation for "fairness" not besmirched.

They lose the revenue from their big match but think that is worth it.

 

Saints and Middlesborough make legal challenges but by the time it's sorted Hull are playing in the Premier league. We both get some monetary compensation.

 

I don't think they want arguably the biggest game of the season to go untelevised and Wembley tickets to go unsold

[Saint NL]

If Saints are expelled and the games scrubbed, do we subtract them from the number of games in the unbeaten run?

 

 

[Cumbria Saint]

2 minutes ago, sockeye said:

I don't think they want arguably the biggest game of the season to go untelevised and Wembley tickets to go unsold

I agree absolutely but they might think this is the least of all evils.

What a shitshow.

Edited 7 hours ago by Cumbria Saint
Spelling

[Willo of Whiteley]

6 minutes ago, sockeye said:

I don't think they want arguably the biggest game of the season to go untelevised and Wembley tickets to go unsold

This entirely.

Have a read, if Southampton were kicked out:
- EFL would have legal battles with the broadcasters.

- Not to mention Middlesbrough would kick off if Hull got a bye to the Premier League.

- Hull if they don’t get a bye to the Premier League.

- Millwall would kick off if Middlesbrough get a bye to the play off final despite losing fair and square.

- Wrexham for potentially not being included as the new fourth play off team.

- Finally, Southampton - probably against the EFL and Middlesbrough, the club will 100% do something towards Boro for their handling of this whole unfair through the media, the leaks and their coercion of the independent panel.

We’re in the final, we’ll be there on Saturday, and we’ll be a Premier League club by Saturday night.

We’ll get a suspended points deduction for the EFL and probably a fine of £1m.

Edited 7 hours ago by Willo of Whiteley

[sockeye]

1 minute ago, Cumbria Saint said:

I agree absolutely but they might think this is the least of all evils.

What a shitshow.

The least of all evils but who will be satisfied? I can only think of Hull. And maybe the Met.

Saints = miss out on a playoff final place which was completely deserved

Boro = I don't buy that they (Gibson and their board) actually would rather Hull go up automatically and they not have a chance at promotion. That is just being said to avoid being seen as opportunistic

Broadcasters, Wembley and nearby businesses = miss out on a large chunk of income due to no game

EFL = have to fight an annoying case against Saints who will go after them for a disproportionate punishment

[Toadhall Saint]

15 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

 

John Bailey will still be disliked by some on here due to his part in getting Peter Osgood sent off at Blackburn in 1977, effectively ending his Saints career, plus he was in the same team as Heath at Everton.

Yep don’t like him either but Adrian Heath tops it for me.

[warsash saint]

Kick Celtic out the league for the outrageous pitch invasion 🙃